Lords Sitting of 12 July 1898

Preamble
THE LORD CHANCELLORtook his seat on the Woolsack at a Quarter-past Four of the clock.

NEW PEERS.
The LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
The LORD PLAYFAIR—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with—
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 10).
And also the Certificate that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with—
DEVONPORT, PLYMOUTH AND STOKE TRAMWAYS.
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.
LONDON BUILDING ACT (1894) AMENDMENT BILL.
Committee to meet on Thursday next.
NEATH, PONTARDAWE AND BRYNAMAN RAILWAY BILL.
Reported with Amendments.
CLACTON-ON-SEA GAS AND WATER BILL.
Reported with Amendments.
BLACKBURN CORPORATION (TRAMWAYS, ETC.) BILL.
Reported with Amendments.
LONDON, TILBURY AND SOUTHEND RAILWAY BILL.
Reported from the Select Committee with Amendments.
GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY (NEW WORKS) BILL.
The Queen's consent signified; and Bill reported with Amendments.
BURNLEY CORPORATION (TRAMWAYS, ETC.) BILL.
Reported from the Select Committee with Amendments.
GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY (GENERAL POWERS) BILL.
The Queen's consent, and the consent of the Prince of Wales in right of his Duchy of Cornwall, signified, and Bill reported with Amendments.
WEY VALLEY WATER BILL.
Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, the opposition thereto having been withdrawn; read, and ordered to lie on the Table; the orders made on the 1st of July and Thursday last discharged, and Bill committed.
BOLTON, TURTON AND WESTHOUGHTON EXTENSION BILL.
Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, no parties having appeared in opposition thereto; read, and ordered to lie on the Table; the orders made on the 1st of July and Thursday last discharged, and Bill committed.
LINCOLN AND EAST COAST RAILWAY AND DOCK BILL.
Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, the opposition thereto having been withdrawn; read, and ordered to lie on the Table; the orders made on Thursday and Friday last discharged, and Bill committed.
MIDDLESEX COUNTY COUNCIL BILL.
Report from the Select Committee, That they adjourn this day at Half-past Two o'clock, and pray leave not to sit again until Thursday next at Twelve o'clock; read, and leave given accordingly.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL.
Report from the Select Committee, That they adjourn this day at Half-past Two o'clock, and pray leave not to sit again until Thursday next at Twelve o'clock; read, and leave given accordingly.
SHEFFIELD DISTRICT RAILWAY BILL.
Report from the Select Committee, That they adjourn this day at Half-past Two o'clock, and pray leave not to sit again until Thursday next at Twelve o'clock; read, and leave given accordingly.
LONDON UNITED TRAMWAYS BILL.
Report from the Select Committee, That they adjourn this day at Half-past Two o'clock, and pray leave not to sit again until Thursday next at Twelve o'clock; read, and leave given accordingly.
GENERAL POWER DISTRIBUTING COMPANY BILL. [H.L.]
Read the third time; Amendments made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
METROPOLITAN ELECTRIC SUPPLY BILL. [H.L.]
Read the third time; Amendments made; Bill passed and sent to the Commons.
HIGHAM AND HUNDRED OF HOO WATER BILL.
Read the third time, with the Amendment, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
DUBLIN SOUTHERN DISTRICT TRAMWAYS BILL.
Read the third time, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
KEIGHLEY CORPORATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; Read the first time, and referred to the Examiners.
CRANBROOK DISTRICT WATER BILL.
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
CRAWLEY AND DISTRICT WATER BILL.
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
EAST HAM IMPROVEMENT BILL.
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
WISHAW WATER BILL.
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
LISKEARD CORPORATION (WATER) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments.

WINDSOR DOCK, CARDIFF, BILL.
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bill, viz.:—

E. Abingdon,

L. Southampton,

L. Kenmare (E. Kenmare),

L. Stanmore,

L. Welby (chairman);

Agreed to, and the said Lords appointed accordingly; the Committee to meet on Thursday next, at Eleven o'clock; and all petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the petitioners praying to be heard by counsel against the Bill to be heard as desired, as also counsel for the Bill.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL.
(Leeds Order (No. 1) Opposed.)
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Five Lords appointed a Select Committee on the Middlesex County Council Bill and other Bills do form the Select Committee for the consideration of the Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill; read, and agreed to; all petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the petitioners praying to be heard by counsel against the Bill to be heard as desired, as also counsel for the Bill.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  IRISH TEACHERS PENSION RULES, 1898.
  Rules under section 11 of the National School Teachers (Ireland) Act, 1879; presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.
  ARMY (VOLUNTEERS).
  Proposed Amendment of the scheme relative to the efficiency of the volunteers in force under Her Majesty's Orders in Council dated 31st July 1880, 14th April 1884, etc.

  INDIA (LOANS RAISED IN INDIA).
  Return of all Loans raised in India under the provisions of any Acts of Parliament chargeable on the revenues of India outstanding at the commencement of the half-year ended on the 31st March, 1898, with the rates of interest and total amount payable thereon, etc.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

BILLS ADVANCED.
  LOCOMOTIVES ON HIGHWAYS BILL.
  Reported from the Standing Committee with further Amendments: the Report of the Amendments made in Committee of the Whole House and by the Standing Committee to be received on Friday next; and Bill to be printed as amended. [No. 150.]
  LIBRARIES (OFFENCES) BILL.
  Reported from the Standing Committee without further Amendment; the Report of the Amendments made in Committee of the Whole House to be received on Thursday next.
  POOR LAW (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Reported from the Standing Committee without Amendment, and to be read the third time on Tuesday next.
  PHARMACY ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  Reported from the Standing Committee without Amendment, and to be read the third time on Monday next.
  PALATINE COURT OF DURHAM BILL. [H.L.]
  Reported from the Standing Committee without Amendment, and to be read the third time on Thursday next.
  SOLICITORS BILL. [H.L.]
  Reported from the Standing Committee with Amendments; the Report thereof to be received on Thursday next, and Bill to be printed as amended. [No. 151.]
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL.
  Moved, That the Order made on the 8th day of March, 1898, "That no Provisional Order Confirmation Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Tuesday the 28th day of June next," be dispensed with and that the Bill be read the second time; Agreed to; Bill read the second time accordingly.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 7) BILL.
  Moved, That the Order made, on the 8th day of March, 1898, "That no Provisional Order Confirmation Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Tuesday the 28th day of June next," be dispensed with, and that the Bill be read the second time; Agreed to; Bill read the second time accordingly.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 9) BILL.
  Moved, That the Order made on the 8th day of March, 1898, "That no Provisional Order Confirmation Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Tuesday the 28th day of June next," be dispensed with, and that the Bill be read the second time; Agreed to; Bill read the second time accordingly.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 10) BILL.
  Moved, That the Order made on the 8th day of March, 1898, "That no Provisional Order Confirmation Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Tuesday the 28th day of June next," be dispensed with, and that the Bill be read the second time; Agreed to; Bill read the second time accordingly.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL.
  Committed; the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 7) BILL.
  Committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 9) BILL.
  Committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (GAS) BILL.
  House in Committee (according to order); Amendments made; Standing Committee negatived; the Report of Amendments to be received on Thursday next.
  MILITARY LANDS PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
  Read the third time (according to order), and passed.

