Commons Sitting of 13 June 1904

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.
UNOPPOSED PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  SUBSTITUTED BILLS (STANDING ORDER 62 COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, Standing Order 62 has been complied with, viz.:—Loch Leven Water Power Bill. Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.
PRIVATE BILLS [LORDS] (STANDING ORDERS NOT PREVIOUSLY INQUIRED INTO COMPLIED WITH).
Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, viz.:—Richard Jaeger's Patent Bill [Lords]. Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.
PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS [LORDS] (NO STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE).
Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, viz.:—Pier and Harbour Provisional Order (No. 1) Bill [Lords]. Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time To-morrow.

POST OFFICE SITES BILL (STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE THERETO COMPLIED WITH).
Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions For Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred pursuant to the Order of the House of the 3rd day of June, the Standing Orders

1461
which are applicable thereto have been complied with, viz.:—Post Office Sites Bill.
Colney Hatch Gas Bill; Gomersal Gas Bill; North Staffordshire Railway Bill. Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Chesterfield Gas and Water Board Bill [Lords]. Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
London County Council (Money) Bill. Read the third time, and passed.
London County Council (Tramways and Improvements) Bill. Read the third time, and passed. [New Title.]
New River Company Bill [Lords]. As amended, considered; an Amendment made; Bill to be read the third time.
Tynemouth Gas Bill [Lords]. As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
Education Board Provisional Order Bill (Swansea); Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 14) Bill; Local Government Provisional Order (No. 15) Bill. Read the third time, and passed.
Dundee, Broughty Ferry, and District Tramways Order Confirmation Bill; Leith Burgh Order Confirmation Bill; Motherwell and Bellshill Railway (Abandonment) Order Confirmation Bill. Considered; to be read the third time upon Wednesday.
Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) Provisional Order Bill. Read a second time, and committed.

PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP H).
Sir HENRY AUBREY-FLETCHER reported from the Committee on Group H of Private Bills, That the Parties opposing the Matlock and District Gas Bill [Lords] had stated that the evidence of John Thomas Coates, of Derby, was essential to their case; and, it having been proved that his attendance could not be procured without the intervention of the House, he had been instructed to move that the said John Thomas Coates do attend the said Committee on Monday, 13th June, at Three of the clock.
Ordered, That John Thomas Coates do attend the Committee on Group H of Private Bills this day, at Three of the clock.
Clyde Navigation (Works) Bill. Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table.
Street Betting Bill [Lords]. Read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 230.]
Local Government Provisional Order (No. 4) Bill. Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table. Bill, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP I).
Sir JOHN BRUNNER reported from the Committee on Group I of Private Bills; That, for the convenience of parties, they had adjourned till Tuesday, 21st June, at Twelve o'clock.
Report to lie upon the Table.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to—Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill; Local Government Provisional Order (Poor Law) Bill, without Amendment.
Kirkby-in-Ashfield Urban District Gas Bill; Littlestone-on-Sea and District Water Bill; Brixham Gas Bill; Acton Improvement Bill, with Amendments.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to extend the limits of supply of the Newcastle and Gateshead Water Company; and to enable local authorities within the additional limits to require the Company to supply them with water in bulk; and to empower the Company to raise further capital; and for other purposes." [Newcastle and Gateshead Water Bill [Lords.]
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the closing and sale of certain churches in the city of Liverpool and the borough of Wigan and the sale of certain vicarages or houses of residence, the extinction of certain ecclesiastical districts and parishes, the merger thereof in other

1463
districts and parishes, and the conversion of certain ecclesiastical districts into separate ecclesiastical parishes in the said city; and for other purposes." [Liverpool and Wigan Churches Bill [Lords.]
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confer further powers on the Derwent Valley Water Board; to confer powers upon the Corporation of Leicester with respect to the works authorised to be constructed by that Corporation under the powers of The Derwent Valley Water Act, 1899; to confer borrowing powers upon the Corporations of Derby, Leicester, Sheffield, and Nottingham; and for other purposes." [Derwent Valley Water Board Bill [Lords.]
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to empower the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Citizens of the city of Belfast to construct and work Tramways, and to purchase by agreement the undertaking of the Belfast Street Tramways Company, including the Tramways constructed by the Sydenham District Belfast Tramways Company, and the Belfast and Ligoniel Tramways Company, and the Tramways of the Belfast and County Down Railway Company; and for other purposes." [Belfast Corporation (Tramways) Bill [Lords.]
Also, a BUI, intituled, "An Act for incorporating and conferring powers on The Lothians Electric Power Company." [The Lothians Electric Power Bill [Lords.]
Newcastle and Gateshead Water Bill [Lords]; Liverpool and Wigan Churches Bill [Lords]; Derwent Valley Water Board Bill [Lords]; Belfast Corporation (Tramways) Bill [Lords]; The Lothians Electric Power Bill [Lords]. Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
Preston, Chorley, and Horwich Tramways Bill [Lords]; Tyneside Tramways and Tramroads Bill [Lords]. Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

PETITIONS.
  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Two Petitions from Aberdeen, alteration; to lie upon the Table.
EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Petition from Edinburgh, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
FACTORY AND WORKSHOP ACT (1901) AMENDMENT BILL.
Petition from Sanitary Institute, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
LICENSING BILL.
Petitions against; from London; Stourbridge (four); Wollaston; Leicester; Glasgow; Bournemouth; Brighton; Lee; Darlaston (two); Chester (four); Bransgore; Inverurie; Portsmouth; Saltney; King's Hill; Richmond; Blackburn; Darlaston Green; Halton; Runcorn (two); Wellington; Wood Green; Worsley; Budleigh Salterton; Harrow Road; Moxley; Worksop; Hulland; Aston; Corbridge; Wall; Hexhamshire; Mickley; Harlow Hill; Ovington; Hexham (two); Hedley; Huncote; Walkden; Gunnerton; Barrasford; Wark; Stocksfield; Horsley; Rangeworthy; Bradley; Wednesbury; Oldbury; Humshaugh; Wylam; Newton; Hampstead; Jarrow; Adderbury; Lampeter; Greenock; Wolverhampton; Pen (two); Wigan; Cilgwyn; Wye Valley; Tregaron; Lavender Hill; Horsley Fields; Somerleyton; Wandsworth; Blyth; Boldon Colliery; Selby; Jarrow; Llanarmon; Tregeiriog; Flushing; Huntley; Stepney; Cwmbran; Kirkwall; Rochdule (two); Brecon; Llanfaes; Durham; Kiveton Park; Rotherham; Women's National Liberal Association; Doncaster; Balby; Sheffield; Leamington; Hastings; Hendon; Denaby Main; Blairgowrie; Choppington Colliery; Market Drayton (two); West Cornwall; Whitehurch; Heywood; Gloucester; Hollinwood; Gospel Ash; Whixall; Crimsworth; Boosbeck; Bill Quay; Paisley; Banbury; Ebbw Vale; Penrith; Lochans; Sowerby Bridge; Montrose; Daventry and Long Buckby; Daventry; Newburn-on-Tyne; Bridgend District; Dunston; Wolverhampton; Doncaster; Guisborough and Redcar; and Hendon; to lie upon the Table.
PREVENTION OF POLLUTION OF RIVERS AND STREAMS BILL.
Petition from Sanitary Institute, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
SALE OF BUTTER BILL.
Petition from Sanitary Institute, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
VALUATION BILL.
Petition from Liverpool, against; to lie upon the Table.
VALUATION BILL.
Petition from Stourbridge, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
VALUATION BILL.
Petitions in favour; from Sheffield; and Sunderland; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  MERCHANT SEAMEN'S FUND.
  Paper [presented 10th June] to be printed. [No. 208.]

  ARRESTS FOR DRUNKENNESS (IRELAND).
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 19th May; Mr. Sloan]; to lie

  1.

  2.

  3.

  4.

  5.

  6.

  7.

  8.

  Asylum.

  Number of Patients provided for on the 1st day of January, 1904.

  Total cost of buildings and land up to the 1st day of January, 1904.

  Cost per bed of buildings and land.

  Average weekly cost per head in respect of interest and repayment of loans for land and buildings, rental of land and buildings, and repairs, for year ended the 31st day of March, 1903.

  Average weekly cost per head for maintenance and other charges not included in Column 5, for year ended the 31st day of March, 1903.

  Total average weekly cost per head for year ended 31st day of March, 1903.

  Receipts from—

  (a) Parliamentary grants, and payments by County and County Borough Councils from Exchequer Contribution Account.

  (b) Payment for Patients.

  (c) Rates.

  Totals:

  England and Wales

  Scotland

  Ireland

  Grand Totals

  —(Mr. Charles Hobhouse.)
  upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 209.]

  SAVINGS BANKS AND FRIENDLY SOCIETIES.
  Accounts presented, showing the Interest accrued in respect of the Securities standing in the names of the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt to the credit of the Post Office Savings Banks Fund for the year ended 31st December, 1903, and of the Fund for the Banks for Savings and the Fund for Friendly Societies for the year ended 20th November, 1903 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 210.]
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 3182 to 3184 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  COUNTY AND BOROUGH LUNATIC ASYLUMS.
  Address for "Return of Expenditure on Lunatic Asylums up to the 1st day of January, 1904, and of the average Cost per head of Lunatics during the year ended the 31st day of March, 1903:—

  SHOPS.
  Address for "Return showing the counties and boroughs in which Inspectors have been appointed under The Shop Hours Acts, 1892 to 1895, and The Seats for Shop Assistants Act, 1899, and number of Inspectors appointed, in the following form:—

  1.

  2.

  3.

  4.

  Counties and boroughs in which Inspectors have been appointed.

  Total number of Inspectors appointed.

  Inspectors giving their whole time to duties under the Shop Hours and Seats for Shop Assistants Acts.

  Inspectors performing duties under the Shop Hours and Seats for Shop Assistants Acts in conjunction with other public duties.

  —(Sir Charles Dilke.)

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  The "Enchantress."
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if the yacht "Enchantress" is now in commission; what is the difference between her cost as finished and the estimate on which the order was given; where did the speed trials take place, and what was the realised speed as compared with the speed contracted for; did coal consumption trials take place and, if so, what were the results; and what was the duration of the speed, and coal consumption trials respectively.
  (Answered by Mr. Pretyman.) Through inadvertence an incorrect figure was given in reply to the second part of the hon. Member's Question of 9th instant.† The accepted contract price for the yacht "Enchantress" was £120,882. Certain additions asked for since the contract was made amount to £3,701 0s. 4d., making a total of £124,583 0s. 4d., as stated in my answer of the 29th March last.‡
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if it is
  †See page 1210.
  ‡See (4) Debates, cxxxii., 959.
  1468
  customary to accept vessels which have not fulfilled conditions of contract; whether any attempt was made in the case of the "Enchantress" to get eighteen knots speed; what was the highest speed attained, and what power was developed at that speed; what was the horse power developed on the trial at fifteen knots, and what number of runs on the measured mile did it consist of; of what duration was the coal consumption trial at fifteen knots, and was it carried out in the customary Admiralty fashion; what is the stability of the "Enchantress" with water in boilers, bunkers full, and stores on board, but without ballast; has it been necessary to add any ballast for stability purposes; and, if so, how much; have the Admiralty definitely accepted the vessel; and has the final instalment been paid.
  (Answered by Mr. Pretyman.) Taking the different sections of the hon. Member's Question seriatim, the replies are as follows:—

  1. No.

  2. Yes.

  3.17·5 knots, i.h.p. 6,077.

  4. i.h.p. 2,829 for 14·892 knots. Four runs, i.h.p. 3,191 for 15·22 knots for 24 hours.

  5. 24 hours. Yes.

  6. Metacentric height 16 inches.

  7. Yes.

  8. 200 tons.

  9. No.

  10. No.

  Marine Insurance Bill.
  SIR ALBERT ROLLIT: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Marine Insurance (Codification) Bill will be re-introduced into this House in time to admit of its passing through its subsequent stages and becoming law during the present session.
  (Answered by Mr. A.J. Balfour.) The Bill is one I am very desirous of passing into law; but, in the present state of public business, there seems little hope of this, unless it is possible to come to some general agreement among Members interested. I hope it will prove that such an agreement is possible.

  British Salvage Companies and Naval Work.
  SIR JOHN LENG: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the Board have had under consideration the length of time occupied by the Swedish Salvage Company in raising Submarine A 1; why the Admiralty's own officials did not undertake the operations with the plant from Portsmouth Dockyard; and whether, failing the establishment of a Naval Salvage Corps, opportunity will be given to British salvage companies and associations to offer for such work in British waters.
  (Answered by Mr. Pretyman.) The Admiralty have considered the length of time occupied and have noted it. The necessary plant from Portsmouth Dockyard was at once sent to the wreck; but, as explained in my reply to the hon. Member for Camberwell on 14th April,† the weather at the time was not favourable for the employment of lighters, as the swell caused the wire hawsers to carry away. The Admiralty are always prepared to consider offers for salvage work, and have already made use of the services of British salvage companies; but time is such an important element in nearly all salvage operations, that the decision to employ any particular firm, whether British or foreign, must be largely influenced by the facility with which they can begin work. In the case of Submarine A1 the Swedish Company's vessel was on the spot.

  Piecework in Devonport Dockyard.
  MR. BELL: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, in view of the fact that the system of piecework introduced into His Majesty's Dockyard, Devonport, has been the means of throwing out of employment a number of men, whilst others are earning sums varying up to £3 8s. per week above their wages, he will state whether any number of men are about to be discharged; and, if so, whether the piecework system is responsible for such further discharge.
  (Answered by Mr. Pretyman.) It is not the fact that the system of piecework at Devonport has been the means of throwing out of employment a number of men,
  †See (4) Debates, exxxiii., 194.
  1470
  nor has the premium system, recently introduced for trial, had any such effect. On the contrary, the number of men now employed is slightly greater than on the 1st April last. No man employed in the Dockyard has earned £3 8s. per week above his wages, or anything approaching that sum, under either of these systems. Some adjustment of trades has been necessary to meet variations of work, but this has not been in consequence of either the piecework or the premium system. It is possible that there may be further discharges due to similar re-adjustments of trade.

  Opportunities for learning Telegraph Work—Case of Mr. Chandler.
  MR. HENDERSON: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that a telegraphist named Chandler has been placed upon duties which give him no opportunity for perfecting himself in telegraphic manipulation, and that he asked for facilities to acquire a thorough knowledge, but his request was refused; and whether, in view of the fact that he has now been informed that his increment may be arrested because of his ignorance of telegraphic work, he will direct that this telegraphist shall be given equal opportunities with his fellow clerks.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) If the telegraphist referred to is Mr. Chandler, a sorting clerk and telegraphist at Middlesbrough, that officer is engaged in turn with his fellows upon the sorting and telegraph duties he is capable of doing. All the circumstances of his case have already been examined more than once both by my predecessor and myself, and I am quite satisfied that he has received proper treatment.

  Post Office Examination at Cork—Outsiders in Limited Competitions.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that two persons, John Murray and Daniel Downing, who were not servants of the Post Office, were lately allowed to compete in the limited examination at Cork; whether this was contrary to regulations, such examinations being reserved for persons

  1471
  already in Post Office employ; and, if so, what steps he proposes to take to remedy the hardship suffered by other competitors who failed to secure the vacancies competed for, owing to Messrs. Murray and Downing being allowed to compete.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) The hon. Member appears to be under a misapprehension. Both of the persons referred to had served as assistants at sub-post offices in Ireland for some time, and were eligible, under the regulations, to enter the limited competition in question.

  Extension of Telephone Service to Nenagh.
  MR. P. J. O'BRIEN: To ask the Postmaster-General, in view of the extension to Nenagh of the telephone connection to Limerick, he will take into account the position of that town as a commercial centre; and if he will make inquires as to the business at Nenagh Post Office in regard to telegrams received and sent from there; and if it affords the assurance that the business provided by the merchants and others would more than guarantee that sufficient support would be obtained for a telephone exchange at Nenagh, he will give it his favourable consideration.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) The circumstances mentioned by the hon. Member will be kept in view in considering the question of connecting Nenagh with the telephone system of the United Kingdom. The decision must, however, chiefly depend upon the use likely to be made of the trunk telephone lines, as shown by the number of persons who are willing to rent exchange lines at Nenagh at the ordinary tariff rates. It is mainly upon this point that information is required.

  Poor Law Children Suffering from Ringworm and Ophthalmia.
  SIR WALTER FOSTER: To ask the President of the Local Government Board if he will state the number of Poor Law children of the metropolis who are at present suffering from ringworm and ophthalmia respectively, differentiating between those
  1472
  housed in the Metropolitan Asylums Board special homes, those in workhouses and workhouse infirmaries, and those in the district and separate Poor Law schools.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) I am informed that the number of Metropolitan Poor Law children at present suffering from ringworm and ophthalmia respectively in the special homes and institutions under the control of the Metropolitan Asylums Board, is as follows:—

  Ringworm.

  Ophthalmia.

  566

  345

  The following is the number of these children in workhouses and workhouse infirmaries, and in district and separate Poor Law schools on the 2nd April last, which is the latest date for which I can give the figures desired:—

  Ringworm.

  Ophthalmia.

  Workhouses and workhouse infirmaries

  184

  236

  District and separate schools, including cottage homes and scattered homes

  159

  156

  Nursing of Sick Poor in Workhouses—Local Government Board Order.
  SIR HARRY SAMUEL: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether boards of guardians of England and Wales will be given an opportunity of expressing their opinion upon the contemplated order to be issued by the Local Government Board consequent upon the recommendations of the Departmental Committee upon the nursing of the sick poor in workhouses; and whether a draft of such order can be furnished to the Poor Law Unions' Association of England and Wales before the same is made absolute.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) I have received a large number of representations from boards of guardians on the Report of the Departmental Committee on Nursing which has led to the proposed order, and these representations

  1473
  have been duly considered. I cannot undertake to afford to boards of guardians generally any further opportunity of making representations on this subject; but I will consider the suggestion in the latter part of the Question.

  Poor Law Children Emigrated to Canada.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: To ask the President of the Local Government Board if he can state the number of Poor Law children emigrated to Canada during the year 1903.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The number of Poor Law children emigrated to Canada during 1903 was 398.

  Royal Commission on Local Taxation—Representation of Boards of Guardians.
  MR. OSMOND WILLIAMS: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether boards of guardians were represented upon the Royal Commission on Local Taxation; and, if not, will he state what was the reason of their not being represented.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) I was not concerned in the recommendations made in 1896 of persons to serve on the Royal Commission on Local Taxation, and, therefore, I cannot speak with any authority as to the grounds upon which the recommendations were based. I observe, however, that, although boards of guardians do not appear to have been specifically represented on it, several members were or had been more or less connected with these authorities.

  Uniformity of Valuation.
  Mr. OSMOND WILLIAMS: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, in view of the number of unions situated in two or more administrative counties, he will state what steps he proposes to take to secure that the substitution of county areas for union areas shall promote the uniformity of valuation as between valuation authorities.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) I think it will be more convenient to deal with questions of this kind in debate on the Valuation Bill.

  Promotion of Income-tax Clerks in Ireland.
  MR. NANNETTI: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the increase of clerical work in Irish income-tax districts since July, 1900, he will raise the clerks in 4th class districts from their present scales D and F respectively to higher scales as the circumstances of their several districts may suggest, seeing that promotion to these clerks is otherwise practically impossible, only one transfer to England having been effected in four years past.
  (Answered by Mr. Victor Cavendish.) I am advised that the circumstances do not warrant any increase in the salaries of these officials.

  Tea Duty—Bulking of Parcels of Tea in Bond.
  MR. LOUGH: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in the interests of trade, he would inquire why the Board of Customs refused, in April last, to grant a special request made by the proprietors of Butler's Wharf to bulk together three small parcels of Indian tea, considering that the request was not outside the spirit of the standing regulations governing the importation of Indian and Ceylon teas, as contained in Revenue Code, paragraph 430; and, also, whether, seeing its importance to the tea trade, he has any objection to laying the Papers and Reports dealing with the matter in question upon the Table of the House.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) The intention of the Code of Warehousing Regulations (which are common to the Customs and Inland Revenue Departments) is to keep within reasonable limits the performance on dutiable goods in bonded warehouses of operations which can be readily performed in trader's private premises outside Revenue control. Every extension of the kinds of operations, which may be performed in bond necessarily entails additional expense to the Crown. Paragraph 430 of the Code permits the bulking together of beds of Indian teas under certain conditions, and the proprietors of Butler's Wharf had availed themselves of this permission in regard to the teas in question. They

  1475
  desired, however, to perform a further operation on the tea before clearance from bond by re-bulking together an entire bed and parts of two other beds. No special reason for the request was stated in the application except that it was desired to get one even sample, and the Board of Customs, after careful consideration, felt themselves unable to grant the request on the grounds, (a) That the operation allowed by the standing regulations had already been performed on the teas. (b) That it was open to the proprietors of the teas to have paid the duty and removed the teas to private premises where the operation could have been performed. (c) That to grant a special concession of this kind to one particular firm in relation to an operation in bond would have created a precedent which would have been immediately followed by other requests of the same kind, thereby rendering it impossible to maintain the regulation, and entailing increase of expenditure for supervision. If the tea trade desire the amendment of a particular regulation of the Code affecting their interests, the Board would be perfectly ready to consider such a measure on its merits. The Reports of Customs' Officers are of a confidential character, and I cannot undertake to lay them upon the Table of the House.

  Condition of Gôkteik Railway Bridge, Upper Burma.
  MR. W. F. D.SMITH: To ask the Secretary of State for India if he can state the present condition of the Goktiek Railway Bridge in Upper Burma, and by what firm was the bridge constructed; whether at the time when the bridge was being built representations were made by the Acting Chief Engineer for Construction to the effect that unsound work was being put in by the contractors; and whether he is ready to appoint a Committee to inquire into the whole matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) The Gokteik Railway Bridge was constructed by the Pennsylvania Steel Company for the Burma Railways Company. When the bridge was being built representations were made by the Acting Chief Engineer for Construction to the effect that unsound work was being put
  1476
  in by the contractors, but these representations were not confirmed on subsequent inquiry by the Burma Railway Company's engineers or the Government inspector. I am informed by the company that there is no reason for supposing the present condition of the bridge to be unsound, and that a report which they received on it in 1901 was to the effect that it was in all respects a good piece of work.

  Relations between India and Afghanistan.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether His Highness the Amir of Afghanistan has refused to accept the £40,000 per annum which is paid him in consideration of his good feeling towards the Indian Government; if so, whether a pacific mission will be sent to Afghanistan, on the same lines as that sent to the Dalai Lama at Lhasa, to ascertain the cause of the Amir's altered attitude to the Indian Government; and, in the event of his persistent refusal of the subsidy, what steps will be taken to compel his acceptance.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) The Answer to the Question is in the negative.

  Law as to Width of Tyre of loaded Waggons in Ireland.
  MR. FFRENCH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Wexford County Council passed a resolution recommending the extension to Ireland of Section 4 of the 24 and 25 Vic, c. 70, regulating the width of tyres of loaded waggons; and whether he will consider the advisability of altering the law as suggested.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The resolution has been received and the suggestion which it contains will be considered.

