Lords Sitting of 21 July 1899

MARQUESS OF HEADFORT.
Petition of Geoffrey Thomas Marquess of Headfort, claiming a right to vote at the elections of Representative Peers for Ireland; read, and referred to the Lord Chancellor to consider and report thereupon to the House.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  BURGH POLICE (SCOTLAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Lord BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH): My Lords, I beg to move that the Order of the 9th of March last—"That no Provisional Order Confirmation Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Tuesday, the 27th day of June"—be dispensed with, and that the Bill be now read a second time. This is a Provisional Order made by my Office under the Burgh Police Act, 1892, giving effect to an application on the part of the magistrates of Paisley for an extension of their borrowing powers. The Order was not deposited in the Scottish Office until the 20th of March, but I understand that no blame attaches to the magistrates of Paisley on that ground. As soon as they became aware of the necessity of the work for which this money is to be expended, they made the necessary application, and since that period no time has been lost. The matter was remitted at once to the Sheriff for a local inquiry, and his report was not received until far on in the month of April. We, in the Scottish Office, did not take many days to settle it, but considerable correspondence and adjustment of the Sinking Fund was necessary, and we were not able to sign the Order until June 15. The other House of Parliament suspended its Standing Orders on the understanding that the Bill would be unopposed. There was no opposition in that House, and I have every reason to think there will be no
  1498
  opposition here. I believe that the magistrates and Town Council of Paisley are doing what is best in this matter for those whose interests they have to guard, and I hope that, under the special circumstances, your Lordships will agree to the suspension of the Standing Orders to allow of the Bill being read a second time to-day.
  Moved—
  "That the Order of the 9th March last, 'that no Provisional Order Confirmation Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Tuesday, the 27th day of June next,' be dispensed with, and that the Bill be now read 2a.'"
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of MORLEY): My Lords, after the explanation which has been given by the noble Lord, the Secretary for Scotland, I shall not oppose the motion.
  On Question, agreed to.
  Bill read 2a accordingly.

  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 20) BILL.
  A witness ordered to attend the Select Committee.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 20) BILL.
  Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Lord Glenesk be proposed to the House as a member of the Select Committee on the said Bill in the place of the Lord Kenyon; read, and agreed to.
  LONDON IMPROVEMENTS BILL.
  The Queen's Consent signified; and Bill reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
  BELFAST CORPORATION BILL.
  Reported from the Select Committee with Amendments.
  BOOTLE CORPORATION BILL.
  Reported with Amendments.
  MENSTONE WATER BILL.
  Reported without Amendment.
  BRADFORD TRAMWAYS AND IMPROVEMENT BILL.
  Committee to meet on Friday next.
  NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE TRAMWAYS AND IMPROVEMENT BILL.
  Committee to meet on Thursday next.
UXBRIDGE AND RICKMANSWORTH RAILWAY BILL.
  LONDON, WALTHAMSTOW, AND EPPING FOREST RAILWAY (No. 2) BILL.
  Committee to meet on Tuesday next.
WEST METROPOLITAN RAILWAY BILL.
Committee to meet on Monday next.
LONDON, BRIGHTON, AND SOUTH COAST RAILWAY (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL.
  WALKER AND WALLSEND UNION GAS (ELECTRIC LIGHTING) BILL.
  Read 3a, with the Amendments; further Amendments made; Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
GREAT NORTHERN AND STRAND RAILWAY BILL.
  GREAT WESTERN AND GREAT CENTRAL RAILWAY COMPANIES BILL.
    SOUTH-EASTERN AND LONDON, CHATHAM, AND DOVER RAILWAY COMPANIES (NEW LINES) BILL.
    Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
STOCKPORT CORPORATION WATER BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments; further Amendments made; Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
GOOLE URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 14) BILL.
House to be in Committee on Monday next.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 12) BILL.
  Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 17) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without Amendment: Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a on Monday next.
RETURNS, REPORTS, &c.
  TREATY SERIES, No. 15 (1899).
  Convention between the United Kingdom and France for the delimitation of their respective possessions to the west of the Niger, and of their respective possessions and spheres of influence to the east of that river; signed at Paris, 14th June, 1898; together with a declaration completing the same; signed at London, 21st March, 1899. (Ratifications exchanged at Paris, 13th June, 1899.)
  QUEEN'S COLLEGE, CORK.
  Annual Report of the President, for the session 1898–99.
  IRISH LAND COMMISSION.
  Report of the Commissioners, for the period from 1st April, 1898, to 31st March, 1899.