  PAUPER CHILDREN (IRELAND) RELIEF BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  LORD MONTEAGLE OF BRANDON: My Lords, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, I feel that I need not detain the House many minutes in recommending it to your Lordships. The Bill requires but little explanation beyond what is given in the Memorandum, and I hope it does not require much argument to commend it to your Lordships. The clauses are all taken from the Bill, which was introduced by Her Majesty's Government in the House of Commons last year, but which could not be proceeded with for want of time. There is a very general desire in Ireland that these clauses should be passed into law without delay. The Bill is almost entirely of an enabling character, and directed to supply omissions in the existing law which do not exist in England, and to give to Irish boards of guardians further powers, such as are already possessed by English boards of guardians. The first clause deals with the important matter of boarding out orphan and deserted children by boards of guardians, which it is desired to bring up to date and to place on a basis more in conformity with modern ideas. The second clause enables boards of guardians, with the consent of the Local Government Board, to provide for the teaching of workhouse children in National schools in the neighbourhood; and the third clause enables them to send children for education and training to certain schools of an industrial character where they will obtain a better training than they could possibly receive in the workhouse. The fourth clause is directed to restraining the employment of pauper children under the age of 12 years, the principle of which is already recognised both in Ireland and in England, but the existing law has been found to be insufficient to secure the object in view. My Lords, I have reason to hope that the Bill will receive the support of Her Majesty's Government,
  614
  and I beg to move that it be read a second time.
  THE EARL OF DENBIGH: My Lords, I have only to say, on behalf of the Irish Government, that this Bill meets with their cordial approval and sympathy, and I hope your Lordships will accord the Bill a Second Reading.
  Question put.
  Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

  POST OFFICE (LOCAL AUTHORITY GUARANTEE) BILL.
  Read the third time (according to order), with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

  LIGHT RAILWAYS ACT, 1896.
  Moved—
  "That the Orders of the Light Railways Commissioners as submitted to the Board of Trade be in future presented to this House together with the Orders as confirmed by the Board of Trade."—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, I rise to call attention to the operation of the Light Railways Act, 1896, and especially to the alterations made by the Board of Trade in the Orders submitted for confirmation by the Light Railways Commissioners; and to move that the Orders of the Commissioners as submitted to the Board of Trade be in future presented to this House, together with the Orders as confirmed by the Board of Trade. It is now two years since the Light Railways Act was passed, and the first Report of the proceedings of the Board of Trade, and also the Report of the proceedings of the Commissioners appointed under the Act have been laid on the Table of Parliament, as also have the Orders which had been made by the Commissioners, and confirmed by the Board of Trade up to the end of last year. My Lords, it may be as well that I should remind your Lordships very shortly of the provisions and the effect of the Light Railways Act.

  615
  Your Lordships will remember that under the Act full power was given to the Board of Trade with regard to the railways which were described as light railways, though they were not defined, and it was laid down in the Act that an Order, when finally made by the Board of Trade, should have the effect of an Act of Parliament. I would remind your Lordships that at the time when the Bill was passing through this House objection was taken by the noble Lord at the Table, and by other peers, to the fact that there was no definition of light railway in the Bill, and that, therefore, the Board of Trade would receive absolute power to decide that anything was or was not a light railway. My Lords, notwithstanding those objections, the Bill was passed in the form in which it stood, and the result is that at the present time anything is a light railway which the Board of Trade says is a light railway, and nothing is a light railway which the Board of Trade says is not. My Lords, with regard to the other provisions of the Act, I may remind your Lordships that Commissioners were appointed under the Act, who were to make inquiries into all applications made to them for the formation of light railways. They were directed to hold a local inquiry; they were directed specially to inquire into the conditions for the public safety, and other matters of that kind, and they were to lay their Orders, which were Provisional Orders only, before the Board of Trade for consideration and confirmation. My Lords, the Board of Trade have received the power either of passing the Orders unamended, or of altering and modifying them, and then passing them, if it saw fit to pass them at all, in the final form which they would assume. Therefore, there is no means of raising any question with regard to any of those Orders before they become law. But, my Lords, although Parliament surrendered its powers in regard to light railways, it did not at the same time surrender all its interests, and therefore, when these Orders are laid upon the Table it is only natural and right that we should look into them, and see what the Light Railways Commissioners recommended, and how far their recommendations have been accepted or altered by the Board. My Lords, it may be as well that I should
  616
  state to your Lordships what were the intentions of those who framed this Act, because that alone, I think, enables the House of Parliament to form a judgment of what was intended to be a light railway, and what was intended to be the operation of the Act. Now, Mr. Ritchie, when moving the Second Reading of the Bill in another place, said that one of the main difficulties had been the expense of the requirements for the public safety enforced by the Board of Trade. He said that—
  "As regarded the requirements for the public safety, the public must make up their minds that, if they desire to have these railways, they must of themselves exercise an amount of caution, and not insist upon those elaborate precautions which, on trunk lines, where trains were running at great speed, might be necessary, but which in other countries had been abandoned where great speed was not desired."
  And he said, further, that—
  "As far as the question of public safety is concerned, the Board of Trade is empowered to deal generally in the way of modification with those requirements in their Order, and the circumstances of each case would be considered in respect of permanent way, gauge, posts, and brake power. No limitations were contained in the Bill as to any of these requirements, but the Board of Trade would have power to deal with each separate application, and the requirements which seemed to be necessary in each case."
  That was the intention of Mr. Ritchie, and Mr. Bryce, who had previously been President of the Board of Trade, entirely concurred in the propriety of those views. He pointed out that the cheapening of requirements as to the construction and working of the line were essential, and that no Bill would be adequate if this were omitted. He said that—
  "As regarded the cheapening and the dispensing of certain requirements, the Government were in the same position as the late Government—such as the strength of the staff, the provisions for interlocking points and signals. All these were matters with regard to which great economy in the construction and the working of the line might be effected. Someone had said, 'Utilitas publica, periculum privatum.'"
  I am sure that was not Mr. Bryce himself. Continuing, Mr. Bryce said—
  "There were cases where there would be a certain amount of risk, and there were level crossings where there was danger; but he

  617
  believed on the whole that the experience of this and other countries was satisfactory. In the United States they might see trains running at the speed of four miles an hour through populous districts, and children playing about, and yet few accidents happened."
  So, my Lords, both Presidents of the Board of Trade were entirely agreed that great cheapness in the construction of these railways were absolutely necessary if they were to succeed, and this was one of the essential points with which the Bill was supposed to deal. Well, my Lords, the question that we have now to ask is, in what sense has the Act been carried out, and has it been carried out in the manner which Mr. Ritchie and Mr. Bryce proposed and hoped that it should be carried out? My Lords, all that Parliament has to guide it are these Orders as they are laid upon the Table; and I must point out to your Lordships—and this is the justification for the Motion that I have moved, namely, that the Orders of the Commissioners, as submitted to the Board of Trade, be in future presented to this House, together with the Orders as confirmed by the Board of Trade—that it is impossible to tell from the confirmed Order only what the Commissioners originally proposed, and how far their recommendations have or have not been disagreed with. So long as the noble Lord who is Chairman of the Commission is on the Commission and in discharge of his duty, his mouth is closed as regards criticising any of the proceedings that may have been taken with regard to the Provisional Orders which the Commissioners have presented to the board. Well, now, my Lords, three Orders were laid on the Table in 1897, and in 1898 there had been three more—the Rinkton Order, the Lizard Order, and an Order called the Crowland Order. These are, so far as I know, all, or nearly all, the Orders for light railways proper. There have been two or three other Orders for what are really tramways in populous places, and which are not light railways properly so-called. Now, my Lords, in every single one of these Orders that I have mentioned the Commissioners were of opinion, in the first instance, that continuous brakes were not required, and in every one of these cases the Board of Trade has incorporated continuous brakes. With regard
  618
  to the Crowland Order, which is the last, there is a slight difference, because, instead of incorporating the words of the Act of Parliament of 1889, which gives the Board power at any time to insist upon continuous brakes, a specially written clause has been inserted in the Order; but, so far as I can make out from studying it, there is no actual difference whatever between that and the Order which appears generally in the Act of Parliament. Then, my Lords, with regard to the signals. In all those cases the Commissioners were of opinion that no signals were required except at places where the line joined a main line of railway. My Lords, in every case that clause of the Commissioners has been struck out, and arrangements have been made proposing signals of different sorts. Now, my Lords, I am not going to attempt to take your Lordships further into the matter, because, in the first place, there are other details which I have not been able to ascertain. I only ascertained these by asking direct questions as to matters of fact at the Board of Trade itself, and also at the office of the Light Railways Commissioners; but there may be other matters which it would be very easy to go into in detail if we were holding an actual inquiry. I think I have said enough to show to your Lordships that, in some essential principles, the Board of Trade has departed from the recommendations of the Commissioners. Now, my Lords, the next thing that one naturally asks is, by what tribunal were these alterations made, and how far were the opinions of the Light Railways Commissioners taken into-consideration, and how far were they themselves consulted as to the alterations before they were made? So far as I can ascertain, practically the Court of Appeal in this matter has been an official, generally the Permanent Secretary to the Board of Trade, assisted by some of the permanent advisers, including one of the railway inspectors of the Board of Trade. My Lords, one then naturally asks, what is the expert advice which was taken, and were the Commissioners consulted? I believe that as a matter of fact their secretary was generally present, at all events after the first Order or two; but I should be very much interested to know from my noble Friend opposite [the Earl

