Commons Sitting of 5 November 1902

Preamble
The house met at Two of the Clock.
UNOPPOSED PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  WATER PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  Read the third time, and passed.
PETITIONS.
  CANADIAN CATTLE (IMPORTATION).
  Petitions for abolition of restrictions: from Uddingston; Dalziel; Ellesmere Port; Newarthill; Edinburgh; and Markinch; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petitions against: from Norwich; and Newcastle-under-Lyme; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petitions for alteration: from Markinch; and Ellesmere Port; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petition from Seaforth, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  FEES FOR BURIAL SERVICES IN PAROCUTAL CEMETERIES.
  Petition from Woolwich for alteration of law; to lie upon the Table.
  PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION IN TRADE.
  Petitions for legislation: from Uddingston; Dalziel; Ellesmere Port; Newarthill; and Markinch; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  PATENTS, DESIGNS, AND TRADE MARKS ACT, 1888.
  Copy presented, of Rule amending Rule 7 of the Register of Patent Agents' Mules, 1889 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 365.]
  WINTER ASSIZES (IRELAND).
  Copy presented, of Four Orders in Council, dated 3rd November, 1902, for holding Winter Assizes in Ireland [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  COLONIES.
  Copy presented, of Circular Despatch of the Secretary of State for the Colonies, dated 12th December 1901, relative to the Parliamentary and Municipal and Local Representation of Trading Companies in the Colonies under responsible Government, and the replies thereto [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 2911 and 2912 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (MISCELLANEOUS SERIES).
  Copy presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Miscellaneous Series, No. 584 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Dublin Sorting Office—Officials' Grievances.
  MR. NANNETTI: To ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware that the recommendation of the Tweedmouth Commission, that officers employed on split duties should have nine clear hours in their own homes, has not yet been made generally effective in the Dublin Sorting Office; and whether he will consider the entire abolition of split duties.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) I am aware that it has not hitherto been practicable for the whole of the sorting staff in Dublin to have an interval of nine clear hours in their own homes; but arrangements are in progress which, under ordinary circumstances, will, I hope, provide such an interval in all cases. The work necessitates two attendances in the day for the great majority of the officers, and no alteration in this respect can be made.
  MR. NANNETTI: To ask the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that

  131
  in the Dublin Sorting Office this year officers called on to perform extra duty had in many cases to give a triple attendance commencing at 5 a.m. and ending at 8 p.m.; whether with such attendances there were many instances of men being sent off duty receiving as remuneration for a day's work extending over 15 hours only 1 hour 30 minutes overtime, and that officers were called on to perform such duties on an average three times a week; and will he take steps to remedy the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) I am aware that it has been necessary for the staff in the sorting office to give an additional, or third, attendance in certain emergencies; and in every case extra duty has been paid for in accordance with the regulations. Under the arrangements already mentioned it is hoped that a third attendance will be but seldom needed.

  Dublin General Post Office Buildings—Sanitary Condition.
  MR. NANNETTI: To ask the Postmaster General if he will state in the case of the Dublin General Post Office, which did not come within the scope of the corporation sanitary authorities, who was the recognised sanitary authority.
  (Answered by M. Austen Chamberlain.) The Department has its own medical officer in Dublin, who would be consulted on any question as to the sanitary condition of the General Post Office buildings.

  Betting Telegrams and Telegraphic Money Orders.
  MR. CAINE: To ask the Postmaster General whether telegraph money orders are accepted by the Post Office containing instructions with reference to the making of bets; and whether the Postmaster General will take steps to prevent the telegraph service being used for gambling transactions.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) Under the regulations relating to telegraph money orders the sender of an order by telegraph is allowed to have a private message added to the official telegram of advice. This private message takes the place of the separate telegram
  132
  which the sender would otherwise have to forward, and it is sent in accordance with the ordinary rules regulating the transmission of telegrams. I am not able to discriminate between betting telegrams and other telegrams.

  Telegraph Clerks and Betting Telegrams.
  MR. CAINE: To ask the Postmaster General whether, seeing that telegraph clerks are subject to dismissal if it is discovered that they indulge in betting transactions, he will take steps to provide that telegraph clerks in receipt of 12s. per week to 30s. per week shall not be engaged in the transmission of telegrams containing sporting intelligence.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) It would be quite impracticable to carry out the hon. Member's suggestion.

  Lewis Local Government Board Inquiry.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Lord Advocate if he will state the name of the Local Government Board's inspecting officer who visited the Island of Lewis for the purpose of inquiring into questions affecting the public health what places he visited; and how many days, if any, he spent in the country districts, and how many in Stornoway.
  (Answered by Mr. Graham Murray.) Mr. Millar, the Board's general superintendent of poor, and inspecting officer under the Public Health Act, arrived in Stornoway on the 20th May, and left for Harris on the 26th May. During the four working days of his presence in the Lews, he inspected the Poor Law administration of the parishes of Stornoway, Barvas, Lochs, and Uig; had interviews with the sanitary inspector and chief magistrate of Stornoway; and conferred with the medical officer of health, sanitary inspector, and officer of Naval Reserve on the subject of overcrowding. The 25th was Sunday. The distance driven in the course of Mr. Millar's visit to the Lews was about eighty miles.

  Government Agreement with Cunard Company—Water-Tube Boilers.
  SIR WILLIAM ALLAN: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether water-tube boilers exclusively,

  133
  or a combination of cylindrical and water-tube boilers, is to be fitted into the new 25-knot vessels for the Cunard Company, or are the boilers to be of the cylindrical type alone.
  (Answered by Hr. Arnold-Forster.) The Admiralty have made no stipulation as to the type of boiler to be fitted in these vessels, and they have at present no information as to the type decided upon by the company.

  Naval Departmental Committees.
  LORD CHARLES BERESFORD: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can inform the House when the Reports of the various Committees on manning, reserves, the settlement of the engineer officer question, and as to the age of senior officers in command, may be expected.
  (Answered by Mr. Arnold-Forster.) It is hoped that the Reports of the Committees appointed to deal with the question of manning and reserves, and with the system of promotion and retirement of officers, respectively, will be in the possession of the Admiralty before the end of the present year.

  Phthisis in Cornish Mines—Home Office Inquiry.
  MR. CAINE: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what is the nature of the inquiry into the health of Cornish miners which is now being conducted on behalf of the Home Office; when is the inquiry likely to be completed; arid will the report of the inquiry be made public.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers Douglas.) The inquiry is being made by Dr. John Haldane, F.R.S., whose work in connection with mines is already well known. He will have the co-operation of Mr. Martin, His Majesty's Inspector of Mines, and such medical and scientific assistance as he may from time to time require. Dr. Haldane is now actively carrying on the inquiry, but it is impossible at present to say when it will be completed. I see no reason to doubt that the result of the inquiry will be published, though of course I cannot give any pledge on the subject at the present moment.

  Scinde, Punjab, and Delhi Railway—Unclaimed Assets.
  MR. CAINE: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that there has been a sum of about £10,000 lying without interest at the Bank of England to the credit of the Scinde, Punjab, and Delhi Railway Company for the last twenty-one years; that in 1880 this undertaking was vested in the Government of India; that Section 54 of the Act provided for the eventual dissolution of the Company; that this Clause has been inoperative, the last surviving director having died; and that this deposit represents sums distributable, under Section 53 of the Act, between stockholders of the Company to parties who cannot be traced; and will be, therefore, to prevent this money becoming the property of the Bank of England by this failure of claimants, introduce a Bill causing this money to be paid over to the Paymaster General.
  (Answered by Ritchie.) I can add nothing to the answer given by my predecessor to a similar question addressed to him by the hon. Member on 13th March last†

  Education Bill—Status of Organising Teachers.
  MR. THORNTON: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education what, under the Education Bill, will be the status of those organisers appointed by the present School Board who control manual training, cookery, and laundry work, as well as those chosen to deal with kindred subjects.
  (Answered by Sir Brilliant Anson.) Organising teachers employed by a School Board are officers of the Board within the meaning of rules (7), (8), and (9) of Schedule II. of the Bill. Their status will, therefore, be governed by those rules.

  Home Charges on India.
  MR. SCHWANN: To ask the Secretary of State for India if he will state the amount to be drawn from India during the present financial year for the home charges disbursed
  † (4) Debates, civ., 1268.

  135
  in this country, as compared with Rx.24,136,800 in the year 1898–9; the amount to be paid here by India in the present year under the head of military pensions and furlough charges, also civil and marine, as compared with Budget amounts for 1899–1900 Rx.7,138,600; the amount of the India Office salaries and establishment for this year as compared with the Rx.246,000 in the

  1898–9.

  1902–3.

  £

  £

  Total Net Home Charges

  16,091,200

  17,879,500

  1899–1900.

  India Office, including Store Department and Auditor's

  £

  Establishment

  161,400

  161,800

  Military Furlough and Civil and Military Pensions

  4,684,900

  4,629,600

  Diplomatic and Consular Establishment in Persia

  7,000

  6,000

  Ditto in China

  12,500

  Nil.

  North Sea Fisheries Investigation—Expenses of International Scheme.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the President of the Board of Trade, in view of the fact that, under the International Scheme of North Sea Fisheries Investigation, Great Britain proposes to expend a sum of £42,000 during the next three years, inclusive of a sum of £1,250, this country's contribution for the maintenance of the central organisation at Copenhagen, will he state what sum

  Country.

  Initial Expenditure.

  Annual Expenditure.

  kroner

  kroner

  Denmark

  —

  —

  173,000

  £9,600

  100,000

  £5,500

  marks

  marks

  Germany

  Steamer

  330,000

  £16,500

  125,000

  £6,250

  Laboratories

  17,500

  £875

  florins

  florins

  Holland

  Instruments, etc.

  8,000

  £666

  31,050

  £2,587

  marks

  marks

  Norway

  Steamer

  190,000

  £9,500

  147,000

  £7,350

  kroner

  kroner

  Sweden

  —

  —

  19,000

  £1,055

  19,200

  £1,066

  roubles

  roubles

  Russia

  Steamer without equipment

  105,000

  £16,000

  81,000

  £12,800

  Fin marks

  Fin marks

  Finland

  —

  —

  151,000

  £6,000

  55,700

  £2,228

  In the case of Denmark and Russia it is not clear whether the amounts are exclusive of the contribution to the central organisation as in the case of the other countries named.
  Budget 1899–1900; and the amounts to be paid by India for our diplomatic establishments in Persia and China as, against the Rx.36,400 in 1899–1900.
  (Answered by Secretary Lord George Hamilton.) The amounts chargeable to Indian revenues under the heads mentioned in the Question, are as follows, in pounds sterling, at 1s. 4d. per rupee:—
  each of the other countries concerned proposes to expend under this scheme of scientific investigation, exclusive of their contributions towards the maintenance of the central organisation.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) I gather from the procès verbal of the meeting of the International Council at Copenhagen that the sums proposed to be expended by the different countries in scientific investigations are as: follows:—

  Transvaal Liquor Ordinance.
  MR. CAINE: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he has yet received the full text of the New Liquor Regulations for the Transvaal; and, if so, will he issue them to the public.

  137
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Chamberlain.) The text of the Liquor Ordinance has not yet been received, but there will be no objection to publication when it arrives.

(2.15.) QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  South Africa—Repatriation of the Boers.
  MR. THOMAS BAYLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, if he has consulted with Lord Milner and can now give an estimate as to how much of the three million pounds granted for the rebuilding and restocking of the Boer farms at the signing of peace has been spent on the purposes for which it was granted.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. RITCHIE, Croydon):My right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary is unable to be here, and has asked me to read his answer. It is as follows:—"Upwards of £400,000 has been paid out of the Transvaal Treasury for repatriation purposes, and about £150,000 in the Orange River Colony. This is in addition to the cost of the animals and stores taken over from the military, which will amount to considerably over £1,000,000. Large additional contracts have also been entered into for cattle and supplies, but I am not able to state the exact amounts at present."
  MR. LOUGH: Will the cost of the animals come out of the grant?
  MR. RITCHIE: It will be taken out of the funds placed at the disposal of Lord Milner.
  MR. LOUGH: What use will be made of them?
  MR. RITCHIE: I presume they will be given to the Boers.
  MR LOUGH: That is what I want get at.
  MR. LAMBERT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies how much of the £3,000,000 free grant to burghers has
  138
  been issued, upon what system has the grant been distributed, and what amounts have been spent upon seed corn, seed potatoes, horses, mules, oxen, implements, and expenses of administration.
  MR. RITCHIE (for Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN): In reply to the first part of this Question, I must refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Chesterfield. Relief is being distributed to the burghers by local commissions appointed under Article 10 of the Terms of Surrender. I have no detailed information with regard to the points raised in the last part of the hon. Member's Question.
  MR. LAMBERT: Are these grants to the burghers treated as loans as free gifts? Can the right hon. Gentleman get me the information asked for in the latter part of the Question?
  MR. RITCHIE: The hon. Gentleman will understand that I am only answering for the Colonial Secretary. He must give of any further Question.

  Civil Employement for Discharged Soldiers.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for war if he can inform the House what steps have been taken and are being taken by the War Office to assist discharged reservists and time-expired men from the South African Campaign, including Imperial Yeomen, Militiamen, and Volunteers, to obtain civil employment.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK, Surrey, Guildford):Registers for civil employment are kept at the headquarters of regimental districts under the colonels commanding and at recruiting areas by recruiting staff officers. These officers are instructed to do all in their power to secure employment for the men whose names are on the registers. No men with characters less than "good" are so registered, and no men are recommended to employers unless there reasonable hope that they will satisfy their employers. A leaflet has been given to every soldier who has returned

  139
  from the war telling him where to register, and giving him advice on the subject of obtaining civil employment. Posters and leaflets have been sent to all large employers of labour, urging them to remember the strong claims of reservists and time-expired men who have come home from the war. I may perhaps mention that in view of statements which I have every reason to believe are exceedingly exaggerated as to the number of reservists and time-expired soldiers who have not received their pay, or who have not obtained their discharges, I have arranged to open a bureau at 47, Victoria Street, for a short period, and any soldier calling there after Monday morning, 10th instant, will receive immediate consideration of his case.

  Rates of Wages at Woolwich Arsenal.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that workmen are employed by a contractor covering up steam pipes with patent covering in the Danger Buildings, Royal Laboratory, Woolwich Arsenal, at a rate of wages of 5½d. per hour, which is below the current rate of wages in the locality for similar work; and whether he will insist upon the contractor paying the current rate.
  MR. BRODRICK: The firm who are engaged on the work state that they are paying 5½d. and upwards for pipe covering, and inquiry will be made as to whether this rate is below the current rate of the district.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the outside rate for general labour is 6d. and 6½.d. per hour, according to the character of the work?
  MR. BRODRICK: No, Sir, but I have said I will inquire.

  Vaccination—Exemption Certificates.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he will state the number of instances since the passing of The Vaccination Act, 1898, in which the justices or magistrates have declined to
  140
  grant a certificate under the Conscience Clause of that Act, on the ground that the applicant had failed to satisfy them within the meaning of the Act; and will he state the number of certificates of exemption granted under the Conscience Clause of the Act.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. WALTER LONG, Bristol, S): I have no information as to the number of cases of the kind referred to in the first part of the Question. The number of certificates of conscientious objection actually received by Vaccination Officers down to the 30th June last was 331,438.

  Loans Under the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act.
  MR. M'KENNA: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he can state the number of applications for loans which have been made under the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act.
  MR. WALTER LONG: The Local. Government Board have received forty-four applications from local authorities in England and Wales for sanction to loans under the Act referred to. As regards London the County Council are empowered to sanction such loans, and I am informed that they have received one application.

  Royal Commission on Alien Immigration.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade a Question of which I have given him private notice—namely, whether he is aware that the Royal Commission on Alien Immigration has held no meeting since July, although the Commissioner of Police has reported to the Board of Trade that the number of foreign Jews in the East-end of London is increasing, and that the area inhabited by them is very largely extending.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR, Leeds, Central): I am afraid I cannot add anything to the reply I gave my hon. and gallant friend the other day, to the effect that I have no sort of control over the proceedings of the

  141
  Royal Commission. I think if I were to address such a question to the Commission they might consider it an interference with their duties.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: Is the chairman of the Royal Commission unable to continue the presidency of the Commission, and, if so, cannot another chairman be appointed?
  [No answer was given.]

  Stornoway Mail Service.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Post-master General if he will state the names of the various steamers which Messrs. MacBrayne have employed for the conveyance of His Majesty's mails between Kyle of Lochalsh and Stornoway since the breakdown in the Minch of the mail steamer "Clydesdale" early in September last; is he aware that the thirty-five-years-old paddle steamer "Gael," formerly ''Vixen," is now employed on this service; and will he state the speed of this boat and when and where she was last inspected.
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN, Worcestershire, E): Since the breakdown of the "Clydesdale" in September last the undermentioned steamers have conveyed the Mails between Kyle and Stornoway—"Clansman," "Lovedale," "Cavalier," "Glendale," and "Gael." The "Gael" performed the service from the 21st to the 28th of October, when she was replaced by the "Glendale," which has performed the service since the last mentioned date, except on the 30th of October when the "Gael" was again employed. The speed of the "Gael" is stated to be 15 knots an hour, and it is understood that she was last inspected at Glasgow, on January 7th, 1902. She was not formerly the "Vixen."
  MR. WEIR: If the right hon. Gentleman will look at the shipping list he will see the "Gael" is described as formerly the "Vixen." Is he aware that her speed is not 15 knots but more likely 5?
  [No answer was returned.]

  Highland Deer Forests—Ben Wyvis Grazings.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the Secretary for Scotland is aware that a portion of the grazings on the southern slope of Ben Wyvis, near Strathpeffer, Ross-shire, are about to be converted into deer forest; and, seeing that these grazings were formerly occupied by crofter tenants, will the Secretary for Scotland make some inquiry to ascertain whether it is possible to secure these grazings for the creation of crofters' holdings.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY, Buteshire): The Secretary for Scotland regrets that he is unable to identify the grazings to which the hon. Member alludes. In any case, however, the slopes of Ben Wyvis do not appear to offer facilities for occupation by crofter tenants.
  MR. WEIR: Does not the Lord Advocate intend to take any steps to prevent these devastations being carried out?
  [No answer was returned.]

  Island of Lewis—Landless Cottars.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the Secretary for Scotland is aware that a number of cottars, fishermen, and other residents in the Island of Lewis have recently presented a petition to His Majesty setting forth that the depredations of steam trawlers, foreign and British, have rendered line fishing in the seas around the coast unremunerative, and that they are threatened with destitution; and, seeing that they assert that there are large tracts of land now practically waste from which the landless cottars could earn a living, will the Secretary for Secretary of Scotland advise the Congested Districts Board to open negotiations with the proprietor of the Island of Lewis for the purpose of acquiring land with a view to ameliorate the condition of these people.
  MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: The Secretary for Scotland is aware of the petition referred to. As I stated in reply to a similar Question on the 23rd

  143
  October, the Congested Districts Board do not at present think they can usefully open negotiations in Lewis of the kind suggested by the hon. Member.
  MR. WEIR: And meanwhile the cottars are to starve!

  Scottish Fishery Board Cruisers.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, in view of the announcement that H.M.S. "Jackal" is about to be laid up for repairs, will he state what cruisers will be placed at the disposal of the Scottish Fishery Board for sea police duties during the withdrawal of the "Jackal."
  MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: I am informed that H.M.S. "Jackal" is not about to be laid up for repairs.

  Education Bill—Spending Powers of Education Committees.
  MR. STEVENSON: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General whether the spending powers of the Education Committees to be established under Clause 12 of the Education Bill are intended to be analogous to those of the Standing Joint Committees, as provided by Section 75 (16) (J) of The Local Government (England and Wales) Act, 1888; or whether the County Councils will be able to limit the amount of their expenditure, and to define the specific objects on which the money is to be spent.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY, Inverness Burghs): I think that this Question could more conveniently be dealt with in discussion on the Clause itself.

  Use of Foreign-made Pencils in Government Offices.
  COLONEL DENNY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that lead pencils made in Germany and Austria have for years enjoyed almost a monopoly of the supply of this country; and, having regard to the quality of the pencils now made in London, whether His Majesty's Stationery Office will take care to give orders for pencils to the home manufacturers.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HAYES FISHER, Fulham): Some years ago nearly all pencils bought for the public service were of foreign origin, but the Stationery Office are now able, as a rule, to obtain English pencils which meet their requirements. During the financial year 1901–02 they purchased (including telegraph pencils and small quantities of fancy pencils) 5355 gross of cedar pencils of which all but 725 gross were of English make. Careful experiments were made a few years ago with regard to telegraph pencils, and it was found that those manufactured in England were either considerably dearer or less satisfactory than the present pencils which are obtained from a firm in London but manufactured in Germany.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: Why are we not provided with English pencils here in this House?
  MR. HAYES FISHER: I am not aware that the pencils here are of foreign origin, but I will make inquiries.

  Irish Bankruptcy Procedure—Official Assignees' Appeals.
  MR. CAREW: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland whether he will state what amount of official assignees' costs and expenses have been paid out of the unclaimed dividend account in the Bank of Ireland in cases where the official assignees have unsuccessfully appealed to the House of Lords consequent upon a reversal by the Court of Appeal in Ireland of a decision of the judge in the Bankruptcy Division of the High Court during the last year for which accounts are available; and whether the Government will take steps to prevent such accounts from being further depleted by similar actions of the official assignees in future.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON, Londonderry, N.): To the knowledge of the present official assignees in bankruptcy the only amount paid to the official assignees for costs and expenses of an unsuccessful appeal to the House of Lords was £1,006 9s. 6d. paid to them over seven years ago in indemnification

  145
  of costs in re Peel, a bankrupt. This sum was paid in pursuance of Section 85 of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Ireland) Act of 1877 out of moneys provided by Parliament for the purpose. The appeal was taken under the advice of Senior Counsel, both in England and Ireland, and on the authority of an Order of the late Court of Bankruptcy made in 1894.

  Recruiting for the Royal Irish Constabulary.
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state under what circumstances a young man named John O'Donnell, residing near Westport, was refused admission as a recruit to the Royal Irish Constabulary; what was the nature of the application of him and his father; and what was the report of the medical officer who examined him.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM, Dover): Owing to the popularity of the Royal Irish Constabulary the number of candidates for admission to the Force is always largely in excess of the vacancies. I cannot undertake to trace individuals from among the large number who are necessarily disappointed.
  MR. TULLY: Did not this man and his father apply to the local sergeant of police in 1888, and was he not medically examined by the local doctor?
  MR. WYNDHAM: If the hon. Member wishes to urge that the man was improperly refused, and in such a way as to prejudice his future, I may say at once I think it is a matter with which I can deal.

