Commons Sitting of 1 August 1899

ROYAL ASSENT.
Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.
The House went; and, being returned,
Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to a number of Bills. (See first item in House of Lords Report this day; ante, page 965.)

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  DUBLIN CORPORATION (MARKETS) BILL.

    LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL.
    LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL.
    Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.

    DUBLIN CORPORATION BILL.
    Lords Amendments considered.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to move that the House do disagree with the Lords Amendments to this Bill, with the exception of certain useful agreed clauses. This Bill was sent up to the House of Lords by an unprecedented majority of 161—a majority composed of all parties and sections of the House. It was unanimously read in the other House a second time, and was sent to be considered by a Committee presided over by the Duke of Northumberland. The course taken by the Peers who composed that Com-
    1014
    mittee was to undo the work of this House and set aside its decision, and to provide that the five townships included within the area of Dublin should be reduced to one—that one being the smallest and poorest and least desirable of the entire area. At this stage of the session, I hardly think it would be fair to the House to take up very much time in again going into the question which was discussed here some three or four weeks ago. This House arrived at a verdict, after consideration by one of its Committees, by an enormous majority, and without introducing any political topic. I think this House is entitled to say that its work ought not to be undone by five gentlemen, whether they be Peers or not, and it is upon that that the whole question turns. I do not intend to say one word disrespectful to the conclusions that those gentlemen arrived at, or to the authority of their body; but a verdict of the House of Commons should not be upset, when they have taken a position of that kind, by a Committee of the House of Lords. One word upon the general topic. Let the House remember that the Dublin Corporation are only pursuing the decision of a Royal Commission, which was composed of officials and Conservative gentlemen, some twenty years ago. The Duke of Northumberland laid it down in the Committee that if the Dublin Corporation ventured to come again to the House to obtain the judgment of that House, they would do so at the peril of costs being given against them. This was a remarkable suggestion to come from the noble Peer, because, if a single Irish municipality ventures to come to Parliament for legislation, it is not enough that it will have to conduct its proceedings in a distant country and under difficult conditions; but, having won in the House of Commons, it could only face the House of Lords by being obliged to run the risk of paying the costs. That to some extent showed a most regrettable spirit. One word more and I shall have done. The decision of the Committee amounts to this—that Dublin for all time must lie within the canals, the real, practical, wealthy portion of the city being excluded from its jurisdiction. The House of Lords has actually decided that the Archbishop of Dublin is not to reside in his own city. They have decided that the City of Dublin Hospital is not to be brought within the limits of

    1015
    the City of Dublin. When I mention these two things—that Drumcondra, where the Archbishop's residence is, is to be made a foreign area, and that the area which contains the City of Dublin Hospital (Pembroke) is not to be within the City of Dublin—I think I have said enough to show the remarkable decision they have arrived at; while, upon the other hand, they have brought the district of Chapelizod, which is probably the most distant and foreign area of Dublin, within the city. I simply take my stand upon this. This House, irrespective of politics or any other consideration, except sanitation and good government, arrived at a decision. We have been asked to rely upon the fair-play of the House of Commons, and, relying upon that fair-play, the great body of Irish Members have not come over. I therefore beg to move that this House disagrees with the Lords on this Amendment.
    Amendment in Preamble, page 2, line 3, to leave out "the townships hereinafter mentioned (other than the townships of Rathmines and Rathgar)," and insert "township of New Kilmainham," the first Amendment, read a second time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—(Mr. T. M. Healy).
    MR. CARSON: When this Bill was before the House on a previous occasion, I practically moved its rejection by moving to postpone the consideration of the Report of the Select Committee. I would now wish to put before the House how the case really stands. I do not think there is any good reason for disagreeing with the decision of the House of Lords. The Bill, which is a very comprehensive one, proposed to abolish a number of townships. It was referred to a Committee of the House, and of the four members of the Committee two voted for it, and two against, and the Bill was only carried by the exercise of the Chairman's second vote. It happened that one of the members favourable to the Preamble was in the chair, and he carried the day; but if one of the two members who voted against the Preamble had been in that position the Bill would have been thrown
    1016
    out. The Bill then came before this. House, and the action of the Committee was upheld, because Members always support the decision of the Committee they appoint, and very properly and wisely. The argument used is that the Committee heard the evidence, and that the House has not the material on which to form a judgment. The Bill then went to a Committee of the House of Lords, which held that the Preamble was not proved. Sir, I do not think that this is such an extreme case as the hon. and learned Member represented to the House. The members of the Committee of this House were equally divided, and the Lords Committee, having heard evidence for several days, decided to reject the Bill—not a very extraordinary course to pursue, considering it would have been thrown out by the Committee of this House but for the fact I have stated. How does the case now stand? Two Committees have heard the evidence. One of them was equally divided, and the other, as far as we know, was unanimous that the Preamble was not proved. It is now proposed, under these circumstances, to disagree with the Lords Amendments, which, if carried, can only have the effect of the Bill being lost altogether. If the promoters wish to have the Bill wrecked they would be within their right, but I would point out that it increases the area of the City of Dublin by more than 2,000 acres. One of the complaints of the promoters was that they had no room in the city for housing the working classes, and that they wanted space in which to erect buildings. That complaint has been met by an agreement between the Lords Committee and the county authorities, and a large area has been included in the Bill. One other argument put forward by the Corporation was that they required a revaluation of the city, which has not been revalued for many years. The Bill, as it stands, provides for this revaluation, and it is estimated it will bring in an additional revenue of £50,000 a year to the Corporation. The effect of disagreeing with the Lords Amendments will be to take away the benefit from the Corporation and the City of Dublin, because it will not now be possible to refer this Bill back to the Lords Committee. This is not a case of the Lords striking out certain clauses: it is a case of finding the

    1017
    Preamble not proved. The very important clauses with reference to how the townships are to be represented in the Corporation has never been before the Select Committee or the House of Lords at all, and for my part, I cannot see how the Committee, particularly at this stage of the session, can possibly be asked to go through these clauses and to bring back counsel and witnesses and other parties. As I have pointed out, the result of rejecting the Lords Amendments will be, that this Bill, which has cost an immense sum of money, and which will, in its present form, largely increase the area of the city, and enable re-valuation to be carried out and the revenue of the Corporation to be considerably augmented, will be almost inevitably lost.
    MR. CLANCY: As the representative of three of the townships—Clontarf, Kilmainham, and Drum-condra—originally proposed to be included in this Bill, it would be cowardly on my part if I did not express entire concurrence in the motion made by the hon. and learned Member for North Louth. Because of the fact that I was the representative of these three townships, I did not back the Bill of the Corporation, and I thought that these townships ought to be allowed an opportunity of laying their case before the Committee of the House of Commons. But having made their case, and certain modifications in the Bill having been agreed to by the Corporation, I came to the conclusion that it would be dishonest on my part, even as the representative of these townships, if I did not express my conviction, in public, that the Bill was a just Bill, and that to throw it out would be an act of injustice. The speech of the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has been answered already by the vote of the House. The greater part of his speech was delivered on a previous occasion; but, notwithstanding that fact, a majority of 162 supported the opposite view. He has made one point which I think he would not have made if he had known all the facts. He pointed out that the Committee of this House, which investigated this Bill, carried it only by the casting vote of the Chairman. Sir, something like the very same thing occurred in the House of Lords. There the Committee were divided—two on each side, and the Chairman gave his casting vote. And thus it comes about that the point the hon.
    1018
    and learned Gentleman made most certainly makes as much for us as for him. He also says there would be no time to consider the Amendments of the House of Lords. That is a futile pretext for refusing to pass this Bill. We all know that when the Preamble of a Bill is passed, the consideration of the clauses is agreed to within a remarkably short space of time. I myself have had experiences, as chairman on Railway and Canal Bills, of the procedure in this respect. The whole fight is over the principle, or Preamble of the Bill. As soon as the Preamble is proved, the opponents either take no further interest in the measure, or come to the promoters in a friendly way and settle any disputes that exist. And that is precisely what would follow in this case if the House of Lords had grace enough—which I hope they will have—to pass the Preamble of the Bill. What would happen would be that the promoters would have their clauses ready, and the opponents of the Bill would see that it was futile to resist any longer. The very expense that would be incurred in prolonging the struggle would deter them. In a day or two the whole thing would be adequately considered. That second argument, therefore, falls to the ground. I have said this Bill is a just Bill. I must candidly say that, even without the Amendments accepted by the Corporation, and the modifications as to the exemptions of certain townships, if I were to express exactly what was in my mind, I believe that the Bill was a just one. It is intolerable, to my mind, that merchants and professional men and other people in the City of Dublin, who make their living in the city, and would not live in the townships if they had not business in the city—who come daily to the city and make use of all the city's advantages, and go out again to their pleasant villas in the suburbs—it is intolerable that they should be able to do this without being compelled to pay a single sixpence towards the cost of the city administration. I say it is a shame, and further, that it is selfish in the highest degree. These people know well that a great part, if not most of the misery and drunkenness, and demoralisation that exist in the City of Dublin—as in all great cities, more or less—is produced by the terrible condition of the houses in which the majority of the poor people live. This shoddy aristocracy, which lives in the

    1019
    suburbs and refuses to pay any contribution towards the expenses of the city, should have their eye to those considerations; but instead of that, they prefer that the children of the city should grow up amidst sights enough to demoralise any community; they prefer that the people should continue to live and to be housed in conditions which drive them to drink; they prefer to know nothing of the miseries of the poor, but only to live among green parks and waving trees. I am bound to add that in Dublin the opinion and the feeling is, that the decision of the House of Lords has been arrived at for political reasons. It is a very curious thing that they have agreed to include in the City of Dublin the one township which is Nationalist at present in its municipal representation, although that is the one township for which a case might be made for exclusion. Kilmainham is a township which has grown up independently of Dublin. Its citizens are people who live by the great railway works carried on in the neighbourhood, and who do not need, and in fact never do, come into the City of Dublin. From that point of view, to subject these people to the same taxation as the city is unjust; and yet that is the township of all the others which the House of Lords have determined to include in the City of Dublin. My conviction is that it is done because there are there only Nationalists in the district council. I hope that even Conservative Members will agree that an injustice has been done in this matter, and that those people who live in the other townships, like Moore's tufthunter, would rather be "genteelly damned beside a duke than saved in vulgar company." But they are the people who ought to be forced to come into the City of Dublin, and forced to contribute to its needs, and do justice to the suffering portion of the community of Dublin.
    SIR EDWARD CLARKE: The observations which the hon. Gentleman has just made might lead to a very prolonged and angry Debate; because I do not know why he should describe certain persons in the City of Dublin as being a shoddy aristocracy, or why he should suggest that there are political reasons for the action taken in another place. Of course, if the Debate is to deal with matters of that kind, it may take up a considerable time. These are considerations, however,
    1020
    I have nothing to do with. If it were question of a controversy between the Dublin Corporation and the townships alone, I should feel myself unqualified to enter into any such discussion. But there is a rather more important question here, and one on which I hold that Her Majesty's Government should accept the decision of the House of Lords, and refuse to start this Bill again on a somewhat perilous course in the House of Lords. It is for this reason: it appears to me that a very sound rule of the House of Commons is being technically observed, but in substance disregarded. That sound rule, which was acted upon when the Bill was before the House on a former occasion, is that where a Committee has decided in favour of a certain course, the House will not take upon itself to review the proceedings of the Committee. Therefore, a large number of Members who were not at all satisfied with the decision of the Select Committee, nevertheless, having regard to that very useful rule, accepted the decision of the Committee, and sent the Bill to the other House. But is perfectly clear that when that rule is observed in a merely technical sense, as in the present case—because the Committee were equally divided, and it was only the accident of one member instead of another being in the Chair which gave the predominance of one in the decision—and when the House sends the Bill forward to the other House for consideration; and when the other House has considered it and has decided against it, in substance, then the House of Commons ought to accept the decision of the House of Lords. There has been, practically, an equal division in this House, and on reference to the other House, that House has decided in favour of a certain course—
    An hon. MEMBER: So were the House of Lords Committee equally divided.
    SIR EDWARD CLARKE: I hope that Her Majesty's Government, having regard to the time at which the matter is being discussed, will accept that decision and not forward the Bill again to the House of Lords. It has been said that the promoters of the Bill would rather lose it than accept the decision of the House of Lords. That appears to me a very unreasonable position indeed. The Bill, as passed by the House of Lords, will do a very great deal indeed to carry out

    1021
    the objects of those who propose the Bill. ["No, no."] Oh, yes. I do not think it is possible that the Bill does not do a great deal to forward the wishes of those who introduced it into this House. They may, in another session, endeavour to extend to the other townships that government of the Dublin Corporation which those townships do not wish at present to have, but which it is suggested it would be advantageous for them to have. Surely, at this time of the session, it would be ridiculous that this Bill should lapse, or to ask that the House of Lords should reconstitute a Select Committee. The promoters should come to some agreement on this matter. In substance, it seems to me that the rule which has always governed the action of this House will be observed if we now agree to the decision of the House of Lords, leaving it to the promoters to come again in another session for what they desire.
    MR. JOHNSON-FERGUSON: I have great hesitation in again trespassing on the time of the House; but after the remarks the House has just listened to, I can hardly let the matter pass without answering some of the statements made. The statement of my hon. friend, the mover of this motion, that the people of Dublin would rather lose the Bill altogether than that it should pass in its present form, has been challenged; but after listening to the arguments brought forward, both for and against this measure, I entirely agree with what my hon. friend said. When this Bill left this House, the Committee had proposed to add to Dublin five townships and some part of the county, and practically placing a ring, a mile and a-half wide, round the city from the sea on the south, round to the sea on the north. The argument in support of that proposal was that the population of those townships was practically an overflow of the City of Dublin, that they were citizens of Dublin in everything but the duties and burdens of citizenship, who had gone to live in the suburbs, while they came into the city to earn their livelihood; and the few who were unconnected with the city had come there to enjoy the advantages of living near the city. Another argument was that important sanitary works and improvements were to be carried out in Dublin, and that, owing to
    1022
    the absence of the class that lived in the suburbs, the burden which would fall on those who remained in Dublin would be so great as to preclude those improvements being carried out. A third argument was that several improvements required to be carried out in the townships themselves, which could be more efficiently and economically carried out as part of the scheme of Greater Dublin. The Amendment of the other House practically cuts out the four of these townships which contain the largest area and rateable value, and leaves nothing to be added to Dublin but the township of New Kilmainham, with an infinitesimal population and value, so that Dublin would be in no better position to carry out these great reforms than it is at present. Under all these circumstances, I think it would be a deplorable thing for us to accept this Amendment.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. G. W. BALFOUR,): After what has fallen from the hon. Member who has just sat down, and the hon. Member for Plymouth, it is only fair for me to say that when this Bill was before the House for Third Reading, the Government considered the attitude which they ought to adopt, and we decided that our position should be one of strict neutrality. To that course we intend to adhere, and we have no intention of bringing any pressure to bear on any of our followers.
    SIR H. H. FOWLER: The hon. Member for Plymouth appears to be rather of the opinion that this House was equally divided upon this matter, and that there was some doubt as to the proper course to be pursued; that it was practically the desire of the House that the matter should be sent to another place to be dealt with, in order that the differences in regard to it might be got rid of. But this is a matter which must be discussed on its merits, and the fact that the Government put no pressure on their own Party on this occasion, shows that they are in favour of the Bill as it stands. This is a question of the application of principles with which the House of Commons is familiar, and those Members who wish to see Ireland treated in all respects as England is treated, must vote against the Lords' Amendment. No one can doubt what would be the result of any attempt to

    1023
    resist the enlargement of a large English borough. The House has heard the whole case and decided upon it, and I contend it is the duty of the House to adhere to that decision.
    MR. WANKLYN: I should not have intervened in this Debate, but for the fact that the constituency which I represent holds the belief, that where there are large populations contiguous to large towns they ought to be united for the purpose of municipal government. If a city is to deal effectively with such questions as the housing of the poor, which is the most difficult problem of the day, it must have the control of the whole of the outlying districts. How is this question of the housing to be dealt with in our great cities? We all know that there is only one solution—you must get the people out into the suburbs. The congestion is not so much a question of rent as of elbow room, and you have got to get these people out into the suburbs of these cities where they can enjoy fresher air, fresher water, more sunshine, and greater facilities for distraction. It is in that way that on. Gentlemen opposite will solve the temperance question. Then consider the injustice of detachment. You have a population which has come together for a common object, with common institutions, such as hospitals, markets, libraries and banks; and is it equitable that the rich should go out and live in the suburbs, leaving the poor behind to pay an undue proportion of the rates? Further then is the question of over-lapping, and how can Dublin and the district expect to have an effective system of drainage with eight separate Drainage Authorities, and the same observation applies to gas, water, tramways, and electricity. After a con-
    siderable study of this question, I submit that in all cases of common interest it is imperative that the city should retain the control of the outlying districts. We have been able, in Bradford, to secure, with their consent, five out of the eight outlying districts, but in the case of Southampton, Bristol, Leamington, and Cheltenham, the control of the outlying districts was obtained without their consent. It stands to reason that in measures of this kind there will be officials and interested parties who will oppose. In a great majority of the cases for inclusion the cities have had to come to Parliament in order to secure the control of the outlying districts, and in cases where detachment has been allowed it has always been regretted. It would be unbecoming on my part to detain the House, but I do ask why was this scheme not carried out in 1880, after the finding of the Royal Commission? For this one reason alone—the political equation had to be solved. But are we on this side of the House, who supported the Local Government Bill last year, to allow the political equation to block the way any longer? It seems to me that we cannot do so with any degree of consistency. Thanks to the constructive statesmanship of the Leader of the House I think that happier days are in store for Ireland, and I can only say that I shall vote with hon. Gentlemen opposite on this matter, for the reasons (1) that I believe the days of differentiation are over in Ireland, and (2) that I am convinced that all cities should be allowed to possess the control of their outlying districts in justice to the poor of this population.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes, 160; Noes, 52. (Division List, No. 322.)

    AYES.

    Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Charrington, Spencer

    Ambrose, Robert

    Bond, Edward

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Broadhurst, Henry

    Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

    Arnold, Alfred

    Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

    Coghill, Douglas Harry

    Arrol, Sir William

    Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

    Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

    Atherley-Jones, L.

    Bullard, Sir Harry

    Courtney, Rt. Hon. Leonard H.

    Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

    Buxton, Sydney Charles

    Crilly, Daniel

    Bainbridge, Emerson

    Caldwell, James

    Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

    Balfour, Rt. Hn. J. B. (Clackm.

    Cameron, Sir Chas. (Glasgow)

    Dalbiac, Colonel Philip Hugh

    Barnes, Frederic Gorell

    Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

    Dalziel, James Henry

    Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

    Carew, James Laurence

    Dewar, Arthur

    Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

    Carvill, Patrick G. Hamilton

    Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    Billson, Alfred

    Cayzer, Sir Charles William

    Dillon, John

    Blake, Edward

    Chamberlain, J Austen (Worc'r)

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Doogan, P. C.

    Laurie, Lieut-General

    Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cumb'land

    Purvis, Robert

    Drucker, A.

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

    Farrell, Thomas J. (Kerry, S.)

    Lloyd-George, David

    Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

    Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

    Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

    Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

    Field, William (Dublin)

    Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

    Robson, William Snowdon

    Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

    Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Liver'l)

    Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

    Fletcher, Sir Henry

    Lone, Marquess of

    Royds, Clement Molyneux

    Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

    Lowther, Rt Hn J W (Cumb'land

    Runciman, Walter

    Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    Macaleese, Daniel

    Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

    Fox, Dr. Joseph Francis

    Macdona, John Cumming

    Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire)

    Fry, Lewis

    M'Donnell, Dr. M. A. (Queen's C

    Spicer, Albert

    Gladstone, Rt. Hon. H. John

    Maclure, Sir John William

    Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward

    M'Crae, George

    Steadman, William Charles

    Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

    M'Dermott, Patrick

    Stone, Sir Benjamin

    Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

    M'Ewan, William

    Strauss, Arthur

    Gourley, Sir Edw. Temperley

    M'Killop, James

    Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

    Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

    M'Leod, John

    Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

    Greville, Hon. Ronald

    Maddison, Fred

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Haldane, Richard Burdon

    Maden, John Henry

    Tennant, Harold John

    Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

    Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

    Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Healy, T. M. (N. Louth)

    Molloy, Bernard Charles

    Ure, Alexander

    Heaton, John Henniker

    Monk, Charles James

    Wallace, Robert

    Hedderwick, Thos. Chas. H.

    Morgan, W. P. (Merthyr)

    Walrond, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. H.

    Hogan, James Francis

    Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

    Wanklyn, James Leslie

    Horniman, Frederick John

    Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport)

    Warner, Thos. Courtenay T.

    Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

    Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)

    Williams, J. Carvell (Notts.)

    Howard, Joseph

    Norton, Capt. Cecil William

    Williams, J. Powell- (Birm.)

    Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

    O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)

    Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)

    Jacoby, James Alfred

    O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal)

    Wilson, John (Falkirk)

    Jameson, Major J. Eustace

    O'Connor, J. (Wicklow, W.)

    Wilson-Todd, W. H. (Yorks.)

    Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

    O'Connor, T. P (Liverpool)

    Woods, Samuel

    Johnson-Ferguson, JabezEdw.

    Oldroyd, Mark

    Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

    Joicey, Sir James

    O'Malley, William

    Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

    Kay-Shuttleworth, Rt. Hn Sir U

    Palmer, Sir C. M. (Durham)

    Yoxall, James Henry

    Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H.

    Perks, Robert William

    Kilbride, Denis

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Patrick O'Brien and Mr. Duncombe.

    Knowles, Lees

    Pierpoint, Robert

    Labouchere, Henry

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Langley, Batty

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    NOES.

    Allsopp, Hon. George

    Fison, Frederick William

    Nicol, Donald Ninian

    Anstruther, H. T.

    Galloway, William Johnson

    Percy, Earl

    Balcarres, Lord

    Giles, Charles Tyrrell

    Pilkington, R. (Lancs. Newton)

    Banbury, Frederick George

    Goldsworthy, Major-General

    Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

    Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

    Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury)

    Russell, Gen. F. S. (Cheltenham

    Bethell, Commander

    Halsey, Thomas Frederick

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

    Hermon-Hodge, Robert Trotter

    Simeon, Sir Barrington

    Brassey, Albert

    Hill, Arthur (Down, West)

    Stanley, Edward J. (Somerset

    Brookfield, A. Montagu

    Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

    Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

    Burdett-Coutts, W.

    Johnston, William (Belfast)

    Talbot, Rt Hn J. G. (Oxf'd Univ.

    Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.)

    Lawrence, Sir E Durning-(Corn)

    Tomlinson, W. E. Murray

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

    Lawson, John Grant (Yorks)

    Tritton, Charles Ernest

    Clarke, Sir Edw. (Plymouth)

    Lecky, Rt. Hon. Wm. Edw. H.

    Valentia, Viscount

    Cripps, Charles Alfred

    Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)

    Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart-

    Curzon, Viscount

    Lubbock, Rt. Hn. Sir John

    Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

    Macartney, W. G. Ellison.

    TELLERS FOE THE NOES—Mr. William Moore and Mr. Carson.

    Doxford, William Theodore

    Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

    Drage, Geoffrey

    Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Newdigate, Francis Alexander

    Question put, and agreed to.

    Subsequent Amendments to Preamble disagreed to.
    Remaining Amendments read a second time.
    Several agreed to, without Amendment; one amended and agreed to.
    Several disagreed to, and a consequential Amendment made to the Bill.
    Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their Amendments to the Bill.
    Committee nominated of,—Mr. T. W. Russell, Mr. T. M. Healy, Mr. Clancy, Mr. Caldwell, Mr. Johnson-Ferguson, and Mr. Molloy.
    Three to be the quorum.—(Mr. T. W. Russell.)
    To withdraw immediately.

  FYLDE WATER BOARD BILL [Lords].
    WAKEFIELD CORPORATION BILL [Lords].
    Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.

