Commons Sitting of 16 July 1902

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.
UNOPPOSED PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  CENTRAL LONDON RAILWAY BILL [LORDS],
    SOUTH EASTERN AND LONDON, CHATHAM, AND DOVER RAILWAYS BILL [LORDS].
    As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
GLASGOW AND SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Read the third time, and passed.
ABERDEEN ACCOUNTANTS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL [LORDS],
  GLASGOW CORPORATION (GAS, ETC.) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL [LORDS].
  Considered; to be read the third time upon Friday.
  FELIXSTOWE AND WALTON IMPROVEMENT BILL [LORDS].
  Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
PETITIONS.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALKS) BILL.
  Petitions against; from Wakefield; Cheetham Hill; Selby; Headingly; Altrincham; and Teignmouth; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petitions foralteration; from Heigham; Shrewsbury; Leaton; Gailey with Hatherton; Westwood Heath; Chertsey; Bedminster (two); East and West Hanney; Littleworth; Monmouth; Great Catworth; Birmingham (four); Bright-stone; Edingale; Coventry; Bramber; Marlborough; Bristol; Preshute; Chi-chester; Coventry; Bicton; Newbury; Stepney; Darwen (two); Lightcliffe (two); Crumpsall; Edenfield; Gravesend; Whitchurch; Toxeth Park; Heaton Norris; Cheetham Hill; Failsworth (two); Hulme; Gladestry; Leeds; and Sherborne; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petitions in favour; from Blackburn,; and Mere; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 15th July; Mr. Austen Chamberlain]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 272.]
  INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION (IRELAND).
  Copy presented, of Additional Rule made by the Intermediate Education Board for Ireland, dated 4th July, 1902, [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 8) BILL [LORDS].
  Copy ordered, "of Memorandum stating the nature of the Proposals contained in the Provisional Orders included in the Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 8) Bill [Lords]." — (Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  GAS AND WATER ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 1) BILL [LORDS].
  Copy ordered, "of Memorandum stating the nature of the proposals contained in the Provisional Orders included in the Gas and Water Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Bill [Lords]." — (Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  GAS AND WATER ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 2) BILL [LORDS].
  Copy ordered, "of Memorandum stating the nature of the proposals contained in the Provisional Orders included in the Gas and Water Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Bill [Lords]." — (Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  EAST INDIA (FOREIGN COMPETITION LOCOMOTIVES).
  Address for "Return of Correspondence with certain British firms as to the competition between German and British manufacturers of railway locomotives." —(Mr. Bonar Law.)

  DUBLIN METROPOLITAN POLICE.
  Return ordered, "showing (1) the amount raised by means of Police Rate for the maintenance of the Dublin

  359
  Metropolitan Police for the years ending 31st day of December, 1852, 31st day of December, 1872, 31st day of December, 1892, and 31st day of March, 1902, distinguishing in respect of the last mentioned year the amounts contributed by the city of Dublin from those contributed by the rest of the district; (2) the rateable valuation and population of the Dublin Metropolitan Police district in each such year; (3) the amount received for the same periods from local revenues such as licences, etc.; (4) the amount paid by His Majesty's Treasury for same periods; (5) the strength of the force for the same periods, and specifying the number employed in Government Departments and private service."—(Mr. Harrington.)

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  India—Proposed Government School of Mines and Metallurgy.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether, in view of the number of coal mines working in India, and the provision of the Mines Act of India requiring that all mine managers shall hold certificates showing that they possess certain qualifications, will he consider the expediency of establishing a Government School of Mines and Metallurgy in India, so that natives of India may be afforded opportunities of obtaining such certificates.
  (Answered by the Secretary of State for India.) The Mines Act merely provides that the Government of India may, if they think fit, prescribe the qualifications of managers of mines. I am not aware that they have made any Rules on the subject, or have prescribed certificates. If they should do so, I am confident that the expediency of providing in India the technical instruction necessary for such certificates will not be overlooked.

  Indian State Railways—Competent Freight Clerks.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary of State for India if he will consider the desirability of suggesting to the State
  360
  Railway Company, which runs in connection with the Sara Ghat Ferry and the Darjeeling Himalayan Railway Company, the necessity for employing clerks who are competent to calculate the rates, so that the consignees of goods at Darjeeling may not be overcharged.
  (Answered by the Secretary of State for India.) The matter is one as to which any complaints should be addressed to the local authorities.

  Lombard Street Telegraph Staff, and the Abandoned Royal Procession.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that certain members of the telegraph staff at the Lombard Street Post Office recently handed in an appeal to the inspector in charge who declined to forward it to the higher authorities; and whether, in view of the Postmaster General's assurances that the staff possess the right of appeal, he will state the reasons for the refusal in this instance.
  (Answered ty the Secretary to the Treasury.) The inspector in charge of the Lombard Street Post Office is well acquainted with the rules respecting appeals on official matters, but he did not consider that the appeal to which the hon. Member refers came within that category. The appeal was from certain juniors of the counter and telegraph staff that accommodation might be provided by the Department for their friends as well as themselves to see the Royal Procession, which it was expected would take place on the 27th ultimo. Places to view the procession had already been provided for the men themselves.

  Bath Telegraphists—Dual Increment.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that two telegraphists at Bath, who were granted the dualincrement for postal knowledge, were, in consequence, for two years, kept on night duty in the postal branch, and in response to an application to be allowed

  361
  to relinquish the increment and return to their positions in the telegraph I branch, were informed that their places had been filled up by females, and that they will be transferred to another town; and, seeing that such action is at variance with the practice of the Department in other towns, where officers holding this increment have been allowed to relinquish it, will the Postmaster General cause steps to be taken with a view to safeguarding the position of these men.
  (Answered by the Secretary to the. Treasury.) The Postmaster General will have inquiry made on this subject and will communicate with the hon. Member.

  English and Irish Railways—Conveyance of Live Stock.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the Russian Government propose to give a grant to enable refrigerating cars to be placed on the State railways in connection with vessels fitted to convey dead meat and refrigerated produce into Great Britain; and that some colonial and other Governments have granted bounties on subsidised meat exports; and whether he will institute inquiries, and consider the advisability of recommending the Government to grant to the carrying corporations of Great Britain and Ireland an amount sufficient to improve the carriage of live stock within the three kingdoms, so as to prevent damage and delay.
  (Answered by the President of the Board of Trade.) As regards the first paragraph, I am aware that the matter referred to has been discussed in Russia, but I have no official information as to any definite proposal of the Russian Government. The answer to the second paragraph is in the affirmative. I see no reason for recommending a grant for the purpose named in the last paragraph.

  India—Coronation Durbar at Delhi.
  MR. SCOTT - MONTAGU: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that the expenses of the recent entertainment at the India Office
  362
  is to be paid for out of the funds of India, he is prepared to make a grant towards the expenses of the Coronation Durbar to be held at Delhi next January.
  (Answered by Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.) No.

  Scottish Congested Districts—Fishermen's Dwellings in Lewis.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Lord Advocate if he will state an what terms the Congested Districts Board are now prepared to feu land near Stornoway for fishermen's dwellings, and will he say how much land, if any, has been acquired by the Board for this purpose.
  (Answered by the Lord Advocate.) The Board have not acquired any land in Lewis, but Major Matheson recently proposed to the Congested Districts Board that the ground at Boulnacraig, Stornoway, extending to about seven acres, should be feued in twenty-nine lots for fishermen's dwellings on the same conditions as in the previous offer by the Board (published in Appendix.'No. VIII., of their Second Report for 1899–1900), except that instead of the offer being made to cottar fishermen it should be extended so as to include fishermen or the sons of fishermen in Lewis, living entirely or mainly by fishing. The offer was made public on the 16th of last month.

  Orange Procession at Warrenpoint, County Down.
  MR. MACVEAGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that many of the Orange processionists at Warren-point, County Down, on Saturday, discharged firearms along the line of route, that two women were shot, and that at least two civilians, together with three constables, had narrow escapes, and will he say whether it is intended to take any, and if so, what steps to prevent a I recurrence of such incidents arising from the carrying of firearms.
  (Answered by the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland.) A number of I shots were fired by the excursionists. Two women were wounded at Newry. One arrest has been made. The question of discharging firearms from railway trains on the occasion of party excursions is engaging consideration.

  Infectious Disease Notification and Prevention Acts.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will consider the advisability of introducing a Bill this Session to assimilate the Law regarding The Infectious Disease (Notification) Act, 1869, and The Infectious Disease (Prevention) Act, 1890, in Ireland and Great Britain, so as to make notification compulsory by urban or rural sanitary authorities in Ireland.
  (Answered by the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland).A Bill has been drafted on the lines suggested by the Question. I am prepared to bring it in, but could not undertake to find time for any but the briefest discussion.

  Volunteers—Ammunition for Rifle Practice.
  MR. FREEMAN-THOMAS: To ask the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that ammunition, dated 1897, is being issued for rifle practice to certain volunteer regiments; and, in view of the character of this ammunition, which makes accurate shooting impossible, will he take stops to insure that such ammunition is not issued in future.
  (Answered by the Secretary of State for war.) No complaint has been received of any rifle ammunition. A complaint was received of some Morris tube ammunition, and this is being investigated.

  South Africa—Repatriation of Boer Prisoners.
  MR. HENRY J. WILSON: To ask the Secretary of State for War if Boer prisoners of war, ready to take the oath of allegiance, and prepared to pay their own expenses, may immediately return to South Africa, or proceed to Europe to meet their families.
  (Answered by the Secretary of State for few.) Burghers of the late Republics who are willing to take the oath of allegiance, and who possess means of subsistence, or can be assured of it, will be allowed to proceed to South Africa at
  364
  their own expense, subject to the concurrence of the High Commissioner and the Officer in charge of the camp in which they have been confined. They may go elsewhere under similar conditions, but they forfeit all claim to repatriation at the expense of His Majesty's Government. If they leave without a declaration of allegiance, they will not be allowed to return to South Africa.

  Maharajah of Panna.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he will say when an opportunity will be given for ascertaining whether the House desires the publication of Papers relative to the recent disposition of the Maharajah of Panna.
  (Answered by the First Lord of the Treasury.) I am afraid I can add nothing to the answer the hon. Gentleman has received on this subject from the Secretary of State for India.

  Business of the House—Supply Arrangements.
  MR. PIRIE: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury, in view of the fact that, as at present arranged, not more than one day is to be given to the discussion of the salary of the Secretary of State for War, if he will afford the House further opportunity for discussion of the following military questions, which have been before the public owing to recent developments, viz., the Army Medical Department, the case of General Buller, the breach of discipline at Royal Military College, Report on education of officers, and the Courts of Inquiry into Remount and Canteen Departments.
  (Answered by the First Lord of the Treasury.) I think the hon. Gentleman will find that the Votes on the Paper tomorrow embrace the various subjects enumerated in the Question, and I should hope that this opportunity will afford adequate time for their discussion.
  MR. REGINALD LUCAS: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can see his way to afford an opportunity for discussing the Vote for the Customs Establishment during the remaining days allotted to Supply.

  365
  (Answered by the First Lord, of the Treasury.) I am afraid I can give no definite assurance that a day can be assigned to this Vote; but perhaps, before Supply is closed, an opportunity may be found for its discussion.

  (2.15.) QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    Remount Scandals—Action against Major Studdert.
    MR. McKENNA: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the settlement of the action against Major C. W, Studdert by a money payment was made with the consent of the prosecution; if so, whether such consent was given with the sanction of His Majesty's Government; whether the Papers in this case were laid before the Court of Inquiry-appointed to inquire into the action of the Remount Department; and whether he will cause the Papers to be published.
    The following Questions on the same subject also appeared on the Paper—
    MR. HARRIS: To ask the Secretary of State for War, having regard to the fact that the Solicitor General for Ireland, in consideration of a payment of £2,000 and certain costs, has agreed to abandon further legal proceedings against Major C. W. Studdert and others for fraudulent breach of contract in connection with the purchase of remounts, will he say what was the sum that Major Studdert was estimated to have fraudulently received; and whether the War Office gave its consent to this settlement.
    *SIR CHARLES DILKE: To ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he will state the reason for terminating the proceedings in the action by the War Office for breach of contract, in reference to the purchase of horses in Ireland, after the hearing of the evidence of the Inspector General of Remounts and other War Office witnesses; and whether any further proceedings are contemplated by Government.
    THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): My right hon. friend the Secretary of State for War promised to undertake this.
    MR. BRODUICKwas not yet in his place, and there was a pause in the proceedings.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILLWho is wasting time now?
    *MR. SPEAKER: I must ask the hon. Member for South Donegal not to interrupt the business, and not to make remarks when there is no business before the House.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I was very-wrong, but I was only calling the attention of the public, Sir, to the way Ministers behave themselves.
    *MR. SPEAKER: There is an orderly and a disorderly way of doing that, and the hon. Member too frequently adopts the disorderly method.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: It is very effective, Sir.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK, Surrey, Guild-ford),having now entered the House, said, I regret to say that I have not yet received a full Report from the Solicitor General on this case, and, therefore, it is not possible for mo to give an opinion upon it. The case only deals with the question of damages in connection with 323 horses, and the War Office is only responsible for following the advice of their legal adviser in regard to the termination of the action. I am not prepared to enter upon any of the subsidiary questions which have been asked, but I have no reason to suppose that any pledge has been given that will be a bar to any further proceedings.
    Subsequently,
    MR. McKENNArepeated his Question.
    MR. BRODRICK: The answer to this Question is covered by what I have already stated.
    MR. McKENNA: Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Court of Inquiry for. the Papers?
    MR. BRODRICK: No, Sir; certainly not. I have no power to interfere with any proceedings of the Court of Inquiry. It takes its own action and calls its own witnesses, and I have no right to make any inquiry.

    Settlement of Volunteers in South Africa.
    SIR GEORGE NEWNES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether any of the active service Volunteers who have served in South Africa will be permitted, if they so desire, to obtain their discharge and remain in South Africa when their regiments are ordered home.
    MR. BRODRICK: The answer is in the affirmative.

    China—Medals for Civilian Defenders of the Legations.
    COLONEL STOPFORD - SACKVILLE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the medal and clasp for Defence of Legations given to the Naval and Military forces who took part in the late operations in China will likewise be granted to those civilian volunteers whose services were brought by Sir C. MacDonald to the notice of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.
    MR. BRODRICK: The medal and clasp will be granted to those of British nationality who took part in the defence of the Legations.

    Governor-General of India.
    MR. CAINE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, with reference to the recent Order conferring additional powers on the Governor-General of India in Council, whether he will state in what territories outside British India these powers will be operative, over what persons the jurisdiction will be exercised, and the circumstances which have rendered this measure necessary.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord G. HAMILTON,): The territories outside British India in which the Order operates, or may hereafter operate, are stated in Article 2 of the Order of the 11th of June,
    368
    1902. The persons affected are British subjects and other persons in respect of whom the Governor-General in Council has jurisdiction by treaty, grant, usage, sufferance, and other lawful means. The consideration which led to the issue of the Order was that the Secretary of State was advised that it would, from a legal point of view, be more convenient to place the foreign jurisdiction exercised by the Governor-General in Council upon the basis of Imperial legislation and statutory orders.
    MR. CAINE: Will the noble Lord kindly place a copy of the Minute in the Library of the House?
    LORD G. HAMILTON: Certainly.

    Liquor Traffic in Indian Tea Areas.
    MR. CAINE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if his attention has been called to the Memorandum submitted to the Chief Commissioner of Assam by the Hon. James Buckingham, C. I. E., on the effect on coolies on Assam tea gardens from the number of liquor shops established by the Government throughout the tea area of that State, to the complaints with regard to liquor shops from owners of tea gardens in Darjeeling and other tea areas of the Bengal Presidency, and to the statement on the same subject of Surgeon-General de Renzy at the annual meeting of the Jokai Assam Tea Company at Winchester House on the 8th instant, that it was impossible to get a proper supply of labour, or to keep it efficient when obtained, in consequence of these liquor shops; and, if so, will he consider the advisability of the immediate suppresion of all liquor shops in the tea-growing areas of Bengal and Assam.
    LORD G. HAMILTON: I am aware that a Memorandum offering suggestions for the improvement of the liquor-excise system of the province has recently been submitted by the Assam Tea Association to the Chief Commissioner. These suggestions are certain to receive the fullest consideration from him, and I do not propose at present to issue any instructions in the matter. I am not aware that any similar representations or suggestions have been recently made

    369
    by the Bengal tea planters, nor have I seen the report of the company meeting referred to; but I know that questions relating to the prevention of drunkenness among the tea garden coolies in that province have been frequently before the local Government.

    Indian Budget.
    MR. CAINE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, in accordance with private notice, whether it is true, as stated in the newspapers, that the Indian Budget will not be taken until the Autumn sitting of the House.
    LORD G. HAMILTON: Yes. I propose to take the Indian Budget in the Autumn, as I believe it will be the most convenient time.

    Underground Telegraph Wires to the North.
    SIR JOHN LENG: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the conclusion of the war in South Africa and the diminished demands upon the Exchequer, he can see his way to increase the allowance made in the Estimates for the extension of underground telegraphic wires to the North of England and Scotland, with the view of preventing the interruption of telegraphic communication in winter with Edinburgh, Glasgow, and other large centres of population in Scotland.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF HIE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): A considerable sum is provided in this year's Estimates for the extension of underground telegraphic wires to the North, and I do not think it can be increased on account of the close of the war. I have already stated that savings from that cause should go to the reduction of the debt incurred for the war.

    Maize Duty Rebate
    MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, in view of the fact that the collectors of Customs allege they are awaiting instructions in respect to the refunding of the amount of the maize duty which is repayable to those importers who have already paid the full duty on storks which they are selling on the lower basis
    370
    of the reduced duty since the date fixed for the reduction, whether he will explain what is the cause of the delay in issuing these instructions.
    SIR M. HICKS BEACH: Proper instructions have been given to the collectors of Customs, and remissions of excess duty will be made as soon as the Finance Bill has become law, which I hope will be before the end of this week.
    MR. FLYNN: When were the instructions given to the collectors—was it, recently?
    SIR M. HICKS BEACH: Of course it was recently. The alteration was made in the law not very long ago.

    Bideford Postman's Grievance.
    MR. SOARES: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that Oliver Sluman, an unestablished postman of Bideford, who has recently received notice to leave, has served the Post Office for thirty-two years, that for twenty years he received wages amounting to 10s. per week, and for twelve years wages amounting to 16s. per week; and whether, seeing that I this man is now seventy-two years of age, he will consider the advisability of granting him a pension or a gratuity.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): Sluman is not eligible for pension, but inquiry will be made as to whether he is eligible for ! the award of a compassionate gratuity on retirement.

    Orange Disturbance at Tullyhogue.
    MR. DOOGAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it has come to his knowledge that, after the attack on the Very Reverend Canon Rice, Cookstown, and the three nuns, on the Donaghenry Road, they were encountered nearer to Tullyhogue by a riotous crowd; and, seeing that Orange crowds assemble on this road, which is the only direct road from Cookstown to Stewartstown and Coalisland, and that Roman Catholics have often been attacked in that neighbourhood, he will

    371
    consider the advisability of having a police barrack established in. Tullyhogue; and whether he will cause further inquiries to be made with a view to the identification and punishment of the ringleaders of the second mob.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,): I think the facts have been very much exaggerated in this matter. It has already been stated that one stone was thrown at the carriage containing the reverend gentleman, by a drunken person whom the police hope to make amenable. Some booing occurred near Tullyhogue, but no riotous crowd was assembled on the road. It is not the fact, as alleged, that Roman Catholics have been attacked in this neighbourhood, which is peaceable. No necessity exists for placing a police barrack at Tullyhogue, and there is no need for further inquiry.