  Labourers (Ireland) Act.
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether lie has received from the Boyle No. 2 District Council a resolution complaining that the amount of the supplemental loan sanctioned by the Treasury under the Labourers (Ireland) Acts has not been issued by the Board of Works; and whether, as the contractors, who have got final certificates from the engineer for their work,
  146
  are now threatening legal proceedings for the balance due to them, he will direct that this loan shall be issued by the Board of Works without further delay.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The Commissioners of Public Works are not responsible for any delay that has taken place in the issue of this loan. The District Council has not yet furnished a conveyance of some of the land required, and until this has been done the mortgage deed securing the loan cannot be completed.

  Irish M. P. 's and Hard Labour.
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state how many Members of Parliament are now in prison under hard labour sentences; what complaints as to their treatment have been made to the visiting justices, the governor, and the medical officer; and what modifications of the prison rules have been made in consequence of these complaints.
  MR. WYNDHAM: One Member of Parliament, namely, the hon. Member for North Longford. He has made no complaints of the nature indicated, and no modifications of the prison rules have been made in consequence. Upon grounds of health, however, and on the recommendation of the medical officer, considerable relaxations in the rules have been made.

  Belfast Borough Accounts.
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the auditor's Report on the Belfast Borough Accounts was not published in any newspaper, and was not circulated amongst the members of the Council; whether this Report contained any references to the manner in which certain officials discharged their duties; and whether the Local Government Board will insist on the former practice of publishing these Reports being complied with.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The Local Government Board is unable to say whether the Report was published or circulated. The Board has no power to require the

  147
  publication of such Reports. The Local Government Bill, now before the House, contained a provision enabling the Board to make rules concerning the publication of Auditors' Reports. This provision, however, was dropped.
  MR. TULLY: As this provision—a very useful one—was dropped in a hurry and without due consideration, will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to reinstate it in the Bill?
  MR. WYNDHAMI will consider that on the Report stage.

  Irish Census Returns.
  MR. CAREW: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland why the Census Returns for the counties Armagh, Antrim, and Tipperary are not yet issued though the Census Commission was closed on 30th June; is there any reason why these counties are withheld; and, if not, will he say when the Returns may be expected.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The Census Book for Tipperary has been issued. There has been some delay in the issue of the volumes for Antrim and Armagh, but it is hoped these will be published in a few days.

  St. Mary's National School, Drogheda.
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received a complaint from the Rev. John Curry, Drogheda, that, owing to the interpretation of the new rules by the Commissioners of National Schools, the head teacher of St. Mary's National School, Drogheda, has been subjected to a loss of £50 a year in his income as teacher; and whether it is proposed to refund this sum and to reconsider the payments of teachers and assistant teachers similarly circumstanced.
  MR. WYNDHAM: A communication has been received from the Rev. Mr. Curry and is at present under consideration.

  Dr. Starkie and Irish Primary School Managers.
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of
  148
  Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the resolutions passed by the Roman Catholic clerical managers of national schools in three-fourths of Ireland referring to the statements made by Dr. Starkie, Resident Commissioner of National Education, recently in Belfast, against the managers of primary schools; whether it is proposed to hold any public inquiry into these matters; and if he can state what action the Government propose to take.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Some resolutions have reached me. The Resident Commissioner informs me that he has seen resolutions from Roman Catholic Managers which show that they are under the mistaken impression that he referred to them solely. That is not the case nor, in his opinion, do his words justify such an inference. I do not propose to hold a public inquiry. A small Committee was recently appointed to consider the whole question of building grants for school houses. No further action seems necessary.
  MR. TULLY: Was not Dr. Starkie's speech as blazing an indiscretion as General Buller's speech? Why was he not retired in the same way?

  Irish Local Government Report.
  MR. CAREW: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland why the Local Government Board have failed to index their annual report the same as is done in England; and will he give instructions to have this done in future.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The Report contains a Table of Contents classified with great care and on the same lines as the Table in the Scotch Report. The preparation of an alphabetical index would, I am afraid, delay the publication of the Report; however, I will inquire further into the matter.
  MR. TULLY: Surely an index is as much required in the Irish as in the English Report.

  Education Bill—Transferred Denominational schools.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will state whether the schools originally built as denominational schools, but which have been transferred to and are at present managed by School Boards, will become, at the expiration of the lease regulating their transfer, new public elementary schools provided by other persons, and will be subject to the provisions of Clause 9 of the Education Bill.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.): I have answered this Question already very fully on October 27. If the hon. Gentleman wishes me to repeat the answer I will do so, but I hope this may be the find edition. What I said was that "At the end of such a lease as that contemplated by the hon. Gentleman in his Question the buildings would revert absolutely to the lessors—that is to say, the trustees or the managers of the voluntary school. But if it is desired to use these buildings as a denominational school, this would be a new school and would come under the provision of Clauses 9 and 10 of the Bill."
  MR. SOARES (Devonshire, staple): May I ask whether, having regard to the fact that the effect will be to turn a considerable number of board schools into voluntary schools, the right hon. Gentleman will give an opportunity of discussing this question before the Committee stage of the Education Bill is over.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: As I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's premises I need hardly say I do not follow him in his conclusions.
  MR. HERBEIIT ROBERTS: The point really is whether the trustees, when the buildings revert to them, will have to make a delegation at the time the school is reconstituted as a public elementary school.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I cannot say what will be done under the trust deeds
  150
  unless I see them. There is an immense variety of them, and I cannot answer a question of that sort.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE (Gloucester-shire, Forest of Dean): Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to prevent a hiatus in point of time between the expiry of the present powers and the commencement of the new powers?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I should be delighted to prevent any hiatus, but I do not know that the present Bill will cause one. There might be a hiatus possible under the existing system, and there might be one under the new system, but the new system will do nothing to increase any hiatus.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what the business will be tomorrow and Friday?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Tomorrow afternoon and on Friday the Education Bill will be taken. This evening and tomorrow evening will be devoted to the financial proceedings in connection with the Vote in Supply for the Transvaal. If I get the Vote tonight I shall take Report tomorrow. The Education Bill will be the second Order tomorrow evening.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I wish to ask whether, in view of the importance of the question raised by the Supply, the right hon. Gentleman will not give an afternoon for Supply and take the evening for education; or, if he cannot do that, whether he will endeavour to insure during the discussion of Supply the presence of an adequate number of Members in the House.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I hope an adequate number of Members will attend; but I think it will be very inconvenient unnecessarily to interrupt the discussion on the Education Bill. It must be interrupted on Monday next.

  STANDING ORDER 25, CLOSURE OF DEBATE—NOTICE OF MOTION.
  MR. JOHN ELLISgave notice that whenever he found an opportunity he would call attention to Standing Order 25, Closure of Debate, to the mode in which it had been applied, and to the necessity that had recently been made manifest of so altering its terms as effectually to secure that which was supposed to be one of the conditions of its use—namely, that there should be no infringement of the rights of a minority in debate, particularly when called upon to consider Clauses of Bills in Committee.
  PUBLIC PETITIONS COMMITTEE.
  Tenth Report brought up, and read; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.
  Clause 12:—
  LORD EDMUND FITZMAURICEmoved an Amendment to substitute for the first two words of the Clause, "Any council," the words "The local education authority." He knew, he said, it was very inconvenient to band in an Amendment in writing, as he had done in this case, but he thought hon. Gentlemen would see that it had been done out of no desire to prolong the discussion. His reason for moving it was that in the Technical Instruction Acts, which were about to be repealed, the delegation or transfer of powers was dealt with in the manner he proposed. The machinery of those Acts was now quite familiar to the bodies who had the working of it; various points raised by it had been decided by the Law Courts or by correspondence with the Board of Education, and it would be well to retain the machinery. Last night, at a very late hour, some exceedingly important Amendments were placed on the Paper by the Government in the direction of taking the Technical Instruction Acts and their machinery of delegation, as a model, rather than the Lunacy Act, and he suggested
  152
  that the Amendment would give the Government a convenient opportunity of explaining what was the new scheme they were going to propose. There were many hon. Members who were actually unaware that these Amendments had been placed on the Paper, and he must confess he could not see why the Government should not at a much earlier stage, have indicated that it was their intention to make these large alterations. He would be the last person to criticise them because, as far as he could make out, the Government had adopted nearly the whole of the Amendment he had placed on the Paper with regard to that matter, but he was inclined to think that the discussion would have been greatly shortened had the Amendments been placed on the Paper earlier. He begged to move.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 4, line 26, to leave out the first two words 'any council' and insert the words 'the local education authority.'"—(Lord E. Fitzmaurice.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'Any council' stand part of the clause."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY)said the reason for the words used in the Clause was, that there were certain cases of boroughs of under 10,000, and urban districts of under 20,000 inhabitants, where there were concurrent powers which would have to be exercised under this Act, but where the body exercising those powers was not the local education authority. They used the words "Any council" in order to include these cases. As to the other point raised by the noble Lord, his hon. friend would deal with that when his Amendment was reached.
  SIR CHARLES DILKEthought they might, before commencing the discussion of the most important Clause, have an explanation from the Government of the changes they were going to make. There was a conversation on that point just before they rose last night, and no hint was then given that the Bill was going to be completely changed. So far as he understood the changes he was favourable to them, but it was due to

  153
  the Committee that there should be an explanation at the very commencement of the discussions on the Clause.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The question will arise on the first Amendment which stands in the name of the Secretary to the Board of Education.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: Yes, but we shall then have passed words of the Clause which we might wished to have altered. We ought not to commence discussing the Clause without knowing the complete scheme of the Government.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid that so far as he knew there was in no quarter any desire to do otherwise than assist the Committee in understanding what the new scheme of the Government was. He thought it would be very much better that the explanation should be given before they entered on the consideration of the Clause. They did not at present know to what extent the adoption of the first few words would be consistent with the new scheme. After all, it was a matter of courtesy that they were asking at the hands of the Government.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid the last thing the Government desired to be lacking in was courtesy. It was a question of convenience. If the noble Lord withdrew his Amendment they could at once come to an Amendment which truly raised the question in regard to which an explanation was desired. He thought that would be the most convenient course, but still he was quite willing that the statement should be made now.
  MR. WHITLEYsaid the words "any council" raised some important points relating to other parts of the Clause. He wished to ask whether the small local authorities would have to go through all the trouble of framing a scheme exactly as the County Council had to proceed. He objected to compelling them to do so, and had supposed that the intention of the Government was to leave the smaller authorities the powers they had at the present time. They ought not to pass
  154
  these words until they knew whether the Government intended to alter the constitution and methods of these small authorities.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he understood the proposal was that his hon. friend should make a statement by leave of the Committee, but everyone could not discuss that statement by the leave of the Committee. He thought it would be more regular to dispose of the Amendment. Then the statement could be made and discussed by everybody.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTasked whether it was to be understood that the machinery proposed was to be inapplicable to the smaller authorities.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he thought that was implied.
  MR. BRYCEsaid the observations of the Attorney General showed that the Amendment was one of substance, and it gave the Government ail opportunity of making a statement of their policy. What was really proposed was that councils of non-county boroughs and urban districts, who had no powers except for the purposes of education other than elementary, should nevertheless be subject to these schemes. He hoped the Government would make their statement now. It would he entirely in order.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he could not assent to have the discussion on this Amendment and then go over it all again on the Amendment of his hon. friend. He was ready to come to some arrangement.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANthought the right hon. Gentleman misunderstood what they were asking. There was no desire to have the discussion on the Government proposals on this Amendment. What they desired was to be enlightened as to the character of the new proposals. The notice was placed on the Paper only at a late hour last night, and he thought it was only due to the Committee that they should have the Government statement now.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that so long as the statement was not to be discussed now it was nothing to them whether that statement was made at once, or on the Amendment to be proposed later by his hon. friend.
  MR. ERNEST GRAYsaid what they wanted to know was the view of the Government as to the Clause as a whole. Were the Councils in these small areas to be compelled to appoint a Committee within the next twelve months, and if they failed to do so, would the Board of Education have power to step in and by Provisional Order appoint one to carry out duties which might not require to be undertaken for many years to come? How far did the Government scheme alter that position? He did not wish to pronounce any opinion on the point of procedure, but the Committee would be at great difficulty in discussing the Clause unless they first had a bird's-eye view of the remodelled scheme. Surely the Government might, in a few words, indicate the changes they were prepared to make in the Clause.
  THE SECRETARY OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Sir WILLIAM ANSON, Oxford University)said he understood that he was expected to make a statement as to the intentions of the Government with regard to the framing of the Clause without its now being discussed. His first Amendment was to omit the words "in the exercise of," in order to substitute the word "having." The result would be that, with the addition of another Amendment which immediately followed, the Clause would run thus:—
  "Any Council having powers under this Act shall establish an Education Committee, or Education Committees, constituted in accordance with a scheme made by the Council and approved by the Board of Education."
  The Committee would observe that the reference to the rating powers was left out at this point but would reappear in the Amendment which stood farther down in his name as follows—
  "All matters relating to the exercise by the Council of their powers under this Act shall stand referred to the Education Committee, and the Council, before exercising any such powers, shall consider the Report (if any)
  156
  of the Education Committee with respect to the matter in question. The Council may also delegate to the Education Committee, with or without any restrictions or conditions as they think fit, any of their powers under this Act, except the power of raising a rate or borrowing money."
  There could be no doubt that these Amendments would effect a distinct modification in the scheme of the relations of the Council to the Committee as they appeared in the Bill before the Committee. There was no doubt, also, that as these debates had gone on it had become plain that there was a desire in the House and in the country that the local education authority which it was proposed to establish should be an authority popularly elected and directly responsible to the ratepayers. The Government desired that it should be so. This body would have, in spite of all that might be said in its disparagement, great powers, and the Government believed that it would exercise those powers in a manner salutary to the education of the country; but they wished that it should be a popularly chosen body the Council of a county or of a borough, which should be entrusted with powers in all matters relating to education within its area. The objects of his Amendments were to make that point quite clear.
  He would state what he conceived the relations between these two bodies would be. The local education authority would not act through a Committee, but it would be bound to ask the advice of the Committee. If the Committee did not advise at all, if it were unwilling to advise or incapable of advising, or if its advice—as might sometimes happen, though he believed that such instances would be very rare—should not be such as the Council thought it desirable to follow, the local education authority would act either without the advice of the Committee or contrary to it; but in any case the local education authority would be the body that would act in the matter. It might be contended that in the larger areas difficulties and delays would be occasioned if the local education authority had in every case to await the advice of its consultative committee. The Government proposed to meet that by giving very extensive powers of delegation, the amount of power delegated to be determined from time to time by

  157
  the local authority, and the powers delegated to be liable at any moment to modification or withdrawal. But to these powers of delegation the Government made one very important exception: The local education authority was not to be able to delegate its power of raising a rate or of borrowing money. The executive power necessarily rested with the local education authority—the Council, and the financial power must rest with it under the provisions of the Bill; but the powers of delegation, with the exception of its financial power, would be regulated by the Council's own convenience and what it conceived to be the educational requirements of its area.
  He would not trouble the Committee with any constitutional comparison of the relations between this Committee and the Council and those of other Committees and other Councils. What concerned the Committee was not how this Education Committee would compare with the Watch Committee or the Standing Joint Committee and their respective Councils, but what the Government meant to do in respect of the Councils of which this Committee was the constitutional adviser. What he wished to impress upon the Committee was that the popularly chosen body was and would be supreme, but that it could delegate most of its powers, with the exception of its financial powers.
  The one other point was as to the intention of the Government in respect of the composition of the Committee. The Council was to choose or appoint a majority, but it might appoint that majority from its own body, or it might not. The Government would be prepared to throw upon the Council the burden of deciding whether it would not appoint a majority of members of its own body by introducing words, making it necessary that the Council should appoint a majority of members of its own body u less it expressly determined not to do so. He would not go further into the schemes which would be submitted by the various Councils to the Education Department. No doubt much discussion might take place when the Committee came to consider the necessary provisions of those schemes. What
  158
  he desired to impress upon the Committee—and he hoped he had made it sufficiently clear—was that the Council was to be the local education authority, and that the Education Committee was to consist of a majority of persons chosen by the Council, and primarily, unless specially determined otherwise, from members of its own body. The Committee could now discuss the noble Lord's Amendment, and when his own Amendment came to be considered much of the explanation he had now given would be no longer necessary.
  MR. LAMBERT (Devonshire, South Molten)asked whether the small boroughs were to be compelled to appoint an Education Committee. In his own constituency there were two small boroughs of about 3,000 inhabitants which would be compelled under this scheme to appoint an Education Committee with all the paraphernalia of submitting schemes to the Board of Education, and so forth. That, surely, was not, the wish of the Government. If. therefore, words could be introduced to prevent such an occurrence, it would relieve the minds of those who represented small boroughs. It would certainly be absurd to appoint Committees which would perhaps have no work to do, and which, even if they did work, would do so in contravention of the wish of the Government, and would infringe the work of the County Council.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid the reason why these words—which undoubtedly included small as well as large boroughs—had been introduced was, that the Government confidently expected that those boroughs would work in with t he County Council so far as their own work was concerned. Such co-operation would probably be much easier between the Education Committee of the county authority and the Education Committee of the small borough than by direct negotiations between the boroughs and the County Councils.
  MR. LAMBERT: But supposing the small boroughs do not wish to take any action at all?
  MR. A. J. BALFOURIt would not be any serious burden; there is no cost.
  LORD EDMUND FITZMAURICEsaid the answer of the Attorney General had undoubtedly shown that there was substance as well as drafting in the Amendment which he had moved with the feeling that it was one the Government would probably accept. All he desired to do was to bring the first words of the Clause into harmony with the local education authority as defined in Clause 1, being under the impression that the Government intended that the only real education authorities should be those mentioned in that Clause. He admitted that he was one of those who pressed on the Government the claims in regard to a certain limited class of questions, of the smaller boroughs and Urban Councils, but he certainly never contemplated that the smaller authorities should blossom forth in the full dignity of local education authorities. It now appeared, however, that the Government intended Clause 3—the drafting of which would have to be reconsidered on Report—to be pressed to the full extent of recognising these smaller authorities as the local education authorities for all purposes.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No.
  LORD EDMUND FITZMAURICE: At any rate for a great number of purposes.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAY: For the purposes of Clause 3, as amended.
  LORD EDMUND FITZMAURICEwas convinced that the County Councils Association only desired to save the rating power possessed by these small places under the Technical Instruction Acts, and which had been found to be most useful. It never entered their minds that they should be the local education authority. If the Government meant more than he had supposed, they had a good reason for rejecting the Amendment, but his idea in moving it was that the Government wished to make only the County, and the County Borough Councils local education authorities, and that, therefore, they would be able to accept his proposal.
  MR. HENRY HOBHOUSE (Somersetshire. E.)said that since the Bill
  160
  was originally drafted, an important alteration had been made in Clause 3, and the words had a much extended meaning. The substantial question arose of whether every small borough, whether it intended to exercise its powers under Clause 3 or not, should have imposed upon it the obligation of appointing an Education Committee. It was essential that such an obligation should be put upon every local education authority, but surely in the case of these small boroughs it might be optional. Many small towns were willing enough to contribute a certain amount of money to meet money provided by the central authority for the purposes of certain institutions within their own borders, but it was quite unnecessary to put them under this obligation.
  MR. CHANNINGwas inclined to support the Government as against the noble Lord, although the Amendment undoubtedly had much to be said for it. The Government had placed themselves in the present difficulty by not really facing on Clause 3 the question of the relative position of the smaller areas to the county in respect of secondary education. If they intended to adhere to the position as laid down in Clause 3, what had fallen from the First Lord of the Treasury was the logical outcome of the situation. He thought, however, there was a third and much wiser course. Could not the Government, even now, with regard to these smaller areas, devise a subordinate local autonomy suited to the exercise of certain limited powers with regard to, both elementary and secondary education? If the Government would face the problem of bringing these smaller areas into logical co-ordination with the work of the County Councils, and in some way secure autonomy with regard to both branches of education, they would effect a material improvement in the Bill.
  MR. BRYCEsaid that he had been much impressed by what had been said by the First Lord of the Treasury, that it might be desirable where these authorities were willing to rate themselves with other boroughs or counties to have a combined scheme, and that

  161
  might have the effect of putting a larger sum at the disposal of the joint authority for educational work. If this view were accepted the best course to adopt would be to follow out the suggestion of the hon. Member for East Somerset, and accept the Amendment moved by the noble Lord to insert a proviso which would enable these minor areas, where they proposed to rate themselves, and where there was a prospect of union, to ask the Board of Education to give them a Committee, and allow them to enter into the joint scheme of action which the right hon. Gentleman contemplated. He hoped the Government would consider that suggestion.
  SIR FRANCIS POWELLhoped that at some other stage of the Bill the Govern merit would take some steps to bring about a union of these small areas. He was perfectly certain that the working of the authorities for these small areas would not be satisfactory. They were deficient in money, and had not sufficient influence to command efficient service, and they laboured under all those disadvantages and disabilities which belonged to minor authorities. It would be far more satisfactory if this Clause was confined to the larger authorities. It would be far better to achieve this result by direct action now, instead of leaving to some small authority which would take considerable time, and delay the operation of the Bill.
  SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid he was not quite sure what kind of parishes would be included under Clause 3. There were a large number which had been made urban districts, but which were in fact small rural parishes. These small parishes were familiar to some hon. Members, for they were very thick in some counties, although in others they did not exist at all. These small parishes ought not to be brought under machinery appeared of this kind, because the tiling would have to be a dead letter, or else those parishes would be put to a large expense which they were quite unable to undertake.
  MR. ERNEST GRAYsaid what he understood from the discussion was that where the authority had control of
  162
  elementary as well as higher education, they ought to establish a committee there, but where the authority had only control of elementary education this proposal should not touch it. It did seem ridiculous that they should be compelled to establish a committee which might not get to work for a very long time. Where there was one single authority fully constituted, it should he made compulsory to form a committee, but in the case of the small parishes they should not be compelled to set up committees until they found it was necessary. If it were merely a question of providing an extra £50 or £100 he could understand the County Council "We will give you so much if you will provide the remainder." Was there any necessity to establish a committee in a case of this description, whereas if they were to undertake more extended operations they could establish a committee for that purpose. He suggested to the right hon. Gentleman that he should carry out his original idea. This difficulty had arisen over the acceptance of an Amendment. Let them have for the large areas the one authority acting through committee and in the supplementary areas let them have power to appoint a committee, or leave it alone, according to the needs of the locality.
  DR. MACNAAIARAsaid they had introduced under the Bill over 800 small parishes, each of which would be compelled to send a scheme up to the Education Department for the constitution of an authority. He thought the suggestion made by the hon. Member for North West Ham was a happy way out of the difficulty. If under Clause 3 as modified they had no power over elementary education, and could only spend up an extra penny they ought not to be compelled to set up a scheme for the control of higher education upon winch they might not be spending any rummy for years.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid there to be no difference of opinion in regard to the principle of this proposal on this or the other side of the House. They were all agreed that they must have a Committee in every case where elementary education was concerned, for they could not work the Bill without one. He thought they were all agreed that there probably