  619
  of Dudley] whether, before these alterations were made, the matter was referred back to the Commissioners, or whether they had an opportunity themselves personally of laying their views before the Board of Trade. A case occurs to my mind, which may occur to the minds of other noble Lords in this House—an analogous case—where a Joint Committee of the two Houses of Parliament was appointed to inquire into certain railway rates which had been made by the Board of Trade. As Lord Balfour of Burleigh, whom I see present to-night, and who was Parliamentary Secretary of the Board of Trade at the time, will remember, he and Sir Courtenay Boyle (the Permanent Secretary to the Board of Trade) were both present at the sittings of the Joint Committee. They heard all that the opponents to the rates they had proposed had to say, and, after all the evidence had been heard, the Duke of Richmond, who was chairman, I think, during the whole length of the sittings of that Committee—two or three years—asked them whether they had any remarks to make, and especially what reasons they had for having fixed upon the specific figures which they had fixed upon. Now, my Lords, I want to know whether there was real consultation in that sense in these cases. I am speaking only from general ideas, but I rather think that the Board of Trade did not hold any local inquiries when considering these matters, or, at all events, if they did, those inquiries were very rare indeed. Your Lordships will remember that, in the first instance, the Commissioners had gone down to the spot; they inquired into every detail upon the spot. They satisfied themselves as to what was required for the safety of the public. That was one of the points specially referred to them, by the Act, and the recommendations which they made were based upon full and complete knowledge of the locality, of all the facts, and of the persons interested. I should like to know what opportunity the Board of Trade had of inquiring into these matters, and of ascertaining that the Commissioners had made a mistake, and that it was better to insert regulations in the Orders different from those which the Commissioners had proposed. I wish to say one word, too, my Lords, with
  620
  regard to the expert evidence—the expert assistance which the Board of Trade had. I believe—of course, I speak liable to correction—but I believe they were assisted by the ordinary inspectors of the Board. I should be the last person to say a single word in depreciation of the efforts of those inspectors, and the great advantages which they have conferred upon the public when dealing with railways; but, at the same time, your Lordships must remember that an inspector, who has all his life been dealing with railways intended to run at a high rate of speed, and which are very large and important undertakings, is hardly the best person to turn his attention to, and to express an opinion upon, these light railways, which are confessedly for quite different purposes, and which were made and intended to be worked in quite a different way. And, moreover, the Act is a little hard on the inspector. The Act says that upon the Board of Trade is cast the duty of looking after the safety of the public. When the official engineer of the Board of Trade looks into this matter, it is only natural that he should observe that if there should be any accident at any time the first person whose action would be called in question would be the inspector of the Board of Trade, and therefore it is natural also that he should place considerably more value upon absolute safety to the public than upon the requirements such as I have read to your Lordships, which the President of the Board of Trade said were intended in light railways. Now, my Lords, that is all I have to say, but it seems to me this is a question whether this Act is going to succeed or not. In what sense are you going to work it? Are you going to work light railways as the promoters of the Bill intended they should be worked, or are you going to make them into undertakings which are very safe to the public, but which, at the same time, cannot be at once absolutely cheap and absolutely safe in the sense that the ordinary large railway is? My Lords, it may be said, of course, that the insertion of these clauses about continuous brakes do not necessarily imply that continuous brakes will be insisted upon. That is very true. But then you must make allowances for them in the

  621
  capital of the undertakings. The capital of the undertakings has purposely been kept very low for the excellent reason that the Commissioners have been anxious not to raise the capital to such a figure that it would pay any promoter to advocate the making of a light railway with the intention of reselling it at a profit. For that reason the capital sum has been kept at the very lowest figure possible. If you introduce more of these conditions, you increase the capital, and the result will be, I am afraid, that the success of your Act will be greatly imperilled if you continue to work in this way. My Lords, I beg to move that the Orders of the Commissioners, as submitted to the Board of Trade, be in future presented to this House, together with the Orders as confirmed by the Board of Trade.
  EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, I should like to say one word in support of the Motion of my noble Friend. I think you will all admit that light railways are very different from ordinary railways, and therefore should not be subjected to the same conditions. The speed of light railways is considerably less, and they generally run by the side of the highway. Commissioners were appointed two years ago by Her Majesty's Government to carry out these matters, and they take considerable trouble in the performance of their duties. I am well acquainted with the work that has been performed since my noble Friend Lord Jersey has been chairman. The Commissioners, at considerable sacrifice of time and trouble, hold local inquiries on the subject and hear evidence; and then after due deliberation the Commissioners make a Report, and what is the result? The Board of Trade, it may be, makes small Amendments, but the result of it all is that these schemes are hung up indefinitely, partly owing to the want of further capital, but directly owing to the obstruction of the Board of Trade. I do think, if I may be permitted to say so, that it is a hard case to appoint gentlemen to do this work, voluntarily, at a considerable sacrifice of time, and then that their decisions, after local inquiries, are set aside, overruled, or, at any rate, delayed by the action of the Board of Trade. I
  622
  trust, therefore, that your Lordships may be disposed to accept the Motion of my noble Friend.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (The Earl of DUDLEY): My Lords, my noble Friend, in the course of the speech which he delivered, said this was a question whether the Light Railways Act was to be a success or not, and, so far as I could follow him, his whole contention was that in administering the Act, and in considering the Orders which had been submitted to them by the Light Railways. Commissioners, the Board of Trade have been too drastic and too stringent with regard to the arrangements for public safety which they have inserted into the Orders that he referred to. My Lords, I think that the Board of Trade perfectly agree with my noble Friend that, in a matter of this kind, care has to be taken not to strangle or stifle enterprise by unnecessary safety arrangements. But I think, that if the effect which both of us wish to avoid had in reality taken place the result would have been that fewer Orders would be now applied for by people throughout the country than heretofore. It may interest the House, in this connection, to know that although the public, for the last six months, have been in possession of information upon this subject, and have had knowledge of the requirements as to safety which the Board of Trade have insisted upon, the Orders, instead of decreasing, have increased; and we have up to now been asked to sanction more than 1,000 miles of light railways throughout the country. Therefore, my Lords, at any rate up to the present, I think we may take it as tolerably certain that the action of the Board of Trade has not stifled or strangled the promotion of enterprises of this kind. Now, my Lords, my noble Friend specially referred to two classes of arrangements that had been made by the Board of Trader—firstly with regard to continuous brakes; and, secondly, with regard to signals; and he has complained that in every case the Board of Trade have insisted on brakes being attached to the rolling-stock on those lines where the Commissioners have not thought them necessary. My Lords, in answer to that, I cam say this—