    Irish Prison Warders.
    MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state how many police pensioners are employed as warders in Irish prisons; whether, before qualifying for pensions, they were declared unfit for further service in the police; whether it is intended to make any further appointments from the same class; and whether the Prisons Board intend to adopt a system of examinations for promotions in the prison service.
    MR. WYNDHAM: This information cannot be procured for a day or two. Perhaps the hon. Member will repeat the Question on Friday.

    Queen Anne's Bounty.
    MR. CAINE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, seeing that the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty have stated that a thorough examination of the Ecclesiastical Commission is necessary before any question of its amalgamation with Queen Anne's Bounty can be entertained the Queen Anne's Bounty Bill will be proceeded with before such an inquiry into the constitution, powers and working of the Ecclesiastical Commission has taken place.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. RITCHIE, Croydon) (for Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): Since the passing of the resolution of the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty as to the proposed amalgamation with the Ecclesiastical Commission, a Joint Committee of both Houses has inquired into all the circumstances, and a Bill embodying their recommendations has been introduced. The Government do not think that any further inquiry is necessary, nor has it been asked for by the Governors.

    Ben Nevis Observatory.
    DR. FARQUHARSON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is aware that the Ben Nevis Observatory must soon be closed, unless it can receive further pecuniary assistance; and whether, in the interest of science, he will enable this valuable national institution to continue its important work.
    MR. A J. BALFOUR: I answered this Question in some detail three years ago, †and I adhere to the answer I then gave, though I fear it may not he satisfactory to the hon. Gentleman. The grant referred to has been placed in the hands of the Council of the Meteorological Society and the, Government do not determine how the grant is to be distributed among the different institutions carrying on investigations. That is left to the Society, and the Society must be responsible.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: May I ask when the Vote which will give an opportunity for discussing this matter will be taken?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I cannot answer that straight off.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I hope there will be at least an opportunity given for the Scottish Members interested in scientific observations to discuss the question.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I will look into that.
    †See (4) Debates, 1xxv., 504, 835, 1303.

    Debates on the Estimates.
    LORD HUGH CECIL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, having regard to the limited opportunities afforded this session under the Resolution regulating the consideration of Supply for the discussion of Army Estimates, he will state whether he proposes to make that Resolution a Standing Order; and, if so, on what day he intends to make a Motion to that effect.
    MR. RITCHIE: My right hon. friend does not intend to take the Resolution before the adjournment. He does not know what his noble friend means by "limited opportunities" during this session.
    LORD HUGH CECIL: Will the First Lord give an opportunity for the discussion of Vote 11 of the Army Estimates? When I spoke of ''limited opportunities," I meant that we had not been allowed to discuss several important matters on the Army Vote.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not give up the hope of an opportunity being found for the discussion of Vote 11, although the time for discussing the Estimates is running rather short. But I cannot give any promise or pledge on the subject.
    *SIR CHARLES DILKE: What Supply will be taken at the evening sitting on Thursday?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think it would be best to go on with the Army Estimates on Thursday. I cannot state what Army Vote will be taken.

    PUBLIC PETITIONS COMMITTEE.
    Eighth Report brought up, and read; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
    PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE
    Fourth Report brought up, and read; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 273.]

    POLICE (SUPERANNUATION) BILL.
    "To amend The Police Act, 1890, with respect to Superannuations," presented by Mr. Jesse Collings, under Standing
    374
    Order No. 31; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 277.]

    POLICE EXPENSES BILL,
    "To amend the law relating to Expenses of Police Authorities," presented by Mr. Jesse Collings, under Standing Order No. 31; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 278.]

EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
MR. J. W. LOWTHERin the Chair.
Clause 6: —
Another Amendment proposed—
"In page 2, line 35, after the word 'secular,' to insert the words 'and physical.'"—(Mr. Priestley.)
Question again proposed, "That these words be there inserted."
THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,)said he entirely agreed with the hon. Member that the question of physical training was second only, if it were second in some cases, to the question of intellectual training. We were rather inclined, by long and not very wise tradition, to confine the word "education" within too narrow limits, and to suppose that it only affected the moral and intellectual side of life, and of that side certain relatively narrow intellectual interests. Therefore, he did not quarrel with the object the hon. Gentleman had in view. The hon. Gentleman wished that, in addition to the ordinary scholastic training, there should be some attention given to the physical training of the scholars. But would that object, excellent though it were, be properly carried out by the Amendment? Was there a distinction between "secular," which was in the Clause, and "physical," which the hon. Gentleman proposed to add? "Secular," in

375
common parlance, and certainly as used in the Bill, was opposed not to physical, but to religious education. If the hon. Gentleman were right—as he believed he was—in thinking that physical training ought in many cases to be made an essential part of the general training, unconnected with the religion of the pupils, it would come under the general term "secular." If they added "physical," why not add each of the different items which went to make up the secular side of education— such as Latin, for example? It was impossible to include in the Clause all the items which went to make up secular education, and he held, therefore, that the general word "secular" was sufficient. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would be content, in the circumstances, with having called attention to this important element of general education, without pressing his Amendment to a division.
MR. PRIESTLEYsaid that after the sympathetic speech of the Prime Minister there was no course open to him but to withdraw his Amendment. He highly valued the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman that this portion of education in public elementary schools was both essential and valuable, and he only hoped the Government would formulate a scheme making physical education compulsory in the elementary schools. He believed hon. Members generally were in entire sympathy with that view.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
*THE CHAIRMANruled out of order the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Bolton, which was, after the word "secular" to insert the words "and undenominational."
MR. HARWOODsaid they were all agreed that the education authority should have control over all secular teaching, whether in denominational or other schools, and that the control of religious teaching should be left to denominational authorities. The third point was as to the control of religious teaching in undenominational schools, and he maintained that the Clause as it stood made no provision for
376
that. It merely provided that the local education authority should, throughout its area, have the powers and duties exercised by School Attendance Committees under the Acts of 1870 and 1900. That, if it stood by itself, would meet the difficulty, no doubt; but words had been added making it responsible for "secular '' instruction in public elementary schools, whether provided by it or not. That created some doubt as to who was to be responsible for religious education in schools not provided by the authority.
*THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member evidently wishes to amend the words "whether provided by them or not." The question of undenominational religious teaching has already been decided.
MR. HERBERT ROBERTSsaid that he would raise the points embodied in the Amendments standing next in his name on a subsequent part of the Clause.
MR. DUNCANmoved an Amendment the object of which was, he said, to make it clear that the local education authority should have control of all secular instruction, whether in voluntary or denominational schools.
Amendment proposed—
"In Clause G, page 2, line 36, to leave out 'whether" and insert 'not.' "—(Mr. Duncan.)
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid the question involved was one of drafting or construction, rather than of principle. They were all agreed that the local education authority should have absolute control over secular and religious training in the schools they themselves provided, and that they should have absolute control over secular training in the voluntary schools. The only question was as to how the matter could be most clearly put. Personally, he would have thought the meaning was obviously clear, but as he gathered from the debate the other night that there was some difference of opinion, and as the Amendment would make it clearer, he had no objection to accepting it.
Amendment agreed to.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEmoved to omit, the last words of the Clause, which provided that School Boards and School Attendance

377
Committees should be abolished. He did not think that they ought to decide absolutely on the abolition of School Boards. Practically, of course, they had been abolished, so far as their control over education was concerned, but no final decision should be come to until they came to the Clause which would enable them to be retained purely as committees of management. His contention was that, although the County Council might be able to direct and control education generally within its area, to decide on the amount of money to be expended on education, to give general directions for education, and organise it in a general way, it was quite impossible for a body of that kind actually to manage individual schools. It was admitted that the Clause gave power to County Councils to inspect schools, but there was a great difference between that and managing them. In a county with a population of 200,000 or 300,000, and a very large area, the County Council could not do more than provide a general education scheme, and it would find great difficulty in appointing committees of management, for it would not possess the necessary local knowledge to enable it to select the best men to manage the schools. All that he asked the First Lord of the Treasury to do was to refrain from prejudicing the question whether School Boards should not be retained in some districts purely for the purposes of management. The omission of these words would give the Committee an opportunity, when they came to the next Clause, dealing with the management of schools, to discuss the propriety of retaining School Boards as the managers of schools.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 2, line 36, to leave out the words 'and School Boards and School Attendance Committees shall be abolished in that area.' "— (Mr. Lloyd-George.)
Question proposed, "That the words 'and School Boards and School Attendance Committees shall' stand part of the Clause."
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he thought that the object the hon. Gentleman had in view was an important object, and one
378
the Committee might well discuss. If he understood the hon. Gentleman rightly, he only desired to deal with the: counties, and in the counties the hon. Gentleman desired to keep the School Boards in existence, while depriving them of any rights under the Act of 1870—to leave them as pale and ineffectual ghosts, endowed with a kind of transitory life by the County Council, if it should so please. The first observation he would make was that the hon. Gentleman pro-posed to create, or rather to leave in I existence, a very cumbrous machinery to carry out a very small object. Even those who favoured the School Board system thought that the whole apparatus of the cumulative vote, and the rest of it, threw a great deal of cost and trouble on small districts. The cost of a contested election in these small areas bore a most absurd and abnormal proportion to the total expenditure of the School Board, and he did think it would be very inadvisable to make it a part of the new machinery. He would also point out that even now the public interest in School Board elections was not very great as compared with that taken in other elections. What would it be when those bodies were deprived of all autonomy and dignity, and left as the mere servants of the County Council? Though he did not think the Committee ought to accept the Amendment, he agreed that it was worth considering in the next clause whether something could not be devised which would put the locality in some touch with the central authority. They had already decided, by the earlier words of the Clause, to make the County Council wholly responsible for educational matters, and he thought that to have another elective body in the district, even though it would be subordinate to the County Council, would be to invite some kind of collision between the two bodies.
MR. BRYCEwas very glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman's last words, which contained a promise of better things to come; but he would have been glad if the right hon. Gentleman could have indicated a little more distinctly what he intended to do, because it would have largely saved their labourson the Bill, Heneed not answer the

379
other arguments of the right hon. Gentleman, which, though they might have some force, had not the force of the last argument of the right hon. Gentleman. They attached to this element of local popular control a great deal of importance, and any proposal of that kind would be of the greatest value.
*SIR CHARLES DILKEthought the right hon. Gentleman had given a negative indication as to his intention, which was somewhat unfortunate.
MR. BRYCEdissented.
*SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid that was certainly what he understood. He would quote the words of the right hon. Gentleman—
"An elective body might come into conflict with the County Council."
He thought it was most unfortunate, because the right hon. Gentleman had almost pledged himself against the elective element by limiting himself in that way.
MR. BRYCEsaid of course if those words were used they were quite open to his right hon. friend's criticism. He understood the argument of the right hon. Gentleman was only directed against School Boards.
MR. A. J. BALFOURexplained that what he was objecting to was the continuation in the area of a body wholly elective, with a great tradition behind it, going back to 1870, and having had powers of which they were now deprived, but which they would have a natural instinct to resume. He had pointed out that there might be friction between the elective body and the body they all desired to see supreme in relation to education, namely, the County Council. He did not wish to give any special pledge, but what was passing through his mind was that, in addition to the managers nominated by the County Council, there should be a certain proportion elected by the Parish Councils.
*SIR CHARLES DILKEexpressed his satisfaction at having elicited that expression of opinion, which was a great
380
improvement on what the right hon. Gentleman had first said. It was a considerable concession, especially if the proportion of the elected element was a large one. He thought the whole ought to be elected, but the matter would have an important bearing on the Clause. The view that the right hon. Gentleman took in his first speech, that there might be conflict of authority, was not borne out by their experience of the County Councils, Parish Councils, and District Councils, all of which dealt with the same class of duties. The line between them had been strictly maintained, and they had all done good work for the counties. What they had in view was the importance of keeping as managers of the schools in the School Board districts the men who had learnt their work and had done it in the past, and who had the confidence of the ratepayers. The position offered to them under this Bill was the management of one school, when, under the School Board, they had controlled twenty or thirty; and it was not reasonable to suppose that they would accept such a position. What they desired was to see a larger scope of duty given to these men under this Bill.
LORD EDMUND FITZMAURICEsaid he heard what fell from the right hon. Gentleman with the greatest pleasure, because he thought the concession would be most valuable, not only from the point of view of persons immediately concerned, but also from another point of view altogether. The bringing of the Parish Councils into line was a great concession, because in many cases Parish Councils were almost dying of inanition for want of. work to do. Frequently the same persons who served on the Parish Councils, also served on the School Board, and the result was that the two elections injured the value of both in the eyes of the electors. He hoped the Government would consider whether, where the area was of sufficient size, and the School Board was not working well, the Parish Councils could not be substituted for it.
MR. HENRY HOBHOUSEthought the noble Lord who had just spoken had given good reason why

381
the School Boards should not be retained. This Amendment, which had been supported by such high authority, would, if accepted, keep in existence an expensive body, for no object which could not be obtained by other means. He ventured to think, however much regard they might have for the work the School Boards had done in the past, it would be very unwise, now that the Committee had determined to abolish them, to press an Amendment for the purpose of keeping them in existence for such a purpose as this. Did any hon. Member think it would be desirable to keep the Attendance Committee in existence merely for the purpose of managing a school? He welcomed the suggestion made by the First Lord, and thought the Committee could not possibly come to a decision which-would keep on the expensive machinery of the School Board for Such an inadequate purpose.
MR. HUMPHREYSOWENwas of opinion that the question for the Committee to consider was whether the advantages outweighed the disadvantages. He thought the advantages of retaining the School Boards as managers of the schools were so plain as to admit of no doubt as to the desirability of their being retained. He traversed the suggestion that there was no interest taken in the election of the School Boards. In the counties he was acquainted with, great interest was taken in the elections, and that was only natural, because the persons who sent their children to the schools were interested in seeing them properly managed. The Welsh system afforded a clear example of subordinate bodies working in complete harmony with the higher bodies. Every intermediate school in Wales was managed on the spot by a local committee, which was subordinate, in all important matters, to the county governing body, but, so far as he knew, there were no cases in which friction had arisen between the two. The county governing bodies dictated the educational policy, but the whole of the details of the actual working were, and must necessarily be, left to the people on the spot. Undoubtedly the School Attendance Committees would have to be got rid of, but that was a comparatively small matter, and he should support the Amendment.
SIR WILLIAM ANSONunderstood that hon. Gentlemen opposite did not like to part with the School Boards and the School Attendance Committees until they knew what were to take their place. That matter was dealt with in the next Clause, and he understood that the First Lord was prepared to consider Amendments extending or modifying that Clause, which, as it stood, was undoubtedly somewhat sketchy. There was a three-fold object in constituting these subordinate bodies: first, to relieve the local authority of the burden of detail in the management of the schools; secondly, to enlist local interest by imparting some measure of local representation to these Committees; and thirdly, to utilize as far as possible the accumulated experience of School Boards. The discussion on those points ought really to come on Clause 7, and he suggested that instead of discussing mere hypotheses on the present Clause as to the intentions of the Government they should finish with Clause 6, and proceed with the Clause which really dealt with these matters
MR. BRYNMOR JONESsaid the right hon. Gentleman opposite was correct in his main argument, but before the committee proceeded further they ought to know what was to be the precise effect of the abolition of School Boards. He did not wish to go into details with regard to the Welsh system; but nobody had pointed out how serious was the disorganization which was about to take place in consequence of the disorganization which was the about to take place in consequence of the passing of this Bill. They had, first of all, the University of Wales, governed in the last resort by the University court, which was partly a nominated and partly a representative body. The had besides three national colleges and also a number of secondary schools established under the intermediate Act of 1889, besides the ordinary public elementary schools under the Act of 1870 and the amending Acts. He desired to ask the prime Minister whether he had considered the charter of the three national colleges and the effect of the adoption of Clause 6 in relation thereto. They were State-aided colleges, but they has also attracted a large amount of private attracted a large amount of private subscriptions. In the case of the

383
University College, at Aberystwith, the governing body was somewhat numerous, but it included among the elected Governors nominees of the School Boards of seven counties in Wales—28 in number. What was going to be done, supposing Clause 6 passed, in regard to the Charter of the University College? With regard to Bangor College, the Chairmen of the School Boards in North Wales were ex officio members of the College Committee, while in regard to the University College of South Wales and Monmouthshire, no fewer than 48 members of the Court of Governors were elected by the School Boards. It was obvious that the effect of the abolition of the School Boards would be to disorganise the work of these institutions. The object they had in forming those charters, and in anxiously discussing the constitution of those governing bodies, was to secure that very co-ordination which everybody regarded as desirable. If this Clause as it stood were carried they would have in some way to alter the Charters of those colleges, and the Committee had a right to know the intentions of the Government in the matter. With regard to most of the secondary schemes the same principle had been carried out. They had endeavoured to obtain consideration, not on the principle of one authority, but rather by securing a thoroughly representative element on every body that governed education in Wales. Having regard to the large area involved, viz., thirteen counties, he thought he was right to call the attention of the Government to the disorganisation that would take place if the Clause passed without this further Amendment.
*MK. RUNCIMANsaid he hoped the Amendment would not be passed, because the Committee had already practically abolished the School Board, and to keep the School Board alive in its decimated state would not only detract from its dignity, but also make it almost impossible to get men to serve on the School Boards. He thought the purpose of his hon. friends was to provide, as far as possible, for the elective principle being applied to the local management of education. With that, of course, he had the utmost sympathy,
384
and he trusted the proposals which the Government had in view would be sufficient to carry that out with thoroughness. The great necessity for that was, not only with the object of interesting the parents and those who had the control of children in the education of the district, but also in the very largo counties and areas in particular where it was physically impossible for the local education authority as at present constituted under this Bill, to carry out its work. In the West Riding of Yorkshire by the Bill they had already wiped out no less than 140 School Boards and the work of those bodies would have to be undertaken by the West Riding County Council. That was a large undertaking, and it would have to be divided between the local education authority and the managing committees; but it had been discovered by those interested in the management of education in the West Riding that it would be almost impossible for the local representatives to come from the north-west corner of the county to attend to the management work in the county town of Wakefield, unless they were prepared to give up for every meeting held in Wakefield the night previous and the night following the day on which the meeting was held. That was a small matter to those who had the time to spare, but he and others wished to attract not only the men who had the time to spare, but also men who were busy men, with the interests of education at heart. He believed the interests of his hon. friends would be best served by having the Parish Council represented on the local Committee, and he hoped the Government would see its way to carry that out in the next Clause.
MR. ELLIS GRIFFITHsaid that as this Clause marked the final abolition of School Boards, Liberals at any rate were entitled to enter a last protest. He did not, however, altogether appreciate the difficulty of the hon. Member for Swansea, because the Clause provided for the powers of the School Board being transferred to the local education authority, and therefore the latter body would in future elect representatives to the governing bodies as