  163
  were cases in which the Borough Council was not the authority for elementary education, where it would nevertheless be desirable that they should be. He confessed that upon this subject he had been impressed by the arguments which had fallen from hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House. He agreed that in some cases the proposal was almost too elaborate for the trifling purposes for which it would lie used. He was disposed to think that the case would be met by the suggestion of the hon. Member for North West Ham, which left sufficient latitude to the authorities to appoint these Committees where it was desirable, and left it optional where it was not desirable that they should be appointed.
  MR. SAMUEL EVANS (Glamorgan-shire, Mid)said they ought to be informed whether the Government thought it was advisable or necessary that these small places should have any Committee at all. He agreed with the hon. Member for North West Ham in regard to confining the operation of this Clause to districts and boroughs already created as authorities for elementary education as well as secondary education. The Prime Minister agreed that the appointment of these committees ought not to be made compulsory upon these small bodies, and it was worth while considering whether they ought to have this power at all, because it would encourage the establishment of committees for which no reason could be alleged. In many cases a committee was not necessary, because they could entrust the work to sub-committees of the larger bodies. He did not think it was necessary to give even permissive powers to these small places.
  LORD EDMUND FITZMAURICEsaid the suggestion of the hon. Member for North West Ham was in accordance with suggestions which had been made from this side of the House, and they would accept it.
  SIR ROBERTFINLAY: The words proposed by the hon. Member for North West Ham express, I think, in a general sense what the Committee is disposed to agree to. At the same time I think difficulty may
  164
  arise on the words, because if you state that any Council having powers under Part III. of the Act shall appoint a committee, it might be said that the inference is that the committee appointed is solely with reference to the powers to he exercised under Part III. I think it is desirable that it should be made very clear, and what I would suggest is that it would be better dealt with by a proviso—I think the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Aberdeen made a suggestion of that kind—at a subsequent stage for carrying into effect what the hon. Member for North West Ham has suggested.
  MR. A. BALFOURhoped the Committee would now go on to the next Amendment. They were all agreed on the substance of what was suggested.
  LORD EDMUND FITZMAURICE: What course does the right hon. Gentleman propose to take with regard to the Amendment?
  SIR ROBERT FINLAY: It will be dealt with by a proviso afterwards.
  MR. SAMUEL EVANSsaid he was not at all sure that the Committee were agreed as to the substance, but as the matter would be discussed afterwards he would not go into it now.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 4, line 26, to leave out the words 'in the exercise of,' and insert the word 'having.'"—(Sir William Anson.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'in the exercise of' stand part of the Clause."
  MR. WHITLEYsaid he wished to point out how the change proposed by the Government affected the question the Committee had just been discussing. The change would bring about the difficulty they wished to avoid. If the words "in the exercise of" were left in the Clause, the question the Government had just now undertaken to deal with would be very much simplified, because it would not be necessary then for every one of

  165
  the smaller Councils to appoint a committee and to apply for a scheme until they had begun to exercise powers other than rating powers.
  Question put and negatived.
  Question, "That the word 'having' be there inserted," put and agreed to.
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY (Somersetshire, S.)moved to leave out "shall" and insert "may'' in line 27. He said that some of his objections to the compulsory won "shall" would be to the taken away if he was right in thinking that the Government, by the rather complicated Amendment which would be proposed later on, really meant that the County Council was to he absolutely its own master. Reference was made to the Standing Joint Committee, but the Parliamentary Secretary did not say whether it was the intention of the Government that there should be a similar committee for education. He understood that the committee referred to in the Clause was to be under the control of the County Council, and that the County Council should have absolute control over its constitution. He asked the Government what was their objection to leaving it to the discretion of the County Council to appoint, or not to appoint, an education committee as they should see fit. There might be eases where a County Council or a small Borough Council would think it unnecessary to appoint a committee. It appeared to him that the Government had modified their scheme in such a way as to show absolute distrust of the County Councils. Clause 4 of the Bill provided that the Board of Education might hold, if they thought fit, a local inquiry to find out whether the scheme proposed by a County Council or Town Council was one approved of by the locality. That seemed very curious indeed. Looking to the general scheme of the Bill, there was no doubt that the object of the Government was to make the Country Council the creature of the Education Department. The representatives of the Government talked in this House of decentralisation, and of making the system of education suited to the different localities, but when the Bill was examined it seemed perfectly certain that the Board of Education
  166
  were to be the real masters. It might be that the Board of Education would insist upon a scale of salaries to be paid to the teachers. He thought it would be satisfactory if they had a Schedule to the Bill showing what was to be done by the Board of Education. As the Bill stood, the Board of Education might make any rule they liked, and force up the local rate to any extent. No doubt they had got some power, but if the County Council objected, all that the Board of Education had to do was to sit tight for twelve months, then send down County Council their scheme, and order it to be carried out. His argument was that they should trust the County Councils in this matter and put in "may" instead of "shall," so as to allow them to act as a body if they liked.
  Amendment. proposed—
  "In page 4, line 27, to leave out the word 'shall' in order to insert the word 'may.'"—(Sir Edward Strachey.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'shall' stand part of the Clause.
  SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid he was afraid it was very difficult to relieve some hon. Gentlemen opposite from the pressure of the nightmare under which they laboured in regard to this Bill. They though t that the Bill was designed entirely with a view of hampering and embarrass-in, the local authority, and that it was inspired by a distrust of the local authority in every direction, and with the desire to work everything under the control of the Board of Education; while the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board was a sort of ghostly enemy to education, lying in ambush everywhere to thwart the education ambitions of every locality. The hon. Gentleman in the first place said that it was a great insult to the County Councils that their schemes should be published, and that there should be public inquiry in regard to them before they were approved by the Board of Education. There were different kinds of inquiry conducted by various Departments, and he had never heard that any local authority had considered itself aggrieved or insulted by these inquiries. Then, as to leaving it optional to the local authority to appoint the committee, the hon. Gentleman forgot

  167
  that the committee would he the humble servants of the local authority. Again, County Councils were not elected specially for educational matters, and some of them might not be the best authorities on education. It was, therefore, desirable that the local authority-should be assisted by the advice of persons of experience in education, and acquainted with the needs of the various kinds of schools in the area for which the Councils acted, and that it should be incumbent upon them to appoint a committee or committees. Moreover, there were various persons, women in particular, who could not sit on Municipal Councils, and if the Amendment was adopted they would be left out of all consideration and have no voice in the educational affairs of the area. For that reason alone, unless the hon. Member wished to exclude finally from all consideration those persons who took a deep interest in education, this Amendment was hardly worthy of consideration. How would the committee be the masters of the local authority, and not the servants, when, if their action was not approved by the local authority, their appointment might be revoked?
  MR. EMMOTThoped that his hon. friend would not press his Amendment to a division, or if he did he would vote against it. Parliament was throwing a. large amount of extra work on those Councils, and nearly all of them would devolve the educational work on committees. In this matter of education it was necessarily most important that the local authorities should avail themselves of the help of outsiders, and particularly of the assistance of women, whose help had been in the past so important. Then there were some local authorities who would not avail themselves of the option, because they did not want any schemes of educational reform at all.
  MR. M`KENNAsaid he did not think the hon. Baronet understood the point, of his hon. friend who moved the Amendment. The greater the merits of the committee, the more likelihood that the County Councils would appoint such a committee, and he quite agreed that in
  168
  the great majority of cases the local authorities would be desirous of having a special committee. But the Amendment did not exclude the appointment of a committee—only that they should have the power to appoint or not as they pleased. The Bill as amended laid it down that the County Councils "shall" appoint a committee or committees and that the County Councils shall refer certain matters for their consideration and report. Suppose a County Council disliked a committee, it might say if the appointment were made imperative, "Oh, we will appoint a dozen committees if you like." But when the committee reported a scheme to the. County Council the report would be put into the waste-paper basket. There was no power in the Bill to compel the County Council to act on the committee's report. It was desirable therefore to put in the forefront of the Bill that the appointment of the commit tee should be optional. It was idle to disturb an unwilling County Council, and insist that they should appoint a committee, when that committee, once appointed, would have no power to see that their report was acted on. He agreed that the appointment, of those committees would probably be very useful, but there were cases in small boroughs and urban districts—he knew of one—where it would be, to his mind, undesirable to act through a committee. Where there was a small centralised population, with a population of 10,000 or 20,000, if the Councils were obliged to appoint a committee, it would be very difficult to get a committee which would be as good as the Council itself. As to the statement of the hon. Member for Oldham, that the County Councils and the Borough Councils were already overburdened with work, well, in such a case the Councils would, as a matter of course, take advantage of the option in the Bill and appoint a committee. Therefore he would suggest that it would be wiser, when they were establishing a single educational authority, that as Dutch responsibility and authority should he given them is possible, and not to limit them in the way proposed.
  MR. SAMUEL EVANSsaid he was entirely in favour of the Amendment, because it would give greater elasticity

  169
  to the working of the Bill. In no case would the County Council or Borough Council be shut out from the exercise of the power. The Secretary to the Board of Education had said that if the Amendment were carried the power would be taken away to appoint women on the committee. That did not follow at all from the Amendments, for women could be on a committee appointed by the County Council. When it came to small local authorities, like a borough of 10,000 inhabitants, it would be most convenient, in his opinion, that the Borough Council should act as the Education Committee. Under the scheme of the Bill the Borough Councils were hound to appoint a committee, all the members of which might not even be resident within the borough. He was entirely against the scheme of the Bill, and thought that the power of the educational authority should be absolutely unfettered. Under the Bill of 1896, one third of the committee had to retire, but were eligible for re-election; and it could not be contended that that was not a proper provision. Under the present Bill, the scheme might be cut and dried, and there might no provision for the retirement of any part of the committee; and therefore, however in competent or inattentive the members may be, it would be impossible to supersede them. If, however, the Amendment were adopted, the local authority would be allowed to constitute itself a committee for the purposes of the Act, and would be persons who would, now and again, have to submit themselves for re-election. While he believed that it would be advisable in most cases, and he might say even in all cases, that committees should be appointed, he was strongly in favour of the Amendment, because it would give greater elasticity.
  MR. SPEAR (Devonshire, Tavistock)said he should certainly vote against the Amendment. It had been made perfectly clear that the local authority would have supreme and absolute power, and that the committee would be of an advisory character, and in that capacity it would be of the greatest value. It had been pointed out that women could be members of the committee; and he thought it was also desirable that it should contain representatives of the teachers. The County Councils, in framing a scheme, would be
  170
  very glad to have the opinions and representations of all the persons that would be affected. Further, the provisions empowering the County Council to put on the committee persons nominated by other bodies, was a very valuable one, as it would secure in the framing of the scheme the opinions of all classes in the area affected. He believed that the appointment of the committee would do much to produce a scheme of real force, and he would therefore oppose the Amendment.
  MR. COUETENAY WARNERsaid that if he understood the Amendment as the hon. Member who had just spoken understood it, he should certainly vote against it. But it would not do away with the appointment of the committee it all. In ninety-nine cases out of every hundred committees would be appointed; but the Amendment would apply in a few cases of small boroughs with only 10,000 inhabitants or a little more, and of small urban districts with only 20,000 inhabitants, or a little more, where committees would be a great inconvenience. He thought the local authority should be given the power not to appoint a hut the Amendment would not prevent the appointment of a committee. In the great County Councils all the work was done through committees; and committees would be appointed; but in the smaller Councils it would be very difficult to find a useful and efficient committee. In such cases he thought that the County Councils ought to have the power of doing the work themselves, and should not be forced to appoint a committee, which necessarily must be rather inefficient in consequence of the fewness of the persons to choose from. The Amendment would not prevent the appointment of a committee in all places where a committee would he good and necessary; but in the few cases where a committee would be injurious, it would enable the local authority to act themselves. He hoped the Amendment would be accepted.
  SIR WILLIAM MATHER (Lanchshire, Rossendale)said he would ask his hon. friend to withdraw the Amendment, which he did not think could conduce in the least to the power or authority which the new local education authority ought to have in the

  171
  small boroughs. He had the honour to represent a Lancashire constituency in which there were three small boroughs, two of which had School Boards. Speaking for those boroughs, he was quite sure the first thing they ought to do in relation to the new Act was to enforce on the local authority so constituted the obligation of at once forming executive committees. He thought it would be detrimental to the interests of education that the word "shall" should be taken out. Though lie did not agree with the scheme of the Bill, he believed the first step towards replacing the School Boards now existing in the small towns ought to be made imperative upon the districts by Act of Parliament.
  MR. CHANNINGasked, if the Amendment were negatived and the word "shall" retained, would that prejudice the proviso suggested by the hon. Member for North West Ham, which he strongly supported?
  SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid that, subject to the ruling of the Chair, he thought that the retention of the word "shall" would not prejudice the proviso.
  Question put.
  The Committee proceeded to a Division, and the Chairman stated that he thought the Ayes had it; and, on his decision being challenged, it appeared to him that the Division was frivolously claimed, and he accordingly directed the Noes to stand up in their places, and three Members having stood up, the Chairman declared that the Ayes had it.
  Names of the Minority taken down in the House:—

  NOES.
  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire).

  Strachey, Sir Edward.

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Amendment made—
  "In page 4, line 27, by leaving out from the beginning to the word 'an' in line 29, and inserting the word 'establish.'"—(Sir William Anson )
  MR. YOXALLmoved the omission of the words "or education committees." The object of the Bill was
  172
  understood to be to set up in a given locality one and the same authority for elementary and secondary education, That was a vital part of the Bill, and he objected to words which would empower the local authority to set up two committees within its area, one f r secondary and technical instruction, and the other for elementary education. It might be that that was not the intention of the framers of the Bill; but, as the Clause stood, it would empower, and to some extent invite, the local education authority to transact its business, not merely through one committee, but through two committees. It might be that the intention of the Government was that the local authority in the larger areas should have power to appoint committees on topographical grounds, not by reason of the different kind of education to be controlled. That might be proper and necessary; but the Clause should not be left in its present vague form. Over the whole of a county there should be one and the same committee for all kinds of schools. Although' he did not think it was the intention of the Government, the words "education committees" would prevent that. It was necessary to know what was the intention of the Government, because a new feature was brought into the Bill which would be negative to the main features of the Bill, and which ran contrary to much of the argument by which the Bill had been supported, both in the Committee and in the country. The words "education committees" would divide the control of the work into two parts. It would assign to one committee elementary education, and practically set up another School Board and assign to another committee technical and higher education. Such a thing would in his opinion be foreign to the principles of the Bill, and for that reason he. begged to move that the words "or education committees" be omitted. Already the principle of one and the same authority had been strained to a dangerous degree.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 4, line 29, to leave out the words 'or Education Committees,' and insert the words consisting as to a majority of Members of the Council, and as to the remainder."—(Mr. Yoxall.)
  Question proposed. "That the words 'or Education Committees' stand part of the Clause."
  SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid it would be undesirable to fetter the local education authority in its arrangements as to the mode in which it should get educational advice within its area. There would he no obligation on the local authority to appoint more than one committee, but it might be desirable, and even necessary, in a large area to have more than one. The unity the hon. Member desired for all kinds of education would the Hind in the local authority itself. The hon. Gentleman would see that the mode in which it should collect advice must be left to that authority. So far as the hon. Member desired to prevent that advice being sectional, he would not secure it by his Amendment, because it would be impossible to prevent a committee appointing sub-committees. He could not accept the Amendment.
  LORD EDMUND FITZMAURICEadmitted there was a good deal to be said on both sides. He had been much struck by the manner in which, in the county with which he was connected, the landowners and farmers hail become interested in technical education and had taken a real interest in such technical education as agricultural education. It might be that under the conditions of t his Clause, although they might be disposed to accept the general policy of the committee, it would he found almost impossible to induce them to continue the very useful and increasingly useful work which they were beginning to look upon as their own, and to take considerable pride in. At the same time he felt that his hon. friend had been fully justified in raising this question, but he thought that he would lie wise to withdraw his Amendment, because although it might work out very well in some ways it would do a great deal of harm in others. He assumed, of course, that these words had nothing to do with sub-Section 3, because these committees were matters upon which he looked with some suspicion. It was one thing to appoint a committee for technical education, and another for elementary education, but quite another thing to cut up the county into two or three large areas, each under a separate
  174
  committee. Sub-Section 3 dealt with the geographical areas, but, the subject with which the Committee was dealing now was whether the people could divide education into three large classes.
  BRYNMOR JONESsupported the withdrawal of the Amendment. As he understood, it would be open to the local education authority to appoint one committee for secondary education and one for elementary education. That would be a very important point for the Welsh Members to consider when they came to deal with sub-Section 6.
  MR. YOXALLexpressed his dissatisfaction with the statement made by the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Board of Education. He again pointed out that this was a matter which must be considered seriously. It now became evident for the first time in all these debates that the Government contemplated permission being given to the local education authorities under the Bill to retain and maintain the existing division between elementary and technical schools which had worked so badly in the past. In the past a School Board existed, with powers over public elementary education, and in the same borough a Technical Education Committee existed with certain powers for the purposes of technical instruction. There was no co-ordination between those two authorities. The hon. Gentleman said that co-ordination would exist in the Council itself, but it could only be assumed that the Council would adopt the reports of its committees pro forma, as it did at present the reports of its committees for routine work. Therefore the same conditions would exist as at present. One committee would deal with technical instruction in an entirely different manner to another, and the curriculum of the elementary school would bear no relation to the curriculum of the technical school or the secondary school. There would be no common knowledge on the part of one committee of the needs of the various kinds of schools dealt with by the other committee, and they would simply perpetuate the existing bad educational conditions, which could not be justified on any educational basis that he was

  175
  aware of. The Council was to be the local authority, and in the last resort would rule. It was now proposed to devolve upon a separate committee the task of governing certain schools. If the Government consented to do that he would begin to tax them with insincerity in regard to the alleged aim of the Bill, which, for all the good it would then do, might as well never have been introduced. The words "or educational committees" meant that the local authority would be able, and almost invited, to set up separate committees for elementary, technical and secondary schools. That would not relieve the local authority of work, but it would almost inevitably lead to friction between the different committees. He urged the Prime Minister in the interests of the children and in the the interest of education not to allow these words to remain in their unqualified form. He was perfectly willing to withdraw the Amendment and move the insertion of "sub," so that the Clause would read "education committee or education subcommittees" if the right hon. Gentleman would accept the latter Amendment.
  SIR CHARLES DILKEpointed out that the Amendment of the hon. Member would place several Members in a difficult position, because, although they agreed with much he had said, they would be obliged to vote against the proposal inasmuch as the words of the Clause gave an important security, topographically considered, to certain portions of certain districts. He suggested, however, that the hon. Member might carry out his purpose by a proviso at the end of the Clause that the plural committees should apply only topographically, and not as far as classes of schools were concerned. There had been a virtual promise that for certain portions of large counties there should be separate committees, and that promise would fail of fulfilment if either proposal of the hon. Member were accepted.
  MR. HUMPHREYS-OWENthought the discussion had revealed the great difficulty there would be in applying this Bill in the rural districts. In towns there would be no difficulty in having one autonomous and single committee for the whole area,
  176
  but in sparsely populated counties of large area it would be impossible to work the elementary schools without some subordinate local authority to look after the details. It might be said that the managers would do that. But in the denominational schools the managers could not be so fully trusted as in the provided schools, and in order to secure satisfactory administration there would have to be subordinate committees over areas of a limited extent to superintend the schools in those areas. That would aid in the co-ordination which all were anxious to secure between elementary and secondary education, and would relieve the central body of a vast amount of work which otherwise they could not possibly carry out. He suggested that the Government should make some alteration of the phraseology enabling the local education authority to work, not only through its committee, but either by appointing subordinate committees, or in some other way to provide for the necessary decentralisation of the work of elementary schools.
  MR. ERNEST GRAYagreed that in some counties it would be most desirous to have two committees both dealing with the higher work, each taking one portion of the county, and both reporting to the County Council. It was scarcely necessary, however, to say a single word as to the obvious danger of allowing, or almost inviting, a County Borough Council to appoint two committees, one dealing with elementary and the other with higher education. It should be remembered that there would be a tendency in that direction from the fact that the two forms of education had been separate in the past, and that regrettable divorce between elementary and higher education would be perpetuated. He would prefer sub-committees to separate committees, because the former would have to report to the one advising body before the matter reached the Council. Everyone knew what happened to such reports when they went before the County Councils. Unless there was some notorious new departure the Council would not trouble itself in the matter, but as soon as it had confidence in its committee, would accept its reports without discussion or comment. Would it not be possible for the representative of the

  177
  Board of Education to give an undertaking that no scheme would be approved which perpetuated this separation between higher and elementary education. The Board of Education were anxious to secure co-ordination; it was the desire of the Government. Then let them not nullify their own proposals by leaving it open to the Borough Councils to adopt machinery which would make it impossible for those proposals to be carried out. If such an assurance as he had suggested were given he would be prepared to let the Clause pass, but he would much prefer to have the words in the Bill.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE (Carnarvon Boroughs)said this point seemed to be outside the region of controversy, for they were all agreed as to the object to be attained. He thought, however, that these things ought to be provided for in the Bill, and the point was not too insignificant to put in express terms in the Bill itself. To him the answer given to the hon. Member for Mid Glamorgan, that it was possible to set up two separate committees, was quite alarming. He hardly thought that that was contemplated by the Prime Minister or the Secretary to the Board of Education. The success of the American system of education was due largely to the fact that there was this co-ordination. Surely they ought not to start now contemplating the possibility of severing the functions of the committee, one committee to run primary, and the other secondary education. This bad led to no end of difficulties in the past, and he always understood that it was those difficulties which had given rise to this Bill. Instead of the quarrels between School Boards and Town Councils this proposal would in the future give rise to quarrels between two committees, and they would not improve matters by simply changing the combatants. Education would suffer by those quarrels, and so they ought to make it clear that there should be only one authority with indisputable claims to manage both secondary and primary education. A good deal had been said about sub-committees, but he did not think it was necessary to give this power in the Bill, because every committee had power to appoint sub-committees. Any body could appoint a committee of two or three to attend to one special
  178
  branch of a subject, and there ought to be no difficulty about that. Why should they add to the possibility of difficulties and quarrels by saying that provided schools should be under the control of one committee up to four o'clock, and after that time under the control of another committee? Between ten in the morning and four in the afternoon one authority controlled, and between four and ten the following morning there would be another authority. That was so absurd arid ridiculous that surely a few words inserted in the Bill would simplify matters.
  MR. BONDthought it would be wise to accept the Amendment of his hon. friend. He had had some experience in these matters, and he thought it was very advisable that one committee should deal with all forms of education. He did not say that no sub-committees should be appointed, because the area must be divided into sub-committees, but it was eminently desirable that all the recommendations of these sub-committees should come before the committee itself. The executive education committee should have before it all the recommendations of the sub-committees, and unless they had something of that kind he agreed with the hon. Member for North \test Ham that some of the promises which had been held out with regard to this Bill ran some risk of not being realised. They ought to do everything they could to prevent any possibility of that kind taking place. He hoped the suggestions which had found favour with a good many hon. Members on both sides as to the importance of giving power to separate very large areas into separate districts would be met. By adopting this course they would be doing more in the interests of education generally than if they adopted the proposal as it was in the Bill.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have not heard the whole of the debate upon this point, but I have heard enough to appreciate the general tenor of the views on both sides of the House. Hon. Members fear that if more than one committee is permitted the division of the duties between two or more committees will be,