    NORTH-EASTERN AND HULL AND BARNSLEY RAILWAYS (JOINT DOCKS) BILL [Lords].
    [By Order]; as Amended, considered.
    Amendments made.
    SIR ALBERT ROLLIT: I have, on behalf of my hon. friend the Member for East Hull, to move the Amendment which stands in his name. This Bill is one which, in the interests of the public, provides for limiting the use of level crossings in a very populous part of Hull. One portion of the Bill leaves to the stipendiary magistrate the decision of any question which may arise upon the use of the level crossings. Then there is a second provision, which seems to me rather inconsistent, and in which the same question as to the use of the level crossings is referred to the Railway and Canal Commission, which latter body is to have power to make rules and regulations. A penalty clause is suggested by the Corporation, and by it, undoubtedly, the stipendiary magistrate is to be the authority for settling these questions. The Corporation of Hull fool that, in the interests of the public safety, the question of these level crossings should be brought before, and decided by, a tribunal which is very accessible, which is not costly, and which will give a speedy remedy, and they contend that that is not the case with the Railway and Canal Commission. The object of this Amendment is to maintain the local authority, which in this case is the stipendiary magistrate, for the purposes of determining these local, but nevertheless important, questions. I beg to move.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 21, line 37, to leave out from the word 'Hull,' to the word 'provided,' in page 22, line 7."—(Sir Albert Rollit.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
    SIR J. KENNAWAY: May I briefly explain that the Committee which sat upon this Bill preferred to give the town a very ready and accessible tribunal, and they therefore suggested that power should be given to the stipendiary magistrate to dispense with the rules in cases of emergency, and also a penal power, in case these rules were not carried out. They had no desire to impose on the stipendiary magistrate business with which he was not cognisant, such as the making of fresh rules, and therefore they left the Railway Commissioners as the ultimate tribunal to be appealed to. I would appeal to the hon. Member to withdraw the Amendment, and instead of it agree to an alteration, whereby the Railway Commissioners will be still left with power to make regulations, but will not come in as another tribunal alongside of the stipendiary magistrate with powers, for deciding cases.
    SIR J. JOICEY: The subject was most carefully considered by the Committee, the whole matter was thoroughly thrashed out on each side, and the clause, as it appears in the Bill, is the result of the representations of the learned counsel engaged by both parties. I think that under those circumstances it would be extremely unwise for the House to begin to make alterations and to override the decision of the Committee.
    MR. MADDISON: I hope that the clause will not be allowed to stand as it is. The question of proper safeguards for public safety is of the utmost importance whenever level crossings are permitted in crowded towns. It is essential that there should be a simple and inexpensive remedy for any failure to properly carryout the regulations, and I hold it would not be fair to the Corporation of Hull to compel them to take any ques-

    1029
    tion that might arise before the Railway Commission. Such a course would entail great expense. The Commission is not held in high favour by those persons whose duty most frequently brings them into contact with it.
    THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Mr. J. W. LOWTHER,): I am bound to admit that there is force in the objection raised, and that it would be undesirable to leave it to the Railway Commission to determine whether a breach of the regulations has been committed after the stipendiary has given his decision. I would therefore suggest that if the alteration proposed is not adopted, the Debate should be adjourned.
    SIR ALBERT ROLLIT: I agree that an adjournment would be the best course to adopt under the circumstances.
    Debate adjourned till To-morrow.

    EDUCATION DEPARTMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (LONDON) BILL [Lords].
    Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
    Bill, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

    SOUTHPORT AND LYTHAM TRAMROAD BILL [Lords].
    Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
    SOUTHPORT AND LYTHAM TRAMROAD BILL [Lords].
    Ordered, That, in the case of the Southport and Lytham Tramroad Bill [Lords], Standing Orders 211, 236, and 237 be suspended, and that the Committee on the Bill have leave to sit and proceed forthwith.—(Dr. Farquharson.)

    DUBLIN CORPORATION BILL.
    Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords Amendments reported, and agreed to.
    To be communicated to the Lords.

  PETITIONS.
    GROUND RENTS (TAXATION BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES).
    Petition from Kirriemuir, in favour, to lie upon the Table.
    SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
    Petition from Somerby, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  RETURNS, REPORTS, &c.
    BOARD OF TRADE (LABOUR DEPARTMENT) (ABSTRACT OF FOREIGN LABOUR STATISTICS).
    Copy presented,—of Abstract of Foreign Labour Statistics relating to Wages, Hours of Labour, Trade Disputes, and Co-operation [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
    TRADE UNIONS.
    Copy presented,—of Report by the Chief Labour Correspondent of the Board of Trade on Trade Unions, 1898, with Comparative Statistics for 1892–7 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
    NAVAL EXPENDITURE AND MERCANTILE MARINE (GREAT BRITAIN, ETC.)
    Return presented,—relative thereto [ordered 21st March; Sir John Colomb]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. (No. 310.)
    COLONIAL LOANS.
    Copy presented,—of Explanatory Statement as to proposed Loans comprised in the Schedule to the Colonial Loans Bill [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
    PRISONS (IRELAND).
    Copy presented,—of Twenty-first Report of the General Prisons Board (Ireland) for 1898–9, with an Appendix [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
    NAVY (COURTS MARTIAL).
    Copy presented,—of Return of the number of Courts Martial held and Summary Punishments inflicted during the year 1898 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
    NAVY (HEALTH).
    Copy presented,—of Statistical Report of the Health of the Navy for the year 1898 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 311.]
    SEAMEN AND MARINES (PENSIONS).
    Return presented,—relative thereto [ordered 21st July; Lord Charles Beresford]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 312.]
    FLEETS (GREAT BRITAIN AND FOREIGN COUNTRIES).
    Return presented,—relative thereto [ordered 21st July; Sir Charles Dilke]; to lie upon the Table; and to be printed. [No. 313.]
    NAVAL PRIZE MONEY.
    Account presented,—showing the Receipt and Expenditure of Naval Prize, Bounty, Salvage, and other Moneys between the 1st April 1898, and 31st March 1899 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.[No. 314.]
    TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
    Copies presented,—of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 2323 to 2325 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

    THORNTON JUNCTION STATION.
    Copy ordered, "of Report by Colonel Sir Francis Marindin, K.C.M.G., of his inspection of Thornton Junction Station, on the North British Railway, with reference to complaints which have been received by the Board of Trade in regard to the accommodation at and access to that station."—(Mr. Ritchie.)
    Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No.315.]

    ADJOURNMENT MOTIONS UNDER STANDING ORDER No. 17.
    Return ordered, "of Motions for Adjournment under Standing Order No. 17, showing the date of such Motion, the name of the Member proposing, the definite matter of urgent public importance, and the result of any Division taken thereon during the Session of 1899 (in the same form as, and in continuation of, Parliamentary Paper No. 356, of Session 1898)."—(Dr. Farquharson.)

    CLOSURE OF DERATE (STANDING ORDER No. 25).
    Return ordered, "respecting application of Standing Orders No. 25 (Closure of Debate) during Session 1899, under the, following heads:—

    Date when Closure moved.

    1.

    By whom moved.

    2.

    Question before House or Committee when moved.

    3.

    Whether in House or Committee.

    4.

    Whether assent given to Motion or withheld by Speaker or Chairman.

    5.

    Assent withheld because, in the opinion of the Chair, a decision would shortly be arrived at without that Motion.

    6.

    Result of Motion, and, if a Division, Numbers for and against.

    7.

    (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper No. 357, of Session 1898)."—(Dr. Farquharson.)

    DIVISIONS OF THE HOUSE.
    Return ordered, "of the number of Divisions of the House in the Session of 1899; stating the subject of the Division, and the number of Members in the majority and minority, Tellers included; also, the aggregate number in the House on each Division: distinguishing the Divisions on Public Business from Private; and also the number of Divisions before and after midnight (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper No. 0,280, of Session 1898)."—(Dr. Farguharson.)

    PUBLIC BILLS.
    Return ordered, "of the number of; Public Bills, distinguishing Government

    1033
    from other Bills, introduced into this House, or brought from the House of Lords, during the Session of 1899; showing the number which received the Royal Assent; the number which were passed by this House, but not by the House of Lords; the number passed by the House of Lords, but not by this House; and distinguishing the stages at which such Bills as did not receive the Royal Assent wore dropped or postponed and rejected in either House of Parliament (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper No. 0,283, of Session 1898)."—(Dr. Farquharson.)

    PUBLIC PETITIONS.
    Return ordered, "of the number of Public Petitions presented and printed in the Session of 1899; with the total number of signatures in that year (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper No. 0,282, of Session 1898)."—(Dr. Farquharson.)
    SELECT COMMITTEES.
    Return ordered, "of the number of Select Committees appointed in the Session of 1899, including the Standing Committees and the Court of Referees; the subjects of inquiry; the names of the Members appointed to serve on each, and of the Chairman of each; the number of days each Committee mot, and the number of days each Member attended; the total expense of the attendance of witnesses at each Select Committee, and the name of the Member who moved for such Select Committee; also the total number of Members who served on Select Committees (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper No. 0,279, of Session 1898)."—(Dr. Farquharson.)
    SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE.
    Return ordered, "of the number of days on which the House sat in the Session of 1899, stating for each day the date of the month and day of the week, the hour of the meeting, and the hour of adjournment; and the total number of hours occupied in the Sittings of the House, and the average time; and showing the number of hours on which the House sat each day, and the number of hours after midnight; and the number of entries in each day's Votes and Proceedings (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper No. 0,281, of Session 1898)."—(Dr. Farquharson.)
    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (DAYS OCCUPIED BY GOVERNMENT AND BY PRIVATE MEMBERS.)
    Return ordered, "showing, with reference to the Session of 1899, (1) the number of Sittings on Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Fridays at which Government business had precedence; (2) the number of sittings on Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Fridays at which Private Members had precedence; (3) the number of other sittings at which, in accordance with the Standing Orders of the House, Government business had precedence; (4) the number of sittings at which Government business had precedence under a special order of the House; (5) the number of Saturday sittings; (6) the total number of sittings at which Government business had precedence; (7) the total number of days on which the House sat; (8) the total number of Motions for Adjournment of the House on a matter of urgent public importance; and (9) the number of days in Supply (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 358, of Session 1898)."—(Dr. Farquharson.)

    PRIVATE BILLS AND PRIVATE BUSINESS.
    Returns ordered, "of the number of Private Bills, Hybrid Bills, and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders introduced into the House of Commons and brought from the House of Lords, and of Acts passed in the Session of 1899, classed according to the following subjects:—Railways; Tramways; Tramroads; Subways; Canals and Navigations; Roads and Bridges; Water; Gas; Gas and Water; Improvement; Police and Sanitary Regulations; Corporations, &c. (not relating to Police and Sanitary Regulations); Ports, Piers, Harbours, and Docks; Churches, Chapels, and Burying Grounds; Markets and Fairs; Inclosure and Drainage; Estate; Divorce; Naturarlisation; and Miscellaneous":
    "Of all the Private Bills, Hybrid Bills, and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders which in the Session of 1899 have been reported on by Committees on opposed Private Bills or by Committees nominated partly by the House and partly by the Committee of Selection, together with the names of the selected Members who served on each Committee; the first and also the last day of the sitting of each Committee; the num-

    1035
    ber of days on which each Committee sat; the number of days on which each selected Member has served; the number of days occupied by each Bill in Committee; the Bills the preambles of which were reported to have been proved; the Bills the preambles of which were reported to have been not proved; and, in the case of Bills for confirming Provisional Orders, whether the Provisional Orders ought or ought not to be confirmed":
    "Of all Private Bills and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders which, in the Session of 1899, have been referred by the Committee of Selection, or by the General Committee on Railway and Canal Bills, to the Chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means, together with the names of the Members who served on each Committee; the number of days on which each Committee sat; and the number of days on which each Member attended":
    "And of the number of Private Bills, Hybrid Bills, and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders withdrawn or not proceeded with by the parties, those Bills being specified which have been referred to Committees and dropped during the sittings of the Committee (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper No. 0,278, of Session 1898)."—(Dr. Farquharson.)

QUESTIONS.

  ROYAL MARINE ARTILLERY.
  SIR J. COLOMB: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty in what way the officers and men of the Royal Marine Artillery are specially employed in ships where there are the largest guns, in view of the fact that the Prize Firing Return shows that no gun crews are drawn from the Royal Marine Artillery for the service of the heaviest guns.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. GOSCHEN,): According to the scheme of complements the officers and men of the Royal Marine Artillery are drafted only to flagships and battleships, where they take part in the general duties of the ships as directed by the commanding officer. The circumstances
  1036
  that no Marine Artillery competed for prizes for the firing of barbette and turret guns, as shown in the return referred to by the hon. and gallant Gentleman, is accounted for by the fact that they do not qualify as captains of these guns, which are worked and mounted hydraulically.

  "BRASSEY'S NAVAL ANNUAL."
  MR. HOGAN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty what is the position of the Admiralty in relation to the publication of "Brassey's Naval Annual"; have officers under the jurisdiction of the Admiralty been permitted to contribute to its pages from time to time; and has the Admiralty ever had reason to complain of the disclosure of official secrets in this work.
  MR. GOSCHEN: The position of the Admiralty in relation to "Brassey's Naval Annual" may be described as one of benevolent neutrality. A few picture drawings, showing the external appearance of the finished ships, have been furnished by the Admiralty, but no important or confidential details. Officials serving under the Admiralty have not contributed papers to the "Annual." With regard to the last question of the hon. Member, my friend Lord Brassey is certainly not the man to countenance the disclosure of official secrets.

  MEDICINE CONTRACTS FOR THE NAVY.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Under Secretary to the Admiralty whether, seeing that when the last contracts for Naval estimates for medicines were advertised the Irish firms got no opportunity of tendering, he can state when the tenders for medicines will be again considered, and whether the Irish firms will then have an opportunity of tendering.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. MACARTNEY,): Contracts for medicines are not advertised. Competition is confined to firms of undoubted reputation for the supply of first-class articles. Should any Irish firm establish its claim to hold such a position and desire to be allowed to quote, there would be no objection to its doing so. The present contracts expire in 1902.

  KEYHAM EXTENSION WORKS.
  MR. WOODS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that the employees of Sir John Jackson, who is at the present time carrying out a Government contract at the Keyham Extension Works, Devonport, are working 56½.hours per week for a week's wages, although the recognised hours in the district are 53 hours per week; and if he will take steps to insure that the terms of the Fair Wages Resolution, passed by the House on 13th February, 1891, are complied with.
  THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): I am informed that it is not a fact that any men work more than the regulation hours of the district for a week's wages. All men are paid by the hour. The usual hours in the district for masons and bricklayers are 53 hours per week, and overtime rates are paid for any hours in excess of this.

  WHITTINGTON (LICHFIELD) BARRACKS.
  MR. WARNER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether no land has yet been acquired for a range near Whittington Barracks, near Lichfield, and no progress has been made in coming to an agreement for the purchase of the land; and could he state what obstacle has caused a delay of over a year after the site has been approved by the War Office.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. WYNDHAM,): No land has yet been acquired, because the owners have declined to sell. It will therefore be necessary to use compulsory powers. This involves—first, a local inquiry, and second, an Act of Parliament, and the Act cannot be passed till next session. There has been no delay beyond what is inevitable when negotiation fails, and compulsion has to be used.
  MR. WARNER: Is it proposed to make all preparations, and to bring in a Bill early next year?
  MR. WYNDHAM: We shall certainly be desirous of bringing in a Bill as soon as possible.

  GREAT YARMOUTH BARRACKS.
  SIR J. COLOMB: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War
  1038
  whether the War Office acquired in 1875, from the Corporation of Great Yarmouth, a site, with a sea frontage, consisting of about twenty-three acres, which was acquired and paid for under the Military Forces Localisation Act of 1872; whether the property is freehold, what was the amount paid to the Corporation for it, what was the expenditure by the War Office on the erection of the barrack on this site, and what number of single soldiers it was built to accommodate; whether for ten months in the year there are only about sixty single soldiers occupying that barrack, situated within two miles of a range provided by the Corporation, and laid out to meet the views of the War Office; whether the War Office is aware that the estimated value of the twenty-three acres in question is now about £50,000, excluding buildings, and whether it is intended to fully occupy these barracks all the year round, or otherwise to utilise this site; and whether in the United Kingdom there are other barracks, built under the Military Forces Localisation Act, only partially occupied for the greater portion of the year.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The site referred to was acquired in 1875, and consists of about twenty-one acres. It is freehold. The amount paid to the Corporation was £1,635, and to the county for residue of lease and buildings, £12,500. The cost of alterations and additions for the depot of the Norfolk Artillery Militia was £17,137. The buildings now accommodate 185 men. The average numbers present in 1898 were 77, but strengths at all depots are subject to constant variation. If the site were sold another barrack would have to be built in the neighbourhood, and it is not considered probable that anything would be gained by the transaction. This is one of the barracks selected to receive convalescent soldiers.

  MILITARY PENSIONS.—PATRICK DWYER.
  MR. HAYDEN: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to the case of Patrick Dwyer, late private in the 2nd Battalion Royal Munster Fusiliers, who was discharged disabled as the result of wounds received in the course of action, and has been paid upon his discharge 9d. per day for twelve months, and subsequently in 1893 was granted 6d. per

  1039
  day for two years; and, whether, seeing that if he had not been wounded and disabled, and had served three months more, he would be entitled as a right to 6d. per day for six years, the authorities of the War Office will reconsider his case, and grant him the pension he would be entitled to if he had not been wounded.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS,): Patrick Dwyer was not discharged on account of wounds received in action, but because he dislocated his shoulder while leading two ponies to water. The Commissioners of Chelsea Hospital gave him a temporary pension when he was discharged in 1890, and it was renewed in 1895 and 1896; but ceased in 1897, as it was found that Dwyer had made a perfect recovery. If he had completed seven years' service and had been sound in health, he would have been required to serve in the Reserve for five years and would have been paid six-pence a day in return for his liability.

  PRESBYTERIAN CHAPLAINS IN INDIA.
  MR. JAMES CAMPBELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he is yet able to give a reply to the complaint submitted on behalf of the Church of Scotland as to difficulties experienced in several instances by Presbyterian chaplains of the Forces in India in obtaining the use of Government churches for public worship.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord G. HAMILTON,): As my honourable friend is aware, both the Viceroy and myself are desirous that Presbyterians should, wherever it is practicable, have every facility afforded them to worship in the churches which have been set apart for or are ordinarily used by the Church of England. In this view the Metropolitan of India heartily concurs. As my hon. friend is aware, I am now obtaining legal opinion as to what is the effect of consecration according to the rites of the Church of England on churches in India. On this point largely depends the procedure to be adoped to give effect to our wishes, but I shall not obtain that opinion for some little time.

  BURMA DEPUTY COMMISSIONERSHIP.
  MR. JEFFREYS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India will he explain why Major Parsons has been promoted by the authorities in Burma to be a deputy commissioner of the first grade over the heads of all other officers in other grades who were senior to Major Parsons; and whether he has sanctioned this action of the Burma authorities.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: The circumstances of Major Parsons' case, which was brought before me by the Government of India in October 1898, were very complicated, and the question as to the position which he ought to hold in the service was a difficult one. After careful consideration, I decided that he should be treated as a supernumerary in every grade, above the lowest to which he might be appointed. The effect of this decision, which appears to have been duly carried out, is that his own reasonable expectations will be fulfilled, but that his successive promotions have not interfered and will not interfere with those of the other officers in the Burma Commission.

  TYPHOID FEVER IN INDIA.
  GENERAL RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State. for India whether his attention has been called to the yearly increasing virulence of typhoid fever in India, although a few years since this disease was almost unknown in that country; and whether any report has been received by the Government of India as a result of the investigations, which more than two years since he stated were then being conducted into the causes of this disease; and, if so, whether this Report will be laid upon the Table of the House.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: I have observed with regret the increasing prevalence of enteric fever in India, a subject which is continually engaging the attention of the Government of India. I would point out, however, that the virulence of the disease, as tested by the ratio between the number of deaths and. the number of admissions to hospital per thousand of the British troops in India, has decreased. From 1878 to 1883 it was nearly one to two, from 1884 to 1888 about one to three;

  1041
  since then not much more than one to four. No general Report has been issued as a result of the investigations which are being pursued into the origin of enteric fever in cantonments in India, but I have received special Reports from the Government of India on the sanitary conditions of certain cantonments which have been made the subject of individual investigation. Steps have been taken to remedy the defects reported. With reference to the reply which I gave to my hon. and gallant friend's question of the 23rd February last, I may state that voluntary inoculation against enteric fever at the public expense among the British troops in India has now been sanctioned.

  WAZIRI TROUBLES.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India what is the distance between Wano, in the Waziri country (the place to which the baggage train of Mr. Watson, the Indian Government's Political Officer, was proceeding when attacked by Waziris on the 21st inst.), and the western frontier line of British India; what is the distance between Wano and Dera Ismail Khan; what is the number and status of Indian Government troops now stationed at or near Wano, and at other points in the Waziri country; and what political and civil officers are being maintained by us in that foreign territory; and, is there any near prospect of these forces and officers being withdrawn from Waziristan, in accordance with the recently indicated policy of the Government to reduce our occupation of Afghan tribal territory.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: The distance between Wano and the station of Tank, on the borders of the British district of Dera Ismail Khan, is fifty-five miles. The distance to Dera Ismail Khan, headquarters of the district, is 115. There are 1,050 men in the nominal strength of the Wano garrison of Indian Government troops, and at Jandola and Sarvekai there are about 410 more. These numbers exclude the tribal levies and border militia. In the Tochi Valley there are 2,300 native troops. One European Political Officer, an assistant, and five Naib Tahsildars, besides their office establishments, are stationed in Southern Waziristan at or near Wano. The question of substituting militia for troops at Wano and in the
  1042
  neighbourhood is under the consideration of the Viceroy. The region in question is not Afghan territory, being within the boundaries of the area settled by the Durand Agreement to be under the influence of the Indian Government.

  BURMA CHIEF COURT.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether it is in contemplation to establish a Chief Court in Burma; and whether, before that step is taken, an opportunity will be afforded to this House to pronounce upon the desirability of establishing a High Court instead of a Chief Court in that country.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: I am in correspondence with the Government of India in regard to the proposal to establish a Chief Court in Burma. I am not prepared to postpone a decision on the subject until this House has discussed the question whether a High Court or a Chief Court is more desirable for the province. But I may observe that legislation in Parliament would be necessary to enable another High Court to be established in India.

  EUROPEAN PRISONERS IN INDIAN GAOLS.
  MR. LEWIS: On behalf of the hon. Member for Flintshire, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the Government will take into practical consideration the special hardships which long-term European prisoners now suffer in India owing to their inability to bear the climatical effects under gaol conditions, as compared with the native prisoners around them; and whether the Government will locate this particular class in some prison in the hill districts.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: This question has been carefully considered, but in view of the small numbers of the class of prisoners to whom it refers, and of the great expense and other disadvantages of providing separate gaols for them, it has been decided to leave matters as they are; more especially as the accommodation provided for European prisoners has been very favourably reported upon by expert authorities. It should also be remembered that the Courts, in sentencing Europeans, take into consideration the effects of

  1043
  limate, and that such prisoners, if their health requires it, can be transferred to the United Kingdom under an Act of 1884.

  FAMAGUSTA HARBOUR WORKS.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies what are the harbour works at Famagusta contemplated in the Colonial Loans Bill.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLIAN,): The works consist of dredging out the old harbour and building a quay wall alongside of which ships can berth to load and discharge cargo.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: What is the proportion of expense on actual harbour works?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Perhaps the right hon. Baronet will ask me that again.

  TRANSVAAL.—RELIGIOUS DISABILITIES.
  MR. HOGAN): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received any official confirmation of the report that President Kruger has agreed to the removal of the religious disabilities that have hitherto existed in connection with representation in the Raad and employment in the public service of the Transvaal.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The answer is in the negative.

  COLONIAL LOANS RETURNS.
  MR. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will lay a Return before the House giving the expenditure for the year 1898 in various colonies and places affected by the Colonial Loans Bill, in supplement of the Return just issued, which gives the revenue only.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I shall be very glad to give the hon. Gentleman what he wishes for; but there are many things which must be taken into consideration, and in some cases the expenditure for a given year does not represent the normal expenditure.

  THE HAGUE CONFERENCE.
  MR. BRYCE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs a question of which I have given him private notice—whether he can state when the Papers relating to the Hague Conference will be presented.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. BRODRICK,): The Papers will be presented without avoidable delay, but I am afraid it will be impossible to circulate them before the close of the session.