385
the School Boards had hitherto done, When they got to Clause 7 it would be I very easy to delete those words. He thought that if they allowed this proposal to pass now their hands would be tied. He agreed with what the hon. Member for Carnarvon had said about the difficulties experienced in counties. He knew one county where it would be impossible to appoint managers with any knowledge and capacity for the work, and he thought they ought to have a School Board there.
SIR WILLIAM MATHERsaid that after the defeat of his Amendment about School Boards he thought they had finished with them altogether, and he accepted his defeat in good part, But if he understood the Prime Minister rightly he now proposed to leave it to the Committee, and therefore his hon. friend might have withdrawn his Amendment in favour of a scheme with an ad hoc authority to replace the School Board in so far as exercising the delegated powers of the local education authority in connection with the education given in the schools was concerned. The Member for Oxford University rather confused the minor questions in Clause 7 with the larger questions involved in Clause 6.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I intervened to-day because I am extremely anxious that no interpretation should be put upon my words which might cause subsequent disappointment. May I just explain again the idea which I previously sketched. My hon. friend who has just sat down seems to think the body I have in view under Clause 7 is the body to whom necessarily should be delegated the powers of the County Council. That is not so. The education authority must remain the education authority for the district. Of course it will have power, if it chooses to exercise that power, to give to managers duties, in fact to delegate all its duties to them. It can do that. I am considering only the question of managers, and I confess I do not contemplate, for reasons which I am quite ready to develop later, that in any of the schools the locally elected representatives should be in a majority. I think there are strong reasons why they should not be. The idea I had in
386
my mind did not go that length at all. What I did have in my mind was that there should be a representation on the Board of Management, which was due to local election probably by the Parish Council, and upon which I think means could be devised by which parents should have a place. I do not wish to put it at all higher than that. It was a minority which I contemplated being elected. Hon. Members must not carry away the idea that I mean a majority of locally elected representatives. I want to make that point quite clear.
DR. MACNAMARAsaid he agreed that village schools not only wanted more money, but also bettor management, and that would come by the people being kept in touch with the school. Everything would depend upon the proportion of representation given. He gathered that they were not likely to get half the number locally elected. School Boards were abolished in Clause 1 and Clause 5, and in the early part of this Clause, and now they were proposing to abolish them once more. Did the Committee think it was worth while in the small villages to go through ail the machinery of a contested election for the purpose of electing a body to manage twenty-five children? He did not think the ratepayers of that village would thank the hon. Member for Carnarvon for such a proposal. At the present time they had got at least 2,000 schools with less than thirty children, and were they to have a triennial election in a poverty-stricken area simply for the management of one school with twenty-five children? That was what would happen if these words were continued. There were no schools worse conducted in England and Wales than the small village schools, where the attendance was atrociously bad, and so was the equipment. The case could be well met by nomination. At present they had an ad hoc body for London and 2,000 school managers, not one of whom was directly elected, and they conducted their business under a Code submitted by the School Board with admirable efficiency. He was opposed to retaining microscopic ad hoc bodies for the purposes of school management because it would inflict unnecessary expense, while they could get at the same result by other means.
MR. MOSSsaid that if this Clause passed the system of secondary education would be seriously interfered with. In Devonshire, for instance, they had twenty-six or thirty members, on the local governing body appointed directly by the School Boards in the county, He did not know how it was proposed, in the event of this Clause passing, to remodel the whole system in Wale.;. He supported this Amendment on general grounds, and he took it to be part of the scheme of this Bill that the County Council was not directly managing any of these schools. If that was so, the Bill contemplated the delegation of powers to some properly elected body. It was said that the School Boards in the country districts were far too small for efficient management. That might be so, but surely the same argument would apply to the delegation of powers by the local education authority to the Parish Council, which would certainly not be larger than the School Board. If this Clause were allowed to stand, subject to the Amendment, he failed to see how the general scheme would be affected thereby. It was suggested that they were perpetuating a body which would be cumbrous and expensive to the electors, but there was no reason why the general scheme should be affected by the proposal.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he had a right to complain that the hon. Member for Camberwell had not taken the trouble to understand the Amendment. The hon. Member said the Amendment was a proposal to set up a School Board for every district, although the district might only have twenty-five inhabitants. If he had proposed an Amendment of that sort it would have been perfectly right to amend it. That was not the Amendment he proposed. The only Amendment he proposed at present was one which would not prejudice the question as to whether under certain circumstances School Boards should be retained as Committees of Management. His hon. friend chose to make an attack upon Welsh School Boards. He had more experience of Wales than the hon. Member, and had therefore more right to speak of Welsh educational matters.
388
The hon. Member had attacked the, little School Hoards in Wales. It was true that some of them were not efficient, but did his hon. friend mean to say that the managers of voluntary schools in those districts did their work better than the little School Boards? His experience was that the board schools in the rural districts were healthier, cleaner and better equipped than the voluntary schools, and it would interest his hon. friend to know that they paid the teachers better. If an attack was to be made on the little School Boards, why should the voluntary school managers always escape? He hoped the First Lord of the Treasury would not make up his mind definitely at this point that the majority of the members of the Committee of Management must be appointed by the education authority, he thought it was much more important that the majority should be selected by some body—it might be the Parish Council —who knew the best men in the district. If the County Council had to select the managers in any district, not knowing the men, they must leave it entirely to the caprice or personal prejudice of one man who knew the district. He did not think that was desirable.
*MR. CHANNINGsaid he should have preferred to say what he had to say in moving the rejection of the Clause, but the discussion had taken an interesting turn, and the scope of the Amendment had been largely misinterpreted, and he should like to offer one or two words now. His intention in putting the Amendment on the Paper was purely negative. He simply wished to preserve at this stage freedom of judgment to the House as to the ultimate form of local authority which should be subordinated to the central authority. It seemed to him that the words "and School Boards and School Attendance Committees shall be abolished in that area," were unnecessary, and that the Clause might very well terminate with the words "whether provided by them or not." He protested against the abolition of the School Boards, believing that it was a serious blunder to destroy, instead of develop, ad hoc authorities for education. But they were placed in the position of

389
doing the best they could with the Bill. It was essential that there should be some form of local autonomy. He had heard with some satisfaction what had been said by the First Lord of the Treasury as to the management of schools. He would remind the Committee that an enormous and important alteration had been made in Clause 3' by the acceptance of the proposal of the hon. Member for East Somersetshire. By that concession the local authorities of a multitude of small areas had been given almost complete autonomy as regards the provision of education other than elementary. He himself regarded that concession as imperfect and unsatisfactory in some ways, and thought some form of co-ordination should be provided, although he voted for it on the ground of endeavouring to obtain so far as he could an equivalent for the local autonomy given in the School Board. The Bill was a bad Bill, but its only merit was the principle, or rather the profession, that it would co-ordinate all authorities and all schools under a central authority. But he held that what was done in regard to secondary education logically carried with it as a corollary the concession of some form of local autonomy with regard to elementary education also under this Bill. If they could get that in the form of an ad hoc authority it would be advisable.
MR. EDWARDSsaid he desired to support the Amendment because, as he understood it, it left the question of the constitution of the body which would manage the schools to the final decision of Clause 7. The hon. Member for Oxford University asked that they should get on to Clause 7 and then discuss the question. He should be very glad to follow that advice, if the First Lord first adopted this Amendment. He could not agree with the attack which had been made by the hon. Member for North Camberwell upon the small Welsh School Boards, and the scorn which he poured upon them and all their works. It was possible that some small School Boards had done bad work, but the hon. Member was not right in locating them in Wales. He could only say that the school of the small School Boards in Wales had earned
390
a bettor grant than the voluntary schools. In his own county the voluntary schools only earned £1 4s. 7d. per child, while the School Board schools so much derided by the hon. Member for Camber-: well had earned £1 7s. 8d. per child.
MR. HERBERT LEWISsaid that this was the last opportunity the House of Commons would have of making an effective protest against the abolition of the School Boards, and it was right that on an occasion of that kind hon. Members, whether they had the misfortune to be Members for Wales or for England, should have the right to press their opinions. He thought before this Act was consummated they should express their gratitude to the men who during the past thirty years had rendered such self-sacrificing services to education. They; had done splendid work, which could never be obliterated or forgotten in the future. When the country was informed that it was the intention of the Government to obliterate the School Boards there was a considerable outcry against it, but they were assured that the Members of the School Boards would be continued on the School Management Committees as delegates of the local education authority. Of course that might be done for the next year or two, but they were not legislating for the next year or two, but for a very considerable period, and I having regard to that, he thought it i was only right, as his hon. friend proposed, that they should make some I permanent arrangement for the local management of the schools, hitherto under the management of the School Boards. Unless that were done the management of those schools, he feared, would be hereafter of a thoroughly unrepresentative character. Even if a certain number of representative persons were placed on the Committees, the result would be that there would be a great diminution in that direct interest taken by the members, who heretofore had felt a direct responsibility to the people in regard to the schools which they had managed. They had attained, as he understood, the object with which the Government set out—viz., to prevent overlapping; but if the machinery of the School Boards was

391
preserved they should still be able to prevent anything in the shape of overlapping. The First Lord had expressed some apprehension as to the conflict which might arise between the members of the School Boards and the managers of the local education authority, but he could assure the right hon. Gentleman that so far as the experience of Welsh intermediate education was concerned, there was no such friction. The two bodies worked together in perfect harmony. Although innumerable questions constantly arose, these were settled without the slightest friction. Some hon. Gentlemen objected on the score of the expense that the elections would cause; but it was idle to suppose that by any change of authorities additional economy would be attained in the working of the schools. Every change of this kind resulted, on the other hand, in a considerable increase of expense. At the same time he entirely agreed with what the hon. Member for North Camber-well and the hon. Member for Carnarvon had said in regard to the desirability of retaining the machinery of small School Boards; but what were the Government going to do in the case of towns like Leeds with a population of 340,000, the School Board of which employed 2,000 teachers, and the value of whose school buildings was £2,000,000 sterling. It would be absolutely impossible for the local education authority to have that effective control which was necessary over these schools. The result would be that the control of the schools would fall into the hands of the officials. There were limits to human endurance and capacity, and the cashiering of large numbers of men who had given free service to the cause of education—-work which had been stimulated by the countenance of the people, would have the worst possible effect on education. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman, as this Amendment did not in any way prejudge the matter, to keep the matter open, so that when Clause 7 was reached they might be free to deal with the question of management. They did not ask for a moment that he should apply the same rule to all the School Boards, but they said that in regard to the large School Boards it would be the best educational policy not
392
to make the change contemplated at present in the Bill. The hon. Member for North Camberwell had made an attack upon the small School Boards in Wales, on account of the small attendance in their schools; but the proportion of attendance in the School Board schools in Wales was higher than in School Board schools in England. It was quite true that the proportion of attendance with the number on the register was less, but that was a very different matter. These small School Boards no doubt had their defects, in common with the other Boards in the country, but these defects were not inherent in the Welsh School Boards. The National Labour Education League, which consisted of representatives of the Trades Unions of the country, and which was an entirely non-political organisation, had issued a manifesto in which it was stated that the wage-earners found it difficult to follow from the debates that there would be any direct representation of the people on the new education committees. Under the Bill, the manifesto went on to say, it would be possible for a Committee to be constituted of nominated persons, not one of whom would be directly elected by the people. As had already been pointed out by the hon. Member for Carnarvon the responsibility for the control of the Schools had, by the Bill, been removed as far as possible from the electorate.
MR. HERBERT ROBERTSsaid it was perfectly evident that this Clause had been framed on the assumption that Clause 5 would remain in the Bill as it had been originally drafted. There was a further point. Was it not the invariable practice in drafting that when a body was destroyed, it was necessary to; transfer not only the duties but the property, rights and liabilities of that body to the new body? It was very evident that in respect to Schedule 2, the Bill would have to be remodelled. He submitted that under the altered circumstances in which the Bill was now placed, it would be necessary to introduce a new Clause dealing with the transference of the rights, property, and liabilities of the School Boards. If that were so, was it not natural and logical that the words should be omitted?
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FTNLAY,)said that Clause 19 would meet the hon. Gentleman's point. It provided that the provisions set out in the second schedule relating to the transfer of property and officers, and adjustment should have effect for the purpose of carrying the provisions of the Act into effect.
MR. HERBERT ROBERTSsaid he thought Clause 19 was framed in that way purposely, on the assumption that the first section of Schedule 2 remained unaltered, and that the option was retained in the Bill. There would be no object in putting in a provision as to the transference of the powers and rights of School Boards into the schedule, except to meet that particular case. That was why, from a drafting standpoint, he submitted that the Government might accept the Amendment.
SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid that some alteration in the second schedule would be necessary as a result of the changes which had been made, but the Clause
before the Committee was not the proper place in which to make it.
MR. HERBERT ROBERTSsaid it would be more in accordance with the usual practice if the words were omitted in the present Clause, and, if necessary, inserted in Clause 19.
SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid he did not think so.
MR. HERBERT ROBERTSsaid he regretted he could not agree with the Attorney General. He desired to associate himself with the remarks of the hon. Member for North Camberwell.
*THE CHAIRMAN: I would remind the hon. Gentleman of the Standing Order against repetition.
MR. HERBERT ROBERTSsaid he had no intention of transgressing the Rule, and would conclude by associating himself with the remarks of his hon. friend.
(4.18.) The Committee divided:— Ayes, 265; Noes, 97. (Division List No. 297.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

Acland- Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F

Brown, Alexan. H. (Shropsh.

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Burke, E. Haviland-

Emmott, Alfred

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Glas.

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Allhusen, Augustus H'ry Eden

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Faber, Edmund B.(Hants, W.)

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

Fergusson, Rt Hn Sir J (Manc'r

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.

Field, William

Arrol, Sir William

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Finch, George H.

Atkinson, Kt. Hon. John

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Bagot, Capt. Jos'line Fitz Roy

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Fisher, William Hayes

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Chamberlain, J. Austen(Worc'r

Fitz Gerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Chapman, Edward

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

Baird, John Geo. Alexander

Clive, Captain Percy A.

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Balcarres, Lord

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

Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Baldwin, Alfred

Coddington, Sir William

Flower, Ernest

Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manhe'r

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Flynn, James Christopher

Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey

Conen, Benjamin Louis

Foster, Sir Mich'l(Lond. Univ.

Balfour, Rt Hn G'r'ld W.(Leeds

Collings, Re. Hon. Jesse

Foster, Phil. S. (Warwick, S. W.

Banbury, Frederick George

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Galloway, William Johnson

Bartley, George C. T.

Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

Godson, Sir Augustus Fred'k

Bathurst, Hn. Allen Benjamin

Cranborne, Viscount

Gordon, Hn. J. E.(Elgin & Nairn

Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Mich'l Hicks

Cross, Herb. Shepherd(Bolton)

Gore, Hn G.R C. Ormsby-(Salop

Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-(Linc.)

Bignold, Arthur

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

Bigwood, James

Delany, William

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Bill, Charles

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Grant, Corrie

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Disraeli, Coniogsby Ralph

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Boland, John

Doogan, P. C.

Greene, SirE.W (B'rySEdm'nds

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Doughty, George

Gretton, John

Bowles, T. Gibson (Lynn Regis

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Brassey, Albert

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Groves, James Grimble

Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

Gunter, Sir Robert

Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

M'Killop, W. (Sligo, N.)

Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

Hamilton, Rt Hn LordG (Midd'x

Majendie, James A. H.

Ropner, Colonel Robert

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Manners, Lord Cecil

Round, Rt. Hon. James

Harrington, Timothy

Maxwell, W J H (Dumfriesshire

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Rutherford, John

Hatch, Ernest Fred'k George

Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Hayden, John Patrick

Middlemore, Jn. Throgmorton

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

Hope, J.F. (Sheffield, Brightside

Milvain, Thomas

Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col. Edw.J.

Hornby, Sir William Henry

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

Horner, Frederick William

Mooney, John J.

Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

Seely, Maj J E B (Isle of Wight

Hoult, Joseph

Morgan, Hn. Fred.(Monm'thsh.

Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew

Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham

Morrell, George Herbert

Smith, James Parker(Lanarks.)

Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

Morrison, James Archibald

Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Morton, Arthur H A. (Deptford)

Spear, John Ward

Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

Mount, William Arthur

Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset

Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

Muntz, Sir Philip A.

Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)

Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

Murray, Rt Hn. A. Grah'm(Bute

Stewart, Sir Mark J. M 'Taggart

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Jordan, Jeremiah

Myers, William Henry

Sullivan, Donal

Joyce, Michael

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

Newdigate, Francis Alexander

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

Kennedy, Patrick James

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Taylor, Theodore Cooke

Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

Nolan, Col. Jno. P.(Galway, N.

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Kimber, Henry

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Thornton, Percy M.

Knowles, Lees

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

Tollemache, Henry James

Lambton, Hn. Frederick Wm.

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Tomlinson, Sir Win. Edw. M.

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W

Valeritia, Viscount

Lawson, John Grant

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Warde, Colonel C. E.

Leamy, Edmund

O'Malley, William

Warr, Augustus Frederick

Lee, Arthur H(Hants., Fareham

Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)

Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Welby, Lt.-Cl. A. C. E, (Taunton

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

Welby, SirCharles G. E(Notts.)

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Parker, Sir Gilbert

Whiteley, H (Ashton und. Lyne

Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

Parkes, Ebenezer

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Llewellyn, Evan Henry

Percy, Earl

Williams, Rt Hn J Powell- (Bir.

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

Pilkingtor, Lt.-Col. Richard

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Willoughby, de Eresby Lord

Long, Rt Hn. Walter (Bristol, S.

Plummer, Walter R.

Willox, Sir John Archibald

Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Wilson, A. Stanley(York, E. R.)

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Power, Patrick Joseph

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

Pretyman, Ernest George

Wils-on-Todd. Wm. H. (Yorks.)

Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

Purvis, Robert

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

Lundon, W.

Pym, C. Guy

Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

Macartney, Rt Hn W G Ellison

Randles, John S.

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

Macdona, John Gumming

Rankin, Sir James

Wylie, Alexander

MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

Redmond, John E. (Waterford

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Redmond, William (Clare)

Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Reid, James (Greenock)

Young, Samuel

Maconochie, A. W.

Renshaw, Charles Bine

Younger, William

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Richards, Henry Charles

M'Cann, James

Ridley, Hn. M. W.(Stalybridge)

M'Govern. T.

Rigg, Richard

TELLERS FOR THE AYES℄

M'Kean, John

Ritchie, Rt Hn. Chas. Thomson

Sir William Walrond and

M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

Mr. Anstruther

NOES.

Allan, Sir Wm. (Gateshead)

Cremer, William Randal

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Crombie, John William

Griffith, Ellis J.

Atherley-Jones, L.

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

Harcourt, Rt. Hn. Sir William

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

Hardie, J. Keir (Merth. Tydvil

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Harwood, George

Burt, Thomas

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale-

Caine, William Sproston

Edwards, Frank

Hayter, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur D.

Caldwell, James

Ellis, John Edward

Helme, Norval Watson

Cameron, Robert

Evans, Sir Francis H. (Maidst.

Hemphill, Rt. Hn. Charles H.

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan

Holland, Sir William Henry

Causton, Richard Knight

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

Cawley, Frederick

Fenwick, Charles

Jacoby, James Alfred

Craig, Robert Hunter

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J.

Jones, David Bryn'r (Swansea

396

397

Kearley, Hudson E.

Paulton, James Mellor

Thomas, David Alfred (Merth.

Kitson, Sir James

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

Thomas, JA (Glam'gan, Gower

Labouchere, Henry

Perks, Robert William

Thomson, F W. (York, W. R.

Lambert, George

Pirie, Duncan V.

Tomkinson, James

Langley, Batty

Price, Kobert John

Toulmin, George

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Rea, Russell

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Leng, Sir John

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Wallace, Robert

Lewis, John Herbert

Robertson, Kdmund (Dundee)

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Lloyd-George, David

Robson, William Snowdon

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall

Russell, T. W.

Weir, James Galloway

M'Keima, Reginald

Schwann, Charles E.

Whiteley, George (York, W.R.

Mansfield, Horace Rendall

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.)

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth

Markham, Arthur Basil

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

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

Mather, Sir William

Soares, Ernest J.

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

Stevenson, Francis S.

Moss, Samuel

Strachey, Sir Edward

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Tennant, Harold John

TELLERS FOR THE NOES℄

Nussey, Thomas Williams

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.

Mr. Channing and Mr.

Partington, Oswald

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.

Humphreys-Owen.