  179
  as it were, a horizontal division dividing secondary and primary education, and not a perpendicular division. With that general declaration of policy the Government are in entire harmony. We have from the beginning, and from the day I introduced the Bill, contended that it would be a great misfortune if the prophecies of my hon. friend the Member for North West Ham came true, and if education was not now co-ordinated, but divided between School Boards and Technical Instruction Committees, thus perpetuating them under new names under this Bill. But while I sympathise with that general view of policy, I am very reluctant to limit the discretion of the education authority unduly. We must be careful what we do in this matter, and not tie their hands too closely in matters which concern their proper function of dealing with secondary education. I have been trying in a rough way to draft words which I think would carry out the views of hon. Gentlemen opposite. I do not think they will require some modification at the hands of the Attorney General. My idea was to introduce later on in the Clause words something like these —"If the scheme provides more than one committee, regard shall he had under the scheme to the need for coordinating the different kinds of education." That, I think, would not lay down a hard and fast rule, but it would be an indication to the local authorities that the Education Department in approving the scheme shire, must not lose sight of the primary object of the scheme, namely to co-ordinate all kinds of education. If an Amendment of that kind lower down in the Clause will meet the views of hon. Gentlemen, shall be prepared to consider the exact form it shall take.
  MR. M'KENNApointed out that by a sub-Clause it was already provided that more than one committee might be appointed on topographic grounds. In the absence of any explanation from the Government, they were bound to assume that the functions of these rival committees would be to deal with separate branches of education in the same area. If two committees were appointed in this, way, there would be three bodies, all
  180
  within the same area, dealing with education, and they would lose the last hope of coordinating all branches of education under one authority. He did not think the amending words of the First Lord of the Treasury would carry out the object of his hon. friend.
  LORD EDMUND FITZMAURICEsaid he regretted to differ from his hon. friend. It was perfectly true that it would be disastrous, from the point of view of all, to separate primary and secondary education, but he reminded the Committee that there were classes of education under the head of technical instruction which were quite away and distinct from anything which was ordinarily called primary or secondary education, though no doubt they came within one ore the other. In his county they had appointed an agricultural committee, which dealt with that portion of technical education which was of importance to those engaged in farming. While a committee of that kind did valuable work in connection with a particular industry, he thought it would be disastrous to separate primary and secondary education in the ordinary acceptation of the words.
  SIR WILLIAM MATHERsaid it was of great importance to have continuity and co-ordination through the whole area.
  MR. ALEXANDER BROWN (Shropshire, Wellington)said he agreed generally with what had fallen from the hon. Gentleman opposite.
  MR. YOXALLasked the First Lord of the Treasury whether he would agree to insert the word "district" before the words "Education Committee."
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he did not think he could do that without running counter to the argument of the noble Lord the Member for the Cricklade Division.
  MR. BRIGGsaid it seemed to him that there was no difficulty, whatever in maintaining the authority of the local education authority, and at the same time, if found necessary, delegating their powers to the different localities.
  MR. M'KENNAsaid there was a way in which all parties could come together and be at one in this matter, and that was a very desirable thing. His own objection to the proposal of the Prime Minister was that there were to be separate committees. Was it not better to say to the local authority that one comprehensive committee ought to be enough, and that there should be one committee, with such subcommittees as might be appointed, to deal with the whole system of education? The experts who were skilled in different branches of education could be put upon the sub-committees.
  MR. YOXALLsaid that having regard to what had fallen from the Prime Minister, although friction might result between the local education authority and the Board of Education if his proposal were adopted, he would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  THE CHAIRMANcalled upon Mr. Lloyd Morgan (Carmarthen, W.) to move an Amendment standing in his name.
  MR. JOSEPH A. PEASEasked whether the following Amendment standing in his name before that of the hon. Member for West Carmarthen was out of order—
  'In page 4, line 29, after the second word 'education,' to leave out to end of Clause, and insert t he words 'consisting of members of the Council, who shall hare power to co-opt other person, to serve on such education committee, but the total number of such co-opted members shall be less than half the total number of members of such committee.'"
  THE CHAIRMAN: The Amendment does not read.
  MR. JOSEPH A. PEASEsaid that owing to a clerical error the word "education" was inserted instead of the word "committee."
  THE CHAIRMAN: It ought to come as an Amendment to sub-Clause (a). What the hon. Member wants, so far as I can gather, is that a majority of the committee shall be members of the Council.
  MR. JOSEPH A. PEASEsaid his first object was to get rid of the scheme, because he believed the County Councils were perfectly competent to manage their own educational work.
  THE CHAIRMANcalled upon Mr. Lloyd Morgan to move the Amendment standing in his name, when,
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE, on a point of order, said he thought that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Saffron Walden should come first.
  THE CHAIRMANpointed out that if the Amendment of the hon. Member for Saffron Walden were put and negatived, that would cut out the other Amendments on the same point. Hon. Members could take it as they pleased.
  MR. LLOYD MORGANsaid that the object of his Amendment was to secure that the appointment of the Committee should be for a term of three years, and three years only. He presumed that under the Clause as it stood the committee or committees would become permanent bodies, and that seemed to him to be a most objectionable course. If the committee or committees were really to be representative of the County Councils and the Borough Councils, then it was absolutely necessary that there should be some limit of time for them holding office. They ought not to exist as a committee for a longer period than three years. The Government Bill of 1896 provided that the educational committee was to exist for three yeans, and three years only, and that one-third of the committee should retire every three years. That was a system which ought to be adopted in the present Bill. The County Council in electing the committee under the Act might be under the impression that certain persons who had had no previous experience in educational matters had a right to he elected, but the process of time might prove to them that they had made a mistake and that the members so elected by them were not the best men for educational work. It seemed to him that an unreasonable fetter was placed on the County Council if it were said that they had no power to release

  183
  these members of the Committee from service upon it, even if they had changed their opinions. He knew of no committee of the County Council at present which became a permanent body, except the county governing body constituted under the Welsh Intermediate Education Act, and, although he had no other authority for saying so, he thought that was a mistake. In the case of the Standing Joint Committee of the County Council the members were only appointed for a limited time. The County Councils constantly changed the members of the Standing joint Committee when it was found that they were not carrying out He views of the County Council. That principle ought to be applied to the educational affairs of the county, and if the members of the Education Committee who had been elected to carry out the provisions of the Act failed in the discharge of their ditty or to satisfy the County Council, they ought to give the County Council power to decide that those members should not hold office for more than three years.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 4, line 30, after the word 'committee,' to insert the words 'appointed for a term of three years and.'" (Mr. Lloyd Morgan.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid nobody had ever dreamt that these committees should he permanent bodies, and there was nothing in the Bill to suggest that that bud ever been contemplated from the beginning of the scheme. As a matter of fact, the hon. Gentleman proposed by his Amendment to give a much greater security for the permanence of the committees than the ever contemplated. If a majority of the committee were members of the County Council, and ceased to he members of the Council or to be qualified as councillors, they could not continue to be members of the committee. What the Government really desired was that the tenure of office of members or the committee should he precisely what the local education authority should give it, whether long or short. He could assure the hon. Gentleman that there was nothing in the to suggest that these committees were to be of a permanent character, and that the hon. Member
  184
  proposed by his Amendment to give them a greater security of tenure than was specified or contemplated in the Bill. Their tenure of office, whatever it might be, would have to be determined by the schemes to be framed by the Councils, and approved of by the Board of Education.
  MR. GEORGE WHITELEY (Yorkshire W.R., Padsey)thought that the speech of the hon. Baronet had afforded more reason for supporting the Amendment than the remarks of the hon. Member who had moved it. Unless the words of the Amendment were adopted the constitution of the committee might be entirely out of harmony with that of the County Council or the Borough Council. What was going to be done in the case of the members elected to represent the County Council on these committees if the County Council came to an end before the term of office of the education committee expired? The members of the education committee would be hung up between wind and water—appoitited to represent the County Council, and yet not representing the County Council, for some County Councils might have appointed the members of the education committee for terms of four, live, or even six years. He thought common-sense should guide the Committee to the acceptance of the Amendment. They should adopt the practice which was in vogue in County Councils and Municipal Corporations, and fix the term for which the members of the committee were appointed, and make the term so short that they should represent the County Council or the Borough Council, otherwise the education committee might he entirely out of touch with the body which appointed them.
  SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid he would remind the hon. Member that if a member of the education committee was placed on the committee as a member of the Council he would cease to be a member of the committee if he ceased to be a member of the Council. He thought the objection of the hop Member was not a real one.
  MR. CHANNINGthought that the words which bad fallen from the Secretary to the Board of Education really

  185
  aggravated the case. The real point was that the Secretary to the Education Department had now told the Committee that the term of office of the members of the education committee was to be determined in the scheme made by the Council, and approved by the Board of Education. But it was possible that a Council might draw up a scheme, and obtain the consent of the Board of Education co it, which would saddle the education committee with a body of outsiders, which might be a permanent body, and would obtain thereby the control of all the machinery, of education in the county or borough, and which might be out of touch with the opinions mid sentiments of the people who elected the County Council or the Borough Council. It seemed to him that if there were no fixed term of office, and that while elected members of the Council could sit only for a time, outsiders nominated on the Committee might have all unlimited tenure of office, it could only lead to their having education handed over to an irresponsible group of outsiders who would obtain absolute and permanent control of all branches of education ill the district. That would he a very serious state of things. Practically the whole education of the country would pass into the hands of an irresponsible and permanent body wholly out of touch, it might be, with the people concerned.
  SIR FRANCIS POWELLsaid he thought that this was one of those minutiæ which it would be wiser to leave to the decision of the County and Borough Councils themselves. Some of these schemes, he thought, were not very well suited to the more general terms adopted in legislation.
  MR. SAMUEL EVANSasked the Secretary to the Board of Education whether they could understand that during his tenure of office, at any rate, the schemes of the various education authorities would only be approved by the Department if the members of the County Council elected to the education committee were to remain members of that committee merely daring their term of office on the Council. Although he disliked the Clause he would be satisfied if the Government on this Amendment would give an assurance that that would be the policy of the Education Department with regard to these schemes.
  SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid if the number of the members of the County Council on the committee fell short of a majority the intention was that the County Council should elect others.
  MR. BRYCEsaid he did not understand that the majority of the committee was to consist of members of the County Council.
  SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid there might he a majority unless the County Council determined that there should not be.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid the position was obvious. These committees would perform a very onerous duty, and it might well be that many of the County Councils would not desire to undertake it. He thought it was extremely unlikely that there would be a majority of members of the County Councils on these bodies; they would desire these onerous duties to be performed by somebody else.
  MR. SAMUEL EVANSpointed out that it did not follow from the words in this Section that the position occupied by a member of the County Council on the committee would cease to be occupied by him when he ceased to he a member of the County Council. The question he put, to which he had not yet got an answer, was whether the Education Department would see to it that members of the committee should only be members of that committee for such time as they were members of the County Council.
  MR. BRIGGexpressed the opinion that with regard to the co-option of members, unless some definite time were put down for their co-option, they would remain in office after they ceased to be members of County Councils. The other members, he took it, would go out of office when they lost their position on the County Councils, but the co-opted members would remain.
  SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid he had some hesitation in pronouncing all opinion on the interpretation of the Bill which might bind the Education Department upon questions which had

  187
  not yet been brought before it, but he might say that, if a certain majority of members of the committee were to be members of the County Council, and the qualification of their membership of the committee was that they should also be members of the County Council, they would cease to be members of the committee on losing that qualification. The duration of the term of office for the co-opted members of the committee would have to be provided for in the scheme. It would be the business of the local authority to provide for that. If they did not do so, it would be considered an accidental omission on their part, and the Education Board would call their attention to the matter.
  SIR JOHN BRUNNERasked to have it made perfectly clear by some words in the Bill that if a member of the committee lost his qualification as a member of the County Council lie should also lose his position on the committee. He pointed out that a great many members of a committee who were also members of the County Council might be elected to the County Council on other issues altogether, for the purpose of continuing them on the committee on account of their having done good service. What hon. Members on this side wanted was quite clear, but what they wished to hear from the hon. Baronet opposite was whether their wishes would be carried out by the insertion of words into the Bill.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he thought it was important to know whether there was going to be a term to the membership of members of the committee who were not also members of the County Council. The members appointed by the County Council would be representatives of the rateyayers, but the co-opted members would be experts, and the conduct of those gentlemen might not always commend itself to the County Council or the general body of the district. They could not always anticipate how men would work. Because they took an interest in education, they need not necessarily be good administrators. Therefore he wished to know whether it was clear that there was a term for the membership of these gentlemen.
  SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid he thought he had clearly stated that the Government never contemplated that these co-opted or added members of the committee should have any condition of permanency attached to their appointment. The local authorities, he presumed, would fix the term of the appointment, which it might be desirable to make longer or shorter in some cases than in others, according to the varying conditions of the different local bodies. But if the local authority omitted to fix any term, he would consider that that was an accidental omission, and it would be the duty of the Board of Education to call attention to it.
  MR. BRYCEsaid he understood his hon. friend's idea to be that these schemes should provide for a short term. Personally, he would prefer three years. Would the hon. Gentleman say that the term should be three years?
  MR. WHARTONremarked that every County Council Committee was re-appointed every year, and unless this Education Committee was to be in a different position from the other committees of the Council no difficulty wm mid arise in this respect. There need be no term of three years, or term of two years; let it be like the other committees.
  SIR JAMES-WOODHOUSEendorsed the statement of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and deprecated putting every minute detail into the Bill. Under the existing law, the Technical Instruction Act, it was provided that the County Councils could co -opt their committee members from outside the County Council, and the election of all committees was settled by the Standing Orders of the County Council. If every minute detail was put into time Bill, there would be nothing for bye-laws or Standing Orders to settle.
  MR. ABEL THOMASsaid that probably an annual election would be the best thing in this matter, but if any other time were to be selected it should not exceed three years. He therefore proposed that the Amendment should be amended by changing the phrase "appointed for a term of three years" to "appointed for a term not exceeding three years."
  MR. LLOYD MORGANaccepted this Amendment to his Amendment.
  Amendment amended—
  "By leaving out the word 'of,' and inserting the words 'not exceeding.'"—(Mr. Abel Thomas.)
  (5.48) Question put, "That those words, as amended, be there inserted."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 118; Noes, 241. (Division List, No. 477.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Hayne, Rt Hon. Charles Seale-

  Rteckitt, Harold James

  Allan, Sir William (Gateshead)

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries

  Allen, Charles P.(Glouc., Stroud

  Hemphill. Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Rickett, J Compton

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Rigg, Richard

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Horaiman, Frederick John

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Bell, Richard

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Schwarm, Charles E.

  Brigg, John

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Jones, David Brymnor (Sw'nsea

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Kitson, Sir James

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Labouchere, Henry

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Burns, John

  Lambert, George

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Burt, Thomsa

  Langley, Batty

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Caine, William Sproston

  Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington

  Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R (Northants

  Caldwell, James

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Cameron, Robert

  Levy, Maurice

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Cawley, Fredrick

  Lloyd-George, David

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan E.)

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Logan, John William

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Crenter, William Randal

  Lough, Thomas

  Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Mac amara, Dr. Thomas .J.

  Thomas, J.A. (Glam'rg'n, Gower

  Davises, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Toulmin, George

  Davies, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Trevelyan, Charles Philps

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin

  Walton, John Lawson(Leeds, S.

  Dunn, Sir William

  Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Edwards, Frank

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Wason, Eugene

  Ellis, John Edward

  Mather, Sir William

  Weir, James Galloway

  Emmott, Alfred

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Evans, Samuel T.(Glamorgan)

  Newnes, Sir George

  White, Luke (York. E. R.)

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Norman, Henry

  Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Whttaker, Thomas Palmer

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Nussey, Thomas Willians

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmund

  Palmer, Sir Charles M (Durham

  Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk. Mid.

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Partington, Oswald

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

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Philipps, John Wunford

  Grant, Corrie

  Pickard, Benjamin

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

  Price, Robert John

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Priestley, Arthur

  Mr. Lloyd Morgan and

  Harwood, George

  Rea, Russell

  Mr. Abel Thomas.

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Caveadish, V.C.W (Derbyshire

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Beckett, Ernest William

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Allhusen, Augstus H'nry Eden

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Beresford, Lord Chas. William

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Bhownaggree, Sir M.M.

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. (Birm.

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Bignold, Arthur

  Chamberlain, Rt Hn J.A.(Wore.

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Chamberlayne, T. (S'thampton

  Arrol, Sir William

  Bond, Edward

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Boulnois, Edmund

  Chapman, Edward

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn

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

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Brassey, Albert

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Balcarres, Lord

  Brown, Alexander H. (Shropsh.

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Bull. William James

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

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

  Butcher, John George

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Balfour Capt. C.B. (Hornsey)

  Campbell, Rt. Hn. J.A (Glasgow)

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Balfour Rt. Hn Gerald W (Leeds

  Carew, James Laurence

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Balfour Kenneth R (Christch.

  Carson, Bt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Cust, Henry John C.

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Jebb, Sir Richard (Claverhouse

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Davies, Sir Horatio D (Chatham

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

  Pryee-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Denny, Colonel

  Johnstone, Heywood

  Purvis, Robert

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Pym, C. Guy

  Dinsdale, Sir Joseph Cockheld

  Kemp, George

  Rankin, Sir James

  Disraeli, Coningshy Ralph

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

  Rattigan, Sir William Henry

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fr'd Dixon

  Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop

  Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Starybridge

  Doughty. George

  Kimber, Henry

  Ridley, S. Forde (Bethaal Green

  Douglas, Rt. Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Knowles, Lees

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Law, Andrew Bonar(Glasgow)

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Dorning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Dyke. Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Elliot. Hen. A. Ralph Douglas

  Lawson, John Grant

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Faber, George Denkon (York)

  Lee, Arthur H (Hants, Fareham

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Shackleton, David James

  Fergusson, Rt Hon Sir J (Manc'r

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Fieblen, Edward Brocklehurst

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Finch, George H.

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Long, Rt Hon Walter (Bristol, S.

  Smith, HC (North'mb. Tyneside

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)

  Fison, Frederick William

  Lowe, Francis William

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

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Spear, John Ward

  Fiztzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  Lucas, Reginald J (Portsmouth

  Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Stanley, Edward Jas.(Somerset

  Fetcher, Rt Hon. Sir Henry

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Stewart, Sir Mark .J. M.'Taggart

  Flower, Ernest

  Maclver, David (Liverpool)

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Forster, Henry William

  Maconochie A.W.

  Talbot. Lord E. (Chichester)

  Foster, Philip S (Warwick, S.W.

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Talbot, Rt Hn. J.G. (Ox'f'd Univ.

  Galloway, William Johnson

  M'Killop, James(Stirlingshier)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Garfit, William

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Gibbs. Hon. Vicary (St Albans)

  Malcolm, Ian

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Valentia, Viscount

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W.F

  Vincent, Col. Sir CEH (Sheffield

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Maxwell, W J H (Dumfriesshire

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Wallace, Robert

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Middlemore John Throgmorton

  Walrond, Rt Hn. Sir William. H.

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Greene, Sir EW (B'ry S Edm'nds

  Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Welby, Lt.-Col A.C. E (Tannton

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire

  Welbv, Sir Charles G.E (Notts.)

  Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x

  Morgan, David J.(Walthamstow

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Whiteley, H.(Asht'n-und. Lyne

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Whitley, J.H. (Halifax)

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Mount, William Arthur

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Mowbrey, Sir Robert, Gray C.

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Hatch. Ernest Frederick Geo.

  Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute

  Willox, Sir John Architald

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Wilson, J.W.(Worcestersh., N.

  Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

  Myers, William Henry

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

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Newdegate, Francis A. N.

  Woodhouse, Sir J. T.(Huddersf'd

  Helder, Augustus

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Henderson, Sir Alexander

  Nicol, Donald Nimian

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C.B Stuart

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

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

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Higginbottom, S.W.

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Wylie, Alexander

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Hothouse, Henry (Somerset, E.

  Pease. J.A. (Saffron Walden)

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Robt. Wellusley

  Hope, J.F (Sheffield, Brightside

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Horner, Frederick William

  Percy, Earl

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Hoult, Joseph

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Sir Alexander Acland

  Howard, J.(Midd., Tottenham)

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Hood, and Anstruther.