  WILKIE'S PORTRAIT OF HER MAJESTY.
  MR. NEWDIGATE: On behalf of the hon. Member for the Romford Division of Essex, I beg, to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the offer of the Rev. the Marquess of Norman by to the Trustees of the National Portrait Gallery, with respect to the full-length portrait of Her Majesty the Queen in Her Robes of States, painted by Sir David Wilkie, R.A., is still open; whether a similar offer with respect to portraits of King Charles I. and Queen Henrietta Maria, of whom the gallery possesses but very inadequate portraits, is also open; and whether he will allocate the sum of £3,159 for the purchase of the three portraits aforesaid, which, executed by great painters, have been. declared by the trustees to be of great historical importance, and their acquisition a great benefit to the nation.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS-BEACH,): I understand that the Trustees of the National Portrait Gallery do not now desire to acquire the portrait of Her Majesty the Queen referred to. I see no sufficient ground for a special grant for the purchase of the other two pictures named. Better portraits of these personages are already in the National Collection.

  LOAN CAPITAL AND THE FINANCE ACT.
  MR. BRYCE: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the apprehensions which exist in Scotland as to the construction which may be put upon the definition of the term "loan capital," in Section 8, Sub-section 5, of the Finance

  1045
  Act of this year; whether, to remove such apprehensions, he can state that the Act was not designed to and does not impose the duty of 2s. 6d. percent. on money borrowed otherwise than by way of an addition to capital or debenture stock, and in particular that it will not be leviable on deposits with, or loans to, bankers, or financial or trading companies, or private firms, of more than two persons fixed for longer than twelve months; and whether, if he should find that the apprehensions referred to continue and are widely felt, he will consider the propriety in the next Finance Act of revising and limiting the definition of the term "loan capital" in the Act of this session.
  SIR M. HICKS-BEACH: I understand from communications which I have received from the right hon. Gentleman that some of his constituents entertain apprehensions on this point. I am advised that Section 8 of the Finance Act, 1899, will not affect the ordinary transactions of loans to bankers, financial or trading companies, or private firms, upon deposit, even although the period of the loan is fixed for longer than twelve months. Such a transaction would not, I am advised, constitute an "issue of loan capital." I have no reason to think that the apprehensions referred to are widely felt, and as they appear to me to be groundless, I see no reason for amending the law.

  COLONIAL LOANS BILL.
  MR. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the sums, amounting in all to more than £1,148,000, which have been borrowed by the Crown Agents in anticipation of the passing of the Colonial Loans Bill, have been borrowed with the consent of the Treasury; and in what form and at what times was such consent given.
  SIR M. HICKS-BEACH: These sums were borrowed in anticipation of the issue of loans authorised by the Colonial legislatures and sanctioned by the Secretary of State, which did not require the consent of the Treasury. The issue of the loans, however, was deferred in consequence of the introduction of the Colonial Loans Fund Bill in the last and present sessions, and it is now proposed
  1046
  to substitute for them loans from the Local Loans Fund under the Bill now before the House.

  THE MUZZLING ORDER IN STAFFORDSHIRE.
  MR. WARNER: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture, when he proposes to withdraw the muzzling order in the Lichfield Union of Staffordshire, where no case of rabies has occurred for nearly four years.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. LONG,): It would not be possible for me to deal with the case of the Lichfield Union apart from the remainder of the area in the Midland counties over which muzzling orders extend, but the time for the withdrawal of these orders is now rapidly approaching.

  SWINE FEVER ORDERS IN THE WEST RIDING OF YORKSHIRE.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he is aware that swine fever orders have been issued by the West Riding County Council prohibiting the importation of swine from Ireland under severe penalties; and whether, seeing that all swine exported from Ireland are passed by a veterinary inspector, and that swine fever is much more prevalent in England than in Ireland at present, he can take any steps to get this order rescinded.
  MR. LONG: I have received a copy of the regulation to which the hon. Member refers. It was made by the Local Authority in the exercise of the discretionary powers which they possess for the protection of their district, and in consequence of the fact that several recent outbreaks of disease had been traced to swine brought to the West Riding from Ireland. In the circumstances the action of the Local Authority seems to me to be fully justified, but I will, of course, communicate to them the representations made by the hon. Member.
  MR. FIELD: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the second portion of the question.
  MR. LONG: I have said that these regulations are made by the Local Authority in the exercise of its discretion, and

  1047
  cannot properly be interfered with; but I will communicate any representations the hon. Member may like to make.
  MR. FIELD: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether swine fever is not more prevalent in England than in Ireland at the present moment; and whether the precautions taken in Ireland have not been more successful than those taken in England?
  MR. LONG: I do not know and cannot say that.
  MR. FIELD: I mean it is—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION AT CORSTORPHINE.
  SIR CHARLES CAMERON: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, with reference to the 900 children of school age in Kilmalcolm School Board District who, notwithstanding the Scottish law as to compulsory education, have been left without education since April last, whether the attention of the Scottish Education Department has been called to the fact that, in the analogous case of the children collected in the Murray field Home of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, education is provided by the School Board of Corstorphine; and whether he is aware that, in order that accommodation might be provided for them, the Corstorphine School Board was compelled to enlarge the school, and whether the enlargement was ordered by the Scottish Education Department.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY,): The Department is not prepared to admit that the case of the children from the Murray-field Home, attending the Corstorphine School, is analogous to that of the Orphan Homes at Kilmalcolm. In the former case about sixty children from the home attend the public school. An enlargement of the school was suggested by the inspector in the year 1894, before any question of the attendance of the children from the home, or of the respective liability of the managers of the home and the School Board, was raised. The managers of the home were ready to educate the children in the home if the school was recognised for a grant, while
  1048
  a similar proposal m regard to the Kilmalcolm Homes has been refused by the managers. The Corstorphine Board desired to make the School Boards from whose districts the children came share the expense of providing accommodation, but it did not appear that this was possible under the Education Acts.

  POLLUTION OF THE RIVER THAMES.
  MR. RYDER: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware of the foul condition of the River Thames between London and Purrfleet; whether he is aware of the noxious odour arising therefrom; can he explain the cause; and will he take immediate steps, in the interests of the health of those travelling and engaged thereon, with a view to remedy the evils complained of.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. T. W. RUSSELL,): My right hon. friend has communicated with the Conservators of the River Thames on this subject, and he is informed that the only specific complaint they have received related to the condition of the river on the 21st July, when the Harbour Master reported that the water was black with unpleasant odour at Jenningtree Point, the discoloration being traceable to the Metropolitan main drainage outfall. The outfall works are under the control of the London County Council, and the Conservators have brought the Report under the notice of the Council. The Conservators further state that inquiries have been made by their officers on the river as to the recent condition of the water, and they report that during the past week or two the condition of the water has not been satisfactory. They consider this due in some measure to the hot weather, but are of opinion that the river water in the neighbourhood of Crossness has recently been affected by the discharge from the main drainage outfall. The attention of the London County Council will be called to the matter referred to in the question of the hon. Member.

  POPLAR WORKHOUSE.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the report of the hearing of a charge at the Thames

  1049
  Police Court on the 26th of July of refractory conduct on the part of an inmate of the Poplar Workhouse, when the magistrate, referring to that case and similar cases brought before him, commented on a want of judgment in inflicting punishments in that institution; and whether he will direct special inquiry to be made into the administration of the Poplar Workhouse.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: My right hon. friend has made inquiry as to the case referred to, and he finds that the inmate in question is an able-bodied man of about 35 years of age. He is stated to have been a very troublesome person, and he appears to have been convicted before the magistrates ten times during the last ten years for various offences in the Poplar and West Ham Workhouses. It does not appear to be necessary that any special inquiry should be directed into the administration of the Poplar Workhouse.

  E.C.D.O. POSTAL OVERSEERSHIPS.
  MR. STEADMAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, whether he will state the reason that within the last two years the new observation overseer has been created at E.C.D.O.; whether he is aware that two of these overseers have since the date of their appointment, now nearly two years ago, been almost exclusively engaged in watching the men on one or two walks only, although no definite charge of any description has been brought against any of those men; and, will he, in accordance with the tenor of the statements he has frequently made on behalf of the Postmaster-General in this House, see that the practice is discontinued.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HANBURY,): The two overseers referred to were appointed in February last year for the purpose of checking postmen on delivering duties, and submitting proposals for rearrangement of walks where necessary. It is not the case that the overseers have been almost exclusively engaged in watching the men on one or two walks only. On the contrary, a large number of walks have been re-adjusted, as the result
  1050
  of their work, to the benefit of nearly 150 postmen; and occasional irregularities have been put a stop to. The Postmaster-General has no intention of discontinuing the services of the overseers in question, and I do not know what the hon. Member refers to when he speaks of the tenor of my observations.

  POSTMEN'S STRIPES.
  MR. STEADMAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, will he explain why the good conduct stripe due to Postman F. G. Cook, of the East Central District Office, 13th December, 1896, is to be withheld till 1901, when it had already been decided that it was only to be withheld for twelve months prior to the new regulations which carry into force re-stripes as laid down by the Tweedmouth Committee.
  MR. HANBURY: It was not decided that the good conduct stripe was to be withheld for twelve months only. The decision was that the case might be brought up again for consideration in twelve months, and no pledge was given. By the time the twelve months had expired the new rules based on the recommendations of the Tweedmouth Committee were in force, and the necessary certificate of five years' unblemished service could not be furnished. The award of the stripe must therefore be deferred until the expiration of this period.

  TELEGRAPHIC ADDRESSES
  MR JOHN WILSON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, if he is aware that the Secretary at the General Post Office, Edinburgh, has called upon Mr. Keith, the Provost of Hamilton and a merchant there, to register an abbreviated telegraphic address or to request all his correspondents to make use in future of his full address, Keith, 84, Cadzow Street, Hamilton, and, failing his doing so, has intimated that instructions will be issued to the local postmaster not to deliver messages addressed to Keith, Hamilton; if he is aware that hitherto there has been no difficulty nor confusion in the delivery of telegrams so addressed, and therefore no necessity to interfere with the discretion of the local postmaster; and will he

  1051
  instruct the Secretary at Edinburgh to withdraw such orders or not to issue them, except in such cases where complaints have been made of telegrams being improperly delivered through insufficient address.
  MR. HANBURY: The answer to the first paragraph is in the affirmative. The Post Office are of opinion that as there is more than one person of the name of Keith in Cadzow Street, Hamilton, it is necessary, whether or not there has been difficulty or confusion in the past, that every message should be fully addressed, as otherwise difficulty and confusion are likely at any time to occur, and an important telegram may get into wrong hands. The Postmaster-General does not see his way, therefore, to give the suggested instructions to the Secretary in Edinburgh.

  BALLINA POSTAL DUTIES.
  MR. PATRICK. O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, whether he is aware that the male clerks in Ballina have to perform a duty extending from 3 a.m. to 9 a.m., and again from 8.30 p.m. to 10 p.m.; and whether he would endeavour to rearrange the duty, inasmuch as, out of a staff of seven appointed hands, three only are told off for the performance of this heavy night duty; whether he is aware that the male sorting clerks and telegraphists in Ballina office are scarcely allowed any time for telegraph work, being in charge of the telegraph six hours only in every six weeks; and will the matter be inquired into with a view to giving the men a fair turn of telegraph work.
  MR. HANBURY: There are two duties which include a portion of night work at the Ballina Post Office. The one referred to by the hon. Member includes three hours of night duty and the other includes two. As at present arranged the heavier duty is shared among three sorting clerks, to each of whom it falls in turn for two weeks in every six. They have an interval of nearly twelve hours between the periods of duty, and in no case does their attendance exceed eight hours. The Postmaster-General hopes, however, that it may be possible to somewhat improve the rotation of their night attendance, and is making further
  1052
  inquiry on the subject. Of the seven members of the staff mentioned three are women, for whom the night postal duties are not suitable, and the telegraph work is therefore mainly performed by them. It would not be practicable under present circumstances to make any material change in the allotment of this section of the duty.

  PARLIAMENTARY PAPERS.
  MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, prior to the next session of Parliament, he will cause it to be considered whether the expense incurred in the supply of printed matter to Members may not, without disadvantage, be further diminished by discontinuing the distribution of Reports on Private Bills, of voluminous Amendments to such Bills, and of Amendments to Bills, which it is known will not be considered.
  MR. HANBURY: The alteration suggested by the hon. Member cannot be made by the Treasury alone, but would require the assent of the authorities of the House. I will consult them on the subject.

  COLERAINE POSTMASTERSHIP.
  MR. MACALEESE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, what steps have been taken to fill the existing vacancy in the post-mastership of Coleraine; has the place been officially declared vacant, and have applications been invited from candidates; and whether this place is to be conferred upon an Englishman.
  MR. HANBURY: The vacancy was notified in the Post Office circular of the 11th ultimo, and candidates invited to send in their names through the prescribed channels.

  LIMERICK POSTMEN'S PAY.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, whether the Postmaster-General received, in April last, a petition from the postmen of Limerick asking to be placed on a higher scale of pay, to place them on an equality with the postmen in Cork, as their scale and duties are the same, although their pay is 2s. per week lower

  1053
  than the pay of the Cork postmen, and the cost of living in Limerick is quite as high as in Cork; whether the petition has been considered and replied to; and whether he intends to grant the increase of pay asked for.
  MR. HANBURY: The petition has been duly received. The question was examined by the Postmaster-General as recently as March, 1898, in connection with a previous memorial, and he decided that no increase of wages was warranted at Limerick. As the circumstances are unchanged, this decision must be maintained. The general higher rate of labour wages at Cork, and the greater size and importance of the town are considered to justify the payment of the Cork postmen on a higher scale.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the conditions of life, the expense of food and clothing, and the house rents arc as costly in one place as the other?
  MR. HANBURY: All that is no doubt taken into account.

  PAID MONITORS IN IRISH NATIONAL SCHOOLS.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the attention of the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury has been directed to the position of persons who have served as paid monitors in Irish National Schools, with the view of having the same age allowances granted them when competing for Civil Service appointments as are granted to members of the Royal Irish Constabulary at Civil Service competitions; and whether the Civil Service Commissioners will be instructed to make the necessary age allowance to this class of persons at their examinations.
  MR. HANBURY: Monitors are not in the service of the State, and I can hold out no hope that facilities allowed only to servants of the State will be extended to outsiders.

  TELEPHONE EXCHANGES IN FLINTSHIRE.
  MR. LEWIS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, how
  1054
  many telephone exchanges have been established in Flintshire; and what is the total number of subscribers in that county.
  MR. HANBURY: According to the latest information in the possession of the Postmaster-General there are exchanges at five places in the County of Flint—viz., Buckley, Connah's Quay, Holywell, Mold and Rhyl; and the total number of subscribers connected with these exchanges is 89.

  DUBLIN POST OFFICE MESSENGERS.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, whether he is aware that a number of established postmen in the Dublin Office employed as night adult messengers have upon application been refused the counting of this service towards good conduct stripes, and whether while in this class they were supplied with post-men's uniform, and were in no manner distinguished from unestablished postmen; and what is the reason for the refusal to allow this duty to reckon towards good conduct stripes in the case of established postmen.
  MR. HANBURY: It is a rule that no service in the capacity of messenger shall be allowed to count towards good conduct stripes. The men referred to were, while acting as adult messengers, provided with postmen's uniform under a special arrangement, but the Postmaster-General does not consider that this fact affords any sufficient ground for departing from the rule.

  BOARD OF EDUCATION BILL.
  MR. AUSTIN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government is prepared to introduce a clause into the Board of Education Bill defining the term "secondary education," and ensuring that no such education shall be provided out of the funds applicable to the purposes of technical instruction under the Technical Instruction Acts.
  THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL ON EDUCATION (Sir J. GORST,): My right hon. friend has asked me to answer this. I can assure the hon.

  1055
  Member that the Government are not prepared to introduce such a clause into the Board of Education Bill.
  MR. AUSTIN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the statement appearing in the Return issued by the Education Department, dated 1st June, 1897, on secondary and other schools (not being public elementary or technical schools), that it is impossible to prescribe any definition of a secondary school, the Government are prepared to introduce a clause into the Board of Education Bill limiting the inspection of schools contemplated by Section 3 to such schools as the Board of Education may consider fall within the definition of schools supplying secondary education, and may be inspected by the Board's own officers with a view to the preparation of a further Report to be laid before Parliament, setting out the subjects and scope of instruction given in those schools, the ages of the pupils, and the occupation of the parents.
  SIR J. GORST: No, the Government do not think it would be expedient to limit the operation of the Board of Education Bill in the manner suggested.
  MR. AUSTIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to say that no money allotted to secondary education will be given to technical schools?
  SIR J. GORST: There is a clause in the Bill which deals with that question.

  LOUTH LAND SUB-COMMISSION.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland how often, and for how many days, have Sub-Commissions held sittings in North Louth within the past year, and how many cases were disposed of; and would he represent to the Land Commission that some feeling exists as to the delay in hearing fair rent cases in Louth.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. G. W. BALFOUR,): During the past twelve months no sitting of a Sub-Commission was held for the Union of Dundalk, which presumably is the district referred to in the
  1056
  Question. The last sitting held at Dundalk was in July, 1898, when over ninety cases were heard by the Sub-Commission. Decisions have been announced in all those cases. I am informed that a further list containing a number of cases from the Dundalk Union is at present in circulation, and that the hearing of this list will be commenced without any avoidable delay.

  PROMOTION IN THE ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Inspector General's Circular to the Royal Irish Constabulary regulates the promotion from the ranks; if so, are all head constables possessing, the qualifications it prescribes necessarily allowed to compete; how many eligible head constables have applied for permission to compete when yet within the age limit, and have been refused; and was any reason or explanation offered to the candidate for the refusal; and would the Government cause this competition to be placed on a basis which will entitle every qualified head constable to compete as a matter of right.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: The Circular of 17th January, 1895, amended the rules of the Constabulary Code regulating promotion from the rank of head constable to that of district inspector. The amended rules provide for this promotion—firstly, by selection from among head constables within the prescribed age of forty-eight, subject to their passing a qualifying. examination; and secondly, by selection from among all head constables under the age of forty-two, who have passed the prescribed Civil Service Examination, subject to a competitive examination in professional subjects. I understand the hon. and learned Member to ask me whether the Government is prepared to eliminate from the process of promotion the element of selection, and my answer to this question must be in the negative. As regards the second paragraph, several head constables, who were within the limit of age, have from time to time applied for permission to come forward for examination, but no record has been kept of the number of such applications. It is not usual in these cases, nor would it be expedient, to explain the reasons why such men are con-

  1057
  sidered ineligible for a higher rank. A head constable may be very efficient as such, and yet be altogether unsuitable for the more responsible position of district inspector.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, as the Constabulary Estimates have not for several years been under discussion, he will not undertake to examine personally into the feeling which prevails among the lower ranks of the police force as to what is believed to be favouritism with regard to the selection of officers?
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: I am quite willing to examine into the matter, but I do not see how, in the process of selection, it would be possible to avoid some dissatisfaction.
  MR. FIELD: Is it the intention of the present regulation to shut out senior constables from becoming district inspectors?
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: Not at all. Many of the inspectorships are filled from the ranks.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Have not the Government adopted a system which really destroys the advantages supposed to be derived from the rule?
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: I do not think so. Anyway, I notice that the regulations now in force are those laid down by the late Government.

  IRISH PETTY SESSIONS CLERKSHIPS.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether district inspectors and head constables are eligible for appointments to Petty Sessions clerkships up to the age of fifty years, while sergeants and other members of the Royal Irish Constabulary are not eligible after the age of forty-five years; and could he see his way to raise the limit to fifty years for all ranks.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: Retired district inspectors and head constables are eligible for appointment as clerks of Petty
  1058
  Sessions up to the age of fifty years; retired sergeants up to the age of forty-five; and retired constables up to the age of forty. The question of adopting a uniform limit of age is under consideration, by the Lord Lieutenant.

  DISCHARGED SOLDIERS AND THE IRISH POLICE.
  GENERAL RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is true that no discharged soldiers are employed in the Royal Irish Constabulary or in the Dublin Police; and, if so, what is the cause of this restriction, and whether he can see his, way to have it forthwith removed.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: It is not true that no soldiers are employed in the Royal Irish Constabulary or the Dublin. Metropolitan Police. There is no restriction upon the admission of discharged, soldiers to either force provided they are in all respects eligible, and, as a matter of fact, there are a number of ex-soldiers at. present serving in both forces.

  DUBLIN METROPOLITAN POLICE.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland how many superintendents and inspectors of the Dublin Metropolitan Police have surpassed thirty years of service, and by how much; and whether, seeing that the expert evidence given before the last Commission of Inquiry into the causes of discontent amongst the rank and file of the Dublin police was strongly in favour of the compulsory retirement of officers on the completion of that period of service, he will take steps to cause the. compulsory retirement of the officers referred to, so that the duties of the important positions which they fill may be performed by younger and more vigorous men.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: There are four superintendents and two inspectors of the Dublin Metropolitan Police whose length of service exceeds thirty years. Of these, three have completed thirty years, two thirty-two years, and one thirty-six years of service. The Commission of Inquiry of 1883 made no recommendation.

  1059
  in favour of the compulsory retirement of officers of the force upon completion of thirty years of service. They are allowed to retire after this period of service, even though they have not attained the age of sixty years; but the Chief Commissioner is authorised to call upon an officer or constable to retire at any time if it be considered desirable in the interests of the service to take this step. The officers to whom reference is made in the question are active, zealous, and effective police officers, and there is no intention of requiring them to retire from the force.

  DEM (CAVAN) NATIONAL SCHOOL TEACHER.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Board of National Education, Ireland, has reduced by one-tenth for the past three quarters the grant or salary of Mr. John Galligan, teacher of Dem National School, County Cavan, under the new rule 102 G, which requires that a school must be open at least 200 days in the year, and that Dem School was only open for 181 days; Whether he is aware that the same rule admits exceptions, as, for instance, the school being closed under medical authority to prevent the spread of epidemic disease, or for other unavoidable cause, intimation having been duly given to the Commissioners, and that the unavoidable cause of the closing of Dem School was the illness of Mr. Galligan, and that medical certificates of his inability to attend school were sent in due time to the Board of National Education on the 10th and 25th October, 1898, respectively; and whether he will recommend the Board of Education to reconsider the matter, and grant Mr. Galligan the full amount which, but for his illness, he would have earned and received.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: I am informed by the Commissioners that the reduction in salary was really not so large as stated, and that it was fully justified by the circumstances. The normal period of a school year is 46 weeks, or 230 school days, but a liberal allowance of-time is given during which a school may be closed owing to exceptional and unavoidable circumstances. The Commissioners state that the rule referred to in the question did not apply in this case. The absence of Mr. Galligan may have
  1060
  been necessary, but the closing of the school for such an excessive period as 80 school days in 1898 was not unavoidable. The teacher was off duty through illness for two months, and did not, as required by rule, appoint a substitute after one month's absence.

  PARSONSTOWN AND PORTUMNA DERELICT RAILWAY.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government are still prepared to hand over the £12,000 already promised to an eminent contractor, if such can be had, to re-equip the Parsonstown and Portumna derelict Railway, or whether they would advance still further a sum of £6,000; and whether he is aware that Mr. Thomas S. Irwin, C.E., has gone over and thoroughly inspected the line, and his estimate for equipping such as to pass Board of Trade inspector is £23,000, details of which can be furnished if necessary; and also that the Great Southern and Western Railway Company will enter into terms to work the line in perpetuity, and may give a small rent, to be introduced pro ratâ on good permanent traffic.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: Perhaps I may be allowed to answer this question, as I have repeatedly answered others on the same subject. An offer of £12,000 was made by the Government towards the reconstruction of the line some time ago. But no advantage was taken of the offer, which must now be considered as having lapsed. I have no information with regard to the second part of the question.

  DUBLIN POLICE COURT DELAY.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether he is aware that numerous complaints have been made respecting the frequent delays in the despatch of business in the Northern Division of Police Courts, Dublin; that in very many instances summonses fixed for hearing at 11.30 o'clock a.m. are not reached until late in the afternoon, thus entailing much loss of time to suitors and professional men engaged; and, whether in these circumstances he will consider the desirability of re-arranging the business of both divisions by having all summons cases heard in one court and criminal charges in the other court.
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,): I believe it is true that some complaints have been made of the nature referred to in the first paragraph. The matter is now, I understand under the consideration of the Divisional Magistrates, with whom it rests to make any arrangements necessary for the convenience of the public. I have no authority to interfere, as suggested in the question.

  DR. LAMONT.
  SIR CHARLES CAMERON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he has yet come to any decision respecting the grant of compensation to Dr. Lamont on the lines recommended by the jury who acquitted him.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): No decision has yet been come to, but the hon. Member may take it from me that the matter will be dealt with, and that without any undue delay.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to—
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 20) BILL.
  LONDON, WALTHAMSTOW, AND EPPING FOREST RAILWAY (No. 2) BILL.