MR. LLOYD MORGANsaid his desire was as far as possible to preserve the School Boards, provided that the local education authorities were of opinion that for the purposes of a managing body for the schools the School Board should exist through the whole area, or in some part of it. He had placed the Amendment on the Paper because he thought it was a pity that these authorities, which had done such good work in the past, should be abolished. The Amendment simply provided that the School Boards should continue to exist, as a managing body only, if the local education authorities came to the conclusion that, for this purpose, it was desirable that they should exist. The local education authorities would obviously have the fullest knowledge of educational affairs in their own particular districts, and to him it seemed it would be rather hard to say that those bodies should not have the power to declare that for this very limited purpose the School Board in their particular district should continue to exist. He quite agreed that all School Boards could not remain — that many of the smaller School Boards must go. He only suggested that where the local education authorities considered it desirable they should continue to manage the schools. Hon. Members did not appreciate the enormous duty the House was throwing on the local authorities. To place upon them the duty of managing the educational affairs of a large and populous county was to cast upon them an enormous task, and it was the duty of the House of Commons to consider how they could lessen, as far as possible, the
398
duty they were casting upon them. It was for this reason that he had placed the Amendment on the Paper, and he hoped when the right hon. Gentleman came to reply he would see his way to accept it.
Amendment proposed —
"In page 2, line 37, after the word 'shall,' to insert the words if the local education authority so decide.' "—(Mr. Lloyd Morgan.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he thought the hon. Member would see that whatever variation there might be between the Amendment now proposed and that which had just been discussed at such length, that variation did not touch the arguments which had been addressed to the former Amendment, and those arguments were equally valid against this.
MR. HERBERT LEWISdesired merely to illustrate the value of this Amendment, which in his opinion ought to be accepted. In the county to which he belonged they had some very efficient School Boards, thoroughly capable of carrying out their work; and even in a small county of that kind the mass of work the management of the schools would entail on the local authorities was enormous. As a member of the local authority of that county, which would become the education authority under the Bill, he, stood aghast at the work they would have to accomplish. All that the Amendment suggested was that the local authority should have the option—nothing more. It would be an immense

399
relief to the local authorities in many districts if they had the power to delegate such of their functions as they thought desirable to the School Board. It would be a matter of the greatest convenience to the largo School Boards, which of course would be in strict subordination to the local education authorities; and it seemed a little hard that the local education authorities should not have, in the case of the best and most efficient School Boards, the power of delegating to those School Boards the duties which they believed could be more efficiently exercised by them.
MR. SAMUEL EVANSthought the Amendment was important in two respects. In the first place it would relieve the local education authority from a great amount of work which would come upon them suddenly, and in the second, it would ensure the continuation of those School Boards that ought to be preserved. That was really the test of the value of this Amendment, because nobody could doubt but that in a large number of cases the School Boards would be preserved. If all School Boards were abolished, the result would be that for a time, at any rate, education would be in a state of chaos, but if this Amendment were accepted, it would enable the local authorities to preserve the School Boards, and thus enable them to do the great work which would be thrust upon them by this Bill. The decision of the local authority in these matters was not final, so that, in the event of their deciding to preserve the School Board, it did not necessarily mean that the School Board was to exist for ever. The Amendment was a
very important one, and nobody could deny that the education authorities would like to have it in their power to preserve the School Boards in many districts under their jurisdiction.
*MR. H. J. WILSONthought the Amendment a very reasonable and moderate one, and if the suggestion of the previous speaker were adopted, and the proposal limited to a period of, say, three years, he failed to see what possible objection the Government could have to it.
MR. RUNCIMANlooked upon the present Amendment as being entirely different from the last. Its importance, especially in county boroughs, was so great, that the Committee ought to be careful lest they came to a rash decision. The city of Newcastle afforded a good example of the benefits that would be given by this Amendment to large towns. Of late years in that city there had been an outburst of municipal energy, and the powers of the city Council were taxed to such an extent that it was almost impossible to get through the work. By this Amendment Newcastle would be given the option of preserving —at any rate for a few years —the school Board which had done such excellent work in that city, and they would be able to carry on the schools without disturbing the municipal life. Moreover, if the operation of the Amendment were limited to three years, certain complications which must be foreseen would be avoided.
(4.48.) Question put.
The Committee divided:— Ayes 105, Noes, 262. (Division List No. 298)

AYES.

Allan, Sir William(Gateshead)

Craig, Robert Hunter

Furness, Sir Christopher

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Cremer, William Randal

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herb't John

Asquith, Rt, Hn. Herbert Henry

Crombie, John William

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Atherley-Jones, L.

Dalziel, James Henry

Gray, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Berwick)

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Griffith, Kills J.

Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Dunn, Sir William

Hardie, J. Keir(Merthyr Tydvil

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Edwards, Frank

Harmsworth, R. Leicester

Caldwell, James

Ellis, John Edward

Harwood, George

Cameron, Robert

Emmott, Alfred

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Evans, Sir Francis H(Maidstone

Havter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

Causton, Richard Knight

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

Helme, Norval Watson

Cawley, Frederick

Fenwick, Charles

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

Chauning, Francis Allston

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

Holland, Sir William Henry

Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr

Hutton, Alfred K. (Morley)

Paulton, James Mellor

Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings

Jacoby. James Alfred

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, Gower

Jones, David Brynmor(Swans'a

Perks, Robert William

Tomkinson, James

Kearley, Hudson E.

pirie, Duncan V.

Toulmin, George

Kitson, Sir James

price, Robert John

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Lambert, George

Rigg, Richard

Wallace, Robert

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Wason, Engene (Clackmannan)

Leng, Sir John

Robson, William Snowdon

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Lewis, John Herbert

Runciman, Walter

Weir, James Galloway

Lloyd-George, David

Schwann, Charles E.

Whiteley, George (York, W.R.

Lough, Thomas

Shaw, Clurles Edw. (Stafford)

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

M'Arthur. William (Cornwall

Shaw, Thomas (Hawiek B.)

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

M'Kenna, Reginald

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

Mansfield, Horace Rendall

Sinclair. John (Forfarshire)

Yoxall, James Henry

Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

Soares, Ernest J.

Markham, Arthur Basil

Stevenson, Francis S.

Mather, Sir William

Strachey, Sir Edward

TELLERS FOR THE AYES℄

Mellor, Rt. Hon. John William

Tennant, Harold John

Mr. Lloyd Morgan and Mr.

Moss, Samuel

Thomas, Abe1 (Carmarthen.E.

Samuel Evans.

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

Coddington, Sir William

Gunter. Sir Robert

Acland- Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Hamilton, Rt Hn. Lord G(Midd'x

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Allhusen, Angust's Henry Eden

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Harrington, Timothy

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Cross, Herb, Shepherd (Bolton)

Hayden, John Patrick

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Hobbouse, Henry(Somerset, E.

Arrol, Sir William

Dalrymple. Sir Charles

Hope, J F.(Sheffield, Brightside

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Delany, William

Hornby, Sir William Henry

Bagot, Capt. Josceline Fitz Roy

Dewar, John A. (lnverness-sh.

Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Dickson-poynder, Sir John P.

Hoult, Joseph

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Howard, J. Midd. Tottenham

Baird, John George Alexander

Doogan, P. C.

Hozier, Hon. James HenryCecil

Balcarres, Lord

Doughty, George

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Baldwin, Alfred

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

Balfour, Rt. Hu. A. J. (Maneh'r

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred,

Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart

Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

Balfour, Rt Hn. Gerald W.(Leeds

Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Baubury, Frederick George

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Jordan Je emiah

Bartley, George C. T.

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Joyce, Michael

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

Faber, Kdmund B. (Hants, W.)

Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Michael Hicks

Faber, George Denison (York)

Kennedy, Patrick James

Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Kenyon, Hon. Geo.T. (Denbigh

Bignold, Arthur

Fergusson. Rt Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.

Bigwood, James

Finch, George H.

Kimber, Henry

Bill, Charles

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Knowles, Lees

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Fisher, William Hayes

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Boland, John

FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.)

Bowles, T. Gibson (Lynn Regis)

Flanneny, Sir Fortescue

Lawson, John Grant

Brassey, Albert

Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Leamy, Kdmund

Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

Flynn, James Christopher

Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham

Botherton, Edward Allen

Foster, Sir Michael (Lond. Univ.

Lees Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

Brown, Alexander H.(Shropsh.

Foster, Philip S (Warwick, S. W.

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Burke, K. Haviland-

Galloway, William Johnson

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Carrie

Campbell, Rt Hn J. A (Glasgow

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

Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.

Campbell, John (Armagh S.)

Godson, Sir Augustus Frederek

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elg. & Nairn

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

Gore, Hn GR. C. Ormsby-(Salop

Long, Rt Hn. Walter (Bristol, S.

Cavendish, V. C.W. (Derbysn.

Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Cecil, Kvelyn (Aston Manor)

Grant, Corrie

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

Chamberlain, J. Austen(Wore'r

Green, Walford D. (Wednesb'ry

Lundon, W.

Chapman, Edward

Greene, Sir E W (B'ryS Edm'nd's

Macartney, Rt Hn W. G. Ellison

Clive, Captain Percy A.

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Macdona, John Cumming

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

Groves, James Grimble

MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

402

403

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Stewart, Sir Mark J. M Taggart

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Maconochie, A. W.

Parker, Sir Gilbert

Stroyan, John

Mac Veagh, Jeremiah

Parker, Ebenezer

Sullivan, Donal

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Pemberton, John S. G.

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

M'Cann, James

Percy, Earl

Talbot, Rt, Hn. J. G(Oxf'dUmv.

M'Govem, T.

Pilkigton, Lieut. -Col. Richard

Thorburn, Sir Walter

M'Kean, John

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Thornton. Percy M.

M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

Plnmmer, Walter R

Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.

Power, Patrick Joseph

Valentin, Viscount

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Pretyman, Ernest George

Wanklyn James Leslie

Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

Purvis, Robert

Warde, Colonel C. E.

Middlemore, J'hn Throgmorton

Pym, C. Guy

Warr, Augustus Frederick

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Randles, John S.

Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E (Taunt'n

Milvain, Thomas

Rankin, Sir James

Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.)

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Roddy, M.

Whiteley, H.(Ashtonund. Lyne

Mooney, John J.

Redmond, John E. (Waterford

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

More, Kohert Jasper (Shropsh.

Redmond, William (Clare)

Williams, Rt Hn J Powell (Birm

Morgan, Hn. Fred. (Monm'thsh.

Renshaw, Charles Bine

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Morrell, George Herbert

Renwick, George

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Morrison, James Archibald

Richards, Henry Charles

Willox, Sir John Archibald

Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford

Ridley, Hn. M. W.(Stalybrdg'e

Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.

Mount, William Arthur

Ridley, S. Forde(Bethnal Green

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Muutz, Sir Philip A.

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Wilson-Todd. Wm. H. (Yorks.)

Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham(Bute

Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

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

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

Worsley -Taylor, Henry Wilson

Myers, William Henry

Ropner, Colonel Robert

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

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Newdigate, Francis Alexander

Rutherford, John

Wylie, Alexander

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Sackville, Co1. S. G. Stopford-

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Nolan, Col. John P.(Galway, N.

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

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

Sassoon. Sir Edward Albert

Young, Samuel

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Seely, Charles Hi ton (Lincoln)

Younger, William

O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

O'Connor T. P. (Liverpool)

Smith, Hon. W. F. D.(Strand)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES ℄

O'Malley, William

Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset

Sir William Walroud and

Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)

Mr. Anstruther.

Motion made and Question proposed, "That Clause 6, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
MR. BRYCEsaid that before they parted with this important Clause he thought one or two words ought to be said upon the position in which they were now placed. Obviously this Clause placed the local education authority in relation with two other authorities, one above it and the other below it. The authority above it was the Board of Education. What were the powers of the Board of Education over the local education authority, and how much could the local education authority do of itself with out being interfered with? Upon that subject several questions had been addressed to the Government. They had had very different views given to the Committee upon the position of the Board of Education in regard to its power over the local authority. The Government had never committed themselves to a specific proposition upon this
404
question but they had made vague expressions, and general ideas had been thrown out as regarded the change which this law made in reference to the Board of Education. The First Lord of the Treasury said the effect would be to give a large measure of decentralisation and practically create a large number of local boards of education all over the country. The right hon. Gentleman certainly conveyed to their minds the impression that a great deal of that which had formerly been done by the Board of Education would in the future be done by the local authority. That might be right or wrong, although he confessed to having a doubt whether the local authority would have either the knowledge or the zeal of capacity, especially in relation to technical education, to fulfil the functions which he admitted, notwithstanding a certain amount of red tape, on the whole, had been carried out to the great advantage of the country and with a progressive rise in the standard of education. He did not feel so sure that the

405
local authorities would maintain the same standard as the Board of Education. The Vice-President of the Council put before the Committee on Monday last quite a different view. They gathered from him that the Board of Education would retain its powers. At any rate his view did not agree with the view given by the First Lord of the Treasury, except upon one point. The Vice-President did convey to the Committee that a good deal of the correspondence with the managers which had hitherto been carried on with the Board of Education would be carried on in future with the local authorities. They wanted a far more precise definition than they had had up to now. They knew what position the School Boards were in, and they had a pretty definite idea of their functions, for they had had thirty-two years, experience of them. They did not, however, know the position of these local authorities. It would take a long time to form a regular system, and there would bs a great deal of friction, trouble and loss in regard to the high standard maintained by the Board of Education. Take the case of inspectors. In the discussion on Monday last it was stated by the Government that inspection by the Board of Education should continue. There was also to be inspection by the local authorities, because When an Amendment was moved providing power to do this, they were told that obviously the local authority would have that power, and that the Amendment was unnecessary. Therefore they were face to face with two sets of inspectors, and what were to be their relations? Were they to divide their functions between them, and were the duties to be mapped out, one inspector representing the local authority and the other the Board of Education; or will they be concurrent and be able to cover the same ground? Suppose these inspectors differed in their views from the Board of Education, would the local authority be entitled to carry out its views against the Board of Education, or would it have to give way? He gave these as instances of difficulties which might arise. He was aware that they had had no such difficulties hitherto, because the inspection by the School Boards had been a totally different kind of thing. He felt that
406
either here, or in some other part of the Bill, they were entitled to have a more exact definition of the relative powers and duties of the local authorities and the Board of Education. There was another side which was raised by Clause 6, and that was in regard to the managers. Here, again, the parallel of the School Boards was not a complete parallel. The School Boards were practically absolute over their managers, and they did not need to appoint managers at all unless they liked. That was a point of the greatest importance. A School Board might appoint managers, but it was not bound to do so, and it followed that all the duties of managers could have been done by the School Board itself, which could have dispensed with the managers and have managed the schools by its own hand. He believed also that he was correct in saying that the teachers would all be appointed by the School Board, and although the managers would be asked to recommend teachers for promotion, the actual appointments had to come from the School Boards. He was not sure whether the practice of all School Boards was uniform upon that, but he knew that was the case in London. If he understood the Bill aright, the local: authority- everywhere had to appoint the managers. The School Board could dispense with managers altogether. He did not think the new education authority would have the same authority over its managers as the School Board had. On that point he would be glad to be enlightened by the Government. By the introduction of the words "and be responsible for" a change had been made on the Clause, the benefit of which he admitted, but it seemed to him that they were important words, because they throw on the local authority the responsibility of seeing every where that the schools were properly managed. He was not quite certain that a change which confined the operation of Clause 6 to schools provided by the local authority did not make a similar change necessary in another part of the Bill. He wished to know whether this responsibility was to attach to the local authority in respect of all schools, whether provided by it or not.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: As I understand you, it is so.
MR. BRYCEsaid he was glad to hear that. In that case it would be necessary to introduce parallel words which would import the same responsibility with regard to the other schools. If the right hon. Gentleman could not do that at this stage he would not press him. It was a matter that must be cleared up. The Committee understood that the Amendment which was accepted would apply to all schools. It must have been intended to cover all schools.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he was not quite sure that he understood the right hon. Gentleman. There had been no alteration of the substance of the Clause at all in the respect which the right hon. Gentleman had alluded to. The Government accepted an Amendment of a drafting character in order to make the Clause clearer. Hon. Members thought that while it gave absolute control over secondary education in schools not provided by the local authority, there was certain security wanted in regard to other schools. The Clause as it now stood seemed to him to be quite unambiguous, because it gave absolute control over secular instruction in all schools, provided or not provided by the local authority.
MR. BRYCEsaid he was glad to hear that statement, but it was still far from clear what the relation of the local authority would be to the managers of the schools. It might be said that this question belonged rather to the next Clause than to the one the hon. Gentlemen were now discussing, but he thought it worth mentioning at this stage that they were not at all satisfied with the next Clause, in which he thought it would be necessary to insert a further definition of what the relation of the local authority to the managers was to be. He thought, therefore, it would be very desirable that it should be made perfectly clear that the managers were to occupy towards the local authority the same position as the managers had hitherto occupied with regard to the School Board, namely, that they were to
408
be the mere local agents of the local authority. It was far from clear what was to be the financial control of the local authority over the managers, and he thought an additional provision was required in order to make quite clear what financial control the local authority ought to possess.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that he contemplated, as the result of the Bill, no absolute or uniform system throughout the country. It was quite possible that the relations between Whitehall and one local authority might be quite different from the relations between Whitehall and another local authority; and he equally contemplated the possibility that the arrangement which one local authority chose to effect between itself and the managers of its schools might be quite different in different places. Of course, they could not ask the State to spend largo sums of money over education and not give it any control at all over the manner in which those sums were spent; but that did not necessarily mean, and would not mean in practice, that constant and minute discussion about buildings and the general goings on in each school which, it was alleged; had taken place to an excessive degree in the past. The relation between Whitehall and the individual schools would practically cease, and for it would be substituted the relation between Whitehall and the new education authority; and he imagined that the relation between those two bodies would be largely in the nature of consultation and advice. This elasticity of arrangement he regarded not as a defect, but as one of the great merits of the Bill. Experience would show which was the best plan, and although that plan would not be a pattern to be invariably followed in the case of each locality, still it would be something far superior to anything now in existence.
MR. ALFRED HUTTONsaid that in the elasticity which the right hon. Gentleman had promised, they had in some respects that for which they had been looking for a long time. By the method of inspection to be adopted, the Department would prevent the falling behind of

409
any large number of schools from the minimum standard. The right hon. Gentleman thought it entirely unnecessary to incorporate the code of regulations in the Clause. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman's confidence in the future would be amply justified. He wanted to put a point to the right hon. Gentleman. In his district they had, beyond elementary education, certain intermediate schools, higher grade schools, and the new schools—so-called higher elementary schools, as well as science and art classes. Now, those schools earned their grants from the Department in respect of particular work which was done within a certain narrow limit. He was not using that expression as a criticism of the education which was given in them. His point was, whether the elasticity which the First Lord of the Treasury said was to be given to the new education authorities, would enable them to enlarge the scope of the intermediate classes or not?
THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL ON EDUCATION (Sir JOHN GORST,)said he did not understand the point.
MR. ALFRED HUTTONsaid he would try to make his point clearer. The higher elementary schools were very distinctly science schools.
SIR JOHN GORST: No; they are not.
MR. ALFRED HUTTON: There is a teaching of science in the majority of them.
SIR JOHN GORST: The amount of science taught in the higher elementary schools is part of the general education, and is not specialised.
MR. ALFRED HUTTONsaid that the schools might be good or not, but they knew that these schools were carried on under this particular Minute of the Board of Education. Now, supposing the local education authority carried on those schools, would they be able, under some scheme of their own, to receive grants for schools that would have rather a wider scope than elementary schools?
SIR JOHN GORST: That depends on the Code.
MR. ALFRED HUTTONsaid that the whole point was that the Code limited the grants to children under fifteen years of age. What he was calling attention to was the intermediate class of schools, in which the children were from fourteen to sixteen years' of age, and who were not going to carry on their education until they were eighteen or nineteen years of age.
SIR JOHN GORSTsaid that they could not carry on under the Code, because the Code only applied to children under fifteen years of age. If the County Council carried on the children over fifteen years of age, they would be children attending secondary schools.
MR. ALFRED HUTTONsaid his point was that the County Council education authorities ought to have some power of extending the kind of education to which he had referred to children attending the higher grade schools, without bringing them into the category of secondary schools.
SIR JOHN GORSTsaid that the local authority had the most ample power to establish any kind of school it liked. But the elasticity would not go so far as the payment over of money voted by this House to elementary schools.
*MR. CHANNINGsaid if no one else challenged a division against this Clause he would do so. His objection was three fold. He challenged the Clause as a matter of principle. This Clause transferred to an indirect, irresponsible, and remote; authority the powers and duties hitherto exercised by the directly elected, directly responsible, and practically unfettered authority — the School Board. But, further, the Clause, taken in connection with the rest of the Bill, was vague and I indefinite and ineffective; and, finally, the powers handed over had been so deliberately restricted that they did not constitute an authority which would have either the responsibility or the duties or the initiative of the present School Board system. He wished to enter a final protest against the abandonment of the ad hoc principle. He did not defend the