  GOVERNMENT LABORATORY.
  Report of the Principal Chemist of the Government Laboratory upon the work of the Laboratory for the year ended 31st March, 1899: with Appendices.
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  LONDON CORPORATION.
  Annual account of the Chamberlain of London: delivered (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.
TITHE RENT-CHARGE (RATES) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; Read la; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Monday next (The Earl of Selborne) (No. 177.)
SMALL HOUSES (ACQUISITION OF OWNERSHIP) BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF SELBORNE): My Lords, in asking your Lordships to give a Second Reading to this Bill, perhaps you will allow me to make a few remarks by way of introduction. The object of the Bill is to assist persons of moderate means to acquire the ownership of the houses in which they live, and it does so by putting at their disposal a simple machinery which obviates the necessity for facing those legal terrors which must present such a formidable appearance to the eyes of a partially educated man, and by enabling them to raise the purchase-money from the local authorities at a cheaper rate than they can otherwise obtain it. The first clause of the Bill defines the class of occupier to whom assistance may be given, and it places a maximum upon the value of the house which may be bought under the operations of the Bill. The value of the house is not to exceed £400. The clause also fixes the proportion of the money which may be advanced to the total value of the property. The words of the clause are:—
  "Provided that any advance shall not exceed (a) four-fifths of that which, in the option of the local authority, is the market value of the ownership; nor (b) £240; or, in the case of a fee simple or leasehold of not less than ninety-nine years unexpired at the date of the purchase, £300."
  Clause 2 lays down the various precautionary regulations to secure, amongst other things, that the purchaser is a bonâ fide resident and not a speculator. Clause 3 lays down statutory conditions under which the purchasing owner is to hold the house until the advance with interest has been fully paid. It also makes provision for the action of the local authority which lends the money in case of default in complying with the Statutory conditions, or in case of bankruptcy. Clause 9—and this is one of the most important clauses in the Bill—defines the local authority under the Bill to be the council of any county or county borough. Provisions, however, are introduced, that if any urban or rural district council in England or
  1502
  Wales, whose district contains a population of over 7,000 inhabitants, passes a resolution to the effect that it wishes to become the authority under this Bill, that urban or rural council shall become the authority for the purposes of the Bill, and the council of the county in which that district is situated ceases to have any further responsibility or authority within that district in respect of this Bill. The clause also places a limit upon any possible loss in working the Act—that is, any possible difference between the receipts and expenditure. Of course, may mention, by way of parenthesis, the idea of the Bill is that there shall be no loss at all, and that it shall work on strictly business principles; but if in any local financial year the expenses payable by a council, and not reimbursed by the receipts under the Bill, exceed in a county a sum equal to one halfpenny, and in a county borough or urban or rural district a sum equal to one penny in the £ upon the rateable value, no further advances under the Bill shall be made until the expiration of five years, at any rate, after the end of the financial year, and not then unless the loss has fallen below the maximum stated. Clauses 11, 12, and 13 apply the Act to Scotland, and Clause 14 applies it to Ireland. In the rather slight sketch which I have given of the provisions of the Bill, I think your Lordships will see that this is a very simple and a very practical Bill, and I claim a favourable reception for it on two grounds. In the first place, because it embodies a principle which has been over and over again affirmed and approved of by your Lordships' House in connection with Irish Land Purchase Acts and the English Small Holdings Act; and, secondly, because your Lordships have twice specifically approved Bills for exactly the same purpose which have been introduced by the noble Marquess behind me (the Marquess of Londonderry),who has been the pioneer of the movement in this House, and to whose exertions is largely due the position the question has assumed in practical politics. I hope the noble Marquess will allow me to congratulate him on the part he has taken in bringing this question to the point at which it is ripe for legislation. In 1896 and 1897 the noble Marquess introduced Bills on this subject, and the Bill of 1896 was fortunate enough to secure the blessing of Lord Rosebery, while the Bill of 1897 secured the support of Lord Kimberley. The measure