    DERWENT VALLEY WATER BILL.
    CITY AND BRIXTON RAILWAY BILL.
    GATESHEAD AND DISTRICT TRAMWAYS BILL.
    WEST METROPOLITAN RAILWAY BILL.
    BELFAST CORPORATION BILL.
    With Amendments.
    That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend the Companies Acts." [Companies Bill [Lords.]

    ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 20) BILL.
    Lords Amendments to be considered To-morrow.

    KITCHEN AND REFRESHMENT ROOMS (HOUSE OF COMMONS).
    Power given to the Select Committee to Report their observations.
    Report brought up, and read.
    Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. (No. 316.)

    VAGRANTS' CHILDREN PROTECTION
    Bill for the further protection of the Children of Vagrants, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Drage, Earl Percy, and Mr. John Burns.
    VAGRANTS' CHILDREN PROTECTION BILL.
    "For the further protection of the Children of Vagrants," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. (Bill 299.)
    MILITARY WORKS BILL.
    Read the third time, and passed.

COLONIAL LOANS BILL.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith), in the Chair.]
Clause 1:—
CAPTAIN SINCLAIR: The object of the Amendment I rise to move is to reduce the limits of this Bill. There is a very strong feeling on the part of some Members that this measure has been brought forward under very unusual conditions. In the first place it has been read a second time without the House having any information upon the points which are embraced or the policy proposed to be pursued; in the second place the Bill has been hurried through the House in the most unprecedented manner; and, lastly, the amount is a very large one to be voted away without any information at this time of the session. It cannot be urged in respect of any of the items, except two, that there is any special reason for proceeding with them now rather than six months hence. The difficulties which the Bill is intended to remove have existed for years, and the policy proposed cannot be carried out in six months, and therefore most of the items can very well wait in order that Parliament may give fuller consideration to them than is possible in the last week of the session. Another ground for limiting the Bill to the two cases which I propose is that those cases, being cases of emergency, do not commit us to the principle to which

1063
the acceptance of the Bill as a whole undoubtedly would commit the House. That principle has never yet been discussed, and for those reasons I press the Amendment upon the consideration of the Committee.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 6, to leave out the words 'the Colonies,' and insert the words 'Bar-badoes and St. Vincent.'"—(Captain Sinclair.)
Question proposed, "That the words 'the Colonies' stand part of the clause."
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I rise for the purpose of making a suggestion to the Government which they may be able to accept. The Secretary of State for the Colonies has just put into our hands a few copies—in fact, they are only proofs—of a Paper containing an explanatory statement of the proposed loans and of the circumstances under which they are sought by the different colonies. Nobody has had time to study this information. I recognise fully that it is meeting our desires to give us the information we require. Our principal complaint has not been that the Bill was necessarily a bad Bill and that these were improper loans, but that the House of Commons was expected to give its assent to these proposals without any information at all. Here is information supplied by Her Majesty's Government, but we have not had time to look at it or digest it. I would suggest that it might possibly lead to a saving of time if progress were reported and the Committee stage resumed to-morrow. I would suggest that my hon. friends should not take advantage of the additional time to manufacture new Amendments or anything of that sort, while probably a good many of these Amendments of which they have given notice would disappear because of the information which has been received. In the meantime the Government might proceed with the Board of Education Bill. In that way no time would be lost, the proper forms would be observed, and an unpleasant disputation avoided.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): I think the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman has a good deal
1064
of force behind it, and I entirely appreciate the spirit in which it is made. I admit that the Opposition have an apparent ground of complaint in the fact that the information which the Government has been anxious to supply has been so long delayed. I did not think that the Second Reading of the Bill was a convenient time to give the information; in fact, I was not then aware of the exact nature of the information desired. I thought it probably would be most convenient that it should be given when we came to discuss the schedule. I am informed that a full supply of the Papers will be in the House at eight o'clock, and I am inclined to agree with the right hon. Gentleman that, pending that full delivery, it might be advantageous that the Debate should be adjourned. I will only make one further observation. The hon. Member for Forfar has said there is no urgency about these loans. That is an entire misstatement. The position is a very peculiar one, and one not likely to recur. For two years past the introduction of this now system has been in contemplation, and the country has had notice of the intention to introduce the new system, of which the Colonial Loans Bill is the first step. When a loan is applied for by a Colonial legislature, and sanctioned by the Secretary of State, the Crown agents put the loan on the market. It was introduced as a Treasury Bill and not as a Colonial Bill, and when that was decided the Crown agents ceased to place this loan upon the market. Now they find themselves liable to a demand of £2,000,000 or £3,000,000 sterling, and if those loans were called in a great inconvenience to the public service in the Colonies would be caused. It becomes, therefore, absolutely necessary, whatever may be thought of the principle upon which the Colonial Loans Bill was originally founded, that we must have the money, a large portion of which has been already spent and another large portion of which we have already entered into obligations to pay. When that is done, and this Bill is passed, the Government do not consider that the House will be committed to the principle, and the whole matter will be considered by the Government in the future, and we shall have to determine whether or not it is advisable to abandon this proposal or introduce it again next session, at a period when full time

1065
can be given for its discussion. Hon. Members may rest assured that we shall not consider any concession which they may make now by passing this Bill as more than a reasonable arrangement to deal with a particular emergency, and we shall not consider that they are in any way pledged to the principle of the Colonial Loans Bill.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Perhaps I may be allowed to explain my position upon this question. I am very glad to hear from the right hon. Gentleman that the principle of this Bill is not to be considered as a precedent, and that he sees no early prospect of a large loan of this kind being required. But what I wish to say more particularly is that there are two aspects in which we look at this measure. First of all there are its individual merits, and in the second place there is the fact that it is being hurried through the House. Of course the latter objection arose through lack of information, and it ceases to operate with the information that has now been supplied. But I must not be understood as promising that there will be no criticism upon individual loans and in individual cases. Of that I have no knowledge, and I do not intend making any criticism upon that point. All that this agreement disposes of is what I consider the serious argument against the proceedings of the Government—namely, the circumstances in which the House of Commons is called upon to vote this money.
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I quite agree with the further explanation of the right hon. Gentleman. I am quite prepared to submit to any criticism upon any particular loan, and I am willing to give any further information which hon. Gentlemen opposite may desire to have. The only point I want to make clear is that the whole of these loans would, in the ordinary way, but for the fact of their introduction by the Treasury, have been settled without coming to this House at all in the usual course, and would have been put upon the market, but they have all been damnified by the delay caused by the introduction of the Bill. If we can get over that difficulty there will be no emergency with regard to any future loan, and the whole policy will be open
1066
to reconsideration by the House. I beg to move that we now report progress.
Committee report progress; to sit again To-morrow.

BOARD OF EDUCATION BILL [Lords].
Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill as amended (by the Standing Committee) be now considered."
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: I do not intend to trouble the House at any length upon the present question, because I fully recognise the desire of the House to pass this Bill, and I am not going to use any undue efforts to resist its passage through the House. As a matter of fact the Bill has had a very remarkable history, and the most objectionable point about it has been the very little information the Government have been able to deliver. The Bill very properly went to a Grand Committee, and it is just one of those Bills that should go to a Grand Committee. But when it got there the proceedings had to be abruptly shortened to get through the necessary work of that Committee. Perhaps, for Parliamentary reasons, the Government did not think it was a very good plan to tell the Committee what were their intentions. I am going to ask the Vice-President of the Council one or two questions which I hope he will answer, as it might perhaps enable us to shorten the discussion further on. As the House is aware, the Bill proposes to transfer or give power to transfer by an Order in Council, the authority and jurisdiction of the Charity Commissioners to the Board of Education. What I am very anxious to find out from the Government is how far they propose, under the new state of things, if the powers are transferred, to reproduce, in any form, the protection which the law gives to these endowments. In the first place the practice is that a local inquiry may be held, and is very often held. Do the Government intend that these local inquiries shall be held in the future?
THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL ON EDUCATION (Sir J. GORST,): Yes.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: Do they intend that those inquiries shall be carried out by persons independently of the responsible Minister? There are certain periods which are allowed to persons to make objections when a scheme is proposed to be made. Very often the persons interested are not able to move very quickly, and a certain amount of negotiations have to take place. I want to know whether the Government intend to allow the usual period which is necessary at the present moment before the scheme can be finally enacted by the Order in Council. I should like to know whether the Government propose to allow the same period of five months to elapse. I also desire some information as to how the Government propose to deal with the judicial work of the Board of Education, because the House will observe that henceforward the Board of Education will have very extensive judicial powers. They will be called upon to decide an enormous number of very difficult and intricate points of law. Are those points of law going to be decided by the ordinary officials of the Education Department, or is there going to be a legal side to the Education Department, as it were, with a particular commissioner, whose business it will be to know the law and have a judicial mind, and be able to give a decision according to the precedents which govern these cases, and according to the accepted principles of the Court of Chancery and the Charity Commission? Leaving Section 2, I want to ask one or two questions about Clause 4. Could the Government now tell us what sort of subjects they propose to refer to the Consultative Committee for their advice? Do they propose to refer the powers now wielded by the Charity Commission to the Consultative Committee? I think it would be possible under the Bill to do so. I apologise to the House for raising all these details, but the Bill contains nothing to guide us, and the Government have given us no information up to now. Under the Bill I think it is possible under Clause 4 for the Government to refer any matter to the Consultative Committee for advice, so that it will be possible to replace the Charity Commission by the Consultative Committee. Then there is another point—is the advice of this Consultative Committee to be public or private advice? I
1068
can quite conceive that private advice might be a very valuable thing on many subjects; but if the advice be public and we have a Minister at the head of the Department, he might be able to shelter his own responsibility behind the advice of the Consultative Committee. Technically he would always be responsible to this House for the decisions given by the Department. We all know that these technicalities have very little value, but the Minister might shelter himself by saying, "My Consultative Committee have decided, and they advise that such a course should be taken, and I can hardly take it upon myself to ignore their advice." In a case of that kind no hon. Member of this House will deny that the power of this House will be very seriously diminished, for hon. Members must remember that the Consultative Committee will not be responsible to this House. I do not know whether the salaries of this Committee will be voted by this House or not.
SIR J. GORST: There are no salaries.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: Then there are no salaries, and therefore there will be no control, except the control which will be exercised by the Minister. I think this is a matter which the House ought to be advised upon. I should like to ask one other question, and it is this—How long do the Government contemplate it will take before the organisation under the Bill is likely to be complete? It is very important for us to know whether this proposal will be carried out before the next General Election or not. Perhaps it is rather uncivil to speak in the presence of the Government of the possibility of their political death, and I do not anticipate it.. But, of course, it is possible, and under those circumstances it might happen that all the more delicate and difficult matters which have to be decided by the transfer of these powers would not be decided by the Duke of Devonshire, and by my right hon. friend the Vice-President of the Council, in whom we have the greatest confidence, and these matters may be decided by hon. Members who do not hold the same views as we do on this side of the House. There are such difficult

1069
questions which might arise as the administration of the Endowed Schools Act, which might have to be carried out by another Government. I again apologise to the House for detaining it so long, but I would just like to say another word by way of warning. I want the Committee to realise the magnitude of the interests which are involved. This includes not a small number of Acts of Parliament, but it is a complete Code in itself. During the year 1898 the number of charities dealt with under the Endowed Schools Act shows how much is still going on in the way of reorganising our charities. These charities alone, all of which were dealt with in one year, involve an income of at least £700,000 a year. I think that shows the enormous importance of the interest with which we are dealing under the Endowed Schools Act. Besides these charities there are the charities dealt with under the Charitable Trusts Act, under which 219 charities were dealt with in London by the Charity Commissioners. All these charities are to be henceforward subject to what cannot be essentially a judicial mind, and a body which will not be able to look at the thing from a purely impartial point of view. I just quote these instances to show how important it is that we should have a little more information than has yet been given us, especially upon those points to which I have alluded.
SIR J. GORST: I will reply as clearly and as shortly as I can to the questions put by the noble Lord. My noble friend must remember that this is not a Bill to create new powers. It is merely a measure to transfer from the Charity Commissioners the powers which they hold, and which they exercise, to a new body which will exercise those powers with exactly the same safeguards. Therefore, not only will the Board of Education observe all the restrictions which have been hitherto imposed upon the Charity Commissioners, but they are obliged by law to do this. The noble Lord asks about local inquiries. I may say that the Board of Education must hold local inquiries in the same manner and subject to precisely the same restrictions and safeguards as to the preservation of charities as the Charity Com-
1070
missioners do at present. I suppose that in time to come the inquiries will be held by inspectors under the Education Department. Whether this would meet the noble Lord's idea of what is an independent inquiry I am not able to say. Certainly any inquiries I have to provide will be as independent as possible. With reference to the period of objection, it will be exactly the same as at the present time, the only difference being that if this Bill becomes law the person objecting will make his objection not to the Charity Commissioners but to the Board of Education. The noble Lord said something about judicial work. Every Minister has to exercise some kind of judicial choice. At the present moment under the Education Act, the Technical Instruction Acts, and other Acts of Parliament, a great number of judicial determinations are made by the Education Department, and those quasi-judicial decisions are, I am sure, made with the greatest possible care and with the most anxious desire to arrive at true and correct decisions. There is a judicial side to the Education Department, and we have a trained lawyer to whom questions which have a legal bearing are invariably referred. There is no decision ever taken on any legal question without consultation with the proper legal adviser. With regard to the Consultative Committee, that is to be a body which is not in any way to relieve the Minister of Education from his responsibility to this House for everything which is done by the Department. The Consultative Committee will deal with technical questions, such as the framing of regulations which will govern the registration of teachers. In making use of the inspection of any body other than the Universities, the Minister is directed to consult the Committee as to the body whose inspection it is intended to make use of. With regard to what is called technology, the Minister would avail himself of the inspection of the admirable City and Guilds Institute. Before doing so, however, he would consult the Board, and ask them to consider whether the City and Guilds Institute is such a body, and the examinations they conduct are of such a character, as should be properly taken into consideration officially by the Department. Then again, such a question as proposed changes in the curriculum of elementary schools, which is now settled generally by a com-

1071
mittee of quasi-experts in the Department itself, may be taken into consideration, as well as the curriculum of schools in the rural districts, which departs in some manner from the curriculum prevailing in the towns.
LORD HUGH CECILwas understood to ask whether the Consultative Committee would advise as to certain forms of religious teaching, as, for instance, that in the School Board Schools in Liverpool.
SIR J. GORST: I am speaking purely my own opinion, but I would rather be inclined in such a case to consult my hon. and learned friends the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General, for that is a question of law and of the construction of the Statute. The next question was as to whether the advice given by the Consultative Committee would be published. I should say, in ordinary cases, certainly not. There may be eases in which it. might be desirable to publish advice, as, for instance, in the case of the registration of teachers, or a new curriculum drawn up for a particular class of schools. But, as a general rule, the advice given by the Consultative Committee to the Minister would not be published. There is a well-known precedent in the public service. Scarcely a single tiling is ever done by the Secretary of State for India with regard to Indian administration without first passing through the Indian Council. Papers are laid before the Committees of the Indian Council before being submitted to the Secretary of State for his decision, but the advice of those Committees is no more published than the advice of the officials in other Departments. Whatever the Committees may have advised it does not in the least relieve the Minister of any responsibility. It is he who is responsible to his colleagues in the Government and to Parliament, and in no case is that responsibility shared by the committee of experts to whom he may have had recourse. The noble Lord asked how long it would be before these changes were completed. That is an extremely difficult question to answer. And he asked about the General Election. I do not know how far off' we are from a General Election. I
1072
believe this Parliament may last for a; couple of years longer. Whether it may last for two or three years is a question which a person in my position cannot possibly answer. All I can. say is that due diligence will be exercised in carrying out the powers: given to the Board of Education by this Bill. The power given is that of transferring such of the educational functions of the Charity Commissioners as may be convenient to the new Board of Education, but that power is not exhausted, until every educational function of the Charity Commission is transferred. I think it would be extremely unwise to transfer the whole en bloc.The intention of the Government is to deal with the matters tentatively; they will transfer those powers first of all which are most necessary to carry on the work of the Board of Education, and transfer other powers as they may become necessary, and as experience may show to be useful. I hope the House will not press me further than this. I should think that some powers will never be transferred at all. But how far and how rapidly the powers are to be transferred it is impossible to say. The only object now is to transfer to the Board such powers as are necessary to enable it to act as the central authority for the schools in the country, and this transfer will be effected gradually and as experience shows will be best.
MR. BIRRELL: I think the curious Debate to which we are listening, is a rather disagreeable commentary on the new fashion of legislation by way of skeleton. The noble Lord, who in these matters is a hungry politician, comes here in search of flesh, but fails to find it on the bones of this skeleton. He interrogates the right hon. Gentleman who is in command of the Department as to what he means to do with this Bill when he has got it; but not a single word which, the right hon. Gentleman said in reply to the noble Lord either binds him or his successor as to how the law will be administered. The right hon. Gentleman takes a certain view as to what the Consultative Committee may do, and as to how the Endowed Schools Act and the Charity Acts—which are most complicated measures—are to be worked, clause by clause, by the new

1073
Department, regardless of the fact that the mere transference of the powers throws those Acts out of gear, and makes it exceedingly difficult to say how they are to be worked under the general terms of this Bill. The long and the short of the matter is that this Bill gives no information whatever. It simply creates a new Department and hands over to it, without explanation, existing powers now worked by an entirely different, body and machinery. The Government, in fact, says: "Pass this Bill in outline, and leave it to the Department to fill up all the details." Of course we all know that the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government has patented this new mode of Parliamentary legislation in order to avoid Parliamentary discussion. He drafts a skeleton measure and asks the House of Commons to pass it as a vote of confidence in him, and leaves it to the Department to work it out as best they like. We have seen it in the case of the Light Railways Act. I can only say, without entering into any points of controversy between educationalists on both sides of the House, that this Bill, so far from settling questions of importance, will fling open the door to a great deal of angry controversy as to what is the meaning of such legislation, and what is to be the power in future of the Department to be constituted. It is a new thing that in order to ascertain what this Bill means the noble Lord has to interrogate, not the Legislature, but the man who will hereafter exercise the powers under it. I think that, on the whole, the old-fashioned way of saying in an Act of Parliament what is meant is certainly the better method of legislation.
MR. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I think what has been said by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for West Fife is ample justification for what was said by my noble friend. And for this reason. The right hon. Gentleman says that this is a mere transference of old powers to the new Board of Education, and that all the safeguards exercised heretofore by the Charity Commissioners will be exercised by the Board of Education. But what fills us with apprehension is that you are entirely
1074
altering the body which is responsible for this work. You are putting in place of a body which is quasi-judicial in its character and entirely independent of Parliament, a new body which is in no sense judicial, and entirely dependent on a Party vote. That is a serious matter, and I think it is only natural that when the matter is brought forward we should ask for more information as to what the functions are which this new body are to carry out. I had the honour myself of serving five years ago on a Select Committee of this House which inquired into the administration of the Charity Commissioners, especially in regard to the transference of these powers; and we had most important evidence laid before us that the Charity Commission was a judicial body transacting work with an inherited jurisdiction from the Court of Chancery, and obliged to construe Acts of Parliament and deeds in a purely judicial way. The strength of the Board was that it was not amenable to Parliamentary pressure, and was altogether independent of this House. Now, you are putting in its place a body which will be dependent on a Party Vote any day during the session. There is, therefore, some ground for our apprehension that, in consequence of the pressure that will be brought to bear in Parliament, the character of the administration may be altered, and charities intended for other purposes may be utilised for educational schemes. I do not wish to interfere with the progress of the Bill, but I join my hon. friend in protesting against the exceedingly indefinite and vague manner in which this Bill has been brought forward, and I express the hope that on the Report stage the right hon. Gentleman will accept Amendments which will safeguard the judicial work now carried on by the Charity Commission.
MR. BRYCE: The objections which have been taken by hon. Gentlemen on the Ministerial side appear to me to be objections that ought to have been taken on the Second Reading. It is too late to raise them now, and to attempt to remedy the defects complained of. It was pointed out when this Bill was debated on the Second Reading that it was practically only a skeleton Bill, and that the whole thing would have to be filled up; that it approached very

1075
difficult questions, on which there was a great deal of controversy, but that it passed them by, and did not attempt to grapple with these difficulties. But the House was desirous to have some Bill, and feeling that the session was advanced, and that there was not much chance of getting anything better, the Bill was given a Second Reading. Accordingly it has gone through the various stages, and received discussion in the Grand Committee, and it is now too late to remedy the defects complained of. We cannot clothe the skeleton with flesh and skin at the present moment; and when the right hon. Gentleman the Vice-President is questioned it is quite impossible for him to give any more definite answer than he has given to the questions put to him. It is quite clear that the Department cannot yet have had time to face all the difficulties which the transfer involves, and even months must elapse before the right hon. Gentleman can say what precise action he can take on these questions. I am glad to find that the Charity Commission has at last begun to gain the confidence of hon. Gentlemen opposite. We have been accustomed to see schemes which the Charity Commissioners have prepared with great care, and produced exactly on the lines which the law laid down, overthrown with very little consideration or regard for the provisions of the law by motions made in this House. But now at last the Charity Commission is receiving its due meed of praise for the impartial and judicial spirit in which it has approached and discharged its duties. I do not think that the new Department to which its duties are transferred will depart from that spirit, because the questions with which it has to deal are mainly questions which would have to be determined with the advice of the law officers; and I do not think there is any reason to suppose that in the discharge of quasi-judicial functions the Education Department would allow itself to be influenced by improper motives any more than the Charity Commission, or than the Board of Trade or the Local Government Board. After all, these religious difficulties happily form a very small part of the administrative questions which the Department will have to deal with.
MR. CRIPPS: I should like to associate myself with what
1076
has been said by the hon. and learned Member for West Fife. First of all, however, let me say that many of us who voted for the Second Reading of the Bill did so in the hope that when it came back from the Grand Committee the skeleton would be clothed to a certain extent. But the Bill has come back as naked as when it went upstairs. The Bill, as it stands, is not legislation in the true sense at all. Not a single individual in the House can tell what he is legislating about. I appeal to any Member on either side of the House whether he knows how secondary education is going to be organised in future. The fact is that the House is asked to give a blank cheque to the Education Department, which after all must have a political complexion—there is no harm in saying that either of the Education Department or of the Board of Trade—and when you get a new Ministry it is very likely that you may get an entire change of policy. I go further, and say that you ought to have an entire change of policy. And when you have an organisation of that kind, and when the whole fabric has to be rebuilt, you cannot escape unfortunate political discussions in regard to the methods of secondary education, just as we unfortunately have them in regard to elementary education. In fact, you are introducing into secondary education, which is now almost free from the religious difficulty, and ought to be so free, those very difficulties we have in regard to elementary education. We are certain to discuss what the new President of the Board of Education does. Is it not certain that there would be great differences of opinion as to whether endowments should be used one way or another; and what guarantee is there, after all, in regard to the opinion of the law officers of the Crown? I have the greatest respect for the opinion of the Solicitor-General, and yet we do not desire to put ourselves, bound hand and foot as regards questions of this kind, in the hands of any Department. What are the two points referred to by the hon. and learned Member opposite? Take the speech delivered by the right hon. Gentleman the Vice-President. Do we know what powers are to be transferred from the Charity Commissioners to the Board of Education? Of course not. It is a matter on which the House ought to make up its mind and ought to legislate; but nobody knows