411
existence of the village School Boards as a matter of principle. But he wished to say that he knew that many of them had been doing excellent work, and had helped to raise the level of education. It was an absurd incongruity to place them on the same footing as the School Boards of London and other large towns. The policy of this Bill was reckless and suicidal in throwing aside the principle of the ad hoc authority in the conduct of education. Anyone who looked at the history of education in this country would recognise that it was the unlimited powers which had been given to the School Boards in these great towns which had lifted the population out of the Slough of Despond and from the horrible degradation and ignorance in which the nation then lay, and had rendered possible the present state of educational efficiency. It was necessary to develop the School Board system and to co-ordinate it on bolder lines, and to build up a true structure of national education, as had been made possible in Scotland by the School Boards. The blame for the failure to work this out, the natural and logical system of national education, rested on both parties. Liberal leaders had failed in the courage and initiative to face and solve this problem and to remove the obvious defects of the Act of 1870. The policy of the other side had been uniform and persistent in thwarting and paralysing the growth of the School Boards. This Bill was the final stage in a long war against this, the only effective instrument for raising the standard of education. By Minutes, by grants, by Act after Act, they had done their best to weaken, instead of to expand, the national system, in order to bolster up the voluntary schools. The Archbishop of Canterbury had said that the School Board system was a magnificent system, which had done a wonderful work for the education of the people, and had also stimulated the education given in the Church schools. But that gave the real clue to the hatred with which the Boards were assailed. They had exasperated the subscribers to the voluntary schools. Canon Bury, a distinguished ecclesiastic of his country, and one of the ablest educationists in the country, declared some years ago that whenever the voluntary system had
412
managed to exclude the School Board system in towns, education had been starved and kept at a low level, and added that "the country would be advanced in no slight degree if the Voluntary system wore superseded by some such system as the Board. Now, were they going by this Bill to give anything like a proper and a reasonable substitute for that system? They were doing nothing of the kind. They were giving no real equivalent of the School Board. They were substituting not a real living authority, but a non-representative authority, an irresponsible committee, for the objects of the clerical cliques who wished to destroy the Boards. The country knew, and would know more clearly, how the interests of the people were being sacrificed to hand over to the monopoly of the clerics and their friends the whole future of education. By this Bill they were not even creating a duty on the part of the local education authority of making a similar provision for education as was given by the Bill of 1870. To take some of the worst results of the Bill, the substitution of a remote and indirect authority for the directly elected School Board had the result of banishing the representatives of labour from the management of the schools. Under the new Bill, it was impossible for them to participate in the real and effective control of the education of the country. Working men could not be members of County Councils, or have any real initiative. That was one of the cardinal evils of the Bill, and doubly a misfortune, because there had been a remarkable growth of interest among the ablest of the working classes in education. The co-operative societies and the trades unions in great industrial districts such as he represented had expressed their condemnation of the Bill on the very ground that representatives of the working men were excluded from real work of education by the Bill. The schools would now be handed over to superior persons and ecclesiastics, and the working men of the country, who sent their children to these schools, were banished from it. It was a misfortune, too, that this scheme banished women, whose work in education had been so helpful and noble, from all

413
real power and initiative. In future they could only share in the minor details of local management. This was not an endeavour to improve the education of the country, but an attempt on the part of the Government to enable the ecclesiastics to monopolise the education of the country. He condemned the Clause as he condemned the Bill. If he and others tried to piece together out of this general wreckage some fragments of machinery to carry on in some way the work of education of the people, they knew they were losing the best, and could only be patching the second or third best, or rather the worst, system they could have.
MR. SAMUEL EVANSsaid he sympathised with all that had been said, but he would not make any further protest for the retention of the School Board; he would simply devote his remarks to the particular question of the Clause. He desired some further information from the Government, before the Clause was got rid of, as to the relationship that existed between the Board of Education and the local authority. On that question the Bill was silent. They were conversant with the position between the School Boards and the Board of Education, but they were left entirely in the dark as to the relationship between the Department and the new authorities. It had been explained by the right hon. Gentleman that the chief object of the Clause was to allow greater elasticity in the working of the whole system, and certainly the Bill should be made as elastic as possible; but what he wanted to know was what the Department were doing in order to screw up the local authorities to the highest standard. The code of regulations would, they knew, be dealt with, in the future as in the past, by Whitehall; and further, the power of inspection would remain as at present. He did not know how it would work, but he was glad to hear that the power of inspection was to be retained by Whitehall. But even in regard to that matter they wore slightly in the dark. Were the Board of Education to be a sort of appeal court, to which these people had aright to go; or would they have the
414
power of making periodical examinations? Were the periodical examinations they had now to continue? Were the Board of Education in London still to overlook the elementary education of the country? If they were, so much the better; if they were not, he supposed the Board would be put into motion by somebody from the district, and would come in as a superior controlling inspection Board, over the inspection held by the local body. Another question he desired to ask was, whether the Board of Education would be compelled to give to the local education authorities their properly allocated proportion of the Exchequer grant. A considerable amount of money was granted by the Exchequer to the Board of Education, and supposing the amount allocated to one County Council was £100,000 could that County Council make a demand for the money which the Board of Education would not be able to refuse?
SIR JOHN GORSTsaid the Exchequer money was distributed in accordance | with the number of children in the elementary schools, provided the schools were efficient. The amount received would be governed by the numbers of the children and their efficiency.
MR. SAMUEL EVANSexpressed his gratification at having elicited that statement, because in the Bill it was not quite clear whether the Board of Education would not have the power to stop the grant. So the Board of Education would be able to see for themselves whether those schools were efficient. His desire was that the control of the Board of Education should be kept to the full, not for the purpose of throwing red tape round the local authority, but in order to bring the authorities up to a proper standard. Although the local authorities were alive to the necessity of having efficient schools in their own district, they were not so alive to the necessity as they should be, and therefore he would like to see full control retained by the Board of Education.
MR. GEORGE WHITEsaid as, one who had had

415
thirty years experience of School Board education, he could not part with an old friend without saying a few words. In the large towns there was a consensus of opinion in favour of the character of the work the School Board System had accomplished. They found these towns in a state of great educational deficiency and they set to work to remedy that deficiency, and had brought them to a position of efficiency which no man on either side of the House disputed for a moment. When the Bill of 1870 was introduced by Mr. Forster, whatever else he believed in with regard to education he had the conviction that the School Board system would ultimately overspread the land. Mr. Forster was not prepared to upset the existing system but he felt he was establishing a system more in consonance with English ideas. No doubt Mr. Forster's ideas would have become established, had the two systems been allowed to work side by side, without favouritism being shown to the denominational schools. But during recent years certain favour had been shown to the denominational schools, in order to bring them into line with the board school, which enabled them to maintain their position apart from the board schools. If the two systems were to be maintained, nothing could be said on the matter, but the increased funds being given in the way they were given to the denominational schools was absolutely unfair to the School Board schools, and there was a very great feeling against these schools being managed in this way. There was a very strong opinion that the proper way to extend the education of this country was to extend it by that means which had been successful in the past, and not that which had not, and to upset an existing institution like the School Board without a strong expression of opinion from the people of the country would be a most unpopular step to take. In the mind of the country there was no fault to be found with the School Board system. There were objections to the rates by which the system was carried out, but not to the system itself, and with regard to those objections he could conceive no section of the people, except those wedded to the denominational school system.
416
who disapproved of the rate for the School Boards, or who would vote for their abolition. Why should these bodies be abolished? They had carried out the purpose for which they were established, and in accordance with the natural law of progress they had endeavoured to keep pace with the demand for education along the line of what was called secondary education. Instead of abolishing the School Boards a much simpler plan would be to enlarge the system in areas where the small School Boards had failed to do their duty in the way large School Boards had; even then it might not be a success in all cases, because the success of these small School Boards largely depended on their getting a Chairman of intelligence, and where that had been done they had done equally good work as the large School Boards. Why should this great system be abolished simply because some of the small School Boards had failed in their duty? After thirty years experience, gained by great cost and great labour they were to be swept away, and their experience in a vast number of cases would never be utilised. The result would be that all they had learned in this work of thirty years would be brushed aside because a demand had been made by the ecclesiastical party for a larger share in the control of the schools. This step was not approved by the country, and in his opinion a great mistake had been made. What had been the work in many districts where School Boards did not exist? In Chatham, as he was told by the oldest denominationalist in the place, there was no public elementary school where a boy might qualify to enter the naval service, and if he desired to enter the navy he had to qualify in a neighbouring town. There were other districts in the country which were known to be educationally behind because they had not the benefit of School Board work. No one could deny that the School Board system had lived down any early opposition there might have been, otherwise it could not have done the work it had done, and compelled the managers of the denominational schools to do something to keep in some manner abreast of it. Yet this system was to be thrown on one side and for no reason. All that it had done proved the justification for its existence,

417
and no reason had been given for its abolition during the whole of the debate except the way in which County Councils and Borough Councils had disposed of their money for the purposes of technical education. There was no difficulty in the School Boards working with the County Councils, and the new system could have been grafted on to the School Boards in such a way that they would have been able to co-ordinate the whole system of education. He failed to see how the co-ordination of education was to be accomplished by the new system, and thought by abolishing the School Board system they abandoned the only hope of ever doing so.
MR. C. P. SCOTTsaid this Clause was destroying the Bill; it was destroying the old system, which had done good work, for a new authority which had not any of the powers or the means of performing the great work it was expected to undertake. Whatever else the School Board system might be, it had the direct support of the people, it brought home to everyone called upon to serve on a School Board his responsibility for the education of his locality, and it gave every ratepayer of the district the control of the educational system under which his child was being educated. They were losing that direct popular control by the people of o locality over the education in that locality, which in the past had produced such advantageous results. By the abolition of School Boards in the large boroughs they were sweeping away a mass of accumulated experience which it would be absolutely impossible to replace by a stroke of the pen, and education in some of the most progressive districts of the country might be very gravely affected. Personally, he deeply regretted that women were altogether excluded from the education authority. They might be placed upon the subordinate bodies — the Committee or the Board of managers— but they were absolutely excluded from any position in the chief authority. The majority of the school children of the country were girls, the majority of the teachers were women; and when they remembered the invaluable services which women had rendered on the
418
School Boards, and the utter impossibility, from the nature of the case, of men bringing to bear the precise qualities of knowledge and sympathy which belonged to women by virtue of their sex, it could not but be admitted that a grave penalty would be paid if women were excluded from the position they had hitherto occupied in our educational system. He hoped there was something to be said on the other side, and that something would be gained from the change. The change was not one which they on that side of the House would have made. They undoubtedly would have extended the direct popular authority of which they had had experience, with which they were not dissatisfied, and which had been of such inestimable benefit to education. But they were not in power, and some of them were glad the new authority would be universal, and the foundation of a national system would thus be laid, which he hoped might in time be made as effective and satisfactory as every member of the Committee desired it to be. Moreover, while the old authority dealt with only one class of school, the new authority would deal with all classes, and that would be a certain compensation. Above all, by this new authority they would be able to bring into immediate and vital relation the various kinds of education throughout the country. He might appear to be leaning too strongly towards the new authority, but he felt that there were great possibilities with the system if only the country and Parliament would see that they were developed. The municipal authority, as such, was more powerful than any ad hoc authority could be. It was part of the whole structure of our political and social life, and carried with it the prestige and power which belonged to a body which had to deal, not with education alone, but with the numberless material interests of the people, and whose powers and responsibilities were being daily added to. The municipal authorities were a great and growing power in political and social life, and he was glad that into their hands was being placed the vital question of education, which needed the greatest power that could be put behind it. He was inclined to think that hon. Gentlemen who were

419
so solicitous for the continued vitality of that part of our educational system which rested upon denominational distinctions, might find in the ruture that they had made for themselves a master which they were unable to control. Absolute justice should be done to the denominational schools and the interests they represented, but there was some-thing which stood above the interests even of denominations, and that was the interest of the country as a whole, and the authority which rightly belonged to the representatives of the people in regard to spending the people's money. But if this new authority was to do the best work, it would have to receive greater powers than were given under the Bill. The municipal authority must be a real authority, and have the powers which would enable it effectively to discharge the important duties that were to be imposed upon it. He did not think that under the Bill the municipal authority had a fair chance, and it was the duty of the Committee to see that full and adequate powers were given.
THE CHAIRMANreminded the hon. Member that he was going beyond the question before the Committee.
MR. C. P. SCOTTsaid he would not further pursue that point. When Parliament was making these great changes they ought to take care to give the new authorities adequate powers, and impose upon them at least as full a range of duties as were imposed upon the School Boards. He wished to point out that they did not impose upon this new authority the obligation to provide in all cases for an adequate supply of school places, and in all these things they should give the authority adequate power, and impose upon them full duties so as to enable them to discharge the functions which were now being imposed upon them.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. WALTER LONG,): I rise to appeal to the Committee to come now to a decision upon this Clause. It has been debated at very considerable length, and I think everything has been said that can be said by
420
hon. Gentlemen opposite and the Government upon all parts of this Clause. Therefore, I respectfully ask the Committee to allow us to proceed to a division now and dispose of this Clause.
LORD EDMUND FITZMAURICEsaid it was not at all an unusual thing for those who took a strong view upon this subject to desire to say a few words in singing their swan song in regard to this Clause. Perhaps he might be allowed to say what he had to say without any suspicion of a desire to prolong this discussion. He was not one of those who, considered it necessary to believe that education was going to be affected in a retrograde sense by the proposals contained in this Clause, but what he did say was that they were entitled, whatever their opinions might be, to point out upon this important Clause that there was an essential distinction between the position of the large towns and the country districts. The hon. Member for North-West Norfolk spoke almost in tones of emotion in regard to the disappearance of that great and important body which had done so much excellent educational work in his constituency. He very largely shared those feelings in regard to large towns. The essential distinction between the two positions was that this Clause was mainly a work of destruction in regard to the large towns; in regard to the rural districts this Clause was mainly a work of construction. That was an extremely important issue, and he was rather sorry that the right hon. Gentleman should appear to think that they were unduly trespassing upon the time of the House by desiring to place on record their opinion that this Bill would have been a better Bill if it had drawn a broader and clearer distinction between the School Boards in large towns and those in the country districts outside large towns. There was a School Board in the Forest of Dean which undoubtedly resembled the School Boards in large towns, although this was an exceptional case. Admitting as he did that there was a very great deal to be said pro and con upon this important question, he believed that the County Councils of England, although they had not identified themselves with the attack made upon the School Boards, now that

421
Parliament was going to place important duties upon them, would do their best to rise to the level of the great opportunity that was cast upon them. Their task would be an exceedingly difficult one, and he was not inclined to be alarmed at the action of some County Councils, because clerks of County Councils were a very prudent and circumspect body of men, and were over prone to desire to have a very large mass of work suddenly thrown upon their shoulders. He believed that the County Councils would do their best in this matter and that they would be successful. He was not urging this view because of the success of the County Councils in regard to technical education, of which they had heard so much. The reason he held this view was on account of the success of the County Councils in regard to their administrative work generally. In regard to a body which had shown its fitness in regard to the ordinary administration of the country, and had used its powers largely and efficiently, why were they to suppose that this elected body would fall suddenly short of the great opportunity given to them in regard to education. He believed they would seek to take advantage of the experience of former members of the School Board where they existed, and would try to find a place for them on the Councils. For those reasons he was not prepared to vote against this Clause. He did not think any complaint could be made of the discussion which had taken place upon this Clause in trying to place their reasons for interfering with School Boards of large towns. That had been the burden of their complaint, and the same arguments applied in great cities and scattered populations near large towns. Those were the reasons which he desired to respectfully place before the Committee, and he hoped and believed that while a great disaster had taken place by the destruction of the School Boards in large towns, the County Councils would rise to the level of the great opportunity in regard to education which was going to be cast upon them.
*DR. MACNAMARAsaid that as far as the great boroughs were concerned he should have been glad if the Government had retained the ad hoc
422
authority. The municipalities of our great boroughs were not wanting in public spirit. He did not think the Government realised even now the extreme detail and the stupendousness of the work they were directing the municipalities to undertake. In Liverpool, for instance, they were asking the Municipal Council to take over the management of the education of 100,000 children, the control of 3,000 teachers in 400 school departments, and entailing an expenditure of half-a-million of money every year. He believed they would all do their best, but the work was so great and minute in its detail that it would be impossible for them to look after it properly, and the work he feared would fall back into the hands of the officials. He believed that the destruction of the School Boards in the great towns was the greatest educational leap in the dark which had yet been taken. As to the administrative county he confessed to great anxiety. He could not shut his eyes to the fact that members of the administrative county were not so keen about a generous education of the working classes. No doubt things were different in Wiltshire, represented by the noble Lord, but he recollected that when they got the whisky money there was a proposal to spend half of it upon a lunatic asylum.
LORD EDMUND FITZMAURICE: The proposal was not adopted.
*DR. MACNAMARAsaid that was quite true, but the proposal was brought forward, and it could not be said that the administrative counties were very keen upon this matter. They were keen about technical education of an agricultural character when provided by money which they did not themselves contribute. What he was afraid of was that, unless they superimposed from Whitehall a rigid standard to which these people must come up, it would be disastrous to the children in the villages. Their honest conviction being that education would take the people off the land, what could be expected? An agriculturist once said—
"We are doing too much for the children. All that we should teach them is to fear God, honour the King, and touch their hat to the squire."

423
That was the agricultural idea of education. He did not suggest for a moment that it was at all general. He was anxious to secure that, however much elasticity, however much local agricultural colour they might desire to give to the education of these children, Whitehall inspection should not he relaxed, and that these new authorities in the counties should be compelled to come up to the standard of the Education Department as the School Boards had done in the past.
SIR WILLIAM MATHERsaid the House should endeavour to make the Government feel how serious was the situation created by the extinction of the School Boards. He wished his hon. friends who had been so eloquent during the last two hours had taken the pains to express their views when there were Amendments before the Committee having for their object the retention of the School Boards. On this side of the House they regretted for practical reasons the abolition of the School Boards. He did not think the Government quite recognised what they had to replace in abolishing the School Boards. In some 220 or 230 large districts, with populations of over 20,000 persons, where School Boards now obtained, there were some 2,500 persons controlling the elementary education in those areas. He desired to impress on the First Lord of the Treasury that they who had all along resented the abolition of School Boards were bound to demand that in Clauses 7 and 8 the Government should provide an educational power equal in efficiency, experience, ardour, and earnestness to that represented by these 2,500 members of School Boards now displaced, and to take care that the elementary education should be conducted as efficiently as it had been under the School Boards.
*MR. HELMEsaid the powers to be transferred to the new education authority under Clause 6
would not give that authority all the powers which were enjoyed by the School Board. There were powers exercised by the School Board other than those contained in the Education Acts. For instance, there were the powers under the Canal Boat Act, and he thought these also should be transferred to the new authority in order that the scope of the action of the education authority in the future should be as full as that of the School Board in the past. He hoped the central authority would have its hands strengthened, so that in those districts where the standard was not up to what was generally desired by the Board of Education, there should be full power to compel the local authorities to bring up their educational provision as to supply of efficient and suitable public school accommodation to the standard necessary from a national point of view; as the Bill stood they need only provide that which in their own opinion might be necessary. A mandamus to compel, as proposed, was a poor substitute for the powers now enjoyed. Reference had been made to the willingness of the Lancashire County Council to undertake the work to be placed upon it by the Bill. He pointed out that while expressing general willingness to undertake the work, it had passed a resolution (altering a recommendation of Special Committee, that the Ratepayers should have proper representation) and demanding that this be "subject as regards schools not vested in the local educational authority, to the ratepayers having full control over expenditure on maintenance and the secular instruction to be given." They could not be too careful in seeing that the intention of the House at the present time as to secular control of all schools in that respect was not jeopardised.
(7.0.) Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 287; Noes, 102. (Division List No. 299.)