  Compulsory Destruction of Bees Suffering from Foul Brood.
  MR. FFRENCH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the County Wexford Committee of Agriculture and Technical Instruction passed a resolution recommending the introduction

  1477
  of a Bill for the compulsory destruction of bees suffering from foul brood; and whether he will consider the advisability of introducing a Bill for that purpose.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyntham.) I would refer to my replies to the similar Questions addressed to me on the 8th and 11th February and 29th March by the hon. Member for South Kerry,† to which I have nothing to add.

  Impure Irish Whisky.
  MR. FFRENCH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that farmers' profits in Ireland are considerably reduced, as there is a decreasing demand for malting barley and other cereals used in the production of genuine Irish pot-still whisky owing to the substitution by whisky blenders of patent spirit distilled from cheap foreign commodities for genuine Irish pot-still whisky; and whether the Government will come to the relief of Irish farmers by taking steps to stop this practice.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) There is no direct evidence that farmers' profits are reduced as stated. The matter is engaging, however, the attention of the Department of Agriculture, which will take such action as may appear to be required in order to protect, as far as possible, the interests of Irish growers of cereals used in the production of genuine Irish whisky.

  Irish Petty Sessions—Right of Appeal from Sentences.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that in Ireland magistrates at petty sessions can inflict sentences of imprisonment for a period not exceeding one month, with or without hard labour, whereas in England there is a power of appeal from every sentence of magistrates whatever the term of imprisonment may be; whether his attention has been directed to comments from the judicial bench on refusals in recent cases by magistrates to increase sentences in order to enable their decisions to be tested by appeals; and
  †, See (4) Debates, cxxix., 595 and 1030, cxxxii, 982.
  1478
  whether he will take steps to assimilate the law in Ireland to the law in England by initiating legislation enabling an appeal to be taken in all cases from magisterial decisions in Ireland.
  (Answered by Mr Wyndham.) The question of assimilating the law in this respect in the two countries will be considered when a suitable opportunity presents itself.

  Recommendations of Royal Commission on Militia and Volunteers.
  SIR ERNEST FLOWER: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is proposed to put in force during the present year the recommendations contained in paragraph 58 (y) of the Report of the recent Royal Commission on the Militia and Volunteers.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) There is a misprint in this Question, presumably my hon. friend refers to paragraph 56 (v). It is too soon to make any announcement with respect to the recommendations contained in the Report of the Royal Commission.

  Cost of Japanese Army.
  MR. TREVELYAN: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can give the figures of the expenditure upon the Japanese Army for each of the last five years, and the cost per head of the population compared with Great Britain and the leading European nations.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) The Japanese Budget Estimates, as published, for the years named were as follows:—

  £

  1899–1900

  5,558,025

  1900–1901

  5,293,588

  1901–1902

  4,955,635

  1902–1903

  4,669,510

  1903–1904

  4,217,196

  With regard to the cost per head as compared with other nations it is, as previously stated in answer to Questions of a similar nature, impossible to arrive for purposes of comparison at any reliable conclusion as to the actual military expenditure incurred by the various foreign Powers.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Submarine A1—Committee of Inquiry.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, having regard to the statements made in public by the First Lord as to the loss of Submarine A1, he will now undertake to lay upon the Table the Report of the Committee of Inquiry.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. PRETYMAN,): All Reports of Courts of Inquiry are confidential, and it is not considered desirable to depart from this principle, especially in the case of a submarine. Any information that can be made public can be given to the House during the discussion on Navy Estimates.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I beg to give notice that on the Navy Estfmates I will call attention to the withholding of the Report, and the consequent danger of incorrect and unfortunate impressions being produced.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Will there be any Court-martial?
  MR. PRETYMAN: No, Sir, I believe not.

  Enfield Small Arms Factory—Payment of Gratuities to Discharged Workmen.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether it has been brought to his notice that about 100 men recently discharged from the Small Arms Factory at Enfield have been informed that they cannot receive their gratuity money for at least three weeks after discharge; and whether, in view of his promise to a deputation of these men on 18th May that they should be allowed to remain at work till the gratuity was settled, he will see that these men are paid this gratuity without delay.
  *THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr BROMLEY-DAVENPORT,): Under the existing system, some considerable delay necessarily occurs before the payment of the gratuity, because the
  1480
  gratuity has to be calculated to the date of leaving work, and cannot, therefore, be paid on that date. I gave no such promise to the deputation as is indicated in the second paragraph of the Question. What I did promise was, that the existing system should be most carefully considered with a view to reducing the delay to the shortest possible period. It is by no means an easy matter, but I hope to be able to secure some improvement upon the existing system.

  Manufacture of Rifles—Government and Private Orders.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state the number of rifles for which orders were placed during last year with private firms and with Government factories respectively, and the cost of the rifle supplied by the contracting firms as compared with the cost of the rifle produced in the Government factories; and whether the amount of work now being done at the Enfield Government Factory is less than that which was done prior to the enlargement of the factory.
  *MR. BROMLEY-DAVENPORT: The orders placed for the new pattern rifle since its acceptance are—in the Ordnance Factories for 1903–4, 67,000 new and 50,000 converted, and for 1904–5, 50,000 new and 4,000 converted; with the trade 105,000 new for the two years 1903–05. No conversions are allocated to the trade. The contract price of the new rifle supplied by the trade is £4 10s. The estimated cost of the new rifle supplied by the Ordnance Factories is £3 10s. The work that will be done in the Enfield Factory this year will be more than the average of work done for some years prior to the war.

  Military Services in St. Giles' Cathedral, Edinburgh.
  The following Question appeared on the Paper:—
  MASTER OF ELIBANK: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether the General Commanding the Forces in Scotland has reported to him the action of Dr. Cameron Lees in forbidding military services to be conducted in St. Giles' Cathedral for Scottish regiments quartered at Edinburgh Castle;

  1481
  and, if so, whether he will make representations to Dr. Cameron Lees' ecclesiastical superiors in regard to this de parture from traditional usage.
  On the hon. Member being called upon to put the Question he said: Since placing this Question on the Paper I have received a letter from Dr. Cameron Lees which convinces me that the action of which I complain was due not to him but to the Kirk Session, and as I have no desire to do him an injustice I do not propose to ask the Question.

  Military Drafts for India.
  *SIR J. DICKSON-POYNDER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether a portion of the drafts now being sent to India include men who have less than one year to serve; if so, what is the number of such men already sent and to be sent; and whether he will grant a Return stating the number of such men, the amount of time they will spend in India, and the cost of their transport out and home.
  MR. BROMLEY-DAVENPORT: No drafts are now being sent to India. Orders were issued that no men were to be embarked with less than one year's unexpired service, but, owing to the accident which delayed the "Assaye," when she left port the second time she had on board twenty-two men whose unexpired service was less than one year. No extra cost was entailed owing to the embarkation of these men. The average cost of a soldier's voyage to India is from £7 to £8.

  Imperial Yeomanry—Term of Re-engagement.
  SIR J. DICKSON-POYNDER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that a number of the men in the Imperial Yeomanry who will shortly complete their three years service are willing to re-engage if such re-engagement can be effected annually, but not for another; term of three years, he will consider the advisability of so altering the present regulations as to permit of re-engagements for one year.
  MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT: This matter is at present under consideration.

  Dublin Corporation and Soldiers in the Streets.
  MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if his attention has been called to a resolution passed by the Dublin Corporation prohibiting soldiers walking the main streets in Dublin, and to the fact that a society called the Cuman na Gaedhael has sent a similar resolution to other public bodies for adoption; and, if so, will he state what action, if any, he intends taking in the matter.
  MR. BROMLEY-DAVENPORT: No report on this matter has been received from the General Officer Commanding, Third Army Corps. The resolution does not appear to have any serious importance, and no action is at present contemplated by the War Office.
  MR. JOSEPH DEVLIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Irish Temperance League in Belfast recently refused to admit soldiers as members?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That does not arise out of the Question.
  MR. NANNETTIwas understood to ask if the resolution was not merely aimed at disorderly soldiers and their female companions who indulged in language and conduct of a filthy character.
  MR. BROMLEY-DAVENPORTsaid he had no knowledge of the motives which led to the passing of the resolution. All he could say was that the War Office did not propose to take any action.

  Chinese Labour Limitations in the Transvaal.
  MR. HUNT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it is provided under the Transvaal Ordinance that the Chinaman will only be employed in the same class of work as that which was performed by South African natives before the war; and, if not, whether he will take steps to see that this is effected.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. LYTTELTON,): The Transvaal Ordinance provides that the Chinese labourers are to be employed only on unskilled labour in the exploitation of minerals, and defines unskilled labour as such labour as is usually performed in mines in the Witwatersrand district by persons belonging to the aboriginal races or tribes of Africa, south of the Equator.

  Pay of Chinese Labourers in the Transvaal.
  DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will communicate to Lord Milner the assurance he gave to the House on 21st March that Chinese labourers indentured under the Transvaal Ordinance would receive at least 2s. a day; and whether he will press for the accomplishment of this undertaking.
  MR. LYTTELTON: The hon. Member will see from reference to page 37 of Cd. 2026 that I communicated my statement to Lord Milner. The assurance was given on the best authority, which was that Chinese coolies could not be obtained for lower wages. This information, probably owing to the dislocation of the labour market caused by the war, has proved incorrect. Accordingly, in order to secure the principle which I had in my mind—viz., that Chinese labour should not unfairly compete with or undercut native labour, I have exhaustively discussed the whole question with Lord Milner and have arranged that the Chinaman shall have equality of payment with the native for different classes of work, and full opportunity of taking piecework, by which, Lord Milner informs me, the Chinese will be able to earn considerably more than the average monthly wage. While it is right to protect the South African native from unfair competition, I think no one would desire to inflate the scale of native wages, which are already high, by paying Chinese not only much more than they have proved ready to take, but more than the average standard of Kaffir wages. I trust, therefore, inasmuch as I have fully observed the spirit, that the House will absolve me from fulfilling the letter, of my undertaking.
  DR. MACNAMARA: Are we to understand that the pledge given by the right hon. Gentleman on 21st, March that the Chinese labourer should at least receive 2s. a day. is one which the right hon. Gentleman, in the light of subsequent events, believes cannot be carried out?
  MR. LYTTELTON: I do not say that it cannot be carried out; but I think that in the opinion of all fair-minded men, whether opponents of the measure or not, it would not be desirable to carry it out, because I do not think anybody wishes to give the Chinese higher wages than the Kaffirs. It would tend to raise the scale of Kaffir wages throughout South Africa to the prejudice of agriculture.
  SIR JOHN GORST: Is it not the fact that the minimum wage paid to the Chinese will be lower than the minimun wage of the Kaffir?
  MR. LYTTELTON: No, Sir, that is not the case. Take, say, 100 Kaffirs and 100 Chinese. Measures have been taken to provide that if the 100 Chinese do not, on the average, earn as much as the 100 Kaffirs do—namely, 50s. a month—their wages shall be supplemented.
  SIR JOHN GORST: But is it not the fact that the wage paid for the first six months for Chinese labour is 1s. a day, whereas that paid for the first six months for African labour is 1s. 6d. a day.
  ME. LYTTELTON: No, Sir, it is not the fact. The average paid to Chinamen will, I am assured, be at least 50s. a month.
  MR. BRYCE: Will there not be an inducement to the mine-owners to employ Kaffirs, because they do more work than the Chinese?
  MR. LYTTELTON: I have taken every possible measure to secure that the interest of the mine-owners shall be to employ natives rather than Chinese. It has been provided that the Chinese shall have equal wages with the native. As the expenses of transit of Chinese are much larger, it is obvious that the interest of the mine-owners will be to

  1485
  employ the Kaffir rather than the Chinese.
  SIR HENRY FOWLER: How is the average wage of the Kaffir to be ascertained. Is it to be the wage before the war, during the war, or the reduced wage since the war?
  MR. LYTTELTON: It is substantially the pre-war wage. This was originally 49s. It went down to 30s. It has since risen again to something below 50s.; I think about 47s.
  SIR HENRY FOWLER: On what principle is the rate of wages for piecework arrived at.
  *MR. SPEAKER: This is becoming a debate on the question of Chinese wages. I think it would be better to put any further Questions on the Paper.
  DR. MACNAMARA: What is the minimum wage paid at the present time to the individual Kaffir?
  *MR. SPEAKER: I have said that notice should be given of any further Questions.

  Gangers and Overseers in the Transvaal Mines.
  DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will make representations to the Transvaal Government in favour of the employment of white men as gangers and overseers under the Chinese Labour Ordinance, in order that the assurances given by himself and Lord Milner that the adoption of the Ordinance would mean additional employment for white men may tend towards realisation.
  MR. LYTTELTON: As I have already pointed out, the terms of the Ordinance seem to me to have been drawn with great care to ensure that there can be no displacement of white labour and that no work hitherto performed by whites can possibly be given to the Chinese. It does not, therefore, appear to me that any such representations are required.

  Arrival of Chinese Immigrants at Durban.
  MR. WHITLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if an advance party of Chinese immigrants has already arrived in Durban for the Transvaal mines; and, if so, whether they are correctly described as overseers to be employed in directing the work of the coolies now on passage to South Africa.
  MR. LYTTELTON: I have received no information as to this supposed party of immigrants.

  Alleged Forced Labour in the Transvaal Mines for Native Offenders.
  MR. WHITLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he has now any information confirming or contradicting the statements of the native Chiefs Umzimkulu and Umhalla that natives in the Transvaal mines are convicted for trivial offences, and after the expiry of their sentences are sent, against their will, for six months service in the mines.
  MR. LYTTELTON: I am informed by Lord Milner that in no case has a native on discharge from gaol been employed to work for a fresh master. On expiration of his sentence a native is required to complete his service with his registered employer provided the latter desires his return, otherwise the option is given him of seeking a fresh employer or returning home. The statements of these native chiefs appear, therefore, to have been founded upon some misapprehension.
  MR. WHITLEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire as to the circumstances which gave rise to this misapprehension on the part of the natives who made the complaint to their chiefs?
  [No answer was audible].

  Alleged Unrest amongst the Zoutpansberg Natives.
  THE MASTER OF ELIBANK: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonics whether any official information has reached him regarding the alleged unrest amongst the natives in the Zoutpansberg district of the Transvaal; and, if not, whether he will make telegraphic inquiries in the matter.
  MR. LYTTELTON: I have telegraphed to Lord Milner on the subject but have not yet received his reply.

  Chinese Labour in the Straits Settlements.
  MR. TREVELYAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will inquire from the Governor of the Straits Settlements as to whether it is the case that indentured Chinese coolies in that colony decline to work except under foremen and gangers of their own colour.
  MR. LYTTELTON: I am informed by the late Governor that Chinese indentured labourers in the Straits Settlements work on the terms laid down in their indentures, which do not provide that overseers, foremen, or gangers should be exclusively Chinese. Sir F. Swettenham is not aware that any such labourer has ever refused to serve under direction other than Chinese, but, since most of the employers of Chinese indentured labour in the Straits Settlements are themselves Chinese, it is natural that the overseers, gangers, and foremen should, as a rule, be Chinese also.

  British Indian Subjects in the Transvaal.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that, in the test case brought by British Indians in the Transvaal Supreme Court, the Chief Justice, with the concurrence of his two colleagues, decided that British Indian subjects are entitled to trade in any part of the Transvaal; and whether he will state what steps are being taken to give effect to this decision by the removal of existing restrictions upon their trade.
  ME. LYTTELTON: I am aware of the decision referred to, and am in communication with Lord Milner upon the subject.

  Indian Tea Trade with Persia.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs does the duty now levied in Persia on tea act virtually as a prohibition on the importation of tea from India into Persia; has His Majesty's
  1488
  Minister at Teheran been instructed to make any representations against he duty; and, if so, what has been the the result.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Earl PERCY,): No, Sir. It appears that the importation of Indian tea into Persia has shown no diminution since the imposition of the new duty.

  Brussels Sugar Convention—Colonial Bounty-Fed Sugars.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if, in view of the fact that the Brussels International Sugar Bounties Permanent Commission at its sittings in October last declared that the Russian system as it exists does not give rise to a bounty; that it declared by a vote of eight in the affirmative, against one in the negative, given by Great Britain, that the contracting States have the right to levy on sugared products a surtax higher than that fixed by Article 3 of the Sugar Convention; and that it further decided that in Canada, Australia, and the South African Customs Union sugar bounties exist and fixed the rates of countervailing duties, for Canada at 3·63 francs per 100 kilogrammes on refined sugar, for the South African Customs Union at 2·05 francs per 100 kilogrammes on raw and and 3·89 francs on refined sugar, and for Australia at 9·94 francs per 100 kilogrammes on raw and 5·62 francs on refined sugar; he will state whether His Majesty's Government accept these as binding decisions; and, if so, what course does it propose to take with regard to Russian sugars, to sugared products, and to bounty-fed sugars coming from Canada, South Africa, and Australia.
  EARL PERCY: 1. The Permanent Commission at its sittings in October declared that the Russian system does give rise to a bounty. The word "not" in the report of the proceedings just laid before Parliament is an unfortunate typographical error, but the meaning is apparent from the context. In the case of the Customs duties fixed for Australian sugars, the rate 0·94 francs appears in the hon. Member's Question by a similar typographical error as 9·94. 2. The

  1489
  question of the surtax leviable by contracting States on sugared products is still before the Permanent Commission and the discussion has been adjourned to the next session of the Commission. 3. The Sugar Convention was ratified under the explicit declaration that His Majesty's Government would not consent under any circumstances to be bound to penalise bounty-fed sugar imported into the United Kingdom from any of the self-governing Colonies.
  Ms. GIBSON BOWLES: Will the Government take steps to secure English manufacturers against the unfair competition of bounty-fed foreign sugar products.
  EARL PERCYintimated that between now and the next sitting of the Commission in November the matter would be considered. He had no information that any foreign bounty-fed sugar products were being imported.

  Glasgow Milk Supply—Sore Throat Epidemic.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that the epidemic of sore throat which recently broke out at the Belvedere Hospital, Glasgow, is like that at Woking last autumn, and at Finchley early this year, attributable to the milk taken from cows out of health; and, seeing that Dr. Chalmers, the medical officer of health for Glasgow, states that the outbreak in that city is due to teat eruption in the stock at the farm from which the milk supply is obtained, will he consider the expediency of introducing at an early date such legislation as may be necessary to insure the occasional examination by a veterinary surgeon of all cows kept for the purposes of a public dairy.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. GRANT LAWSON,): The President has no jurisdiction in Scotland with regard to sanitary matters, but be has seen a report of Dr. Chalmers as to the epidemic of sore throat at the Belvedere Hospital, Glasgow. With regard to the suggestion for legislation
  1490
  my right hon. friend wishes me to repeat the Answer which he gave to the hon. Member's Question on 29th March last, that he had caused the suggestion to be noted, but that he could not promise to introduce legislation on the subject during the present session.†

  Poor Law Inspectors' Returns of Expenditure.
  MR. ATHERLEY-JONES: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the fact that the Poor Law Inspectors' Returns of Expenditure which are sent half-yearly to boards of guardians omit the following matters, namely; workhouse loan, maintenance of lunatics in asylums, and the expenses incidental to Poor Law relief; and, if so, whether he will direct that in future the above-named items of expenditure shall be included in the Returns.
  MR. GRANT LAWSON: It is usual for an inspector to furnish the boards of guardians in his district with periodical statements containing some particulars as to pauperism and expenditure on poor relief in the district. This is a voluntary act on the part of the inspector, and it is in his discretion to determine what amount of information the statement shall contain. The President will, however, cause the suggestion made in the Question to be brought under the notice of the inspectors.

  Motor Traffic Regulations.
  MR. GARDNER: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, having regard to the fact that the evidence given before the Departmental Committee on Motor Cars was only published on 4th June he will cause a circular letter to be addressed to the county councils, intimating that he will consider representations, should they desire to make any, upon the recommendations of the Committee; and whether he will allow a reasonable time for representations to be made before making Regulations under Section 12 of The Motor-Car Act, 1903.
  MR. GRANT LAWSON: My right hon. friend wishes me to say that he is strongly
  † See (4) Debates, cxxxii., 979.

  1491
  urged to issue these Regulations as soon as possible, and is reluctant, therefore, to take the course which the hon. Member suggests. He will, however, consider whether, it will be practicable to afford representatives of local authorities concerned an opportunity of seeing the draft of the Regulations.

  Transvaal War Contribution.
  MR. WHITLEY: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequr if he has received any representations from any of the guarantors of the Transvaal War Contribution asking that the arrangement made with the Member for West Birmingham may be reconsidered; and, if so, what reply has been given.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): The Answer to the Question is in the negative.

  General Blake's Widow's Documents.
  MR. P. J. O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, with reference to the property of the deceased widow of General Robert Dudley Blake which is in possession of the Treasury, if he will give the name mentioned in the document found amongst the deceased lady's papers purporting to be that of her father, for the information of a person who may be able to identify the person so named; and whether, with the view of giving all concerned the fullest information, he will see his way to submit for inspection the other documents in question bearing on the intention of the deceased as to the disposal of her property, had she been prepared to make a will.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY (Mr. VICTOR CAVENDISH,): If the person interested will communicate with the Solicitor to the Treasury, such information as can properly be given will be afforded to him.

  Geological Survey of Devonshire.
  MR. SOARES: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether he is aware that there is no complete geological map of the county of Devon in existence of a later
  1492
  date than the year 1840, when a survey of the county was made by Sir H. de la Beche; and whether, having regard to the quantity of rock in Devonshire suitable for building and ornamental purposes, he will, in the interests of the development of the trade of the county, order an immediate and complete geological survey.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Sir WILLIAM ANSON,): Since 1840, portions of the county of Devon have been re-surveyed on a scale of six inches to a mile, and the plan upon which the survey is working contemplates the entire re-survey of the county on this scale. New series one-inch maps based upon this re-survey have already been published for part of the county; and for another part one-inch maps are now being published, which, embody information of a much more recent date than that contained in the maps of 1840. Special attention is being given to the economic aspect suggested in the Question.

  Cornahilta School Teacher.
  MR. JORDAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the fact that the Commissioners of National Education, Ireland, have refused promotion to Mrs. M. K. Dick, principal teacher of the Cornahilta National School (8 and 14864), Billeck, county Fermanagh; and whether, seeing that about twenty other teachers, under similar conditions, have been promoted, he will inquire into the case with a view to giving this teacher promotion.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,): I am informed that the case of this teacher has been dealt with in accordance with the rules governing all such cases, and that she will not be eligible for promotion for some years.

  Lough Erne Drainage Charges.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: On behalf of the hon. Member for North Fermanagh, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will consider the advisability

  1493
  of including the Lough Erne drainage charges within the scope of inquiry about to be made in regard to Trinity College rents, having regard to the fact that many landlords whose lands adjoin Lough Erne have such heavy drainage charges to pay that they cannot sell on favourable terms to their tenants.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I am unable to say that an investigation of the matters referred to would come within the scope of inquiry by the Commission which has been appointed by the Lord-Lieutenant. It will be for the Commissioners to determine this point. The terms of reference have already been announced, and I am not prepared to enlarge them.