  623
  that in many instances we have been told at the Board of Trade, by the promoters themselves, that no matter whether the Board of Trade insisted on continuous brakes or not they intended to use them; and for this very good reason, that without continuous brakes the manager of the line, no matter whether it is a light line or a heavy line, runs such an enormous risk of accidents, and of criminal proceedings in case of accidents, that for his own safety, and for the safety of the directors and shareholders of that line, he wishes to take every precaution in his power to avoid an accident. And, in addition to that, my Lords, it must also be remembered that in many cases of this kind the rolling-stock is transferable—that is to say, the same rolling-stock is used on both heavy and light lines which connect with each other, and therefore the company, being desirous of interchanging the rolling-stock, would fit continuous brakes to the rolling-stock whether they were insisted upon or not. So much for that point; but in defence of our action I wish to point this out to the House, and that is, that in administering an Act like this, which has but recently been passed, when we have not yet on either side sufficient experience to enable us to judge with any certainty how these matters will work out in the future, the Board of Trade, being saddled with direct responsibility with regard to public safety, must, I think, lean rather more to stringency than to laxity in these matters. The noble Lord has quoted from the speech made by the President of the Board of Trade in introducing this Bill, in which he said that requirements insisted upon in respect of heavy lines would not be insisted upon in regard to light lines. That is perfectly true, and that course has been followed in considering these Orders. As the noble Earl is perfectly aware, there are many arrangements for public safety, such as complicated systems of block-working, interlocking of signals, fencing, gating level crossings, etc., which Parliament has insisted upon in respect of heavy lines, but which have been, to a tremendous extent, modified in the case of these light lines. For instance, we have dispensed to a great extent with fencing; we have dispensed to a great extent with
  624
  gates across level crossings; and, instead of insisting upon a complicated system of interlocking of signals and block-working, we have only asked that some communication should exist between the various stopping places, and that some simple arrangement such as that which is used in Ireland should be put up by which the confliction of two signals can be avoided. In the Crowland Order, to which my noble Friend referred, our expert advisers informed us that there was nothing to prevent two signals being in opposition to each other. We only desire that some arrangement should be made by which that is impossible. I am told that a system such as the one we have insisted upon is by no means expensive, and is one which has been tried and found successful upon the light railways in Ireland. Therefore I do not think that the noble Earl is quite correct when he says that after giving the public the idea that we were going to be very lenient in these matters, as foreshadowed in the speeches which he quoted, we have not carried out that policy, and that we have insisted upon the requirements which are necessary upon heavy lines. My Lords, I would also, before passing from this subject, remind your Lordships that in the Light Railways Act of 1896 there is a clause which specially puts upon the Board of Trade the responsibility of looking into these matters. The Act says—
  "The Board of Trade shall consider each Order, specially with regard to questions of public safety."
  Therefore, my Lords, although we have every respect for the able work which the Light Railways Commissioners do, although we have every respect for the views which they put before us, we do not think that we can divest ourselves of the direct mandate which Parliament has imposed upon us to take every precaution against any possibility of accident to the travelling public. Now, my Lords, with regard to the point which my noble Friend raises as to the relationship between the Board of Trade and the Light Railways Commissioners. My noble Friend seems to think that the Board of Trade, in altering these Orders, did not take into consideration for one moment the views which the Commissioners had

  625
  formed from information derived at local inquiries or other sources. In that my noble Friend is in error. In the first place, on nearly all these cases one of the Commissioners has been to the Board of Trade before that body has heard the Order, and has talked to one of the officials with regard to it. In addition to that, there is always, at these inquiries, one of the secretaries of the Light Railways Commissioners present, who instructs the official who may be hearing the case as to the reasons which have induced the Commissioners to make such and such a provision; and therefore, my Lords, it seems to us that it cannot be said that we have ridden in any way rough-shod over the opinions of the Commissioners, or wantonly changed an Order they had prepared. I might say that in this connection I have had a talk with Lord Jersey, who, as your Lordships know, is chairman of the Light Railways Commission. I regret that my noble Friend has brought on this Motion to-day, when Lord Jersey is unable to be present. But this I can say, that Lord Jersey has expressed to us, in the fullest terms, that although there are differences of opinion as to technicalities between the Commissioners and the expert advisers of the Board of Trade, he is perfectly satisfied with the relations between the Board and the Commission, and has no complaint at all to make against the way in which those who have to administer the Act have worked together. But in order that there should be no possibility of misunderstanding upon this point we have arranged, in addition to the safeguard to which I have alluded—in addition to the presence of the secretary—that in future, upon any occasion on which it may seem to the Board of Trade necessary to alter the Order upon any important point, a Commissioner should be asked to wait upon the Board, and to go fully with them into the reasons which have induced the Commissioners to take a particular course. But, my Lords, my noble Friend has quoted the instance of the Duke of Richmond's Commission, and he has said that the procedure adopted there ought to be followed in this case. I think the two cases are totally dissimilar. In that case my noble Friend the Secretary for Scotland and Sir Courtenay Boyle attended the sittings of
  626
  the Commission as officials of the Board of Trade. They were appealed to upon questions of rates, and they answered upon these subjects. That was a perfectly proper course, but in this case my noble Friend asks that a perfectly independent body, such as the Light Railways Commissioners, should attend the hearing of cases in a totally different court; in other words, he is asking that the judge of a lower court should sit upon the bench in the upper court.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: That is not what I asked.
  THE EARL OF DUDLEY: Then I misunderstood the noble Lord.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: All I intended to ask was that the decisions of the Light Railways Commissioners on matters of principle, such as continuous brakes, should not be altered without their having been thoroughly consulted.
  THE EARL OF DUDLEY: The noble Earl quoted the illustration of the Duke of Richmond's Commission, in which the officers of the Board of Trade were present. I do not quite, therefore, see, if he did not intend that the Light Railways Commissioners should be present at the Board of Trade, the relevancy of his illustration. It is obvious that that could not take place; it would be undignified and improper. As the noble Earl does not mean that, I pass it over. In any case, I hope we have done in the past everything we could to consult the Commissioners, and in future we are going to invite a Commissioner to be present on all occasions when an important alteration is to be made. I do not think I need go further into this subject. I am sorry that my noble Friend has raised this question at the present time, because, as I said before, the Act is yet too young for us to be quite certain of how these matters will work out. But if my noble Friend had waited until the time came when the whole procedure laid down by the Act had to be reviewed, I think that, perhaps, would have been a better time to have discussed the procedure under the Act; but still, as he has raised it now, I hope I have said enough to assure the House that we do strongly feel the disadvantage of hampering enter-

  627
  prise with any unnecessary restrictions, and that so long as we can adequately discharge the responsibility which Parliament has directly laid upon us in this matter we are perfectly ready to meet both the promoters and anybody else who might take their view of the case upon the most reasonable terms possible. I think, my Lords, I omitted to refer to the Motion with which my noble Friend concluded his remarks. I cannot help thinking that there would not be very much advantage in laying these Orders upon the Table, for this reason—that in the first place, the Order would then be sanctioned, and therefore, the laying of it upon the Table would not affect the final decision with regard to it; and, beyond that, it would be impossible for the House to derive proper information from the draft of the Order and the completed Order. It would be impossible for the House to know, without further information, what changes that might be noticed between the two Orders had been agreed to, what changes had been put in at the direct request of the promoters, and what changes had been made by the Board of Trade, in contravention of the views of the Light Railways Commissioners. And therefore, my Lords, if my noble Friend would agree to withdraw his Motion, and give the Board of Trade a little longer time to attempt to satisfy him upon that point, we should be glad.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: In answer to what the noble Earl has said, all I want is some information that I can understand. As it is, this Order, as modified by the Board of Trade, is laid on the Table of Parliament, and there it lies, but Parliament is kept in absolute ignorance as to how much of it belongs to the Board of Trade, how much of it belongs to the Commissioners, and what has happened at all. It is quite true that great power has been given under this Act to the Board of Trade, and that what the Board of Trade does has the force of an Act of Parliament, but I should like to have some means of judging what the Board of Trade have done, and what the Commissioners did. If my noble Friend will suggest to me any other way by which I can get that information, I shall be perfectly ready to accept it, but, as it
  628
  is, this Order, as now laid on the Table, is to me only double-Dutch.
  Question put.
  Motion negatived.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I will not put the House to the trouble of a Division, but at the same time I wish to point out that we are kept entirely in the dark by the Board of Trade.