1077
what is intended to be done, and we have not made up our minds as to what is to be done. We simply give a blank cheque to the Education Department, and there will be, hereafter, endless political discussions. Instead of formulating a mere skeleton of this kind—a mere paper scheme—we might have clothed it with a proper body. A great deal undoubtedly in the Bill depends upon the Consultative Committee, but no one knows whether there is to be a Consultative Committee or not, or how it is to be organised—and these points are the very essence of the matter. There is no obligation under this Bill to appoint it at all; there is only power to appoint. And if appointed, no one knows how it is to do its duty. You might have a Consultative Committee which would be of the greatest advantage as regards secondary education; and you might have a Consultative Committee which would do nothing but harm, according to my view, to secondary education. There is a further more extraordinary element as regards this Consultative Committee. Suppose a certain number of gentlemen are appointed on it, does anyone know what the Consultative Committee would do? Is it to be a mere name, a sham, or is it to be a reality? What are its true functions to be? I agree that it is, unfortunately, too late at this stage to attempt to clothe the skeleton in flesh and blood. I believe that this new patent method of legislation ought to be discouraged in every way. I say emphatically we are not doing our duty, and nothing will be worse if we proceed on this principle in the future—namely of giving up our own responsibility and merely throwing a skeleton Bill at the head of a Department, leaving it to be worked out on political lines, according as the head of the Department is chosen from one side of the House or the other. The organisation of secondary education is one of the most important matters in our time, and it should be dealt with fairly and fully by this House.
MR. J. G. TALBOT: I do not know whether my right hon. friend will make any concession to the suggestions which have been made, or whether he will give us an assurance that this Bill is to be followed up by another Bill. We are rapidly approach-
1078
ing the close of the present Parliament, and it is an exceedingly awkward arrangement if this skeleton Bill, which has been so roughly handled this evening, is not to be completed during the present Parliament by that further measure which will give it life. We have got very little information about this Bill. My right hon. friend the Vice-President of the Council made a very remarkable suggestion when he said that in certain cases the advice of the Consultative Committee would be submitted to Parliament, and in other cases not; that sometimes the Minister of Education would keep the advice he receives to himself, and at other times it would be made known to the public. I would like to know how. By those communications to the Press which are sometimes conveniently made, or by official documents laid before the House? The whole of this discussion leaves in my mind an uncomfortable feeling, and I join with my hon. friends on both sides of the House in regretting the manner in which this Bill has been brought forward. I do not, however, desire to put any impediment in the way of the passage of the Bill, and would only ask the Government to carefully consider the Amendments which are to be put before them.
MR. YOXALL: The House seems to have rather a false impression of what this Bill does. The Debate up to the present has consisted almost entirely of complaints and anticipations from one narrow point of view, and has led the House to believe that the Bill deals with secondary education only. The Bill unites in one administration the present authorities, and enables the Charity Commission to decide whether a certain charity is an educational trust or not. It also takes power to inspect secondary schools where the governors of those schools desire to be inspected. Really the Bill has very little to do with secondary education. As to robbing the Charity Commissioners of their powers, I heard the Secretary before the Secondary Education Commission say that all the powers of the Endowed Schools Commission might well be handed over to the Board of Education, and I heard Lord Justice Davey express almost the same idea. The apprehensions which have been expressed are unfounded. The Bill is an

1079
important one, dealing with a wide subject, touching more than one point. It is an essential Bill if the central administration of education is to be improved, and for my part I heartily hope it will be passed.
Bill as amended considered.
MR. YOXALL: I move this Amendment for the purpose of securing that the Minister for Education under this Bill should be a Member of the House of Commons. There are obvious reasons for that proposal. It is the House of Commons which provides the money and discusses the Estimates, which sits more frequently and for longer hours than the House of Lords, and exercises the greater part of the control over education. It is therefore important that the Minister for Education should be a Member of the House of Commons. But under this Bill we are not to have necessarily a person of the status even of the Vice-president in this House. The head of the Education Department is the Lord President of the Council, and he receives £2,000 per annum for his Lord Presidency, but receives no salary as the head of the Education Department. This Bill as drawn would perpetuate and crystallise that system, and make it impossible to depart in future from the existing arrangement. The Lord President of the Council has only twice during the last thirty years been a Member of the House of Commons. On one occasion it was Lord John Russell, and on another occasion the Lord President, ten days after his appointment, was translated to the Upper House. It is clear, to my mind, that unless something is done either by an addition to the terms of the Act or by a definite undertaking on the part of those who will have to make this appointment, we shall run a serious risk of having the first President of the Board in the House of Lords, and thenceforward he will always be a Member of that House. I therefore move this Amendment.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 8, after the word 'President,' to insert the words 'who shall be a Member of the House of Commons.'"—(Mr. Yoxall.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
SIR J. GORST: I hope the hon. Member will not press this Amendment. It is quite impossible that we should give any assurance as to who should be the first head of the Board of Education. That is a matter which lies with Her Majesty's advisers, and it would be quite a departure from constitutional practice for any instruction of this kind to be inserted in the Bill.
MR. BRYCE: While I entirely agree with the hon. Member's views in desiring that the Education Minister should sit in this House, I feel there is a great deal of force in the objection urged by the right hon. Gentleman, and I hope the Amendment will not be pressed.
MR. CHANNING: In supporting the Amendment, I would remind the Government that when the Board of Agriculture was instituted there was a distinct and definite assurance given that the President should have a seat in the House of Commons. It seems: to me, having regard to the much wider and enormously more important interests covered by the Education Bill now before the House, my hon. friend is absolutely justified in insisting that on the constitution of this authority there should be some guarantee given that the responsible Minister who will have to deal with this question should be a Member of the House of Commons. I hope the Amendment will be pressed to a Division as a matter of principle. Having regard to the enormously responsible duty to be discharged, it seems to me the head of the department should be in this House, and capable of being questioned as to the policy of the department.
MR. ERNEST GRAY: I am in fullest sympathy with the object the hon. Member has in view, but I venture to hope he will not press the Amendment to a Division, because the result will not represent the true feelings of the House. There would be a large number who would not be able to vote for the Amendment, on the ground that it is contrary to the usual constitutional

1081
practice to insert in a statute a provision which would limit the discretion of those who in future will advise her Majesty in appointing a Minister of State. At the same time, I regret that there should be a suggestion in the clause that in future the chief of this great department will sit in the House of Peers, and not in the House of Commons. This department must become one of the great spending departments of the State. Of necessity the amount of money which Parliament will have to vote in connection with education will year by year increase, and I do not think the House of Commons will be content to see the Board of Education represented in this House as the Post Office at present is, with the actual and responsible Minister in the House of Lords. But, although holding these views, for the reason I have given I do not think it would be wise to go to a Division.
MR. HUMPHREYS-OWEN: I feel as strongly as anyone the desirability of having the Minister in charge of this most important department in the House of Commons. We are spending about £8,000,000 a year on education, but the system, as every expert knows, is of a deplorably inefficient character, and the only way in which we can get it reformed and made worthy of the country will be by subjecting the department to the constant criticism of the House of Commons. For the reasons which have already been given, however, I hope we shall not divide upon the Amendment. If such a Division took place many Members would abstain, and we should go into the lobby with an extremely small minority, the result of which would be that next year, if we complained that the Minister of Education was in the House of Lords, we should be told that the proposal that he should be a Member of this House was rejected by an enormous majority.
MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS: Whether we divide or not, I wish to give my support to the principle involved in this Amendment. We have an illustration of the inconvenience resulting from the head of a department being in the House of Lords in the case of the Post Office.
1082
Unless the principle of the Amendment is adopted we shall be in a similar position of inconvenience with regard to the Board of Education. Ministers who have to deal with questions in which the great masses of the people are deeply interested should have seats in this House, so as to sit face to face with the real representatives of the people—which the Peers are not.
MR. YOXALL: As my object was to ventilate this question, I do not propose to take a Division, and by the leave of the House I will withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
SIR WILLIAM ANSON: I desire to move the Amendment on the Paper on behalf of the hon. Member for Hertford. I understand he intended to move it, not in any great expectation that the Government would add the words to the Bill, but in the hope of getting some assurance about a matter concerning which we were in doubt with regard to the constitution of the department under the Bill. He wished to ensure that Secondary Education would, be represented as well as Technical and Elementary Education.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, at the end of Clause 1, to insert the words, '(6) There shall be established under the Board three separate Departments for Secondary, Technical, and Elementary Education respectively.'"—(Sir William Anson.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
SIR J. GORST: The Committee of Council had formerly two separate departments, but the system was found to be extremely inconvenient, and the two departments are now amalgamated into one. It would, therefore, be a very unfortunate thing if Parliament were to saddle the new Board of Education with the obligation to have three departments. I understand the Lord President of the

1083
Council has given a pledge that there shall be a third additional secretary who shall discharge certain functions, either in connection with some of the secondary schools or some of the subjects that are taught in secondary schools. What these precise functions are has not yet been determined, and cannot well be determined until the organisation of the Department for carrying out the Bill is more advanced. I hope my hon. friend will not ask for any pledge beyond that which has been already given by the Lord President of the Council.
MR. BRYCE: The object of the mover of the Amendment was to obtain an assurance from the Vice-President that the interests of secondary education should be duly and fully considered when the Department comes to be organised. The right hon. Gentleman has said something pointing that way, but I think he might have given an assurance of a more ample character, which would have tended to remove the uneasiness existing in many quarters outside. It is very important that we should carry with us the masters, especially of the great public schools, who have so frankly and cordially intimated their wish to come under the Bill, and to help the working of it by opening their schools to examination and inspection. They had some uneasiness lest the Education Board should not be provided with a staff suited to deal with the question of secondary education, and they had a fear, in particular, that scientific education would be divorced from secondary education in general. The whole object of the reform of the educational system is not to divorce scientific education from literary education, but to bring them into an organic relation to one another, and so to organise the Department, that whoever looks after secondary education should look after it in all its sides, and that the secondary and technical departments should be in the closest possible touch and connection. I do not think that scientific education should be relegated to what might be called the technical department; it ought to be regarded as part of a general liberal education. The technical work, although in a measure scientific, ought not to absorb the whole of the scientific teaching, neither ought scientific teaching to be divorced
1084
from the work of the assistant secretary for secondary education. I understand that what I have stated is the object of my hon. friend in moving this Amendment, and I desire to express our sympathy with that object, and the hope that when the Education Department comes to be organised, it will be organised upon such lines as are desired by the friends of secondary education outside.
MR. JEBB: My right hon. friend, the other day, answered a question upon this point, and his reply seemed to be perfectly satisfactory. He said that secondary education would be represented in the organisation of the Education Office by an assistant secretary, distinct from, and not subordinate in official status to, the Assistant Secretaries who have charge respectively of elementary education and of the Science and Art Department. I do not understand that there is anything in the reply he has just given which is inconsistent with the former statement. I conceive that when the future Education Office is fully organised, the section which more specially represents secondary education will have a staff of its own, selected with a view to the inspection and examination and general supervision of the secondary schools, more particularly on the literary side, and that all the resources which are at present at the disposal of the Science and Art Department will also be available to the Education Office for the purpose of testing the scientific portion of the work done in secondary schools. If I am correct in that supposition, I should concur with my right hon. friend opposite in recommending my hon. friend the Member for the University of Oxford not to press the Amendment.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: My hon. friend has specified two matters upon which a distinct reply was hoped for—one as to the status of the third assistant secretary, and the other as to whether his functions were to be entirely confined to secondary education. I am not quite sure whether the reply of the Vice-President was what was wanted on either point. He did not say that the status of the third assistant secretary would be equal to that of

1085
the other two, and he used rather ambiguous words as to the functions. He said that this assistant secretary would have a certain section of the subject to look after. Does that mean that a part of secondary education will be dealt with by another assistant secretary, or that this assistant secretary will have other functions besides secondary education? Either would be consistent with my right hon. friend's answer; but what I understand the representatives of the two universities to desire is, that this third assistant secretary should be of equal status with the others, and should be distinctly set apart to look after secondary education.
MR. HUMPHREYS-OWEN: I would like to support the request for a clearer statement from the right hon. Gentleman. There is an apprehension lest the methods adopted with regard to elementary education, which the elementary educationalists themselves are now recognising as inadequate and inefficient, should be applied to secondary education, and there is also a fear lest the literary side of secondary education should suffer in comparison with the technical. I think the true way of allaying these apprehensions, and, at the same time, bringing about that desired unity beween the different branches of education, will be by providing an assistant secretary of at least equal status with the others, who would have special regard to secondary education. In that way, I think, we shall find, as is being found now in many secondary schools, that the literary and technical subjects are by no means so entirely divorced from one another as has been believed.
SIR E. CLARKE: I think some definite answer should be given from the Front Bench, if not by the right hon. Gentleman, at least by one of his colleagues, to what is a very specific request. It is bad enough to have to pass a Bill like this, of which no one understands the result, but we certainly ought to have some information as to the organisation of the Department. I learn from my hon. friend the Member for Cambridge University that he understood a promise had been made that there should be a third under secretary, and that the third
1086
under secretary should be in an equal position with the other two, and have special duties with regard to secondary education. If that pledge has been given there will be no harm in its being repeated.
SIR J. GORST: I can only repeat again my belief that that is exactly what I said in reply to my right hon. friend the Member for Oxford University. I said that a pledge had been given that there should be a third assistant under secretary; that he should be of equal status to the other assistant secretaries; and that he would have functions to perform in connection with secondary education. But it is quite impossible at this stage to state with precision what those functions would be.
SIR W. ANSON: I withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. J. G. TALBOT: I rise to move the Amendment which stands in my name. I have the best reason for believing that it has the sympathy of my right hon. friend, because when I recently moved an Amendment similar to this in the Grand Committee my right hon. friend supported me by his vote. That Amendment to my regret, and, I think, also to his regret, was not carried, and I thought that it was only respectful to the House that I should give hon. Members an opportunity of reconsidering the Amendment I suggested on this important subject. I do not intend to detain the House by making a long speech on this question, but I would remind the Government that this is a matter which has had a very conspicuous history. The question which is embodied in Section 19 of the Endowed Schools Act, 1869, was one of those compromises which we very often come to in this House on a very thorny and difficult subject. The working of the section has been difficult, but, on the whole, satisfactory. It has taken away from the arena of religious controversy, to which we are so much accustomed in this House, a large number of endowments; but, of course, it has left, first to the Endowed Schools Commissioners, and afterwards to the Charity Commission, a great

1087
amount of quasi-judicial authority. We are now proposing by this Bill to transfer these functions to a body which must be by the very nature of things a political body. The Board of Education of the future is to be presided over by a Minister of Education. That Minister of Education must be a member of the Government, dependent, of course, upon the support of the majority in this House, and on whichever side that majority rests, it must in the nature of things be a political majority, and any action that that Minister takes must be—though I have no desire to speak disparagingly of the Minister—political action. And when his decisions are challenged, he must, speaking generally, be supported by the majority on which the Government subsists. To remove religious bitterness from the decision of matters of this kind I contend that it would be wiser, in the interests not only of the Church of England, but of education, to keep the functions I have mentioned in the hands of a body which, after all, is of a quasi-judicial character, and which can be challenged without any detriment to the Ministry of the day.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 2, line 1, after the word 'Commissioners,' to insert the words 'other than the power of determining whether an endowment is within the exceptions specified in Section 19 of The Endowed Schools Act, 1869. as amended by The Endowed Schools Act, 1873.'"—(Mr. Talbot.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
SIR J. GORST: As the right hon. Member says, I supported an Amendment of the same character as that now proposed in the Standing Committee, as did my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer; but our proposal was opposed on the ground that it would be a slur on the Board of Education to deprive it of the power of taking, if it thought fit, this particular function of the Charity Commission into its own hands. I sympathise with my right hon. friend, but the Government are not able in this House to support an Amendment which would reverse the decision of the Standing Committee.
MR. SYDNEY GEDGE: I am very sorry to hear the decision an-
1088
nounced by my right hon. friend. He appears to think that the Board of Education might feel that some slur was cast upon them if they were deprived of the power of taking this particular function away from the Charity Commissioners. The whole point is this. Under a particular section of the Act of 1869 the question arises whether certain endowments do or do not come within that section. Such questions are decided by the Charity Commissioners. The Charity Commissioners are not a political or removable body; they go on from year to year acting together as a body corporate. They give their decisions on precedents, and those decisions are as legal as if the questions were decided by the Vice-Chancellor or a judge of the Supreme Court. In this respect I believe the Charity Commissioners have always had the confidence of hon. Members on this side. Any want of confidence in the Charity Commissioners has not been due to the fact that they were not acting judicially, but that they were acting as creators and framers of now schools. It does not follow that we are inconsistent because we do not wish to transfer to the Board of Education—a political body—a judicial power. It seems to me that we are perfectly consistent in what we are doing. We are glad that the Charity Commissioners lose the power of framing new schemes, and that it is to be entrusted to the Board of Education. But we do certainly regret and object altogether to the present proposal, and our objection was evidently shared by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and my right hon. friend below me, the Minister of Education, because they voted the other way in the Standing Committee. We submit that the judicial functions ought not to be handed over to a political body, where no precedent will be a guiding precedent and where the Minister of the day may give a decision one way, while the Minister who succeeds him and who belongs to another political party, may, under political pressure, decide that the same form of words may mean something totally different. I hope, therefore, the Government will reconsider their decision.
MR. CRIPPS: I should like to say a word or two on the legal character of the functions which are at the present time

1089
exercised by the Charity Commission, and which it is proposed to hand over to the Education Department. At the present time all decisions given under Section 19 of the Endowed Schools Act, 1869, and the Endowed Schools Act, 1873, are given as judicial decisions, and not as they might be in the case of a new Board of Education on administrative or on political grounds. The right hon. Gentleman the Vice-President says that he agrees with the contention which we now seek to urge on the Government. But surely, having regard to the extreme importance of the Bill, we ought on an occasion of this kind to support the view originally taken without regard to what has passed in the Standing Committee After all, in a Standing Committee we do not get the same representation of opinion as we do in the House of Commons itself. There ought to be a distinction between administrative matters and questions of judicial interpretation. We are only asking the right hon. Gentleman to support those Members in this House who think he was right in the attitude he took when the Bill was being discussed before the Standing Committee. I certainly hope that the Government will support the views of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Vice-President, because, to my mind, this is one of the most vital features of the Bill.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: I have only one word to say upon this question. This is a very important Amendment, and I do not think the House or the Government fully realise how difficult the position is with regard to Section 19. That is not my own statement merely. I am only repeating the views of the Vice-President, and now these matters are to be handed over to a new Department. I would ask the Government to remember that the new Board might be under the control not of Unionists or Conservatives, but of their political opponents, to whom would be transferred the decision of the religious and other issues arising under this difficult and important question of the Endowed Schools Act. I hope my right hon. friend will not think it is altogether unreasonable to press this Amendment.
MR. WILLIAM JONES: I do not see that this question is, after all, a very important one, taking
1090
only this Bill into consideration. The question, however, may become a very important one, say next year, when you discuss the question of local authority. This Bill does not provide any local authority to deal with this question at all; it is a simple Bill to take stock of what schools you have already in the country. Apart from that, several great authorities have given it as their opinion that the transfer of these powers would be a very simple matter. Lord Davey has already been quoted, but I would quote the authority of the Charity Commissioners, who said that there would be no difficulty at all in transferring these quasi-judicial functions to the new Board. The final decision as to what constitutes an endowment as educational will not rest with the Board of Education, but with the Charity Commissioners. I therefore think the question raised is not such a very important one after all, seeing that next year we shall hare a Bill dealing with the question of local authority and the creation of new schools. Consequently I cordially support the view of the Government, and the view that has been taken up by the Standing Committee upstairs.
MR. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I really do not understand what the question of local authority has to do with this Amendment. The hon. Member opposite seems to rely largely upon the fact that some other Bill is to be brought in next year. Does he know that another Bill is to be brought in? We have not had an assurance from the Minister in charge of the Bill that a Bill is to be brought in next year.
MR. WILLIAM JONES: If there is no Bill to come in next year, what is the need for any alarm?
MR. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: Because you can transfer under this Bill without any Bill at all, Sir. What we object to is that we do not know whether this transfer is to take place this year, next year, or the year after. I really must protest against the position we find ourselves in at the present moment. On this point the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill confesses he is a supporter of the Amendment, and not only so, but he voted for it himself in the Standing Committee. So did the Chancellor of the

1091
Exchequer. Because the Standing Committee came to a decision adverse to this Amendment, and because apparently some decision has been taken elsewhere, the House is to be bound absolutely by the decision of the Standing Committee. I protest entirely against that. It is simply making Standing Committees dominate this House altogether. I had not the advantage of being on the Standing Committee, and I protest most emphatically against being given away by the decisions of the Standing Committee. We have heard something to-night about skeleton Bills. If skeleton Bills are to be brought in and discussed only by the Standing Committee, and if the decision of the Standing Committee, although contrary to the opinion of the Minister in charge, is to be upheld, we are reduced to an extraordinary position of affairs. I protest against the decision that the Government have taken up.
THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir R. B. FINLAY,): Like my noble friend, I was not a member of the Committee, but he and others who have spoken in support of the Amendment appear to have overlooked the nature of the question which will come up for consideration under the section. I should like to inform the House as to what that question is. The question is "whether by the terms of the instrument of foundation or the statutes made by the founder or under his authority in his lifetime, or fifty years after his death, the scholars are to be instructed in any particular religious tenets, or the members of the governing body are to belong to any particular religious body." That is the question, and is it conceivable that any Minister would decide a matter of that kind from any political or party motives?
SIR E. CLARKE: Yes, certainly.
SIR R. B. FINLAY: I do not agree with my hon. and learned friend behind me in that view of the discharge of
Ministerial duties, and I ask the House whether we may not rely just as much upon the judicial faculty being brought to bear upon that question by the new Board as by the Charity Commission. Every decision of this kind involves a question of fact and of law, which has to be determined under competent advice. What Minister would be so foolish and so wicked as to give a wrong decision upon matters of that kind, when he knows there are two checks upon him? In the first place, an appeal lies to the Privy Council, and in what position would he find himself when, having decided wrongly, his decision was reversed by the Privy Council? And, secondly, when such a scheme was brought before either House they could either throw it out or so amend it that it would be found expedient to drop it and introduce a new one. With those checks, is it conceivable that any Minister, however weak or wicked, would be guilty of the conduct which some hon. Members affect to think possible?
MR. ERNEST GRAY: If I had felt that religious endowments were going to be placed in jeopardy by this power I should at once vote against it, but I cannot resist the conclusion that this, transfer of powers will be altogether advantageous. In the working out of these schemes the ultimate decision will rest with responsible Ministers, and if the moral tone of any Minister is so low that he is likely to bring in any scheme from political motives we may be sure that the rank and file of his party will not support him in so nefarious a practice. In my opinion religious education runs no danger whatever from the transfer of these powers, and, on the other hand, it is desirable that the Board should be invested with the widest power and responsibility, and the reign of divided, authority put a stop to.
The House divided:—Ayes. 22; Noes, 142. (Division List, No. 323.)

AYES.

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)

Northcote, Hon. Sir H. S.

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Gedge, Sydney

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

Brookfield, A. Montagu

Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H. (City of Lon)

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Gilliat, John Saunders

Tomlinson, Wm. E. Murray

Clarke, Sir E. (Plymouth)

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Cranborne, Viscount

Lucas-Shadwell, William

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Talbot and Sir John Kennaway.

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Macaleese, Daniel

Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)

More, R. Jasper (Shropshire)

Flower, Ernest

Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

NOES.

Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N. E.)

Firbank, Joseph Thomas

Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Fisher, William Hayes

Morrell, George Herbert

Arnold, Alfred

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Moss, Samuel

Arrol, Sir William

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.

Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Gibbons, J. Lloyd

Newdigate, Francis Alexander

Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

Giles, Charles Tyrrell

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Goldsworthy, Major-General

Oldroyd, Mark

Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manc'r)

Gordon, Hon. John Edward

O'Malley, William

Balfour, Rt. Hon. G. W. (Leeds

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Eldon

Perks, Robert William

Barnes, Frederic Gorell

Goschen, Rt Hon. G. J. (St Georg'S

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Barton, Dunbar Plunket

Gourley, Sir E. Temperley

Pirie, Duncan V.

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Rickett, J. Compton

Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol

Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robert W.

Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir Matthew W.

Billson, Alfred

Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Hazell, Walter

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Broadhurst, Henry

Heaton, John Henniker

Robson, William Snowdon

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Hedderwick, Thomas Chas. H.

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)

Sidebottom, William (Derbysh

Bullard, Sir Harry

Hogan, James Francis

Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)

Burns, John

Holland, W. H. (York, W.R.)

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Butcher, John George

Hornby, Sir Wililam Henry

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Caldwell, James

Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

Strutt, Hon. Chas. Hedley

Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin)

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

Sutherland, Sir Thomas

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbs.)

Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

Thornton, Percy M.

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc.

Joicey, Sir James

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Channing, Francis Allston

Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire

Ure, Alexander

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Kay-Shuttleworth, Rt Hn Sir U.