  Mr. Hurley's Killarney Estate.
  MR. MURPHY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the estate of John C. D. Hurley, near Killarney, was under the control of the Land Judge's Court in Ireland, and a sale effected to a majority of the tenants a few years ago under an order of the Court, and that the farms occupied by Jeremiah Sheehan, Eugene M'Carthy, Patrick Lyne, Michael Mahony, and Thomas Talbot have not yet been sold to the tenants owing to the conditions sought to be imposed as to turbary rights; and, if so, will he take steps to effect a sale in these cases.
  MR. WYNDHAM: In the case of this estate, the Estates Commissioners have issued a request to the Land Judge with a view to purchase under the 7th Section of the Act of 1903. The Commissioners will make an offer for purchase as soon as the necessary undertakings have been signed by the tenants. The offer will include the turbary, which will be divided among the tenants in accordance with the suggestions of the inspector.

  Warden Estate, Reinstatement of Evicted Tenant.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the fact that Michael J. Sheehan was evicted from his farm of Ardshillane, on the Warden Estate, he can state why he has been refused reinstatement.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The Estates Commissioners have received no application in respect of the sale of this estate. An application for reinstatement has been received from the evicted tenant named and will be duly considered.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have received an application from Mary Currane, of Gurtramough, on the Warden Estate, Sneem, for reinstatement on her farm, in view of the fact that Colonel Warden has given an undertaking that all evicted tenants will be reinstated, and whether, seeing that Mary Currane is now returning from America, steps will be taken to secure her reinstatement; and can he state whether the farm is occupied at present; if so, by whom, and what fine has been paid to the landlord.
  MR. WYNDHAM: An application for reinstatement has been received in this case, and will be considered in due course by the Estates Commissioners. The evicted holding is in the hands of the landlord and, at present, is in charge of a caretaker.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieu tenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Henry Aldworth of Gerah, on the Warden Estate, has been refused reinstatement in his farm, in spite of the fact that he is next-of-kin to Patrick Dorohy, Gerah, now in America, whose permission he has for occupying this farm, and can he state the reason for such refusal; and whether the farm is at present occupied by a caretaker who is proposed to be the future tenant.
  MR. WYNDHAM: No application for reinstatement has been received from this man by the Estates Commissioners.

  Imprisonment of Roscommon County Councillor.
  MR. HAYDEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to a resolution recently passed by the Roscommon County Council, condemning the action of a local bench of magistrates in sentencing a member of the council to two short terms of imprisonment, without

  1495
  the option of a fine, on a charge for which usually a fine is imposed; whether he is aware that the charge was heard in the absence of the defendant; and, if so, whether, in view of a recent utterance of County Court Judge Adams to the same effect, he will consider the advisability of altering the law in order to give an appeal in every case from a sentence of imprisonment imposed by a petty sessions tribunal.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The defendant was convicted on two separate charges of permitting horses, his property, to be cruelly tortured by working them in an unfit state. When the case was called on the 14th May his solicitor applied for an adjournment for a fortnight, to suit the convenience of the defendant, who was unable to be present on that date. The application was granted. On the adjournment he failed to appear, and the solicitor who appeared for him on the first occasion stated he had no instructions. The principal witness for the prosecution stated it was the worst case of cruelty he had ever seen. The defendant was sentenced to two terms of imprisonment of seven days without hard labour. The presiding magistrate, in delivering judgment, observed that the sentence was the lightest possible consistent with the administration of justice. The question of assimilating the law in Ireland and England in respect of appeals is one that might be considered in the event of the introduction of legislation dealing with Petty Sessions Courts.

  Dublin Cycle Stealing Case.
  MR. MOONEY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been called to the remark's made by Mr. Drury, one of the Dublin metropolitan divisional magistrates, on the preliminary hearing of the case against the man Ferns, charged with stealing bicycles, as to the extraordinary innocence of the purchasers in purchasing expensive machines for £2 or £3; and whether, seeing that this man has now been convicted, and that counsel stated in Court that the G Division of the Dublin Metropolitan Police had fulfilled their duty, and had sent lists of all stolen bicycles to all the Royal Irish Constabulary Barracks, what steps he intends to take against
  1496
  those members of that body who have purchased stolen bicycles from the man Ferns.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Lists of the stolen bicycles were not sent to the police stations at which four of them were purchased by members of the force. The Inspector-General has made full inquiry and is satisfied that none of the constables concerned had any suspicion that they had purchased stolen property.

  Irish Board of Education—Attendance Rule.
  MR. SHEEHY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the new rule of the Board of National Education, reducing the average attendance, is yet in force; and, if so, what are its terms.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The hon. Member does not appear to have seen my replies to previous Questions on this subject, to which I have nothing at present to add.

  Belfast Valuation Appeals.
  MR. JOSEPH DEVLIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, (1) whether he has considered and determined upon the representations made last month by deputation and correspondence from the Belfast Borough Council and others to delay proceeding with the hearing of appeals against the new general valuation of the city of Belfast, (2) is he aware that some of these appeals have been since heard and decided, (3) and that a number of appellants propose to contest before the superior Courts the new principles of establishing the high valuation introduced into procedure in Ireland for the first time, (4) and whether, in view of the fact that the Select Committee on Irish Valuation has recommended a change in the tribunal for hearing appeals from the Commissioner of Valuation, he is prepared to advise that the hearing of these Belfast appeals be deferred until the recommendations of the Select Committee are carried into effect.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I have considered the representations referred to in the Question, but with the exception of that relating to the immediate operation of the

  1497
  annual revision which is now before the Law Officers I do not find anything in them to justify the postponement of the revaluation. I am aware that appeals to the Superior Courts are in contemplation, but as several cases have already been decided by the Recorder and others are awaiting his decision it is not practicable for me to interfere.
  MR. JOSEPH DEVLINasked if the right hon. Gentleman was aware that the Belfast County Council had passed a resolution declaring that if the decision were persisted in it would operate injuriously on the citizens?
  MR. WYNDHAM: If the resolution referred only to the annual revision, that is provided for; if to the larger question, there are two opinions on that.

  Case of Constable Anderson.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland on what grounds Constable Anderson was dismissed from the Irish Constabulary, and by what authority his case was inquired into when the decision to dismiss him was arrived at; on what representations was his case reconsidered; what was the tribunal which conducted the further inquiry; and on what ground and by what authority was Constable Anderson reinstated in the force.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Constable Anderson was dismissed from the force upon consideration of the evidence investigated and reported upon by a Court of Inquiry. There were three charges preferred against him, namely, (1) having improperly entered licensed premises when on duty, (2) having used obscene language to a boy, and (3) having been guilty of grossly immoral conduct with a young woman. In the opinion of the Court of Inquiry the first and third charges were, and the second charge was not, sustained. I wish to state that the Court of Inquiry was convened on the initiative of the police. A suggestion, which I have seen; that it was convened at the instance of myself, or of Sir Antony MacDonnell, is absolutely without foundation. The
  1498
  constable was removed from the force on 8th December.
  MR. DILLON: By whose authority?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I am coming to that. The members of the Royal Irish Constabulary hold office at pleasure. They can, therefore, in point of law, be dismissed arbitrarily by the Crown without reason given or cause assigned. Court; of Inquiry do not resemble either Civil Courts or Courts-Martial, but there is the closest resemblance in character and function between them and Courts of Inquiry authorised by the Army Orders for the purposes of that service. In Simmons on Court-Martial, at page 334, it is stated that "A Court of Inquiry is not in any light to be considered as a judicial body. A Court of Inquiry is rather a council than a Court, of which any officer in command may take advantage to assist him in arriving at a correct conclusion on any subject on which it may be expedient for him to be thoroughly informed." The Lord-Lieutenant's function is not confined to confirming the finding of the Court of Inquiry, or disregarding it only in those cases in which there is no legal evidence to support it. His function extends further and enables him to review the evidence, differ from the conclusions, and disregard the opinion. Fresh evidence was subsequently supplied by the solicitor who had appeared for Constable Anderson, on the third and most serious charge. A careful examination of the case in the light of the fresh evidence led me to a conviction that the evidence originally tendered, even if absolutely truthful, was consistent with the innocence of the constable. The Inspector-General considered, and I agree, that the Court returned a true verdict on the evidence before it. But a new fact was brought to light, i.e., a certificate signed by two doctors, to the effect that the young woman concerned was a virgin many months after the events dealt with in the evidence. Briefly, all turned, in my opinion, on whether the action witnessed was an attempt at seduction or consistent with innocence. After consultation with the Inspector-General, he and I came to the conclusion that the more favourable

  1499
  interpretation was at least as probable as the interpretation placed on the evidence by the Court who had not the medical certificate before them. On my advice, after I had conferred with the Inspector-General on the import of the fresh evidence, the ex-constable was reinstated in the force on the 19th March by the Lord-Lieutenant.
  MR. DILLON: On that statement I want to ask two Questions—(1) whether the fresh evidence brought forward was submitted to any tribunal before the Chief Secretary gave his decision; and (2) to point out that the Chief Secretary has not answered the very important part of the Question, "On what representation the case was reconsidered."
  MR. WYNDHAM: The case was reconsidered because representations from certain quarters—it is quite immaterial from what quarters—were made to the effect that a certificate had been sent in signed by two doctors. This certificate alone may not in the first instance have been precisely evidence, but I conferred with those who advised me on the subject—namely, the Law Officers, and I came to the conclusion, and the Inspector-General came to the conclusion, that it put altogether another complexion on the whole facts previously stated. Then the hon. Member asks a further Question as to whether there was a tribunal. No, no tribunal. An inquiry is not a Court of Law.
  MR. DILLON: I ask leave to ask two further Questions: Whether the representations to which the hon. Member refers were representations made by Members of this House, and secondly, in reversing the decision of the Constabulary Court, why he did not consider it necessary to submit the evidence on which he reversed the decision to another Court of Inquiry.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I consider that those certificates of two respectable practitioners were sufficient reasons for reconsidering he whole case. I consider whether the representations came from Members of this House or other parties is quite immaterial. Many representations on various questions came
  1500
  to me from all quarters. I tak the whole responsibility for the decision, arrived at.
  MR. DILLON: I really must press the right hon. Gentleman for an Answer to a simple Question, namely, on what ground he did not refer the fresh evidence placed before him—which I decline to accept as evidence until it is examined— why he did not refer the allegations made to him, from whatever quarter, to a fresh Court of Inquiry before he reversed the decision of the first Court?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I have answered the hon. Member. I may be right or I may be wrong, I consider that the certificate sent in by the solicitor for Anderson and signed by two respectable practitioners, was a fact upon which I was quite competent to form an opinion.
  MR. DILLON: Did you see the practitioners and examine them?
  MR. WYNDHAM: If the hon. Member can prove they do not exist and are bogus he can accuse me of an error of judgment. But I know they do exist.
  MR. DILLON: Did you see and examine them?
  MR. WYNDHAM: No.
  MR. SLOAN: May I ask who was it preferred the original charge against the constable?
  MR. WYNDHAM: Complaints reached me—
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order! The Question has been fully answered. Any fresh Questions should be put down.
  MR. LUNDONrose to put a further Question.
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order,order! I have said the Question has been fully answered.
  MR. LUNDON: My Question is very important.
  *MR. SPEAKER: I am not questioning that, but the Question on the Paper has been fully answered, and notice must be given of any further Questions.
  MR. MACVEAGH: May I ask, arising out of the Answer of the Chief Secretary—
  *MR. SPEAKER: The Question has been fully answered.
  MR. MACVEAGH: No, Sir.
  [The matter then dropped.]

  Insurance of Irish Public Buildings.
  MR. MURNAGHAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he can state whether any Government or public buildings in Ireland are insured against risks by fire; and, if so, whether they are insured with British or with Irish insurance companies; and will he state the total amounts annually paid for insurance premiums to British and Irish insurance companies respectively.
  MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: As a general rule public buildings are not insured by Government against fire, but two buildings in Ireland which are leased for public purposes are insured under the lease, one with a British and one with an Irish company. The premiums are£1 10s. and 15s. per annum respectively.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: What is the name of the Irish company?
  MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: Patriotic Insurance Company.

  Food Supply Commission.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury what are the terms of reference to the Royal Commission on the Supply of Food and Raw Materials in time of war; and whether these terms cover an inquiry into the supply of raw cotton in time of peace.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: The terms of
  1502
  reference to the Royal Commission on the Supply of Food and Raw Materials were, "To inquire into the conditions affecting the importation of food and raw material into Great Britain and Ireland and into the amount of the reserve of such supplies existing at any given period, and to advise whether it is desirable to adopt; any means in addition to the maintenance of a strong Fleet by which such supplies shall be better secured and violent fluctuations avoided."
  MR. RUNCIMAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether those terms cover an inquiry into the supply of raw cotton in time of peace.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, Sir; it is not for me to interpret the reference to the Commission. The Commission itself must do that.

  Great Britain, Russia, and Persia
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury are any negotiations being carried on between His Majesty's Government and the Government of Russia for a treaty with regard to Persia, on the same principles as those on which the recent Anglo-French Agreement was concluded, with reference to Egypt, Morocco, and Siam; has any correspondence passed on the subject; and can any Papers be laid.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The answer to my hon. friend is in the negative.

  Committee of Privileges.
  *MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury when does he propose to have a Motion made for the nomination of Members of the Committee I of Privileges appointed on the first day of the present session; and, in view of the possibility of questions of privilege arising unexpectedly and suddenly which might with advantage be referred by the House to that Committee, can he undertake that this nomination shall shortly be proceeded with.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The House will perhaps recollect that my desire has been that, when any question of privilege

  1503
  arises, we should have some machinery for at once and automatically referring it to a Select Committee, and that only after such Select Committee has considered and reported on the subject the House should, if it thinks fit, take up the question. I have not been able to carry that principle into effect, but I think the suggestion of my hon. friend (the reference of such questions to the Committee of Privileges appointed on the first day of the session), although it does not go the whole length, is in that direction, and I propose, therefore, to put down the names of the Committee referred to.
  *MR GIBSON BOWLES: It was my intention to carry out the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman as he now state it.

  Money Resolutions.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he anticipates any further legislation this session involving new expenditure; if so, whether he will undertake to lay before the House, when the money Resolution is proposed in Committee of Ways and Means, an estimate of the amount of such expenditure; and further, whether he will, in future, place the terms of the Resolution on the Paper so that they may be known to Members before the Resolution is moved.
  ME. A. J. BALFOUR: I think experience has shown that it is impossible to ask a Minister in charge of a Bill in which there happens to be a money clause to give any estimate, worth having, to the House as to the actual expense the clause may involve. If we are to alter the existing system of dealing with money proposals in a Bill it should be in the direction of simplifying or abolishing that procedure rather than of making it more elaborate. It would not, therefore, be expedient to depart from the immemorial practice of the House.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: Will there be any further legislation involving new expenditure?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I cannot give any pledge as to legislation this session.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I wish to ask about Thursday's arrangements and the main business for next week; I believe there is no great race meeting to necessitate the taking of Bills of small importance.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am sorry the right hon. Gentleman regards the Scotch Education Bill as a matter of such small importance that it requires an apology for taking it. I will state next week's business to-morrow. With regard to Thursday next the postponement of the Vote for the salary of the Secretary of State for War immediately after he has made his statement on proposals with regard to Army reorganisation, would be inconvenient to those who desire to speak on the proposals and to ask Questions concerning them. But I promised the right hon. Gentleman not to ask the Committee to come to a decision next Thursday. If the discussion does not occupy the whole evening Votes 9 and 10 of the Army Estimates will be taken.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the desirability of continuing the debate on the Foreign Office Vote? We have not yet discussed the Sugar Convention.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I cannot promise to take the Foreign Office Vote on Thursday so as to allow further discussion on the Sugar Bounty question. That Vote is never concluded until towards the close of the session, because important questions may always arise.
MR. JOHN REDMOND: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the widespread anxiety in Ireland for the discussion of the Labourers Bill. Will he take it at any early day?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am most anxious to forward the Irish Labourers Bill and the other Irish measures to which the Government is pledged, but cannot at present arrange when they shall be taken.
MR. JOHN REDMOND: The pledge of last session when the portions of the

1505
Land Bill dealing with this subject were deleted to facilitate its passing will not be fulfilled by postponement of legislation till the dog days.
MR. WHITLEY: Has the right hon. Gentleman any statement to make with regard to the Finance Bill? He promised one.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have said I will make a statement to-morrow as to the business for next week.

EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Order read.
*MR. SPEAKER: I have to deal with the two Instructions on the Paper. Each of them proposes to extend the Bill to England and Wales. But legislation upon Scottish Education has always been upon different lines, and regulated by different Acts to those relating to English Education. The Instructions are therefore out of order.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]
Clause 3:—
MR. THOMAS SHAWmoved that the consideration of the clause be postponed. He said he did not do so in any sense because he was hostile to the measure, but the fact was that since the Bill had been read a second time it had been very considerably toned down by the Government. Clause 3 provided for the creation of school board districts in Scotland in lieu of the existing parochial school boards. On the Second Reading of the Bill it was explained by more than one hon. Member that they were particularly anxious upon the subject of the area for which the school boards in Scotland were to be established. There was a strong feeling among them that nothing should be done by the enlargement of the area which would destroy the local interest in regard to education. From that point of view he looked with some interest to the proposals of the Government, and he found that it was
1506
intended to move the deletion of Clauses 20, 21, 22, and 23, which dealt with the appointment of managing committees in the local parochial areas. The point was whether that proposal did not substantially mean that local control over education was to be ended for ever in Scotland. Personally, he was quite sure that that was not the desire of the Government, and he proposed to ask the Secretary for Scotland if he would be good enough in connection with these proposed deletions to explain to the House what were really the intentions of the Government. The opinion of large sections of the House was that if they were to destroy local contact with education in the various parochial areas it would be a serious mischief to the cause of education.
He might say in regard to Clause 3 that the districts which it was proposed to create by it might be divided into three classes. First, there were the workable, sizable districts; secondly, there were the unworkable districts in point of size; and thirdly, there were the unworkable districts in point of population. In regard to the latter two classes he proposed to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to one or two illustrations. For instance, let them take the districts which were unworkable in point of size. There was Sutherlandshire, which was one of the largest areas in Scotland, and apparently the school board district in that case was to cover the entire county. Now the area comprised 1,296,000 acres, there was in it a population of over 20,000, and the valuation was £93,000, and it was manifest that if Clause 3 of the Bill were passed in the form in which it now stood, and if no further provision were made for securing the representation of local opinion, Sutherlandshire would be substantially unrepresented in school board matters. There would, in fact, be no popular element at all. Then he came to Ross and Cromarty. Mid-Ross gave them another illustration of the difficulty of dealing with this subject. There they had a population of 13,000, and an area of 670,000 acres, a district which they would see was absolutely unworkable from that point of view. Now he would come to instances of the unworkable

1507
character of districts in point of population. The first case to which he would ask attention was that of the Middle Ward of Lanark. There they had a population of 179,000. The Middle Ward was the centre of a very important industrial district, and if the whole area was to be limited under Clause 3 to be managed by one board without any arrangement for devolution there would be an utter absence of local control. He thought the House was entitled to know what were the intentions of the Government in this matter. Then there was another matter which was not perhaps strictly relevant, but it was also important, and that was, what was to be the attitude of the Government in regard to payment of the expenses of local representatives? He could understand how that question might not arise very sharply if local management committees were to be kept up, but the Government had cut four or five clauses out of their Bill-clauses dealing with local management committees, and therefore it was very essential to know what was to be substituted for them.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the consideration of Clause 3 be postponed."—(.Mr. Thomos Shaw.)
THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY,)said he had no objection whatever to the hon. and learned Gentleman making that Motion in order to ask specific questions, but he thought the House would see that so far from making out any case for the postponement of the consideration of Clause 3, his arguments had accentuated the absolute necessity of settling the clause before they proceeded with any other portion of the Bill. The hon. and learned Gentleman had made a statement to the effect that since the Second Reading of the Bill it had been recast to a very considerable extent by the Government. But he would like to remind the House of what he said on the Second Reading. They would remember that on that occasion, speaking of the management clauses, he said the desire was to secure the maintenance of local interest in the schools, and to ascertain what was the general opinion
1508
of Scotland in regard to this question He had had a good many representations made to him on the subject, and he had gathered that the general feeling was in favour of the whole matter being left in the hands of the elected school boards to make the arrangements for proper local management. That was the purport of the Amendments which he had placed upon the Paper. He had thought it convenient to put down in his own name Amendments which would carry out that view, although they embodied the words of Amendments of which notice had been given by other hon. Members, as he thought it would be more convenient to the House to know which Amendments the Government were prepared to accept in that matter. As he had said, he had received innumerable representations on this question, and the hon. and learned Member might take it from him that to the best of his judgment the very great majority of those representations were in favour of trusting to the school boards to see that local managers were provided. There was absolutely no intention on his part to suggest that there should be no local managers, and he believed himself that the school boards were the last people in the world not to remember that local management was necessary. Therefore, he had put down on the Paper Amendments the whole object of which was to indicate that he was prepared to accept Amendments put down by certain other hon. Members. That, he believed, was the only pertinent question which the hon. Member had asked him. Of course, he could not say precisely what the decision of the Government was to be upon other matters until he had had the advantage, which he hoped to have, of gathering the opinion of the House generally in the course of the discussions. He, therefore, trusted that they would he allowed to proceed with the consideration of Clause 3, which fixed the educational districts, without any further debate.
MR. BUCHANANsaid that on Friday last a considerable number of very important Amendments were put on the Paper by the Secretary for Scotland. Those Amendments Clause 3, and substantially

1509
altered the whole framework of the Bill. There were other Amendments of equal importance affecting the managing committees. The Secretary for Scotland was aware that one general objection taken to the Bill was that it largely decreased the power of the local authorities, and at the same time decreased also the influence which local opinion might possibly exercise in the management of education throughout the length and breadth of Scotland. Putting it shortly, hon. Members were afraid that owing to that idea, owing to the proposal for co-ordination in primary education, the influence of localities was being sacrificed for the more remote interest of secondary and technical education. It was clear that the Amendments which had been put on the Paper by the Secretary for Scotland were in a direction which a large number of Scotch Members viewed with considerable suspicion and dislike, and they wanted a general statement as to the consequences of the batch of Amendments which had been put down, because they desired to know how far they went in the direction of further centralisation, and of the diminution of local popular control. The right hon. Gentleman had told them that he had merely put them on the Paper as signifying his agreement with Amendments which had been put down by other Members of the House in a similar direction, but he would like the right hon. Gentleman to inform him how it would have been possible for hon. Members who agreed with the Bill as it originally was drafted to have indicated that agreement with it. They could not have put Amendments down on the Paper, and, therefore, he did not see how the right hon. and learned Gentleman could have gathered the real feeling of the House on the subject. Though some of them might be content, with regret, to allow the serious diminution of popular control, he did not think they were prepared to go to the extent suggested in the Amendments in the direction of centralising the general educational control in councils or large districts in Scotland.
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid he thought that the Secretary for
1510
Scotland had shown undue querulousness in regard to this Motion.
MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: I was not querulous, all I wanted to point out was that I could not see any possible use in postponing the consideration of the clause.
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid that the right hon. Gentleman had put down last Friday a number of Amendments which constituted a considerable limitation of the Bill and he had absolutely excised a number of the clauses. He had told them he did so in consequence of representations he had had from Members of the House and from numbers of local authorities. They were quite willing to accept that statement, but surely that was a sufficient reason for their asking for further information as to the real intentions of the Government before they proceeded with the consideration of that clause. The right hon. Gentleman ought not to grumble at having an opportunity at this stage of explaining what he proposed to do. There was one point upon which they certainly desired further explanations. The present Act made it compulsory upon school boards to create local bodies of management; that power was now to disappear altogether.
MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: Under the original scheme of the Bill it was proposed that in the enumerated districts there should be the old faculty clause borrowed from the Act of 1872 allowing them to appoint managers if they chose, but in the non-enumerated districts there was the necessity for appointing managers who were of necessity to a certain extent composed of members of parish councils. He gathered that the general opinion was in favour of giving the new school boards a free hand. It had been a question of draftsmanship, but the four clauses which it was proposed to omit had been, as a matter of fact, put into one general clause, giving a faculty to all districts to appoint managers.
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid that was precisely the information they wanted to elicit. He took it that the amended Clause 19 embodied practically

1511
the whole of the other clauses which were now to be omitted.
MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: Yes.