  DR. MACNAMARA, in moving the insertion after "Committers" of the words "which shall in all cases be subject to the decisions of the local education authority, and shall be," said he recognised that the position had been sensibly changed since the modified constitution of the local education authority had
  192
  been placed before the Committee. He was in seine doubt as to the precise functions of the local authority, because, when the matter was discussed in June last, there were many references to the committee being constituted in the same manner as a Watch Committee, which was not required to report its proceedings

  193
  to the parent Council, and was not in any wav subject to its decisions. He would formally move the Amendment, in order to elicit whether the committee would be subject in all respects to the local authority.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 4, line 30, after the word 'committees,' to insert the words 'which shall in all cases be subject to the decisions of the local education authority, and shall be;'"—(Dr. Macnamara.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid the point which the hon. Member desired to call attention would much more directly arise on the Amendment standing in the name of Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education. He thought that when that Amendment was reached the hon. Member would see that all that he desired was effectively carried out, and perhaps with that statement he would be satisfied to allow the matter to remain until his hon. friend's Amendment was reached.
  Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
  MR. JOSEPH A. PEASE,in moving the omission of the remainder of the Clause after the words "or education committees," said his object was to do away with the necessity of appealing to the Board of Education with schemes altogether. Everybody acquainted with the working of committees of municipal corporations or county councils knew that those committees were quite capable of drawing up any scheme which they thought necessary for their own work. At present the Technical Education Committees formed their own schemes, and were not subject to the control of the education authority. He believed the same confidence might be reposed in the bodies now to the created. It was absurd to think that they should be kept in leading strings by the Board of Education. If, however, these bodies were given the privilege of carrying out their own schemes he thought it should be provided that the committees should be annually elected, with power to co-opt a minority, while a majority of the members should be direct representatives of the local education authority. By that means a
  194
  great deal of cumbrous and unnecessary work in connection with the submission of schemes to the Board of Education would be obviated. He suggested two grounds on which the Government might well accept the Amendment—first, that these bodies were capable of carrying out their work and ought to be entrusted with these powers, and secondly, that the Clause would then be disposed of and the remainder of the Bill could be proceeded with.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 4, line 30, to leave out from the word 'committees,' to the end of the Clause."—(Mr. Joseph A. Pease.)
  Question proposed, "That the words on the 'constituted in accordance with a scheme made by the Council' stand part of the clause."
  SIR ROBERT FINLAYassured the hon. Member that it was from no want of confidence in the local education authority that he asked the Committee not accept this Amendment. The Bill, as it stood, did not provide for elasticity as regarded the frame-work of the schemes, and every regard would be had to local wants and exigencies in determining what schemes should be. ["By whom?"] By the Board of Education as well as by the local education authority. Doubtless the hon. Member would agree as to the desirability of a certain amount of co-ordination, and the Board of Education was that which, after all, must remain the central authority to see that there is no more divergence in the schemes than local circumstances required. It was left entirely with the local authority to frame its scheme, and there was no regulation whatever with a view to bringing the various schemes into relation with one another. There was no desire to tryannise over the local authorities, but surely it was desirable that the experience possessed by the central authority as to what had been found to work well in one locality should be at the service of another locality. He therefore submitted that it was much better that the schemes should be prepared by the local authorities, subject to the supervision of the Board of in the manner proposed in the Bill.
  MR. ALFRED HUTTONsaid that the element of schemes was one of the most objectionable in the Bill. There could not be found in any other portion of our local government a parallel to the present proposal. To say, in reference to money coming from the public exchequer and the local rates, that the money should be dealt with by a body composed under a scheme approved by the Board of Education, was not only a novel proposal, but a very serious innovation in the practice of the country in regard to local government and the administration of public money. No information had yet been given as to how the Board of Education intended these schemes to be worked. He presumed the nomination of the minority on these committees will lie with other bodies. First of all, the County Council would suggest the bodies that should have power to nominate representatives. It seemed to him that that was a means of enabling denominational and other schools to secure an indirect interest in the authority that would administer this money. He quite agreed that if there were a university college in the area it should have its representative on the local education authority, but that was not all that this proposal would do. It would secure that a great variety of interests should be represented. Besides the denominational schools, there would be secondary schools, grammar schools, technical schools, and any other kind of endowed school that happened to exist within the area, all wanting to nominate representatives. They would obviously go to push the interests of their own school. He had no doubt that that would be the result of the working of the scheme. To whom would those people owe their allegiance? Not to the public interest, not to the County Council, but to the different bodies and schools and boards in the area, and they would all push those particular interests. If they did not they would not be considered to have done their duty, and they would not find a place on those committees for a second time. If they were going to have co-option, then the authority should be the co-opting authority. They should be able to call in those who had had experience in university, technical, and secondary education, but that they
  196
  should have the right of putting on their own nominees was an infringement upon public responsibility and public administration. If they had a scheme of this kind they left people open to intrigue. In fixing this scheme they would have hundreds of applications setting forth their right to be represented, and the President of the Board of Education would have to adjudicate upon them, and he did not think the Education Department should have that duty to discharge, Why should the Department be called upon to say that this school had a right to one, this to two, and another to no representatives at all? It would be impossible for the Department to adjudicate between all these interests. But while all these sectarian bodies would have this right there would be one body that would have no right at all, and that body would be those who, had had experience on School Boards and who thoroughly understood School Board work. He remembered the hon. Gentleman opposite saying that under this Bill School Boards would continue to exist except in their corporate and financial capacity. He could not imagine a body existing that had lost those capacities. It seemed to him that this was a proposal which would open the door to a tremendous amount of backdoor influence and intriguing of all kinds. It was a proposal which would do a great deal to withdraw that confidence in public administration which would be given if County Councils were left to do their work on their own responsibility. He should support the Amendment.
  MR. HENRY HOBHOUSEthought the hon. Member opposite had raised a good many points which did not arise on this Amendment. He did not think that some of his arguments were well-founded, because, under the Welsh Intermediate Education Act, there had existed for a good many years a very strong analogy to the bodies proposed to be set up under this Bill. Those bodies were doing excellent work, and they were constituted by the initiative of the County Councils, confirmed by a Government Department. The County Councils would have full power of initiative, and they did not anticipate any of the dangers which were foreshadowed by hon. Gentlemen opposite.
  MR. BRYCEsaid that he would leave it to his hon. friends from Wales to deal with the Welsh case. He would point out, however, that this Amendment raised a very much larger principle which could not be dealt with by any reference to a special case of that kind. The weak point of the Bill was that the Government had determined to throw a great mass of new and very difficult work upon bodies which were already heavily loaded, and which had not been elected with any view to their educational capacity. They had contended from the first discussion on this Bill that the capital error of the Bill was that it destroyed Boards which had been specially chosen, and which had acquired special knowledge, and they were substituting for them a new authority which was already fully occupied with other work, and which had no special competence for the new work. The Government, like the sensible men that they were, felt the weakness of their own scheme. Of course they did not admit it, and nobody expected that they would, but they felt it all the same, and they had determined to try to get rid of this weakness. The Government's device for getting rid of the difficulty thus created was to shift all the work, except the ultimate control, from the local authority to the committee, and then to constitute the committee by putting experts upon it. Then, in order to make certain that there should be experts, they appointed experts by means of this scheme. That was not the course that any people who had not set out with a determination to extinguish the School Boards would have adopted. The Government had inevitably been driven to adopt the scheme which they had proposed. Nevertheless it did not make a good plan, although it might be the best way out of the difficulties which the Government had imposed upon themselves. Let them face the matter upon its merits. He thought they might consider the merits of the proposal quite apart from any predilection of a scheme because it came from the Government. He admitted that it was desirable to have an expert element. [MINISTERIAL laughter.] He really did not understand that laughter, corning as it did from hon. Members who never contributed anything to their debates. The expert element was a necessary element, and they all agreed that if they could secure experts it would be a
  198
  good thing to do. So far he was at one with the Government, but he believed that if they left the matter to the County and Borough Councils they would put on experts. His own knowledge of County and Borough Councils led him to feel perfectly certain that they would avail themselves of this expert knowledge, and endeavour to qualify themselves for the work they had to discharge by obtaining the most capable men. The Government thought that this must be secured by providing by their scheme that experts must be put on. But they went further because evidently they intended not merely that the Council should have power to choose its own experts, but also that nominations might be made by other persons who were to be forced upon the local education authority. That was going a very long way. His first objection to this course was that it was not at all respectful to the local authorities themselves. They purported to give these powers to the local authorities, and then they forced upon them persons who were not of their own choice. But there was a more grievous objection. How could they tell who were the persons whom the scheme would require to be appointed upon these committees? Upon this subject the Government had preserved from the first an ominous silence, and had not given any indication as to who the persons were who would be nominated. They saw in the Bill that experts were to he appointed by other bodies, and they had asked who the other bodies were, but no information had been given. They had, from other sources, reason to conjecture that these other bodies would in some cases be bodies representing sectional interests, not primarily educational. But if they agreed to the scheme they would agree to it in the form in which the Government put it forth, which was to give to these extraneous bodies, of whom the Committee knew nothing, the right to select members of these committees. If the scheme were to be made by the County Council or the Borough Council he should not be very-much afraid. They were, after all, popular bodies responsible to the electorate, and he was persuaded that, they would not put on any nominated body any person with whom this House would be displeased. But where did the ultimate voice lie? It lay with the

  199
  Board of Education. If a scheme proposed by a County Council did not meet with the approval of the Board of Education, that Board was to make a scheme itself.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAY; By Provisional Order.
  MR. BRYCEsaid the Board of Education would still have the last voice. They all knew what happened under a Provisional Order. They all knew that there was another House which had as much voice as the House of Commons in a Provisional Order. They could not look on the provision that the scheme should be framed by Provisional Order as at all adequate. In this matter the last voice ought not to lie, as it would lie under the Provisional Order plan, with the Board of Education. The price the Government asked them to pay for having experts on these bodies was too high. If the Government would say what bodies were likely to have the nominations that might remove some of the distrust with which the proposal was now surrounded, but if the scheme was to be placed before them as it stood at present, he thought they must reject it altogether. They must say that Parliament should fix the composition of the committees, and if Parliament did not do so it should be left to the local authority, but they could not leave the matter to be dealt with by the Board of Education by Provisional Order, and then to be pushed through the House as a Party measure under circumstances that would give no opportunity for adequate discussion.
  SIR JOHN GORSTsaid the account which the right hon. Gentleman had given of the genesis of this particular provision was quite inaccurate. The right hon. Gentleman had reiterated the old fallacy which seemed especially dear to the other side of the House—that in School Board elections the electors rushed to the poll to choose the representatives most educationally fit. The real genesis of the present difficulty was that the Technical Instruction Committees of the County and Borough Councils had been doing excellent work for the last twelve years. The Technical Instruction Committee of the London County Council had done invaluable service, and it was constituted
  200
  exactly according to the scheme of this Clause. The majority of its members were members of the Council, and there were also representatives of all kinds of educational interests. [An HON. MEMBER: Appointed by outside bodies?] Some of them were appointed by outside bodies, among which was the London Trades Council. Though he was strongly of the opinion that the County and Borough Councils might be trusted gradually to arrive at a satisfactory composition of their Education Committees, yet the time of the House was not wasted in trying to give certain indications to the Councils as to what the committees should consist of. He would give an example which would, he thought, appeal strongly to the personal feelings of his right hon. friend. One of the great misfortunes in the composition of these Technical Instruction Committees was that so very few of then included women. The members of County Councils were exclusively males, and with regard to the Technical Instruction Commitees, with few exceptions they had entirely ignored the desirability of having women upon them. The advice of the Board of Education might serve to ensure the inclusion of women in the Education Committees. The whole composition of the scheme would be left to the local authority. It was a great mistake for the right hon. Gentleman to say that the Board of Education could make a scheme and force it upon a local authority. He seemed to belittle the influence of this House in the matter of Provisional Orders. These generally passed because they were wholly unopposed, but if an attempt were made to foist on a great town like Liverpool or Manchester a scheme to which the Council objected, he was certain that it would be opposed; and, if opposed, the matter would not be settled, as the right hon. Gentleman suggested, by a Party majority, It would be settled by a Private Bill Committee, who would decide, not on Party grounds, but in such a manner as would, in their judgment, secure the justice of the case. He would pity his hon. friend, the Secretary to the Board of Education, if he should at any time have the misfortune to defend in this House a scheme in a Provisional Order which had been proposed by the Board of Education, and objected to by one of the

  201
  municipal boroughs or a great County Council. He did not think the Bill would have much chance of going through the House if opposed. If there was anything ill the scheme to which just objection could be taken, he should think it highly probable that a Committee of this House would reject the Provisional Order. He thought there were certain provisions which might be included in this Clause which would not cripple and impede the Councils, but would give them advice and suggestion of an extremely valuable character, and assist them in the making of a scheme. He hoped that when a scheme had been framed it would never be interfered with except in the most extreme cases.
  SIR WILLAM HARCOURTsaid that the whole argument of the right hon. Gentleman was addressed to the action of the County Councils in the matter of technical education. What had been their action? It had been satisfactory because it had been done on their own responsibility. If these local authorities were good for anything, they ought to have the power of making their own schemes. Why should those bodies, because they had discharged so well and so satisfactorily the business for which they had been chosen, the moment they embarked On a new business be put under the tutelage of another authority? A more irrational argument than that of the right hon. Gentleman it was impossible to conceive. The hon. Gentleman had spoken as if this were a suggestion of the Education Department. Suggestion! Why, the Education Department had an absolute veto on the scheme of the education authority. What was obvious was that the Government did not really trust the local authorities. That appeared in every Clause of the Bill. In Clause 8, sub ,Section 2, local authorities were put under the control of the Education Department, because they did not trust them. Having allowed the local authorities to appoint their own Technical Instruction Committee, the Government now made any scheme of general education which the local authorities might propose subject to the consent of the Education Board. The Bill said: "The Education Committee constituted in accordance with a scheme made by the Council and approved by the Board of Education." Well, if the Board of Education did not approve there
  202
  was no scheme; there was an end to it Then sub-Section 4 went on: "Before approving a scheme the Board of Education shall take such measures as may seem expedient for the purpose of giving publicity to the provisions of the proposed scheme, and may, if they think fit, hold a public inquiry." What position did that put the education authority in? And the hon. Gentleman claimed that that was only the Education Department making a suggestion! The public inquiry was, of course, to prove that the scheme of the education authority was a bad one. It was obvious that the whole of this was founded on absolute distrust of the local authorities. Why should not the Government leave the local authorities to act as they now did through their Technical Instruction Committees. If the Education Department disapproved of the schemes of the Borough Councils or County Councils, it was because they thought these bodies were unfit to do their duty, and that a public inquiry should be held to support their views in condemning the schemes. That was what the bon Gentleman called a "suggestion." He should have used another word for it than "suggestion" Then, "If a scheme under this section has not been made by a Council, and approved by the Board of Education within twelve months after the passing of the Act, the Board may, subject to the provisions of this Act, make a Provisional Order for the purposes for which a scheme might have been made." Well, the Education Department represented the Government of the day, and when they introduced a Provisional Order the Government would put it as a political question, and very likely a religious question, and pass it by means of their majority. Then, of course, they could carry out that Provisional Order by mandamus. A mandamus was a "suggestion" to the County Councils or the Borough Councils! He maintained that the provisions of the Clause were insulting to large local bodies. Why did not the Government trust them in this as in other matters?
  SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid that the right hon. Gentleman harped too much on the single string of Government distrust of the local authorities. There was no such distrust. He thought that the arguments the right hon. Gentleman used in

  203
  connection with this subject were a good deal exaggerated. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to attribute to the local authorities a sort of infallibility, and had spoken with great feeling that it was an insult to hold an inquiry as to whether a scheme was a good one or not. He ventured to say that there was not a local authority in the country which would not repudiate such extravagant language put forth by the right hon. Gentleman. The local authorities had the good sense to know that, after all, they were mortal, and he was quite sure that, so far from regarding a public inquiry, where they would have an opportunity of bringing forward their views, as an insult they would welcome it. The right hon. Gentleman spoke as if the section provided that the public inquiry was to be held after the decision of the Board of Education. It was nothing of the kind. The provision of the section was—
  "Before approving of a scheme, the Board of Education shall take such measures as may appear' expedient for the purpose of giving publicity to the provisions of the proposed scheme, and may, if they think fit, hold a public inquiry."
  Inquiry was not to follow, but to precede, their decision. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that the Board of Education could carry any Provisional Order that they chose to arrive at with almost certainty. He ventured to take issue with the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman knew that with reference to any Provisional Order a petition might be presented, that petition would go before a Committee of this House, and there would be a judicial inquiry.
  SIR JOHN BRUNNER: And a very costly one.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAY: What the right hon. Gentleman said was that the Provisional Order would be carried as of course; but the Order would be sent to a Committee, and if that Committee arrived at the conclusion that the preamble bad not been proved, he ventured to say that no Government would, except in the most exceptional and special circumstances, venture to over-ride the Report of the Committee. The procedure was hedged round by the highest safeguards, and to
  204
  suggest that these Provisional Orders would be run through the House without regard to the justice of the matter was a mere delusion. On the whole, he submitted to the Committee that there must be some provision for an inquiry to correct any mistakes. If the public inquiry revealed defects in the scheme, there was nothing to prevent the local authority sending up another scheme which would embody the improvements necessary to correct the weak points disclosed by the inquiry. Under these circumstances, he submitted that the provisions of the Bill were adequate.
  SIR JOHN BRUNNERsaid he had listened very carefully to the right hon. the Member for Cambridge University, and went entirely with him in his praise of the work of the County Councils and the County Boroughs under the Technical Instruction Act. That was a matter in which he had taken intense interest since 1889. He had watched the proceedings very closely of the Technical Instruction Committees in London, Liverpool, Manchester, Lancashire, Cheshire, and Devonshire; and when the right hon. Gentleman said that the constitution of the Technical Instruction Committee was the model which had been adopted in this Bill, he quite disagreed from him. He thought it was on account of the freedom enjoyed by these bodies that they did their work so well. This Bill was something entirely new to all our local government. In it there was no freedom, but only a liberty to propose to the Secretary to the Board of Education, who would dispose. He desired to see local government as thorough and effective as possible, and he felt convinced that as more freedom and more power and greater responsibility was given to these authorities, the more effective and efficient they would become. It had been said that these committees would differ in their method of work. Why should they not? The Technical Education Committee of London differed materially in their methods and curricula from those of Bradford or Leeds. Liverpool had not the same instruction to give as Manchester. Lancashire and Dorsetshire differed very widely, but why should they not? They knew the circumstances and position of those for whom they acted far better than the Board of Education possibly could

  205
  and the people of Dorsetshire and Lancashire were not only satisfied but all the better off for the difference in their authorities. He asked the Committee not to introduce these new-fangled things, but to leave the new education authorities as free as the Technical Committees were today.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he thought the Committee ought, before half-past 7 o'clock, to get down to the words "Board of Education," and to add the proviso which had been agreed upon. He hoped the Committee would agree to this.
  MR. GEORGE WHITELEYventured to think that of all the Amendments moved with the object of improving the machinery of this Bill, none had been put before the Committee so excellent in its purpose as the one moved by his hon. friend. His hon. friend had truly stated that if it was accepted it would get rid of the cumbrous procedure of this Bill. This Clause was a perfect mosaic of cumbrous provisions. It was only necessary to look at the Clause to see the necessity for this Amendment, or one of a like character. There were six Sections and several sub-Sections, the whole of which were elaborated to carry out in
  an extremely complicated fashion that which could be and had been done in the easiest possible manner. The hon. and learned Attorney General, in the first of his two speeches delivered this evening, had described the necessity of the scheme for the purpose of affording elasticity, but elasticity was the last thing that was needed by these committees. What was required was uniformity. The hon. Member for East Somerset had described these committees as compound bodies, and had said that in his opinion for the creation of these bodies it was absolutely necessary to have some scheme. There was no such necessity. These compound bodies already existed in the Technical Instruction Committees and the Library Committees, both of which had done excellent work. As an old member of a municipal corporation he entirely objected to this outside interference with local authorities. It would not be welcomed by them, and they could do their business much better without it. He thought the simple and easy solution of this matter was on the lines of the Amendment of his hon. friend, and therefore he supported it.
  (7.8.) Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 241; Noes, 119. (Division List No. 478).

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn)

  Crosy, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Brassey, Albert

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Allhusen, Aug'stus Henry Eden

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Cust, Henry John C.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Brown, Alex. H. (Shropshire)

  Davies, Sir Horatio D (Chatham

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Bull, William James

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Arrol, Sir William

  Butcher, John, John George

  Dixon- Hartland, Sir Fred Dix'n

  Atkinson, Rt Hon. John

  Carew, James Laurence

  Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Doughty, George

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Balcarres, Lord

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart

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

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Chamberlain, Rt. H on. J. (Birm.

  Faber, George Denison (York)

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

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn JA (Wore'r

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Balfour, Kenneth R (Christch.)

  Chamberlayen, T. (S'thampton

  Fergusson, Rt Hn. Sir J. (Manor)

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Champman, Edward

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Finch, George H.

  Beckett, Ernest William

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

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Bentinek, Lord Henry C.

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Beresford, Lord Chas. William

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Fison, Frederick William

  Bhownaggrre, Sir M. M.

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

  Bignold, Arthur

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Bond, Edward

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Flower, Ernest

  Forster, Henry William

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Ridley, S. Ford (Bethnal Green)

  Foster, Philip S (Warwick, S.W.

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Garfit, William

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

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Lowther, C. Cumb., Eskdale)

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

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

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Lucas, Reginald J(Portsmouth

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Seely, Maj. JEB. (Isle of Wight)

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Greene, Sir EW (B'ry S Edm'nds

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Smith, HC (North'mb. Tyneside

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W.F.

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  Maxwell, W JH (Dumfriesshire

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

  Handlton, Rt Hn Lord G. (Mid'x

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Spear, John Ward

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

  Middlemore, John Throgmort'n

  Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Milner, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

  Stewart, Sir Mark J.M. Taggart

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Milvain, Thomas

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  More, Robt, Jasper (Shropshire)

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

  Morgan, David. J (Walthamst'w

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chicester)

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Morrell, George Herbert

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

  Heath, Arthur Howard(Hanley

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Helder, Augustus

  Mount, William Arthur

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Henderson, Sir Alexander

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Murray, Rt Hn. A Graham (Bute

  Tuffnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Higginbottom, S. W.

  Myers, William Henry

  Vincent, Col Sir C. EH (Sheifield

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Newdegate, Francis A. N.

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Hope, J.F.(Sheffield, Brightside

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

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Hoult, Joseph

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Welby, Lt. Col AC. E (Taunton

  Howard, J. (Midd. Tottenham)

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Parker, Sir Gilbert

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd.

  Hutton, John (Yorks. N. R.)

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Whiteley, H (Ashton-und Lyne

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Peel ,Hn. Wm Robert Wellesley

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

  Pemberton, John S. G.

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

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Percy, Earl

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N)

  Johnstone, Heywood

  Pierpoint, Robert

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

  Kemp, George

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Kennaway, Rt Hon. Sir John H.

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharpe

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

  Kenyon, Hon. Geo T. (Denbigh

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop)

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Wylie, Alexander

  Keswick, William

  Purvis, Robert

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Law, Andrew Bonar(Glasgow)

  Pym, C. Guy

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Lawrence, Sir. Joseph (Monm'th

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Lawrence, William F (Liverpool

  Rankin, Sir James

  Lawson, John Grant

  Rattigao, Sir William Henry

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Lee, Arthur H (Hants., Fareh'm

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Sir Alexander Acland

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge

  Hoodand Mr. Anstruther.

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Cameron, Robert

  Fenwiek, Charles

  Allan, Sir William (Gateshead)

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Allen, Charles P.(Glouc. Stroud

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Fitzrnaurice, Lord Edmond

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

  Cawley, Frederick

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Charming, Francis Allston

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Cremer, William Randal

  Grant, Corrie

  Bell, Richard

  Dalziel, James Henry

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

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Gurdon Sir W. Brampton

  Brigg, John

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Dilke, Rt. Hon, Sir Charles)

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Dunn, Sir William

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Edwards, Fran k

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Burns, John

  Ellis, John Edward

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Burt, Thomas

  Emmott, Alfred

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Caine, William Sporston

  Evans, Samuel T (Glamorgan)

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Caldwell, James

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  208

  209

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Partington, Oswald

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Jones, David Brynmor (Sw'nsea

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Thomas, J.A. (Gl'mrg'n, Gower

  Kitson, Sir James

  Pickard, Benjamin

  Toulmin, George

  Labouchere, Henry

  Price, Robert John

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Lambert, George

  Rea, Russell

  Wallace, Robert

  Langley, Batty

  Reckitt, Harold James

  walton, John Lawson(Leeds, S.

  Leese, Sir. Joseph F (Accrington

  Reid, Sir R Threshie (Dumfries

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Levy, Maurice

  Rigg, Richard

  Weir, James Galloway

  Lloyd-George, David

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Logan, John William

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs)

  Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Runciman, Walter

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Shackleton, David James

  Williams, Osmoud (Merioneth)

  Mather, Sir William

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid.