  1503
  has, therefore, I may say, received the support of both parties in your Lordships' House. I cannot too strongly impress upon the House the fact that the Bill contains no element of charity. There is not the slightest intention of benefitting the individual householder at the expense of the ratepayer. The public, in fact, can suffer no loss except through the negligence of the local authority. Although this is, as I have said, a simple and practical Bill, I claim for it that it also performs a really great service. I confess that I am one of those who have long thought that, although this country may rejoice in so many elements of stability to its social system, yet there is one great element to the stability of society which has been to a great extent lacking in this country. The diffusion of real property among the people is, perhaps, less advanced in this country than in any other country in Europe, and I believe it will greatly add to the permanence and stability of our institutions if there is a large addition to the body of our freeholder. I claim for the Bill that it affords the opportunity to men of moderate means of securing what is called a stake in the country. I claim for it that it gives those men an opportunity for an investment of any money they have saved through their thrifty habits, and that it is, therefore, a Bill for the encouragement of thrift; and I believe it will, to quote the words of the Leader of the Opposition in respect of Lord Londonderry's Bill of 1897, prove a real contribution to the problem of providing better dwellings for the people of the working classes. But, my Lords, although the Bill possesses the advantages which I have claimed for it, it has by no means escaped criticism. It has been said over and over again in the Press, and it has been repeated in another place, that the Bill will be inoperative. Well, my Lords, I would say that as a criticism that observation is premature, and as a prophecy it has no present value. The Bill has also been described as an electioneering measure. It is no more and no less an electioneering Bill than any Bill brought forward by either Party in the State as to which they have given pledges to the electors. Both Parties in the State give pledges to the electors, and neither of them can get rid of the illusion that there may possibly be gratitude for the fulfilment of pledges. I do not-believe that either
  1504
  Party in the State would introduce a Bill which it did not believe would be of real value to the country. Therefore that criticism is meaningless. A more serious criticism is that this Bill will not really benefit the working classes, that a working man's most valuable capital is mobility, and that to assist him to become the owner of a long lease is to tie him down in one place, with the possible result that he will have to take lower wages than he would otherwise get. That argument was harped onto a great extent in another place, and one hon. Member carried this argument so far, that he appeared to think that to turn a working man into a freeholder was only the first step towards reducing him once more to serfdom. I think that is a form of criticism which answers itself. Surely the best judge of his own interests in this matter is the working man. If he belongs to that kind of trade where mobility is necessary, it is not to be supposed that he will take advantage of this Bill; but, as your Lordships know perfectly well, the whole of the working class population is not a shifting population, and because a large portion of the labouring population may he mobile is no reason why this Bill should not be passed for the benefit of that portion of the population which is not mobile. Special provisions are made to facilitate transfer and in respect of temporary letting, and there is no compulsion in the Bill. No owner of house property or land is compelled to sell, no occupier is compelled to, buy, and no local authority is compelled to lend. It has been asked why this. Bill, which is one mainly for the assistance of dwellers in towns, has been extended to the country districts. The answer that has been made is that the habit is becoming more general for men. working in the towns to live in the surrounding rural districts, and that the more the facilities of locomotion increase, and the more valuable the land becomes in the centre of towns, the more that tendency is likely to extend; but I would go much further than that, and justify the inclusion of country districts on the score of the necessities of the country districts themselves. When you are introducing legislation of this kind, why exclude from its benefits a man who might wish to take advantage of it because he lives in the country? I come from a part of the country where cottage

  1505
  property is on the whole distinctly good, and yet, although I see no desire on the part of the working men to own and cultivate small farms, I see a great desire on their part, which is often reduced into practice, to own and reside in their own houses; and when legislation of this kind is before Parliament, I can conceive of no practical argument for excluding from its benefits men residing in the country districts. Of course, the introduction of the country districts did necessitate a certain administrative difficulty. To work a Bill of this kind properly, two things, as has been frequently observed in another place, are required—firstly, thorough business capacity; and, secondly, local knowledge. I do not think any of your Lordships, with the great experience that many of you have had on county councils, will deny that in the matter of business capacity there is no better authority for the purpose of carrying this Bill into effect than the county councils. County councils cannot, however, always have the necessary local knowledge, and for this reason an Amendment was accepted in another place permitting rural district councils as well as urban district councils to pass resolutions constituting themselves local authorities under this Bill. I admit that that arrangement is a compromise—nothing but a compromise was possible—but I believe it is the best arrangement that can be arrived at. I commend the Bill to your Lordships for Second Reading, as a Bill which the Government believe to be a good Bill, and one to which they attach real importance. Although this Bill comes before your Lordships with a modest aspect, I shall not be surprised if history records of it that it has had a marked effect on the Social stability of the country.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Earl of Selborne.)
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: My Lords, the noble Earl adopted a very modest tone in recommending this Bill to your Lordships. In one sentence, however, he Seemed to say that it would make an important contribution to one of the greatest questions that can engage the public mind and the attention of Parliament at the present time—namely, the broad question of the housing of the working classes. The generally modest tone of the speech of the noble Earl was much more consonant with the character of the Bill than
  1506
  the single remark to which I have referred. I am one of those who recognise to the fullest extent the great importance of the housing problem, but I venture to say that this Bill makes a very small contribution to this great and important question. I am not at all inclined to indulge in the remarks about election pledges, which seem to have given the noble Earl so much displeasure, but I am bound to say that I cannot look upon this Bill is any fulfilment of the election pledges, given by the Government and their supporters, to take in hand and deal with the great question of the housing of the working classes. This Bill, as the noble Lord said, is only intended to benefit people with moderate means. But the question of the housing of the working classes is connected, not with people with moderate means, but with people with very small means indeed. I do not rise to offer any opposition to the Second Reading of this Bill, but I am afraid I am not so sanguine of its results as the noble Earl seems to be. I have considerable doubts whether it is very likely to be very largely made use of. When you are advancing public money, whether the money of the ratepayers or the taxpayers, you are bound to surround the advance of that money with many precautions, and in my opinion the restrictions which are necessarily imposed will diminish the desire of persons to purchase property under this Bill. The noble Earl admits that the working classes arc obliged to move about ill search of work. That habit of mobility applies, I admit, rather to the poorer class than to those whom it is proposed to benefit by this Bill. Those who have had anything to do with elections know the great difficulty of tracing the removals, which are caused by working men having been obliged to move into other districts in search of employment. Even if they do not leave the town or district, they frequently have to leave the houses in which they dwell, and there will be less inclination on this account amongst them to purchase their own houses. Although you propose to allow a man who purchases the freehold of his house to sell that freehold, you place upon the sale—and necessarily place upon it—such restrictions as to make it less marketable than houses to which those restrictions do not apply. Although I shall be glad to see this Bill made as much use of as possible, I cannot say that I entertain any great antici-

