Lords Sitting of 1 August 1898

Preamble
THE LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the Woolsack at a Quarter-past Four of the Clock.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  ISLE OF WIGHT RAILWAY (BRADING HARBOUR AND RAILWAY) BILL. [H.L.]
  Commons' Amendments considered, and agreed to.
ST. HELEN'S CORPORATION BILL.
Reported with Amendments.
WEST HAM CORPORATION BILL.
Reported with Amendments, and recommitted for To-morrow.
INDIA OFFICE (STORE DEPOT) BILL.
Reported with an Amendment, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.
GENERAL POWER DISTRIBUTING COMPANY BILL. [H.L.]
Message from the Commons of Friday last to be considered To-morrow.
BIRMINGHAM, NORTH WARWICKSHIRE, AND STRATFORD-UPON-AVON RAILWAY (EXTENSION OF TIME) BILL.
Read the third time, and passed.
LANCASHIRE, DERBYSHIRE, AND EAST COAST RAILWAY BILL.
Read the third time, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
LINCOLN AND EAST COAST RAILWAY AND DOCK BILL.
Read the third time, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
MIDDLESEX COUNTY COUNCIL BILL.
Read the third time, with the Amendments; further Amendments made; Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
MANCHESTER CARRIAGE AND TRAMWAYS COMPANY BILL. [H.L.]
Returned to the Commons agreed to.
BURNLEY CORPORATION (TRAMWAYS, ETC.) BILL.
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
IPSWICH DOCK COMMISSION BILL.
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
USK VALLEY RAILWAY BILL.
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
GREAT NORTH OF SCOTLAND RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendment.
NEWHAVEN AND SEAFORD WATER BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendment.
NORTH BRITISH RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL. [H.L.]
Commons' Amendments to be considered To-morrow.
METROPOLITAN COMMON SCHEME (EAST SHEEN) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Read the third time (according to order), with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 13) BILL.
Read the third time (according to order), and passed.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  AFRICA (No. 8, 1898).
  Report on the progress of the Mombasa-Victoria. (Uganda) Railway, 1897–98.
  EVICTIONS (IRELAND).
  Return of evictions in Ireland, for the quarter ended 30th June, 1898.
  LUNACY (IRELAND).
  Forty-seventh report (with appendices) of the Inspectors of Lunatics (Ireland).

NATIONAL GALLERY (IRELAND).
Report of the Directors of the National Gallery of Ireland to the Board of Governors and Guardians;
Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

IRISH LAND COMMISSION.
Report of the Commissioners, for the period from 1st April, 1897, to 31st March, 1898.

SUPERANNUATION.
Treasury Minutes, dated 22nd July, 1898—

I. Granting a retired allowance to Mr. Percy Charles Johnson, second division clerk in the Money Order Office of the General Post Office.

II. Declaring that William Butler, Royal Carriage Department, War Office, was appointed without a civil service certificate through inadvertence on the part of the head of his department.

Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

PETITION.
  ALIENS BILL. [H.L.]
  Against; of persons signing; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
BILLS PASSED.
  CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 2) BILL.
  Read the third time (according to order), and passed.
ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL.
Read the third time (according to order), and passed.
TELEGRAPH MONEY BILL.
Read the third time (according to order), and passed.
RIVERS POLLUTION PREVENTION (BORDER COUNTY COUNCILS) (No. 2) BILL.
Read the third time (according to order), and passed.
THE PUNJAUB.
THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK: My Lords, I beg to give notice that I propose to-morrow to call attention to the statement that has been made respecting impressments in the Punjaub, and to move for Papers.

RAILWAY CONCESSIONS IN CHINA.
THE EAEL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I rise to ask the Prime Minister what steps Her Majesty's Government propose to take to safeguard British interests as regards railways in, the provinces bordering on the Yang-tse Kiang. I think the noble Marquess will not be surprised, considering the amount of anxiety which appears to prevail very generally in regard to the concessions for railways in China, that I should, before the House separates, give him the opportunity of making any statement he may think desirable on the subject. My Lords, the course of affairs in China seems to me to have been very much in one direction. Our original policy, which we all agreed upon—that of the open door—seems now to be very little more than a council of perfection, and with rapid strides it seems to me that China is being parcelled out into spheres of influence. No one can have read what has taken place in regard to Manchuria without seeing that the Russians are taking the most effective and rapid measures to appropriate the entire control of that country, and to exclude, as far as
650
they can, any foreigners—by which I mean those who are not Russians—from any participation in railway projects in that very important region of China. We are supposed to have a very important sphere of influence in the provinces bordering on the great river Yang-tse-Kiang; and, so far as the use of the river is concerned, I believe we have obtained considerable concessions with regard to navigation from the Chinese Government, which, of course, are very valuable indeed. But it seems to me of importance, as regards commerce in China, that the future will lie chiefly with those who are able to establish a network of railway communications throughout that Empire, and unless the information which reaches us from China is extremely at fault, it would seem as if other Powers are making the most strenuous efforts to obtain the command of the railway communication, even into the Yang-tse-Kiang region. We have heard of a concession which is said to have been made to Belgium. Of course, there is no reason why we should be jealous of the Belgians, if they should embark their capital in useful works in China. But I confess to have considerable suspicions that Belgium will not be alone, and that other Powers will be found to have a finger in the pie. If that should not be so, so much the better. My Lords, the concession to Belgium is, I believe, for a railway from Pekin to Han-kau, which will pass through a most important part of China, and must be regarded as a trunk railway of the first importance. My Lords, there are also rumours, which may have no foundation, that the Germans are contemplating obtaining some concession in the same direction. But perhaps the most remarkable statement of all is one which appeared two or three days ago in the Times newspaper—namely, that a British company, having desired to obtain a concession to make a railway from Kau-Lung to Canton, the French Government remonstrated against the concession on the ground that the province of Kwang-tung lies within then-sphere of influence. Now, it certainly does seem to me, looking at our long connection with that part of China, that the contention that this great province, which includes the city of Canton, should be exclusively the hunting-ground for