Question put, and negatived.
MR. CALDWELLthen moved as an Amendment to Clause 3 to leave out all after the word "for" in line 16 down to the end of line 3 in page 2 with the view of inserting the words "every parish in Scotland." He said the object of the Amendment was to raise at this stage the question of changing the existing parish area and substituting for it the areas fixed in the Bill. He quite admitted that there had been hitherto a very great consensus of opinion in Scotland openly expressed in favour of wider areas. But if they went more deeply into the views of the community they would find that there were many in Scotland who objected altogether to the effect of the change made by abolishing school boards and establishing wider areas in their place. He had not had an opportunity on the Second Reading of speaking on the Bill, and therefore, he took that, the first opportunity, of expressing his views in regard to this question of dealing with the existing school board districts. He would not be daunted from expressing his views on the question by any feeling that probably there might be an overwhelming opinion against him on the subject. He thought he could show some very good reasons for having the parish area continued in Scotland. The parish area had existed for centuries. It existed long before the Reformation, and it had continued to be not merely the educational area, but also the parochial board of management area. Everything relating to the social life of the people was involved in the parish area in Scotland. Then again, they found that the parish area was the area which, having worked for centuries, had become almost like a family peculiarity of itself. It had its own hereditary characteristics, and they would find in Scotland that the people in one parish differed from the people in another. They would find distinct characteristics belonging to each, because of that hereditary state which had grown up for centuries. Let them
1512
take what had occurred in the matter of education. The parent had generally assisted in the preliminary work of educating his child, and it was not infrequently the case that before the child was sent to school it was able to read a chapter from the Bible. Then there had been a close relationship between the parent and the teacher, and the teacher, knowing the parent, took great interest in the child, while the parent on his part gave assistance in seeing that the home lessons were learned. In England they did not find anything of the sort. The parents did not take a personal interest in the education of their children. On the contrary, they sent the children to school when they were about three years of age, and they seemed to consider that it was the duty of the teacher alone to look after the educational training. When the Act of 1872 was passed, the principle upon which it was based was the continuation of the parish system of education which had worked so well for centuries in Scotland. Therefore it was that school boards were established for every parish in Scotland so as to keep up the local interest in the work. As the parish increased in size, of course there could not be that close intercourse between parent and teacher which had existed in the olden times when the population was scantier, and so school boards were elected and the parents secured their representation on that body. School boards, it would be remembered, were elected for every parish, and that was the constitutional method adopted to secure the representation of the parents in the management of the schools, and in the communication with the teachers. That was the essence of the Act of 1872 which it was now proposed to displace. The great secret of success in Scotch education had been the close relationship between the parent and the school, and it was in that respect that he feared this Bill would fail.
Then there was the question of compulsory attendance in Scotland. There was a feeling that it was the local men, representing the community, who enforced compulsory attendance. If they withdrew the influence of the parent in the parish school, as the Bill proposed,

1513
the parents would cease to have that special interest in the school which they had under the existing system. The Bill proposed that so many parishes should be grouped together, and that the management of all the schools should be centred in one authority. That would immediately loosen the control, attachment, and interests of the parents of a parish in the parish school. Not only that, but it would loosen and weaken the interest of the ratepayers in the management of the schools. Under the Bill, a parish would not have the management of its own schools. It would be assessed as before, and pay very much the same amount; but the schools would be managed by a combination in which the direct representative of the parish might only be one in six; and he might be out-voted by his colleagues in a matter which concerned his parish and his parish only. At present, the parishes had Home Rule as far as education was concerned; and each parish might travel as fast or as slow as it liked without being trammelled in the slightest degree by the views of outsiders. He looked upon the Bill as a retrograde measure from first to last; and he believed, its effect would be to weaken the interest both of the ratepayers and the parents with reference to the parish schools. It might be said that the direct representative of the parish would have a part in the management of schools in other parishes; but what consolation was it to a man to know that the affairs of his parish were to be managed by others and that he would have a share in managing the affairs of other parishes? That would be no consolation.
Then with referene to the salaries of teachers, supposing there was a school which was anxious to progress, which was different from the schools surrounding it, and which was willing to pay for increased educational power, progress in future would not depend on the representative of that particular school but on the five outsiders who were on the board of management; and, as they would be taxed for any increase, they would not see the benefit of increasing the grant from the common fund for the benefit of a school in one parish only. The
1514
tendency would be to hamper the schools who wished to get forward. It was also said that one effect of the large area would be the promotion of teachers; but where was the hope of preferment? It might be that there would be hope of preferment for the lazy man, who had no ability, and who would be promoted automatically by rotation. But, from the educational point of view, that would not be as convenient as the existing system. At the present moment, any teacher in Scotland could stand as a candidate for a position under any school board. There was no restriction or limit, and the result was that men of ability had the whole country open to them; and, in that way, talent was able to exercise its due influence. But what would happen if the Bill were passed? Every school board would be a close corporation, and every district would have to promote its own teachers; and, if any outsider were appointed, he would have to start at the bottom and work his way upwards. Look at the position in which a school, willing to pay for education, would be placed. If the position of chief teacher were vacant, the school board would say that the next man should be promoted. The parish might say that they did not want that man, that they wanted to select a teacher for themselves, and not a man who was merely promoted because he was there. After all, promotion was no test of merit. But, under the Bill, the parish could not select a teacher for itself, and, therefore, the parish would lose all interest in its schools if the management were given over to a majority who did not represent the parish at all.
When it was known that an Education Bill was to be introduced for Scotland, there was a great deal of uneasiness, having regard to what had happened in England, lest the school boards should be abolished because they were not rating authorities. But the conditions were exactly the same in Scotland as in England. The school board sent the precept to the local rating authority, and that authority collected the money. It was said by the Prime Minister that they could not have a school board as the education authority, because it was not representative of the ratepayers; and in the case of England it was laid down that

1515
the rating authority and the managers should be the same persons. Surely a principle such as that should apply to the whole of the United Kingdom. Yet the Government had decided that the school boards should be abolished in England, but should continue in Scotland. The explanation was that the Government had to advance arguments to suit the exigencies of the moment, which had no foundation whatever in principle. Under the Bill there would be this anomaly. The rating authority would be the parish, and the managing authority would be another body. His experience, however, was that such matters in this House were not decided by argument, but by a Party vote in the division lobbies. The larger area would not have that peculiar acquaintance with the life and social conditions of the people as would the parish area. In the case of a district, there were lighting, drainage, and public health questions to be considered. The reason why the district was given charge of the public health was that experience showed that in the smaller areas complaints were made against interested parties on the management by the sanitary inspectors; and it was felt that there should be independent control. Those were matters of mere pecuniary consideration, but when dealing with education they were not dealing with finance alone. There was parental control to be considered, and in the parish area they were in much closer touch with parental control and everything that concerned the welfare of the parish, as a parish.
The Secretary for Scotland's reason for a wider area was that he viewed the student passing through the elementary school to the secondary and on to the University, but everybody who knew Scotland knew that education was divided into three divisions. There was the parish school proper, which belonged to the old parish system, which was conducted by the parish school boards under State aid. The second division was the secondary school education, in which they had a new system altogether with a curriculum of its own worked out for years under a system of its own, and then there were the Universities. They were three entirely different divisions, and it did not follow that the men who
1516
were able to manage these different schools could manage the whole. The men who dealt with the Universities were quite distinct and different from those who dealt with the secondary and parish schools. Why did not they unify the whole system? They did not attempt to do that, and they must have a separate establishment to manage each scholastic body. It must also be remembered that; the parish school was not an elementary school as understood in England. In every parish school in Scotland there had, to be some secondary education at the, top. That was so under the old parochial system, under which they were able to prepare pupils to go to the Universities. That was the ideal for which they ought to strive. They should recognise that every parish school taught some secondary education at the top. He did not say they should teach secondary subjects on secondary lines. When pupils went to a secondary school they went for a different class of training, but on the other hand, in the parish schools, the secondary education at the top was much better taught.
There was also the fact that the parish desired that the children of that parish; should be taught in the parish school. If the children lived twenty miles away from the secondary school they would have to board near by, and when it came to boarding it mattered little whether the school was twenty, fifty, or one hundred miles away. The smattering of secondary education which a boy got in the parish school in any subject was a great benefit. It gave him a stimulus after he left the parish school to continue in that particular branch of instruction. The whole basis of this Bill was that the Government desired to put the secondary and elementary schools under one management, which was a great mistake. Education was stimulated as much by competition as anything else, and if they took the whole education, elementary and secondary, of a large district and took out of it all competition by having it managed by a body half-heartedly elected by six different parishes, the principle of secondary education would fall practically into the hands of teachers and officials, which was a thing to be avoided as much as possible. In Scotland they had 1,000 parishes, which meant 1,000 interests

1517
each striving against the other for the interest of its own particular area; each with a department of secondary education at the top of the parish school, the effect of which was that the secondary schools in Scotland were undersold by what was provided by the secondary department of the school board. That was the practice adopted by the Board of Education, and the Secretary for Scotland now wanted to reverse the policy and to keep down the elementary schools and raise up the secondary schools which the parish schools had been responsible for keeping down. The result of such a policy would be to drain the parish schools of their best pupils in order to put them into the secondary schools, and when the best boys of a school were withdrawn the tone of that school was spoiled. When they went to a school and found the head boys dons in the play-ground, it gave children even of three years of age a stimulus to go to that school and become dons at some future period. The result of it all would be a distinct cleavage and the parish school, which ought to be an efficient principle, would be lowered from what it had been.
Upon the question of areas, the parish area lent itself to the parish ideal. Secondary education lent itself to a larger area, but even secondary education could not be confined to mere territorial limits, men went from all parts of Scotland to the Universities. They could not maintain secondary education within the limits of one county. Let them take the county of Renfrew, which went up to the borders of Glasgow. People in Renfrew would not think of going for secondary education to Paisley or Greenock. There was a special reason for treating the education of Scotland as a whole. The Secretary for Scotland himself did not think there was to be any tax levied for secondary education in Scotland, and assuming that he got the funds the Bill asked for they would be provided out of the money provided for Scotland as a whole. The matter could not be worked territorially, either by the county or by the district, because secondary education did not lend itself to the same kind of arrangement as was best suited to the parochial schools. In the opinion of the Govern-
1518
ment the scheme of the Bill was undoubtedly vital, but he felt bound to enter his protest against the substitution of the district for the parish, being convinced that in the future working of the system many difficulties would occur and much heartburning be caused if the parishes were deprived of the control of their schools. He begged to move.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line l6, to leave out all words from the word for' down to the word 'Aberdeen' in page 2, line 3, in order to insert the words' every parish in Scotland' instead there-of."—(Mr. Caldwell.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAYsaid the Amendment was really an attempt to abolish the forward movement embodied in the Bill by keeping to the parochial unit for the education authority. He did not think that many words were necessary in support of the principle of the Bill. There was an almost universal consensus of opinion in Scotland that the time had come when, while fully admitting the usefulness of the parochial arrangement in the past, it was necessary in the higher conception of education which now prevailed to take a larger district than the parish area. That was absolutely necessary in the interests of secondary education. Once that was admitted, and admitting also the general proposition on which the Bill was based—namely, that it was desirable to have one authority for all classes of education, the case was at once proved against the Amendment. The hon. Member had tried to show that the scheme of the Bill was against the interese of the teaching profession. In that matter the teaching profession might be trusted to look after their own interest, and so far as this part of the Bill was concerned there were no more strenuous approvers of it than the recognised exponents of teaching, and he was content to believe that in this matter the members of the teaching profession were better judges than the hon. Member of their own interests. It was unnecessary to recapitulate the arguments which he used on the Second Reading of the Bill; he believed he was backed by the almost

1519
unanimous approval of those who had the cause of education at heart; therefore he should oppose the Amendment.
MR. AINSWORTHsaid that while the Committee were on the subject of the importance of the parish as the unit of education administration, he desired to refer to one point of which he believed it would be necessary for the Bill to take some notic—namely, parishes on the west coast of Scotland where an island constituted a parish, and where it would be almost an impossibility for representatives to attend meetings of the larger district either on the mainland or on another island. How education was to be continued in places of that kind without some system analogous to the present parish system he failed to see. As an instance, the Island of Three might be taken as an example. There was there a large population, and education was a matter of supreme importance to the inhabitants, but it would be an absolute impossibility for the representative of that island to attend, with anything like regularity, education meetings on the Island of Mull which would probably be the district of which it would form part. He hoped, therefore, that if the present parish system was to be departed from the right hon. Gentleman would be able to devise some system by which the cases to which he referred could be properly dealt with.
MR. BUCHANANsaid the Amendment before the Committee raised a question which went to the very root of the proposal of the Government:—namely, whether they should adapt the development of secondary and technical education to the existing system of elementary education with the parish as the area—a system which had worked with conspicuous success—or sacrifice the interests of elementary education to the possible future advantages of secondary and technical education. The Secretary for Scotland had adopted the latter view, and had practically answered the contention of the hon. Member for Mid-Lanark by saying that if the Committee agreed with the doctrine of co-ordination there was no case for the Amendment. Much more proof was
1520
really wanted of the salutary and effective nature of this doctrine of co-ordination, and the Secretary for Scotland would have acted more wisely if he had looked at the practical advantages which Scotland had enjoyed for the last thirty years under the existing system rather than to the prospect of possible advantages under one authority, more distant and less popular, which would look after both elementary and secondary education. But one could not fail to recognise that since the introduction of the Bill those who had spoken out on the subject had, in the main, supported the principle of the larger area, and he admitted that it was out of the question to ask the Government to alter the Bill so substantially as to base it upon a different principle. Members were entitled, however, to take the present opportunity of entering a protest, or, at any rate, of expressing their regret that the system, under which the parochial authorities who for thirty years had not only efficiently discharged the great work of elementary education, but had also done everything within their power to advance the cause of higher education, was not to be maintained and have grafted upon it some new organisation for secondary education, but was to be supplanted by a new system which might be good enough for secondary education, but which would certainly be less efficient for elementary education.
DR. MACNAMARAthought the case of the islands was very well met indeed. He noticed that the Island of Cumbrae with 187 children was to have a locally autonomous authority, and it was certainly not advisable to go lower down than that. As to the Amendment before the Committee, he should feel bound to vote against it. He admitted the great work done by the small boards and the necessity of keeping the people in touch with the schools, but the scheme of the hon. Member was educational Home Rule run mad. In the county of Aberdeen there were ninety-two school boards; Forfar had sixty, and Lanark fifty, while in Peebles there was a school board for a village of which the total population was ninety-eight, of whom probably fifteen or twenty would be children. Why in such a

1521
case as that there should be an autonomous body, with a triennial election, involving various expenses, amounting probably to a 5d. rate, he could not understand. Much of the money raised for education had been spent in the unnecessary multiplication of purely official machinery. The scheme of the Bill was a very fair one, though he agreed that Sutherland would probably require some division, and that in other cases amalgamation rather than division would be required, and he would oppose the Amendment.
MR. CALDWELLsaid that the Secretary for Scotland had quietly stated that, inasmuch as the Bill went on the principle of co-ordination while the Amendment was inconsistent with that principle, therefore nothing more need be said against the Amendment. A more ridiculous assertion was never made. For the right hon. Gentleman calmly to assume that there could be any real coordination between secondary education and the parish school instruction was altogether absurd. The proposal of the Bill really meant that the whole education of Scotland was to be regulated in the interests of about 20,000 children.
SIR J. FERGUSSONstated that the County Council of Ayrshire was unanimous in thinking it desirable that the whole county should be managed by one authority, and there was an Amendment on the Paper to give effect to that view. He thought the Committee should know that the ideas of the hon. Member for Mid-Lanark were not widely accepted in Scotland.
MR. THOMAS SHAW,while welcoming the assistance of the hon. Member for North Camberwell, reminded him that there were larger islands than the Island of Cumbrae. For instance, there was the Island of Lewis, and what would the hon. Member say if 404,000 acres with a widely scattered population were placed under one board. It was to meet such cases as that that the present Amendment had been moved. The cast-iron method of districts was just as bad as the cast-iron method of parochial areas. In his opinion what ought to have been done was to have kept the parochial divisions, and to have made provision for
1522
linking them up into districts having regard to the convenience of railway and sea communication and to the provision of secondary and technical education at certain centres in the district. On the merits of the Amendment itself, however, he was bound to accept the Bill in favour of districts, on the assumption that some provision would be made for sub-dividing districts in the case of huge extent of territory or large masses of population.
MR. H. C. RICHARDSsaid it was now found that the hon. Member for North Camberwell, who strongly opposed co-ordination in London, held different views where Scotland was concerned. The remarks of the hon. Member for Argyllshire had made it clear that it would be a rank injustice to compel representatives from the Western Islands to go to the mainland to carry out their educational duties, and therefore, if a division were taken, he should support the Amendment.
MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAYsaid the hon. Member for Finsbury was leaving the port of London, which he knew, for districts with which he was not familiar, and he would remind him that the Island of Mull was not on the mainland.
Question put, and agreed to.
MR. CROMBIEwho had placed on the Paper the following Amendment—
"In Clause 3, page 1, line 17, after the word 'each,' to insert the words 'district, or where a district is deemed by the Secretary for Scotland too large or too small for the purposes of this Act, each part of a district, or group"—
said that as the Secretary for Scotland had put down an Amendment which practically covered the same ground, he would simply state the scope of his own proposal. The principle with which the Government had started was that there should be one area and one authority for both primary and secondary education. That might be a good or a bad principle, but, as the Government had adopted it, the parish at once disappeared as being too small an area for secondary education. The Government were therefore limited to either the district or the county as the area, and in deciding upon the district he

1523
thought they had shown a certain consideration for the susceptibilities of those who wished to see not too large an area. The district, however, was open to criticism. Some district, no doubt, should be sub-divided, but on the other hand there were many districts which would be too small, and he desired to express the hope that the right hon. Gentleman would adhere to his own Amendment rather than accept the views which were put forward by some of his supporters. If they adopted the county as the education area they would require a scheme with elasticity of some sort. He thought it would be better to adopt the smaller area and work up afterwards, rather than adopt the larger one and work downwards. He approved the Amendment of which the Secretary for Scotland had given notice, and as it would be more convenient to take the discussion on it he would not move his own Amendment.
*MR.MACONOCHIEmoved an Amendment on Clause 3 providing that the county should be the administrative area for education purposes. He said he had been careful to get all the information he could on this subject from his constituents, and he had gone thoroughly into the matter. If the county area were adopted, the work could be delegated to parishes in such a way as to admit of the development of education on the lines carried on hitherto. It was contended by some that in the cases of Ross-shire and Inverness-shire this proposal would not be of advantage. Speaking from experience of these counties he considered that if they adopted the county area the sparsely populated districts would get the benefit of being in the larger rateable area. In the Islands of Barra and South Uist the whole of the school board rate was paid by the proprietors and a few large farmers, and the amount collected would not in his opinion be sufficient to give to the inhabitants there the necessary provision for technical and secondary instruction which the Scotch Members desired to give them. So far as Ross-shire was concerned, it was contended that Stornoway, or the Island of Lewis, with a population of 25,000, should be dealt with as a separate school board area.
MR. WEIR: The population is 30,000.
*MR. MACONOCHIEsaid that might be so. If they had the advantage of the assessable area of the whole county they might be able without any expense to themselves to have a secondary school in the Island of Lewis, whereas if they made the island a school board area it was so poor that they would not be able to have that advantage He believed the valuation of the island had gone down 50 per cent, in the last twenty-five years. He begged to move.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 17, to leave out the words 'districts of.'"—(Mr Maconochie.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
*SIR CHARLES RENSHAWsaid there had been some discussion on the question of the desirability of maintaining the old parochial system of instruction in Scotland. Really and truly the question involved in this clause was not the question of parishes. It was the question whether or not districts of counties, or counties themselves, were to be the units in which in future education in Scotland was to be administered. There were three questions to be considered under this Amendment. In the first place there was the proposal of the Bill which was the hard and fast line of the local government district as the area for education purposes. On the Second Reading of the Bill he stated what in his opinion was the objection to that proposal. The second proposal was that now before the Committee, namely, that they should take the county as the education area of the new school board, and that, as was proposed in a subsequent Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, the Secretary for Scotland, if school boards wished it, should have power to divide counties into special education areas. The third proposal was that they should take the district as in the Bill and give certain powers to the Secretary for Scotland to combine or divide districts. He thought all who had considered this from the

1525
point of view of the counties were grateful to the Secretary for Scotland for having placed on the Paper the Amendment standing in his name. He did not agree with the criticism of his hon. friend the Member for the Border Burghs as to the unkindness on the part of the Government in putting their Amendments on the Paper. He had often heard objections from the Opposition that Amendments were sprung upon them at the last moment without notice. They were under a great debt of gratitude to the Government for letting the House know beforehand what Amendments they would propose on the Bill. He hoped that what the Government had done in this matter would materially contribute to the rapid progress of the Bill in Committee. His right hon. friend had given notice of a proposal to take the district as the area and to give power to county councils, town councils, or school boards to apply to him that the whole county might for education purposes be made one area. He himself would prefer very much to take from the start the larger area. He believed it would be better from the educational point of view. The county areas had practically been for sometime the working units, so far as secondary and technical education was concerned, under the limited powers devolved upon them in connection with technical education, which had been in operation for twelve or fourteen years. For that reason if for no other it would be desirable to continue the county as the unit. If they once gave up the parochial principle they would have to establish some other system of management. His hon. friend the Member for the Border Burghs did not like the system proposed by the Amendment in the name of the Secretary for Scotland so much as the proposal in the Bill. For his own part he infinitely preferred the Amendment to the proposal in the Bill. By setting up school boards for the larger areas he was convinced that they would get a better class of educationalists to serve upon them. In the Education Bill for England the county was established as the education area.
MR. BRYCE: A very bad thing it is.
*SIR CHARLES RENSHAWsaid he did not think his right hon. friend quarrelled with the largeness of the area. The English counties were infinitely larger than the Scotch counties, and if the Government were able to entrust to the county councils of England reponsibility for elementary, technical, and higher education surely they could do so with still greater confidence to the counties of Scotland. He submitted that from another point of view it was very desirable that the county should be the area. Under the old system there were 940 different school boards in Scotland. Under the proposal in the Bill there would be 111 established. If they adopted the county area for the thirty-three counties, and if they sub-divided, a few of them for special reasons, there would probable not be more than fifty or sixty school boards in the whole of Scotland. There would, therefore, be a great economy in the administrative work in Scotland.
There was another feature of the Bill which he should like to call attention to. Curiously enough the large and populous counties of Lanark and Renfrew suffered under the Bill from areas proposed to be established. He could not understand what objection there could be to the larger area of the county being adopted for the school boards in the county when they were going to establish so large an area as that proposed by the Bill for Glasgow. They were going to sweep in Govan which did not want to go. Pollokshaws was being taken out of his own county—he was afraid not unwillingly on the part of Pollokshaws itself which was the centre for a certain amount of education work and swept into the enormous district established for Glasgow. Leith was to be sacrificed to Edinburgh. He would not say that from an educational point of view that might not be an advantage; but if these large areas were to be established in the case of Edinburgh and Leith, and in the case of Glasgow—the latter including Govan, Rutherglen, and other places embracing more than 1,000,000 of population in its area—he could not understand why there was any hesitation whatever in taking the county as the area outside the enumerated areas. If the county were