AYES.

Abraham, William(Cork, N.E.

Ambrose, Robert

Arro, Sir William

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Allhusen, Augustus Hy. Eden

Arnold-Forster, Hush O.

Bain Colonel James Robert

Baird, John George Alexander

Foster, SirMichael(Lond. Univ.

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Balcarres, Lord

Foster, PhilipS. (Warwick, S.W

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

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

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

M'Cann, James

Balfour. Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

Godson, Sir Augustus Fred'k.

M'Govern, T.

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

Gordon, H n. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn)

M'Kean, John

Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

Gore, Hn. G. RCOrmsby-(Salop

M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

Banbury, Frederick George

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

Beach, Rt. Hon. Sir Mic. Hicks

Goschen, Hou. George Joachim

Martin, Richard Biddulph

Bentinek, Lord Henry C.

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Bignold, Arthur

Greene, Walford D. (Wednesb'ry

Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

Bigwood, James

Greene, Sir E. W (B'rySEdm'nds

Middlemore, John Throgmort'n

Bill, Charles

Grenfell, William Henry

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Blandell, Colonel Henry

Gretton, John

Milvain, Thomas

Boland, John

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Montagu, (Huntingdon)

Bo-cawen, Arthur Griffith-

Groves, James Grimble

Montagu, Hon. J. Scott Hants

Bowles. T. Gibson (King's Lynn

Gunter, Sir Robert

Mooney, John J.

Brassey, Albert

Hamilton, Rt Hn LdG. (Midd'x

More, Robt. Jasper (Shropsh.)

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Hamilton, Marq. of (London'y

Morgan, DavidJ (Walthamst'w

Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

Hare. Thomas Leigh

Morgan, Hon. F. (Monm'thsh.

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Harrington, Timothy

Morrell George Herbert

Butcher. John George

Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

Morrison, James Archibald

Campbell, Rt Hn. J. A. (Glasgow

Hatch, Ernest Frederick George

Morton, Arthur H. A. Deptford

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Mount, William Arthur

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Hayden, John Patrick

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

Cavendish, V.C. W. (Derbysh.

Heaton, John Henniker

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

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Henderson, Sir Alexander

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

Newdigate, Francis Alexander

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Higginbottom, S. W.

Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.)

Chamberlain, J. Aust. (Worc'r

Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.

Nolan, Joseph (Loath, South)

Chapman, Edward

Hogg, Lindsay

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

Charrington, Spencer

Hope, J. F.(Shef'ld' Brightside

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Clive, Capt. Percy A.

Hornby, Sir William Henry

O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

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

Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Hoult, Joseph

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Howard, John (Kent, Faversh.

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

O'Malley, William

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Jameson, Major J. Eustace

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Corbett. T. L. (Down, North)

Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

Cox, Irwin Edw. Bainbridge

Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

Parker, Sir Gilbert

Cranborne, Viscount

Jordan, Jeremiah

Parkes, Ebenezer

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Joyce, Michael

Peel. Hn. Wm. Robt. Wellesley

Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

Percy, Earl

Crossley, Sir Savile

Kennedy, Patrick James

Pilkington, Lieut.-Col. Rich'rd

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T (Denbigh)

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Delany, William

Kenyon-Slaney, Col.W. (Salop.

Plummer, Walter R,

Dickenson, Robert Edmond

Keswick, William

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Kimber, Henry

Power, Patrick Joseph

Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

Knowles, Lees

Pretyman, Ernest George

Disraeli, Conings by Ralph

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Purvis, Robert

Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.)

Pym, C. Guy

Doogan, P. C.

Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'h

Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

Lawson, John Grant

Randles, John S.

Doughty, George

Leamy, Edmund

Rankin. Sir James

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Lee, Arthur H. (Hants., Fareh'm

Reddy, M.

Doxfond. Sir William Theodore

Lees, Sir Elliot (Birkenhead)

Redmond, John E. (Waterford

Duke, Henry Edward

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Redmond, William (clare)

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Reid, James (Greenock)

Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir Wm. Hart

Leveson-Gower, Fred'k N.S.

Remnant, James Farquharson

Elliot, Hon. A. RalphDouglas

Llewellyn, Evan Henry

Renshaw, Charles Bine

Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.

Lock wood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

Renwick, George

Faber, George Denison (York)

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Richards, Henry Charles

Fell owes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

Ridley, Hon. M.W. (Stalyb'dge

Fergusson, Rt Hn Sir J. (Manc'r

Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S.

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Finch, George H.

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Lowe, Francis William

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Fisher, William Hayes

Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

Fison, Frederick William

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Ropner, Colonel Robert

FitzGerald, Sir RobertPenrose-

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

Round, Rt. Hon. James

Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon

Lundon, W.

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Macartney, Rt Hn W. G. Ellison

Rutherford, John

Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Macdona, John Cumming

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Flower, Ernest

MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Flynn, James Christopher

MacNeill. John Gordon Swift

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

Forster, Henry William

Maconochie, A. W.

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

426

427

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

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

Wilson A. Stanley (York. E. R)

Seely, Chas., Hilton (Lincoln)

Thornton, Percy M.

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Seely, Maj. J. E. B (Isle of Wight

Tomlinson, Sir Win. Edw. M.

Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.

Seton-Karr, Henry

Tritton, Charles Ernest

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

Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew.

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Worsley-Taylor. Henry Wilson

Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks)

Valentia, Viscount

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

Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. H (Sheffi'ld

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Spear, John Ward

Wanklyn, James Leslie

Wylie, Alexander

Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

Warr, Augustus Frederick

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

Webb, Colonel William George

Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)

Welby, Lt-Col. ACE. (Taunton

Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

Stanley, Lord (Lance.)

Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Nott s.)

Young, Samuel

Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

Whiteley, H (Ashton-und. Lyne

Younger, William

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES℄

Sullivan, Donal

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Sir William Walrond and

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Willox, Sir John Archibald

Mr. Anstruther.

NOES.

Allan, Sir William(Gateshead)

Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Helme, Norval Watson

Robson, William Snowdon

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

Runciman, Walter

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Holland, Sir William Henry

Russell, T. W.

Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

Sehwann, Charles E.

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

Jacoby, James Alfred

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Jones, David Brynmor (Sw'nsea

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

Burt, Thomas

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Buxton, Svdney Charles

Kearley, Hudson E.

Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

Caine, William Sproston

Labouchere, Henry

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Caldwell, James

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Soares, Ernest J.

Cameron, Robert

Leigh, Sir Joseph

Strachey, Sir Edward

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Leng, Sir John

Taylor, Theodore Cooke

Causton, Richard Knight

Lewis, John Herbert

Tennant, Harold John

Craig, Robert Hunter

Lloyd-George, David

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

Cremer, William Randal

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr

Crombie, John William

M'Crae, George

Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings

Dalziel, James Henry

M'Kenna, Reginald

Tomkinson, Jamas

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Mansfield, Horace Rendall

Toulmin, George

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Markham, Arthur Basil

Wallace, Robert

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

Mellor, Rt. Hon. John William

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Duncan, J. Hastings

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

Dunn, Sir William

Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

Weir, James Galloway

Edwards, Frank

Moss, Samuel

White, George (Norfolk)

Ellis, John Edward

Moulton, John Fletcher

Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)

Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

Newnes, Sir George

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

Norman, Henry

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Fenwick, Charles

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Wilson, Chas. Henry (Hull.W.

Furness, Sir Christopher

Nussey, Thomas Willans

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

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Partington, Oswald

Grant, Corrie

Paulton, James Mellor

Griffith, Ellis J.

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES℄

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Perks, Robert William

Mr. Channing and Mr.

Harmsworth, R. Leicester

Pirie, Duncan V.

John Wilson, (Durham).

Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale-

Price, Robert John

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause 7:—
MR. ELLIS GRIFFITHmoved that progress be reported. This was he said, a very important Clause, and it being now quarter-past seven, it would be impossible that any progress could be made with the debate upon it before the adjournment for the dinner-hour.
Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report progress, and ask leave to sit again."— (Mr. Ellis Griffith.)
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid it was perfectly true that they could not hope to make very much progress with the debate before the Adjournment. He had been pressed earlier in the afternoon on certain important subjects which were germane to this Clause, and he had endeavoured to foreshadow some points which he thought might commend themselves to the Committee. They would not alter the spirit of the Clause, but make more detailed provisions than were contained in the Bill at present. He though, that the best course to adopt would be to put

429
these Amendments on the Paper. The Amendments did not depart from the spirit or general principle of the Clause, though the wording was largely modified. He would put these Amendments on the Paper that evening in order that Members might have time to consider them. The Amendments would raise the question of management, and would make it unnecessary to discuss the subject on any other Clause. The Bill would not be taken into consideration again until next Monday.
Committee report progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL.
Order read, for resuming adjourned debate on Question [7th April], "That the Bill be now read a second time."
Question again proposed.
MR. CALDWELLcomplained of the manner in which the Government tried to force this Bill through on every occasion when they had a few minutes to spare. This was not the first occasion on which it had been attempted to be done, and, considering the few Scotch Bills which were brought before the House, he thought it was most unfair. Of course, if it was brought forward because the Government wished to fill up five minutes by talking upon the Bill, that could be done, but it was not the way to get through the business of the House. This Bill proposed to make a very important change in one of the principal Clauses of the Local Government Act for Scotland. It was a most difficult thing to remember the particulars of all these Bills when one was called upon to discuss them without notice, but there were two sections of the Local Government Act which it was proposed to alter by this Bill. The Local Government Act dealt with certain grants which were to be given to the lunatic asylums, and there was another grant which he believed was a medical grant. The medical grant was £20,000, and that for the lunatic
430
asylum was about £90,000. These grants wore given under the Local Government Act, and were provided cut of the probate duty. Certain suites were allocated to England, Ireland, and Scotland, and the section which this Bill sought to amend had reference to the portion of this probate money which was allocated to Scotland. A similar Bill for England had already dealt with the English money.
It being half-past Seven of the clock, the debate stood adjourned. Debate to be resumed this evening.

EVENING SITTING.

  OPPOSED PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS. BAKER STREKT AND WATERLOO RAIL WAY BILL [LORDS] (By ORDER).
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. CLAUDE HAYsaid the House would expect from him a statement of the reason why he opposed the Second Reading of this Bill, the object of which was to extend the time by two years for the purchase of land and completion of the works. He would ask, in the first instance, this question of those who were in charge of this Bill, whether the property was still in the hands of the Official Receiver in Bankruptcy. This railway was one of many paper railways which they had in the metropolis. It had already placed four Acts of Parliament on the Statute-book, and this was the fifth Bill presented to this House by the promoters. Although the line was authorised in 1893 the railway had not yet been opened to the public. This railway was financed, engineered, and constructed by contractors for whom the London and Globe Company were responsible, a company which was now hopelessly bankrupt. They had been told that a, considerable part of the line had already been constructed, but he would like to point out, in the first instance, that the tunnel through which this line passed was of a very small size, and it could not

  431
  possibly carry the traffic which its monopoly should call upon it to carry. Speaking on behalf of many Londoners interested in this matter, ho urged that they were entitled to know whether the line was to be under the direct control of Mr. Yerkes, the promoter of many derelict tube schemes in the Metropolis. This was a question of some importance, owing to the fact of the connection of that gentleman with the District Railway Company. It was no doubt possible, indeed it was extremely probable, that this line would join up with the District Railway at Charing Cross, or some other derelict railway on that route. If they authorised the construction of this line it would be used as an ally of the District Railway, to divert traffic from its natural course on the District Railway. Before the House consented to the Second Reading of this Bill surely they were entitled to have some definite and final statement from the promoters. The promoters of this line promised as long ago as 1894 that the line should be made, but it still remained a paper line. To those who had examined the question it appeared to be only one of the bases of the American schemes which were largely connected with speculative operations on the London Stock Exchange. If this House sanctioned this proposal, it would deprive for a number of years a, large portion of the Metropolis of the advantage of rapid means of communication, and would thus inflict a serious blow at many of those attempts which were made by municipal authorities and others to deal with those social evils under which the vast industrial population of London suffered. The more the proposals in this Bill were considered, the more clear it became that the policy contained in it might be summarised by saying that the object was to bring afloat the speculative operations of stocks of discredited steam railways, and to divert from its natural course traffic which should relieve the congested districts of the Metropolis. The intention of Parliament in creating a comprehensive scheme for the treatment of underground railways was that they should be thoroughly useful to the public, and that there should be competition, but the effect of this Bill would
  432
  be that the company would be tied hand and foot, and that it would be unable to carry out that object. The true object of this Bill was not to serve London, but to serve the District Railway, and it was therefore for that reason that he suggested they should insist on having from the promoters of the Bill some definite assurance that they would work in harmony with other tube railways, whether promoted by them or by their antagonists, so that there might be rapid and cheap communication afforded to all dwellers in the Metropolis.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words, 'upon this day three months."—(Mr. Claude Hay.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  MR. COURTENAY WARNERsaid although he was in favour of all competition, and of as large an increase of tube railways as possible, and recognised the enormous importance and benefit that tube railways would confer on districts through which they would go, yet there were two or three points worthy of consideration before the House agreed to the Second Reading of this Bill. This Bill was part of a system of railways or tubes which was to circulate throughout London. The promoters had no doubt followed out the recommendations of the Joint Committee that tube railways should be constructed on a system for the whole of London. Those who had followed the evidence before that Committee would realise the importance of that recommendation, because the frequent trains that would run along the electric railways would have to be dealt with so that junctions might be formed at the different suburbs. Unfortunately this group of railways had to a certain extent amalgamated, but it had only made itself into a system for feeding the future electrified railway of the present District Railway. It utterly failed to do that which every tube railway system must undertake to do, and that was to do its share to relieve the great pressure of the over-population and crowding of the great district

  433
  in the East End of London. This system of railways did not touch the East End of London except on the fringe. The promoters, in the paper which they had issued that morning, suggested that the White chapel Stepney and Bow Line carried out that idea. That might be so, but it must be remembered that the traffic on this part was already very heavy, and those who were acquainted with the East End of London knew that the traffic was such that it could not possibly carry any more. Therefore the fact remained that this Bill would not be in any way a relief to the East End of London.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! I understand that the hon. Member is dealing with the Baker Street and Waterloo. Railway Company. I do not see how that affects the East End of London.
  MR. COURTENAY WARNER: It is part of the system which leads up to this particular line. It has been urged by the promoters that this line supplies the East Enc" of London. I am arguing that it does not.
  MR. SPEAKER: This Bill does not ask for new powers to make any new line. It only asks for further borrowing powers. I do not see how the hon. Member's observations are in order upon it.
  MR. FLOWER: There are a great number of Bills on the Paper dealing with the subject of tube railways. Would it not be possible on one of these Bills to raise something in the nature of a general discussion?
  MR. SPEAKER: It might be if new powers were asked for. It is quite competent for the House to say that it declines to grant new powers, but it would be unfair to the promoters of this particular Bill to allow irrelevant arguments to be introduced upon it because the House desired to raise a general discussion on other Bills.
  MR. COURTENAY WARNER: I quite understand your point, Sir, but I do not wish to allude to any of the other Bills except those that are promoted by the syndicate which is promoting this one. After all, this syndicate is to work in conjunction with other rail ways. I will merely say that this is part of a system of tube railways which fail to do anything for the East End of London, and therefore it ought not to be considered as part of a complete system. Consequently I do not think the House ought to sanction it.
  MR. BANBURY: On a point of order, Sir, may I ask how it is possible for a railway which runs from Waterloo Road to Baker Street to do anything for the East End of London?
  MR. SPEAKER: I have already pointed out that this Bill is merely one extending the powers already granted.
  MR. COURTENAY WARNER: I will merely say that, in my opinion, this House ought not to concede any extension of powers to this Company, it is contrary to the recommendations of the Joint Committee of last year, which was that any railway sanctioned should be part of a system for the whole of London.
  (9.18.) Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 174; Noes, 10. (Division List No. 300.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.

  Button, Thomas Dolling

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Allan, Sir William (Galeshead

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Allhusen, Augustus Henry K.

  Brassey, Albert

  Cawley, Frederick

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

  Chapman, Edward

  Arrol, Sir William

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Charrington, Spencer

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Burdett-Goutts, W.

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W.(Leeds

  Burns, John

  Cremer, William Randal

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Butcher, John George

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Caine, William Sproston

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

  Bigwood. James

  Caldwell, James

  Delany, William

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Beland, John

  Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Doogan, P. C.

  Lee. Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Doughty, George

  Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington

  Remnant, James Farquhamson

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Renshaw, Charles Bine

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Richards, Henry Chares

  Duncan. J. Hastings

  Leveson-Gower, FrederickN.S.

  Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalv bridge)

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W,

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eition)

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R,

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Rolles on. Sir John F. L.

  Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J.(Manc'r

  Lowther, Rt Hn J W (Cum. Penr

  Ropner, Colonel Robert

  Field, William

  Lundon, W.

  Round, Rt. Hn. James

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Rutherford, John

  Fisher, William Hayes

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Fison, Frederick William

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limeh use)

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Flynrt, James Christopher

  M'Crae, George

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Foster, Sir Michael (Lord. Univ.

  M'Govern, T.

  Spear, John Ward

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  M'Iver, SirLewis(Edinb'gh W.

  Stevenson Francis S.

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Stroyan, John

  Grant, Corrie

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Sullivan, Donal

  Green, Walford D (Wednesbury

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Taylor, Theodore Cooke

  Greene. Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Groves, James Grimble

  Mellor, Rt. Hn. John William

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthy r

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Milvain, Thomas

  Thomas, J A (Glamorgan Gower

  Harwood, George

  Mooney, John J.

  Toulmin, George

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir WilliamH.

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Whit-, George (Norfolk)

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

  Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  O'Malley, William

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Jeffreys, Arthur Fred

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Pease. J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Jones, David Brynm'r (Swansea

  Peel. Hn. Wm. Robt. Wellesley

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

  Jones, William (Carnarv'nshire

  Pemberton, John S. G.

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

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Pilkington, Lt.-Col. Richard

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Joyce, Michael

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Wylie, Alexander

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Young, Samuel

  Kennedy, Patrick James

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Lambert, George

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Price, Robert John

  Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.

  Purvis, Robert

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES℄

  Lawrence. Sir Joseph (Monm'th

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Mr. Banbury and Mr.

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Reddy, M.

  Herbert Robertson.

  Leamy, Edmund

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  NOES.

  Ambrose, Robert

  Flower, Ernest

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES ℄

  Bull, William James

  Harrington, Timothy

  Mr. Claude Hay and Mr.

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  Warner.

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Morgan, Dav. J. (Walthamst.