  1507
  pation that it will be found, when it is passed into law, to have much practical effect. Turning from these general considerations, I desire to say a few words in regard to the machinery by which the Bill is to be worked. That machinery is contained in Clause 9, and I feel considerable difficulty in regard to the alterations which were made in the other House of Parliament. Most of your Lordships have, I daresay, received the circular issued by the County Councils Association with regard to this clause. The arguments of the County Councils Association are, in my opinion, weighty arguments; but I do not altogether agree with the mode by which they are inclined to remedy the difficulties they foresee in this clause. My principal objection to the ninth clause is that you propose under it to create a new local area. One of the greatest evils we have to contend with is the complexity and multiplicity of our local areas, in which there is no unity of purpose whatever, and to introduce this new area of 7,000 inhabitants will make confusion worse confounded. The County Councils Association think that the difficulty would be met by striking the county councils out of the clause altogether. I do not agree with them; I think that would be a great mistake. I would suggest to the noble Earl, for his consideration, that the words creating the new area should be left out altogether, and that the transfer from the county council to the urban or rural district council should not take place without the consent of the county council. By that means you will at once avoid the creation of new districts, and you will maintain the county council in the position which I think it ought to occupy. The noble Earl recognised tonight the business capacity of the county councils, though he said they might be wanting in local knowledge. The county councils have more means of ascertaining local information than perhaps the noble Earl is aware of, and if they thought that there were any districts which could be safely entrusted with these powers, they would agree to their exercising them. I wish well to the measure, although it is an exceedingly small one, and one which a I am afraid will have but little effect.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My noble friend, who has introduced the Second Reading of this Bill with such
  1508
  ability, has been good enough to allude to me and my relations with a measure of a somewhat similar character which I had the honour of carrying through your Lordships' House on two occasions, and therefore I do not think I need offer any apology for rising to support the Second. Reading of the Bill now before the House. The object of the measure is one in which I have taken considerable interest; but while my noble friend attributed the measure to a very great extent to me, I should be acting unfairly to a friend of mine in the North of England (Mr. Wrightson) did I not say that it was he, and not I, who was the pioneer of this, Bill. This matter has been for some years before Parliament. So long ago as. 1893 my friend Mr. Wrightson, then Member for Stockton, carried through the House of Commons a measure of the kind now proposed. I congratulate Mr. Wrightson, myself, and all of us who for some years past have endeavoured to bring the subject before Parliament, on the fact that at last a measure has been brought forward by the Government as a Government Bill. Naturally, it has great advantages under these circumstances in your Lordships' House. It has the advantage of being introduced in more eloquent and far better language than I could have employed, and as a Government Bill it has been able to deal in a more generous manner with regard to certain provisions than I, as a private Member, could have asked your Lordships to accept. I have compared this Bill with the one I had the honour of carrying through your Lordships' House, and I notice that the provisions are of a far more generous character than ever I contemplated in my Bill. In the Bill which I introduced I naturally, as a private Member, was extremely anxious to safeguard every interest which it might be supposed I was attacking; and the chief interests to be safeguarded in a matter of this kind are the interests of the ratepayers whose money it is proposed to ask the local authorities to advance. I was naturally very humble in my demands, and, in the interests of the ratepayers, I suggested that only one-eighth of the full rateable value of the district should be advanced and placed for that purpose at the disposal of the local authorities. I am very glad to see from the Bill which has been introduced by my noble friend that that safeguard has been