1527
adopted as the limit it could in special that local opinion on educational subjects cases be cut down into special educational demanded much closer attention than in districts, and they would be able, he believed, to get best educational results. Therefore he would support the Amendment of the hon. Member.
*MR. BIGNOLDsaid he understood that under the provisions of this Bill there would be a pooling of the 1890 and 1892 grants, amounting to £500,000 a year. Some of this money fell to the share of the Orkney Islands. The Amendment which the Secretary for Scotland had now laid upon the Table would be welcomed in Orkney because it supplied a power of combination of local government districts which was much needed there: without it the children of the northern islands who would have to come over to the mainland division for secondary and technical education would be shut out. He trusted that the Government would grant an allowance of a viaticum to enable the children to travel to Kirkwall. He thought that the Amendment practically embodied the desires of the inhabitants of the islands.
MR. HALDANEsaid that his was a new matter altogether, and had been approached without, consideration of the existing circumstances in Scotland. There might be much to be said for the proposal of the hon. Gentleman opposite who contended that it was inconsistent to adopt one principle for England and another for Scotland. But in Scotland there was a set of circumstances with which the Government had to deal which was very different from that in England. In England the school boards only covered less than half the whole area, the rest being devoted to voluntary schools with educational appliances which were not of a satisfactory character. There was no organisation of educational opinion in England such as in Scotland, and accordingly, rightly or wrongly, the Government took the county as the educational area. But in Scotland the position was quite different. The whole country was covered with school board, and right through Scotland there was a highly organised educational opinion. It was, therefore, impossible for the Government to leave out of sight
1528
that local opinion on educational subjects demanded much closer attention then in England. The Government had taken the course which might not be altogether logical, and had adopted local government districts of the county which were not fashioned primarily for educational purposes; but one could not help feeling that in so doing the Government paid I attention to the feeling of Scotland as a whole. He knew that there were some people in Scotland who felt strongly in favour of the county area; but he knew parts of the country where it would be impossible. He himself lived in the county of Perth—an enormous county—and the result of taking the comity council as the governing body would be that the administration of all education would tend to fall into the hands of the lairds. What was wanted was that the local education, mind should be represented, and that the men who were keen on education should have a chance of getting on to the school boards. He knew that in Lanarkshire where education was highly organised, the condition of the whole educational work under the county council was beyond praise, and the county area might be started there without much difficulty. But take other counties, such as Fife. He had been told that it would be simply impossible to hope that the best educationalists could give up a whole day and take a long journey to attend meetings of the education committee. Though criticism might be offered on the logic of the Government proposal, he thought it was best.
*COLONEL DENNY (Kilmarnock Burghs)said that the hon. Gentleman had perhaps overlooked the fact that there were other Amendments on the Paper—one by himself—that the Secretary for Scotland should have power by order, if he considered it in the public interest, to divide a county into educational districts; so that even if this Amendment were passed, it would not necessarily mean that the county authority should invariably be the county school board. In the one case the county was divided by order and in the other the districts were aggregated. On the whole he thought the former was the better.
DR MACNAMARAsaid that the hon. Member for Renfrewshire used an argument from the English Education Act that the county area should be set up as the education authority. His experience of the working of the English Education Act was that nothing could be worse for the administration of education than the county area. Take the case of Devonshire; it was administered from the centre of Exeter, and the experience was that the conduct of education was falling into the hands of the leisured class and of the paid officials. Some day or other some Government would have to decentralise these huge areas. It was impossible that the administration of the education of the country should be carried on permanently by a bureaucracy. He was as much against microscopic administrative bodies as against large ones. In half a dozen of the counties of Scotland it would be physically impossible for the school boards to be representative of the people. Inverness-shire had an area of 4,200 square miles, Argyllshire 3,200 square miles, and Ross and Cromarty 3,000 square miles. How was it possible to administer primary education in such large areas as these with efficiency? The experience of the Education Act of 1902 was all against the county area. Then there was the question of the payment of the travelling expenses of members of the school committees. The Government refused it in England and he supposed they would refuse it for Scotland, though the Scotch people got many concessions which the English people did not. He hoped the Secretary for Scotland would not listen to the Amendment.
MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAYsaid he quite recognised that this was a question of expediency. He would be perfectly frank as to why he thought it necessary to resist the Amendment, with the view of asking the Committee to accept an Amendment he had on the Paper. That Amendment was put down because he thought the feeling of the House was, without doubt, that there ought to be a measure of elasticity; and if there was to be elasticity at which end were they to begin? He quite admitted that throughout the length and breadth of Scotland the history of education and of
1530
the school boards which they were displacing showed that there were many more counties which needed division than should remain undivided. That being the case it was surely very much better for everybody, and certainly for himself, that they should begin with a state of affairs which prevailed in the major part of the counties, and leave it to the action of the Department to be guided by public opinion in aggregating the districts where necessary. In other words, he would have a great deal more to do in the province of dividing than he would have in the province of aggregating; and he thought it would be to the advantage of everyone that he should be called in as little as possible. For these reasons, and looking to the necessities of the Highland counties, he hoped the Committee would reject the Amendment.
MR. WEIRsaid he was glad to hear that the right hon. Gentleman was going to oppose the Amendment. The information of the hon. Gentleman who proposed the Amendment was most inaccurate. He said that the population of the Island of Lewis was 25,000 when it was 30,000; and that the valuation of the island was going down. If that was so, it was because the deer forests had been undervalued. He had just received a telegram from the town clerk of Stornoway asking him to oppose the county as the education area. That proposal was so monstrous that he was amazed it had ever been suggested. He, himself, had made up his mind long before he had received the telegram to oppose the Amendment.
MR. BRYCEsaid he thought the Committee would recognise that this was a real difficulty; and that it was exactly the same difficulty they met with in connection with the English Education Bill. The difficulty was that they wanted a different area for elementary education and for secondary education. For elementary education they wanted a comparatively small area; and secondary education a comparatively large area. The best area for elementary education would be either the parish, or a combination of parishes, and the best area for secondary education would be

1531
the county, or possibly in the case of a large county like Lanarkshire a division of the county. The principle on which the Government proceeded was that there must only be one authority. That was an inevitable difficulty, and all the Committee could do would be to endeavour to choose the least of the evils. It would be a great evil to sacrifice elementary education to secondary education; yet practically that was what they were asked to do. It was admitted that it was desirable that members of the working classes and the peasantry should take part in the work of elementary education; but that could not be if the county were to be the area even with the payment of travelling expenses. That put the county out of Court as the authority for elementary education. On the other hand, it was clear that most of the districts would be too small to make proper provision for secondary education. Secondary education could not be organised with a smaller population than 40,000 or 50,000. As the hon. Member for North Camberwell said, it was perfectly true that in England the elementary system was not working. He knew a county in the South of England which, finding that it was unable to deal with elementary education, delegated the work to district committees. That was what they asked for in 1902, but which they did not get. The experience of England showed that the county was not the proper authority to deal with elementary education. The real remedy for the difficulty was to allow elementary education areas to combine for the purpose of secondary education, and statutory power should be given for the purpose. That was not in any way inconsistent with the plan of the Secretary for Scotland. If the right hon. Gentleman saw any objection to that, at any rate he could hardly object to a clause enabling the elementary education authorities to appoint delegates to undertake secondary education in their respective areas. He would, however, prefer the plan of the Secretary for Scotland to that of the Amendment, as it would enable them to overcome the difficulty with which they were confronted without sacrificing elementary education, and at the same time give secondary education its proper chance.
MR. MAXWELLsaid that the education authority might consist of the county councillors and the parish councillors for a particular district, who would supervise all education, secondary and elementary, in that district. The Bill, however, did not proceed on those lines. In a great many cases it had been found that district committees were far too small; and even if power were given to them to combine for the purpose of secondary education, there would be great difficulty in carrying out their duties. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberdeen said that a population of 40,000 to 50,000 was necessary in order to carry out a proper system of secondary education; but in sixteen of the counties in Scotland the population was under 50,000, and half of those counties were to be divided up into district committees. The proposal he had on the Paper was that, in the first instance, there should be one school board in the county; and that it should have power to apply to the Secretary for Scotland to be divided up into committees. In that way better districts would be formed than under the proposal of the Secretary for Scotland. However, as the right hon. Gentleman had met them so far, he would be prepared to accept his Amendment; although it did not go the whole length he desired.
MR. WALLACEsaid that the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment admitted that the county would not be a satisfactory area; and he suggested that power should be given to sub-divide it. On the other hand, everyone could see that there was no difference in the view expressed by the supporters of the Amendment, and by those who opposed it. They all admitted that power should be given to sub-divide, if the county were to be the area; and that if the district were to be the area, power should be given to unite several districts. Everyone agreed that the locality should be consulted, and that the view of Scotland should be respected; and, that being so, it seemed to him there was very little difference between the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman and the Amendment of the Secretary for Scotland. He himself

1533
preferred the Amendment of the Secretary for Scotland. It respected local opinion, and in that way they were likely to get a satisfactory area.
*MR. MACONOCHIEsaid that after the explanation of the Secretary for Scotland he believed that the question was only one of method. Whether they would take the county and work downwards, or take the district and work upward, they were all agreed on the principle. Probably the Amendment of the Secretary for Scotland would be the better plan. With reference to the remarks of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ross, he would say that his experiences of the county extended over twenty-nine years, and that for fifteen years he lived in it for a certain period every year. He would ask leave to withdraw his Amendment.
MR. PARKER SMITHsaid they were all agreed that there ought not to be a cast-iron rule for all the counties of Scotland. It had been said that there were only four counties that needed to be divided; but there was a considerable difference between the division of a county and what the Secretary for Scotland was asking for. If they were divided they would not divide into proper districts, and he hoped, therefore, that greater latitude would be taken by the Scottish Office in deciding how the districts were to be divided. They ought not to be the old local government districts—districts which were arranged for quite another purpose; they ought to be allowed to go across the boundary, where it was necessary to take n any part and incorporate it in the district.
MR. AINSWORTHsuggested that if the Scottish Office took powers over and above those for the sub-division of the counties into districts to divide the districts into parishes, or a combination of parishes, it would meet the case of the Highland parishes to which he had referred previously. He hoped before they came to the final discussion on the Scottish Secretary's Amendment the right hon. Gentleman would see his way to carry out the suggestions made to him.
THE EARL OF DALKEITHsaid the local government districts with
1534
which he was acquainted were not well suited for educational districts. It was doubtful whether the Scottish Board of Education would have more work to do under one form than under another; but it would be much easier, he thought, if the county was first adopted as the area, and was then sub-divided into districts suitable for educational districts. There were many counties where the county was far more suitable for a district than were the Local Government Board districts. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman, in considering the matter later, would see his way to making that change.
MR. THOMAS SHAWexpressed his concurrence with what had fallen from his noble friend in regard to the unsuitability of the Local Government Board districts, which often embraced three or four counties in which there was a perfect network of towns, and those districts would be most unsuitable for educational districts. But he also thought a county was an unsuitable area and that brought him back to his original idea that the proper solution was to take the towns as centres and to grade out from them. The Secretary for Scotland proposed to divide those counties which were not already districts into districts; but oven there he was embarassed by the county divisions. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman might see his way to give powers of combination, not only to districts in individual counties, so as to enable one county to link up with itself any inlying portion of another county. He made that observation in the hope that the power of combination would be so used as to bring closer together the educational needs of a particular district.
MR. CATHCART WASONsaid the success of this Bill depended largely on the question of area. So far as his constituency was concerned, the districts there were absolutely impossible and unworkable under any such scheme as this. At the same time, a hard and fast line that the county should be the area would, in many cases, make things very much worse. He sincerely hoped that the elasticity alluded to by so many Members would De given, and that the Secretary for Scotland would take the necessary powers, if he found public

1535
opinion was ripe in certain directions, and that the people of a district having local knowledge were of the opinion that j certain districts might be amalgamated. If the right hon. Gentleman would take power to give effect to the wishes of the people in that way, all the necessities of the case would be met.
MR. CALDWELLsaid this Amendment showed the great difficulty experienced when they departed from the principle of the parish area. When they came to the district area they immediately found themselves awkwardly placed with regard to the rest of the county. When they came to deal with the county they were still more awkwardly situated, because of the other counties bordering on it; and the result was that from an educational point of view, there would never be a county or a district, but a combination based on educational grounds entirely. That showed the absurdity of starting to make a district when they had immediately to make great exceptions, instead of attaching it, as they would have to attach it, to the parish areas.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 23, at the end, to insert the words' Provided that, before the commencement of this Act, on a representation received not later than the twenty-fifth day of October, one thousand nine hundred and four, from a comity council or district committee of a county council, or from a town council, or from an existing school board, and from time to time after the commencement of this Act, on representation from a school board, the Secretary for Scotland may, by order or orders, which order or orders shall be laid as soon as may be upon the Table of both Houses of Parliament, determine that any two counties including as aforesaid, or that any two or more local government districts, including as aforesaid, in any county, shall, for the purposes of this Act, be combined into one district, or that any county not divided into local government districts, including as aforesaid, shall, for the purpose of this Act, be divided into districts, and such districts shall be specified in the order; and the foregoing provisions of this section shall not apply to any county or local government district, including as aforesaid, so far as comprised within a district or districts specified in any such order, but a school board shall be established for each of the districts so specified. In making an order after the commencement of this Act under this section the Secretary for Scotland shall follow as nearly as may be the procedure prescribed by the forty-sixth section
1536
of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1894,. with respect to the making of an order for altering the boundaries of parishes, and shall have the necessary powers in that behalf, including power to provide for all matters which appear to him necessary or proper for giving full effect to the order, and where necessary for the adjustment and distribution, of the powers, property, liabilities, debts, officers, and servants of the school boards affected by the order, and for the settlement of differences arising out of the order.'" (Mr. A. Graham Murray.)
Question proposed, "That those words-be there inserted."
MR. PARKER SMITHsaid the Amendment would go a long way towards relaxing the rigidity of the provision, but he did not think it went far enough. The Secretary for Scotland would have power to deal with whole counties or whole local government districts; he would be able to put two complete counties, or two or more complete local districts together, but that was hardly sufficient. Under, the scheme of the Bill the borough of Govan was included in the Glasgow district; but there was a small part of the parish of Govan outside the borough, and outside the boundaries of Glasgow, and outside the proposed new education area. This small part would be entirely isolated, and nothing was more obvious than that if the borough of Govan was to be taken in with the district of Glasgow the small part in the Lower Ward of Lanark should be taken in also. That was merely an illustration; dozens of similar cases would arise, and it might be desirable in some cases to divide even parishes. It was, therefore, very desirable that the Secretary for Scotland should have power to deal with parts of counties or parts of local government districts. In order to provide for that, he desired to move an Amendment providing that any two or more counties or parts of counties, or any two or more local government districts or parts of districts might be formed into-one district, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would see his way to accept that proposal.
Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment—
"In line 8, after the word 'two' to insert the words 'or more.'"—(Mr. Parker Smith.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAYsaid that as the hon. Member was really raising a general question of the same class as that raised by the hon. Member for the Elgin Burghs, it would be as well to state what his attitude in the matter was. He would prefer to take his own Amendment as it stood; but as the view seemed to be prevalent in the Committee that more elasticity was required, he was prepared to accept words to give effect to that feeling, subject however, to one understanding. He could not accept the view that parts of parishes might be dealt with. That would never do, because though conceivably from an educational point of view cases of that kind might arise, any such action would throw the whole question of rating into confusion. They could not have absolute perfection in every case; more or less rough lines had to be taken; therefore, while he was willing to give further elasticity in the matter of sub-division of districts, it must be clearly understood that that sub-division should follow parish lines. The particular words of the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for the Partick Division were hardly necessary, as he could not conceive uniting more than two counties, nor would the words uggested by the hon. Member or the Elgin Burghs be quite satisfactory. If, however, the Committee would accept the Amendment as it stood on the Paper, he would undertake to consider the matter from the point of view of draftmanship, and bring up a proposal on the Report stage to carry out the views which had been expressed.
MR. THOMAS SHAWsaid the Committee would doubtless accept the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman. Personally, he would suggest the insertion of the words "any two or more local government districts or parts of district, included as aforesaid in any county, or in one or more counties." That would cover the case he had more than once referred to—of a district in one county which might very properly be annexed to a district in another county. On the question of rating, he entirely agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that nothing more confusing could be enacted than that different sections of the same parish
1538
should be assessable under different authorities.
MR. PARKER SMITHsaid that if hon. Members had shared with him the ill-fortune of living at a point where four counties met, they would not regard the desirability of the collocation of more than two counties as inconceivable. With regard to parishes, the cases he had in mind were those in which the proposed educational boundary cut across the parish. The right hon. Gentleman would require powers to rectify such cases, otherwise a small portion of the parish would be left outside the area which it was proposed to constitute. If it was understood that the right hon. Gentleman would provide for such cases as that, the Committee would doubtless accept whatever form of words he brought forward on the Report stage.
MR. CALDWELLsuggested that in some cases it would be desirable to have a working agreement between different areas.
MR. BRYCEsaid that as the Secretary for Scotland proposed to make considerable alterations in the clause, he desired to make a suggestion and to inquire whether the right hon. Gentleman would give effect to it. On the point already dealt with there was little difference of opinion in the Committee as to what was desired, and in all probability the words which the right hon. Gentleman would bring up would meet with general acceptance. He thought, however, that the real object of having a union of districts would be less frequently for the purpose of elementary education than for the purpose of secondary or technical education, and the question he desired to ask was whether the right hon. Gentleman would consider the desirability of taking powers to unite districts or counties for the purpose of secondary education where they were not united for the purposes of elementary education. He had intended to move the insertion after the words "purposes of this Act" of the words "or for such of those purposes as relate to technical or higher education," but as it might be better to deal with this power of union by a

1539
separate clause, he did not propose to move that Amendment at the present stage. He hoped, however, that the right hon. Gentleman would give him an assurance that the point would be considered.
Amendment to the proposed Amendment was, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. CALDWELL MR. CALDWELL moved to insert after the word "Parliament" the words "but shall not come into force until after an Address in favour of the same shall have passed both Houses of Parliament." ["Oh, oh!"] He was surprised that an hon. Member should say "Oh, oh," to such a proposal, as everybody who knew anything about Parliamentary procedure was aware that it was no use to place Orders on the Table of the House when nothing could be done with them. According to the Rules of the House, if it were simply provided in an Act of Parliament that certain Orders should lie on the Table for a certain period, there was no opportunity on which those Orders could be discussed, or any opinion expressed in regard to them. This was a very important matter, as it dealt not only with the question of education but also with the question of taxation. One district might be seriously injured in the matter of rating by being linked with another, and while the district whose rates were reduced by such a union might view the matter with equanimity, that certainly would not be the case with the district whose rates were increased. Under the Amendment it would only be necessary for the county council, the town council, or an existing school board, to apply for a certain combination, and the Secretary for Scotland to sanction it. But the school board might have been elected without any reference to such a combination, and he submitted that it would be very unfair for the ratepayers to be involved in considerable expense without their previous knowledge or consent. If the scheme of the Bill was to be altered in the manner now proposed there ought to be some provision by which the matter could be debated in the House of Commons. Questions of little importance might very well be dealt with without discussion; but in a matter which involved questions both of education and taxa-
1540
tion the ratepayers ought to be safeguarded. He begged to move.
Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment—
"In line 8, after the word 'Parliament' to insert the words 'but shall not come into force until after an Address in favour of the same shall have passed both Houses of Parliament.'"—(Mr. Caldwell.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAYsaid the hon. Member had omitted to explain that the effect of the proposed Amendment would be to stultify entirely the concessions which he (the right hon. Gentleman) had just made to the general feeling of the Committee. The hon. Member desired that nothing should be approved until a favouring Address had passed both Houses of Parliament. The Act was to come into operation next year; the first representations had to be made by 25th October. Unless, therefore, an autumn session was to be held for the express purpose, it was not likely that the approving Address could be voted until some time in the following year; while if the hon. Member made as good use of his opportunities as he usually did, it was extremely doubtful whether the approving Address would pass at all. The only result, therefore, would be to take away from the counties concerned the very power of effecting combinations or sub-divisions for which the Committee had been contending.
*MR. TENNANTsaid that unless this Bill differed very much from other Acts of Parliament, there would always be an opportunity given to pray His Majesty to modify or to reject altogether the Orders referred to. Orders under the Factory Act were frequently discussed after twelve o'clock, and he presumed a similar course might be followed with regard to the Orders under this clause. Perhaps the Secretary for Scotland would kindly inform him if this was not so.
*MR. CATHCART WASONsaid a more utterly preposterous proposal than that made by the hon. Member for Mid-Lanark he had never heard. If the

1541
excessively selfish proposition of the hon. Member was agreed to, the whole of the educational advantages which Orkney and Shetland hoped to derive from this Bill would be rendered nugatory. He was really surprised to find the hon. Member posing as a crusted Tory, and refusing to place confidence in the people. These authorities were elected by a purely democratic vote; they were to be trusted in matters of this sort; and, as it was purely on their initiative that the Secretary for Scotland could act, he could only suppose that the Amendment was submitted for a purpose which he did not like to describe. The Amendment proposed by the hon. Member to the Amendment, which had already been accepted by the Government on clear proof that the Bill would be unworkable not only in Orkney and Shetland but in other counties, would undo all the efforts he and others had been making and without which their education districts would be in dire confusion. The view of the hon. Member might be met by leaving out all reference whatever to Parliament, as there was absolutely no necessity to lay the Orders on the Table. It was a matter purely between the Secretary for Scotland and the local authorities who had the interests of the children of the district at heart. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland desired to carry out the wishes of the people of Scotland, so far as he possibly could, without any undue interference by Parliament. There was too much interference by Parliament in many affairs already.
MR. DALZIELsaid he did not think the castigation by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland was at all called for. The hon. Gentleman came here with the enthusiasm of a recent convert and lectured the hon. Member for Mid-Lanark as to what was the meaning of the Amendment before the Committee. The hon. Member had not apprehended the Amendment. He desired to disassociate himself from the hon. Member when he said that Parliament interfered too much in these matters. Apparently his idea was that everything should be left to the Secretary for Scotland and the local authorities. They had all much confidence in the
1542
present Secretary for Scotland, but he would not always occupy that office; and the point they had to consider was whether they were to welcome with open arms the Amendment proposed by the right hon. Gentleman, which was intended to meet many of the Amendments on the Paper. As he understood the Amendment it really shelved a question which this House ought to consider and decide. The right hon. Gentleman said, "Place confidence in me, and hand the whole thing over to me, and then I will make an Order on some future occasion which will be carried through." That brought them to the question how far they should hand over authority to the Secretary for Scotland. The Amendment of the hon. Member for Mid-Lanark simply said that the House should retain some powers in order to enable them to disagree with any Order made by the Secretary for Scotland. The question was whether they were to have an effective power of objecting to the action of the Secretary for Scotland. The present system of laying such Orders on the Table of the House was no check at all if they desired to interfere with the action of the Secretary for Scotland. The Bill proposed that Leith should be included in Edinburgh; but at some future day it would be open to the Secretary for Scotland, on the application of one of the parties interested, to oppose the wishes of this House in that matter. They ought to retain effective power in such matters of criticising any action of the Secretary for Scotland with which they might disagree. He had, therefore, great pleasure in supporting the Amendment of his hon. friend.
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid the Secretary for Scotland had told them what the effect of the Amendment would be, but not what would be the effect of his own proposal. That proposal was to lay these schemes on the Table of the House. What power would the House have over them? None. Therefore, the words in the Bill had no practical effect at all; and the point on which the decision of the Committee would turn was whether they desired to have an opportunity of discussing these Orders or not. The presence of these words gave the public the impression