651
concessions for one great Power only is one of the most extravagant propositions I ever heard of. Possibly it may have no foundation, for I have, of course, no special information on the subject. But what I wish to point out is that there is never smoke without fire; and the amount of smoke which appears to be passing through these regions in regard to railway concessions must lead anyone to conclude that there is a great deal of fire at the foundation. There cannot be the smallest doubt that Russia and other great Powers are making the most strenuous and determined efforts to appropriate as far as they can the right to use the Chinese Empire for the construction of great railway works. Of course, it may be said that it will be a long time before such great works can be constructed; but I believe that if we do not exert ourselves strenuously now, and see that we are not ousted from our fair share—for we ask for no more—of these great enterprises, we may find, as we have found in other quarters of the world, that we have been supplanted, or that we may have to face the difficulty when there would be more danger and more friction in the position than there is at the present time. My Lords, of course, it may be said that, looking to the traditions of our Government, it is extremely difficult for us to fight with the same weapons as are employed by other Governments. But in a matter of this kind, so deeply affecting the commercial prospects of this country, I cannot but feel that we may be compelled to depart from our usual practice, and I feel quite certain that the noble Marquess and Her Majesty's Government must be sensible of the gravity of these affairs, and must be anxious to do everything in their power to reassure the public mind on this subject. I do not, of course, ask the noble Marquess to reveal to me any diplomatic secrets, or to make any statement which would prejudice any action that Her Majesty's Government may be engaged in; but, nevertheless, I think it may be in his power to indicate in some clear way the policy which Her Majesty's Government are pursuing, and are intending to pursue. My Lords, there is no doubt that the Chinese Government, being extremely weak, is at the mercy of, such great Powers as may not be very scrupulous as
652
to the pressure or even other means that they may use to influence it. We heard when Wei-hai-Wei was acquired that it might be regarded, at all events, as a means of showing the Chinese Government that we were not disposed to be left out in the cold; and if you reflect upon the enormous share of trade still possessed by us in those regions, if you reflect upon the whole history of our connection with China, where we have played a far greater part than any other Power, I think that Her Majesty's Government has a right to expect that the Chinese Government will listen to their remonstrances; and I should hope that such pressure may be applied, if necessary, as may prevent the Chinese from making concessions to other Powers which are obviously directed against British interests. I need not mention the great efforts which are made to prevent Englishmen being employed on such works. But all these things are indications that no means will be left untried, be they fair means or foul means, to damage our interests and establish other Powers in regions where we, at all events, have the right to exercise great influence and to have a larger share. We have had numerous discussions in regard to China, and there is no necessity, therefore, to repeat the general arguments over again. I will therefore conclude by simply asking the noble Marquess the Question of which I have given notice.
THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OP STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY): My Lords, I listened to the noble Earl with great interest, because he is a man with a very clear head, and I hoped I should trace in his speech an apprehension of the confusion which commonly attends the discussion of these matters. The noble Earl was, in effect, making an arraignment, though in all moderate language, of the conduct of Her Majesty's Government. I was very anxious to see what he thought it was the duty of Her Majesty's Government to do. My belief—and, I imagine, his belief also'—is that the duty of the Government in foreign countries is to give protection, and, so far as in their power lies, assistance to all British subjects who have commercial or other

653
enterprises to conduct, and to take care that they are not treated with injustice or illegality. What a different conception has animated much of the discussion we have had on this Chinese question! The impression seems to be—and I am not satisfied that the noble Earl is free from it—that it is part of the duty of Her Majesty's Government to trace out plans for railways in that foreign country, to construct railways, to find capitalists and undertakers, and to provide the capital. If that is the impression of the noble Earl, I can only say that I do not share it. And that my view is not entirely imaginary as to the doctrines which prevail, I will merely cite the utterances of some commercial bodies. I have received addresses from Worcester, Waddington, Stockton, and, I think, two or three other places, in which they urge that Her Majesty's Government—I will quote their own words—should lose no time in insisting upon a concession for a railway from the Burmese frontier to the Yang-tse-Kiang River, with a branch line to Canton, and a line connecting Canton with Han-kau. So far as I can see, that means, at least, 2,000 miles of railway as the crow flies, and probably considerably more. Then the London China Association has to-day published a letter impressing upon us with scarcely less emphasis that it would be immeasurably preferable that important trunk lines should be laid by China herself with foreign capital, and suggesting that Parliament might be invited to protect British interests by a British guarantee. If we came to a discussion of this question, I think I could show grounds for thinking that such a policy would be unwise. But what I wish, as a preliminary step, to insist upon is that as the tradition of the English Government has been for generations in the opposite direction, and its conduct in such matters is well known, it would not be fitting, it would not be tolerable, for the Executive Government of the country to undertake an entire reversal of the traditional policy of the country without giving to Parliament some opportunity of expressing its opinion thereupon. I am bound to say that I see in no authoritative quarter any indication of a support of such a policy. Perhaps I ought to accept the language of the noble Earl
654
to-night; but he spoke very vaguely, and I cannot fasten on him such a policy without a more distinct avowal. But there has been no resolution, no Vote of Parliament, no avowal of policy, from any person of political authority or position of any party, which would justify the adoption of such a line of action as that which is recommended to us by these commercial bodies. I do not, therefore, believe that it is the duty of Her Majesty's Government to make railways in China, or to find the money for making them; and I wish to state that quite clearly, that I may not seem, by silence or avoidance, to admit such an extraordinary extension of the duties of the-diplomatic profession. But then, perhaps, the noble Earl will say to me, "I quite agree that it is your duty to help British subjects in their commercial enterprises, and to protect them, but why do not you help British subjects in undertaking to make railways in this foreign country?" My answer, which I might put in a proverbial form, is that there are no British subjects to help. There is one railway—I must not mention names or go into details—but there is one railway for which, I believe, up to a certain point, a British syndicate has sought, and has obtained, a preliminary concession. But even in regard to that the terms are not settled. With respect to other railways, I have never heard anything on the side of English capitalists, except the claim that on account of the general importance of Chinese trade the British Government should guarantee the railway capital necessary to construct the important trunk lines in China. Now, of course, we may be indulging in premature discussion. It is quite possible that British capitalists may come forward, and if they come forward the noble Earl may be certain that Her Majesty's Government will do all in their power to obtain for them concessions for the work they undertake, and I think we may claim that we have, for the purpose of persuading the Chinese Government, a diplomatist of singular ability and success in Sir Claude MacDonald, and that all that can be done will be done by him to obtain just and equal treatment for British applicants for concessions to make railways in China. But until applications are made, and until the concessions