  1509
  abolished. I also ventured to suggest that the sum of only £150 should be the maximum which the local authorities should have the power to advance. I am still more glad to see, in this Bill, that the local authorities will have power to advance as much as £240 in certain circumstances, £300 under certain other conditions, and even up to £400. I hail these provisions with feelings of great gratification, for they prove to me, beyond all doubt, that since this measure has been before the country and before Parliament Her Majesty's Government have recognised that it will be for the benefit of the working classes, and that, moreover, the apprehensions which they held—and, I think, very naturally held—with regard to the interests of the ratepayers were, I will not say altogether groundless, but apprehensions which could be got over, and I think the Government have shown that they have been got over. This Bill is one which, in the working class districts, will tend to promote thrift, industry, and independence of character, all of which were expressed by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Colonies, in introducing the measure, as characteristics which should be encouraged in the British working classes. I also look upon the measure as an advantage from another point of view. I know well the difficulty which exists with regard to old age pensions, but I cannot but think that if this measure is carried it will to a certain extent take the place of old age pensions. I mean by that, that if a thrifty, industrious man, a young man, with regularity pays the interest that he has to pay on his house, at the end of thirty years the house becomes his own, and, consequently, in his old age, he has a house free, and the rent which he would otherwise either have to pay to a landlord or to a local authority will remain in his own pocket. Therefore I hail this measure as a means of contributing to the comfort and the welfare of the oldest members of the working-class community, if they take advantage of the measure in their early days, and carry out the conditions the fair conditions—which are laid down in the Bill. I am very glad to see, however, that Her Majesty's Government have taken the line of safeguarding the interests of the ratepayers, while at the same time they have not taken away the advantages
  1510
  which I held out in my Bill. I think they are justified in vesting the ownership in the local authority. But while they do that they give the working classes the opportunity of buying the houses by instalments—exactly as I proposed in my Bill. I must revert to the time when I had the honour of carrying my Bill through your Lordships' House, and to the speech which was delivered on that occasion by the noble Earl opposite, the Leader of the Opposition (the Earl of Kimberley), who approved of the Bill introduced, and offered some criticisms of a fair and just character upon it. I may say that I value the criticism and the approval of the noble Earl more than anything else, for I feel certain that no one will contradict me when I say that in the details of local government no noble Lord possesses superior, if equal, knowledge on this matter; and when the noble Earl supported my Bill I felt that I must have introduced a very useful measure. The following year the noble Lord who was then leading the Opposition in this House (the Earl of Rosebery) expressed approval of the Bill, and offered some criticisms upon it. With perfect justice, the noble Earl put his finger on what I might say seemed at first sight to be a blot upon my measure—namely, that it was possible for the population to migrate, and thereby become owners of their houses as long as they were paying rent for them. The noble Earl said that if trade migrated it might leave the local authorities saddled with valueless securities. At first sight that appeared to be a very fair criticism, and the noble Earl went on, in terms of the greatest delicacy, to allude to a colliery which had belonged to me, the lease of which I had not renewed, and consequently, Lord Rosebery said, as it was no longer to be worked, the cottages on that property would not be used in the future. Although that colliery to which the noble Earl alluded is no longer working, all the cottages are occupied by working men who are employed on the neighbouring colliery of Sir James Joicey, who bought it from Lord Durham. I mention that to show that, although one colliery ceased working, the cottages on that property are still required, and are at present in demand. While I allow that Lord Rosebery's criticisms were just, I do not agree with regard to the migration of the population. I would remind

  1511
  the House that this is a permissive Bill, and that it is the duty of the local authority to satisfy themselves, before they advance the money of the ratepayers; that the industry in which the persons who intend to buy houses are engaged is of a permanent character. They will guard the interests of the ratepayers, and refuse to grant advances unless the industry is of a permanent character, and the men are likely to be permanently employed. I know the difficulties which must surround a measure of this kind. I know that a certain number of my own friends, who, like myself, hold Conservative views, regard this as a Radical measure. If it were compulsory I would not support it. But it is purely permissive, alike for the seller, the buyer, and the local authority—permissive for all concerned; and if it is taken advantage of by the working classes, I venture to think it will prove of inestimable benefit to them. It will encourage them to thrift, and encourage them to be independent, and give them happy homes in their old age. Your Lordships probably consider that these are matters of detail which could best be considered in Committee, but I have ventured to bring them forward on the Second Reading, owing to the fact that I am afraid engagements in the Sister Isle will prevent me from being present in the House next week, when the subsequent stages are taken. I am sure that the working classes will feel grateful to the Government for this Bill.
  THE EARL OF MORLEY: My Lords, I wish to call the attention of the House to one point of objection in the Bill—the point to which my noble friend opposite has alluded—namely, the body which is to become the local authority for the purposes of the Act under Clause 9. I cannot help agreeing with the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Ripon) that it is inconvenient to create entirely new local authorities for areas of 7,000 inhabitants, and I also agree with him that it is undesirable that county councils should be cut out of the Bill altogether. I would suggest to my noble friend in charge of the Bill, whether it would not be a fair and reasonable compromise that any district council, urban or rural, should be the local authority, provided the county council give their sanction. That would
  1512
  obviate the creation of a new class of subordinate authorities, and would give the county councils the power which they ought to possess, and which, I think, it is desirable they should possess. I venture to suggest to my noble friend that this is a point well worthy of his consideration.
  LORD NORTON: My Lords, I quite agree with the noble Lords who have spoken as to the attractive manner in which the noble Earl (the Earl of Selborne) has introduced this Bill, and I agree that the Bill is an attractive one in itself. Nothing can be more conservative than turning tenants into owners. I have done all I possibly could to encourage tenants to become owners of the houses they occupy, but I question the propriety of making loans of public money for the purpose. There is no doubt that facilities for self-insurance are in every way most desirable, and increase the vigour of the nation, but extraneous aid for private interests has rather a contrary effect on the spirit of the country. It seems to me that benevolent legislation of this character trenches on the sphere of private charity. Though the noble Earl who introduced the Bill repudiated that remark with regard to this Bill, yet he must allow that the advance of public money for the purpose of enabling tenants to become owners of their houses assumes that character. Wherever I have assisted tenants to become the owners of their houses I have considered it more or less an act of charity—a valuable help, but, still, not an act calculated to promote self-support. This Bill, we know, emanates from the Secretary for the Colonies, and, as the noble Marquess rightly said, it has a sort of kindred to the Old Age Pension proposal; both are in the nature of public aids to what should be self-provision. The first danger of benevolent legislation of this kind arises from the opening which it gives to an attack of fraudulent speculators, and the difficulties in the way of proper security are great. The first clause of the Bill endeavours to limit the amount of these public loans. I can recollect precisely the same attempt at restriction being made in carrying out the Friendly Societies Act some fifty years ago, in which I had a share myself. There the same limit of £200 in the case of advances was proposed; but what was