Usborne, Thomas

Charrington, Spencer

Kilbride, Denis

Valentia, Viscount

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Knowles, Lees

Wallace, Robert

Clough, Walter Owen

Lawrence, Sir E. Durning-(Corn

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Cochrane, Hon. Thos H. A. E.

Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

Williams, John Carvell (Notts.

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Williams, Joseph Powell-(Birm.

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Lewis, John Herbert

Willox, Sir John Archibald

Cox, Irwin E. Bainbridge

Lockwood, Lieut.-Colonel A. R.

Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.

Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Curzon, Viscount

Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Liverp'l)

Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath

Dalziel, James Henry

Lowe, Francis William

Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart-

Davies, Sir H. D. (Chatham)

Lowles, John

Wylie, Alexander

Dewar, Arthur

Macartney, W. G. Ellison

Wyndham, George

Dilke, Rt Hon. Sir Charles

M'Arthur, C. (Liverpool)

Young, Commander (Berks, E.

Donkin, Richard Sim

M'Killop, James

Yoxall, James Henry

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

M'Leod, John

Doxford, William Theodore

Maddison, Fred

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edwd.

Middlemore, J. Throgmorton.

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Monk, Charles James

MR. CALDWELL: I beg to direct attention to the fact that forty Members are not present.
MR. SPEAKER: I am satisfied from the result of the recent Division that a quorum is in attendance.
SIR JOHN KENNAWAY: The Amendment I have to move is to insert after "Commissioners" in Clause 2, page 2, line 1, the words "except as here in after provided." I think the words are necessary, because a few lines further down there is a provision preventing certain powers from being transferred.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 2, line 1, after the word 'Commissioners,' to insert the words 'except as hereinafter provided.'"—(Sir John Kennaway.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
SIR J. GORST: I do not think these words are necessary, he cause every section of an Act of Parliament is read subject to any proviso it may contain. In this clause there is a proviso already.
SIR JOHN KENNAWAY: As the right hon. Gentleman says the Amendment is

1095
unnecessary, I will ask leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. CRIPPS: The Amendment standing in my name requires a short explanation. The words in the Bill are "appearing to Her Majesty to relate to education." That means that the Education Department would be absolutely supreme in determining any question as to what was a matter of education in reference to which powers should be transferred from the Charity Commissioners to the Board of Education. The Bill extends enormously the powers of departmental interference as against the ordinary legislative business of this House, but on this point it seems to me the bureaucratic element is extended without any due warrant at all. If this Amendment be accepted, any question as to whether a particular matter relates to education will be decided by a judicial authority. From a constitutional point of view this right ought to be preserved. The words inserted are certainly unusual, though I do not say they are without precedent, and the justification I have heard from the Solicitor-General and the Vice-President was that unless they were retained, there would be a chance of litigation as to whether powers should not devolve on the Department. In my opinion it is very important that questions of this sort should be decided by the Courts, however inconvenient it may be to a Government Department. It is only the ordinary right which every person has as regards any matters which affect his interests to see by the decision of the courts that the intention of the Legislature is being carried out. That is really the essence of the case. The argument advanced that you may otherwise have litigation really means that you ought to make the Department absolutely tyrannical. It is only natural that the Board of Education should have a tendency to increase its powers by transfer from the Charity Commissioners. If the Board is to have absolute discretion in deciding these matters the House will lose its control altogether. It is not right that the Department to which certain powers are to be transferred should have the absolute right of deciding what powers are included in the definition, and if this principle is extended it will take away the essence of
1096
liberty either as regards institutions or the individual.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 2, line 2, to leave out the words, 'appearing to Her Majesty to relate,' and insert the word 'relating'—(Mr. Cripps)—instead thereof."
Question proposed, "That the words 'appearing to Her Majesty to relate' stand part of the Bill."
SIR R. B. FINLAY: It seems to me that my hon. and learned friend has lost all sense of proportion on this question. It is not for the Board of Education to decide what matters relate to education, but for Her Majesty in Council, and the Board have nothing to do with the matter until the Order has been made in Council. The effect of the Amendment would be to lame the measure completely. An Order in Council might be made and pass unchallenged for years; and yet it would be possible for anyone who alleged it to be ultra vires to take the question into Court, and possibly have the Order upset. I venture to think that legislation on such lines would not be in accordance with common-sense, and I could not imagine any suggestion more calculated to introduce doubt and difficulty into the working of the Bill.
SIR E. CLARKE: I really think that the Solicitor-General is a little too peremptory. What does the advice "of Her Majesty's Council" in this case mean? It means that the Lord President of the Council, who is not unconnected with the Board of Education, will suggest the form of the Order, and then it will be made. The idea that the Lord Chancellor and the other members of the Council will meet to consider the subject and advise Her Majesty, is not in accordance with practice. The Bill provides that an Order in Council once made closes the door against any appeal. I confess I think the Amendment a wise one, as Orders may be made, even by ideal Ministers, which are not in accordance with sound judgment. I therefore hope that these words will be accepted.
SIR WILLIAM ANSON: I understand, though I do not share, the opinion of my hon. and learned friend the Member for Stroud that educational progress will be advanced by frequent recourse to courts of law. Let me ask the House to consider what the position is. The Bill simply provides that matters appearing to Her Majesty to relate to education may be transferred from the Charity Commissioners to the Education Department; the Charity Commissioners are to determine whether an endowment or any part of an endowment is educational. Surely the opinion of two such bodies, both skilled in educational matters, one claiming, the other conceding the control of an endowment, should suffice. If, after the Order in Council is made, the matter is taken before the High Court, perhaps ultimately to the House of Lords, much inconvenience and expense will be occasioned in order to arrive at a conclusion not really more satisfactory than that previously arrived at by the Departments concerned. There seems to be an assumption that the Education Office will deliberately endeavour to appropriate endowments which are not educational, or to render undenominational endowments which are denominational. I decline to believe that the Department is such a formidable and malignant power, or that the Charity Commissioners would connive at such action. If such things were to happen there are Members in this House who would exert a correcting influence on the representatives of the two Departments, and I will not believe that those to whom the education of the country is entrusted are capable of such petty frauds.
LORD HUGH CECIL: We have heard the Solicitor-General, who has nobly fulfilled the duty of his office in attempting to defend what is essentially indefensible We have all observed that when the Government has a specially weak case they call upon their Law Officers to defend it. The Solicitor-General had recourse to an interesting disquisition on the work-
1098
ing of the Constitution, and he drew a picture of the Privy Council, the details of whose constitution he did not enter upon, whose duty apparently was to advise the Crown as if we lived in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, and the hon. and learned Gentleman urged that we might rely on the Crown acting with perfect impartiality. But we know very well that the Privy Council is merely another name for the Government of the day. I should like to draw a picture, putting in a few names. Let the House suppose that the hon. Member for the Carnarvon Boroughs was President of the Board of Education, that the hon. Member for the Launceston Division of Cornwall was Lord Chancellor, and that some noble Lord in the other House was Lord President of the Council. Let us suppose that a meeting of the Cabinet Council took place, and one Member would say to the other, "Here is an educational matter of some importance." The hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs would say that it was properly a power relating to education which ought to be transferred, and that he would be glad if one of his colleagues looked into the matter and gave it his attention, but he had no doubt as to the propriety of the transaction. Let the House also suppose that the other members of that Cabinet were looking into the question. Is it really contended by anyone outside a lunatic asylum that this question would have an impartial consideration? If my hon. friend the Member for Oxford University has such touching confidence in the Government of the day that it would never do such a thing—never misuse the powers confided to it—how does he account for the fact that Parliament has again and again rejected schemes which have passed the Charity Commission and the Education Department? Many of these questions are exceeding perplexing. Often the intentions of the pious benefactor are perfectly well known. It is seen that he must have been intending his endowment to be used for the benefit of the Church of

1099
England, because in the days in which he lived there was no other form of religious teaching. If the intention is not embodied in a trust deed and considered as a Church of England endowment it is only the equitable consideration of Parliament that can rescue it. Are we to be asked to put such confidence in matters of this kind in the Government of the day—which may be a Government of the most bitter anti-Church feeling, and there is no feeling so strong as that which the Church of England excites—as to leave it absolutely to their decision, without recourse to a court of law where we should obtain impartial consideration? The Solicitor-General had the audacity to put forward the view that if we went to a court of law the Government would probably be beaten. It requires the experience of a practised barrister to make a declaration at which the ordinary person would not be able to restrain a not unnatural blush. On the contention put before the House I think there is a clear case in favour of the Amendment. There is, of course, no chance of carrying it, but those who study the reports of Parliament will see how this Bill is being carried through the House, and will form an estimate of how far this new Department is to be trusted.
SIR J. GORST: The noble Lord is entirely mistaken as to the object of these Orders in Council. There is no question of seizing endowments. The Orders are simply to transfer from the Charity Commissioners to the Board of Education certain powers relating to education, which are to be exercised by the Board of Education under precisely the same restrictions, safeguards, and limitations as at present apply to the Charity Commissioners. It is very desirable that an Order in Council of this kind, which transfers powers from one administrative Department to another, should not be subject to legal contention, possibly years after the transfer has been carried out, and really the safeguards proposed by this clause are perfectly satisfactory. If
1100
there is a case where there is some doubt as to whether an endowment does or does not relate to an educational matter, it is quite clear that such an Order in Council would not be passed by the Education Minister without reference to his colleagues. Then when it is passed it is laid on the Table of this House, and I am sure that a Government which lent itself to passing an Order in Council transferring a power which ought not to be transferred, would receive very sharp criticism, whichever party was in a majority.
MR. YOXALL: After the exhibition we have had to-night, we should be justified in holding some suspicion as to the value of legal expertise. It is obvious that there is no substantial foundation for the attack which has been made upon this clause, or for moving the Amendment at all. In the first place, it is decided whether or not an endowment is educational, and then comes the question of who should carry out the work connected with it. The Charity Commission may make a scheme; the Board of Education may make a scheme; the Charity Commission may inspect the working of their schemes, the Board of Education may inspect the working of their schemes. The Charity Commission now do their work subject to legal appeal, the Board of Education will do their work subject to legal appeal. There is no real foundation for the Amendment.
MR. CRIPPS: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
SIR JOHN KENNAWAY: When we came to consider this Bill, and found that it practically gave an entirely free hand to the Government of the day to transfer powers up to now held by the Charity Commissioners to the Education Board,

1101
and that Parliament was asked to give sanction to this Bill without knowing what these powers are that are to be transferred, I felt it was a very serious departure, and more especially as neither House of Parliament has power to interfere with the Order in Council if it is passed by this Government or by any other. I have put down this Amendment in order to show, in the first place, the character of the powers that would probably and almost certainly be transferred under this Bill. The Amendment refers to what is at present entirely in the discretion and power of the Charity Commissioners, viz., any question as to interpretation or construction of any instrument regulating an educational endowment. This power was conferred on the Charity Commissioners by the Court of Chancery, and it should not be taken away from a quasi-judicial body which is entirely independent of Party, and put into the hands of a department under a member of the Government of the day, whose actions might be influenced by political exigencies. It has been said that Governments are naturally affected by the strong pressure brought to bear on them from time to time by supporters who hold very strong views. Parliament ought certainly to have some voice as to what powers should be transferred.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 2, line 9, after the word 'purposes,' to insert the words: '(b) Any question as to the interpretation or construction of any instrument regulating an educational endowment.'"—(Sir John Kennaway.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
SIR J. GORST: The Bill gives power to transfer powers from the Charity Commissioners to the Board of Education with one single exception, and it is for the House to say whether there should be another. Why should not the Board of
1102
Education have power to decide where the Charity Commissioners now decide? It may be necessary for the Board to come to a decision in order to frame a scheme, and the House should remember that there will be exactly the same right of appeal, and the same restrictions, as now obtain in regard to the Charity Commissioners.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: I desire to say a word in support of the Amendment of my right hon. friend. Everyone knows the difficulty of arriving at a satisfactory decision as to what is a charitable or educational endowment. Two cases have been decided, but there must be an enormous number of cases lying in between, which will require very careful legal opinion. The right to make such a decision ought not to be handed over to the Education Department. It is said that there will be the right of appeal, but how many hon. Gentlemen know how much it would cost? I happen to know that one appeal cost upwards of£200 to the parties who were successful in both courts. An appeal is no true remedy, and therefore it is desirable that such decisions should be reserved for a really judicial body. I am sorry the Government cannot accept the Amendment.
MR. BRYCE: This Amendment refers solely to educational endowments, not to cases concerning ecclesiastical endowments, which were mentioned by the noble Lord. I do not see how it would be possible for the Board of Education to deal with these charities unless it had this power of interpretation and construction. Otherwise the action of the Board would be paralysed, because, when a case turned up, they would have to send over to the Charity Commissioners. Why should the Charity Commissioners be any better authority than the Board of Education? The Board will have legal advice; they will be able to call upon the law officers of the Crown, which the Charity Commis-

1103
sioners are not able to do; and I cannot see why the Board should not be just as capable of arriving at a judicial interpretation as the Charity Commissioners. If the Board are deprived of this power, it will be a considerable slur upon them, and they will be impeded in the work of their office. I was surprised a little by the remarks of the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich. He seems to think that the Board of Education will desire nothing so much as to find out and concern themselves with the most complex controversies. When the noble Lord comes to be a Minister, as no doubt he will—his abilities entitle him to expect it—he will find that one of the chief desires of a Minister is to avoid putting his hands into hornets' nests, and that he will desire to avoid those legal controversies, and adhere as far as he can to the law as laid down by the courts, and to act in conformity with that sense of fairness which I hope characterises public departments as it does this House. I cannot see any ground for apprehension that the Board of Education, in the hands of one political Party or the other, will seek to prevent justice. The Education Department under the Endowed Schools Act has already a great deal to do with these schemes, and I do not remember a single instance in which an attack was made on the Department in connection with them. Sometimes, in one House or the other, a particular scheme may have been debated, but the Department has never been accused of trying to act unfairly, and I cannot see the least ground for apprehension in giving the Board the power of which the Amendment would deprive it.
MR. SYDNEY GEDGE: All the arguments which apply to this Amendment were put forward without effect on a previous Amendment. I hope, therefore, my right hon. friend will not press it to a Division. It seems to me an undignified spectacle that the only support in argument which the Government receives comes from the Opposition. The difference between a highly civilised and a semi-barbarous State is, that in the former the judicial functions are kept apart from the executive functions, while in the latter the judicial functions are handed over to the executive. I regret that the Government, by refusing to accept this Amendment, have driven us into
1104
the position of a semi-barbarous State. On the whole, however, the Bill is a very good one, notwithstanding this defect, and as we have indicated our opinion by dividing on a previous Amendment involving the same principle, I think this Amendment ought to be withdrawn and the Bill proceeded with.
Question put and negatived.
SIR JOHN KENNAWAY: We have been accused of being suspicious on this side of the House, but when we are kept in the dark and asked to give an absolutely blank cheque we are naturally a little suspicious. The Amendment I now move is to add on page 2, line 9, after "Commissioners," the following:—
"Powers to make a scheme for an educational endowment under the provisions, of the Charitable Trusts Act of 1860."
These are matters of very great interest. The schemes do not come before Parliament at all, and the appeal from them is not to the Privy Council but to the Court of Chancery, and the court can only decide whether or not it is a case of absolute illegality; it is allowed no discretion as to the merits. This power is capable of very injurious application to Church education, and I therefore move.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 2, line 9, after the word 'Commissioners,' to insert the words, 'Provided also that the existing power to make a scheme for an education endowment, under the provisions of the Charitable Trusts Act of 1860, shall remain with the Charity Commissioners.'"—(Sir John Kennaway.)
Question proposed, "That those words be inserted."
SIR J. GORST: This Amendment is even more objectionable than the other, and to adopt it would be to deprive the Board of Education of the power of dealing with those endowments exempted from the Endowed Schools Act, and also with educational endowments given since 1869. There are some educational endowments capable of being dealt with under the Endowed Schools Act, or the Charit-

1105
able Trusts Act of 1860, and it is quite possible that the Charity Commissioners under the Act of 1860 and the Board of Education under the Endowed Schools Act, would each draw up a scheme for one endowment, which would obviously lead to confusion in the administration of the educational affairs of the country.
Amendment by leave, withdrawn.
MR. ALFRED HUTTON: A great deal has been said about the looseness of the language employed in this Bill, but most of the criticism which was levelled in that direction referred to Clause 2, and to some extent to Clause 4, and very little has been said in reference to Clause 3, which, however, is open to exactly the same criticism. I find it difficult to understand what is the intention of the Department with regard to inspection, which is a most important matter as affecting Secondary Education. In the Bill of last year the Government, through the Education Department, practically undertook the whole of the duty of inspection, but the expense appears to have alarmed them, and they were compelled to have recourse to some other means. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will now be able to make it clear that, while saving the Government a large amount of expense, nothing will be done to wreck the hopes we have in regard to secondary education. Inspection to my mind should be effective and should inspire confidence, but the Government do not appear to me to have taken any safeguards to secure efficiency or to obtain the confidence of the head masters. The words, "or other organisations," which were re-inserted in the Grand Committee seem to me to open the door to grave mistakes on the part of officials. What is to be understood by these "other organisation"? The only organisations I have heard mentioned are the College of Preceptors and the City and Guilds Institute. But the second sub-section opens up a new vista by providing that the county councils may insist on the repayment of municipal money expended on inspection. Surely if the county councils provide the money they have a right to be included in the "other organisations." We have no guarantee that these words may not in the future
1106
include some organisations unable to fulfil the very important duties the subsection proposes. There is one other point I wish to raise. In regard to the Consultative Committee, arrangements are made as to the qualifications of teachers, but none are made to secure, as inspectors, men of high qualification. I would suggest that the Government should take means, whether by the Consultative Committee or otherwise, to secure the selection only of inspectors of high standing who will command general confidence in addition to the confidence of the head of the new Board of Education. Further than that, I should say the right hon. Gentleman should undertake to make some clear definition as to where the Department would make the inspection, and where the other bodies were to do it. The only distinction that occurs to me is where there are local schools and non-local schools. Are the non-local schools to be expected to pay for inspection, or are they to receive inspection free? I think the right hon. Gentleman would do well to give us a very clear definition upon this matter. One of the Members for the Oxford University asked if we were to have a Bill early next year establishing local authorities, but we have as yet no answer to that. It would be most important in regard to these schools whether we are to have local authorities or not. If local authorities are established, it is certain that the county authorities would demand power to provide inspection.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 2, line 10, to leave out Clause 3."—(Mr. Alfred Hutton.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out to the word 'after,' in line 10, stand part of the Bill."
SIR J. GORST: This clause is an administrative clause, and therefore it is quite unreasonable to expect that all the details of administration should be put in it. I suppose that without any clause at all the Board of Education would possess inherent powers to provide for the inspection of any secondary school which chose to be inspected. There is no Parliamentary authority for inspection in the Science

1107
and Art Department. But it was thought respectful to the Department that an indication should be given of the sort of inspection which the Board of Education should set up for secondary schools. The hon. Member has referred to the possibility of inspection, not by officers of the Education Department, but by the Universities, or other organisations. Why, he asks, "other organizations"? The hon. Member himself has mentioned two organisations whose inspection would be most valuable, and why should not the Board of Education avail itself of the inspection by the College of Preceptors or the City and Guilds Institute? Why should they not employ any agency which is really a valuable agency for the purpose of informing themselves of the kind of education given in the secondary schools? This very clause provides, moreover, that the Welsh Intermediate Education Committee may be employed as an organisation for inspection. There is ample security that the Board of Education will not give any kind of official sanction to inspection that is inefficient. Is it conceivable that a Committee, two-thirds of which are gentlemen who represent universities, would sanction, by their advice, the Board of Education having recourse to any organisation which was not in their opinion thoroughly competent to carry out efficient inspection?
MR. SPEAKER: I may point out that there are Amendments on the Paper to leave out the words "or other organisations," and it seems to me that it would be inconvenient to have a detailed debate upon this point on the clause, and another debate on the same point when these specific Amendments are reached.
SIR J. GORST: I was replying to the speeches of hon. Members who invited explanations on the whole clause, but if I am not in order I will reserve what I have further to say until the Amendments are before the House.
MR. WILLIAM JONES: I hope my hon. friend will not press his Amendment, because I consider this to be one of the most
1108
valuable clauses in the Bill. It provides for the first time for the inspection of secondary schools, and concedes the principle that the State is responsible for the efficiency of secondary no less than primary education. By this clause there is a guarantee against incompetence in secondary teaching by the intervention of a public authority. Moreover, this clause will afford a guide as to the quality and efficiency of the instruction given in the secondary schools of England. We had a Return of all the schools professing to give secondary education, as well as many others which made no such profession. According to that Return, 32 per cent, of the boys' schools and 74 per cent. of the girls' schools were without a single university graduate on their teaching staff. Ninety per cent of the private schools also had no university graduate on their teaching staff. How does that compare with the secondary schools in France and Germany? In France 90 per cent, of all the teachers in secondary schools have received a diploma from some French university; and in Germany no teachers may teach in public or private schools without a Government certificate. I hope my hon. friend will not destroy the character of the Bill by moving a rejection of this clause. Another point is that provision is made for safeguarding the Welsh Central Board. We have a thoroughly competent authority in Wales discharging the duties of inspection. There are eighty-eight schools in Wales giving secondary education, half of them for girls; and nearly seven-eighths of the pupils inspected were drawn from private schools. The reports of the inspection provided by the Welsh Central Board, and the opinions of such authorities as Mr. Legard and the Chief Secretary to the Charity Commission, show what splendid work is being done, and make the story of Welsh education read like a romance.
MR. ALFRED HUTTON: I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
MR. CHANNING: Before the Amendment is withdrawn, I should like to say a few words. The Vice-President of the Council has given the strongest argument for excluding this clause from the Bill

1109
He says that it is an administrative clause, and that the Board of Education would have inherent powers to carry out any inspection they thought proper. My objection to the clause is, that it lays before Parliament a scheme of unrestricted and unchecked delegation of the powers of inspection which would commit the Board before-hand to yield to the claims of the various organizations which are thus given a foothold. It would be far wiser, in my opinion, if this clause were withdrawn from the Bill, and if the new Education Department were to take upon itself the responsibility of initiating and carrying out its inherent powers of inspection. The Board will, of course, naturally consult the Universities, the College of Preceptors, and the City and Guilds' Institute—as to the best way of carrying out its powers of inspection. They will be able to select their advisers everywhere, and to devise the proper means of testing and checking the education in the schools. It is most important that the whole duty of fixing the standard of education and of checking and testing the education given, should remain with the Board as responsible to Parliament, instead of being handed over to bodies, some of whom are distinctly interested, and would be practically worked to test their own work, and who are liable to lack initiative and originality and to fall into grooves. After what the right hon. Gentleman has said, we are on logical, as well as on administrative grounds, entitled to ask him to withdraw this clause, which is not necessary to enable the Department to carry on the best type of secondary education in the country.
MR. BROADHURST: I have been written to by educational authorities in my constituency, who have urged me to move the rejection of this clause on grounds which, after your ruling, Mr. Speaker, I would not be in order to enter into.
MR. SPEAKER: I have not given a ruling to that effect.
MR. BROADHURST: Their main objection was specially to Sub-section 2, and I shall move to reject it when we come to it.
MR. DAVID MACIVER: Like the hon. Member who has just spoken, the educational authorities in my constituency have also pressed me to oppose this clause. They say that in their opinion it is very undesirable that the Bill should be complicated by the introduction of a provision of a highly controversial character, and they deprecate it the more because this provision would come naturally, and be more germane to the measure, which they understand the Government are pledged to introduce shortly to deal with the local authorities and secondary education.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. CHANNING: I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name, though I do not wish to press it, if it should be found to conflict with the latter Amendment standing in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Aberdeen. This Amendment raises the question whether the Education Board should take the initiative in their own hands, and, with such skilled advice, as they think necessary, should appoint their own inspectors to carry out their own inspection in their own way. What I have in view is to give the Education Board an absolutely free hand. It may be urged that this would exclude inspectors selected from the lists of the Universities and other bodies. It does nothing of the kind, for the Board would naturally consult these bodies in selecting special types of inspectors for special groups of schools. What I wish to insist on is that the Education Department should retain its absolute freedom, and should act on its own responsibility and take the initiative in this matter. I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 2, line 10, to leave out from the word 'or,' to the word 'inspect,' in line 12, and insert the words 'by inspectors appointed for the purpose.'"—(Mr. Channing.)
instead thereof.
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out to the word 'or,' in line 12, stand part of the Bill."
SIR J. GORSTpointed out that whether the Department employed the University or any other organisation for this purpose the responsibility would still rest with themselves.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. ALFRED HUTTONdrew attention to the fact that the clause provided that the Board of Education might by their officers or by any university or other organisation inspect secondary schools. He complained of the ambiguity of the words, "or other organisation," and moved their omission. The words had been deleted by the Grand Committee of the House of Lords, and had been re-inserted by the Grand Committee of the House of Commons, and, therefore, there must have been some object in their being reintroduced. In his opinion, the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill should be able to give the House some guarantee as to what class of organisations would be employed. It might be that pressure would be brought to bear on the Department to recognise county councils as organisations within the section. Would they be able to come in and claim to be recognised as such? If they were, he was afraid the right hon. Gentleman had extended the Bill beyond what was his own and the Government's original intention.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 2, line 12, to leave out the words 'or other organisation.'"—(Mr. Alfred Hutton.)
Question proposed, "That the words 'or other organisation' stand part of the Bill.
SIR J. GORSTsaid he did not wish to repeat the speech he made a fortnight ago, but in answer to the hon. Gentleman he could assure him that the object of. the Board of Education would be to get good and thorough inspection, and they would avail themselves of the most suitable organisations to assist. Whether they employed a University or any other organisation, they would still be as responsible for the inspection as if it was made by their own officers. The Welsh Technical Board might be so employed, and he could mention other bodies which were not universities, but he did not like to mention others because there was a great deal of jealousy about these things, and if he were to mention the Technical Instruction Committee of the London County Council he would probably arouse the jealousy of the School Board authority. It would, in his opinion, be a great pity if these words were omitted, because it would cripple the Board of Education, and prevent them from making use of any bodies except universities, while there were other agencies which were very valuable and ought to be made use of.
LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEdisclaimed any intention of saying anything on behalf of the county council which might cause jealousy on the part of the School Board, but while not denying the force of what fell from the right hon. Gentleman, thought that under the clause as it stood