  Morgan, J Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Shipman, Dr John G.

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

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Woodhouse, Sir J T (Huddersf'd

  Newnes, Sir George

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Norman, Henry

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Norton. Capt. Cecil William

  Soares, Ernest J.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Spencer, Rt Hn. C.R (Northants

  Mr. Herbert Gladstone and

  Palmer, Sir Charles M (Durham

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Mr. William M'Arthur.

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

  THE CHAIRMAN: The next two Amendments seem to raise the same point, and the next, standing in the name of the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean, ought to have come in sub-Section 2, sub-Section (a.)
  SIR WILLIAM ANSONmoved to insert, after the words "Board of Education," the following proviso:—Provided always that, if a Council having powers under Part II. only of tins Act, determine that an Education Committee is unnecessary in their case, it shall not be obligatory on them to appoint such a committee."
  MR. SAMUEL EVANSsaid he thought the Committee ought to have time to consider this proviso. There was a feeling on both sides that something of this kind should be done. Be rather favoured the suggestion that these small bodies should not he allowed to appoint a committee at all. If they were given the power they were very likely to exercise it, and what the Committee had now t decide was whether it was desirable that these small Councils all over the country should have the power to appoint a committee. He did not think the Government would be wise in forcing this proviso through without some further discussion.
  The Amendment was agreed to.
  It being half-past Seven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

EVENING SITTING.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS.
  The Clerk at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence of the Chairman of Ways and Means from this Evenings Sitting.

  STANDING ORDER 56—PROCEDURE ON SETTING UP SUPPLY FOR "ADDITIONAL ESTIMATES."
  (9.0.) On the Order for going into Committee of Supply,
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON, as a point of order, asked the Speaker's ruling on the question whether a Motion for going into Supply should be put from the Chair, seeing that within the sense of Standing Order 56 this was going into Supply for the first time. He did not know that it would give rise to any debate, but as the present procedure was admittedly exceptional and unprecedented, it was desirable to have a ruling upon it. Standing Order 56 prescribed that whenever Committee of Supply stood as the Order of the Day the Speaker should leave the Chair-without putting any Question, unless on first going into Supply on the Army, Navy and Civil Service Estimates respectively. He submitted that. Supply having been closed and having been reopened by the Resolution of the House

  211
  on the preceding evening, they were now going into Supply on the Civil Service Estimates for the first time in the sense of the Standing Order, and that consequently the question ought to be put from the Chair.
  MR. SPEAKER: I have considered the question, and I have come to the conclusion that the present exceptional occasion is not going into Committee of Supply for the first time in the sense contemplated by the Standing Order. I cannot twice in the same session leave the Chair for the first time.

  SUPPLY.
  Considered in Committee:—
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. JEFFREYS (Hampshire, N.) in the Chair.]

CIVIL SERVICES (1902–3) ADDITIONAL ESTIMATE.

  CLASS V.
  £5,000,000, Transvaal and Orange River Colony.
  SIR ROBERT REID: I have not the slightest intention of offering any opposition to the Vote. On the contrary, my feeling is that this is the most proper course that could be adopted, apart from the constitutional question as to the method with which the Vote has been brought forward. I think myself that the Government will require to make a further demand on the liberality of the House and the country for the purposes for which this Vote was proposed. Very likely at present there would be no advantage in asking for a rger sum than the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes, but hereafter I feel confident more will be required, and I for my part shall not hesitate to accede to the demand of the Government if they come forward hereafter and ask for a larger sum of money. Although I have not risen for the purpose of offering any opposition, I do want to say a very few words which I believe to be absolutely necessary. It would be useless entering upon old stories, or to revive past controversies with regard to the causes of the situation now existing, but I believe that the country is not at all apprised of
  212
  the full extent of the misery and devastation in South Africa. We are bound by every obligation to do all we can for the purpose not of restoring the country to its former prosperity—that would not be practicable—but to enable the population to settle down and recommence their industries, chiefly agricultural, with some prospect of themselves bringing back the country to its former condition. I believe that our hope of reconciling the inhabitants to British rule will in a large measure depend on the generosity of this country. If we are to look forward to the r becoming contented citizens in the future, we must not merely try to get them to forget, by ourselves forgetting, the causes of the quarrel but we must also get them to recognise that our rule is as benevolent as we are wealthy. It rests upon us to prove to them that we possess qualities which would make them value us as fellow-subjects, and I think that nothing better could be done in that direction than to show this liberal spirit. Very scanty information as to the condition of these countries has been published in the Press or in the Blue-books. There was, I know, about a year ago, a despatch issued, in which Lord Milner described the crippled state of the agricultural districts, and compared them with a desert. For six months after that Bluebook was issued the war went on, and it is not difficult to imagine that the misery and devastation thereby caused substantially increased the trouble. I hope we shall be told, in the course of this evening's debate, what has been done—and I hope a great deal has been done—to alleviate this state of affairs. But we do not know all. There has been no authoritative statement as to it, and the information coming through the Press has been extremely meagre. I think that the House, while quite right in voting, as I hope it will do, this money, ought to be informed what the true condition was at the conclusion of peace, and what steps have been taken, and with what success, for the purpose of restoring the prosperity of these countries, of replenishing the stock, and of rebuilding and repatriating the people to their farms. I think we ought to know, among other things, what is the number of persons still in the concentration camps—the number of men, women, and children. I am told—I hope I may be mis-informed—that there are still a

  213
  large number there. I think we ought also to know what has been done in the way of bringing back the prisoners of war, and whether there is still any substantial number remaining in exile.
  There is one other point to which I should like to refer. When a sum of £500,000 was voted a year ago, the application of it was, I think, left rather at large, and I do not know that there was any specific appropriation of it to any particular object. I gather from the despatches of Lord Milner that out of that £500,000, £400,000 has been spent in the purchase of farms which were in the market, with a view to carrying out a scheme of settlement. I do not think we are informed whether any portion of this present Vote can be applied to any such purpose as that, and I hope we shall be told whether it is intended to spend any of the grant in buying land with a view to a scheme of immigration. I do not intend to discuss that at any length, but I have been very much alarmed in reading the despatches of Lord Milner on this question of immigration and of putting British immigrants in possession of farms thus purchased. It must be remembered that a great many of the Boers who have lately been in arms against us have large farms. A very considerable number of them are held under mortgage, and, of course, during the three years that the war lasted payments have fallen into arrear, and the farmers may be liable to foreclosure at the instigation of those who lent the money. What I want to say is this. If there is a real market in which farms are genuinely offered, spontaneously and voluntarily, I can quite understand the policy of buying them with a view of satisfying some obligation that we contracted with those who went out to fight our battle. But what I would deprecate in the strongest possible manner is anything in the nature of taking advantage, of the present necessities of these men, either by buying their mortgages or by the refusal of grants and pressing them to part with their land, or still more, using compulsory powers for the purpose, of depriving them of a portion of their land. Lord Milner, in one of his dispatches, suggests that in the case of a man with 5,000 acres, it might be legitimate to make him sell 4,000 acres, giving him, of course, the full market price,
  214
  with a view to the new plan of settlement. I cannot imagine anything more disastrous than such a policy. If you do that you will, I think, to begin with, violate the terms of settlement, which prescribe that these men shall not be deprived of their property. Even if you have the right to do it under the terms of settlement, you could not undertake a more fatal or more disastrous policy. There is no means of reconciling these people except by endeavouring to replace them in their full proprietary rights and giving them assistance, so far as you can, in re-instating them in their holdings. These are the observations I wished to make, and I have only this to say in conclusion. I have, as every hon. Member knows, most strongly opposed the policy of the Colonial Secretary. I hope, however, that it may prove to be in the event a policy true and wise. I think it is our duty now to do everything we can to restore kindly feeling between our late enemies and ourselves, and, above all things, for that purpose it is essential not only to be just, not only to refrain from interfering with their property for the sake of any wild schemes that may be brought forward ' for immigration and settlement, but also to show that we are really desirous to be generous and to assist them in every way we can for the purpose of restoring prosperity to these colonies.
  MR. BURDETT-COUTTSsaid he desired to make .some remarks on the question of land settlement in South Africa. He had always felt that there was but one key to the solution of the South African problem—the problem which this war had left behind it, still unsolved and still fraught with great possibilities of Imperial gain and Imperial loss. He had always felt that the key was to be found in a large scheme of irrigation and colonisation. He must ask the permission of the House to make one or two remarks of a personal character, and he did so with the less hesitation because those remarks would show that he was adhering to his rule only to intrude upon the House on subjects of which he had some personal knowledge or with which he had some personal connection. Five years ago he engaged in a project of irrigation in the North West Territory of

  215
  Canada, a project which had been recognised by the Canadian Government as one of great importance and as forming the cradle of a new population for that vast and almost uninhabited country. From this experience he could put the financial aspect of the question into a nut-shell. Land which was practically unsaleable—they could not sell it for half a dollar per acre, at any rate—they had been selling from the first introduction of this irrigation project at from ten to fifteen dollars per acre, and it only cost three dollars per acre to irrigate it. The population was increasing by thousands. The problem they had to deal with was similar, in its main features, to that which now existed in South Africa. It was true it did not involve those political or Imperial considerations which, for his part, he thought made the South African problem far inure pressing. It was true also that the physical conditions of the country were different to those which existed in South Africa, where it was imperative that any large scheme of irrigation should be undertaken by the State and the State only. In Southern Alberta there was a vast territory which was quite useless for the purpose of cultivation and was practically uninhabited. By the introduction, however, of water they had converted it into a country where a farmer could live and keep himself and family in comparative prosperity on 150 acres of land, to which he could add, if he liked, a portion of the hinterland of their water system for the purposes of ranching. The same conditions existed in South Africa and the same beneficent change could be effected there. He proposed to trouble the House with a somewhat detailed explanation, because he thought the comparison between the two cases was a pretty close one. They sold the land with the water right attached to it; the purchase money had to be paid back in ten annual instalments, and, until it was so paid, the settler did not receive his title. The purchase money covered the original cost of irrigation and the profits of the undertaking. In addition to the water right there was the water rental—so much per acre per year—which was retained in the hands of the central authority for maintenance and income. In South Africa the State would stand in the position of the central authority until
  216
  the whole of the purchase money had been paid back by the settler, when the whole property in the undertaking—water, land, irrigation works and all—could pass to the freeholders under the same system as was practised in some of the Western States of America. For the purpose of constructing their irrigation works they used the labour of those whom they intended to become settlers, and they paid them—
  THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Order, order! I think the hon. Gentleman is going rather far away from the Vote. It is not a Vote given for the purposes of irrigation; it is a Vote given to those who are already settled in South Africa, and who have suffered from the war.
  MR. BURDETT-COUTTS: Of course, Sir, I cannot dispute your ruling. I understood that the £500,000 already granted to Lord Milner was part of this Vote. As I desired to confine my remarks to the question of irrigation and land settlement, I think I had better bring them to a conclusion and leave it for another occasion. But I should like to take your ruling whether I mini not in order in suggesting that some of the money to be spent in resettling those who are now in South Africa should be spent on the lines I have indicated.
  THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: This is a Vote of money for necessaries for those in South Africa, and I think it would be rather remote to go into the question of water supply.
  MR. BURDETT-COUTTS: My argument was that irrigation is one of the most pressing necessities of South Africa. Am I not entitled to put that forward?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: As a point of order, I would ask whether this money can be applied to any purpose other than that of the restoration of the burghers to their homes, and to supply them with any necessaries that may be required.
  MR. BURDETT-COUTTS: And may I remind you, Sir, and the right hon. Gentleman as well, that the Secretary of State for the Colonies, in his speech last

  217
  July, upon this question, distinctly stated that the subject of land settlement, and, I believe, of irrigation, would come under discussion when this vote was taken in the Autumn Session.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Not the three millions.
  THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: I do not think the hon. Gentleman would be in order in discussing that question on this particular Vote. I must adhere to the terms of the Vote on the Paper.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTI want to call the attention of the Committee especially to head No. 3 of the Vote ("Sum required for loans to be advanced by the Colonial Governments to supplement the grants under 1 and 2, such loans to be repayable as provided in the terms of surrender—£3,000,000"). I spoke last night on the subject of 1 and 2—£3,000,000 for free grants to burghers and £2,000,000 for grants to other persons in respect of war losses in the two colonies. There was some discussion of the nature of these grants. I have studied again the terms of surrender, and how any person reading these terms could for a moment have doubted that these were free grants which were to come out of the British Exchequer I cannot conceive. The words of the surrender are these:—
  "His Majesty's Government will place at the disposal of these commissions a sum of £3,000,000 for the above purposes"—
  that is, for the purpose of the restoration of the people to their homes, who owing to the war losses are unable to provide themselves with food and shelter. It is indispensable to the resumption of their normal occupations. That is the object of the free gift. There is to be placed at the disposal of these commissions a sum of £3,000,000, and further to identify it it is said "in addition to the above mentioned free grant of t3,000,000." That is to make it quite clear that it was a free grant without any connection with any loan at all. It was a free gift by the British people out of their taxation. That seems to me so clear that I cannot conceive how anybody could ever entertain a doubt about it; but it seems to have been so misunderstood by the Government that when they announced this £3,000,000 they gave an
  218
  assurance that it would be repaid by a loan levied on the Transvaal. That appears to have been an extraordinary misapprehension by the Government of the terms of the surrender to which they themselves had been a party. A statement was made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on June 4th, which I at the time earmarked. He said—
  "It is clearly understood that these £3,000,000 are to be advanced from the British Exchequer and repaid by a loan on the Transvaal, and, if so, it seems to me a sound and reasonable transaction to give the money at once when it is wanted by advance, and have it repaid by a loan afterwards when it is convenient to levy that loan."
  That was the clear understanding. I, following the Chancellor of the Exchequer said—
  "The arrangement, then, is this. The £3,000,000 is to be advanced from the British Exchequer and is to be repaid by a loan upon the Transvaal."
  That was accepted, and so we proceeded, and never was there a word said until this Vote was put forward on a totally different basis. That, of course, has upset the whole arrangements of the finance as they were announced at the end of the last meeting of Parliament. At the time the Colonial Secretary spoke, On July 29th, there was no statement of any other view on the subject at all. The result of that was that we received the amended Budget with the express statement on the printed paper that there would be available nearly £6,000,000 out of the Budget for the reduction of the British Debt. Of course this new paper that has come forward entirely upsets that financial result, because, whereas in the Paper presented on June 9th it was stated that out of the loan of £30,000,000 raised this year there would be left a sum of nearly £6,000,000 which would be so applicable, now the result of the Vote we are going to give tonight will be that out of this £6,000,000, £5,000,000 will have been removed from the office of reducing the British Debt. I do not object to that; but I say it is a very unfortunate circumstance that the Government should have so misapprehended their own arrangement that they should have held forth ever since last June to the country that their financial arrangements would enable them to reduce the Debt of the British taxpayer by about £6,000,000, whereas, in point of fact, it is now discovered that their

  219
  arrangements require them to take almost the whole of that £6,000,000 and apply it to the purposes of the restoration of the ravages made by the war in South Africa, and that they are not to be recouped by a loan as was then held forth, so that ultimately the British taxpayer would recover the money he had advanced. That is one of the most extraordinary, in my experience, financial misapprehensions formed by a Government of a convention of which they themselves are the authors. Reading the document of surrender over again, it is utterly unintelligible to me how any statesman of ordinary intelligence could have arrived at the conclusion that this was not to be a free grant. I do not object to its being a free gift. It has been promised by the Government, and it is wanted and I think a great deal more than £5,000,000 will be wanted—for the purpose of repairing the ravages of this war. My opinion is that very likely peace, before we have restored the country, will have cost as much as did the war.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN): What! £228,000,000?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: He right hon. Gentleman is one of those who told us that the war was going to cost us £10,000,000.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I never committed myself to anything like that.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Well, we know the calculations that were made of the probable cost of the war, and we know the estimates that were made of the number of troops that would probably be required. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not regard him as infallible on these subjects. I remember some time ago, at the beginning of the war, expressing a very different opinion of its probable cost and of the probable force that would be required, and the right hon. Gentleman very amiably told me that he was an optimist and that I was a pessimist. The only reply I thought it necessary to make was that I was sorry to say that the optimists
  220
  were always wrong and the pessimists always turned out right. That that has been so in the last three years nobody can deny. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is going to say tonight that he thinks this devastated country can be restored at a cost of £3,000,000. I do not think it can. I am pessimist enough to say that I do not think £3,000,000 will restore the condition of South Africa as it is at present. Therefore I am not the person to object to this country and South Africa, the Transvaal and the Colonies, and even the favoured owners of the gold mines, contributing to that cost, whatever it may be. It is a disappointment to me, no doubt, that I find that the owners of the gold mines are not to contribute, as we were told they were to contribute under the loan, to any part of this money we are going to vote tonight; but as the Government has promised it shall be given by us without any return, it should be, and it is quite right that that sum of £5,000,000 should be given, not only £3,000,000 to the Dutch, but also, of course, to those who are not Dutch, to British subjects and subjects of other nations who have suffered in the war.
  Therefore I do not object to No. 1 and No. 2, but I may be permitted to express my disappointment that we are not to be recouped that money ultimately, as was promised by the Government in June last. However, that cannot be helped. The Government were under a delusion upon the subject, and, of course, the promise must be fulfilled as it was made. But I desire to express my opinion that a great deal more than £5,000,000 will be required for the purposes which are named in Clauses 1 and 2 of this Vote. At the time of the surrender the sum of £3,000,000 was accompanied by a statement that, in addition to the free grant of £3,000,000,
  "His Majesty's Government would be prepared to make advances on loan for the same purposes free of interest for two years, and afterwards repayable over a period of years with 3 per cent. interest. No foreigner or rebel will be entitled to the benefit of this Clause."
  The loan spoken of there is not a loan to be raised by the English Government or by the Government of the Transvaal. The loan there is to small people to whom the money is lent, and who are to repay it on those terms. But this loan reappears in Clause 3, in

  221
  which the sum "required for loans to be advanced by the Colonial Government" is spoken of. But I find nothing in the terms of the surrender to say that it is the Colonial Government who are to advance these loans. I do not know whether the Government are in the same haze upon this subject as they were upon the £3,000,000, as to who is to advance these loans. I find nothing in the terms of surrender corresponding to this statement—
  "The loans promised by the terms of surrender are to be made by the Colonial Government out of their own funds."
  That is the translation of the words—
  "In addition to the above-named free grant of £3,000,000, His Majesty's Government will be prepared to make advances on loan."
  I do not know what view the Colonial Government will take on the subject. They may say, apparently with great truth, on reading the terms of surrender, that, as the free grant was to come from the British Exchequer, so the loans are to come from the British Exchequer, and, therefore, you may have exactly the same muddle over this question of the loans that you have had over the question of the free grant.
  Now, let us go on, because the terms of this Vote have no correspondence whatever to the terms of surrender.
  "The present provision is required merely as a temporary advance to enable those Governments to proceed with the loans until such time as the necessary funds can be raised on their own behalf."
  That is a clear statement that these loans are, unlike the Free Grant, to be a really temporary advance, and that the loans are to be charged on the Colonies. That may be so. Of course that is a favourable arrangement to the British taxpayer, but will it turn out to be well founded?
  "The amount so advanced will be repaid by the colonies out of the proceeds of the first loan raised by them."
  That is exactly the arrangement that was promised in respect of the free gift. I can find nothing in the terms of surrender which makes the loan stand on a different footing, or would prevent the Colonial Government saying, "You undertook the loan as you undertook the free gift." That is a point that ought to be cleared up. I understand that the Boers objected to
  222
  the £3,000,000 being placed on the Transvaal. I can understand that, because they will be resident in the Transvaal, and would have to pay their share of the interest on the loan. I say also that, as there is nothing in the terms of surrender to place the loan on a different footing from the free gift, they are entitled to say to the Government, "As you were mistaken about the free gift, you may be also mistaken about the loan."
  As to the loan itself, I do not think it is too large. Indeed, I think it is a great deal too small, having regard to the miserable condition of the Colonies which require instant repair. From what I can gather these £3,000,000 will be—I will not say a mere drop in the ocean—but certainly they will be quite insufficient to place the burghers in a position to carry on the industry. I do not ask the amount of the loan you are to guarantee; I know that will be a subject of careful consideration by the Colonial Secretary, who, we are glad to know, is going to inquire into the matter on the spot. For my part, I should be glad if the Colonial Secretary had a much larger sum at his disposal for the purpose, if necessary, of restoring the condition of the country which has been devastated by the war.
  SIR H. MEYSEY-THOMPSONsaid he would not follow the right hon. Gentleman in the question of who had been right or wrong in the past; all he was concerned about was that the money now to be voted should be so expended that we obtained our money's worth from the Colonies in the future. The reward we hoped for from the vast expenditure incurred in the war, and the sacrifice of so many lives, was a happy and prosperous South Africa. The country could not be happy without being prosperous, and the object which should be aimed at in the spending of the money was to assure that prosperity. He believed the one thing absolutely necessary was a plentiful supply of labour at a not too prohibitive cost.
  MR. LABOUCHERE, rising to a point of order, asked whether it was in order to raise the question of labour in the mines.
  THE DEPUTY CHAIRMANsaid he understood the hon. Baronet to refer to labour on the land. If, however, he proposed to deal with the question of labour in the mines he should be obliged to rule his remarks out of order.
  SIR H. MEYSEY-THOMPSONsaid that in that event he should conclude his remarks. The whole of his argument was intended to show how some of the money could be got back by ensuring a supply of labour in the mines.
  THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Baronet proposes to deal with the question of labour in the mines, I shall be obliged to rule the discussion out of order.
  SIR H. MEYSEY-THOMPSONsaid that in that event he should conclude his remarks. The whole of his argument was intended to show how some of the money could be got back by ensuring a supply of labour in the mines.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid he had no objection to the debate taking that line, but he wished simply to obtain a ruling from the Chair as to whether they might take that line or not. He thought it would be unjust to levy the £3,000,000 on the Transvaal, and he agreed with his right hon. friend the Member for West Monmouth that the amount of the loan was too small. He knew perfectly well that they could not now move an addition, but he thought he might move an Amendment on the ground that this sum was too small. He was not prepared to move a reduction of £100 in order to establish that view, but he would ask the Colonial Secretary to take into consideration what had really been going on in the Transvaal. It was generally admitted that that country was an absolute desert. What was happening at the present moment they really could not judge of from the information which they received in the newspapers. The wildest and most contradictory statements as to the condition of South Africa were made on both sides. According to the official statement, only 400 farms had been burnt, but General De Wet declared that the ravaged farms numbered as many as 30,000. This was such an enormous difference that, in
  224
  considering what amount they ought to give to these unfortunate burghers, they should distinctly know what the information of the Colonial Secretary was at the present time on the subject, and whether the devastation really was so great as had been stated by the Boer generals, whose statements were certainly believed by a very large number of persons. With reference to the£2,000,000 he noticed that it was to be given to "other persons." He supposed that meant those who were not engaged in war against us, but he desired to know if the mine owners were included in "other persons."
  He should like the Colonial Secretary to tell them who were the "other persons." There were losses incurred by large and small mine owners, and he wished to know if the Colonial Secretary included them in "other persons." He wished to know if the losses incurred by the mining companies in any sort of way, either directly or indirectly, were to be recouped out of this £2,000,000? Another question he would ask was when it was spoken of as "other persons," did it merely mean the people in the Transvaal and the Orange River Colony who had suffered losses, or did it include the people in Cape Colony and Natal? If it did include Cape Colony and Natal he did not think they ought to be included, because they were self-governing Colonies, and if they had sustained any losses owing to the war, those losses ought to be paid by the inhabitants of Natal and Cape Colony. The £3,000,000 was undoubtedly necessary, but he regretted that there had been delays already in providing this money for the Boers. He thought it was a pity that the money was not at once voted last session and applied immediately to the purpose to which it was pledged by the treaty. It was stated that this money would form part of a loan to the Transvaal and the Orange River Colony. He supposed that Natal and Cape Colony were not included. This loan would be a Colonial loan in the sense that the Colonies would be responsible for the payment of the interest, but this country would have to guarantee the loan. It would be interesting to know what the amount of the loan would be. He thought this point was in order, because they were told