1543
that the House had control over these Orders, and, unless the phrase was struck out, he thought the clause should be amended in the sense proposed by the hon. Member for Mid-Lanark.
MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAYsaid there was really, so far as he knew, no misconception about this matter. The words in the Amendment were that the Order or Orders "shall be laid, as soon as may be, upon the Table of both Houses of Parliament," but that did not give the right of stopping the procedure embodied in an Order. They must get the Education Bill started somehow. They must get it started with certain districts with school boards, and the proposition of the Government was that the local government district should be the district to elect the school board. The Committee had almost unanimously said that that should be the district, but there were certain cases where there ought to be combination, and in order to give certain elasticity he had brought forward this clause, not of his own motion, but in order to meet the views which had been placed before him. If the words proposed by the hon. Member for Mid Lanark were put in, it would simply mean that the Secretary for Scotland would be unable to exercise the power of combination until they could have a discussion in some future session of Parliament for which the Government would necessarily have to find time. So far as the actual power of Parliament was concerned, he would remind the Committee that they would always have the power to discuss the whole question on the Estimates when the vote for the salary of the unfortunate Secretary for Scotland was brought forward. If the Secretary for Scotland were so left to himself as to take such an extraordinary course as that suggested by the hon. Member for the Kirkcaldy Burghs in regard to the disjunction of Leith from Edinburgh, the hon. Member would have his chance of defeating the Government. The words about laying the Orders on the Table of both Houses of Parliament were introduced because that had been the long established practice, but nobody supposed that it gave Parliament an opportunity for stopping what was proposed. He agreed
1544
that for all practical purposes the words might as well be out, but he did not see any necessity for taking them out, because if he were to do so it would take this matter away from the practice which had been followed in such matters.
DR. MACNAMARAsaid he wished to get an opportunity of discussing the circumstances if he thought the Government were going wrong. If the scheme was made by the Education Department the right hon. Gentleman was to make it after the representations of the locality. What he wanted was that the right hon. Gentleman should make the scheme according to the representations of the locality. The English Act said that if a scheme had not been made by the local authorities with the approval of the Board of Education within twelve months, that Board might, subject to the provisions of the Act, make a Provisional Order which could be discussed in Parliament. Would the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland say that in the future administration of this Act, if he drew up a scheme on the representations of the localities, that scheme would be cast in the form of a Provisional Order which could be discussed in Parliament?
MR. CROMBIEsaid that his hon. friend had raised an important principle. It seemed to him that there was every necessity for the House discussing minutes and circulars issued by the Education Department. It was very obvious that if this Act was going to come into operation on the day appointed, it would be perfectly impossible to discuss all these points. It must be remembered that the localities in question would have, by the Amendment before the Committee, an opportunity of putting their views before the Education Department.
MR. CALDWELLsaid that the object of the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment was to make a change in the educational districts different from that which might be in the Bill. That was a most important change, for the Secretary for Scotland might make an Order for a combination which, if it had been made in the House, the House would not have sanctioned. The proposal

1545
was to delegate powers to the right hon. Gentleman to do something which might be repugnant to the House. It was said that this was a case of urgency; but this he denied. Time was to be taken to consider the changes after hearing all parties. But the Amendment of the Secretary for Scotland did not limit itself to changes that might be made on the 25th October, but applied to every subsequent change. These changes would have to be carefully considered, and there was no reason whatever why Parliament should not have an opportunity of expressing an opinion upon them. The change would not be merely a question affecting education, but a question affecting rates as well. He did not want to limit the power of the localities or of the Secretary for Scotland, but to see that the Order, or Orders, making the change were laid before Parliament, so that the House might have an opportunity of discussing them. He had no antagonism to a change; but if a change was needed, it ought to be made with deliberation, and nothing should be done to prejudice the rights of Parliament.
SIR MARK STEWARTsaid he hoped the Committee would come to a decision at once. They were making very small progress, all because one or two Members were setting themselves up against, practically, the unanimous wishes of the Committee.
MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAYsaid he bad considered the suggestion made by the right hon. Member for South Aberdeen, but this was not the place in the Bill to carry it out. They must settle the education body at once. He thought that the education body should have power to administer both primary and secondary education, but he could quite see that there might be cases where there should be combination for secondary education and not for primary. It was very much better that that should be dependent on the local bodies themselves than on the Secretary for Scotland. He would be glad to give favourable consideration to a clause put down on page 55 by the hon. Member for Kincardineshire, which provided that—
"It shall be lawful for the school boards of two or more adjoining education districts,
1546
whether in the same county or not, to appoint a joint committee which shall formulate and, if approved by the several school boards concerned, administer a scheme of education common to such districts."
It was quite clear that that clause, with a very little alteration, might be made to serve the purpose of the right hon. Member for South Aberdeen.
MR. BRYCEsaid he quite agreed that the Amendment of his hon. friend offered a basis for a scheme of the kind he had suggested.
MR. THOMAS SHAWsaid he thought it was very unfortunate that his hon. friend had moved his Amendment in a positive form. It would have been far better if he had moved it in a negative form. He would suggest that the Amendment should read—
"Which Order or Orders shall be laid, as soon as may be, upon the Table of both Houses of Parliament and shall come into effect, unless disapproved of, within forty days."
The reason why he was anxious about this point was that within his own Parliamentary recollection they used to have, after twelve o'clock, the privilege of discussing Amendments on these Orders; and he remembered on one occasion when that had been done with very great advantage to the country. That privilege had disappeared owing to an alteration of the Standing Orders, but he would like to see it restored. This was the first occasion on which they had had the opportunity of securing any power of review of the large powers assumed and exercised by the Scotch Education Department, and he thought this was an excellent opportunity for having the fiats of the Department laid on the Table of Parliament and discussed.
MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAYsaid that, the proposal of the Amendment did not seem practical. What would happen? Representations would be made to him next October. According to the hon. Gentleman, Parliament was to have the power of disallowing these Orders within forty days of their being laid on the Table of this House. Parliament would meet about the usual time, that was to said, about the 15th of February next, and the forty days would not elapse until after the

1547
first school board election. They would not know where they were. Like Mahomet's coffin, they would be hanging in mid-air.
MR. DALZIELsaid he did not consider the right hon Member's arguments conclusive. All they desired to do was to make their protest more effective to the House. The fact that the right hon. Gentleman had drawn his Bill in such a way as to make it impossible—
MR A. GRAHAM MURRAYsaid he did not draw this clause, all he had to do was to introduce the Bill. The whole thing arose because this clause, which had the assent of nearly every one in the House, did not suit the views of the hon. Member for Mid-Lanark and the hon. Member opposite.
MR. DALZIELsaid they would see how m any differed when they took the division.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid the point made by his hon. and learned friend near him was that if these words meant nothing at all they should not have been put into the Bill. Though the right hon. Gentleman did not draw this clause, it was his clause still. He knew who put these words in, and that the person who put them in must have had some intention in doing so. It was a most objectionable thing to put in words that seemed to
involve the connivance of Parliament when, as a matter of fact, Parliament had no power in the matter.
MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAYsaid they were always very pleased when the right hon. Gentleman took part in the debates of the Committee, but he wished the right hon. Gentleman could have been in the House a little earlier. Three-quarters of an hour previously he had expressed, his willingness to take the words out. He might point out that it had always been the practice in all Education Acts since the Act of 1872 to lay all administrative Acts of the Department before Parliament.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANasked whether in the case of the Code there were not special provisions that when these things were laid on the Table of the House they must be dealt with in a particular manner.
MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAYadmitted that that was the view of Mr. Speaker Peel; but Mr. Speaker had ruled differently, and it was not so now.
MR. THOMAS SHAWsaid he agreed; with the right hon. Gentleman in that statement; it was because he wished the House to regain that which it had lost that he had spoken.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 82; Noes, 199. (Division List No. 146.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Dobbie, Joseph

Long, Sir John

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herb. Henry

Edwards, Frank

Levy, Maurice

Atherley-Jones, L.

Fenwick, Charles

Lough, Thomas

Austin, Sir John

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

Lundon, W.

Barlow, John Emmott

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Fuller, J. M. F.

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Black, Alexander William

Furness, Sir Christopher

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

Boland, John

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herb. John

M'Crae, George

Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

Hammond, John

Mansfield, Horace Rendall

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Hayden, John Patrick

Mooney, John J.

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Burt, Thomas

Hobhouse, C.E.H. (Bristol, E.)

Morley, Rt. Hn. John (Montrose

Cameron, Robert

Horniman, Frederick John

Murnaghan, George

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

Newnes, Sir George

Cremer, William Randal

Joicey, Sir James

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

Crooks William

Kilbride, Denis

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W

Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

Labouchere, Henry

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.

Pirie, Duncan V.

Redmond, John E. (Waterford

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

White, Luke (York, E.R.)

Reid, Sir R.Threshie (Dumfries

Soares, Ernest J.

Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)

Richards, Henry Charles

Spencer, Rt.Hn. C.R(Northants

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Sullivan, Donal

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

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Tennant, Harold John

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Caldwell and Mr. Dalziel.

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

Walton, Joseph (Barusley)

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

Weir, James Galloway

NOES.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Duke, Henry Edward

Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth.

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Dunn, Sir William

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Maconochie, A. W.

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Elibank, Master of

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.

Ellice, Capt E.C (SAndrw'sBghs

M'Iver, Sir Lenis(Edinburgh, W

Asher, Alexander

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Martin, Richard Biddulph

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

Maxwell, W.J.H. (Dumfriessh.

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

Ferguson, R, C. Munro (Leith)

Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

Bain, Colonel James Robert

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

Middlemore, Jn. Throgmorton

Balcarres, Lord

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.

Baldwin, Alfred

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Milvain, Thomas

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

Fisher, William Hayes

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

Fison, Frederick William

Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants.)

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

FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Morrell, George Herbert

Bartley, Sir George C. T.

Flower, Sir Ernest

Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Forster, Henry William

Muntz, Sir Philip A.

Bignold, Arthur

Galloway, William Johnson

Murphy, John

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Gardner, Ernest

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

Boulnois, Edmund

Garfit, William

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Bowles, Lt.-Col. H. F (Middlesex

Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Brassey, Albert

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

Myers, William Henry

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Gretton, John

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Butcher. John George

Gunter, Sir Robert

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

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

Hain, Edward

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

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Haldane, Rt, Hon. Richard B.

O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid.)

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Cautley, Henry Strother

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire

Harmsworth, R. Leicester

Partington, Oswald

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Harris, E. Leverton (Tynem'th)

Pease, Herb. Pike (Darlington)

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Percy, Earl

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Heath, James (Staffords, N.W.)

Pierpoint, Robert

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A (Worc.

Henderson, Sir A.(Stafford, W.)

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Chapman, Edward

Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Charrington, Spencer

Hoare, Sir Samuel

Power, Patrick Joseph

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Hogg, Lindsay

Pretyman, Ernest George

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

Hope, J.F.(Sheffield, Brightside

Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Houston, Robert Paterson

Rankin, Sir James

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

Reddy, M.

Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Reid, James (Greenock)

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Hunt, Rowland

Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

Crombie, John William

Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

Robson, William Snowdon

Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Roche, John

Cullinan, J.

Joyce, Michael

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Dalkeith, Earl of

Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W.(Salop.

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Davenport, William Bromley-

Kerr, John

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Delany, William

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Sheehy, David

Denny, Colonel

Knowles, Sir Lees

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

Dickson, Charles Scott

Lawrence, Sir Jos. (Monmouth)

Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

Lawson, J. Grant (Yorks., N.R.

Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lanes.

Donelan, Captain A.

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

Doogan, P. C.

Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.

Stroyan, John

Dorington, Rt. Hn. Sir John E.

Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Doughty, George

Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Bristol, S.)

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

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

Lowe, Francis William

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Thornton, Percy M.

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

Tuff, Charles

1550

1551

Tufnell, Lieut-Col. Edward

Wason, Jn. Cathcart (Orkney)

Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Webb, Colonel William George

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

Ure, Alexander

Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C (Taunton

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Valentia, Viscount

Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

Walker, Col. William Hall

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Wanklyn, James Leslie

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

Warde, Colonel C. E.

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

Bill read a second time, and committed.

MR. GEORGE BROWNsaid that the last Amendment which; was accepted by the Secretary for Scot-land dealt with divisions of counties. There was, however, another class of combination which ought to be kept in mind; and that was the combination of a rural district with an adjacent suburban district. The fact that such cases might arise was shown by the number of Amendments which appeared on the Paper on the subject. The acceptance of his Amendment, however, might have the effect of a number of those Amendments being withdrawn. He begged to move.
Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment—
"In line 10, after the word 'county' to insert the words 'or any local government district or any enumerated district.'"—(Mr, George Brown.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAYthought the Committee would agree that in this matter they had gone far enough. It was really inadvisable that these questions should go back to the Government Department more than was absolutely necessary. The enumerated districts were really the large cities in Scotland, and it would be very inexpedient from time to time to disturb the existing areas by taking in portions of the county districts. He therefore could not accept the Amendment.
Question put, and negatived.
MR. AINSWORTHsaid it was necessary in the interest of the Western Islands that the Secretary for Scotland should have the power to constitute separate parishes or combinations of parishes as areas under the Act.
MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY (intervening)stated that he had already agreed
1552
to bring forward wordson the Report stage dealing with that point.
MR. AINSWORTHsaid that in that case he was perfectly satisfied.
Proposed words inserted in the clause.
MR. PARKER SMITHsaid the Amendment he was about to move, although it raised a local question, affected more than one-fifth of the whole population of Scotland. It involved educational issues raising questions of principle as well as of local feeling. The object of the Amendment was to continue to Govan its local independence. The parish of Govan immediately adjoined Glasgow. There was no obvious physical distinction between the two. Govan contained the Burghs of Partick and Govan itself, as well as other large districts, and was partly inside and partly outside the municipal area of Glasgow. The population was 200,000, and was rapidly increasing; the assessable rental was over £1,000,000; and there were more than 30,000 scholars. There was scarcely any difference between Glasgow and Govan in the matter of rating, and as it stood the parish school board of Govan was the third largest in Scotland. The school board and town councils of Govan and Partick strongly desired that things should remain as at present, but the school board and the Corporation of Glasgow wished Govan to be included in their area. Although feeling had been manifested before on this subject, there had been no previous attempt to give effect to it, and no ground was alleged even now by the school board and the municipality for the inclusion of Govan. No suggestion whatever was made against the efficiency of the school board for Govan, and the presumption under these circumstances seemed to be in favour of the continuance of the present position. The issue presented by the Amendment was between continuing the school board

1553
as it at present existed and amalgamating it with that of Glasgow. No one, either inside or outside Glasgow, would be satisfied with a scheme under which one-half of Govan was included in Glasgow and the other half left outside. If anything at all was done, the parish must be dealt with as a whole. In asking that the parish should be left in its present position, he was not asking anything inconsistent with the scheme of the Bill. The proposals of the Government laid down no hard and fast rule as to boundaries, whether municipal or otherwise, and the whole action of the Committee during the afternoon had been to place more and more discretion in the hands of the Secretary for Scotland in the matter of dividing areas in the manner best suited for educational purposes. That being so, it was necessary to consider this problem only on educational grounds, and he hoped the Secretary for Scotland would allow the Committee to express its view on the matter freely and that he would not enforce the views of the Government by the appointment of the official Whips in the division.
The arguments for and against the proposal were partly educational and partly otherwise. By some it was held that the proposal would influence municipal divisions in the future. The town councils of Partick and Govan had hitherto strongly objected to being included in Glasgow. They maintained a position of friendly and neighbourly independence, but they held that their position in the future with regard to municipal annexation would be seriously affected if they were included in Glasgow for educational purposes. Parliament had uniformly declined to force annexation upon any local body which did not desire it, and that in itself was a strong argument against this annexation for educational purposes being forced upon Govan. The arguments in favour of the proposal on educational grounds were much stronger. Hitherto Glasgow and Govan had existed side by side without the slightest friction. Children had been interchanged between one board and the other with perfect freedom. Govan had a full and complete equipment for education of all descriptions, and it possessed half-a-dozen higher-grade schools in which pupils could be, and
1554
were, carried on until they were ready to go to the University. What gain, then, would there be in throwing the two areas into one? There were great advantages in having districts of a reasonable and moderate size, inasmuch as it allowed members of the board to have a personal knowledge of the affairs of the schools and teachers, which was quite impossible in an enormously large area such as Glasgow. Everybody was in favour of large areas, but the question was—how large? He submitted that it was better to have an area with 250,000 inhabitants than an area with 1,000,000 inhabitants, but under the scheme of the Bill Glasgow would contain a population of fully 1,000,000, and have under its charge 150,000 children and over 4,000 teachers. It was impossible for the members of one board to have personal touch with so large an army of children and teachers, and there would be considerable danger of the work being done simply through officials. There were advantages to be set against this in having one large area, but they had not made themselves felt in the past and they had not been expressed by the town council or the school board of Glasgow. The amalgamation was not desired by the parish of Govan, and the Government could not point to any educational reasons for the change. In all the schools up to the higher-grade schools the apparatus of Govan was perfectly sufficient for all that was to be done in the parish. The teachers would prefer that there should be a continuation of the present system, because they were more in touch with a smaller board than they would be with a larger one. He thought a place like Govan was entitled to continue with that separate control which had hitherto been exerted with such admirable results.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 2, line 3, after the word 'Glasgow' to insert the word 'Govan.'"—(Mr. Parker Smith.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'Govan' be there inserted."
MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAYsaid this was a question which had to be determined on educational considerations

1555
alone. One of the great objects of the reorganisation of the system of secondary education was to prevent expensive and harmful overlapping. There was no place where overlapping was more apt to occur than in the great towns where there was more than one education authority. He would remind those Members of the Committee who were not familiar with the geography of that part of the world that the city of Glasgow was composed partly of the city parish, partly of the Barony parish, and partly of Govan parish. Everbody probably remembered the long municipal controversy which culminated in the city of Glasgow as it now existed. It included in its borders among other places Partick which was originally a separate police burgh. It should, therefore, be clearly understood that it would not suit the proposer of this Amendment to take the burgh of Govan as it existed separately from Glasgow.
MR. PARKER SMITH: It is now.
MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAYsaid the point which he really was leading up to was that it would not be in accordance with the wishes of the proposer of this Amendment if the town of Govan were allowed to be a separate education authority. What they wished was that the whole parish of Govan as it now existed should be a separate education authority. In other words they would take out of the city of Glasgow that portion of the city which lay within the parish of Govan.
MR. PARKER SMITH: For education purposes.
MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAYsaid he meant that. That would be a situation perfectly unique. The great idea in framing the Bill had been to take the cities as they found them and not to take anything away from them, but here it was proposed to carve out of Glasgow a certain portion in order to erect it into an educational centre which they would call Govan. The offices of the Govan School Board were at the present moment in Glasgow, and no wonder, because Govan was a parish which
1556
lay on both sides of the Clyde. To carve out Govan from Glasgow and make it an education area by itself, irrespective of boundaries, would really encourage competition and overlapping, and he did not think he would be consulting the best educational interests if he accepted the Amendment. He hoped his hon. friend would be far from thinking that he was dogmatising as an educational expert in this matter. He had done his best to ascertain what was the best educational opinion on the subject and it was all one way. The school board and the town council of Glasgow were in favour of the provision in the Bill.
MR. CALDWELLsaid he knew the districts intimately. The Secretary for Scotland had quite properly stated that the effect of making Govan an educational authority by itself would be to take a small portion out of Glasgow. But the fact that there happened to be a small portion of Govan in Glasgow was surely no reason for swallowing up the larger portion, and that was practically the proposal of the Bill. What they had to consider was how the matter stood at present. Govan parish had certainly a large population by itself, and it had an educational system of its own. It was all very well to say that it was necessary to avoid overlapping, but while the Secretary for Scotland expressed that pious opinion he gave the Committee no indication that there was overlapping. In point of fact, those who knew the district were well aware there was positively no overlapping whatever as between Govan and Glasgow. The schools were full, and the parents in the district had their choice of sending their children to the one or the other, according to convenience. He was sure the Secretary for Scotland would not contend that the Govan School Board had not been well managed. It was one of the best school boards in the kingdom—in some respects better than that in Glasgow—because it was less unwieldy, and more immediately under control. There were in Govan special industries, distinct from those in Glasgow, and the schools were adapted to serve the wants of the district in that respect. It would

1557
be a great mistake to absorb the school board management of Govan in that of Glasgow, because the work could not be undertaken without delegation of powers to people who were not direct representatives of the ratepayers of Govan. Govan had shown that it was not wanting in enterprise. It had a valuation equal to that of Glasgow, and its rate was something less. He thought that it would be beneficial to have competition between the schools of Govan and Glasgow, instead of combining them in one large area.
MR. ALEXANDER CROSSsaid he supported the clause as it stood. This was a great measure of consolidation. The Committee would observe that the clause provided for the consolidation of the school board districts of Glasgow, Govan, Partick, Kinning Park and Pollokshaws. The matter was not so simple as the hon. Member for Partick had stated. The parish of Govan absorbed a large portion of the very best part of the rating area of Glasgow, such as Hillhead and Kelvinside. The interests of Govan could not be separated from those of Glasgow.
MR. DALZIELsaid that if the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland had shown that any overlapping had existed in the past, or was likely to exist in the future, in regard to educational matters, provided the Amendment was accepted, the right hon. Gentleman might have had a good case. But the argument, so far as it had proceeded, was all on one side. They had in Govan one of the most popular and successful of the Scottish school boards. It had done more work than the Glasgow School Board, and the whole question was whether the opinion of Govan was practically unanimous in favour of a continued separate educational existence.
And 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 this evening.

EVENING SITTING.