1113
there was nothing to prevent the associations formed under the Education Act of two years ago from taking part in the inspection of secondary schools. It was the bounden duty of those on that side of the House to protect the interests of education from the interference of denominational bodies which appeared inclined to take up a peculiarly aggressive attitude towards education. He would prefer to see the words struck out, and ventured to hope the right hon. Gentleman would accept the Amendment of his hon. friend.
MR. ERNEST GRAYfailed to see how the clause could be open to the suspicion thrown upon it by hon. Members on the other side of the House. The idea that the words objected to were intended to cover inspection by diocesan and other Church organisations was absurd. In any case the Board of Education would be entirely responsible, and it was not to be supposed that they would accept all and sundry as inspecting authorities. He thought that the clause would accomplish great good, and in fact it was one of the greatest reforms since the Act of 1870. He hoped no Amendment would be accepted, but that the clause would pass in its original form.
MR. BROADHURSTsaid he thought a great deal of misgiving on the part of the Church party would be removed if the right hon. Gentleman could see his way to safeguard the additional clerical staff. If the Vice-President really desired to save the secondary schools from the evil designs of the diocesan associations, he would insert in the clause a provision as to from what source and by what authority the inspectors should be nominated. The county council claimed a right to nominate if they surrendered funds of which they were in need for the children of labouring people who had not the means to follow up their educational advantages. The best class of men ought to be selected, and unless the Amendment was carried there was no guarantee that the best men would be appointed. He supported the Amendment.
MR. BRYCE: I think the Government ought consistently to have confined inspection to such schools as are not subject to the local authority; but instead of
1114
doing that, they have introduced very general words which would allow them, through inspectors whom they may appoint, to inspect all schools, local as well as non-local. I think it would be better if we were to confine the inspection provided for in this way to non-local schools, and to recognise as the authority through whom the inspection should be conducted the Universities, which are specially fitted to examine the non-local schools, and which, in point of fact, have been examining them at their own request. The Universities now contain a great many people perfectly competent to examine in all branches of science and technical subjects, and they would be able to furnish inspectors. I support the Amendment of my hon. friend, which, I think, would really conduce to a systematic settlement of the matter in the long run. The Amendment proposes to restore the words which were in the Bill originally. I think it would be better not to subject the Board of Education to the pressure which might be put upon them by a large number of different bodies.
SIR EDWARD CLARKE: I am very much surprised at the tenor of the speech to which the House has just listened, because the right hon. Gentleman must see that what he suggests as the better way of dealing with the matter would, not be carried out by the Amendment which is now proposed. He desires that the examinations should be confined to non-local schools, and he says that if the examinations were so confined you would have in the Universities, plenty of examining strength to apply to these schools. If the clause were confined to non-local schools, the value of the clause would be practically reduced to nothing. I am not very much in love with the clause as it stands, but it is quite clear that the non-local schools are those which least require inspection. It is the smaller schools which escape the check of existing examinations and inspection, and which require inspection, both in respect of training the scholars and the conditions under which the work is carried on. The Education Board should not be restricted to the Universities. During the earlier part of the evening Members expressed unbounded confidence in the Education Board, but now they will not trust the Board to elect its own examining body

1115
It happens that there are two bodies much better qualified than Universities for dealing with these examinations—the College of Preceptors and the City and Guilds Institute. They are habitually devoted to the work, and have examiners of the highest class. Why should not the Board be allowed to employ a method of examination which has succeeded so well in the past?
MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS: I assume that we can all agree with the hon. Member for North Carnarvonshire in thinking that this is a new and important step in connection with our educational history, viz.: the undertaking by the Government of the inspection of secondary schools. It is because the step is new, and because it is so important, that we are jealous in regard to the means to be adopted in bringing the system of inspection into existence. What are the "other organisations" which the Department have in view in this clause? We were entirely in the dark before the discussion to-night was commenced, and we are in the dark now. My fear is that the inspection may in certain cases be inefficient, that in other cases it may not be impartial, and, above all, that in some cases it may be of a sectarian character. To sum it up in a sentence, there is a fear on the part of the real friends of education lest, in connection with this inspection, there should be initiated a system of jerrymandering, the fear of which, I think, is justified by some of the events which have occurred in connection with the Education Department itself. The right hon. Gentleman has been asked to give certain assurances. I think the best assurance
we could have in this matter would be the omission of these words from the Bill. I do not expect that he will be coaxed into making an attempt to indicate in the Bill his intentions in regard to the "other organisations"; but if he were to make the attempt, I think it very unlikely, at this moment, he would succeed. This portion of the clause, as it stands, is so dangerously vague that, in my opinion, the only safe mode of treating it would be to omit these words. That would not interfere with the adoption of the principle of inspection; it would leave the whole matter open; and it would be possible hereafter to frame such provisions as would secure the confidence of the entire community.
MR. JEBB: As I happened to be a member of the Standing Committee, perhaps I may be allowed to add a very few words before a Division is taken on this matter. I think the latitude given by the words, "University or other organisation," is most desirable, because at first the Board would not have a large staff available, and it ought to be able to employ every agency qualified to assist it. It is also desirable that the Board should have power to inspect local schools where the local schools wish it. It would thus be able to begin a work which ought not to be delayed any longer, and prepare the ground for local authorities in secondary education.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 153; Noes, 44. (Division List, No. 324.)

AYES.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Bullard, Sir Harry

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Arnold, Alfred

Butcher, John George

Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

Arrol, Sir William

Caldwell, James

Cranborne, Viscount

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin)

Curzon, Viscount

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Carlile, William Walter

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbys.)

Donelan, Captain A.

Balfour, Rt. Hon. Grld. W. (Leeds

Cayzer, Sir Charles Wm.

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Banbury, Frederick George

Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)

Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

Barnes, Frederick Gorell

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn E.

Barton, Dunbar Plunket

Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benj.

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.)

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol

Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

Firbank, Joseph Thomas

Bethell, Commander

Chaplin, Right Hon. Henry

Fisher, William Hayes

Birrell, Augustine

Charrington, Spencer

Fletcher, Sir Henry

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Clarke, Sir Edward (Plymouth)

Flower, Ernest

Bond, Edward

Cochrane. Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

Foster Harry S. (Suffolk)

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Fry, Lewis

Brassey, Albert

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Galloway, William Johnson

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Gedge, Sydney

Gibbons, J. Lloyd

Lowe, Francis William

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H. (City of Lon.

Lowles, John

Runciman, Walter

Giles, Charles Tyrrell

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

Gilliat, John Saunders

Lucas-Shadwell, William

Savory, Sir Joseph

Goldsworthy, Major-General

Macaleese, Daniel

Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

Gordon, Hon. John Edward

Macartney, W. G. Ellison

Sidebottom, Wm. (Derbyshire

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

Macdona, John Cumming

Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)

Goschen, Rt. Hn G J (St George's

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Maclure, Sir John William

Strauss, Arthur

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Maxwell, Rt. Hon. Sir H. E.

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Griffith, Ellis J.

Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)

Talbot, Rt Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ.

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robt. Wm.

Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

Thornton, Percy M.

Harwood, George

Monk, Charles James

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

Hatch, Ernest F. George

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Healy, Timothy M. (N. Louth)

Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

Valentia, Viscount

Hermon-Hodge, R. Trotter

More, Rbt. Jasper (Shropshire)

Warde, Lieut.-Col. C. E. (Kent)

Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)

Morrell, George Herbert

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Hornby, Sir William Henry

Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Jameson, Major J. Eustace

Moss, Samuel

Williams, Jos. Powell-(Birm.)

Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute

Willox, Sir John Archibald

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)

Newdigate, Francis Alexander

Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath

Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H.

Nicholson, William Graham

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

Lawrence, Sir E. Durning-(Corn

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Wylie, Alexander

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Wyndham, George

Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

Parkes, Ebenezer

Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Pollock, Harry Frederick

Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

Lockwood, Lieut.-Colonel A. R.

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Rentoul, James Alexander

Yoxall, James Henry

Long, Col. Charles W (Evesham)

Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir Matthew W.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Liv'pool)

Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. Thomson

Lorne, Marquess of

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

NOES.

Asher, Alexander

Haldane, Richard Burdon

Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale-

Rickett, J. Compton

Bainbridge, Emerson

Holland, Wm. H. (York, W. R.

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Balfour, Rt. Hon. J. B. (Clackm.

Horniman, Frederick John

Robson, William Snowdon

Billson, Alfred

Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire)

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Joicey, Sir James

Soames. Arthur Wellesley

Broadhurst, Henry

Kay-Shuttleworth, Rt Hn Sir U

Steadman, William Charles

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)

Ure, Alexander

Burns, John

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

Wallace, Robert

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

M'Crae, George

Williams, John Carvell (Notts.

Causton, Richard Knight

M'Leod, John

Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)

Dalziel, James Henry

Maddison, Fred.

Dilke, Rt, Hon. Sir Charles

Oldroyd, Mark

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Alfred Hutton and Mr. Channing.

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

Perks, Robert William

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Gladstone, Rt. Hon. H. John

Pirie, Duncan V.

LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I now wish to move the Amendment standing in my name, and in doing so I have not the slightest intention of taking up the time of the House by repeating the arguments which I used just now. I can only hope that the Vice-President will save me the trouble of dividing the House on the question, by accepting the words I propose.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 2, line 12, after the word 'organisation to insert the words 'concerned with secondary or technical education.'"—(Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
SIR J. GORST: I cannot accept the Amendment. I object to confining the inspection to purely educational bodies. It might be necessary to employ the services of the sanitary inspector, in order to see whether the arrangements are satisfactory.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 52; Noes, 143. (Division List, No. 325.)

AYES.

Asher, Alexander

Holland, W. H. (York, W. R.)

Pirie, Duncan V.

Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

Horniman, Frederick John

Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

Bainbridge, Emerson

Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

Rickett, J. Compton

Balfour, Rt. Hn. J. B. (Clackm.)

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Billson, Alfred

Jameson, Major J. Eustace

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Birrell, Augustine

Joicey, Sir James

Runciman, Walter

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Jones, W. (Carnarvonshire)

Sinclair, Capt. John (Forfarsh.)

Broadhurst, Henry

Kay-Shuttleworth, Rt Hn Sir U

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)

Steadman, William Charles

Burns, John

Lewis, John Herbert

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Caldwell, James

Lloyd-George, David

Ure, Alexander

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

Williams, John Carvell (Notts)

Causton, Richard Knight

M'Crae, George

Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

M'Leod, John

Yoxall, James Henry

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

Maddison, Fred.

Griffith, Ellis J.

Moss, Samuel

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice and Mr. Wallace.

Haldane, Richard Burdon

Oldroyd, Mark

Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale-

Perks, Robert William

Hedderwick, Thomas C. H.

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

NOES.

Anson, Sir Wm. Reynell

Fletcher, Sir Henry

Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

Arnold, Alfred

Flower, Ernest

More, R. Jasper (Shropshire)

Arrol, Sir William

Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)

Morrell, George Herbert

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Fry, Lewis

Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Galloway, William Johnson

Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)

Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r

Gedge, Sydney

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Balfour, Rt. Hon. G. W. (Leeds)

Gibbons, J. Lloyd

Newdigate, Francis Alexander

Banbury, Frederic George

Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H. (City of Lond..

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Barnes, Frederic Gorell

Giles, Charles Tyrrell

Nicholson, William Graham

Barton, Dunbar Plunket

Goldsworthy, Major-General

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benja.

Gordon, Hon. John Edward

Parkes, Ebenezer

Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Brist'l

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

Pollock, Harry Frederick

Bethell, Commander

Goschen, Rt. Hn. G. J. (St Geo.'s)

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. E.

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Rentoul, James Alexander

Bond, Edward

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir Matthew W.

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. Thomson

Brassey, Albert

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robt. Wm.

Robson, William Snowdon

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Harwood, George

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Bullard, Sir Harry

Hatch, Ernest Frederick G.

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

Butcher, John George

Healy, Timothy M. (N. Louth)

Savory, Sir Joseph

Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin)

Hermon-Hodge, Robert Trotter

Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

Carlile, William Walter

Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)

Sidebottom, William (Derbys.)

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

Hornby, Sir William Henry

Stanley, Edward J. (Somerset)

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Lawrence, Sir E. D.- (Corn.)

Strauss, Arthur

Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

Lawrence, W. F. (Liverpool)

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.

Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Chamberlain, J. A. (Worcester

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Talbot, Rt Hn J. G. (Oxford Uni.

Channing, Francis Allston

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Thornton, Percy M.

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

Charrington, Spencer

Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Liverp'l)

Valentia, Viscount

Clarke, Sir Edw. (Plymouth)

Lorne, Marquess of

Warde, Lieut.-Col. C. E. (Kent)

Cochrane, Hn. Thos. H. A. E.

Lowe, Francis William

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Lowles, John

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Williams, J. Powell- (Birm.)

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Lucas-Shadwell, William

Willox, Sir John Archibald

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Macaleese, Daniel

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Cox, Irwin Edw. Bainbridge

Macartney, W. G. Ellison

Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath

Cranborne, Viscount

Macdona, John Cumming

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

Curzon, Viscount

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Wylie, Alexander

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Maclure, Sir John William

Wyndham, George

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

Malcolm, Ian

Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Maxwell, Rt. Hon. Sir H. E.

Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)

Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

Firbank, Joseph Thomas

Monk, Charles James

Fisher, William Hayes

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Amendment proposed—
"In page 2, line 17, after the word 'terms,' to insert the words, 'in regard to fees for such inspection.'"—(Mr. Carvell Williams.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. ALFRED HUTTON: I beg to move to omit Sub-section (2) of Clause 3, which provides that the council of any county borough may, out of any money applicable for the purposes of technical education, pay or contribute to the expenses of inspecting any school within their county or borough. The sub-section has really no value, except to give county councils a primâ facie claim upon the Government to be recognised as the secondary educational authorities without any further legislation.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 2, line 25, to leave out sub-section (2), of Clause 3."—(Mr. Alfred Hutton.)
Question proposed, "That sub-section (2), of Clause 3, stand part of the Bill."
SIR J. GORST: The Association of School Boards have discovered in this sub-section a deep-laid scheme for the injury of the School Board system; and we have had many Members making rather warm speeches, because of that idea. There never was a more unfounded suspicion formed by any public body. The origin and genesis of this subsection is very simple, and has nothing whatever to do with any desire to injure the School Board system; and it does not in any way prejudge the question of the constitution of the local authorities which, in a future session, will no doubt come under the consideration of Parliament. Secondary schools, to be inspected, have to pay the fees for the inspection. The payment of these fees will present no difficulty to the great public schools; but there may be some poor schools which ought to be inspected, but which cannot afford to pay the fees. The only bodies who could come to their assistance are the county councils. They have the money, which has been described as a "miserable grant," but which is in fact about three times the amount that Parliament votes for Science and Art instruc-
1122
tion every year. In many cases the whole amount is not spent on education, a portion going to the relief of rates. All this clause does is to say that one of the purposes for which the county councils can spend the money will be the payment of fees for poor schools which are unable to pay them, and I am sure that an innocent plan of this kind ought not to be stigmatised as an attack on the School Board system.
MR. BRYCE: If I thought this clause in any way prejudged the question of the constitution of the local authorities, I should entirely agree with the mover of the Amendment, but I really do not think that is the case. That question remains to be dealt with by Parliament in a future session, and this clause cannot be used in argument, when that question comes up, as being a decision of the House upon that point. I am not a member of a county council myself, but I am informed that the county councils do in some cases use what are practically inspectors to examine into schools to which they are awarding their grants; and they pay these inspectors. If a county council wishes one of the inspectors appointed by the Board of Education to do this work for them, why should they not be able to pay for it? There is, therefore, that practical convenience in the clause, in addition to the object suggested by the Vice-President.
MR. CHANNING: I desire to ask how we are to interpret the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman. Are we to understand him to say that the technical committees of county councils will not be one of the "other organisations" which might be employed with a view to inspection? If he means that the inspectors employed by the technical committees can be used for the purposes of the Act, it is perfectly clear that if the county councils supply money for the purpose, it constitutes a very serious and practical prejudging of the question of the constitution of local authorities. It seems to me there is very considerable ground for the suspicion entertained by the Association of School Boards, and the proposal to strike out this sub-section has a great deal to be said for it. Furthermore, the amount at the disposal of county council, for technical instruction is not by any

1123
means too large, and would be better employed in teaching than in inspection.
SIR FORTESCUE FLANNERY: The introduction of this subsection will undoubtedly prejudice the question in the opinion of the county councils, and in favour of their having a locus standi. It is the general opinion of the school boards throughout the country that that will be the effect of this clause if passed by the House. Local authorities ought not to be constituted except by a special Act of Parliament, dealing with the question as a whole. If this clause is passed, the question will be prejudged to such an extent, that a very great amount of prejudice will be created when the question comes to be settled in some future session.
MR. ERNEST GRAY: I am strongly of opinion that the Association of School Boards is entirely misinterpreting the object of this clause. It will in no way set up a local authority, or give the county councils any right over the large school boards, but it will simply enable the county councils to avoid needlessly spending money in constituting new schools which are not required, when, if they were able to pay the fees for the examination, they would be able to certify that certain existing schools were of a satisfactory character and must be allowed to continue. That is the sum and substance of the clause, and I hope the opposition will not be continued.
MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS: The hostility of the school boards to this subsection is based upon the alleged fact that it is a quasi recognition of the claim of the county councils to act hereafter as the local authorities under the Act. This is not the time to discuss the relative merits of the two bodies to act as the local authority; but at least we are entitled to insist that nothing should be done in connection with this measure which would decide the question, or seem in any way to prejudice it. This sub-section is not essential to the clause or to the Bill; it was inserted as an afterthought, and might be omitted without any difficulty whatever; but I am coming to the conclusion that it is the intention of the Government to have the Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill.
MR. BROADHURST: Will it be compulsory, on the part of county councils, to make this contribution out of the present funds? Does "may" mean "shall" in this case? The Vice-President does not say "No."
Question put, and agreed to.
MR. ALFRED HUTTON: The object of the Amendment I now beg to move is to give security that the inspectors should have attained a standard which the Board of Education approves. I think it is a very reasonable Amendment, and cannot possibly do any harm.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 2, line 28, after the word 'borough,' to insert the words, '(3) No inspector shall be appointed under this clause without the approval of the Board of Education.'"—(Mr. Alfred Hutton.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
SIR J. GORST: These words are quite unnecessary. The Board of Education would not employ an inspector unless they were satisfied of his competency. It would be extremely inconvenient if every inspector should be required to have a certificate from the Board of Education before he was appointed.
Question put, and negatived.
MR. CHANNING: I move formally the omission of Clause 4, in order to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the members of the Consultative Committee are to be appointed for a limited period. The right hon. Gentleman, in Committee, promised that a limit would be provided for. He will remember that the discussion of the period of appointment being fixed led to various difficulties, and so the matter was left on a definite undertaking that it should be dealt with. The view of the whole Committee was that there should be a time limit to the appointment, otherwise we might have a Consultative Committee which would get out of date in their practical relations to the subject.
Amendment negatived.
MR. CHANNING MR. CHANNING moved an Amendment to Clause 4, giving power to the Board to appoint from time to time a Departmental Committee.
SIR JOHN GORST: It does not require an Act of Parliament to appoint a Departmental Committee.
Amendment negatived.
MR. BRYCE: I put down this Amendment on the Paper to enable the Government to make a statement on a matter which is of some importance. A great many of the schools with which the Committee will have to deal will be girls' schools, and the educational problems to be considered by the Committee concern women and women teachers. Under these circumstances, it seems to me that there should be some women on the Consultative Committee. Oxford and Cambridge have now two colleges which are practically and very closely connected with the Universities. They have got a very large staff of teachers, and they turn out every year great numbers of highly-educated women. All I ask is an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that the claims of women to representation on the Consultative Committee will be properly considered. Three ladies sat on the Royal Commission on Secondary Education, and gave most valuable assistance indeed, and they proved amongst the most efficient members of the Commission.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 2, line 31, after the word 'persons,' to insert the words, 'some of whom shall be women'"—(Mr. Bryce.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
SIR J. GORST: As the Bill stands, women will be eligible for the Consultative Committee, and it is equally certain that women will be placed on that Committee. It might be rather unfortunate if these words were put in the Bill, because it must go to another place which is not particularly favourable to the claims of women.
MR. BRYCE: Having attained my object, I desire to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. EVELYN CECIL, in moving to insert "provided that the whole shall adequately represent the three branches of secondary, technical, and elementary education," said that if the Department gave him an assurance that the subject would be considered, he would not press his Amendment.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 2, line 32, after the word 'education,' to insert the words, 'Provided that the whole shall adequately represent the three branches of secondary, technical, and elementary education.'"—(Mr. Evelyn Cecil.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
SIR J. GORST: I am very glad to give the assurance to the hon. Member. I hope the House will not enter into the very thorny question of different kinds of education.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 2, line 32, after the word 'education,' to insert the words, 'and appointed for periods to be stated in the Order.'"—(Mr. Channing.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
SIR J. GORST: The Order in Council will certainly make provision for the periods for which the members of the Consultative Committee will be appointed, but what these periods will be it is rather difficult to state.
MR. CHANNING: It will not be a life appointment, or an inordinately long one.
SIR J. GORST: Certainly not.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. BRYCE, in moving, in clause 4, page 2, line 35, to leave out "by the Board of Education," and insert, "In manner to be provided by Order in Council," said: It seems very undesirable that a political Department should keep a register of