  1513
  the immediate result? There was a rush of men, who, under different names, contrived to get at least half-a-dozen or a dozen of these advances to themselves. I only mention that to show how this kind of legislation is open to the attacks of a host of fraudulent speculators, who are always looking out for opportunities of this sort. The conditions of these loans, in order to prevent fraud, are necessarily most intricate, and in some points most questionable. How, for instance, are future changes of residence to be always detected? But is fixed residence always desirable? I quite admit that there are a considerable number of working classes who are, by the nature of their occupation, fixed in localities; but I think you must allow that for the great mass of working men it is not desirable that they should be assisted out of public funds to provide a permanent residence in ally one spot. These are objections which could, I think, be got over by slight alterations. I confess that the general principle and object of the Bill is one which, in my opinion, is most desirable; but my main objection to the Bill—one which must be removed before I can possibly give my support to it—is the provision that where default is made in complying with the statutory condition as to residence, and where default is made in complying with any of the other statutory conditions, the property shall vest in the local authority. I think that is a very great objection. It will lead to the local authorities becoming landowners, and will give borough councils absolute omnipotence politically and electorally. The noble Viscount below me (Viscount Cross), in the year 1875, passed a very useful Act which enabled local authorities to purchase insanitary buildings and put them in order; but there is a section in that Act to compel those authorities, immediately after they have done so, to sell the residue of property not required for the purpose. The great city over which the Secretary for the Colonies is the presiding genius obtained Lord Cross's Act in the form of a local Act, applying to Birmingham only, and in that Act this most material section of Lord Cross's Act, that which prevented the borough council from retaining unappropriated property, was omitted. In Birmingham the council have a great hatred of landowners, but they have a great ambition to become landowners themselves. I would
  1514
  urge that this Bill should be amended so that in the event of property coming into the hands of the local authority, in default of any of the many conditions of purchase, then the local authority should be compelled at once to resell, following the precedent of Lord Cross's Act of 1875; and I also think the original proprietors ought to have the first option of re-purchase. I am told by those who support this Bill that such a provision would add too much to its intricacy. It is said that the original owners who consented to sell their property to their tenants have no right of re-entry. No one supposes that they have a right of re-entry, but it is in the interests of the people that they should be allowed to repurchase. A proprietor of an urban district may have schemes for the general improvement of the district, and the local authority, coming in as a proprietor of parts, would prevent the owner from carrying a general scheme out, and thereby prove prejudicial to the whole locality. I refer to schemes for public parks, district drainage, and the like, which, if the local authority owned houses and land here and there, might be made impossible. It is, therefore, in the interests of the people themselves that the local authorities, if they have to resell, should give priority of option to the original purchaser. I cannot conceive that there will, as has been stated, be any difficulty in ascertaining the price for re-purchase, as there are modes by which value is easily ascertainable. Those who oppose this proposal are men who prefer municipal landlords to individual landlords, and I maintain that the system which they advocate is not a desirable one either for the country or for the people themselves. While I do not oppose the principle of this Bill, I have called attention to what I consider are blots upon it. I will test your Lordships' opinion on the points I have raised in Committee, and I shall move Amendments making it imperative on the local authorities to resell properties which come into their hands through default in the conditions of purchase, and also to give the original proprietor priority of option in regard to purchase.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I am not alarmed by the criticisms of my noble friend, Lord Norton. He