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Bill read a second time,

  BROMPTON AND PICCADILLY CIRCUS RAILWAY (NEW LINES, ETC.) BILL [LORDS] (BY ORDER).
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  *MR. CLAUDE HAYsaid he begged to move the Bill be read the second time that day three months. It proposed to construct
  436
  a line from South Kensington Station by Brompton Road and Knightsbridge to Piccadilly Circus; but it should not have the assent of the House because it did not conform to the rules laid down by the Joint Committee as to the manner in which tube lines should be constructed. In 1889, the Company obtained authority to connect the line with the contemplated deep-level line of the District Railway, but the connecting line had never been made and the Company had now passed into the absolute control of the District Railway Company, which notoriously used the

  437
  proposed line as a block line to prevent the construction of any other railway down Piccadilly. It was remarkable it the promoters had any intention of building the line that land had not been purchased for a station in, or near, Piccadilly Circus. The finance of the Company was mysteriously connected with Mr. Yerkes's promotion companies, which might be described as further increasing profit companies. Though it was alleged that a contract had been entered into for the construction of the line, there was no satisfactory proof that any such contract was binding, and it was singular that the contract, though promised, had never been produced. The more he looked into the proposals of the Bill, the more he was convinced that it was not designed with a view to the growth or the welfare of London. The history of the District Railway and the South Eastern and Chatham Railway showed that it was false to argue that a desire for high dividends would keep the company true to the interests of the public. The proposed line was intended to serve the interests of the District Railway and not the interests of the public; and the House ought not to give Second Reading to this and similar Bills without receiving from the promoters undertakings that the finance was sound; that the works would be completed without delay; that the company would work in harmony, not only with the District Railway, but with all other tube railways, to provide a through route and an adequate service of workmen's trains, and that the promoters would not oppose any other tube railway Which hereafter might come to Parliament for powers. That might appear a strong demand to make, but it was justified by the history of railways in the Metropolis. If they looked at the District Railway, the Thames Steamboat Company, which were hindrances, instead of helps, to London locomotion, they could not be too careful in arranging beforehand the terms on which locomotion enterprises should be established. Tube railways could not now be regarded as new enterprises, or as involving any considerable risk; although in a thinly populated suburb, the prospects of a
  438
  tube line might be doubtful. But the promoters of the line had selected perhaps the most profitable route for locomotion in the world, and it was only reasonable that if they received so valuable a concession it should be as compensation for making a line in the outlying districts, in which time was required in order to build up a profitable business. The line would obtain some of its, custom by drawing traffic away from existing railway, tramway, and omnibus companies, but it would do nothing to shift the population from crowded centres to thinly populated suburbs, which were badly in need of increased transit facilities. The Company asked for powers to obtain the cream of underground traffic in London, without conforming to the principle laid down by the Joint Committee. Any hon. Member who read the newspapers would have observed during the last day or two mystic phrases and vague assurances from the Chairman of the District Railway, but nothing definite was said as to what the intentions of the Company were as regards the very serious problem of London locomotion, or that there was any intention on the part of the District Railway and its allies, of adhering to the principles and conditions Parliament had decided upon in respect to Tube Railways. On the other hand, they had categorical statements as to what would be done by others who were seeking similar powers. Therefore, he felt that it was neither wise nor proper for Parliament to give a blank cheque to the hon. Member for the Louth Division of Lincolnshire, who was concerned in the promotion of the Bill. Before they passed the Second Reading they were entitled to know what he and his brother promoters were prepared to do if Parliament conferred on them the magnificent advantage of constructing a tube railway through the most profitable part of London. He would protest against the Second Reading of the Bill unless assurances were given which would satisfy those who had the best interests of London at heart.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words ' upon this day three months."—(Mr. Claude Hay.)
  Question proposed. That the word 'now' stand part of the Question.
  MR. MELLORsaid he hoped that the House in this and the other cases would decline to go into these details. It seemed to him an absolute waste of time. The House had an effective system of investigating such matters, and he did not think their time. ought to be taken up with a long string of details of which they could know nothing, and on which they were asked to decide upon ex parte statements. This Bill had been examined by a Committee of the House of Lords, and they had passed the Bill. He suggested that the House of Commons should now send the Bill to a similar Committee of their own, who could go into all these details and take evidence. He therefore hoped the House would decline to accept the Amendment.
  MR. MILVAINsaid he assumed that there would be a general argument on the group of tube railways now before the House. As the representative of the Borough of Hampstead—
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order ! No doubt the question as to whether the House ought, on general grounds, to give powers to any Company proposing additional tube railways in London was before the House, but the hon. Member would not be at liberty to discuss the merits of the particular Bills which follow the Bill now under discussion.
  *SIR J. DICKSON-POYNDERsaid that as the House had passed the Second Reading of the Bill, he should like to move the Instruction which stood in his name.
  *MR. SPEAKER: The Instruction as it stands on the Paper is not in order. It is in order down to and including the words "underground railways," and the hon. Member can move that portion of it.
  *SIR J. DICKSON-POYNDERsaid he submitted to the ruling of the Chair, although the omission of the last two lines vitiated the principle which he wished to bring before the House. He would not press the Instruction now, but would bring it forward after the Second Reading of one of the other Bills.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  CHARING CROSS, EUSTON AND HAMP STEAD RAILWAY (No. 1 AND No. 3) BILL [LORDS] (BY ORDER).
  Order for Second reading read.
  MR. CLAUDE HAYsaid he had on the Paper a Motion of a similar character to that which he had moved in respect of the previous Bill. The present Bill was to construct a line which was authorised in 1893, and was another of the derelicts of Mr. Yerkes, in respect of which no less than six Acts of Parliament had been passed, but nothing had been done towards constructing the railway. Therefore he felt he had some justification in saying that Parliament should ponder before giving a Second Reading to the Bill. Surely, sufficient time had elapsed since 1893 to enable the persons who had obtained the powers to construct the railway. Last year there was a Bill to extend the route to Victoria. Such an extension to Victoria would add enormously to the advantage of this line, and that that valuable extension should have been cut off was another illustration of the disadvantage of allowing any steam railway to have control of any of these tube railways. He believed the line was proposed, not with any view of constructing it, but in order to occupy the route, and thus prevent others from constructing a tube to the advantage of London as a whole.

  CREAT NORTHERN AND STRAND RAILWAY BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  *MR. CLAUDE HAYsaid that as he had again a Motion on the Paper with regard to this Bill, he thought he ought to give his reasons for putting it forward. Immunity was asked for in this case from the hulk of the regulations which Parliament had decided to impose on tubular railways in the Metropolis, on the ground that it was a prolongation of an existing railway terminus, indeed that it was the prolongation of Finsbury Park and King's Cross Stations. He felt that the time had come to recognise the gravity of having a hotchpotch of clauses, regulations, routes and management as regarded the underground locomotion of London. This Bill was ostensibly designed to give facilities for the population served by the Great Northern system, but there was no proper interchange of communication, and they had no guarantee that workmen's tickets would be given at through fares. They must insist that Parliament should pass the Second Reading of the Bill with its eyes open. If they authorised a line which created a muddle in the underground system of London, the blame would be put on them and not on the promoters. He appealed to the House to recognise the seriousness of the proposals contained in the Bill, and to see that the interests of workmen using this line were adequately considered.
  *SIR. J. DICKSON-POYNDERsaid he wished to raise a question as to this line, which had reference also to the Bill just considered. If these Bills were passed, there would be a through route from Brompton to Finsbury Park. There was already a Brompton and Piccadilly Circus Act; then there was the Bill considered just now, projecting a line from Piccadilly to Holborn, and that Bill was assented to by the House of Lords on the distinct understanding that it was to be run in connection with this Great Northern and Strand Railway. It was very important that a regulation should be laid down that there should be through fares for this through route, irrespective of how many Bills went to make up the system. At present there were three distinct groups of fares, and
  442
  the fare for the through journey from Brompton to Finsbury Park might come to 8d. because in the Great Northern and Strand Railway Bill no provision at all for workmen's fares was made, so that it was possible that 1d. a mile might be charged. This was the reason why he had placed an Instruction on the Paper similar to that which he had put down in reference to the Baker-street and Waterloo Railway Bill. He knew that the matter was extremely difficult, and could only be properly discussed upstairs; but he thought the House would agree that these Bills which went to make up a through route should be brought before the notice of one and the same Committee, so that they should not be dealt with in a piecemeal fashion but as an entire system. He hoped that when he moved it the House would agree to the first part of his Instruction.
  MR. COURTENAY WARNERsuggested that the hon. Member should move so much of his Instruction as was in order on each Bill, and by that means draw the attention of the Committee to the question. He hoped, however, the House would have an assurance from the promoters of these lines that there would be no trouble on the score of workmen's fares.
  MR. BOUSFIELDsaid the point raised by his hon. friend the Member for the Chippenham Division was very important, and he hoped that it met with the sympathy, not only of the House, but also of the Board of Trade. It was most important, when there was a group of railways like this with a through route, that there should be, if possible, a joint consideration of them. Subject to what the Speaker might say, he submitted that it was in order so far to refer to this matter as to say that, if it was beyond the power of Parliament to make these three sets of promoters put their heads together and arrive at some arrangement, then the only way in which they could bring the promoters to their senses would be by voting against the second reading, which no one desired to do.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid that it was obviously beyond the powers of the Committee to compel the promoters of this

  443
  Bill and the promoters of two other Bills to put their heads together and make an agreement, and therefore an Instruction ordering them to do so was clearly out of order.
  MR. JOHN BURNStrusted the House would give this particular Bill a Second Reading, and also support the Instruction of the hon. Member for the Chippenham Division. He further hoped that the promoters would obviate the necessity for a division by promptly accepting such an Instruction.
  MR. PERKSsaid he was desired by the promoters of this Bill to say that they would not have the slightest objection to the Instruction, and would be glad that it should pass and be considered by the Committee. One reason why a uniform system of rates had not this session been proposed was that the District Railway, with which these tubular railways had interchanging stations, was hedged about at present by various agreements with neighbouring companies, although not to the extent the hon. Member for Shoreditch had represented; and this railway, which would be worked by electric traction in eighteen months time, would be obliged, in accordance with an undertaking given to Lord Ribbles-dale's Committee, to come for a complete revision of their fares. The probability was that that Company would have one uniform rate over the whole of their railway, and as they would have to subject their rates to the scrutiny of a Committee next session, the promoters of these tubular railways had not thought it necessary to propose now a general unification of rates. But they would be glad to accept the Instruction.
  Ordered, That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Great Northern and Strand Railway Bill [Lords] to insert, so far as practicable, in the Bill provisions to carry out the recommendations as to workmen's trains and fares contained in the Report of the Joint Committee of Session 1901 on Underground Railways. — (Sir John Dickson-Pounder.)

  LONDON UNITED ELECTRIC RAIL WAYS HILL [LORDS] (BY ORDER).
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. BANBURY,in moving that the Bill be read a second time this day three months, said that he did so, not on account of any detail that could be conveniently considered in. Committee, or out of any disrespect for the decision of the House of Lords, but because he believed the Bill to be wrong in principle. The Bill was practically the same in principle as the Piccadilly, City, and North-East London Bill, and he would suggest that if the House took the discussion on these two Bills together it would save time, and then if the present Bill was approved, he would not move his Motion on the other. These two Bills were practically one undertaking, extending over about twenty miles. Fifteen miles of the scheme were in competition with existing railways or with railways which had been sanctioned by the House. About four miles, from Clapham Junction to the Marble Arch, were not open to that objection; but the main object of the line was to run in competition with the Brompton and Piccadilly, the District, the North London, and the Great Eastern systems. The Brompton and Piccadilly line was a tube railway; this Bill proposed to put underneath this tube railway another tube railway, so that they would have four tubes together, two above the other. Tube railways had caused great annoyance to the frontagers on the line of route. The vibration had been great, and damage to property had been caused; but if the House sanctioned the placing of four tube lines in close proximity, it was evident that the dangers from vibration would be increased. Thus two tube lines were to compete against each other, and the system was to be. parallel with the District Railway. For the last twenty years the District Railway had paid no dividend to the ordinary or preference shareholders, and with great difficulty it had raised the money to electrify its system. It stood to reason

  445
  that when this railway was electrified, it would be better for the travelling public than to descend a considerable distance: underground and proceed by tube. (Cries of "No, no."] It was evident that that would be so. He did not think that it was fair to the shareholders of the District Company to allow a competing scheme, unless it could be shown that they had infringed the powers granted to them, or did not meet the demands of the public. At present the company was doing its best to meet the demands of the public, and there was no hurry for this scheme. It would be better to wait until they saw the electrification of the system carried out before they sanctioned this competing scheme. The same argument applied to the case of the other railways, He denied that competition of this kind really meant a benefit to the public; it meant rather ruin to the competing companies. Who in the end combined, and any advantage gained by the public during the quarrel was lost. In the case of companies struggling for an existence, it was impossible for them to give those facilities which they would be in a position to provide if they had sufficient capital at their disposal. Large sums of money had been lost in this way. He agreed that the more they encouraged money to be invested in this country instead of going abroad the better it was for all classes. [An HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!] Under the scheme it was proposed to raise £10,000,000, and he pointed out that the Central London Company paid only a dividend of 4 per cent, and the South London Company 2¾ per cent. How could it be expected that a railway which was to be constructed at this cost, open to competition over fifteen miles of its system, could pay a dividend when the Central London system, tapping the traffic on the finest route, and open to little competition, could only pay 4 per cent.? In the ordinary course of events he did not believe the necessary capital would be found but in the present case there was no doubt that it would be found, because the undertaking was being financed by Messrs. Morgan. He did not suppose that they were going to find all the capital themselves. They would, no doubt, come to the English public to assist them in finding the
  446
  money. Messrs. Morgan had been an extremely successful firm, and people were apt to say that because they had been successful in the past they would be successful in the future. He remembered that there was what was called a railway mania in 1847. George Hudson, a very great man in his time, projected an enormous number of railways, but he was before his time, and he believed that Messrs. Morgan were a little before their time now. He contended that the necessity for these railways had not been shown, that this system of competition was wrong, and that if these lines were constructed the only result would be a great loss of money to the people of this country, without any benefit to the public.
  Amendment Proposed—
  "To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day three mouths."—(Mr. Banbury.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  MR. BUTCHERsaid that he had listened with the utmost care to the speech of his hon. friend the Member for Peckham, and he had been unable to discover from the speech any proof that this Bill violated any fragmentary or microscopic principle of legislation, unless, indeed, his hon. friend was prepared to ask the House to declare as a principle that there must not be two competing modes of locomotion on the same route. That was a principle the House never had affirmed, and it seemed to him that it would be a disastrous thing for the travelling public if such a principle were affirmed now. All the matters that his hon. friend had referred to were matters of detail, and he hoped the House would not waste its time in the discussion of details, but would send the Bill to the Committee upstairs.
  MR. BULL: Said he was deeply interested in this Bill. He sincerely trusted that this measure would be given a fair chance, and that the project of a railway which would run from Hammersmith to Piccadilly would pass. He complained that the District Company had not done anything

  447
  to meet the wants of the public. They had, indeed, recently proposed to reduce their fares on certain routes, but where there was no competition they did not do so. When the promoters. of this scheme came forward and offered to make an efficient railway from Hammersmith to Piccadilly, he, as one interested in Hammersmith, welcomed the proposal gladly. The Company would court any re-examination of this scheme, but they protested against the interests of a company, which had been blocking the way for the last forty years being allowed to stand in the way. A suggestion had been made that this new line was being run entirely by American capita, but that suggestion came with very bad grace from those who were interested in the District Railway. The London United Tramway Company had shown that they could serve the public well, and it had been said by a very high authority indeed that this company had shown the way by which the housing problem could be solved. The Great Eastern Railway had largely reduced their fares, with the result that the East End of London had considerably benefited. If a cheap service of fares, such as that the London United Electric Railways Company guaranteed in their Bill could be secured, it seemed to him that it would be a great benefit to the West End of London. He trusted the House would deal out to this company the treatment which they had dealt out to others, and allow the Bill to be read a second time.
  *(10.40.) MR. JOHN BURNSsaid the hon. Member for York had asked whether this particular Bill violated any Parliamentary principle. Judging this Bill by the view which Parliament had hitherto taken of railway schemes, it did violate a sound Parliamentary principle. On what lines had Parliament hitherto proceeded whether with tramways, underground railways, or the great trunk lines? Parliament had definitely laid down that certain areas of territory should be handed over to certain companies for exploitation by themselves, and in too many cases to the inconvenience of the general public. He was sorry that railway companies had too frequently abused this rule and
  448
  Privilege, and, except in instance where they had been threatened with rival companies and substantial competition, they had not shown that facility to put their house in order which he should have liked to have seen. This, however, would happen, so long as private enterprise was allowed in transit schemes. But they could have within a limited area, and particularly in a large city, too much competition of the same kind. He would illustrate by another argument. The law provided that a municipality had no right to promote a tramway within the same area as a company, and speaking broadly and generally, that rule operated to the advantage of the pioneer company which was compelled to sell out to the municipality in the event of the company not serving that particular area as prescribed by Parliament, and interpreted by locality. In this case they were not dealing with the competition of a rival company against the South Eastern or North Western or the London and Brighton Railways, in which the areas were so vast as to permit of effective competition. They were dealing with an entirely different state of things, namely, needless competition in a congested and limited area. The Metropolitan and District Railway had not served London as it should have done. This, however, was mainly due to the fact that Parliament had been influenced too much by the railway interests, particularly in London. He was not anxious to add to the number of British railway directors, whether they happened to be Yerkes or Morgans, from Canada or America, but he was anxious to be fair to existing companies. In this case there was in existence a company to which this right had been accorded, and though the right had not been so well used as it might have been, an improvement had been insisted on and the company had been given the power of electrification. He thought that Parliament ought to wait until this work was completed. Competition was proposed which could only be detrimental both to the Metropolitan and the Pierpont Morgan railways, and ultimately to the public. Parliament would, if it were wise, impose on the District and Metropolitan and Central London Railways the necessity of

  449
  unifying their schemes, electrifying the whole, and giving London a co-ordinated system, using existing railways as a nucleus, and not introducing a third competitor, which would not give the public that advantage which the existing railway could and should by Parliament be made to do. Of the twenty-six electric and tube Bills introduced this session the House of Lords Committees and the House of Commons Committees had only allowed eleven to get through. The others had been abandoned or rejected because, like this bill, they duplicated existing routes, were financially unsound, or, generally speaking, subjected London to physical disturbance and vibration to which it ought not to be subjected. He believed that in rejecting many of the schemes the Committees had on the whole acted wisely, but why they should reject the Central London Railway Scheme, and at the same time admit the new schemes under Bills 6 and 8 he could not for the life of him understand. He objected to Bills 6 and 8 because there was a duplication where it was not needed. He believed the American line engineered by Mr. Pierpont Morgan was unnecessary, for this reason: that it gave competition where it was not needed. The other day Parliament had before it a mono-rail scheme from London to Brighton. The London, Brighton and South Coast Railway Company successfully opposed that scheme because it would have created needless competition, and Parliament endorsed that view. The American scheme was for a line to run from Hammersmith to the City and on to Palmer's Green. There were already two lines from Hammersmith to the City, and the only reason for the third was that it was promoted by a wealthy syndicate which intended to dominate London transit. They had no guarantee that the American line would be carried on to Palmer's Green, but they had pledges from the Metropolitan and the District Companies that they would improve the service as a whole, apart from profitable sections. He did not attach too much importance to the concessions made by the Pierpont Morgan syndicate with respect to East-End districts, workmen's trains, and so forth. The ease with
  450
  which they had yielded was suspicious, and covered other intentions not yet disclosed. He agreed with the hon. Member for Peckham that this railway would cause needless competition, flu believed also the scheme was financially unsound, that the American financiers, with the facility for which they were distinguished, would eventually unload, and that the British, investor would have to stand the loss. He wanted to put this to the House— What if these three American syndicates made up their differences and amalgamated and took all these lines into their hands? The travelling public would be completely at their mercy. He objected altogether to Parliament's giving power to these syndicates to dominate a great part of the traffic of London. He had a further objection, and that was that through this system they would have introduced a condition of log-rolling and lobbying greater than existed now. He regarded the scheme from every point of view as likely to lead to a competition which would be wasteful, dangerous and extravagant. For these and other reasons he trusted the House of Commons would allow the existing companies to develop their systems, and not add to the difficulties of locomotion by giving an American syndicate power to do inefficiently what he believed the existing companies were capable of doing if Parliament would only grant them facilities.
  MR. PEELhoped the House would give the Bill a Second Reading. The speech to which they had listened seemed to be based on an objection, or rather a prejudice, to American capitalists. Considering what British capitalists had done in other countries, he thought that they ought to be the last to hold that idea. He was very much astonished that the hon. Member for Battersea, who was interested in housing matters, should want to reject this railway, which would be of enormous benefit towards solving the problem of the housing of the working classes. A portion of the proposed railway went from the City out northward, and by its means great districts which were at present undeveloped would be opened up and made accessible