  225
  that this would be part and parcel of the loan. He wanted to know what amount the Transvaal would be able to pay. Perhaps the Colonial Secretary would tell the Committee whether the large force of constabulary was to be maintained by this country, what the amount of the cost of the excess in the Army in South Africa due to the war—over and above what the Army was before the war—would be, and whether it would be paid by this country? Broadly he wished to have the right hon. Gentleman's own opinion as to what the cost of the administration of the new Colonies, inclusive of the police force, would be. He was sorry that the hon. Member for Westminster was not in order, because he should have had much pleasure in making some observations on his statement. The hon. Gentleman was not his Member, although he was one of the hon. Member for Westminster's constituents, but, while he entirely disagreed with him, he must congratulate the hon. Member upon having been in an exceedingly good business.
  MR. BURDETT-COUTTSrose to a point of order, and asked if the hon. Member for Northampton was in order in pursuing the very subject for discussing which he himself had been ruled out of order.
  THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member will not be in order in pursuing that subject.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid he would not pursue the subject, and all he wished to do was simply to congratulate the hon. Gentleman.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENTsaid he wished to ask the Colonial Secretary a question in regard to the second item on the Paper. He wished to know if the money was going to he confined entirely to the Orange River Colony and the Transvaal, or whether any part of it would be applied to persons in Natal and Cape Colony. It was exceedingly difficult very often to tell where war losses had been actually incurred, but they knew that very considerable losses had been sustained by the loyalists in Cape Colony and Natal,
  226
  and it was very important that they should know if they would be entitled to share in this grant of £2,000,000. Another question he wished to put was as to how the sum of £2,000,000 would be allocated. He desired to know whether all persons would have a right to go before the courts and make their claims, or would the disposal of this sum he left entirely in the hands of Lord Milner. He would only say one word in regard to the £3,000,000 granted to the burghers. He thought all persons who looked at this matter from an impartial point of view would say that this was an exceedingly generous sum to give them. Whether it was enough or not it was quite impossible to say. He had taken considerable pains to find out how much would be necessary, but no exact calculation could be made to show what amount would be required to assist the burghers of the late Republics in the restoration of their homes. No doubt there would be ample opportunity of spending £8,000,000 or any other sum, but he thought £3,000,000 was an exceedingly generous allowance. He wished to point out that the issuing of this loan at 3 per cent. interest was about half the interest at which sums were advanced in the Transvaal and the Orange River Colony therefore he thought that this was again a very generous contribution to the two Republics. It was greatly to be regretted that some parts of the two colonies were in a state of devastation, but that was absolutely inevitable from the war, and it must not be forgotten that the war was not caused by us, and therefore this country was being very generous indeed in granting these sums from Imperial funds for those purposes.
  MR. LABBERT (Devonshire, South Molton)said that he did not rise to oppose the Vote which was at present before the Committee, but he wished to complain that the Colonial Secretary had not given them the information to which they were entitled, considering that the British taxpayers had to find this money, and it would have to be paid from British funds. Only that afternoon he asked how much of the free grant to burghers had been issued, and he was told that the sum already distributed amounted to £1,500,000. He also asked upon what system the grant had been distributed, but he did not receive any information

  227
  upon this point at question time, and all he was told was that the money had been issued under Article 10 of the terms of peace. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would now he able to tell them something in regard to the principles upon which these amounts had been distributed in the Transvaal and the Orange River Colony. He understood that this money had been credited to them, and the burghers were held to be debtors to the Government for those amounts. If that were so the amount of book-keeping that would be entailed by those transactions would be something enormous. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to tell them bow many burghers had been repatriated, and how many had received the benefit of half the sum which was to be devoted to their repatriation. He also wished to know how much money out of this fund had been paid to the military for the animals which they had supplied. He understood that something like £1,000,000 had been paid to the military authorities for the horses, mules, and the oxen which they had supplied. He should like to know whether they had been overpaid for them or not. He had heard that the prices charged by the military for those animals in the Transvaal were exorbitant, and in some places many animals were sold by public auction that were diseased, and they were the means of spreading disease. At Bloemfontein very great complaint was made that horses with glanders had been sold by the military to the burghers, and a few days afterwards those very same horses had to be destroyed by order of the civil authorities, and consequently that caused a great deal of dissatisfaction amongst the local purchasers. [MINISTERIAL laughter.] If the military authority sold horses with glanders did hon. Gentlemen opposite think that this would not cause dissatisfaction, especially when they had to have those horses destroyed by order of the civil government without compensation? Those people naturally looked upon it as sharp practice that diseased animals were sold to them which had afterwards to be destroyed.
  There had also been a great deal of complaint in the two Colonies that the military authorities had charged very large sums for their oxen and mules. It had been freely stated that Lord Kitchener at the end of the war had totted up more
  228
  than the full value of all the horses, mules, oxen, and waggons, and that they were sold to the Repatriation Board for the sum which he had placed upon them. It was also stated that the Repatriation Board had come to a standstill on account of the exorbitant prices put upon these animals by the military authorities, because practically the whole of the transport of the country at the close of the war belonged to the military authorities. He wished to know whether those statements were correct or not, because if they were incorrect the military authorities ought to be cleared from that imputation. There had undoubtedly been a considerable amount of delay in giving out the cattle and stocking the burghers with oxen, mules, and waggons, and also with seed corn because the season for sowing in the Transvaal and the Orange River Colony had just passed and if the seed corn had not been supplied in time, of course the burghers would have nothing upon which to maintain themselves during the next year. This had been a subject of great complaint, because it would create a thriftless class who would remain in the concentration camps, subsisting upon the free rations provided by the Government. Of course it was very easy to criticise these matters, but he did not wish ill the least to criticise too severely anything which had been done by the Repatriation Board, because he was aware that if they had to distribute this money in kind and create the organisation for this, there must be a great deal of dissatisfaction. He trusted that, when the right hon. Gentleman went over to South Africa, he would see that as many Boers as possible were placed in a position to help themselves to earn their own living instead of remaining in the concentration camps.
  There were at present a large number of horses in the hands of the military authorities which were not being used, and these would have been a great benefit to the burghers had they been distributed. He could not help feeling great apprehension as to the feelings of the burghers when they came back to a country which was devastated. There was absolutely no cultivation, the whole of the stock had been destroyed, and there were hardly any houses standing. When the burghers returned and found that they had actually no home, and that no cultivation was going on, he almost shuddered to anticipate what would be their feelings. Some

  229
  hon. Members had questioned whether £5,000,000 would be enough to bring back the country to its normal condition. He thought that was practically impossible with that amount of money. They would not get anything like the conditions that existed before the war for such a sum. They should remember that the cattle imported into South Africa had to be acclimatised. The late Mr. Rhodes imported stock from Australia and most of them died; and it should be remembered that Australia was a much better country to import stock from than this country. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman in all seriousness whether it was wise policy for him to introduce the system of loans for the burghers. These loans would, some time or other, have to be repaid, and it would be a very difficult matter to recover them. He could imagine nothing that could lead to greater ill-will between the creditor nation and the burghers than that they should have to refund this money. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would give them some information on these points, and he congratulated him most heartily upon his visit to South Africa, and hoped that he would be able to do something to settle that very disturbed country.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: As the few remarks which I shall now have to address to the Committee will probably form the last, or, at all events, one of the last speeches, which I shall offer to the House before I leave for South Africa, it is my earnest desire that they shall not partake of a controversial character. I cannot help, however, inquiring what hon. Gentlemen and right hon. Gentlemen on the other side think is to be gained by the sort of discussion which has been raised to-day. I imagine that it is their desire, as it is mine, that I should proceed upon this visit which I have undertaken with a mind as open and as unprejudiced as possible. And yet the apparent object of this debate is to commit me beforehand for or against certain principles which are being laid down by hon. Gentlemen opposite. I could not fully answer the questions which have been addressed to me without stating very clearly my present view, if I have a view, upon the subjects which have been raised. I do not want to put myself in that position. I go to South Africa with the predetermination to
  230
  listen there to everything that may be said to me. I will not say by every individual—that would prolong my tour to an extent that I have not yet contemplated—but, at all events, to every representative man and every representative body who has a right to be heard. To all of them my ears will be open, and I do not want them to think I have made up my mind on disputed, questions before I have heard them. With that prefatory observation, which will prevent me from going into a number of the questions which have been asked me, I will do my best to refer to one or two matters of principle that have been raised, and I will also give an answer to one or two questions of detail which appear to me to be not of the slightest importance under the existing circumstances, but which out of courtesy to hon. Members I will do my best to answer.
  The hon. Member who has just sat down, the hon. Member for South Molton, has stated—Heaven knows where he got it from—that the Government of the Transvaal has expended the money which was intended for the benefit of the burghers of the Transvaal in purchasing horses that have got glanders from our own officers, and the hon. Gentleman asked me for information on this subject.
  MR. LAMBERT: I said the military had been selling horses at Bloemfontein; not in the Transvaal.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I see, in the Orange River Colony. I do not see that that changes the issue. The particular question arises at Bloemfontein, and not at Pretoria. Now, I would give the hon. Gentlemen a principle. In my opinion it is absolutely impossible for the Colonial Secretary, or what is commonly called Downing Street, to deal with every matter of detail in the administration of something like forty countries off its own bat. That is absolutely absurd and ridiculous, and we have, therefore, to trust to those whom we appoint. We have to take, in, the first instance, the greatest possible care, to secure that the best ma n is selected for the particular work which is required to be done, but having done so, and until it is conclusively proved to us that he is unworthy of our

  231
  confidence, we have to place our confidence in him in regard to all matters of detail, and give him general instructions as to the lines of his policy and the principles he is to pursue. As to any attempt on my part, or the part of my Department, to look into and examine every detail of a transaction which involves the expenditure of millions of money, I can only say that not only will I absolutely refuse to undertake it, but I should think any man was a lunatic to undertake it. What, after all, does it amount to? It amounts to this—I do not see my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for War present on this occasion, but I think if he had been present he would have felt that he had his triumph. It is always the custom to contrast the War Office unfavourably with other Departments of State, but here a Gentleman on the other side of the House informs the House from information he has received that in a great transaction which has taken place at Bloemfontein the War Office has got considerably the better of the Colonial Office. I do not know whether that is so or not. What I do know is that at the close of the war the War Office—that is to say, the military—were in possession of enormous quantities of stock, mule-wagons, ox-wagons, and stores, of every kind arid description, including the celebrated blockhouses, which will always form a very important and romantic incident in the war. These under ordinary circumstances they would have disposed of to the best advantage in the market. They would have sold them to the burghers, and not only to the burghers but to the citizens of the two colonies generally, and they would probably have got a much better price than they did in the arrangement we made with them. We said, and they agreed, that this was a matter of high policy, and not a question of one Department getting a few pounds more or a few pounds less from another Department, which does not in the slightest degree affect the finances of the kingdom. We agreed that it was a matter of high policy that everything that could by any possibility be useful in the resettlement of the country should at once be transferred to the civil authorities. That was done; we came to an amicable agreement as to the price; we did not
  232
  attempt to haggle about the price of a mule, or a donkey, or an ox, or a wagon; but we put the whole together, and, having examined it carefully by means of an inter-departmental committee, we settled the total sum to be paid, which amounts to considerably over a million sterling. This sum is now represented by goods either already in possession of the burghers or still under the control of Lord Milner and the civil administration for the purpose of the repatriation which is going on.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dumfries Burghs in my absence asked me one or two questions to which I desire to reply. He inquired as to the numbers in the concentration camps. At the close of the war the number of persons in concentration camps was about 103,000—men, women, and children. At the present moment—I am obliged to use rough figures, for they change every week, but I give the information as far as I have it—the number is 34,000. I marvel when I think what the local administration has done. A great war which has lasted over two and a half years, which as hon. Members say has no doubt caused great suffering and devastated the country, has come to an end, and within a few months of the close of that war we have been able to help to repatriate something like 70,000 persons. Let it not be thought that we keep one man, woman, or child there against their will, or unless we are convinced that to allow them to go would be to expose them to suffering, and possibly to death. The numbers in the camps at the present time have been increased by the practical necessities of the situation. We have to move these people to their farms. We have to see before we move them that we can supply than with the means of subsistence for a reasonable time, and that thereafter our transport is sufficient to keep them supplied, and as the prisoners return from the distant countries in which they have been interned they also in many cases go to our concentration camps as a sort of intermediate state before they are placed on the farms. At the present moment, in addition to the 34,000 I have already mentioned, there are a great number of persons who have come in, since the war, to concentration camps as camps of refuge, and of prisoners who have also adopted

  233
  the same position. Need I explain to the House, what must be in the mind of every Member, that these camps, which are costing us £200,000 a month, are camps the dispersal of which we should see with the greatest satisfaction. We would have closed the camps the day the war was over had we not known that, as a matter of certainty, it would have involved the deaths of thousands and tens of thousands of women and children whom we ought to protect. The hon. and learned Gentleman also asked a question as to the number of prisoners returned and still to come. There again I must ask the hon. and learned Gentleman not to hold me too tightly to the figures I give. Originally there were 24,000 prisoners from South Africa. Fourteen thousand have already returned and 7,000 are bound to be repatriated before the end of the year, and the remainder in a very short time after. There also he will understand that every prisoners' camp costs us an enormous sum of money. To a small nation it would be ruinous; to a big nation it is considerable. It is our desire to break the camps up at the earliest possible moment, but we have to consider what would he the result of throwing into South Africa under existing circumstances a number of people for whom provision has not yet been made.
  Let me next deal very shortly with what seems to me to be a technical question, raised last night by the Member for West Monmouthshire. The right hon. Gentleman, if he will excuse me, has a habit of always endeavouring, whether in the House or outside of it, to prove that his opponents are either knaves or fools. On the present occasion he seems to be doubtful, but we really have only those two alternatives to choose from. If we, knowing that a heavy charge of this kind would be placed upon the Imperial funds, deceived tire House of Commons by telling it that we expected to get the sum out of the Transvaal loan, then we are knaves. If we did not know, then we are fools. No doubt as their leader the right hon. Gentleman fully expressed the feelings of hon. Members behind him. Oh! I beg the pardon of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. I forgot that he was the Leader.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The right hon. Gentleman has forgotten something else. He appealed to the House to deal with this matter in a friendly and in a non-controversial spirit. He is not doing so himself.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Oh! I see. I shall try to follow the right hon. Gentleman. What I said was that I would endeavour, as far as I could, to deal with the matter in a non-controversial spirit. I made no appeal to the House. I said that, as far as I could, I should deal with it in that spirit. Where is the matter of controversy between us? I spoke of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire as their Leader. Is that a matter of controversy? [Cries of "Oh, oh," and an HON. MEMBER: "Shame."]
  MR. DALZIEL: That is very small.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I am glad to have the opinion of so good a judge. The right hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. There was nothing controversial in what I said until the right hon. Gentleman interrupted me. Now I go back to where I was when the right hon. Gentleman interrupted me. I venture humbly to submit to the Committee that this matter does not come under either of the categories I have described. We did not intentionally deceive the House. That is my first position. We declared—it was published in the Blue-books and in all the papers—at a very early period during the war that we would insist upon compensation for loyal subjects and for those who had suffered unjustly by the war, and that we should exact—or, rather, require, to use a less harsh word—compensation in the shape of a contribution from the two colonies. I agree that I made another statement. I admit that I thought it was generally understood—I know that it was understood by Lord Milner and Lord Kitchener, that I can answer for—that the grant, which is called a free grant, which was to be made for the repatriation of the burghers, was to come from the loan that was to be raised on the security of the Transvaal. That was our opinion, and under the

  235
  influence of that opinion we told the House of Commons that a vote would not be required for that purpose. Almost immediately we heard, I think it was General Botha—I am speaking from memory, but, at all events, it was one of the signatories of the terms of surrender—called Lord Milner's attention to this point, and said that those who had signed the terms of surrender had believed that the grant that was to be made was to be made by the Imperial Government from the Imperial funds and not from Transvaal funds.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: So it is still.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I am sorry to say (not in any controversial spirit) that I do differ from the right hon. Gentleman. My view is that it is a question which might very fairly be argued by lawyers, and that, probably, if we went on the letter of the agreement we should be held to be in the right in our view that, under the terms of the agreement, the charge should be one on the Transvaal loan. But we never entered upon that kind of consideration. We felt, just as much as hon. Gentlemen opposite, that when we entered into an arrangement of this kind it was above all things desirable that, if possible, both parties should feel that the terms of the convention were carried out, not merely in the letter, but also in the spirit. That does not mean that we should always adopt the views of the other party to the question, for there may be questions on which we shall have to insist upon our own interpretation of terms. But in this case we did not think that the matter was of sufficient importance to justify us in hesitating for a moment, and when these representations were made to us on behalf of the Boer signatories to the terms of surrender we at once yielded to them. Therefore it is that, without having changed our minds, without having any intention of deceiving the House of Commons, we now put before you the proposition, which is undoubtedly different, although I do not think that the difference is very substantial, from the proposition which we laid before you in June last. I hope, at all events,
  236
  that I have made the matter absolutely clear to the Committee. I do not think I can go beyond that.
  Now, Sir, coming to the merits of the Vote, I admit that I do not think that the sentiments expressed by hon. Gentlemen opposite will contribute to the success of the mission I have undertaken. After all, I confess, as I am perfectly ready to confess, that I do not know everything about South Africa. I admit that there is much that I have to learn. I am anxious to hear all sides, but what is perhaps a more important feature of such a visit, I am anxious to find myself in an atmosphere which is permeated with what I may call, in the best sense of the word, the best South African policy. If I admit that, surely hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite will admit that they have even less reason to be dogmatic or to speak with confidence of the present situation and future of South Africa. They, then, should do their best to help me. It is under these circumstances that we are told that the expenses of the peace will equal the expenses of the war. I cannot help pointing out the extreme exaggeration of a statement of that kind. The war has cost us 228 millions. Does the right hon. Gentleman, who has been called a pessimist, think in his most pessimistic moments that the peace expenses which we are incurring, or that we ought to incur, will reach anything like that sum? Does the right hon. Gentleman, or any of his friends, think that we will incur in peace an expenditure of £228,000,000? The right hon. Gentleman declares that the country is devastated; he speaks of the destitute condition of the population. Sir, I will not speak of that, because that is one of the things which I am going to see for myself. But I am forced by the course that the debate has taken to put in a caveat. In one sense there is great devastation. I have said before to the House, and I have been cheered by hon. Gentlemen opposite, you cannot make war without suffering on both sides, and I think we ought to be thankful that is the case, or else there would be many more wars. You cannot expect or ask, after people have been at war, and been beaten—this has nothing to do with the rights of the matter, but merely with the facts—that they should be put back

  237
  into the same position in which they were before. And here I state one of the general principles to which I say commit myself without being considered to be prejudiced. Sir, the defeated party in a war must suffer more than the victors. That appears to me to be common sense, and cannot be contravened. But I do not admit of my own knowledge at present that although the country has suffered tremendously in material matters—I do not speak of the terrible suffering in regard to the loss of life and the despair and distress of those who have lost their relatives and friends—but although the country has suffered enormously in material matters, that is another side and a very important side. When, for instance, the Boer Generals or their representatives have said in other countries that the £3,000,000 which we offered them was a derisory dole, and that they required £75,000,000, I venture respectfully to differ from them, unless their contention is that, having been defeated in war, they are to be put in a better position than they were before the war. One thing is certain. The property of the ordinary Boer consisted in his farm, in his farmhouse and buildings, in his cattle and his stock. No doubt in very many cases his farmhouse has suffered or been actually destroyed and his cattle have been taken; although there are, according to the latest return, a very large number of cattle and stock still in the two colonies, but only a fraction of what there was before the war. But the land, which, after ail, is his principal capital asset, has increased in value, since the war, and I am informed—I speak only from information—that the average value of land in the Transvaal and the Orange River Colony at the present time is very much greater than it was before the war. That is one of the things, then, that have to be taken into account. When we are told that the money we are offering as a free gift—and a sum to which we have put no limit at present, but for which today we are asking £3,000,000 in order to he able to loan it to those burghers who are in a better position and can afford to pay interest after a period of two years—when we are told that that is insufficient. I say that such judgments are entirely premature, and it is only my desire as far as possible to avoid pledging myself to
  238
  any total that leads me to leave the matter there and not to continue my argument.
  But there is one other point of great importance, on which I think that right hon. Gentlemen opposite, and certainly some of the representatives of the Boers, have misapprehended the situation. We offered £3000,000 of money of our own accord,. It was a voluntary offer. We were not asked for that amount, and I believe a less amount would have been accepted. At all events, be that as it may, we offered that amount as a free grant. For what? There seems to be in some persons' minds the idea that that was offered as compensation for war losses to those who had been our enemies. Well, surely that would have been a perfectly monstrous proposition. It is quite true that General Botha, in May 1901, and again the signatories for the surrender the other day, asked that this money, or some sum, should be set aside in order to pay notes and receipts which had been given by them in connection with their requisitions. But I beg the House to observe the difference between the proposal which was made to us at that time and the proposal to which we actually assented. It is an important difference, which really is a matter of principle. We refused to pay those loans. Why, a note might have been given to a man of substance—a gentle, man of large property—a note might have been given to him for a portion of his stock, and I should say undoubtedly under those circumstances that if he lost his money it was a loss which he must take as many loyal subjects have had to take losses, as a necessary consequence of the war. The people we have to care about are two classes. But first the destitute, the widows and orphans—the people who would starve but for our assistance—and secondly, the people who, not being actually destitute, are, nevertheless, without the requisite means of restoring the industry in which they had been engaged previously to the war. Those are the two classes and the only two classes, which we take into account. We agree that the notes and the receipts should be received by us as evidence of war losses—that is to say, of evidence that destitution, where