  EDUCATION BOARD PROVISIONAL ORDERS (CARDIFF AND NEWPORT (MONMOUTHSHIRE) BILL (BY ORDER).
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. BOLANDsaid his object in putting down the Motion which stood upon the Paper was to call attention to the difficulties under which a number of his co-religionists, in Newport especially, many of them the children of parents of his own race, laboured under this Provisional Order Bill.
  *MR. SPEAKER: Do I understand the hon. Member's object in moving the rejection of the Bill is the same as that which he has for moving the Instruction.
  MR. BOLANDsaid he desired to defeat the Second Reading of the Bill, but that if he failed in that then he desired to move the Instruction.
  *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is in order; but I was going to suggest that if the object was exactly the same the hon. Member should allow the Second Reading to go, and devote his attention to the Instruction.
  MR. BOLANDsaid he thanked Mr. Speaker for his suggestion, but he preferred to address himself to the rejection of the Bill, Under this Provisional Order no provision had been made for a Catholic representation on the Education Committee of Newport, yet out of a total of 14,000 children in ail the schools of Newport 2,000 were Catholics, while in the voluntary schools there were 2,000 Catholic children out of 2,500. In other words the Catholic children of Newport were one-seventh of the child population of that district, and were four-fifths of the child population of the voluntary schools. A stronger case for a Catholic representative on the Education Committee could not exist. How was

  1559
  the Education Committee under this Provisional Order to be constituted? According to the Bill there was no provision whatever for a Catholic representative, and the only means by which the Catholics could have representation on the Education Committee was to be found on page 40 of the Bill, where it provided that a member might be put forward by the voluntary school managers. There was such a member now on the Newport Town Council, but he was a representative of the Church of England schools which had amalgamated for this purpose. What he was concerned with was not so much to lay emphasis on the constitution under the Provisional Order but to avoid the danger in the future that Catholic representatives should be excluded. His great object also was to avoid the religious question being raised in municipal elections. It would be a most unfortunate thing if in municipal elections the religious question were brought up and it was said that such a candidate should be put forward or opposed because there was or was not a representative of his religious opinions on the Education Committee. It was in order to avoid religious strife of this kind that he suggested now that until in this Provisional Order it was arranged that a Catholic should be on the Education Committee, this Bill should not be proceeded with.
  With regard to the interpretation of the Education Act, he called attention to some of the difficulties in which a member of an Education Committee would find himself. It was perfectly clear from the Act that provision should be made in all cases where a claim for representation could be legitimately made out. The value of the discussion which he now raised was the fact that it gave to Parliament the opportunity to say what it really meant when it passed the Education Act by construing the words of the Act which it had passed. In Newport there had been a desire to avoid friction if possible. On the part of the Catholics there was a desire to meet all sides fairly; they recognised that on the county council they had good representation, but they recognised the fact that although that representation was good there was no guarantee that that state of things would continue and
  1560
  the Catholics would not he mindful of the welfare of their children unless they saw a provision made in the Provisional Order that that representation should continue. In conclusion he urged upon the House that this was a most exceptional case, that the proportion of the Catholic children in Newport was out of all proportion to what obtained in other parts of the country and that the Catholics of Newport felt as they had an exceptional case that before this Bill went through the co-option clause should be made to include Catholic members conversant with the educational needs of the county, and that these matters should not be, as now, left more or less to chance. He moved that this Bill be read a second time his day six months.
  MR. POWERsaid he formally seconded the Motion, and could add very little to the speech made by his hon. friend, which proved the truth of the contentions made on several occasions. They could not say what the actual result of the Act of last year would be, time alone would tell, but it was only natural that Catholics should make a fight for their schools.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out the word 'now' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day six months.'"—(Mr. Boland.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  *SIR FRANCIS POWELLsaid his hon. friend ought to be congratulated on the great skill he had shown in dealing with circumstances diverse in their character and often extremely difficult. It was of happy augury that after the somewhat angry discussions which had taken place in 1902 there should remain only one case in which the decision of Parliament was sought. All other discussions had ended amicably and he hoped this would also. All the other cases had been concluded by an amicable conference between the hon. Baronet and the local authority concerned, and this was the only case in which that more friendly solution had not been taken advantage of. The onus of proof in this case rested very much with those who desired to refuse the Second Reading of this Bill. It was impossible that the

  1561
  conditions of Newport could be so different from those of other places that there must be a different mode of settling a difficulty to that which had been arranged in other places. Newport was a prosperous mining and commercial town with every appearance of happiness and success. The provision that all members of the Education Committee should be members of the town council had been adopted in no case whatever. There had been, he believed, in every case a power of election either by the council itself or by those whose recommendations had been submitted to the council and approved by them. That was strongly recommended by the right hon. Member for Aberdeen on behalf of the Commission over which he had so well presided. He had am tied most forcibly, and to his (Sir Francis') mind conclusively, as to the importance of not confining the members of the Education Committees to the members of the councils alone, but of taking advice outside. By seeking such advice they got greater uniformity in the sanitary laws. It was a very great misfortune that towns near to one another should live under different Sanitary Acts, and he hoped the time would come when Parliament itself would reverse its steps and would make for that uniformity which hitherto it had discouraged. He thought the same law ought to prevail with regard to matters of education. The instances in which appointments, nominations, or recommendations were made from outside were almost innumerable, and showed that the suggestions of the right hon. Member for Aberdeen, which had been practically carried out in the operation of this Act. had been acceptable to the great communities. In the case of Leeds, they had on their Education Committee a representative of the Yorkshire College, Wolverhampton had one from the Birmingham University, Wakefield co-opted from the Yorkshire College, Cheshire from the Liverpool University, Lancaster from the Manchester University, Suffolk from the Cambridge University, Warwick from the Birmingham University, Liverpool from the Liverpool University, Manchester from the Manchester University, Rotherham from the University College, Sheffield. He himself had the honour of being a member
  1562
  of the Education Committee of Wigan, and there they had a representative of the University of Liverpool, who was one of the most valuable members on the Committee, bringing as he did from that University information which they did not possess at Wigan, and which was of the greatest benefit to them.
  The clause to which objection had been taken provided first of all that the members of the Education Committee should be members of the county council and then proceeded to say, "if at any time in the opinion of the council a sufficient number of persons qualified as required by this Order cannot be found among the members of the council they can ask for the addition of three members chosen from outside its own members." There had been cases of this kind in various parts of Yorkshire which were sufficient to prove the value of that principle in working the Act, and its popularity. He hoped the House would come to a unanimous conclusion in this case and that there would thus be an end of all these cases without any adverse voting. That would be a happy omen of the time when there would be more unanimity in the case of education which would promote the progress of that great movement of which they all desired to see the success.
  DR. MACNAMARAsaid the discussion was valuable because it gave the Board of Education an opportunity of stating exactly their interpretation of the Act of 1902. Section 17, as originally drafted, made it obligatory for outsiders to be on an Education Committee, but it was altered in its passage through the House. The view taken by the Board of Education was that it was obligatory, and the Board of Education continued in that spirit for a long time. They badgered Bridgwater for a very long time. Bridgwater constended that the words "where it appear desirable" governed not merely nomination or recommendation but also the broad fact that where it was not desirable, outsiders need not be put on. The Board of Education said that was not so, and badgered them until they put on an outsider. The same thing happened to the little town of Loughborough, who took the view that they need not have outsiders

  1563
  on their Education Committee unless they liked. The Board of Education would not have that at any price, and the Parliamentary Secretary the hon. Baronet insisted in the most emphatic way that he would in all schemes submitted to him compel the community to have outsiders on the Committee. The thing went on; Cardiff and Newport remained recalcitrant—they said we will have members of our town council on our Committee, and we will have a woman on our Committee; that is obligatory, but we will not have outsiders unless we think it is desirable. Then came the London County Council with a scheme in which they said they would have only London County Councillors on the Committee, and then the Board of Education caved in and did not dare to badger them. It got out of the difficulty in the most puerile way. It said, "Tell us, if you please, whether there are in the Council persons versed in educational interests." He thought that the Board of Education were interpreting Clause 17 entirely at variance with what had been Consistently stated from the Treasury Bench. His own position was perfectly clear. He resisted co-option when the Bill was being passed; but now the Board of Education ran one way in London and another way in the smaller towns. He objected to co-option because he desired that the education authority should be directly elected. As far as he was concerned, he should like to see Catholics on the Education Committee, but they ought to stand first as members for the town council. He rested on a democratic basis in this matter. The whole incident, apart from the vagaries of the Education Department, showed the utter folly of his Catholic friends in rejecting the ad hoc principle. What had been the experience since 1870? There was a Roman Catholic representative on every great school board; but under the new Act it was complained that Catholics could not get representation. He read a speech the other day which was delivered by the Very Rev. Canon Richardson, of Manchester, who said—
  "When the Act of 1902 was first introduced he thought it was a measure which would do a lot of good. It had, however, turned out to be a rotten Act which was doing Catholics a lot of harm."
  1564
  If the Newport School Board was left as it was, it would certainly have a Catholic representative, just as Catholics had been represented on the school boards of London, Liverpool, Manchester, and other cities. It was too late for his Catholic friends to ask for preferential treatment; and it would have been better had they voted for a directly elected education authority.
  COLONEL NOLANsaid that the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Camberwell was always asking them to trust everybody at the polls, but what if they could not obtain a representative by direct election? The Education Act was a very good Act for Catholics. It give them a great deal of money, although they did not get as much as was given to the Board schools, and he thought that Catholics should struggle to have representation on the various education authorities. He suggested that the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment should let the Second Reading pass without a division, provided he got the Instruction. Catholics could not claim to have a majority of the representation; but they certainly ought to be represented by at least one member. Surely, the House would not be afraid of allowing one Catholic member on the board of management; and he hoped that the Government would be able to accept the Instruction.
  *THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (SIR WILLIAM ANSON,)said the fact that the Provisional Order had been attacked on two sides, one complaining that co-option had been suggested, the other that co-option had been insufficiently secured, showed that the Board of Education had been fair and impartial in the matter. The Board had never varied in its policy. It had never raised any objection to the Committee being entirely constituted of members of the council, always provided they were assured they were persons of experience in education and acquainted with the educational needs of the area, and they had asked every local authority, which did not place outsiders on its Committee, not to close the door to co-option in case persons duly qualified should not be present on the Council.

  1565
  There was not a local authority averse to co-option which had not accepted, after more or less hesitation, such a scheme as was now before the House. [Dr. MACNAMARA: What about the case of London?] Among the local authorities which had accepted such a scheme were the county of Monmouth, the boroughs of Bradford, Halifax, and Scarborough, while a good many local authorities in Wales had accepted schemes in which not less than a certain number of the Committee must be, and and all might be, members of this Council. In regard to London he could not help thinking that, when Parliament had laid upon the County Council the enormous burden of educational administration, the Board were right in allowing the County Council to work out its scheme of education in its own way—[Dr. MACNAMARA: In accordance with Section 17]—in accordance with Section 17. But had this scheme borne hardly upon any local authority? Of the three boroughs for which schemes were being made by Provisional Order Swansea had not opposed, Newport was now prepared to accept such a scheme, Cardiff desired no more than to enter a protest against any suggestion of co-option. He did not think the Board of Education did any injustice to any local authority in asking them not to close the door against co-option if at some time they should find they could not obtain suitable members in the council for their Education Committee. As to the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Kerry, the Board of Education had never been unmindful of the anxiety felt by the managers of denominational schools that they should have representation on the Education Committees, and they had always pointed out to the local authorities that the anxiety of those bodies would be allayed if they were given a spokesman—for it came to no more—on the Education Committee. But if the local authorities replied that they objected on democratic principles to co-option, or that they were afraid that if denominational representation was introduced into the Education Committee it would give rise to religious disputes and difficulties; and when they further said that they had no intention of dealing unfairly with denominational schools, but desired that the Education Committee
  1566
  should consist of members of their own council, the Board had always given way to the local authorities. If the Board refused to give way to the local authorities in such a matter, it was not one Provisional Order but fifty or sixty Provisional Orders they would have to introduce, and the time of the House of Commons would be occupied in discussing the details of education schemes over a great part of England. Moreover, it would be no benefit to the schools whose representatives were forced on the Education Committee by the Board of Education in opposition to local feeling. As matters stood, he knew of no complaint of injustice having been done to Roman Catholic schools in districts where the Roman Catholics had no direct representation on the Education Committee. In Bradford and in Newcastle-on-Tyne there were in each case more than 4,000 Roman Catholic children in the schools, in St. Helen's more than 5,000. There was no special provision for Roman Catholic representation and there had been no complaints. What was asked for in the case of Newport was preferential treatment of one denomination and a complicated procedure for choosing a Roman Catholic for this Committee which would be embodied in a Provisional Order and only alterable by Bill. He was sure that the Board were right in the interests of the smooth working of the Act, and of the schools themselves, to decline to force on local authorities a form of representation to which they were averse.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that, personally, he was not opposed to the co-option of outside members to Education Committees. On the contrary, he would welcome it; but what he objected to was the forcing of local education authorities to elect outside members when such a proceeding was contrary to local opinion. The Secretary to the Board of Education admitted that; and that was practically his own opinion also. If he was a member of the Newport Town Council, he would favour the inclusion of persons of experience; but he objected to forcing on the elected authorities the nominee of outside bodies against their wish.
  SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid that under the Provisional Order the Education Committee would have power to co-opt persons of experience if they so desired, and only if they so desired.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid the point he wished to put was that the principle of co-option ought not to be forced upon reluctant authorities. If a town council preferred to trust its own members who were elected by the people, why should not they be allowed to do so. He thought that towns like Newport and Cardiff would elect the very best men available. After all, the duties cast on the local authorities by the Education Act were more important than the duties cast upon them by any other Act; and, therefore, he objected to their being forced to co-opt against their will. He thought the Act was perfectly clear upon that point. It was intended that the power of co-option should be left to the local authorities to exercise if they considered it desirable. After all, a town council was the best judge as to the wants and needs of its locality. The local authorities were afraid that the academic element might become too strong. There was considerable suspicion of that element; and in some places there was as much prejudice against it as there was against parsons. The local authorities were afraid of persons of that kind being forced upon them. The Secretary to the Board of Education drew distinctions between London and Cardiff, and he said that London was treated differently from Cardiff. But why was that? It was because when the Act for London was passed they had had a year's experience of the Act of 1902; and they found that there was in the country a feeling of resentment against the action of the Board of Education. If there was a distinction to be drawn between London and Cardiff it was not altogether in favour of London. In London less than 40 per cent, of the electors recorded their votes, but that was not the case in Cardiff. If a distinction was to be drawn he would rather trust those who had given the most genuine guarantees of their interests in education. He thought these public bodies could be trusted to select the best people to look after their own interests.
  1568
  The Board of Education had been very careful to carry out Sub-section 3 of Section 17, which referred to nomination by voluntary schools and outside bodies, but he noticed that Sub-section D was ignored altogether. He had never before seen a Provisional Order of this character. He did not think his hon. friend need fear that the Catholics in Wales would be unfairly treated provided they showed that they had some confidence in the people. He was perfectly certain that the Catholics had never had any reason in the past to consider that they had been treated unfairly by the vast bulk of the people of Wales. Unfortunately, the Catholics had ranged themselves on the side of those whom the Opposition considered were the enemies of Welsh education at the present moment. They had gone inside Port Arthur and consequently they must take the risk; but if a shell struck a Catholic school it was not because they were aimed at the Catholics, but because they were aimed at the battlements. They were not trying to hit anybody in particular, but they were firing into the line of battle. Therefore the Catholics must not take it that those who opposed this measure had any angry feeling towards them, because there was really no feeling at all in the matter. As his hon. friend had told the House there were Catholics upon the Cardiff Town Council, and there was no objection towards them simply because they were Catholics. There were also, he was informed. Catholics on the Newport Town Council. He wished to say, however, that if Catholic representatives were to be forced on the people by a Provisional Older he was afraid it would do the Catholics themselves more harm than if they trusted to the good sense of the people in Wales. The hon. Baronet the Member for Wigan said he was in favour of this proposal because it created uniformity, but it was perfectly clear that the hon. Baronet could not have studied these schemes, for he had never seen a measure in which there was less uniformity. Because this measure interfered with the local autonomy of two towns which were well fitted to manage these things for themselves he should oppose this Provisional Order.
  MR. GRIFFITH BOSCAWENsaid he had never heard a more extraordinary speech than she one which had just been delivered. The hon. Member for Carnarvon said he was supporting the rejection of this Bill in order to secure a particular kind of co-option, although in the past he had objected to any form whatever of co-option.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that on the contrary he had supported co-option in the case of his own council.
  MR. GRIFFITH BOSCAWENsaid the hon. Member for Kerry had moved the rejection of this Bill in order to secure a most objectionable kind of preferential co-option in the case of the Cardiff education scheme. The co-option he desired was a co-option for a particular religious denomination, and this House, he was sure, would never agree to give preferential treatment to any religious denomination, however strong they might happen to be. That was the position he had always taken up. The hon. Member opposite not only did not want this co-option, but he did not want even the possibility of a future council exercising the Tight of co-option, and yet he asked the House to reject the Bill. Coming to the special objections which had been raised to this Provisional Order, he did not think that those hon. Members who had raised objections understood the proposals of this measure in the least. It had been said that they ought not to compel the town council or county council to co-opt, but the real fact of the matter was that this scheme did not give any such compulsion whatever. It simply laid down that the Education Committee was to consist of twenty-six members of the town council of Cardiff and two women, provided that if, in the opinion of the council, a sufficient number of competent persons could not be found amongst the members of the council, the council could co-opt three members from outside. So far from compelling co-option this Bill permitted it at a future time if the council thought it desirable. A future Cardiff Town Council might come to the decision that they could strengthen their Education Committee by co-option, and why should they not have that power? The hon. Member
  1570
  for Carnarvon talked a great deal about democratic institutions, but now he appeared to be afraid of the working of them, and he wanted to tie the hands of future town councils of Cardiff by the narrow opinions held by the present town council. For his own part, if he had any objection to this Bill at all, it would be not because it compelled co-option but because the compulsory powers were so very weak. He would sooner see co-option in all cases so arranged that all educational interests and all the different religious denominations should be adequately represented. His only objection was that this measure did not go far enough, and if the hon. Member for Kerry had moved his Amendment in the interests of all denominations he should have supported him. He could not see how anybody who desired to see these great authorities carrying out education in their areas in the interests of all concerned, and in the most enlightened spirit, could object to the council having this very mild power of strengthening their hands by additions from outside if they thought it desirable.
  LORD EDMUND TALBOTsaid he agreed that in this matter of representation Catholics had a distinct grievance. Although he sympathised with the hon. Member for Kerry he did not advise him to press his Amendment to a division, because if a division were taken and his proposal were carried, it would defeat the very object which the hon. Member and himself had in view. Therefore he hoped the hon. Member would take the advice of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Galway and not carry his proposal to a division. If he did press it to a division he was afraid he should have to vote against him.
  MR. SAMUEL EVANSsaid it was a new thing for the hon. Member for Tunbridge to ask that there should be no preferential treatment for any religious denomination. He had followed this controversy very closely, and he was bound to say that in his opinion he did not think there was any compulsion in this scheme, but it was a mere conformity with the letter of the law. So far from being of a compulsory character,

  1571
  the proviso stated that the town council need not co-opt, and it limited the power of co-option which they at present possessed. If in the opinion of the council a sufficient number of persons could not be found among the members of the council, then the council might enlarge the Committee. Therefore the scheme said the town council were not to co-opt at all unless the council concluded that it did not contain a sufficient number amongst its members qualified to act. They were only to co-opt if, in the opinion of the council for the time being, there was not a sufficient number of members qualified to act upon the Education Committee. He should like to see the county borough of Cardiff or Newport represented by a council who were prepared to say that their council did not contain a sufficient number of people qualified to constitute this Committee. Why was this scheme brought forward as a Provisional Order? Why, merely to let down gently the Education Department, who had to confess themselves beaten in their struggle with the Welsh boroughs, but were allowed to pretend to force these schemes upon them. They were told when the Education Bill was under consideration that if the got into struggles of this kind the Government would find themselves worsted, but nevertheless they were wasting the time of the House of Commons in passing a Bill to confirm Provisional Orders in order to do that which could have been accomplished by sanctioning a scheme were it not that the Education Department wished to save it? amour propre. He was sorry that the hon. Member for Carnarvon had stated that he was going to vote against these Orders, because he was in favour of them. In Wales, up to the present, in the administration of secondary education they had kept outside these denominational difficulties. With regard to the Catholics he thought that far and away the wiser course for the Catholics to pursue was to trust to the Education Committees appointed by the various education authorities. At the present moment it was well to remember the part which the Catholics took along with the supporters of the Government in the slaughter of school boards. As they all knew, on the school boards in the
  1572
  past the Roman Catholics had always been able to get a representative by means of the cumulative vote, and, therefore, having assisted to abolish school boards he did not think it became them now to complain that they could not get everything in the scheme which was embodied in the Act of 1902. He should vote for the Second Reading of this measure, because he thought this Provisional Order was absolutely harmless and it would allow the Education Department to drop down gently.
  SIR JOSEPH LAWRENCEsaid that as Newport was the principal town in his constituency, he hoped the House would let the Bill go to a Second Reading. He sympathised with the object of the hon. Member for South Kerry and the other Members of the Irish Party in insisting upon some representation being accorded under the scheme to the Roman Catholics of Newport. But it was evident from the course the debate had taken that any attempt to secure preferential treatment for any particular denomination was bound to be defeated, and under these circumstances it was better to accept the inevitable with a good grace, and trust to the correct feeling and sense of fair play of the majority of the local education authority to act generously to the minority. The hon. Member for South Kerry had made his protest, and that was all that could reasonably be expected now, for since the four Catholic Members of the Newport Town Council, whom they might have looked to to protect the interests of their own body, had consented to the scheme, the ground for any opposition in the special interests of the Catholic body was cut from underneath the feet of himself and the hon. Member opposite. He appealed therefore to the Irish Members to withdraw the Amendment and Instruction, and so not to interfere with the favourable reception which was now given to the scheme by the Catholic town councillors of Newport; and he urged this also in the interests of educational harmony. On the merits of the Instruction itself he should like to say this—that perhaps there was no other town in Great Britain where a stronger case could be made out, or where facts more eloquently spoke in

  1573
  favour of some exceptional educational representation being accorded to the Catholic body, than Newport. Four-fifths of the children in the voluntary schools were members of that faith, and if the House only knew of the denial and self-sacrificing labours which the Roman Catholic clergy and laity of the town had practised in order to provide for the educational wants of their poorer brethren, the knowledge of those efforts would only extort the warmest approval.
  MR. BOLANDsaid that with the permission of the House he would withdraw his Motion.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[MR. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]
Clause 3.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 2, line 3, after the word: Glasgow' to insert then word 'Govan.'" (Mr. Parker Smith.)
Question again proposed, "That the word 'Govan' be there inserted."
MR. DALZIELsaid it seemed to him that the case for excluding Govan had not been made out, for there had been no proof of the suggestion that there would be any overlapping between Govan and Glasgow. Govan had one of the best conducted school boards in Scotland, and he did not think any reason had been brought forward for incorporating it with Glasgow. He was aware that there was a great deal to be said for the larger educational area, but for the reasons he put forward before the adjournment, he had very great pleasure in supporting the Amendment.
MR. PARKER SMITHsaid that thy accusation that Govan wanted to cut into Glasgow was like the old table of the wolf and the lamb, because, on the
1574
contrary, it was Glasgow that wanted to cut into Govan. The parish of Govan had been an educational unit outside Glasgow for a very long time, and it comprised not only the borough of Govan, but also Partick and other places. Educational districts were going; to be drawn separate and distinct from municipal or any other districts, and because the parish of Govan was within Glasgow for municipal purposes was no reason why it should be included for educational purposes. Naturally the municipality and the school board of Glasgow were anxious to have as large an area as possible within their jurisdiction, and no one could blame them for desiring anything of that kind. Glasgow Corporation and the school board desired to have Govan included in their area, but they had not alleged any adequate reasons for taking this course. The hon. Member opposite had said that there might be overlapping, but no case had been made out showing that any overlapping had taken place in the past. There were schools of all kinds quite equal to meeting the needs of the locality in Govan. What was at the bottom of the desire of Glasgow to include Govan was that they wished to make this an argument for further municipal extension. Municipal extension had been governed in the past by the wishes of the parties concerned, both inside and outside the area, but if a compulsory extension was made in regard to education over the district outside. Which was now fully capable of supplying the best education, and against which no case had been made out to show that it was inefficient or wasteful, a new precedent would be introduced which he was sure would be very mischievous in the future. He hoped that on this question the House would be left free. This was not a matter of interfering with the principles of the Bill, but a case where they had a district of nearly 250,000 people who desired to continue independently because they believed it would be more advantageous to allow the district to remain as it was at present, and because it was not of too large a size to admit of that personal knowledge of schools and teachers which in education was a matter of very great importance. Therefore he hoped the House would be willing to allow

1575
Govan to continue to have an independent existence.
MR. CORBETTsaid that the real reason why Govan wanted to retain her present position was that she happened to have nearly all the wealthiest suburbs of Glasgow within her rating area. Not only on the north side of the river but on the south side the wealthiest suburbs were situated, and to allow such a district to remain outside the Glasgow area was a thing which could not be defended. Not only had Govan no separate existence and no natural boundary apart from Glasgow, bat if they examined the boundary line they would find that Govan ran like wedges
into Glasgow, and there was not a straight cut between the two. In everything that the Glasgow School Board did for the benefit of the community, Govan obtained its share, but they contended that if they had a line zigzagging between the two communities the difficulties would become enormous. He assured the House that a very different opinion was held by the school board of Glasgow, and if there was a case for Govan bang kept separate, there was an equally strong case for cutting off a large slice from the areas of any of their great cities.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 52; Noes, 189. (Division List No. 147.)