  FISHERIES DEPARTMENT.
  LORD HENEAGE: My Lords, I beg to ask Her Majesty's Government whether it is correct that the Fisheries Department of the Board of Trade, with its assistant secretary and experienced sea fisheries inspector, has been abolished, and the interests of the sea fisheries industry placed under the charge of the Assistant Secretary of the Harbour Department, with an inspector of Scotch salmon fisheries as chief inspector; and, if not, what are the new arrangements proposed with regard to the vacancy caused by the retirement of the Assistant Secretary of the Fisheries Department? My Lords, I have put this question on the Paper in order to get some definite and accurate information with regard to the future position of sea fisheries at the Board of Trade. Those who are connected with the fishing industry, and those who have taken a great deal of interest in it, have been very much surprised and very much dismayed at the report which has gone forth during the last few weeks that the Fisheries Department is about to be abolished, and that it is either going to be merged or combined in the Harbour Department. I have had a great many communications from official representatives—well-known and recognised representatives—of the trade, stating that they look upon this step, if it is true, not only as a retrograde step, but as a step in direct contravention of the Resolution of the House of Commons and disastrous to the trade. I would remind your Lordships that it is now 30 years ago since the fishing industry was rescued from a back room in the Harbour

  629
  Department, and combined with the shipping industry in the Marine Department of the Board of Trade. Since that time the sea fishing industry has developed in an extraordinary manner, and I see it is stated by the Sea Fisheries Inspector of the Board of Trade that over £7,000,000 worth of fish were landed on our shores last year. It was during the time we were connected with the Marine Department that the Acts of 1883 and 1887, the regulations which now obtain in regard to the fishing industry and the North Sea Fishing Convention, were brought forward and carried; and it was only because the shipping industry developed to the same extent that it became necessary for the Board of Trade to consider the question of what was to be done, as it was no longer possible to keep these two great industries in the same Department. The whole question was thoroughly discussed and the trade consulted, and the result was that Sir Edward Birkbeck moved, in the House of Commons, in the Parliament of 1886, a Resolution, with full permission of the Board of Trade—and that Resolution was carried—to the effect that there should be a separate Sea Fisheries Department of the Board of Trade, with an Under Secretary to look after the interests of that industry. I believe, but I am not quite sure, that the following year the Sea Fisheries Department was set up, and that the Salmon Fisheries Department, which had up to that time been under the Home Office, was combined with the Sea Fisheries Department, but if I am wrong with regard to that the noble Earl who will reply on behalf of the Board of Trade will correct me. From that time up to the present we have got on most amicably with the Board of Trade. We had, in the first instance, as Under Secretary, Mr. Swanson, Who had been chief inspector of sea fisheries under the Marine Department. He was succeeded by a very able man, Mr. Barrington, who has retired this year. They had as Chief Assistant Mr. Malan, who has had practical experience in this matter; for, in addition to a very long connection with the Board of Trade, he was for five or six years engaged in one of the largest sea fishing ports in this country, putting into force the regulations they wished to try. We are now told that the separate Sea
  630
  Fisheries Department is to be abolished, although it appears on the Estimates of the present year, with the Votes for the Under Secretary and the two inspectors [Mr. Malan and Mr. Fryer], and that it is to be combined with the Harbour Department, under the present Under Secretary of Harbours. We are further informed, in a paragraph which appeared in official type in the Times, and other newspapers, a short time ago, that a Mr. Archer, who is, I believe, the salmon fisheries inspector in Scotland, has been appointed to be chief inspector of the Harbour Department. Well, that simply means this—that the two prime officials of that Department will neither have the slightest knowledge or experience of sea fisheries. The sea fishing industry is on a very different footing from the salmon fishing industry. It very often happens that we are compelled to put forward the Foreign Office and the Admiralty in order to protect the interests of the sea fisheries, and it is necessary, before they can do anything, no matter how great the emergency, that they should be put in motion first by the Board of Trade. We all know that correspondence between Departments is not one of the best or most rapid modes of procedure, and therefore it is necessary that those who look after the interests of the sea fishing industry in the Board of Trade should have the interests of that industry at heart. I will not detain your Lordships further. I only hope that the noble Earl will be able to give some explanation which will be satisfactory to the trade, but if it is only the explanation given in the other House I am afraid it will not be satisfactory.
  THE EARL OF DUDLEY: My Lords, I do not think a very long explanation will be needed to satisfy my noble Friend. I think he has misunderstood the facts of the case if he imagines that the Fisheries Department of the Board of Trade has been in any way abolished. That is not so. What has happened has been that the Harbour Department has been merged with the Fisheries Department, and that both have been put under one Assistant Secretary instead of, as before, under two Assistant Secretaries. The chief inspector of fisheries has now, therefore, more freedom to attend to his technical work and to his expert advice

  631
  than before when he was hampered by secretarial duties, which kept him in London, and which could be perfectly well performed by an Assistant Secretary. There Las been no diminution of staff; indeed, instead of the interests of fishing being in any way disparaged by this change, we think that, on the other hand, it will derive great advantage. My Lords, my noble Friend has alluded to Mr. Archer's qualifications for this post. We have every reason to believe that Mr. Archer is a most able and experienced gentleman. He has performed, I believe, his duties in Scotland to the utmost satisfaction of the Scotch Office, and we have every reason to believe that he will be able to discharge the work that is now entrusted to him in the most satisfactory and efficient manner. It is, perhaps, impossible to find a man who combines as great and as complete a knowledge of one class of fishing as of another. There is no doubt that the salmon fishing question, to which my noble Friend has alluded, requires greater study and greater technical knowledge than the sea fishing question, but we have no reason to suppose that a gentleman who has capabilities sufficient to master the difficult questions connected with salmon fishing, as Mr. Archer has, will in any way show want of efficiency in a branch of the subject far less technical and requiring far less study.
  LORD HENEAGE: My Lords, I am bound to say that the reply of the noble Earl will not be satisfactory to the trade. The fact remains that they are to be put under a gentleman who has given all his attention, all his life, to harbours, and the second in the Department is to be a gentleman who has not had anything to do with sea fisheries. The whole question will be, no doubt, brought up on the Votes in the other House.
  The subject dropped.

  BIBLE TEACHING IN PRIMARY SCHOOLS.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I rise to ask the Lord President of the Council whether he can inform the House on what authority
  632
  or on what evidence the Vice-President of the Council stated publicly that the teaching of the Bible in Board schools in large towns was far superior to the teaching of the same subjects in Voluntary schools in the same places? My Lords, the state of the case is this: a little while ago the Vice-President of the Council publicly made a statement that the Biblical instruction in Board schools—not the doctrinal instruction, but the instruction in the contents and history of the Bible—was so far superior to that to be found in Voluntary schools that there was no comparison possible between them. Now, my Lords, I have two things to say about that. I would be glad if the Lord President would be kind enough to notice them. In the first place, I should like to point out that ever since 1870 the Education Department have given up all investigation into the religious instruction in these schools. Her Majesty's inspectors, neither in Voluntary schools nor in Board schools, look at the religious instruction. All that they have to do is to see that the time-table is kept, and that the proper time is given over to the subject in accordance with that timetable. But they do not examine the children, and they have no direct means of knowing what their religious knowledge is like. Now, then, when this system was first introduced of setting aside all examinations of the religious instruction, it was felt as a very serious loss to their own cause by all those who are very much interested in that part of education, because, my Lords, there can be no question at all that the fact that this was one of the subjects in which Her Majesty's inspectors examined gave to it a very much greater importance in the eyes both of teachers and learners. The children felt that it was an important matter since the Queen's inspector looked into it and the teachers felt that it was a very important matter, because, coming under the supervision of Her Majesty's inspector, it affected his Report upon the work of the teachers, and this advantage was entirely lost when the change was made. However, no complaint was made on that subject. It was thought that the promoters of Voluntary schools would be able to provide inspection of their own, which in some degree might make up for