655
are asked for, of course his intervention will be of no use. I am speaking, of course, with respect to the Yang-tse-Kiang Valley, because that is the matter to which the noble Earl has specially pointed my attention. I shall come in a moment to another matter that he raised, with respect to the Canton railway, which is not in the Yang-tse-Kiang Valley, but which undoubtedly deserves our attention. Now, I maintain that it is not our duty to make railways until we are masters of a country, which could only happen after a successful war. We cannot force the Chinese Government to give concessions, but we can, I think, urge upon them such arguments that in a general way would induce them to give proper treatment to the applications of British subjects when they are made. The Chinese Government we have hitherto found certainly well-intentioned to this country, and though I think they have a shrewd view of their own interests, and are very anxious that the possession of railways shall not be made a means of taking the government, of their country out of their hands, I believe they are exceedingly well disposed towards British applications. But there is one apprehension which I think I traced in the speech of the noble Earl, and which I have frequently heard; it lies at the bottom of all the uneasiness of this matter. It is not that people deny the right of the Chinese Government to settle this matter for themselves, if they are left alone, but it is, I believe, that they are threatened by other Powers into giving undue advantages to those Powers to the detriment of English applications. It is very difficult to know how far that impression is correct. There are a good many things stated in the papers for which I cannot find any foundation. But no doubt the Russians—the diplomatists of other countries are skilful in all the arts of persuasion, and some of the arts of persuasion which they employ I think belong to that category which the noble Earl alluded to when he said it was not open to us with our traditions to adopt. But as regards the matter of threatening to take aggressive action if a concession is granted to a British applicant, that is a point upon which we have a clear right to be heard, and have a power to interpose; and we therefore, about a fortnight
656
ago, communicated to Sir Claude MacDonald this instruction—
"You are authorised to inform the Chinese Government that Her Majesty's Government will support them in resisting any Power which commits an act of aggression on China on account of China having granted permission to make or support any railway or public work to a British subject."
Well, that is the utmost we can do. We are willing to repeat that, and act upon it. It is obvious that it is the utmost we can do. We will support China if there is any attempt to bully or drive her into refusing British applications. My belief is that we shall gain our full share of profitable railways, but our capitalists are very good men of business, and I do not think they are in the least inclined to risk their money in unprofitable railways. One railway of which I hear very much is the railway from the borders of Burma to the Yang-tse-Kiang. It looks to me as if it would be a railway of exceedingly doubtful value. It passes over most impracticable country, and a country much of which is very sparsely populated. But I think you must bear in mind that in all new countries English capital has hitherto not entered upon railway enterprise, you may say generally without the assistance of a Government guarantee. In India, populated, wealthy, orderly as it is, every railway of importance has been made with a Government guarantee. In South America, where there is an enormous mass of British capital invested in railways, in almost every case the undertaking was begun by a concession, or the promise from the Government whichever it was, of a Government guarantee. You will get no Government guarantee of that kind from China; in the first place, because they do not very much wish for railways; and, secondly, because I do not think they have the money. But you cannot, without departing from every tradition that you have hitherto observed, supply its place by offering that guarantee yourself. That consideration, no doubt, hinders the application of British capital to the construction of railways in China. I do not think it will hinder it entirely. I think it is probable that we shall have some profitable parts, but I believe that our nerves must prepare themselves for witnessing the bestowal of

657
unprofitable concessions upon our rivals and our neighbours. No doubt a great noise will be made at the time that those concessions are granted; there is something almost morbid in the tendency to believe that no bargain can go on with China on the part of any Power without its being really a concealed bargain on the part of Russia. As far as our information goes, derived both from China and from Belgium, we have no doubt whatever that it is a complete mistake to imagine that this Pekin-Han-kau railway is in the hands of Russia; it is in the hands of a number of Belgian syndicates and firms, who obtained the first promise of the concession some 15 or 18 months ago. I have endeavoured to indicate to the noble Earl the extent to which, and the means by which, we think it our duty to intervene in this matter of railway concession in China. I have only one thing more to which I should like to direct his attention—has he satisfied himself that the construction of a railway in a country will give you political power in that country? I do not know on what precedent that very popular doctrine is founded. We have an admirable railway, the chairman of which is a well-known Member of this House—the Smyrna Railway. I believe that is one of the few Turkish lines which pay; but I never heard that the construction of that line by British capital, or its officering by British directors, has given to England the slightest influence or control over the Asiatic provinces of the Sultan. The lines in Eastern Roumelia were made by Baron Hirsch; but I have never heard that Austria has obtained from that success on Baron Hirsch's part the slightest influence in the management of Eastern Roumelia. If you come to examine it in detail, I do not see how the liberty to make a railway and to run a railway can give to any foreign country a political power over China. I quite admit that if the concession is allowed to run in such a form as to give an unequal right to Russia, if they can exclude or hamper in any degree our trade—I quite agree we should be very deeply wronged and that it would be a substantial breach of the Treaty of Tien-tsin, on which we rely, and which we shall resist to the very utmost of our power. But my own inclination is to say that, granted that
658
sufficient care is taken that there is no undue favouritism in the administration of the railway, if other Powers are disposed to make railways which our capitalists do not choose to undertake, then it is rather a matter for congratulation to us than for lamentation. At all events, it would not be possible for us to adopt, as a last alternative, that which was addressed to us in one sentence of the noble Earl's speech, which I think he must have expressed unintentionally, and that is, if we could not make the railway ourselves we should prevent anybody else making it.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I certainly did not intend to convey that. I may have used language which conveyed it, but that was not the intention which was in my mind.
THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS: I am very glad to hear that disclaimer. That is a policy which it would be perfectly impossible for us to pursue. If our capitalists are able and willing to make railways in the Yang-tsze Valley, or anywhere else, we will give them the utmost possible support, but if they cannot we will not try to deprive the Chinese people of the benefits of railway construction. My Lords, that is the only answer I have to make to the Question of the noble Earl.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: The noble Marquess said he would refer to the action of the French Government with reference to the proposed railway I mentioned—the railway from Kau-Lung to Canton.
THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS: I cannot believe that the French Minister has done anything so ill-advised. It is an intolerable pretension, and we are bound to support China against any Power who makes the grant of commercial facilities to a British subject the ground of aggressive action. I will only say our object is to maintain the open door, and I still declare that we have done so. Our object is that our rights under the Treaty of Tien-tsin shall be in no way invalidated or invaded, and that object we will pursue to the best

659
of our ability. But, whether capital should be found to make railways in China, and whether that capital should be English capital, or capital of other nations, that is a thing which will depend more upon the action of others than Her Majesty's Government, and is a matter for which Her Majesty's Government are not responsible.

PUBLIC BUSINESS.

  EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL CASES BILL.
  Order for the reconsideration of the Commons' Amendments read.
  Several of the said Amendments agreed to.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  LORD RUSSELL OF KILLOWEN: My Lords, I agree with the Motion of the Lord Chancellor that the House should accept the Commons' Amendments down to the point he has indicated. My absence on circuit prevented me having an opportunity when this Bill was before your Lordships' House of expressing my views upon it, and I therefore ask your Lordships' permission to do so now. I am the more anxious to express my views upon this Bill, because of the character of the criticisms to which the Bill has been subjected. Some of the criticisms undoubtedly have been directed towards it from persons well able to speak upon the matter. Their views are therefore entitled to consideration, but I think a great many of the criticisms have certainly not been of a very enlightened or a very well-informed character, and have proceeded from quarters not particularly well able to usefully criticise this Measure. For my own part, I hail this Bill with great satisfaction. Your Lordships are now, in part—not fully, but in part.—giving effect to the policy started as long ago as the year 1878 by one of the most experienced and distinguished criminal lawyers this country has ever produced.
  660
  I mean the Recorder of London, Mr. Russell Gurney, who supported the Bill introduced in 1878—I think it was by Mr. Evelyn Ashley—which went even further in some respects than the Bill now before your Lordships. What has been the policy of the Legislature since that Act? There have been altogether some 25 statutes passed, many of them dealing with very important subjects, as to which, under, not one Government, but several different Governments, the law has provided that a person accused of the subject-matter dealt with in those. Bills shall have a full opportunity of being heard, and of being heard upon oath. The position, therefore, is this: if the opponents of the Bill, the critics of this Bill, are to be consistent, they ought to ask this House and the Legislature to reverse the policy of the last 20 years, and to repeal some 25 Acts of Parliament. My Lords, speaking for myself, with a professional experience1 which is not a brief one, and so far as my judicial experience goes, I have never had brought to my attention or notice one single case in which the existence of the law as it now is, after the passage of these various Acts, has been the cause of any injustice to anyone. On the contrary, I have a strong belief that, while it is possible to conceive cases in which an unscrupulous and adroit person charged with an offence may escape the punishment of his offence, yet I believe such a case would be of a most exceptional kind. But I cannot conceive any case in which an innocent person will be in any way prejudiced or damnified by having the facility given to him of tendering evidence upon oath upon the matter of which the Bill treats. Nobody can doubt that theoretically the provisions made by this Bill is absolutely right. A person charged is the most interested and knows most about the subject-matter, and yet, according to our law, he is to be excluded, in a certain number of cases—some of them the more important cases—from giving his own explanation, on oath, and subject to cross-examination.. The inconsistency of the position is made more marked, I think, by drawing attention to one of the existing provisions of

  661
  our law. In the preliminary inquiries into indictable offences a magistrate, before he is entitled to commit a prisoner for trial, is bound by the law to inform the accused person that he may, if he desires, make any statement, and at the same time he is warned that if he makes a statement it may be used as evidence against him. He is, therefore, allowed to make a statement, but what is the character and weight of that statement? It is not evidence in the ordinary sense of the term at all. It is evidence, of course, against the man who makes it, but it is not evidence of the facts contained in the statement; and a judge, dealing with the statement of a prisoner under such circumstances, is compelled to do this—absolutely he can do no more—to tell the jury that the statement of the prisoner made before the magistrate is not evidence in point of law, because, according to the law of this country, except where a statutory exception is made, the evidence must be given upon oath, or upon the equivalent; and all the judge can tell the jury is to take into account the statement, to view it in the light of their impression of what the probabilities of the facts involved are, and if that statement fits in with, and is consistent with, their view of the true facts of the case, then they may, in that indirect way, give effect to the statement. That is not, I venture to submit, a satisfactory position in which to leave the matter, and it seems to me, therefore, that the propositions in the Bill are theoretically right. The 25 Acts of Parliament giving the accused party the opportunity of tendering evidence has worked well, and I see no reason whatever to apprehend in future that the extension which this Bill proposes will not work equally well. There are two points as to which I desire to say a word. Once you admit an accused person to be accepted as a witness, to be competent as a witness, it seems to me that it is impossible logically to maintain any kind of artificial safeguards as to the cross-examination of that witness, and for this reason: the object is, after all, to get at what is the force and effect of the statement the man makes, and you cannot get at the true estimate of what is its force unless it is subjected to the ordinary test of truth—cross-examination. I there-
  662
  fore am strongly of opinion that the limitation of cross-examination which this Bill proposes is not one that is logically defensible and cannot be long maintained. I admit that the point raises a question of considerable importance, and I should be unwilling, especially at this stage of the Bill, and at this period of the Session, to raise any topic which might imperil the passing of the Bill, which I regard as a great boon, and which I believe will operate for good, so far as it goes. The Bill makes the evidence of the husband against the wife and the wife against the husband admissible in certain cases in which it has not hitherto been admissible. It seems to me the time has come when the evidence of both the one and the other ought to be, not only competent, but compellable. The law as it is at the present moment is not possibly defensible. For instance, a wife who has been wounded by her husband is a competent witness to give evidence against him; but if the husband has killed one of her children, and one of his children, she is not a competent witness. This is an extraordinary state of the law, which ought to be set right as speedily as possible. My Lords, I do not intend to occupy the time of your Lordships further, but I did think that, holding the position I do in relation to the criminal judicature of this country, I should avail myself of the opportunity of saying that I regard this Bill as an important step in the right direction, and that I cannot anticipate that it will work any injustice in the administration of the criminal law.
  LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: My Lords, I am sure it will be felt that the speech we have just listened to from the Lord Chief Justice is likely to prove a speech of great utility. During the progress of this Bill through Parliament many adverse criticisms have been applied to its provisions, and much prophecy has existed that it will prove an engine of injustice. I say, my Lords, it is satisfactory to hear the Lord Chief Justice of England, who must represent, to a great extent, the judges of this country, expressing the confident opinion that the Bill ill be a great aid to the administration of true and complete justice. My Lards,