  1515
  has, I think, seen a great many very terrible things in this harmless Bill, which I am sure will not frighten any of your Lordships. With regard to his objection to advancing public money for such purposes, I would remind the noble Lord that we have been in the habit of advancing public money for various purposes of this kind. A great deal has been advanced to landowners for the purpose of improving their property, and the principle has been admitted in so many cases, that the only question which can now arise is, whether this particular case is one in which money ought to be so advanced. I have no hesitation in saying that I agree with the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Ripon) that this is a modest Bill. It is, however, sound in principle. My fear in regard to it is the same as I expressed when I spoke on Lord Londonderry's Bill two years ago—namely, that it will only have a small operation. My reason for thinking so is that the working classes are becoming more and more migratory every day. It is no use trying to put back the clock. I do not deny that there are considerable dangers, and often evils, connected with this universal migration, but it is produced by the conditions of the country in which we live. The greater facilities for moving must naturally and inevitably cause the artisan population, who have business instincts like the rest of mankind, to move from place to place where-ever they can find better wages. Migratory habits, as I have said, have their evils, and anything which will induce artisans and labourers to remain longer in one place will tend to the benefit of the community. I have myself seen great changes in the rural district with which I am best acquainted. I can remember the time when the inhabitants of our villages rarely moved from one district to another, but now every year I see a greater disposition on their part to migrate. It is not caused by discontent—it would be a mistake to suppose that it is—but mainly by the fact that they can obtain better wages and better employment elsewhere. Whatever you may do, the best men will always go where there are the best wages, and where they are most wanted. It will be a decided advantage if the facilities given under this Bill will lead to a number of men becoming more stationary, and it will give greater stability to the
  1516
  population. It is a loss to the community that people should continually move from place to place, and that the close and cordial feeling which used to exist between neighbours who had known each other for a long time should be in this way diminished. A friend of mine connected with South Wales said it was curious to see how whole villages were becoming depopulated, and the people drawn away to the mining districts. This shows the difficulties which may arise; because you might, of course, have furnished a village with houses at the expense of the local authority, and the whole of the people might depart owing to the springing up of a perfectly new industry in another part. It is vain to shut our eyes to the fact that this may arise. With regard to the ninth clause, I entirely agree with the observations of the noble Marquess behind me (the Marquess of Ripon) and the noble Earl, the Chairman of Committees. When the very useful measure was brought in by a former Conservative Government, which established county councils, it was thought that the great advantage of that Bill would be the swallowing up of local areas. Nothing could be more prejudicial than that small areas. should possess separate administrative powers. As to the observation which has been made that county councils have not that local knowledge which the smaller bodies possess, I would point out that county councils are now well accustomed to dealing with subjects in particular areas in their county, and they have, as far as I know, a constant habit of deputing members of their body—men who give their time and knowledge to the matter—to go into different parts of the county when local questions arise, and examine thoroughly into those questions. I do not think you could have a system which would work better than that. Moreover, county councils have the great advantage, being composed of men coming from all parts of the county, of not being subservient to those petty interests which often actuate those responsible for local government in small areas. They look at the whole matter from a wider point of view, and they also ensure a certain amount of unity of action. It would be most unfortunate if at one end of the county a thing is done on one principle, and at another end of the county on a different principle altogether. For

  1517
  that reason I strongly deprecate the creation of new areas, and I think the suggestion which has been made is an extremely good one, because county councils would never be so jealous of particular areas, or so insensible to the advantages of the county, as not to be ready to delegate the powers under this Bill to a smaller authority. Although the Bill will not, in my opinion, have a wide-spreading result, it is sound in principle, and I therefore welcome it.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: My Lords, although this is a well-intentioned Bill, I doubt very much whether its good intentions will not be strangled by its regulations. I have read the Bill from the point of view of an intending purchaser, and I would rather have to deal with any of the building societies than borrow money from a local authority under this measure. For instance, a man who purchases his house cannot leave it for more than four months, and to let it for four months he has to obtain the sanction of the local authority. Again, should he fail in any of his payments, there is a chance of his being turned out; and although local authorities under this Bill are to be helped from the rates to the extent of ½d. in the £ in some districts, and 1d. in the £ in others, they are not certain to be able to make both ends meet, and a man who invests may lose his investment should he fail at any time in his payments, as the Bill says that after re-sale of the house he shall receive the balance, if ally. The noble Earl who introduced this Bill did not make a very encouraging statement as to its origin. He said it embodied a principle which had been approved in connection with the Irish Land Purchase Acts. This is not a recommendation. He further stated that the noble Marquess, the Marquess of Londonderry, who was at one time chairman of the London County Council, recommended it. Whilst I am always ready to follow the noble Marquess into the lobby on Irish questions, I decline to follow him upon any matter connected with the Metropolis, as I find that noble Lords who sit on the London County Council generally come back to this House more or less deteriorated.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: May I point out to the noble Lord that I
  1518
  have never been chairman of the London County Council? I have, however, been chairman of the London School Board.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYI beg the noble Lord's pardon. The noble Earl who introduced this Bill said that it had not escaped criticism. I have been desirous of reading what has been said upon the Bill, but Hansard has been so behindhand this session that I cannot find in your Lordship's library any number of Hansard containing the debates upon this Bill later than the First Reading. I contend that the Bill is not for the benefit of the working classes, as it is not to the interests of a working man that he should be tied to one house, but that the Bill will affect a class of persons who do not require assistance out of the rates. The noble Earl did not state whether this is a Government Bill or not. I assume that it is not, or it would have been moved by the noble Lord who usually speaks in this House for the Local Government Board, or by a noble lord connected with a department which has to deal with this country, and not by the Under Secretary for the Colonies. This Bill is so complicated, and its study must have occupied so much of the time of the Under-Secretary that it quite explains why he has been unable to read the "Commentary on St. Matthew," written by his friend, the Solicitor-General of Ceylon.
  LORD MONTEAGLE: My Lords, I wish to call attention to the application of this Bill to Ireland, in which country the measure has attracted considerable interest. We fear that some disappointment may be caused unless certain ambiguities in the clause applying the Bill to Ireland are cleared up. I am a cordial supporter of the Bill so far as it goes; my only complaint is that it does not go far enough in the case of Ireland. Nominally, it applies to Ireland, but it entirely fails to reach a large and special class who occupy cottages built by the local authorities, with small plots of land attached; and the question is whether the local authority should be empowered to sell these houses to the occupiers as is proposed in the case of dwellers in towns. As the Bill was originally introduced in the House of Commons it was, as the noble Earl who moved the