  633
  the loss which they had sustained; but, my Lords, it seems to me very hard, while we lose the advantage of that inspection, that we should, nevertheless, be subjected to criticism, and that, while inspectors have not authority to examine into the subject, nevertheless the Department, through the Vice-President, appears to form an opinion, and publish that opinion to the world. Moreover, the Department is necessarily looked upon by the world at large as very much led in the matter by the opinion of the inspectors, and by their reports upon what they find in the schools, and the inspectors, it seems to me, have no right to make reports when they have no right to make examinations. I venture to think it is stepping out of the province of the Department altogether to make criticisms of this kind. Even if the criticism was perfectly sound, I should still protest against its being made on a matter which does not come within the cognisance of the Education Department at all. Of course, the Education Department has a general supervision of all that is done in the schools, and as regards the moral government of the school that is a very important matter indeed; but as for the doctrinal instruction and the instruction on religious information, that seems to me to be altogether outside the scope of the Department. My Lords, this, of course, I should say, even if I believed that the statements made by the Vice-President of the Council were perfectly accurate. I am not at all prepared to deny that there is in Board schools exceedingly good teaching, and that there is in some Board schools exceedingly good teaching in the religious department of the instruction. I have no doubt about it. I have said it, and other bishops have said the same; but it is a very different thing to say that there is to be found in different Board schools very good religious instruction, and to say that, taking it generally, the religious education in Board schools is altogether superior to that given in the Voluntary schools. I do not know how the comparison has been made. All the evidence that I can get together points entirely in the opposite direction. I have made, naturally enough, such inquiry as I could make; our own diocesan inspectors altogether question this statement, and say
  634
  they do not at all acknowledge that the Biblical instruction in the Board schools is better than the Biblical instruction in the Voluntary schools, and their own accounts of the results of their examination are such as to show that the Board school must, indeed, be something very different from what schools are generally, if the religious instruction in them stands above the kind of religious instruction in the schools of the Church. There are not many modes or means by which we cant actually compare the two, but one or two things have struck me particularly. This is one that was brought before me in a letter I received this morning from the diocesan inspector of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, where he says that he comes across the children educated in the Board schools and the children educated in the Voluntary schools, in the Sunday schools. He has to inspect the Church Sunday schools, and he says that he finds there that the children of the Voluntary schools are very superior to the children of the Board schools. That, of course, is no more than his opinion, but it is borne out by several others, who write to the same effect, and fully borne out by the accounts given in the Reports of our owns diocesan inspectors everywhere about the character of the religious instruction in the Voluntary schools. I hope, therefore, that the Lord President of the Council will be able to explain in some satisfactory manner how it is that the Education Department are stepping out of their province in this way, and also on what authority and what evidence the Vice-President bases such a criticism on that with which he has, properly speaking, nothing to do.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The DUKE of DEVONSHIRE): My Lords, the history of the incident to which the most reverend prelate has just called attention is, I think, a somewhat curious one. Its origin arose in a speech which was made by the Vice-President of the Council in the other House of Parliament, in opposing a Motion for the universal establishment of school boards. In the course of the Vice-President's speech on that occasion he said that he had always admitted that the education of most of the Board schools in the large towns was excellent,

  635
  and he incidentally observed that—but perhaps I had better quote his own words. He said—
  "He was not at all certain if it came to be a real test that they would not find that the facts and history of the Christian faith were better taught to the children in the Board schools."
  The Vice-President went on to say that he had always held that opinion as to the education given in the Board schools in the larger towns, but that the case in the rural districts was altogether different, and that, in his opinion, in the rural districts the country clergyman was a far better and more competent school manager than the farmers or tradesmen of whom the school board would be composed, and under whose management the education given was generally extremely inefficient. Well, my Lords, that statement of the Vice-President does not appear to me to be of a very aggressive or irritating character, but it appears to have called down upon him the severe animadversions and criticisms of some supporters of Voluntary schools, and especially, I believe, of some of the Church papers, and the Vice-President accordingly felt it necessary, in making a speech in moving the Education Estimates, to make some reference to the criticism to which he had been exposed. Of course, the most reverend prelate perfectly understands that any opinion which has been expressed by the Vice-President upon this subject refers solely to the Bible lessons which are given in common both in Voluntary and Board schools, and the Vice-President did not attempt to express or convey the slightest opinion upon the comparative value of that Bible instruction which was common to both classes of schools and the doctrinal instruction which, of course, could only be given in Church schools. I think I had better give the explanation of his statement in the Vice-President's own words. He has written to me a statement. He says—
  "The statement was an expression of my own personal opinion, as the context of my speech shows, and was not based upon any official or other authority."
  [Ironical cheers and laughter.] I think, in answer to those cheers, I ought to say
  636
  that every noble Lord will see, who has carefully studied the statements to which the right reverend prelate has called attention, that the Vice-President never represented them in any other light.
  "The evidence" (the Vice-President proceeds) "upon which my opinion was formed consisted partly of a comparison of the staffs of the two classes of schools, partly of personal communications with inspectors, teachers, and others, and partly of my own observation. Since I have held my present office I have seized every opportunity in town and country of visiting schools when I could do so without my official character being known. Personal experience, though unreliable as the sole source of knowledge, is a good corrective to opinions derived from the statements of others. One of the best tests of good teaching is the interest which the children take in the lesson given, and this is not very difficult to discern. When I determined to hear and see for myself the religious teaching in Board and Voluntary schools in London, I asked Mr. Ernest Gray, M.P., to select me a fair sample of each. It was impossible for me to visit a sufficient number of schools to make an average for myself. The Voluntary school selected was St. Matthew's, Westminster. This is what the head teacher is reported by the National Society to have said of it at a public meeting—
  "'This school in all its departments had invariably been awarded the highest grant by Her Majesty's inspector. The diocesan inspector had classed it as "excellent," and he was proud to say that the managers had staffed and equipped it as well as any Voluntary school in London.'"
  "The Board school, which I visited on the next day, was in Marlborough Road, Chelsea. The staffs of the two schools, as given me by the Education Department, are as follows."
  Then the Vice-President quotes certain figures, with which I need not trouble your Lordships, and goes on to say—
  "My own convictions and the policy which, under your direction, I have while in office carried out are, as you know, strongly in favour of the maintenance of Voluntary schools. The disadvantages under which Voluntary schools are placed in great towns where they have to compete with Board schools are not in any way the fault of their managers and teachers. To them I have never attributed any blame. I think them, on the contrary, deserving of the highest praise for the extent to which they make the means at their disposal serviceable to the cause of education. But the difficulty of providing sufficient incomes for Voluntary schools in great towns does, in my judgment, seriously menace their prosperity and affect their efficiency, and should, in their interest, be faced and overcome."
  Well, my Lords, on this point I have only further to say that, in my opinion, this

  637
  statement to which the most reverend prelate has called attention was not entirely a gratuitous statement on the part of the Vice-President, seeing that it was made in consequence of a very guarded and unaggressive statement of opinion made on quite a different occasion, having been severely called into question. I can only say, as the Vice-President has said, that it is the personal opinion of my right honourable Friend and his personal opinion only, and your Lordships may rest assured that it is, under the administration of the Education Department, no part of the duty of the inspectors either to inquire into or to formulate criticism upon the religious instruction given in the Board schools. I have only further to add, on this point, that the opinions expressed by the Vice-President do not relate, and do not purport to relate, to the religious instruction given in the schools of the country generally, but solely to those in the metropolis; and I do not see that this expression of opinion on the Vice-President's part need have given rise to any very great annoyance or irritation on the part of managers of Voluntary schools. I waited a little while, after the most reverend prelate sat down, to hear if any other observations were likely to be addressed to your Lordships upon the speech which has been called in question. I am, of course, perfectly aware that not only the point which has been referred to on this occasion, but several other points contained in that speech, have excited a great deal of public attention; have caused apparently some disquietude to the supporters of the Voluntary schools, and a proportionate amount of satisfaction to the supporters of Board schools. I have read, of course, that speech with a great deal of attention, and I confess that I do not find in it any traces of that hostile spirit towards the Voluntary schools which has been imputed to my right honourable Friend. The speech is evidently that of one who is anxious—sincerely anxious—to increase the efficiency of both Board and Voluntary schools, and of one who is deeply impressed by the difficulties under which elementary education suffers now, and which render the result obtained from it inadequate in comparison with the enormous expenditure incurred upon it. My
  638
  right honourable Friend commented on a great number of obstacles which, in his opinion, impede the progress of education. Among them were the early age at which children leave school, their irregular attendance during their school period, the inferiority of Voluntary schools in large towns, generally the inferiority of schools, Board or Voluntary, in rural districts, and the want of a sufficient number of trained teachers. Several of those obstacles can only be dealt with by legislation, and the Government have proved, by the Bill which they introduced in 1896, their desire to deal with some of those obstacles. That Bill would have raised the age of exemption from attendance of children at school from 11 to 12 years, and would have provided a more efficient organisation for education in the rural districts. That Bill, however, was defeated mainly by the efforts of those who are now loudest in approval of the Vice - President's strictures. The Bill which was passed by Parliament last year was intended in some degree to redress the inferiority of Voluntary schools in towns, to which my right honourable Friend referred. The proposal embodied in that Bill, to give to schools in urban districts a larger proportion of the grant in aid, was most strenuously resisted by those who are now loudest in applauding the Vice-President's comparison between the efficiency of Board and Voluntary schools in towns. The speech of my right honourable Friend appears to me to have been intended to enforce three points, not one of which, so far as I can see, is in antagonism to the interests of Voluntary schools. In the first place, he desires to raise the present age of exemption. That, as I have said, is a principle which already has received the approval of the Government, and has been embodied in a Measure, and which, if it could be carried into effect, would equally benefit Board and Voluntary schools. In the second place, he desires to see a better organisation of schools in rural districts, not for the management of schools, but for the support and assistance of schools, both Board and Voluntary—a Measure which, if carried out, would relieve Voluntary schools in rural districts from the danger to which they are now exposed of being supplanted by Board schools. In the third place, my right honourable Friend advocated, as he