  663
  it is but to be expected, when a great reform of this kind is proposed, that many persons should be somewhat frightened at its application, and we find from experience that very often opposition to legal reform comes from within our profession more than from without. There are many who can recollect the strong objection that was made to that legislation which allowed parties to a civil suit to give evidence, and it was then foretold, on the authority of the judges, that it would be impossible to secure true verdicts if such evidence were allowed. It is somewhat interesting to read the account which was given by the Lord Chief Justice of that time of that intended reform. Lord Campbell, in his diary, says—
  "The great controversy now is upon the Evidence Bill, allowing the parties to be examined against and for themselves. The Bill is opposed, as might be expected, by the Lord Chancellor. If it passes it will create a new era in the administration of justice in this country. I support it, and I think it will be carried, although the Common Law judges, with one exception, are hostile to it."
  After four years' experience of that Act—in 1856—he adds the note—
  "The Act has been made to work most admirably. All mankind praise it."
  That was a reform very similar to the one which is now proposed, and experience has proved that it is a wise and just provision. For 20 years now some of us have been working in support of this Bill, and the experience of those who have had to deal, either as advocates or as judges, with the administration of law, if it could be fully told, would confirm the opinion that this reform can only result in justice. The great object we should have in view in the administration of criminal justice is that no innocent man should be convicted. It is an evil, doubtless, that a guilty man should escape, but of far more importance than the escape of a guilty man is the conviction of an innocent man. I could give you many instances wherein gross injustice has proceeded from the present state of the law. If your Lordships will forgive me, I should like to mention two of them. An elderly gentleman of position, 80 years of age, was indicted criminally for having placed a prospectus fraudulently before
  664
  the public. He was convicted and sentenced to three months' imprisonment. Immediately after the expiration of his term of imprisonment he had to defend a civil action brought against him on the same ground—the issue of this prospectus—and in the trial he went into the witness-box, gave his evidence, supported his statement with documents, and thereupon the jury stopped the case, giving a verdict for the defendant, the judge remarking that there was not the slightest ground for the assertion that he had been guilty of fraud. If in the criminal suit he could have given evidence on oath, he would never have suffered the injustice and indignity which he had to bear. Another instance arose under the administration of the Explosives Act, which was passed through every stage, under the direction of my right honourable Friend Sir William Harcourt, in a single day, for the purpose of punishing persons in possession of explosives. Twenty years' penal servitude was the sentence to be imposed upon those who had explosives in their possession under certain circumstances. The following year after the passing of the Act a man was indicted for having explosives in his possession under circumstances which entailed the heavier sentence. Happily, as the Lord Chief Justice has stated, wherever we have created a new offence, we have, for the past 20 years, always allowed the accused person to give evidence. The person to whom I am referring had against him a primâ facie case, containing almost certain proof that he was guilty. He went into the witness-box and explained away the evidence. It is true that one juryman refused to find a verdict of "not guilty," but the remainder wished to return a verdict of acquittal. The law officers of that time had to inquire into the facts, which led to the abandonment of the prosecution. But for the clause allowing the accused to give evidence upon oath, that man would probably now be undergoing penal servitude. I have had before me many other cases of a similar character, but I do not wish to detain your Lordships by referring to them. But I desire to offer my sincere congratulations to my noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack upon the result of his persistent

  665
  and determined efforts to secure this great reform. Many attempts have been made to pass this Measure into law. Some of us, as private Members of the House of Commons, have had charge of the Bill, but all our efforts failed. My noble Friend Lord Herschell, as Chancellor, made several attempts to bring this Measure into force, but in those attempts he failed also. But the determination, I may say the pertinacity, of my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor have at last succeeded, and in time to come many an innocent man who will secure his freedom through the provisions of this Bill ought gratefully to associate the benefit he receives with the name of my noble Friend.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I should like to say one word with regard to the criticisms that have been referred to. I observe that in some criticisms of the Bill it has been suggested that there is a possibility that innocent persons might be convicted who otherwise would be acquitted by reason of their being exposed to cross-examination. The only reply I have to make to this is that, after 20 years' experience of the result of allowing defendants to give evidence, nobody can assert that in a single instance an accused person has suffered from giving evidence. It does appear to me that that is one of those facts which is worth a great deal.
  Other Amendments considered.
  LORD RUSSELL OF KILLOWEN: My Lords, I should like, in reference to the proposed Amendment as to the application of the Act to courts-martial, to express the opinion that it is important in proceedings in courts-martial that an accused person should be allowed to give evidence.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I understand that in the House of Commons it was assumed that the Act would apply to courts-martial. The language of the Amendment moved is such that it will in due course apply under an existing Act giving power to apply the procedure of
  666
  ordinary courts to courts-martial. As to the ultimate application, I do not think there can be any doubt that it was proposed.
  Other Amendments agreed to, with Amendments, and Bill returned to the Commons.

BOARD OF EDUCATION BILL.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The DUKE of DEVONSHIRE): My Lords, I need hardly gay at this period of the Session I do not propose to ask your Lordships to make any progress, even to the extent of giving them a Second Reading, with the Bills which I am going to introduce; but as no other stage of them can be taken during the present Session, it will perhaps be convenient that I should be permitted to make a statement—which I am afraid must be rather long, but which I will endeavour to make as short as I can—as to the principal objects aimed at by these Bills. I must, in the first place, refer to a Report of the Royal Commission on Secondary Education, which was appointed by the late Government, and presided over by Mr. Bryce, and which made its Report in 1895, and also to the Education Bill introduced by the present Government in 1896. Your Lordships may remember that two of the principal recommendations of the Royal Commission were the establishment of a central authority and of local authorities for the purposes of secondary education, and I think that in their Report they attach about an equal importance to both. The Bill of 1896, dealing, as it did, with a great variety of subjects affecting both elementary and secondary education, did not contain any provision as to the establishment of a central authority. It did, however, provide for the establishment of county educational authorities, who were charged in the first place with certain duties concerning elementary education, with which at the present time I am not concerned. They were also empowered, for the purpose of promoting education other than elementary, to aid any school to provide such education, to establish such schools, and also to establish and maintain

667
scholarships, to supply, or aid in supplying teachers, to make inquiries as to education in any local schools, and to publish the result of such inquiries, and to aid any establishment or organisation for the training of teachers, elementary or secondary. In order to enable them, to perform these duties, the powers of county councils for the purposes of technical instruction were conferred on them, and the local taxation fund—or, as it is variously known, the beer money or whisky money—was placed at their disposal. A further power was also conferred upon the Science and Art Department to entrust the new authorities, by arrangement, with the administration of science and art grants in their areas. In fact, the provisions of the Bill of 1896 provided in the main for the carrying out of the recommendations of the Commission on Secondary Education as to the constitution of local authorities. In the earlier discussion on that Bill, whilst very strong objections were taken to many of the provisions concerning elementary education, these provisions as to secondary education were, on the whole, much more favourably received; but very early in the discussions in Committee in the other House, great differences of opinion manifested themselves both as to the areas and as to the constitution of the proposed local authorities, and the first fatal blow which the Bill received in Committee of the House of Commons was the Amendment which was forced upon the Government largely by their own followers, the effect of which was to include municipal boroughs of over 20,000 population as educational areas under the Bill. In the opinion of the Royal Commission, and also, I believe, in that of almost all educational experts, the area of the local authorities to which secondary education should be entrusted, ought certainly not to be less than that of a county or county borough. But I do not disguise from myself the fact that the spirit of municipal patriotism, or pride—I will not venture to call it the spirit of municipal jealousy and narrowness—was then still so strong, and I believe is still so strong, that any attempt to create an authority which would merge for all educational purposes the large boroughs in the counties in which they are situated, would still meet with very strong and deter-
668
mined opposition. That part of the question, therefore, appears to stand in this position: the principle of decentralisation of secondary education has met with very general acceptance, but almost insuperable difficulties still exist to prevent the practical application of the principle. My Lords, if in 1896 we had been dealing with secondary education alone, I should have felt great doubt—I still feel great doubt—whether it would be wise to attempt to constitute local authorities with defined powers without the preliminary, or, at all events, concurrent establishment of a central authority. If we could have overcome the difficulties which we had to encounter as between counties and county boroughs on the one hand, and smaller urban authorities on the other, I doubt whether those authorities could have done much in, reorganising the educational arrangements of their counties. They would have had to deal with school boards as to the higher grade schools, many of which are practically giving secondary education, and they would have had to deal with managers of science and art classes, and with the governors of endowed schools, under schemes of the Charity Commissioners, and with schools under private management so far as they might have been willing to come into any general organisation. For this purpose they would have had to enter into communication and correspondence with the Education Department, with the Science and Art Department, and with the Charity Commissioners, and from none of these Departments, organised as they at present are, do I think that they could1 have obtained all the guidance and assistance which they would require. None of those Departments have ever, so far as I am aware, been accustomed to look at educational questions as a whole, or to work together with each other for the co-ordination of educational agencies. I do not know whether airy President or Vice-President of the Council has ever attempted to place before Parliament a complete and well-defined scheme of the objects to which elementary education should be directed; but I am quite sure it has never been the duty of any Minister to attempt to place either before his colleagues, or before Parliament, any complete and well-defined scheme of the