  239
  it existed, had been caused by the war. We do not engage to pay those notes or receipts unless the parties require money in order to enable them to recover their position and means of subsistence. Now, Sir, for the purpose which we had in view, that is to say, the relief of the people who are absolutely destitute from any fear of starvation, or any misery approaching starvation, and, in the second place, enabling all people to work the land which belongs to them and for which at present they have not the necessary capital—if the money which we are to devote to that purpose should be insufficient, I, for one, should not hesitate to cone for more. But I say, so far as I know, as I am at I present advised, I believe the money which the House has granted is sufficient for that purpose.
  The hon. Member for Northampton, while expressing his readiness to vote more money for those who have been fighting against us, expressed some objection, as I understood him, to giving any money at all to those who fought for us. He wanted to know why this £2,000,000 was asked for. Well, Sir, the £2,000,000 has nothing whatever to do with the loans in Natal and Cape Colony. For those we have provided otherwise. We have undertaken with the Government of Natal to repay to them the compensation which they have given to those loyal subjects who were injured by the invasion. And we desire, and intend that it shall be given on a liberal scale. We have also agreed that a contribution shall he given to those loyal subjects who in the Cape Colony have suffered by the first invasion. I say the first invasion, because we consider that in the case of the second invasion the responsibility lies with the Colony itself. But with regard to the compensation which we are to give in the Cape Colony, we have expressed in the clearest terms our determination that not one penny of Imperial money shall be given to compensate those who have rebelled against the Imperial authority. That, as I say, is independent of the Vote tonight, and I merely introduced it because the question was raised by the hon. Member for Northampton. The Vote tonight is for those loyal British and Dutch subjects, of whom there are many, who stood by us in the conflict, and who have suffered loss in the two Colonies. Lord Milner is of opinion that the sum will enable him to compensate
  240
  those persons in a larger measure, with a greater percentage of their loss, than in the case of those who fought against us. I think that is fair. I think it is right, and I do not think any impartial man can contravene it. It is right that the principle should be clearly stated, for here we are creating for the first time in the history of the world a new precedent. We have often been referred to the great civil war in America as an instance of the magnanimity which victorious troops and victorious Governments could show to those who had opposed them. Yes, I admit that up to that time no greater instance of magnanimity had ever transpired. But we are going much beyond that. The Northern States of America had, necessarily, in the course of the war, with that higher humanity—because, after all, it is a higher humanity—which exercises severity in order to shorten a war, desolated a gigantic extent of territory. Sherman's march had made a desert of fifty miles of country on each side of his route. For all that desolation the Northern States of America gave not one penny. They gave pensions to those who had suffered in the war, to those who were related to them in a distant degree; but to those who had fought on the other side not one farthing.
  I say, therefore, that under these circumstances we are making a new precedent, and in actually giving, I will not call it compensation, but assistance to those who were our former enemies, we should clearly state what are the reasons. The reasons are humanity and policy. Humanity first, because we do not wish, under the British flag, that anyone should be subjected to the misery which these people would otherwise have to suffer. But policy because, as we have said over and over again, we have got to live together and want to live together. We hope that we shall live together as friends. We have absolutely no vindictive feelings towards those who, by superior force, we have conquered, but whose merits and qualities we are the first to recognise. We say it is good policy that these men should not be discontented, but that as far as possible we should enable them, not indeed to place themselves in the same position in which they would have been if there had been no war, but at all events to place themselves in a position in which they may recover their former

  241
  prosperity. I think I have said all I need to say, all I ought to say, and my right hon. friend the Member for West Monmouth, as I shall call him on this occasion, at any rate, will, I think, agree with me in this case, at any rate, it is wise to be an optimist. Let us believe in the future and the future will answer our anticipations. I do believe in the future. To my mind what has been done in the short period that has elapsed since this desolating war was brought to an end is the greatest encouragement that we could possibly have. I did not mind saying to my own friends—I do not think I ever talked of it in this House—that at the end of the war I anticipated that the prisoners would not be repatriated for at least a period of three years. They will be all repatriated within twelve months of the close of the war. I could not have conceived that 70,000 men, women and children would have been able safely to leave the camps in which they have found homes for so long and be restored to their farms, no doubt suffering many annoyances and considerable hardships, but still without any fear of serious danger. I want to say that up to the present time the results of our efforts at re-settlement and repatriation have exceeded my most sanguine anticipations. And I hope I may have even greater cause for congratulation when I go to South Africa, going as I shall do with the most earnest desire to forget all that is controversial, all that is unhappy in regard to the recollections of the past, and with the one sole desire to bring together the people, a kindred people after all, separated only by the circumstances of recent times—to bring together this kindred people in one great African nation tinder the British Crown.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Sir, I have no desire whatever to find fault with, or to criticise in any way, the tone in which the right hon. Gentleman has concluded his speech. I envy him his extreme optimism, but I am quite willing to wish that we could all share it. [MINISTERIAL cries of "Why not?"] I say, I wish we could all see reasons to feel the degree of optimism he expresses,
  242
  but I think it is not only natural that he should entertain that feeling—I think it is the very best spirit in which he could go to South Africa—and I most earnestly hope, as I am sure we all do, that his mission to South Africa will be followed by the success he thinks may come from it. But the right hon. Gentleman began his speech in a way which does not commend itself to me. He began by inviting the House, as I understood him, to a calm and unheated and uncontroversial discussion of this matter, which certainly was a reasonable expectation to form in the circumstances in which we find ourselves to-day. But the right hon. Gentleman may not be aware of the contemptuous tone into which he immediately entered in the answers to the questions which were addressed to him. [MINISTERIAL cries of "No.]" I am in the recollection of the House and of those hon. Members who heard him. The way in which he spoke of the hon. Member for South Molton, the way in which he spoke in answer to my right hon. friend the Member for West Monmouth, attributing to him the position of thinking that everyone opposed to him must be either a fool or a knave, was not a very friendly or kindly way of expressing his sentiments. These were not the methods in which to provoke a right feeling in the House, and I will say more, it was not the way to treat the House of Commons by any Minister, however distinguished he may be. But the right hon. Gentleman, I daresay, is a little tête montée at this moment. The right hon. Gentleman was entirely unjustified in saying that there was any desire or that there had been any attempt to commit him to any opinion. What we are doing tonight is obeying the invitation and the promise held out by the right hon. Gentleman himself in July last, when he said that in the course of the Autumn sittings there would be an opportunity for him to state to the House the exact position reached in South African affairs and for the House to express its opinion and come to a judgment. We refrained from expressing opinions for the reason that the right hon. Gentleman appealed to us. "Why should we dogmatise?" he asks. No one has dogmatised. What we have asked for is information on a great many

  243
  important points on which light seemed to be required. There are many not touched upon in connexion with South Africa which do not come properly within the scope of this Vote, and therefore we do not refer to them at all.
  But the right hon. Gentleman has himself referred to one question, and has given some explanation which I think does deserve the attention of the House and as to which public opinion has gone a little astray, from what the right hon. Gentleman says. It is the question of the money which it was thought was being given in payment of requisition notes given by the burghers on commando. How does that matter stand? In the earliest document—namely, the letter from Lord Kitchener to the Secretary for War—what was said was this. There was nothing said in this part of it as to war losses:—
  "A judicial Commission will be appointed to which Government notes issued under the law of the South African Republic may be presented within six months. All such notes found duly issued under the terms of that law, and for which the persons presenting them have given valuable considerations, will be paid, but without interest. All the receipts given by the officers in the field of .the late Republics, or under their orders, may likewise be presented to such Commission within six months, and, if found to be given bonâ fide for goods used by the burgher forces in the field, will be paid out to the per sons to whom they were originally given. The sum in respect of Government notes and receipts shall not exceed £3,000,000 sterling, and, if the total amount of such notes and receipts approved by the Commission is more than that sum there shall be a pro rata diminution."
  That was how the question stood in the draft arrangement forwarded by Lord Kitchener. The Government at home amended it, and the £3,000,000 was made applicable both to this question of the requisition notes and the repatriation:—
  "His Majesty's Government will place at the disposal of this Commission the sum of £3,000,000 for the above purpose, and will
  244
  allow all notes and receipts given by officers in the field to be presented to a Judicial Commission which will be appointed by the Government, and if such notes and receipts are found to have been duly issued they will be received as evidence of war losses."
  Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN: That is just what I said.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN:"As evidence of war losses." Then the third step in the development is this Vote which we are dealing with tonight, in which there is no mention of these notes. An impression largely entertained—and I am glad to hear from the right hon. Gentleman that it is not true—was that a large portion of these £3,000,000, which the people of this country desire should go to the relief of destitution and the restoration of the ordinary life of the burghers, had been absorbed in the payment of these requisition notes. I quite understand that anything received under these requisition notes should be taken as a deduction, as it were, from what should be allowed on the ground of destitution; but there was a danger, as many of those interested in it thought, that a large portion of this sum might be given to men comparatively well off in diminution of the sum available for the poorer people who have suffered from the war. If the right hon. Gentleman tells us, as I think he does, that that has not taken place, and will not take place, it will be a considerable relief to those who are anxious on this subject. Can the right hon. Gentleman inform us how far the process of paying for requisition notes given by our own forces has been completed? The right hon. Gentleman was asked about this in the earlier portion of the Session, but said it was a slow process and he could not then give

  245
  the information, but that by-and-bye it would be given. I should be glad to know how far the process has been advanced, for these requisition arrangements for our forces are as much a debt as anything else we owe. [Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Hear, hear.] We are bound to make good the word given by our officers. Our army has had the benefit of those commodities, and we are bound to make them good, and I should be glad to know how far that process has proceeded.
  Another thing upon which a strong feeling exists—a feeling of curiosity, to say the least of it— is how this relief under the head of the £3,000,000 is to be apportioned. What are the tests? What are the criteria? How are the recipients chosen where the recipients are more numerous than the money would suffice for? On what principle is the distribution made? Can the right hon. Gentleman say that? What we have to do here is to remove all chance—all suspicion—of ill-feeling. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer said some wise and patriotic words last night, when he observed that in all these matters we have not only to do what we ourselves know to be right and just, but we ought to remove anything that might give rise to a taint of suspicion in the minds of those whom we all desire to conciliate. If the right hon. Gentleman would tell us about that it would be very useful. Some words have been written on this subject, which, I think, I am justified in referring to, because they startled the public considerably. A letter of Lord Milner's addressed to the Lord Mayor appeared in the papers the other .day, in which he said:—
  "It is too early to make an accurate estimate of the extent to which the amount
  246
  granted by Government will meet the claims put in for compensation and assistance. But his Excellency considers that he may safely say that British subjects will receive at least 50 per cent. on the total assessment of their claims—' are those claims on the ground of requisition acknowledgements or on account of distress'—whereas it is improbable that the burghers will recover in anything like the same proportion the losses sustained by them."
  On what ground is that difference maintained? I wish to meet the case of both with full generosity and justice. There is no question that the British who have suffered losses have just as great a claim, and in one sense have a greater claim, upon us than those who have been our adversaries, but the only line you can take with safety, and from which you cannot depart, is to do equal justice to both, and if this proposal means that there is to be a great gulf fixed between them, and that the one class are to be treated—[HON. MEMBERS: Oh!] Well, what does he say? He says that 50 per cent. at least of all British subjects will receive, and it is improbable that the burghers will receive anything like the same proportion. [An HON. MEMBER: And quite right, too.] That is a most regrettable position to take up. The cardinal virtue of the whole matter, and the direct and only way to remove these suspicions and jealousies and antipathies, is to do equal justice all round—full and equal justice all round. The right hon. Gentleman, as I began by saying, ended in a most optimistic tone, and I have expressed the wish, which I am sure is shared on this side of the House, notwithstanding our little disagreements sometimes, as even this evening, that his expectations may be fulfilled. He goes out to South Africa with tremendous responsibilities, as he doubtless is aware, but there is nobody, even among those

  247
  who are most opposed to his policy, who does not wish him the most complete success.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I only rise to answer the questions which have been addressed to me. The payment of notes and requisitions issued by the War Office is, of course, a War Office matter. That is a sacred obligation which, of course, must be observed to the last penny. Although I am speaking for another Department, I believe the War Office are making every exertion to close the accounts and pay those requisitions as quickly as possible. At anyrate, the liability is fully admitted, and they will be paid at the earliest possible moment. The right hon. Gentleman has correctly interpreted the view of the Government as to the use to which the £3,000,000 will be put. It is distinctly stated in the article that the money is to be applied in order to, provide what is essential to enable the burghers to reconstitute their position.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL BANNERMAN: Will there be no payment for the notes?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: As to the notes, in my view there should be no payment for the notes as such. They are collateral evidence in aid of any claims, but the real distribution of the money will be guided rather by the necessities of the claimants than by any question of the notes. In regard to the last point, as the right hon. Gentleman said the issue is a broad one. I have said before in this House that it was the desire and intention of the Government at the end of the war to
  248
  make it clear that it was not a disadvantageous thing, even if it was not an advantageous thing, to support the British flag, and, therefore, that any distinction that was to be made must be made in favour of the British. I use the word as including all loyalist persons, all persons who have assisted the Government. We are going to do a great deal for those who were recently our opponents, but I sincerely hope, as long as I have anything to do with the matter, to do more for those who have been with us.
  MR. BRYNROBERTS (Carnarvonshire, Eifion)said he wished to put a question to the Colonial Secretary with reference to the notes given by the Transvaal Government. He quite acknowledged that after the proclamation of the annexation of the Transvaal by Lord Roberts, this country was entitled to disregard any notes or acknowledgments given by the Boer generals or the Boer Government; but he would ask the Colonial Secretary whether he would not recognise it as an international obligation to acknowledge all the notes up to the date of the annexation, which the Transvaal Government, had it been permitted to continue, would have been bound to honour. He submitted that that was a proposition in international law which was incontrovertible. He did not suggest that every document produced by every burgher which claimed to be an acknowledgment of debt owed to him by the Transvaal Government should be paid. Of course, the genuineness of the documents should be inquired into, and if they did not represent full consideration, he did not suggest that they should be paid; but he submitted that it was not only an

  249
  obligation of honour, but also an obligation of international law, that they should recognise to the full every obligation for valuable consideration or value received given by the Transvaal Government to its own subjects up to the time of the annexation. The right hon. Gentleman conceded that the compensation which would be given by this country would be based on considerations of humanity and policy. He submitted that there was a stronger consideration than either, and that was international obligation and justice. Our obligations to the Transvaal were greater than the right hon. Gentleman was willing to admit, because the British troops had destroyed property which they were bound not to destroy. That was, he submitted, incontrovertible. According to The Hague Convention we were bound under Article 46 to respect private property. Therefore, if private property were seized and destroyed, full compensation should be paid for it. Otherwise we would be disavowing the obligations of The Hague Convention. Again, Article 47 said that pillage was prohibited. If pillage was prohibited, we were bound to make good all the cost of the pillage committed by the British troops. That pillage was carried on to a great extent was not disputed. Lord Kitchener issued a proclamation in which he severely censured the British troops because they had too much transport with them, and he mentioned such things as pianos and kitchen ranges. But the Globe newspaper afterwards said that these articles had not been taken by the troops from home, but were loot taken from the farmhouses. That was an admission that the farms were looted. In addition, it was absolutely indisputable
  250
  that practically the entire country had been devastated for military reasons. He was not arguing whether that was justifiable or not; all he said was that, inasmuch as it was contrary to The Hague Convention, we were in duty bound to pay compensation for the property destroyed, not merely as a matter of policy or humanity, but matter of international obligation. It was said that the terms of peace were unprecedentedly generous by those who so conveniently ignored the trifling fact that they had annexed these countries. The way to judge whether the terms were generous or not, would be to apply them to ourselves. Suppose this country had, by some misfortune, been conquered, would the terms be regarded as generous under which the country was annexed by, for instance, Germany, and was after annexation given a small trifling sum to compensate individual inhabitants for losses sustained at the hands of the German troops? The fact that we had annexed the two Republics altered the situation completely; but having annexed them it was absurd to say that three millions sterling in discharge of all our obligations was anything like generosity. So far from the terms being generous, they were the most severe that had ever been imposed by any foreign Power. The Boers would have preferred to continue their nationality, as Englishmen would, even if they had to pay a double indemnity. In 1870, the French paid the Germans an enormous indemnity, but they retained their country and our nationality, which was of greater importance to them than treble the amount of the indemnity. Having seized the Transvaal, the least we might do was to reimburse every farthing of damage which had been committed by the troops. The

  251
  Colonial Secretary suggested that some people imagined that the Boers, having gone to war, and having been defeated in war, ought to be placed in the same position as before the war. No one, as far as he knew, suggested anything of the kind. He fully recognised that war entailed inevitable hardships and losses which could never be compensated for, such as indirect losses resulting from the destruction of trade; but every direct loss should be compensated for under international law and The Hague Convention. To fail to do that, was to recede from the obligations of war and of honour. He was glad that the Colonial Secretary recognised that not only motives of humanity, but also motives of policy should be considered. If we were to govern the Transvaal with anything like success, we ought to compensate the Boers for every farthing's worth of property which was seized, and even then the Boers would have to sustain an almost incalculable loss, which could not be compensated for. He was glad that the Colonial Secretary had not shut the door completely, and that if the money was not sufficient a further loan would be issued. He did not care whether it came out of Imperial funds or from the Transvaal. The important question was, not where it came from but where it went to. It ought to be spent in compensating every one of the Boerswhose property was destroyed. With regard to the British subjects who had lost property, he fully recognised that they too ought to be compensated, at all events, for property destroyed, whether by the Boer forces or by the British troops. But compensation for indirect losses was a different question altogether. He did not think, however, that they on that side of the House
  252
  would complain very much even in that compensation were provided, if it were given all round.
  Resolution agreed to; to be reported Tomorrow.

  WAYS AND MEANS.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Resolved, That towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1903, the sum of £8,000,000 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom. (Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  Resolution to be reported tomorrow.

  SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE BILL [LORDS].
  Order read, for resuming adjourned debate on Question [21st October], "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Question again proposed.
  MR. CALDWELLsaid that, since the Bill was before the House, he had been inquiring as to feeling in regard to it; and he thought that there was a pretty general concensus of opinion in favour of the Bill as a measure to meet an emergency. According to the Supreme Court of Judicature Act, the Appeal Court in England was constituted in two divisions with three judges each. Under the Act it was necessary that three judges should sit in the case of a final judgment, but that two judges could hear interlocutory motions, and although the Supreme Court could draw on ex

  253
  officio judges, it was not intended that they should be brought in except in cases of emergency. With reference to the object of the present Bill, he understood that the Workmen's Compensation Act had caused a considerable block in the Court of Appeal. When the Act was passing through the House they were told that its object was to prevent litigation; but, in the result, it had produced very considerable litigation and a considerable block in the Court of Appeal. The object of the Bill was to enable that Court to sit in three divisions, instead of in two. If the Court sat in three divisions, it would necessarily be, to a certain extent, weaker than it was at present. But he gathered that there was no intention, so far as the present Bill was concerned, to interfere with there being three judges sitting in all cases of final judgment in the Court of Appeal. The difficulty that suggested itself to him was that they often found, when Bills were brought in to meet an emergency, that the Act was taken advantage of to apply it to a great many other cases, for which it was not specially intended. The present Bill was promoted by the Lord Chancellor, and he, of all judges, would be the judge who would have to sit almost continuously, as long as there were three divisions sitting at the one time. Some time ago a Bill was introduced for the purpose of reducing the number of judges who were to sit on final judgments from three to two; but it did not pass. If they could get an assurance to the effect that the present Bill was merely to meet an emergency, and that there was no ulterior object in view, he would not oppose the Second Reading. He might mention that the reason he objected at the first stage to the Bill, was that it was introduced without any explanation, and
  254
  he thought that in a Bill of this kind, the legal profession should be consulted before the Bill went through the House.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid there was really nothing to be added to what had been said by the hon. Member. The whole effect of the Bill would be to enable the Court of Appeal to sit in three divisions, whereas at present it was confined to sitting in two divisions. The Bill did not contain a word which would enable any one of these three Courts to consist of less than three judges. On the contrary the part of the section requiring three judges to sit was left untouched.

  BANKERS (IRELAND) ACT REPEAL BILL.
  Order read, for resuming adjourned debate on Question [4th November], "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Question again proposed.
  MR. CALDWELLsaid it was always very awkward when the Government, without any explanation, tried, a few minutes before twelve o'clock, to rush a Bill through. Instead of helping forward the measure, such a proceeding very often retarded it There was no disposition on that side of the House to interfere with many really useful Bills. They permitted the Agriculture and Technical Instruction (Ireland) Bill to pass after midnight a few nights ago, although its progress could have been stopped by the usual methods. The present Bill was a

  255
  very important Bill in this respect, that it proposed to repeal an Act passed in Ireland in 1759, relating to private bankers. Some of the sections of that Act applied to England also; and it seemed strange that they should repeal the Act without making any special provision as regarded England.
  MR. TULLYasked how the Act affected Scotland?
  MR. CALDWELLsaid that was not the question. He was speaking in the Imperial Parliament, and he had often seen Irish Members blocking Bills which referred to other parts of the United Kingdom. If the Chief Secretary were to explain the measure now, he would not have the right to reply.
  MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member only wants information, I think the House would probably allow him to continue his speech after receiving it.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid that some of the provisions of the old Act, which was passed by the Irish Parliament in 1759, imposed disabilities on Irish bankers which did not attach to bankers in England. He put it to the House whether that old Act, which was now obsolete, ought not to be repealed. Its provisions were rusty, mouldy, and obsolete, and he now suggested that the House should repeal so much of that Act as had not been repealed in the course of 150 years, and remove from Irish bankers disabilities that did not attach to the banking confraternity in England.
  MR. CALDWELLsaid he did not intend to talk the Bill out, but he thought
  256
  a Bill of this kind should not be brought in without some explanation.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid he had given an explanation.
  MR. CALDWELLsaid that the explanation had been given after he had been put to the trouble of looking up the old Act. He could controvert a great deal of what had been said by the Chief Secretary; but he merely wished to put it to the Chief Secretary that, as the Bill affected Ireland, and as the Irish Members were absent, it might very well be left over until their return.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid that there was no objection to the Bill.
  MR. CALDWELLsaid that that did not coincide with his information. The Chief Secretary would admit that he did not interfere with Irish Bills; but he thought that, in the circumstances, the Bill might reasonably have been left over, and not rushed through. He would not oppose the Second Reading; but it would be more gracious on the part of the Government to allow the Bill to stand over until next week.
  Mr. SPEAKER, in pursuance of the Order of the House of the 16th October last, adjourned the House without Question put.
  Adjourned at one Minute after Twelve o'clock.