  639
  always has done, the giving of power to local authorities to afford some assistance to Voluntary schools from the rates. As I have said, two of these principles have been adopted by the Government, and I believe are generally acceptable to all the supporters of Voluntary schools. The third of them—that of assistance to Voluntary schools from the rates—has been very fully discussed, and, although it was not adopted by the Government, and although the Government are still of opinion that it would be inexpedient, and would not be a real or permanent good to the Voluntary schools themselves, still, it is a principle that was most strongly urged by the warmest supporters of Voluntary schools in many parts of the country, and the advocacy of such a Measure cannot, in my opinion, be deemed hostile to the present Voluntary schools. But in enforcing these points my right honourable Friend has dwelt upon deficiencies which he sees in our existing system, and especially those affecting Voluntary schools, in a manner which appears to have alarmed, and to some extent irritated, their supporters. It may be that some of the statements of my right honourable Friend may be open to question; it may be that different inferences may be drawn from certain facts from those he has drawn. For instance, the irregularity of attendance to which he adverted does not appear prejudicially to affect Voluntary schools in comparison with Board schools, On the contrary, the statistics prove that the attendance at Voluntary schools is somewhat better than in Board schools, and I think that, although my right honourable Friend is able to produce a large number of instances in which the attendance is miserably bad, and in which the authorities evidently fall short of their duty; yet, on the whole, I think my right honourable Friend has perhaps taken an unduly despondent view of the state of attendance in the elementary schools. It is now 81½ per cent. of the number on the books. The Department, I am informed, consider that a reduction of 12½ per cent. for unavoidable causes is not an unreasonable reduction; therefore, though striking instances to the contrary may be found in certain cases, taking the average attendance throughout the coun-
  640
  try, it is only 6 per cent. below that which the Department consider to be a satisfactory attendance. As to the inferiority of Voluntary schools in large towns, my right honourable Friend was, I think, careful to point out that that inferiority was due to no fault of the managers themselves, but solely to the inadequacy of their resources. He pointed out, and I think rightly pointed out, that the Act of last year only partially redressed that inequality of resources, and that if the subscriptions should fall off that partial relief would disappear. He referred to what he termed an ominous drop in the subscriptions. I wish that my right honourable Friend had pointed out that that ominous drop had taken place before the Act came into full operation, and that it was a drop from the previous year, in which the very highest amount of voluntary contributions which had ever been raised was obtained by the abnormal claims made on the supporters of Voluntary schools. But the danger which he pointed out is a real one. No doubt, if the effect of the Act of last year should be that the supporters of Voluntary schools should in any degree relax their efforts, it will be impossible, considering the competition to which they are exposed from rate-aided schools in large towns, for them to hope to continue with efficiency without further assistance. We have as yet not had time to form an opinion as to the working of the system of association brought into existence by the Act of last year; but, so far as we can see, we have reason to believe the system is working well, and the Department have every reason to hope that the object of that Act will be attained, and that the assistance given will be applied, as it was intended it should be applied, to promoting the efficiency of the schools, while voluntary subscriptions will not continue to decline, but may rather be expected to increase. There is only one other point in the speech referred to which appears to have given some pain to those who are interested in education. The Vice-President appears to have aroused a considerable amount of indignation by a quotation he made from a report of one of the inspectors, in which that inspector said that the farmer and the squire were no friends to education.

  641
  My Lords, I do not deny that I regret that an assertion so wide, so vague, and of so sweeping a character should have been made by any official in the service of the Department, and I regret also that the assertion should be repeated in an official statement by a representative of the Education Department. If a statement such as that is true in any degree—no doubt there may be certain districts in which it may be true—it is a statement which is absolutely incapable of proof. That it is not universally true we know from our own experience, for it is within our knowledge that whatever may be the opinion of the country gentleman of England as to the value of education to the agricultural labourer, there is probably no class, as a class, that has done more for the cause of elementary education than country gentlemen, or have done it at a greater pecuniary sacrifice. In justice to Mr. Rankine, the inspector whose report has been quoted from, and to the Vice-President, it is only right to say that indifference to education or hostility to education was not imputed by them solely to squires and farmers. Mr. Rankine went on to say that the labourers are, a rule, absolutely indifferent to the advantages of education for their children, and as labourers are the parties chiefly and primarily concerned, certainly, until a different state of things exists and a different state of public opinion obtains in rural districts, I think it is impossble to expect that any great improvement will be obtained. There is a passage in the report by Mr. Rankine which follows that which has been quoted, and which, I think, might be usefully added. Mr. Rankine said almost immediately after the words quoted—
  "The weakness of our system of education is that it does not work itself thoroughly into the national life. It is still too much an institution imposed by legislative enactment. The love of education for its own sake is wanting."
  These observations go very nearly to the root of the question. That weakness is not a weakness that can be remedied by premature attempts at legislation, or to impose burdens either on parents or ratepayers which they consider, perhaps mistakenly consider, are already almost too heavy to be borne. My Lords, I think I
  642
  have dealt with the principal points in the speech which has called forth so much attention, and has alarmed and irritated managers of Voluntary schools. I think I have been able to show that, whatever the opinion your Lordships may hold as to the views expressed by the Vice-President as to the want of efficiency in our system of education, especially in Voluntary schools, the criticisms which he has made were not made in any spirit of hostility to that branch of schools. It has not been alleged, and I do not think a single instance can be alleged, in which the administration of the Department by my right honourable Friend has in any degree been biassed against Voluntary schools, or by any opinion he may hold as to the efficiency of that system. My Lords, with this explanation, I will conclude by assuring the most reverend prelate that, as to religious instruction, the Department have not the slightest intention of calling upon their inspectors to officially express any opinion, and that the observations from the Vice-President were entirely and solely the expression of his own personal opinion.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, I do not trespass upon your Lordships' time in the position which, up to a short time ago, I had the privilege of holding, as Chairman of the London School Board, but I address your Lordships as an ardent supporter of our system of Voluntary schools; and as such I beg to tender my most sincere thanks to the right reverend prelate for the initiation of this Debate, and to assure him that I think he will receive the hearty thanks of all those who have the good of Voluntary schools at heart, for having extracted the opinion which has just been expressed by the noble Duke. There is one person, above all others, whom I should like to congratulate. I should like to congratulate the Vice-President of the Council on the fact of his good fortune in being subordinate to a chief who has shown such loyal and chivalrous feeling in defence of his subordinate. I am afraid the speech the noble Duke has made will not carry the same conviction to the lovers of Voluntary schools as it will carry to the mind of his subordinate. I know, myself, from what I have heard, and from expressions