669
objects to which the secondary education of the country ought to be directed. This is, I submit, an indefensible position of affairs. Beginning from some small grants for the encouragement of the teaching of the elementary principles of science and art, the Department of Science and Art is now maintaining central colleges of science and art at a cost of about £26,000 a year, and it is also distributing a public grant of £276,000, divided among local institutions, some of which profess to give the highest scientific and artistic teaching, ranging from highly equipped schools and colleges to the most elementary village classes. Local authorities have also been induced to tax themselves to a small extent, and a sum of £800,000 of public money has been placed at their disposal absolutely, for the same object. There is at present no demarcation—no definite line of demiarcaition—between elementary and secondary education, and therefore it is impossible to distinguish between ordinary elementary schools and the higher grade schools, or to state with any approach to accuracy what amount of public money derived either from the Exchequer or from the rates is now being applied by school boards to what is practically secondary education. In addition to that, Parliament has made itself responsible for the reorganisation of most of the old educational endowments with an approximate income of not less than £800,000. Thus we have a sum of not less than a million provided directly by Parliament, which is now being expended on certain branches of secondary education, in addition to further sums, which it is impossible accurately to estimate, derived from rates, the expenditure of which the Government has undertaken more or less to control. To these large figures may be added an immense number of private proprietary schools all over the country, a great number of which it is believed would be only too willing, in return for some public recognition, and perhaps some limited public support, to come into a general educational scheme. It seems to me that it is quite time that the direct administration of such of these agencies as derive direct support from public funds, as well as the indirect influence which can be
670
brought to bear upon others which are not so circumstanced, should come under the consideration of Parliament through a Minister who shall be understood to be directly responsible for the direction to be given to secondary as well as to elementary education. As an instance of the class of question with which such a Minister would be called upon to deal, I may mention that not long ago an important memorial was presented to the Prime Minister and to myself from the Associated Chambers of Commerce, asking that the same description of aid as is now given to instruction in science and art by the Government should be extended to subjects of a commercial character. I am not now expressing any opinion as to whether this ought to be done or not. Evidently it is a question of very great importance, and under existing conditions it is a question which has to be considered by all the Departments concerned—by the Education Department, by the Science and Art Department, and by the Treasury—almost entirety on the advice and with, the assistance of the Science and Art Department, which must necessarily look at it from the point of view of its own resources and its own regulations, whereas it is a question which ought evidently to be considered from the widest point of view, and in connection with the whole system of education in the country, whether given in public or private schools. I need not say that, in recommending the establishment of a central authority, responsible for secondary as well as primary education, I have not in my mind the establishment of any system of strict uniformity such as must necessarily exist in relation to elementary education. I believe, on the contrary, that the principle laid down in the Report of the Royal Commission, and adopted in the Bill of 1896, was a sound principle—that local authorities should be created, and that much should be left to their discretion. But I also think that a central authority has become an almost indispensable preliminary to the constitution of any satisfactory local organisation. The ground upon which we have to build is not clear. We have already created local authorities of all kinds, and of all dimensions. We have school boards under the Education Acts; we have

671
county and borough authorities under the Technical Education Acts; and we have committees of managers under the regulations of the Committee of Council. Some of these are dispensing large sums raised locally, and all of them are dispensing very considerable sums which have been placed at their disposal by Parliament, so that it will not be easy to displace them. Many of the areas which these authorities administer are too small to enable them to form anything like a properly co-ordinated system. But the point, as I have already said, on which the Bill of 1896 actually broke down was the revolt of non-county boroughs against the counties and county boroughs, and I believe that similar opposition would still be found to exist against any similar proposals which might be made at the present time. But, on the other hand, there are some signs that these authorities, although they cannot easily be displaced, may be induced to combine more or less voluntarily. A tentative suggestion has recently been introduced into the Science and Art Directory, by which county organisations have been invited to assume certain responsibilities to the Department, and minor authorities and committees have been invited to group themselves for certain purposes under these organisations, and that attempt has met with a certain amount of success. However, I am aware that a great deal of misapprehension exists in relation to this clause, and the change in the directory, and perhaps I may be permitted to state as briefly as I can what its purport and intention is. Where, in a county or county borough, an organisation for secondary education exists which has been recognised by the Department of Science and Art, that Department has notified its willingness to hold it responsible for the science and art instruction within that area. Grants earned by schools and classes in that area will be paid to and distributed by the county organisation. That organisation will perform, in respect of a great number of schools and classes, the duties which are now discharged by numerous separate bodies of managers. This arrangement is at present purely voluntary. Under it no school board acting under the Science and Art Department regulations, no
672
managers of a Voluntary school receiving grants from the Science and Art Department, no local committee of any kind, can be compelled to come into this organisation. In counties this clause is being adopted extensively, and apparently without much opposition, but in many, perhaps most, of the county boroughs it is still looked upon with some suspicion. In these boroughs there are two public bodies which are actively engaged in the management of science and art schools and classes, and which more or less interfere with and overlap each other. We have, first, the technical instruction committee of the municipal, council, working under the Technical Instruction Act, and possessing certain rating powers and disposing of the local, taxation residue. We have, next, the school board, with no statutory authority, extending the operation of elementary and evening schools, under the Evening School Code, into the region of science and art, and applying the rates, to that purpose. The object of this clause is to invite these two bodies, who are engaged in similar, and in many cases competing, work, to come to an agreement whereby science and art instruction in the boroughs can be carried out under one comprehensive system, adapted to the wants of the district. That is the intention of the clause, but the organisation which is recognised by the Department, and which is necessarily founded upon the technical instruction, committee of the borough which possesses the rating power, and disposes of the Government grant, is still regarded in many of these boroughs with a considerable amount of suspicion. Some school boards see in it an intention of displacing them, or, at all events, limiting their spheres of operation. But I believe the difficulty not to be insuperable, and these organisations have been formed already in some of the county boroughs. But something in the nature of organised opposition on the part of the Association of School Boards is being carried on against them, owing, I believe, to misapprehension as to the objects of the clause to a great degree. However, the difficulty is not insurmountable, and it certainly is one which the ratepayers have the very strongest interest in overcoming; but, at the same