1127
teachers, and therefore we ought to leave the Department which keeps the register to future consideration.
Amendment agreed to.
SIR EDWAED CLARKE (on behalf of SIR FRANCIS POWELL)SIR EDWAED CLARKE (on behalf of SIR FRANCIS POWELL) moved to insert, "and unless within such four weeks an Address has been presented by one or other of the said Houses, praying Her Majesty to withhold Her consent from such order, or any part thereof, then it shall be." He said that he could not imagine that the Government could have any objection to the Amendment. It would specifically safeguard the right of both Houses in regard to Orders of this kind.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 3, line 3, to leave out the words, 'before it is,' and insert the words, 'and unless within four weeks an Address has been presented by one or other of the said Houses, praying Her Majesty to withhold her consent from such Order, or any part thereof, then it shall be,'—(Sir Edward Clarke)—instead thereof."
Question proposed, 'That the words, 'before it is,' stand part of the Bill."
SIR J. GORST: The reason why the Government makes these Orders in Council, is because they are not legislative Orders—they are administrative. They do not create any new powers, but merely transfer existing powers from one Department to another, and which can be exercised under precisely the same conditions as now. It would be extremely inconvenient if administrative Orders in Council of this kind were liable to be interfered with by the action of Parliament.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: This Amendment has a very direct bearing on the discussion which took place earlier in the evening. The Government will, under the Bill, have absolute power to act by Order without either House having the right to interfere. We have not been told how the Consultative Committee is to be appointed, or whom it is to represent, what powers are to be given, or at what date they are to begin. The right hon. gentleman says that no one's rights
1128
would be affected by these Orders in Council, and yet the Government have just accepted an Amendment by which a register of teachers is to be formed and kept under an Order in Council; and registration involves the teachers' means of livelihood. Notwithstanding that I am not opposed to the passage of the Bill, I must say that the proposal to oust Parliament from all control, and leave these vital matters always to the Government of the day, is one of the strongest and the least compatible with Conservative tradition that I have known. It is true, that the House of Commons is all-powerful, but we have been accustomed to obtain the assent of both Houses before any legislative changes, small or great, are made; and as these Orders in Council are legislative changes, I submit that both Houses should have a voice in their decision.
Question put, and agreed to.
Motion made, and Question proposed,. "That the Bill be read a third time."
MR. LEWIS: I only wish to say a very few words on this question before the Bill is read a third time. The effect of the Bill, so far as Welsh Intermediate Education is concerned, will be to transfer the educational supervision of that system from the Charity Commissioners to the Education Department. I think it is only right that some Welsh Member at all events should say, now that this transfer is being made, that we have no cause to complain of the action of the Charity Commissioners. From the very institution of intermediate education in Wales we have always found the Charity Commissioners helpful and sympathetic. From the beginning, their representative, Mr. Bruce, who attended every meeting of every Joint Education Committee to frame schemes, guided us with wise counsel and sound advice, and during the past ten years, in which he has been connected with the carrying out of this system, he has done Wales, it is no exaggeration to say, priceless service. He has kept us in the right paths, and it is largely owing to his efforts, I believe, that the system has been brought into working order with such little friction. It is a little difficult to mention names in

1129
a connection of this kind, but we do owe a debt of gratitude to Mr. Bruce, as Assistant Commissioner, and to Mr. Fearon, as the Secretary to the Commissioners, and we should indeed be ungrateful if, now that their connection with us in this respect is practically to cease, at all events as far as the Charity Commission is concerned, we were not to pay some slight tribute of gratitude to them for all the work that they have done. We part from the Charity Commission with great regret, and in saying that I do not in the slightest degree mean to cast the least reflection upon those who are to be our new masters. I believe that we shall receive the same cordial and sympathetic treatment from the new authority that we have from the old, and I would ask the House to remember with regard to the question of education, in connection with which many thorny questions have been and can be raised, that it is something to be able to say that a Welsh Educational system has been started in regard to which we have never had any controversy on religious questions. I can only hope that that question may be kept entirely in the background in the course of any future discussion upon secondary education in England. In this respect I wish England the same happy experience that Wales has enjoyed during the last ten years, for we now find that all parties are most heartily, cordially, and harmoniously working together for the furtherance of great educational ends. We are bidding farewell to the Charity Commissioners, and in doing so I feel bound, however slight and imperfect the tribute may be, to offer a word of gratitude and appreciation to them for all the services that they have rendered to Wales during the past ten years.
MR. HUMPHREYS-OWEN: I shall not detain the House more than a minute, but as Chairman of the Welsh Intermediate Education Board I wish to emphasise the tribute which has been paid to the Charity Commissioners by my hon. friend the Member for Flint Boroughs, for the work they have done, and at the same time to say that we look forward to the opportunity of working in the same cordial spirit with the new Board of Education. It is a matter of satisfaction to all of us that this Bill has been passed with scarcely any exhibition of party feeling.
Question put.
Bill read the third time and passed, with an Amendment.

PUBLIC WORKS LOANS [REMISSION OF DEBTS].
Resolution reported,—"That it is expedient to authorise the Remission of certain Debts due to the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland from certain Boards of Guardians in Ireland, and from the Wicklow Harbour Commissioners, in pursuance of any Act of the present Session relating to Public Works Loans."
Resolution agreed to.

PUBLIC WORKS (LOANS) BILL.
Considered in Committee, and reported; as amended, to be considered to-morrow.
ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (DEFECTIVE AND EPILEPTIC CHILDREN) BILL [Lords].
As amended, considered; read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
TANCRED'S CHARITIES SCHEME CONFIRMATION BILL.
Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.
MARRIAGES VALIDITY (NO. 2) BILL [Lords].
Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.

MANCHESTER CANONRIES BILL [Lords].
Considered in Committee:—
(In the Committee.)
MR. J. W. LOWTHER, Cumberland, Penrith, in the Chair.
Clause 1:—
MR. GALLOWAY MR. GALLOWAY (Manchester, S.W.) moved to report progress, on the ground that the Bill was only read a second time at Twelve o'clock the previous night, and that there had been no possibility of properly considering it.
Motion made, and Question proposed—
"That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Galloway.)
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I hope my hon. friend will not press his motion. This Bill is really non-contentious, and is greatly desired in the interest of religious work in Manchester.
MR. GALLOWAYsaid he could not conceive what possible good the Bill could do to religious work in Manchester.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEasked the First Lord of the Treasury to give some explanation of the position of the first-class canon.
MR. TOMLINSONsaid that the object of the Bill was to equalise the sums paid to the different canons.
MR. HARWOODsaid that the general feeling of all parties in Manchester was that this was a very good measure. Manchester Cathedral was visited by one of the most democratic congregations in the country, and the canons say it is a congregation which ought to have a good service, although, under present conditions, they are not able to pay for it. That would be secured, however, under the arrangements proposed by the Bill; and it would be a distinct disaster to the city, and a throw-
back to the religious work in the city, if the Bill were lost.
MR. BRYCEthought the Bill was a very useful one, which the House might very well accept. It proposed to remedy an accidental inequality, and did not propose to divert any funds to any other than cathedral purposes.
MR. CARVELL WILLIAMSsaid that on the Second Reading of the Bill he had asked whether the intention was that the equalisation should take place at once, but the Solicitor-General said that it was deemed to be just to obtain the assent of the existing canons. He was told that one of the canons still held out, and that years might elapse before the Act could come into operation. Therefore it would remain true that the first canon would still get too much, and the other canons too little. That took very much of the gilding from the transaction. It was one more illustration of how the strength of vested interests delayed necessary reforms in the Church.
MR. HARWOODsaid it was necessary to make some clear arrangement in view of the time when the first canon, in the ordinary course of nature, would cease from troubling. If this arrangement was passed, and had the sanction of Parliament, the other canons would have a lever to bring to bear on the recalcitrant canon.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 13; Noes, 97. (Division List, No. 326.)

AYES.

Caldwell, James

Lewis, John Herbert

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

Channing, Francis Allston

Lloyd-George, David

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Macaleese, Daniel

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Galloway and Mr. Henry J. Wilson.

Griffith, Ellis J.

Moss, Samuel

Horniman, Frederick John

Oldroyd, Mark

Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)

Pirie, Duncan V.

NOES.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Arnold, Alfred

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Charrington, Spencer

Asher, Alexander

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin)

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r

Carlile, William Walter

Cranborne, Viscount

Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds

Causton, Richard Knight

Curzon, Viscount

Balfour, Rt Hn J Blair (Clackm.

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh'e

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Barnes, Frederick Gorell

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Barton, Dunbar Plunket

Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn E.

Billson, Alfred

Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Fisher, William Hayes

Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverpool)

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

Lorne, Marquess of

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

Flower, Ernest

Macartney, W. G. Ellison

Strauss, Arthur

Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H. (C. of Lond.

Macdona, John Cumming

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Gladstone, Rt. Hon. H. John

Maclure, Sir John William

Thornton, Percy M.

Goldsworthy, Major-General

Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

Goschen, Rt Hn. G J (St George's

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Valentia, Viscount

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

Warde, Lieut.-Col. C. E. (Kent)

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Morrell, George Herbert

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robt. Wm.

Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)

Williams, Jos. Powell- (Birm.

Harwood, George

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath

Willox, Sir John Archibald

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

Nicholson, William Graham

Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath

Healy, Timothy M. (N. Louth)

Nichol, Donald Ninian

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

Perks, Robert William

Wylie, Alexander

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Wyndham, George

Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

Purvis, Robert

Wyvill, Marmaduke d'Arcy

Lawrenc, Sir E. Durning- (Corn.

Rentoul, James Alexander

Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir Matthew W.

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Charles T.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

Sidebottom, Wm. (Derbysh.)

MR. LEWIS MR. LEWIS (Flint Boroughs) moved, in Clause 1, line 8, to leave out 2, and insert 1. The object of this Amendment, he said, was to ascertain where they were. What was wanted was a little more light as to the salaries of these canons. Under the Act of 1850 the canons received £1,000 a year, but in addition to that some of them held other preferments. The first canon received an addition of £1,300 to his income. He wanted to know in what way the Bill was likely to affect the reverend gentleman, and if he had given his assent to the proposed arrangement.
THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir R. B. FINLAY,)was sorry he was not prepared to give the information. The object of the Bill was to make a fair distribution of certain funds derived from the sale of a house, and apply the balance in aid of an improved service in the cathedral.
Amendment negatived.
MR. GALLOWAY: I wish to move an Amendment to Clause 1, to provide that the money to be devoted under the Bill to cathedral services shall be allocated to the assistance of the poorer parishes of Manchester. I think there can be no doubt whatever that there are in the City of Manchester many parishes where the incomes of the clergy are totally inadequate for the duties which they have to perform. Indeed, the Bishop of Manchester himself has for the last two years actively associated himself with the fund for assisting as far as possible the poorer parishes which stand in need of
1134
pecuniary support. I quite agree with my hon. friend the Member for Bolton as to the services that ought to be held in the cathedral, and I think there would be no difficulty in obtaining the necessary money, feeling, as I do, that the supporters of the Church in other parts of the city would be only too willing, if they were properly approached, to give money for the purpose desired. It is, however, a totally different thing to get money for the poorer parishes, and I therefore propose that the money to be devoted under the Bill to cathedral services be given for the assistance of the poorer parishes.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 10, to leave out the words 'such purposes connected with the service and ministrations of the cathedral,' and insert the words 'making additional provisions for the cure of souls in parishes in the city of Manchester where such assistance is most required.'"—(Mr. Galloway.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
SIR R. B. FINLAY: I am not prepared to dispute my hon. Friend's statement that more pecuniary assistance is required for the poorer parishes in the City of Manchester, but at the same time I think the Committee should recognise that there is a certain appropriateness in applying this money for the services and administration of the cathedral.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 87; Noes. 18. (Division List, No. 327.)

AYES.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Murray, Rt. Hon. A. G. (Bute)

Arnold, Alfred

Fisher, William Hayes

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

Nicholson, William Graham

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Flower, Ernest

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Man.)

Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H. (C. of Lond.)

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Balfour, Rt. Hon. G. W. (Leeds)

Gladstone, Rt. Hon. H. John

Purvis, Robert

Balfour, Rt. Hon. J. B. (Clackm.

Goldsworthy, Major-General

Ridley, Rt Hon. Sir Matt. W.

Barnes, Frederick Gorell

Goschen, Rt Hn G. J. (St George's

Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. Thomson

Barton, Dunbar Plunket

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Harwood, George

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

Strauss, Arthur

Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin)

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Carlile, William Walter

Lawrence, Sir E. Durning- (Corn

Thornton, Percy M.

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbys.)

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Valentia, Viscount

Chaloner, Capt. R. G. W.

Lockwood, Lt.-Colonel A. R.

Warde, Lieut.-Col. C. E. (Kent)

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

Williams, J. Powell- (Birm.)

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Liverpool

Willox, Sir John Archibald

Charrington, Spencer

Lorne, Marquess of

Wodehouse, Rt. Hn E. R. (Bath)

Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E.

Macaleese, Daniel

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Macartney, W. G. Ellison

Wylie, Alexander

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Macdona, John Cumming

Wyndham, George

Curzon, Viscount

Maclure, Sir John William

Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

Fellowes, Hn. Ailwyn Edward

Morrell, George Herbert

NOES.

Asher, Alexander

Healy, Timothy M. (N. Louth)

Perks, Robert William

Billson, Alfred

Horniman, Frederick John

Pire, Duncan V.

Caldwell, James

Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

Channing, Francis Allston

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cumb'land

Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Lewis, John Herbert

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Galloway and Mr. Lloyd-George.

Griffith, Ellis J.

Moss, Samuel

Hayne, Rt. Hon. C. Seale-

Oldroyd, Mark

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I propose to move the omission from the Bill of the last proviso, viz: "that nothing in this section shall operate to reduce the income of any person who is a canon at the passing of this Act, except with his consent." I do not see why the senior canon should receive £1,300 a year in respect of a sale of a residence which is worth £250 a year.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 14, to leave out the words from the word 'determined,' to the end of the clause."—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)
Question proposed: "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
MR. MOSS: It seems to me that the principle embodied in the Amendment is either a fair principle, or an unfair principle. I do
1136
not see why the necessity of obtaining the consent of one canon should block the whole scheme. The principle of the Tithe Rent-Charge Bill was that the clergy knew what the conditions of the benefices were before they accepted the benefices. So in this case, the canons knew the salaries they were to get. If the principle was just in one case, it was just in the other.
MR. ELLIS J. GRIFFITHsaid that if the Memorandum attached to this Bill was correct, all that the canons were entitled to was a fit house of residence. The rent of the senior canon's house was £250 a year, and he had no right to complain if he got a house of that value.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 82; Noes, 16. (Division List, No. 328.)

AYES.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Arnold, Alfred

Fisher, William Hayes

Nicholson, William Graham

Atkinson, Right Hon. John

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H. (C. of Lond.

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Man.)

Gladstone, Rt. Hon. H. John

Purvis, Robert

Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W. (Leeds)

Goldsworthy, Major-General

Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir Matthew W.

Balfour, Rt. Hn. J. B. (Clackm.)

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Barnes, Frederic Gorell

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Barton, Dunbar Plunket

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert W.

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol

Harwood, George

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M..

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Lawrence, Sir E. Durning-(Corn

Tomlinson, Wm. Ed. Murray

Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin)

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool

Valentia, Viscount

Carlile, William Walter

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Warde, Lieut.-Col. C. E. (Kent)

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Williams, Joseph Powell- (Birm

Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)

Willox, Sir John Archibald

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.)

Long, Rt. Hn Walter (Liverpl.

Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath

Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

Lorne, Marquis of

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Macaleese, Daniel

Wylie, Alexander

Charrington, Spencer

Macartney, W. G. Ellison

Wyndham, George

Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

Macdona, John Cumming

Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Maclure, Sir J. William

Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

Curzon, Viscount

Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

Duncombe, Hon Hubert V.

Morrell, George Herbert

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Murray, Rt. Hon. A. G. (Bute)

NOES.

Asher, Alexander

Horniman, Frederick John

Pirie, Duncan V.

Billson, Alfred

Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

Caldwell, James

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cumb'l'nd

Channing, Francis Allston

Lewis, John Herbert

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Lloyd-George and Mr. Ellis Griffith.

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Moss, Samuel

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

Oldroyd, Mark

Healy, Timothy M. (N. Louth)

Perks, Robert William

Resolutions agreed to

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Clause 1 stand part of the Bill."
MR. LEWISsaid he had received as yet no reply to his question as to what the total salary of the first canon was. He got £1,000 a year under the Act of 1850, he had £1,300 a year from this property, and he had £170 a year as vicar of a parish in Kent, making a total of £2,470.
MR. HARWOODsaid that the total income of the canon had nothing to do with the Bill.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Bill reported without Amendment; to be read the third time To-morrow.

COMMONS AND OPEN SPACES BILL [Lords.]
Considered in Committee, and reported, with Amendments; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.
LINCOLNSHIRE CORONERS BILL [Lords.]
Considered in Committee, and reported, with Amendments; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.
POOR LAW ACTS AMENDMENT BILL [Lords.]
Considered in Committee, and reported, with Amendments and an Amended Title; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.
INEBRIATES ACT (1898) AMENDMENT BILL.
As amended, considered; read the third time, and passed.
TELEGRAPH (CHANNEL ISLANDS) BILL [Lords.]
Order for Committee read, and discharged;—Bill withdrawn.

NAVY AND ARMY EXPENDITURE, 1897–8.
Resolutions reported.
1. "That it appears by the Navy Appropriation Account for the year

1139
ended the 31st day of March, 1898, and the statement appended thereto, as follows, viz.:—
(a) That the gross expenditure for certain Navy Services exceeded the estimate of such expenditure by a total sum of £595,246 2s. 1d., as shown in Column No. 1 of the Schedule hereto appended; while the gross expenditure for other Navy Services fell short of the estimate of such expenditure by a total sum of £2,038,302 12s. 8d., as shown in Column No. 2 of the said appended Schedule, so that the gross actual expenditure for the whole of the Navy Services fell short of the gross estimated expenditure by the net sum of £1,443,056 10s. 7d.
(b) That the receipts in aid of certain Navy Services fell short of the estimate of such receipts by a total sum of £13,137 17s. 8d., as shown in Column No. 3 of the said appended Schedule; while the receipts in aid of other Navy Services exceeded the estimate of such receipts by a total sum of £59,218 9s. 4d., as shown in Column No. 4 of the said appended Schedule; so that the total actual receipts in aid of the Grants for Navy Services exceeded the total estimated receipts by the net sum of £46,080 11s. 8d.
(c) That the resulting differences between the Exchequer Grants for Naval Services and the net expenditure are as follows, viz.:—

£

s.

d.

Total Surpluses

2,041,004

0

5

Total Deficits

551,866

18

2

Net Surpluses

£1,489,137

2

3"

2. "That the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury have temporarily authorised the application, in reduction of the net charge on Exchequer Grants for certain Navy Services, of the whole of the sums received in excess of the estimated Appropriations in Aid, in respect of the same Services; and have also temporarily authorised the application of so much of the said total surpluses
1140
on certain Grants for Navy Services as is necessary to cover the said total deficits on other Grants for Navy Services."
3. "That the application of such sums be sanctioned."
(See Schedule A.)
4. "That it appears by the Army Appropriation Account for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1898, and the statement appended thereto, as. follows, viz.:—
(a) That the gross expenditure for certain Army services exceeded the estimate of such expenditure by a total sum of £151,696 5s. 6d., as shown in Column No. 1 of the Schedule hereto appended; while the gross expenditure for other Army Services fell short of the estimate of such expenditure by a total sum of £167,041 2s. 10d., as shown in Column No. 2 of the said appended Schedule; so that the gross actual expenditure for the whole of the Army Services fell short of the gross estimated expenditure by the net sum of £15,344 17s. 4d.
(b) That the receipts in aid of certain Army Services fell short of the estimate of such receipts by a total sum of £46,536 1s. 11d., as shown in Column No. 3 of the said appended Schedule; while the receipts in aid of other Army Services exceeded the estimate of such receipts by a total sum of £133,300 13s. 11d., as shown in Column No. 4 of the said appended Schedule; so that the total actual receipts in aid of the Grants for Army Services exceeded the total estimated receipts by the net sum of £86,764 12s.
(c) That the resulting differences between the Exchequer Grants for Army Services and the net expenditure are as follows, viz.:—

£

s.

d.

Total Surpluses

235,876

18

1

Total Deficits

133,767

8

9

Net Surplus

102,109

9

4."

5. "That the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury have temporarily authorised the application, in re-

SCHEDULE. A.

Number of Vote.

Navy Services, 1897–98. Votes.

Gross Expenditure

Appropriations in Aid.

Excesses of Actual over Estimated Gross Expenditure.

Surpluses of Estimated over Actual Gross Expenditure.

Deficiencies of Actual as compared with Estimated Receipts.

Surpluses of Actual as compared with Estimated Receipts.

1

2

3

4

£

s.

d.

£

s.

d.

£

s.

d.

£

s.

d.

1

Wages, &c., of Officers. Seamen, and Boys Coast Guard, and Royal Marines

…

78,418

3

7

…

9,034

16

3

2

Victualling and Clothing for the Navy

…

18,436

8

9

12,023

18

9

…

3

Medical Establishments and Services

—

4 557

7

7

—

1,875

10

3

4

Martial Law

734

0

8

—

10

16

5

5

Educational Services

—

1,788

17

0

838

15

8

6

Scientific Services

—

299

2

3

—

685

4

6

7

Royal Naval Reserves

—

22,298

14

8

—

18

17

2

8

Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, &c.:

Sec. 1

Personnel

59,255

16

3

—

57

1

4

Sec. 2

Materiel

348,753

17

10

—

—

31,655

18

8

Sec. 3

Contract Work

—

1,884,638

15

7

—

1,712

10

0

9

Naval Armaments

62,153

8

7

—

—

7,757

7

9

10

Works, Buildings, and Repairs at Home and Abroad

—

27,865

3

3

—

2,255

4

0

11

Miscellaneous Effective Services

103,857

5

2

—

—

4,211

4

5

12

Admiralty Office

1,068

4

0

—

—

15

9

9

13

Half-Pay, Reserved and Retired Pay

1,754

4

1

—

58

10

0

14

Naval and Marine Pensions, Gratuities, and Compassionate Allowances

10,071

6

7

—

9

15

6

15

Civil Pensions and Gra-tuities

4,780

3

9

—

—

14

6

7

16

Additional Naval Force for Service in Australasian Waters

42

16

0

—

139

0

0

Amount written off as irrecoverable-

2,574

19

2

595,246

2

1

2,038,302

12

8

13,137

17

8

59,218

9

4

Net Surplus, £1,443,056 10 7

Net Surplus, £46,080 11 8

Surplus surrendered to the Exchequer—£1,489,137 2 3

of the estimated Appropriations in Aid, in respect of the same Services; and have also temporarily authorised the
duction of the net charge on Exchequer Grants for certain Army Services, of the whole of the sums received in excess
application of so much of the said total surpluses on certain Grants for Army Services as is necessary to cover the

1143
said total deficits on other Grants for Army Services."

SCHEDULE B.

No. of Vote

Army Services, 1897–98. Votes.

Gross Expenditure.

Appropriations in Aid.

Excesses of Actual over Estimated Gross Expenditure.

Surpluses of Estimated over Actual Gross Expenditure.

Deficiencies of Actual as compared with Estimated Receipts.

Surpluses of Actual as compared with Estimated Receipts.

1.

2.

3.

4.

£

s.

d.

£

s.

d.

£

s.

d.

£

s.

d.

1

Pay, &c., of Army (General Staff", Regiments, Reserve, and Departments)

52,171

3

11

…

…

3,572

10

4

2

Medical Establishments: Pay, &c.

6,211

18

10

…

…

170

14

2

3

Militia: Pay, Extra Pay, Bounty, &c.

…

12,804

1

3

…

2,191

19

3

4

Yeomanry Cavalry: Pay and Allowances

…

475

11

9

…

3

0

0

5

Volunteer Corps: Pay and Allowances

…

1,378

12

7

…

180

9

6

6

Transport and Remounts

23,350

4

0

…

…

11,223

15

7

7

Provisions, Forage, and other Supplies

40,856

10

5

…

…

11,534

4

3

8

Clothing Establishments, and Services

14,742

3

2

…

15,554

12

7

9

Warlike and other Stores: Supply and Repair

…

99,201

19

2

…

90,970

12

4

10

Works, Buildings, and Repairs: Cost, including Staff for Engineer Services

…

37,643

13

4

30,864

4

4

11

Establishments for Military Education

…

1,281

17

3

…

1,476

7

6

12

Miscellaneous Effective Services

5,044

9

8

…

…

557

14

6

13

War Office: Salaries and Miscellaneous Charges

…

3,336

13

11

140

0

11

14

Non-effective Charges for Officers, &c.

6,541

15

6

…

…

8,296

2

4

15

Non-effective Charges for Men, &c.

…

10,918

13

7

…

2,983

3

3

16

Superannuation, Compensation, and Compassionate Allowances

2,539

13

7

…

117

5

0

Balance irrecoverable

238

6

5

151,696

5

6

167,041

2

10

46,536

1

11

133,300

10

11

Net Surplus, £15,344 17 4

Net Surplus, …86,764 12 0

Surplus surrendered to the Exchequer … £102,109 9 4

—Mr. Hanbury.
In pursuance of the Order of the House of the 17th day of July last,
6. "That the application of such sums he sanctioned."
Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put.
House adjourned accordingly at half-past Two of the clock.