  643
  of opinion in another place, that no speech of recent date has caused such heart-burning, and has carried such dismay to the minds of some of the most devoted supporters of the Prime Minister at the last election, as the speech of the Vice-President which has been referred to, and which the noble Duke has so gallantly defended. I confess I should have liked to have seen the noble Duke take a totally different line. I should have liked to have heard him explain how it was that his subordinate was permitted to give expression to what he called his personal opinion. If I were a Member of the House of Commons, or if I were one in the country who read the statements made by the Minister who represents the Education Department in the House of Commons, I should imagine that that man who represented his chief in the House of Commons was giving vent to the opinion of his chief, because he was merely the mouthpiece of his chief; and I assure your Lordships that in the country it is firmly believed that the opinion which emanated from the Vice-President, and which we now hear was of a personal character, was the view held by the President of the Council, and by the other Members of the Cabinet. I cannot for a moment believe that such is the case. That part of the country with which I am associated returned, at the last election, a vast number of Members to Parliament to support the Prime Minister and his policy, and a great number of them owe their return to the fact that the present Government, when in opposition, pledged themselves to do what they could to benefit the Voluntary schools, to make them as efficient as possible, and, so far as they could, to put them on an equal footing with Board schools. That was a very important factor in the last General Election, and I think it would be hard to ask supporters of the Government to face their constituents who have elected them on the pledges given, and to explain this speech of the Vice-President of the Council in the House of Commons. My Lords, the Government, we can say, have certainly redeemed their pledges, and have endeavoured to benefit the Voluntary schools so far as laid in their power. I confess myself, as one who has practical experience of the Voluntary school
  644
  system, that I should have been glad to have seen the Government benefit them to a greater extent, but that they have benefited them is shown by the Report which emanated from the Board of Education, and that the results have been satisfactory are also shown by that Report. I was only this afternoon looking through the speech delivered in the House of Commons by Mr. Cripps on this subject. He referred to the fact that the Vice-President of the Council did not call attention to the Report of his own Department, showing that the Act of last year had more than carried out all that was expected of it. That document expressed satisfaction with the result obtained by the Association of Voluntary Schools, with the zeal and discretion shown by the governing bodies, and with the reasonable spirit in which the school managers had co-operated. The success which had attended the administration of the Act had (it said) been shown by the absence of friction. I am glad to notice that the noble Duke apologised for that part of the Vice-President's speech, in which, quoting with considerable glee, if I may say so, from the report of Mr. Rankine, he said that the squire and the parson were no friends of elementary education. That was a gratuitous insult to the squire and to the parson. I have practical experience of this matter. I conduct my own schools myself with the aid of the clergyman. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and the efficiency gained is as high as it can be, and that is entirely due to the fact that the squire, the parson, and myself do all in our power to maintain the efficiency and the proper conduct of our schools. I think a more gratuitous insult could not possibly have been levelled at the squire and the parson by one who was speaking as the representative of the Education Department. I thank the noble Duke for having apologised for that part of the Vice-President's speech; otherwise I do not think the Prime Minister would find the squire and the parson supporting him at the next General Election with the ardour with which they supported him at the last election. I am at a loss to understand what it is the Vice-President of the Council requires. Does he wish to repudiate the whole system of Voluntary schools? He certainly has thrown cold water on that system and on

  645
  the efforts of the Government to benefit and maintain the position of Voluntary schools. Therefore, I should like to know what it is he does want. If he wants to abolish the system, the ratepayers of the country will not thank him for the extra taxation which would be involved, and an act of greater injustice could not be perpetrated. The noble Marquess below me made a great speech at Preston on education, and anything more contradicting that speech than the speech of the Vice-President of the Council could not be imagined. How are we to connect that speech of the noble Marquess with the speech recently delivered by the Vice-President, and which is now entirely repudiated by the Lord President of the Council? It is somewhat difficult to understand how far Under Secretaries are allowed to introduce their own personal views into Parliament. We have been told that the Vice-President spoke simply on personal grounds, but how are we to know when he is representing his chief and when he is representing himself? For instance, the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs might make a speech of an unauthorised character which might embroil us in war, before the noble Marquess at the head of the Government had an opportunity of contradicting that speech in Parliament. I think it is quite time that those who are subordinate in office should understand their position. They should recognise that they are Under Secretaries, no matter what they call themselves, and that they are only the mouth-pieces of their chief. I sympathise with the noble Duke the Lord President of the Council in the difficult and chivalrous task he has performed to-day, but I cannot help my mind going back to 1891, when the Lord Privy Seal, then Secretary of State for India, had the somewhat difficult task to perform of repudiating his Under Secretary in the House of Commons. The Under Secretary had made a speech which was known as the "Poppy-head" speech, in the case of Manipur. That Under Secretary is the same gentleman who has been so gallantly defended to-night by the noble Duke. My Lords, the views I have put forward with regard to the question of Voluntary schools will, I think, commend themselves to the minds of all those who hold, as I do, a feeling of admiration for, and devotion
  646
  to, our Voluntary school system; the views I have put forward with regard to the position of Under Secretaries will, I am sure, commend themselves to the community at large.
  VISCOUNT HALIFAX: My Lords, I venture to think that the noble. Marquess who has just sat down has been somewhat unjust to the Vice-President of the Council. No one could think, however, that the remark made in the other House of Parliament in regard to the attitude of the squire and the farmer, in regard to education, was just or generous. Your Lordships know, as the noble Duke has rightly said, there is no class who have done so much for elementary education in England, speaking roughly, as the country gentlemen. They support their village schools, ordinarily, almost entirely out of their own pockets. But, my Lords, there are truths which have to be said, although they may be extremely unpalatable, and I venture to think that if Sir John Gorst meant to say that in the long run our denominational schools will not be able to hold their own against schools entirely supported out of the rates, he said what was perfectly true. Anyone who is acquainted with the state of education in the north of England knows perfectly well, however disagreeable the truth may be, that in the long run denominational schools will not be able to hold their own unless they get what is only just and fair—a fair proportion out of the rates—and I hail with great satisfaction the words which fell from the noble Duke the Lord President of the Council when he alluded to the question of rate aid for denominational schools.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, the discussion has certainly wandered a very long way from the particular point which the most reverend prelate brought before us. I must say I so far sympathise with the Vice-President that I think he did good service to the cause of education in pointing out the defects in the schools which form part of the system. I do not believe that the supporters of Voluntary schools, or of any other schools, will gain anything by concealment of the defects and deficiencies in that system. What we,

  647
  who are not such ardent supporters of Voluntary schools, and what I personally believe is that, from various causes, and without imputing blame to managers or teachers, many Voluntary schools, particularly the smaller ones, have fallen below the standard which ought to be the standard of education in this country. That, I apprehend, is also the view of the Government, because it was no doubt on that ground that they gave an extra subsidy to those schools. The noble Duke rather seemed to say that we were not to go beyond the wishes and the feelings of the people of the locality in regard to education. I hope that will not be the principle on which the Education Department will proceed. I trust that the pressure which has been exercised by those who have the interests of education at heart upon those classes in the country some of whom, at least, are not as much interested in education as we could wish, will be continued steadily by the Education Department. They should not do anything that is unfair; but at the same time I am certain that pressure is necessary to bring the schools up to a proper standard. I must say for myself that I agree with a good deal of what has been said by the noble Marquess opposite [the Marquess of Londonderry]. I do not think it is at all desirable that Members of the Government should express opinions, which may be described as personal opinions, upon matters which really concern the Government as a whole. The noble Marquess, I think, spoke rather disparagingly of the office of Vice-President. It is certainly one of an important character, and one not infrequently held by Members of the Cabinet. I think myself it is always a practice injurious to the public service, in the long run injurious to party interests, that any Members of the Government, and especially the higher Members of the Government, should express opinions of their own on matters of high policy concerning Departments with which they are not connected; and, therefore, I hail with joy the excellent principle laid down by the noble Marquess opposite.
  The subject dropped.
  House adjourned at 6.25.