673
time, the objection which, as I have shown, has been raised to this tentative Measure supplies a proof of the difficult; which we should encounter if we were to endeavour to establish any such system by force of law. But I have very little doubt that if a central authority were established which would inspire confidence, it might, by the advice and guidance which it would give, while avoiding any appearance of compulsion induce the ratepayers from motives of economy, and educational reformers from motives of efficiency, to insist upon the adoption of some such system as that to which I have referred, either voluntarily or by legislation. The Bills which I ask leave to introduce do not aim at the present creation of local educational authorities. We are perfectly well aware that the establishment of such authorities must come, and before long, and I am not without hope that the discussion which will probably follow the introduction of these Bills may show that the difficulties are not so great or insuperable as they might appear to be. The objects of all of us who are concerned with this question cannot be very wide apart. We all desire to see the establishment of a sound system of secondary schools, which shall be open alike to the most promising students from the elementary schools, and to the middle classes generally. We all desire to see these schools providing an education to which can be added that specialised education applicable to the industrial and commercial pursuits which we must have if we are to retain our place in the competition of the world. We all desire that these objects should be attained without any undue burdens being cast on the taxpayers and ratepayers. We desire that those who benefit from these schools should contribute equitably to their cost; and when so much substantive agreement exists, as I believe exists, I do not think that any petty jealousies or rivalries, which are at present delaying the more complete organisation of our secondary schools, can permanently be permitted to obstruct that object. Those rivalries have been called into existence to a very large extent by the fortuitous, piecemeal, and haphazard process by which our educational system has up to the present time been constructed. These rivalries
674
exist mainly between municipalities and school boards, both popularly-elected bodies, both representing the same people, both having substantially the same interests; and I do not think that these rivalries, although they undoubtedly exist at present, when the question comes to be more considered and better understood, will be permitted permanently to obstruct the establishment of a sound system of secondary education. But although we feel certain that the establishment of a local authority is merely a question of time, we believe it is one that can afford to wait, perhaps, for another year or two; at all events, we do not think it would be wise to postpone or endanger what we believe to be a still more pressing reform, in order to enable us to produce what might appear at first sight to be a more complete and comprehensive Measure. Therefore the Bills I have to propose are of an extremely limited character. The first proposes to create a central educational authority. Much of what is done in it could probably be done by administrative order by the Government; but in order to obtain Parliamentary sanction to the policy which we propose, we have thought it more desirable to embody the whole of our proposals in a Bill. At the present time the President of the Council, or the Vice-President of the Council, is, for many purposes, the Minister of Education; but under them are what are virtually two distinct Departments—the Education Department and the Department of Science and Art. We propose to bring these two Departments together, and to make them divisions of one office, and probably under the control of one permanent secretary. We propose to put an end to the Committee of Council, and to the office of Vice-President of the Committee of Council. We propose to create a Board of Education on the model of the Board of Trade, the Local Government Board, and the Board of Agriculture. A President and a Vice-President, or a President alone, of this Board may be appointed. If the Education Minister should be in the House of Lords, it is provided that the President of the Council will be the President of the Board, and the Department will be represented by the Vice-President in the House of Commons. If the Minister of Education should

675
be in the House of Commons he will have the office of President, and there will be no Vice-President, and the Department will be represented in this House by some arrangement such as has been found practicable in the case of other Departments. We think that the present time is extremely opportune for such a reorganisation of the Education Department. Next year the Secretary, for the Science and Art Department retires under the age rule. The office which he holds is one that has never escaped criticism, and perhaps the strength of Sir John Donnelly's convictions, and the energy with which he has supported them, has exposed him to even a larger share of criticism than some of his predecessors. I think it only due to Sir John Donnelly to state that the Government has never possessed a more devoted public servant, and that, under conditions which have often been extremely difficult, I believe the Department has, under his administration, taken part in the very great development both of scientific and artistic training. But the changed conditions of education, the growth of the Department itself, the growing conviction of the necessity for a better and a more special technical training for our people—a conviction that has found expression in the Technical Instruction Acts—all these have rendered a revision of the scope and character of the Department absolutely necessary at the present time. I believe that revision will be greatly assisted if we are able to obtain, what we are asking Parliament to give, sanction for the establishment of one central responsible department which shall be charged with the supervision of secondary as well as elementary education, and of all the agencies appertaining to both. The Bill, I need hardly say, will not contain the details of the proposed organisation. They cannot well be promulgated until Parliament has given its sanction to the principle of the establishment of a central authority. But I may say that the reorganisation will not necessarily be confined to the Department of Science and Art. It would be entirely a mistake to suppose that there is any intention of simply merging the Department of Science and Art into that of Education. The Education Department itself may probably under our plan require some reorga-
676
nisation. Some of the duties which are performed by the Education Department—such as those in relation to training colleges, to training pupil teachers, to the higher-grade schools—pertain rather to secondary than to elementary education; and it may be that it will be found expedient to group those functions which are now discharged by the Education Department, with others which are now discharged by the Science and Art Department under a Secondary Education Department proper, while a third division may possibly be charged with the supervision of the more technical branches of science and art instruction, and at the same time the control and management of the science and art museums which exist both in the Metropolis and the provinces. These details of reorganisation will have, of course, to be worked out by the Departments concerned—by the Education Department, by the Science and Art Department, and by the Treasury—and that is a work which will be undertaken in anticipation of the approval which we hope we may obtain in another Session to the proposals we are now making. I do not know whether there are any of your Lordships' House who are interested in the subject of economy. It has been said, I believe, that no one in the House of Commons cares about economy except the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or, perhaps, the late Chancellor of the Exchequer. But, I am afraid that I am not of opinion that this proposed re-arrangement need necessarily lead us, or ought to lead us, to any increased expenditure on administration. It is, of course, impossible for me to say what this Parliament or future Parliaments may think fit to spend directly on secondary, technical, scientific, or artistic education. But, so far as administration is concerned, which is all we are dealing with at present, I see no reason why this arrangement should lead to any increased expenditure. I rather think it will tend towards economy. Already by the transfer of drawing in elementary schools from the Science and Art to the Education Department a very considerable saving has been effected; and, in my opinion, the system under which grants in aid to science and art teaching are now dispensed is, in consequence of the rapid and unforeseen extension of the system—a