AYES.

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Russell, T. W.

Asher, Alexander

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

Schwann, Charles E.

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herb. Henry

Horniman, Frederick John

Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R (Northants)

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Jones, D Brynmor (Swansea)

Tennant, Harold John

Burt, Thomas

Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Leng, Sir John

Ure, Alexander

Caldwell, James

Levy, Maurice

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Wason, Jn. Cathcart (Orkney)

Causton, Richard Knight

Mansfield, Horace Rendall

Weir, James Galloway

Crombie, John William

Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh)

White Luke (York, E. R.)

Dalziel, James Henry

Partington, Oswald

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Dobbie, Joseph

Pirie, Duncan V.

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Elibank, Master of

Reid, James (Greenock)

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

Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

Fenwick Charles

Rigg, Richard

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Parker Smith and Colonel Denny.

Fuller, J. M. P.

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Furness, Sir Christopher

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Harmsworth, R. Leicester

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A (Glasgow

Dickson, Charles Scott

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Donelan, Captain A.

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Doogan, P. C.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Cautley, Henry Strother

Doughty, George

Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

; Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

Austin, Sir John

Chapman, Edward

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Bain, Col. James Robert

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Dunn, Sir William

Balcarres, Lord

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

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

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

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

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

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Ellice, Capt. E. C. (SAndrw's Bghs

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

Bignold, Arthur

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

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

Bigwood, James

Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Black, Alexander William

Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Cullinan, J.

Fison, Frederick William

Boland, John

Dalkeith, Earl of

FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Flower, Sir Ernest

Bowles, Lt.-Col. H. F (Middxs)

Davenport, William Bromley-

Forster, Henry William

Brassey, Albert

Delany, William

Foster, P. S. (Warwick, S. W.)

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

Galloway, William Johnson

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

Gardner, Ernest

Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

Butcher, John George

Dickinson, Robert Edmond

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

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

M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire

Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

Goulding, Edward Alfred

M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Malcolm, Ian

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

Martin, Richard Biddulph

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

Gretton, John

Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.

Sheehy David

Hain, Edward

Moon, Edward Robert Paey

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Hammond, John

Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

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

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford

Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

Spear, John Ward

Hayden, John Patrick

Morpeth, Viscount

Stanley Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.

Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

Morrell, George Herbert

Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

Heath, James (Staffords., N. W.

Mount, William Arthur

Stock, James Henry

Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W

Murnaghan, George

Stroyan, John

Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

Murphy, John

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Houston, Robert Paterson

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

Sullivan, Donal

Hunt, Rowland

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

Nannetti, Joseph P.

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

Jessel, Captain Herbert Her ton

Nicholson, William Graham

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

O'Brien, K. (Tipperary Mid.)

Thorbarn, Sir Walter

Joyce, Michael

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Thornton, Percy M.

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.

O'Malley, William

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Kerr, John

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Tuff, Charles

Keswick, William

Pease, Herb. Pike (Darlington)

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Kilbride, Denis

Percy, Earl

Valentia, Viscount

Knowles, Sir Lees

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Wallace, Robert

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

Plummer, Walter R.

Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Warde, Colonel C. E.

Lawrence, Sir Jos. (Monmouth

Power, Patrick Joseph

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

Lawson, J. Grant (Yorks., N. R.

Pretyman, Ernest George

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

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham

Pym, C. Guy

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Bristol, S.

Reddy, M.

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

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

London, W.

Round, Rt. Hon. James

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Royds, Clement Molyneux

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

MacVeagh Jeremiah

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

M'Crae, George

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh, W

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

*COLONEL DENNYsaid he rose for the purpose of moving his Amendment excluding Leith from the suggested area. At the present time there was no overlapping, and the boundaries did Dot impinge upon the boundaries of the city of Edinburgh, consequently there was no danger in placing Leith upon its own feet. Leith was educationally complete, for they had a complete system of elementary and secondary education, and they also possessed a technical college. They had in Leith a most excellent school board, and, what was more important, it cost £1 per child less in Leith for education than in Edinburgh. Leith had more children for the size of the population than any other community in Scotland, and therefore any burgh of that character was perfectly competent to stand upon its own legs. Leith provided education for all classes in its own area, while Edinburgh had done very little comparatively for secondary and technical education. Some of
1578
the endowed schools in Edinburgh were not open to children who did not happen to be the children of the citizens of Edinburgh. Edinburgh educated only from 50 to 60 per cent. of her children under the school board system, whilst the proportion educated under the school board I system in Leith was between 80 and 90 percent. There was a great difference in the character of the two places. Edinburgh was residential and contained a large professional class, whilst Leith was more a population consisting of commercial and industrial people. Leith did not want to join with Edinburgh, and Edinburgh had made no sign whatever I that she wanted Leith to join her. Leith would gain £5,000 by joining with Edinburgh, but they were willing to sacrifice that because they believed that they could conduct their education better themselves. He begged to move his Amendment.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 2, line 3, after the word 'Edinburgh,' to insert the word 'Leith.'"—(Colonel Denny.)
Question proposed. "That the word 'Leith' be there inserted."
MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAYsaid he was not going to follow his hon. and gallant friend in his panegyric of the various qualities of Leith. He understood that for the most part the children of Leith went to the secondary schools at Edinburgh.
*COLONEL DENNY: That was so at one time, but it is not so now.
MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAYsaid there was only one school in Leith which was worthy of the name of a secondary school. Anybody who knew the circumstances of Edinburgh and Leith knew that there was no neighbourhood in Scotland where they were more likely to run rival educational establishments. It was perfectly well known that the opinion of the Edinburgh School Board was entirely in favour of the propositions made in this Bill. He did not think that he needed to say very much more upon this subject. He regarded this not as a stronger but as a much weaker case than that of Govan, and he should be very much surprised indeed if the Committee accepted this Amendment.
MR. THOMAS SHAWsaid Edinburgh was splendidly supplied with regard to appliances for secondary education, and he wanted to know from the mover of the Amendment whether his proposal to separate Leith from Edinburgh would involve the depriving of Leith children of the benefits of Edinburgh secondary education. On the other hand, he would like to know from the Government whether, if the incorporation took place, the population of Leith would be thereby entitled to share in those splendid endowments with which Edinburgh was provided. If Leith were convinced that she would share the fortunes of Edinburgh in that respect, he thought they would find Leith willing to accept the proposal in the Bill. If Leith, by entering into the school board area of Edinburgh, were also
1580
to enter into joint inheritance of those splendid endowments, he could imagine nothing better than that Leith should join Edinburgh.
*MR. McCRAEhoped the Committee would not accept the Amendment. It was a curious thing that an East of Scotland Member could not be found to state the claim of Leith in this matter, and that those who objected to the proposal in the Bill should have to go to the West of Scotland to get one to advocate the case of Leith. He thought the Secretary for Scotland had made out a good case for the inclusion of Leith in Edinburgh. There was really no physical distinction between Edinburgh and Leith. The boundaries were conterminous and for the sake of uniformity of administration and having regard to the fact that this amalgamation would be a financial gain to Leith, the proposal in the Bill was a good one. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock stated the amount per bead spent on education in Leith, but he did not inform the House as to the rates for education in Edinburgh and Leith respectively. If he had done so, the Committee would have found that the rates of Edinburgh were considerably less than those of Leith. He thought that the Leith people admitted frankly there would be a financial gain to them if Leith were included in Edinburgh. The hon. and learned Member for the Border Burghs wished to know whether the children of Leith would under the Bill have the benefits enjoyed by those of Edinburgh. This Bill would give them all those benefits with one exception, and he asked the Secretary for Scotland whether it would not be possible to put that right in the Bill. Heriot's Foundations were only applicable to Edinburgh children. Could these not be extended in some way to Leith children? Prior to 1833 they were eligible, because the area was then under one municipality. Therefore, it would be only reverting to the old state of things if that privilege were again given to Leith. With regard to any debt that had been incurred by Leith, he thought it would be an injustice, as was at first proposed, that they should be called upon to bear the whole responsibility of that. The Bill had been very much improved by providing that any debt would be

1581
jointly borne by the new area, whatever it might be. He thought that was a sound financial principle. Looking to the whole facts of the case he thought there could be no doubt that, if they considered economy and uniformity of administration, the proper course was to approve of the clause as it appeared in the Bill.
*MR. DOBBIEsaid the public bodies of Leith were practically unanimous against the proposal in the Bill. He agreed with the mover of the Amendment that there was a stronger case here than with regard to Govan. There was at present no educational connection between Edinburgh and Leith, and there was no municipal connection. Quite the opposite. He differed from the Secretary for Scotland in the view he expressed regarding the efficiency of the machinery for secondary and technical education in Leith. His information was that Leith in many respects was better equipped than Edinburgh in regard, particularly, to technical education. When they considered that Leith had a population of 80,000, and that the children attending its schools numbered 12,000, he thought the Committee must have strong reasons stated to persuade them to take a course contrary to the wishes of the ratepayers. He knew a district in Argyllshire which would have a new school board where the population was only 7,339, and the children attending school numbered only 550. If such a place was to have a school board, Leith ought to have one. This was a matter which should be tested only by school efficiency, and, that being so, Leith would compare favourably in regard to taxable area and population, and the number of scholars was more than two-thirds of the boards to be established under this Bill. He suggested that Leith should be allowed to have a school board, and that if an amalgamation was to take place it should not be by means of a proposal emanating from the Government, but only when supported by the great body of opinion in Leith, and after terms had been adjusted.
MR. MUNRO FERGUSONsaid the case for Leith had been admirably put by the hon. Member opposite. He thought the amalgamation which was proposed, except in the case of the four excluded burghs, was sound educationally, and would prevent overlapping. He voted for including Govan in Glasgow, believing that more efficient education would be got under the proposal in the Bill. He had often complained of the extreme autocracy of the Scottish Education Department, and he believed that the two main securities in the Bill for local freedom were the two great education authorities which would be set up in Glasgow and Edinburgh. He believed it would be less possible in future for the Education Department to override those great local authorities than it had been hitherto, and that the local liberty which would find expresssion in these bodies would be the standard by which the local liberty of the smaller bodies would be expressed. The inequalities of local burdens in different areas had been the subject of frequent complaint. This Bill tended to mitigate these inequalities. It would tend to mitigate them in the case of Edinburgh and Leith. Leith would certainly derive some financial advantage under the Bill. Grants in aid would be withdrawn from Leith, and the rating burden would become heavier. Personally, he should be glad to see some of that burden extended over the wealthier region of Edinburgh. He did not find it possible to support the elimination of one burgh because he happened to represent it in that House, and, though he knew the views of the local authorities were against amalgamation, he was of opinion that considerable advantages would result from it. Leith School Board had done extremely good work, and the only ground on which he was opposed to the local authorities was the general one which he had advanced, and which, he thought, sufficiently justified the passing of the clause as it stood.
MR. CALDWELLsaid he had very great sympathy with Leith on this question. What was being done in the

1583
case of Leith illustrated the great change which was being made in Scotch educational management. In this case they were proposing to go against the sentiment of the place. Leith objected to being annexed to Edinburgh, either for municipal or educational purposes; and he must say it was a very strong step indeed for this House to insist upon their being amalgamated for educational purposes without any further inquiry. What was the ground of the amalgamation? It was not alleged that Leith was deficient in elementary or secondary education. It was said they wanted to combine a certain amount of secondary education between Leith and Edinburgh. That was to say the whole local interest of the burgh of Leith was to be subordinated for the sake of a few people who wanted to get secondary education. No doubt Leith would have a certain amount of repre-
sentation on the board to be set up, but it would be minority representation. It seemed ridiculous that the control of education should be taken from the people of the burgh, and practically handed over to another district, merely because that district happened to be larger. Even under the scheme proposed in the Amendment of the Secretary for Scotland they could not bring about an amalgamation except upon the initiative of the local authority. There was no initiative here. There was absolute opposition. He thought that Leith had a stronger claim for separation from Edinburgh than Govan had for separation from Glasgow.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 36; Noes, 171. (Division List No. 148.)

AYES.

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Levy, Maurice

Tennant, Harold John

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Lough, Thomas

Thomas, D. Alfred (Merthyr)

Caldwell, James

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

Campbell-Banner man, Sir H.

Mansfield, Horace Rendall

Wason, Jn. Cathcart (Orkney)

Causton, Richard Knight

Maxwell, W. J. H.(Dumfriessh.)

Weir, James Galloway

Dalziel, James Henry

Pirie, Duncan V.

White Luke (York, E. R.)

Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

Power, Patrick Joseph

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Furness, Sir Christopher

Reid, James (Greenock)

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert Jn.

Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

Harmsworth, R. Leicester

Rigg, Richard

TELLERS FOR THE AYES— Colonel Denny and Mr. Dobbie.

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Horniman, Frederick John

Russell, T. W.

Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

Long, Sir John

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.

Black, Alexander William

Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Boland, John

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Crombie, John William

Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.

Brassey, Albert

Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

Asher, Alexander

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Cullinan, J.

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

Dalkeith, Earl of

Balcarres, Lord

Butcher, John George

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

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

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

Davenport, William Bromley-

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

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Delany, William

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Cautley, Henry Strother

Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny N.)

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

Bignold, Arthur

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Dickinson, Robert Edmond

Bigwood, James

Chapman, Edward

Dickson, Charles Scott

Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Doogan, P. C.

Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.)

Renwick, George

Doughty, George

Lawson, J. Grant (Yorks., N. R.

Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S

Rose, Charles Day

Dunn, Sir William

Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Bristol, S.)

Round, Rt. Hon. James

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Ellice, Capt. E. C (SAndrw's Bghs

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

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

Lundon, W.

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Maclver, David (Liverpool)

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

Fison, Frederick William

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

M'Crae, George

Sheehy, David

Forster, Henry William

M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh, W

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Foster, P. S. (Warwick, S. W.)

M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

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

Gardner, Ernest

M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

Spear, John Ward

Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

Malcolm, Ian

Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.

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

Martin, Richard Biddulph

Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

Stock, James Henry

Graham, Henry Robert

Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.

Stroyan, John

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Gretton, John

Morpeth, Viscount

Sullivan, Donal

Hain, Edward

Morrell, George Herbert

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Mount, William Arthur

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Hall, Edward Marshall

Murnaghan, George

Thornton, Percy M.

Hammond, John

Murphy, John

Tuff, Charles

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford

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

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Valentia, Viscount

Hayden, John Patrick

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Wallace, Robert

Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

Nicholson, William Graham

Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

Henderson, Sir A.(Stafford, W.

O'Brien, K, (Tipperary, Mid.)

Warde, Colonel C. E.

Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

O'Brien, Patrick (Kelkenny)

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

Hope, J. E. (Sheffield, Brightside

O'Malley, William

Welby, Sir Charles G. E.(Notts.

Houston, Robert Paterson

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Hunt, Rowland

Pease, Herb. Pike (Darlington

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

Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

Percy, Earl

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Joyce, Michael

Plummer, Walter R.

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

Kerr, John

Pretyman, Ernest George

Keswick, William

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Kilbride, Denis

Pym, C. Guy

Knowles, Sir Lees

Reddy, M.

Question put, and agreed to.

Amendment proposed.
In page 2, line 9, after the words 'Kinning Park,' to insert the word 'Rutherglen.'"—(Colonel Denny.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'Rutherglen' be there inserted."
MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAYsaid he accepted the Amendment.
MR. CALDWELLsaid he understood that the Secretary for Scotland accepted the inclusion of Rutherglen in the Glasgow School Board district because the people of that burgh were agreeable. In this case consent was made the ground
1586
of annexation, whereas in the case of Leith and Govan the annexation was made whether the people wished it or not. He thought the wishes of the local authority should have been respected in the one case as well as in the other.
MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAYsaid there was a confusion of mind on the part of the hon. Gentleman. The I question to be decided in the case of Leith was whether that burgh should be a separate enumerated district, whereas in the case now before the Committee the point was whether Rutherglen'should be in the Glasgow district or in the Lanarkshire district. There was no co-

1587
relation whatever betweeen the two cases. Not only were the parties in Rutherglen willing to be joined to the Glasgow district, but on educational grounds it was highly expedient.
MR. BRYCEsaid that as his hon. and gallant friend who moved the Motion represented the burgh of Rutherglen, he thought that the Committee could not go wrong in accepting it. He must, however, express his surprise that Rutherglen was content to be annexed to Glasgow. Rutherglen, or rather Ruglen, was an older town than Glasgow. There was the ancient distich which ran:—
"Ruglen was a toun when Glasgow was nane,
And Raglen will be a toun when Glasgow is gane."
MR. HALDANEsaid he rejoiced that the right hon. Gentleman had referred to the historic associations of Ruglen; it was an abuse of pronunciation to call it Rutherglen. Why was it that Ruglen was not originally included in the Glasgow instead of being included in the Lanarkshire district? There was a presumption that it was quite right to include it in the Glasgow district from the fact that the hon. and gallant Member who represented the burgh had advocated it.
MR. THOMAS SHAWsaid his right hon. friend had mistaken the position in regard to Ruglen and Glasgow altogether. The real object of Ruglen in this matter was not far to seek; it wanted to annex Glasgow, and he saw no reason why anybody outside should object to that arrangement. Seriously, his view was that all suburban districts should be attached to their educational centre. On
1588
that ground he had voted for Govan being annexed to Glasgow, and Leith to Edinburgh. That position was sufficient to justify the Government in accepting the Amendment.
Amendment proposed.
"In page 2, lines 9 and 10, to leave out the words 'and Pollokshaws."'—Sir Charles Renshaw.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
*SIR CHARLES RENSHAWsaid he wished to know why Pollokshaws should be included in Glasgow. It might be no doubt convenient to the children in some part of Pollokshaws, but for the educational interests of the children who lived in the county to the south of Pollokshaws the arrangement would be extremely inconvenient. Why was it that this change had been made without any consultation with those responsible for the education of that district?
MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAYsaid that the Department had consulted the educational authorities of Pollokshaws, and they wanted to be included in the Glasgow district.
MR. CHARLES DOUGLASsaid he had an Amendment on the Paper to insert after "Pollokshaws," "and the parts of the parishes of Govan and Springburn which are not included in those burghs." He would not move this Amendment, as he understood the Secretary for Scotland was going to consider it.
MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAYsaid he would consider it, but the probability was that he would not accept it.
Question proposed, "That Clause 3, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
DR. MACNAMARAsaid he was bound again to ask a Question as to which he had hitherto been unable to get an answer from the Government. He wanted to know why the Government had determined to retain the school board system in Scotland after having destroyed it in England and Wales? When the English Education Bill was before the House, he pleaded with the Government to amalgamate the small school boards, and give the new boards suitable areas, but scorn was poured upon him for making that proposal. The Prime Minister, whom he was sorry not to see in his place, told the House on the London Bill that he was clearly of opinion that it was a most retrograde policy to support the principle of an ad hoc authority. If it was a retrograde policy in 1903, why was it not so in 1904? The President of the Local Government Board had said that for good or evil the Government had decided to support no longer the ad hoc principle. Why were they supporting it there to night? The Vice-President of the Committee of Council had stated that the Government thought an ad hoc authority was an anachronism. If it was an anachronism in 1902, what was it in 1904? It must be more than an anachronism. The condemnation of the ad hoc principle in 1902 and 1903 was absolute and unreserved, and the school board system was denounced as the most reactionary, extravagant, and hopeless system that an offended deity had ever thrust upon the country. Why was it
1590
different now? If it was all wrong for England, why was it all right for Scotland? He put this Question quite seriously, and would go on asking it, and he was entitled to an answer.
MR. J. A. PEASEsaid that the Question of the hon. Gentleman was a very pertinent one, and ft appeared to him that he was entitled to some reply. English Members who were obliged to attend to their duties in the House desired to vote on sound principles in connection with education in Scotland; and they were anxious to hear from the Government why a change of front had been adopted in this matter of school boards and the ad hoc principle. Had the Government any reason to distinguish the people of Scotland from those of England and Wales? The latter were equally entitled to the control of their educational system as the people of Scotland.
MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAYsaid he was told that the hon. Member for Camber-well would go on asking Questions. There were many people who went through life like that. He would have thought that really the hon. Gentleman would have been rather glad at last to find that somebody appreciated all the things he had said years ago. In answer to the hon. Member for Saffron Walden, he should be very glad to take his education in hand out in the lobby, and show him how the Government had to come to a different decision on a practical matter in Scotland and England. To begin with, in Scotland they had universal school boards, and in England they had not. He had explained fully on the Second Reading what the considerations were which led the Government, in accordance to what

1591
he believed to be the majority of Scotch opinion, to frame a different scheme for the different circumstances of Scotland, to that which had been passed for England and Wales.
And it being Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

SITE FOR DUKE OF YORK'S SCHOOL BILL [LORDS].
[SECOND READING.]
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
LORD BALCARRESsaid he hoped that the House would give him the Second Reading of I this Bill, and let it be referred to a Select Committee. The Bill made no charge on the public accounts, and it was really important that the building operations should be begun as soon as possible.
MR. WHITLEYsaid that certain rights of way were to be interfered with in an irregular fashion, and he really thought that the Bill ought to be taken when a few minutes could be spared to discuss it.
Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.
Adjourned at seven minutes after Twelve o'clock.