  451
  to the people in the congested districts of London. He did not propose to enter into the questions of finance and competition. They were not matters for discussion in the House of Commons. They could only be dealt with by a Committee upstairs, and he sincerely hoped the House would consent to give the Bill a Second Reading,
  MR. ASHTONspeaking as a Member of the Joint Committee on Underground Railways, which sat last year, said that no scheme that was laid before them was considered better than the line running the whole way from Hammersmith to the City and from the City to the North-East of London. He hoped the House would think twice before refusing to give a Committee upstairs the opportunity of judging of the value of the scheme. He had heard no arguments, from the hon. Gentleman who had moved the rejection of the Bill, or from the hon. Member for Battersea, which were not arguments that ought to be addressed to a Committee and not to that House, though he was surprised to hear the hon. Member for Battersea supporting the vested interests of the District Railway. The Joint-Committee considered this to be an excellent route, and he hoped the House would allow a Committee to settle the details of the matter.
  LORD ALWYNE COMPTONdesired to associate himself with what had fallen from the hon. Member for Battersea. He should like to state what the competition, to which reference had been made, amounted to. It would be a competition from Albert Gate, the whole way up Piccadilly, to Piccadilly Circus. That meant that for that mile and a half there would be two tube railways with stations opening out at the same places, competing for the 'same traffic. From Piccadilly Circus the proposed line moved down through the Metropolitan District Railway, and crossed it several times until it got to Bishopsgate Street, which was a matter of another two and a half miles. The question before the House was not one of detail; it was the broad question whether two railways were to be permitted by Parliament to compete unfairly with each other. If this line
  452
  was required let it go through another part, and not through the part where Parliament had already sanctioned a line. He was not financially interested in any tube or railway whatever. He maintained that it had not been shown that this Morgan railway was required, and even if it were required, he still maintained that it was wrong to depart from the principle established for years that Parliament did not sanction, under any circumstances whatever, unfair competition with railways which had been already sanctioned, and on which public money had been already expended.
  *SIR LEWIS MACIVERsaid he did not wish to express any opinion on the merits of the Bill before the House, but to point out the danger the House was in of being led away from its legitimate functions, sitting as a House, into trespassing on the ground of its own Committees. He had always understood that the question of unfair competition" was one which the Committees were bound to consider; as indeed was nearly every other aspect of the Bill that had been discussed that evening. The hon. Member for Peckham commenced by saying that he would deal with the matter on broad principle, but the hon. Gentleman had never touched any broad principle at all. He dealt exclusively with points of detail. The noble Lord who had just sat down had professed a similar devotion to principle but his speech was never within a day's march of a second-reading principle, The only Member who had thrown down on the floor of the House a real question of principle was the hon. Member for Battersea, and that question resolved itself into the suggestion that the House should refuse to sanction any undertaking which was known, or suspected, to be of foreign origin. He would remind the House that no Committee upstairs would venture or be competent to decide so grave and novel a proposition, and although he expressed no opinion on the merits of the suggestion, he would remind the House that its adoption would very promptly assume an international aspect. For considering the vast amount of British capital invested in America

  453
  and other foreign countries, retaliation in kind would be very simple, and would be inevitable.
  MR. DAVID MORGANsaid as the representative of a very large East End constituency he wished to say a word or two about this Bill. Although of the same name as the gentleman who had boon mentioned as connected with the financial arrangements of the railway, he regretted to say they were not related. He had no interest whatever, directly or indirectly, in the scheme. He thought that the House had been led away to a certain extent on a false issue. The firm connected with the Bill was that of Peabody, and at the head of that firm was Sir Clinton Hawkins, whose
  financial ability was well known to the House, and who would not put his name to any proposal unless he was prepared to uphold the undertaking. He sincerely trusted the House would send the Bill to the Committee upstairs, so that the whole merits or demerits should be considered. The scheme would for the first time provide an electric railway and trams which would enable Londoners to obtain cheap and rapid transit to the country, and thus promote the health of the working classes and their children.
  (11.18.) Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 250; Noes, 69.(Division List No.301.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Harrington, Timothy

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Cremer, William Randal

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

  Allhusen, Augustus H'nryEden

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Ambrose, Robert

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Delany, William

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Arrol, Sir William

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.)

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Doogan, P. C.

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Dorington, Rt. Hn. Sir John E

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Balcarres, Lord

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhonse

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.)

  Duraing-Lawfence, Sir Edwin

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Dyke, Rt. Hn Sir William Hart

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Beach, Rt Hn. Sir. Michael Hicks

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Joyce, Michael

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

  Kennedy, Patrick James

  Bignold, Arthur

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Keswick, William

  Bigwood, James

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Kitson, Sir James

  Bill, Charles

  Fenwick, Charles

  Lambert. George

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Fergusson. Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Boland, John

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.

  Bond, Edward

  Fison, Frederick William

  Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Moum'th

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Brassey, Albert

  Flower, Ernest

  Leamy, Edmund

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Lee, Arthur H (Hants. Fareham

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Forster, Henry William

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Foster, Sir Michael (Lond. Univ.

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Leng, Sir John

  Butcher, John George

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Gordon, Hn. J.E.(Elgin & Nairn

  Lloyd-George, David

  Caine, William Sproston

  Gore, Hn G. R. C. Ormsby-(Salop

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  caldwell, James

  Gore, Hon. S.F. Ormsby-(Linc.)

  Long. Col. Charles W. (Evesham

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Lough, Thomas

  Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Lowther, Rt Hn J W (Cum. Penr,

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Grant, Corrie

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

  Cavendish, V.C. W. (Derbyshire

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Lundon, W.

  Cawley, Frederick

  Green, Walford D.(Wednesb'ry

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Charrington, Spencer

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

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

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Groves, James Grimble

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  M'Arthur,-Charles (Liverpool)

  Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

  Soares, Ernest J.

  M'Cann, James

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Spear, John Ward

  M'Crae, George

  Peel. Hn. Wm. Robt. Wellesley

  Stanley, Hn. Arthur(Ormskirk

  M'Govern, T.

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis (EdinburghW

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  M'Kean, John

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Stewart. Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  M'Killop W. (Sligo North)

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Price, Robert John

  Stroyan John

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Purvis, Robert

  Sullivan, Donal

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Taylor, Theodore Cooke

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Randles, John S.

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Milvain, Thomas

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Reddy, M.

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Tomilinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Mooney, John J.

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Toulmin, George

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Morgan, David J (Walth'mstow

  Renshaw, Charles Blue

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Morgan, Hn. Fred (Monm'thsh.

  Renwick, George

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Ridley. Hon. M. W. (Stalybdge)

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Mount, William Arthur

  Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green

  Welby, Lt.-Col A.C.E (Taunt'n

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Whiteley, H (Ashton-und-Lyne

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Ropner, Colonel Robert

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.

  Runciman, Walter

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Russell, T. W.

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Norman, Henry

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Wilson, HenryJ. (York, W. R)

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Woodhouse, R t. Hn. E. R. (Bath

  O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Wylie, Alexander

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

  Seton-Karr, Henry

  Young, Samuel

  O'Malley, William

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Palmer, George Wm. (Reading)

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES℄

  Partington, Oswald

  Smith, JamesParker(Lanarks.)

  Mr. Bull and Mr. Warner,

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  NOES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Gretton, John

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Anstruther, H. T.

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nd'rry

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Rutherford, John

  Brown, Alexander H. (Shropsh.

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Henderson, Sir Alexander

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Chapman, Edward

  Hogg, Lindsay

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

  Churchiil, Winston Spencer

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  Tennant, Harold John

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Labouchere, Henry

  Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastinge

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Lawson, John Grant

  Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, Gower

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Valentia, Viscount

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Vincent, ColSir C. E. H (Sheffield

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Macartney, Rt Hn. W. G. Ellison

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Morton, Arthur H.A. (Deptford)

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

  Doughty, George

  Moulton, John Fletcher

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

  Edwards, Frank

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Finch, George H.

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  TELLERS FOB THE NOES℄

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Mr. Banbury and Mr.

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Pilkngton, Lieut.-Col. Richard

  John Burns.

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Richards, Henry Charles

  Bill read a second time, and committed or Tuesday next.

  MR. PEEL,in moving the Instruction standing in his name, said that the reason why he moved it was that
  456
  this was the one portion of the line from Hammersmith to the City which was most valuable. The portion of the line from the City to the North; of London was less valuable. What he was afraid of was that the Committee might strike out the most valuable portion of

  457
  the line and leave the least valuable portion in the lurch. If they read the evidence in the Report of the Lords' Committee it would be seen that one of the great inducements for sanctioning the Bill was to get a line from the City to the North of London. His object was to secure that the whole line should be built, but the method by which this should be secured he would leave to the Committee upstairs.
  Ordered, That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the London United Electric Railways Bill [Lords] to take security from the undertakers for the completion of the whole scheme of railways comprised in the Bill, either by making the rights of the undertakers under the Bills conditional upon the due performance of their whole undertaking or otherwise, as the Committee may think fit.—(Mr. Peel.)

  NORTH-WEST LONDON RAILWAY BILL [LORDS] (By ORDER).
  Order for Second Reading read.
  *MR. CLAUDE HAYsaid that he had on the Paper a Motion, "That no Metropolitan Tube Railway Bill will be satisfactory to this House which fails to give effect to the Report of the Joint Committee of Lords and Commons on Underground Railways, 1901, recommending a comprehensive scheme for the relief of the congested districts of the Metropolis and provision for the relief of the most densely populated working-class districts in London now inadequately served." He wished to say that since that Motion had been put on the Paper the promoters of the Bill had supplied information to those interested in this matter, and who were associated with him, that this line would be closely linked up with all the other connected lines in London. He would, therefore, not make his Motion.

  PICCADILLY, CITY, AND NORTH-EAST LONDON RAILWAY BILL.
  Ordered, That it. be an Instruction to the Committee on the Piccadilly, City, and North-East London Railway Bill
  458
  [Lords] to take security from the undertakers for the completion of the whole scheme of railways comprised in the Bill, either by making the rights of the. undertakers under the Bills conditional upon the due performance of their whole, undertaking or otherwise, as the. Committee may think fit.—(Mr. Peel.)

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) (No. 2) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid that surely the right hon. Gentleman did not propose to move the Second Reading of the Bill without any explanation. In all his experience, he never heard of a more extraordinary course being taken than to move the Second Reading of such a Bill without any explanation whatever.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,)said the Chief Secretary was to have moved the Second Reading of the Bill, but ho was not present at the moment. The Bill had been fully explained.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid he vas glad the Chief Secretary was now present. He thought it was scarcely respectful to the House, if the Government really intended to pass the Bill, that it should be moved without any explanation whatever. If the Chief Secretary were ready to make an explanation, well and good; if not, the Bill ought to be postponed.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDUAM,)said he explained the nature of the Bill on the First Reading, and was now prepared to hear the observations of the hon. Member, or any other hon. Member, on it, and to reply to any reasons which might be urged for not passing the Second Reading. He understood that the Bill was put down to suit the convenience of the hon. Baronet the Member for North Wexford, who was particularly interested in it.
  MR. FLYNNsaid they really knew nothing about the Bill. It would be most; unsatisfactory to commence its discussion at that hour, and the proper course would be to adjourn the debate. He begged to move that the debate be now adjourned.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the debate be now adjourned." —(Mr. Flynn.)
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid he would regret if the debate had to be adjourned, because the Bill was one that ought to pass. It was perfectly absurd, however, that the Irish Members should be expected to commence a discussion of a Bill of twenty Clauses, to remedy defects in a great Act of Parliament, at such an hour. He had carefully examined the Bill, and he thought that it was calculated to correct many defects in the working of the Act. The Chief Secretary said that he had explained the Bill on the First Reading; but the right hon. Gentleman had done nothing of the kind. He only gave an outline of the measure.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid he was now awaiting the observations of the hon. Member, or of any other hon. Member, upon it.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid that was not fair treatment for an Irish Bill. Either the House was able to legislate for Irish business, or it was not. He maintained it was; and he would be no party to allowing the Government, or anyone else, to say it was not. That was the very best lesson that the Government could give to the people of Ireland, that legislation for Ireland was impossible in the House of Commons. Ho did not believe that it was; but if the House considered it was fair treatment for an Irish Bill, on such a complicated subject, to be brought on at a quarter to twelve o'clock, he did not know what was to be done with Irish legislation at all. He repeated that, speaking generally, the Bill ought to pass, but it was a Bill which ought to be discussed and considered, and it contained three or four Clauses on which he intended to raise very serious questions. He thought there was a good case for the Motion for the Adjournment.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDSsaid he wished to make a suggestion to the House. Many of the Clauses in the Bill were of very considerable importance to counties in which he was interested. For instance, Clause 3 was introduced, to a large extent, in answer to representations made by the District Council to which he belonged. That Clause would remove a very general inconvenience. Then Clause 11, which empowered a County Council to hold half-yearly meetings, was introduced as part of an agreement between his County Council and the Government last year. His suggestion was, that if the Government would give an assurance that some reasonable time would be given to discussion of the Bill in Committee, the Second Reading should now be taken on that understanding.
  MR. HARRINGTONsaid that some of the provisions of the Bill would completely upset the local authorities. One Clause enabled the auditor of the Local Government Board, at any time and at his own discretion, to examine the accounts of the local Councils, and to subject any official who did not put himself at his disposal, at any hour or any period of the year, to a fine of £5. For his part he would not consent to the local authorities being placed at the disposal of the auditor of the Local Government Board.
  MR. MACARTNEYsaid the Bill was essentially a Bill for discussion in Committee, as no great principle was raised in it. He hoped the hon. Member would not press his Motion. Neither the House nor the Irish Members on either side would benefit by a debate on the Second Reading.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid he wished to say that no one was more surprised than he was when the Bill came on. The Bill, of course, demanded consideration and discussion in the House. When he said that he had made a statement on the First Reading he was speaking by the book; and he held that, as the introducer of the Bill, he could not now get up and make a long speech on the Second Reading without hearing the

  461
  views of hon. Gentlemen. What he said on the First Reading was that the Bill was to remedy certain detects am. hindrances which had been revealed ii the working of the Local Government (Ireland) Act. He was really disposed to believe that they could debate the Bill better in Committee than on Second Reading; and he doubted whether a Second Reading debate would be of any assistance.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid the views he held on the Bill were very much the same as the views of his hon. friend the Member for North Wexford. Some of the provisions of the Bill would undoubtedly be of a valuable character in certain districts in Ireland, and he was not to be taken as anxious to throw any obstruction in the way of the Bill, though, speaking generally, it was a most inadequate attempt to remedy defects in the existing system. When the Attorney General formally moved the Second Reading of the Bill, he protested against the way in which the Government attempted Irish business in Parliament. The position of affairs was this. A great measure of local government had been passed for Ireland; numerous defects had been exposed in the working of the Act; the Government proposed a Bill of twenty Clauses to amend the Act; that Bill was brought in at twenty minutes to twelve o'clock; its Second Reading was moved without a single word of explanation; and then the Chief Secretary said he did not intend to make any speech in proposing the Second Reading. It was true that when the right hon. Gentleman introduced the Bill under the Ten Minutes Rule, he spoke for a few minutes on the general terms of the Bill. That was not a proper way of dealing with Irish questions, and he intervened to protest against it. If this House insisted on arrogating to itself the right to legislate for Ireland, Bills ought to be properly explained; and he thought it was not respectful, either to the House or to the Irish Members, that the present Bill should be brought in in such a way. At the same time, ho thought there was a good deal in what the right hon. Gentleman had said that time might more usefully be spent in discussing the Bill in
  462
  Committee than on the Second Reading; and if the right hon. Gentleman would give an undertaking that adequate time would be given at a proper period for the discussion of the Committee stage, he would be ready to let the Second Reading pass \ now, having made his protest against the manner in which the Second Reading was proposed. It was necessary, however, that they should have a clear understanding in the matter. It would not do to bring on the Committee stage at the fag end of some sitting, when other business had been disposed of sooner than was expected. If such an undertaking were not given, they could not allow the Second Reading to pass unchallenged. He wished to say, with reference to that Bill, and other Irish Bills, that he would be no party to allowing them to pass sub silentio.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am afraid I am responsible, at all events indirectly, for the fact that this Bill has come on, unexpectedly, at such a late hour. As the House is aware, certain incidents have happened in connection with the Education Bill during the afternoon sitting, which prevented that Bill being taken at the evening sitting. I can assure hon. Gentlemen that it was always intended that there should be an opportunity for discussing the Bill now before the House. The hon. Gentleman asks whether I cannot promise adequate time. I will promise; hat the Committee stage of the Bill will be put down as the first Order on the day on which it is to be taken.
  MR. MACARTNEYasked whether the right hon. Gentleman would undertake. hat the present Bill, and other Irish ills, should not be taken at any sitting of the House without appearing on the Order Paper for that sitting.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURassented.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL.
  Order read, for resuming adjourned debate on Question [7th April], "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Question again proposed.
  MR. CALDWELLsaid he could not imagine what induced the Government to bring forward this Bill at three minutes to midnight. The Bill established a principle which had never been established before, so far as grants of public money were concerned. The Lord Advocate would also find that the, Bill was as little favoured on the other side of the House as it was on that. The Bill dealt with grants under the Local Government Act of 1889. They were two very important grants—a grant of £20,000 a year, which was given as a medical grant to the local authorities; and also a grant of about £90,000, which was given as a lunacy grant to the Parochial Boards. The Act of Parliament laid down in specific terms how the money under those grants was to be distributed, and it was not in the power of any Department to alter the conditions. The Bill, if it proposed any thing at all, proposed that the Local Government Board should have the power of issuing from time to time—
  It being midnight, the debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

  RATING OF MACHINERY BILL
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Motion for committal to the Standing Committee on Trade, &c. [9th April.]
  Objection being taken,
  MR. GALLOWAYsaid he did not know if the hon. Member was aware that the Bill was similar to a Bill which had been already referred to the Grand Committee on Trade, and it would be a great convenience if the Grand
  464
  Committee could consider both Bills at the same time. The Motion was merely to facilitate the proceedings of the Committee.
  Debate further adjourned till Monday next.

  DAY INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS (IRELAND) CONTRBUI'IONS.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Resolved, That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of money to be provided by Parliament, of contributions towards the custody, industrial training, elementary education, and meals of children sent by an order of a Court (other than an attendance order) to a certified Day Industrial School, of sums not exceeding one shilling per head per week, and in the case of children without an order of the Court of a sum not exceeding sixpence a week, in pursuance of any Act of the present session to provide for the further establishment of Day Industrial Schools in Ireland.— (Mr. Wyndham.)
  Resolution to be reported tomorrow.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  SIR WILLIAM WALRONDin moving the adjournment of the House, said that the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury stated at the evening adjournment that he would inform the House later what Supply would be taken tomorrow. At the afternoon sitting, the War Office Vote and Medical Vote would be taken; and at the evening sitting the Votes for the Militia and the Yeomanry.
  Adjourned at ten minutes after Twelve o'clock.