677
system which, has extended and developed from very small beginnings indeed, so cumbrous and complicated, and, therefore, so costly, that I shall be very much disappointed indeed, if, under a reorganised system, and a scientific rearrangement of duties, a very considerable economy in administration cannot be brought about. I have said that a great deal of what we proposed to do could no doubt be done simply by an administrative order to which the sanction of Parliament might be given when the Estimates are presented; but, as I have said, we thought it better to embody the main principles in this Bill. But one portion of the duties which we propose to transfer under the Education Department cannot be transferred without legislation. I refer to the supervision of endowed schools under schemes which have been formed by the Charity Commissioners. Logic and symmetry might perhaps appear to require that the whole of the powers of the Charity Commissioners, so far as they relate to educational endowments, should be transferred to the Education Department. But the subject of endowments is so delicate, the distinction between charitable and educational objects and charitable trusts, the extent to which the necessities of special cases are to be regarded, the sectarian questions which they involve, are all so difficult and controversial in character, that we have hesitated to propose to transfer all such questions from a quasi-judicial to a political authority. Under this Bill, therefore, the administration of charitable trusts and the framing of schemes under the Endowed Schools Act will remain untouched except that an instruction will be given to the Charity Commissioners to frame schemes, so far as they are educational, in consultation with the Education Board, and the Education Board will have power to move the Charity Commissioners to promote or alter schemes where such promotion or alteration is necessary. But all these educational schemes contain a provision with regard to the educational examination of the schools, and the result of that examination is reported to the Charity Commission. They also institute from time to time an administrative inspection of these schools, of their own, as to the management of the funds of
678
the school and other matters. The educational examination and the administrative inspection, so far as it relates to educational matters will be transferred to the new Department. In other respects the present powers of the Charity Commissioners will not be interfered with by the Bill. But for the first time a most important part of our educational system will be under the cognisance, and to a certain extent under the guidance of a responsible Minister of Education. The Royal Commission laid considerable stress on the appointment and constitution of an educational council with consultative and administrative powers. We have been unable to accept those recommendations as a whole. For the purpose of forming and maintaining a registry of teachers a separate and more or less independent council is necessary. A Bill for the purpose of establishing such a council was introduced in 1896. As far as I am aware no opposition was manifested to that Bill, but it was not proceeded with after the failure of the other education Bill. That Bill I propose to-day to re-introduce. It provides a council for this purpose only, some of whose members will be nominated by the Crown, some by the universities, and ultimately it will contain members directly representative of the registered teachers themselves. But we have not seen our way to give to this council or to any other council wider statutory powers. We recognise, however, that the advice of educational experts may be of great value to the Board of Education. We have taken power to authorise the President of the Board of Education to appoint an educational committee to advise the Board on such matters as may be referred to it. Such a committee in all probability will be largely founded upon the registration council. In our opinion it would only tend to hamper the responsibility of a Minister if a consultative council were appointed by statute and endowed with statutory powers; in our opinion the Minister must be responsible for the choice of his advisers as well as the action which he takes upon that advice. While it is desirable, almost necessary, that the registration council of teachers should have a fixed and permanent character, it has been thought desirable to reserve

679
complete discretion to the Minister as to the choice of his advisers as well as of his administrative officers. I have now endeavoured to explain what these Bills contain, and also I have touched, perhaps, at greater length upon what they do not contain. It may appear to be a somewhat rash act to submit proposals of this character to be exposed to discussion and criticism during the long months of a comparatively unoccupied recess. It may be so, but for my part I can only say that I welcome the fullest discussion and criticism. I welcome discussion on a subject in which, in my opinion, too little interest has been hitherto felt by the general public as distinguished from professional experts, and I only trust that these proposals may receive very full examination and criticism. I have no doubt that they will be condemned by some on account of their incompleteness; I have admitted that they are incomplete, and incomplete on a vital and essential point, but I have endeavoured to show that we have not been insensible to the importance or the urgency of that portion of the question which we propose at present to postpone. If we have postponed it, it is because we are convinced that the constitution, preliminarily, or concurrently, of a strong central authority is necessary for the equally important, perhaps more important object—the creation of strong local authorities also. If the discussion which may follow the introduction of this Measure shows that we have over-rated the difficulties which I think still exist to the constitution of satisfactory local authorities, it may still be possible in another Session to enlarge the scope of this Bill. But, however that may be, we feel confident that these limited proposals, standing even alone, will be an important step in the direction of placing our national education upon a sounder and more satisfactory basis. I beg leave to introduce these Bills.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I am not about to embark on criticism of the very important proposals, which have been explained to us so fully and clearly by the noble Duke, but I wish to make one observation, only subject, of course, to further consideration, on a point which
680
is of great importance. I heard with very great regret that so small a change was to be made as to the powers of the Charity Commissioners. My reason is this: the endowed schools play so very large a part in the secondary education of this country that I am afraid any Measure that does not in some way more completely place those schools under the control of the Department which the noble Duke intends to found will practically be by no means sufficient, and may prove to a considerable extent a failure. I do not at all wish to anticipate that it will be so, but I certainly hoped that the Government would have had the courage to deal more completely with the Charity Commission. The subject is an extremely difficult one; that I fully admit; but if you reflect upon the powers of the Charity Commission—knowing, as I do, from a little personal experience, how impossible it is to bring any action against the Commissioners themselves—I hardly see how the existence of two such authorities as the central Department and the Charity Commissioners can be made to work efficiently, if it can be made to work harmoniously. While I have made this criticism, I am quite certain that those who are far more able to express an opinion upon this subject will, in the Recess, give the fullest consideration to these Measures which the noble Duke has brought forward, and I welcome, if he will allow me to say so, the courage which he has shown in placing them before the public, convinced as I am that the chances of placing some efficient Measure on the Statute Book will be far more likely to be advanced by a full examination of the proposals than by keeping them secret until they are produced before Parliament. My satisfaction will be great if it should be found that there is a general approval of the scope of the Measures which the noble Duke has proposed.
Motion made, and Question put—
"That the Bill relating to the subject of secondary education and the Bill relating to the registration of teachers be read a first time."
Agreed to.

VACCINATION BILL.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: Is it the intention of the Government to move the Second Reading of this Bill to-morrow?
THE PREMIER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS: Yes, and Committee on Thursday.

MERCHANT SHIPPING (MERCANTILE FUND) BILL.
Second Reading (which stands appointed for To-morrow) put off to Thursday next.

VAGRANCY ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
Third Reading (which stands appointed for To-morrow) put off to Thursday next.
House adjourned at 6.30.