  1519
  Second Reading pointed out, intended for dwellers in towns, but was extended during its passage through the House of Commons to the rural districts. I would therefore venture to ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor of Ireland to consider the point I have raised. It is obvious that the case is very different from that where the local authority assists the occupier to purchase his house from a private owner, and different machinery will be required to make the Bill applicable to the class I refer to. I have called attention to this on the Second Reading because the point seems to be such a special and peculiar one that I do not think it can be dealt with by an Amendment in Committee. The Bill has attracted considerable attention among the agricultural labourers in Ireland who will be affected by it, and I appeal to the Government to hold out some hope to them that the matter will be dealt with.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND (Lord ASHBOURNE): My Lords, the point mentioned by my noble friend is one of considerable interest and importance, and will have to be considered in the Committee stage of the Bill. The Bill, as it stands, deals only with the purchase of houses, but in Ireland, under the Cottages for Labourers Acts, the local authorities have been enabled to build houses for labourers with small holdings of, in one case, half an acre, and in other cases of one acre attached. There are thus in Ireland a considerable number of labourers who are tenants in respect of their cottages of the local authorities, and who hold, in addition, small holdings of an acre and half an acre in extent. It is obvious that it will require much consideration to adapt the mechanism of the Bill to that class of occupiers, both in respect to the holding of land, and to the, purchase of the cottages from the local authority. One of the ways in which the difficulty might be met would be if the tenants of these cottage holdings were willing themselves to come forward with the money—which I think would be very rarely the case—for the purchase of the land, receiving only an advance for the purchase of their cottages. I feel bound to say that I see very considerable difficulty in bringing this class of occupiers within the purview of the Bill, but the matter is receiving the attention of the Government of Ireland, and I have no
  1520
  doubt will be further considered in Committee.
  EARL SPENCER: I regard the question raised by my noble friend (Lord Monteagle) as a very important one, and I am not quite aware how the case now stands with regard to Ireland. I was very familiar with the original Act—I believe I was partly responsible for it—but several Acts have been passed since then. If the Bill is to apply to rural districts as well as to towns, I maintain that you can hardly avoid dealing with the plots of land attached to cottages, the owners of which are quite as much attached to their gardens or small holdings as to their houses. I appreciate the difficulties involved, and I cannot at the present moment say how they can be dealt with. I hope, however, they will receive the consideration of the Government in Committee.
  On Question, agreed to.
  Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.

SEATS FOR SHOP ASSISTANTS BILL.

  THIRD READING.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
  THE DUKE OF WESTMINSTER: I think I need not trouble your Lordships with any observations in moving the Third Reading of this Bill. The Amendments which were inserted in the Standing Committee were of a verbal character, and did not affect the principle of the Bill.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a."—(The Duke of Westminster.)
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: I would ask your Lordships' indulgence while I offer a few remarks upon this Bill, which, trifling as it may appear, seriously affects the character of our legislation, and the way in which it has been dealt with by your Lordships affects more or less the character of your Lordships' House. We have all seen, in our experience, that very of ten important questions are centred in matters which in themselves are trifling

  1521
  and unimportant, and a very important principle is centred in this so-called trifling Bill, the object of which is to find seats for shop girls. When I spoke upon the Bill the other day I ventured to describe it as a trifling and humanitarian, rather than a practical, measure, and I would apply this test to this kind of legislation. What would all the great Parliamentarians of the past, from Pitt down to Palmerston, have said if they had been told by any prophet of their time that the day would come when Parliament would take up such a question as this? I am sure they would have laughed in the face of any such prophet, and would have told him that he was libelling that Parliament of which they felt so proud. I contend that Parliament was not designed for legislation of this kind. In support of my statement that the way in which your Lordships have dealt with the Bill affects the character of this House, let me simply relate the story of the Bill. It was brought in affecting Scotland alone, having passed through the other House in the early hours of the morning without debate and without discussion. On its arrival in this House, Lord Shand made an excellent speech against it, and moved its rejection. The noble Marquess, the Prime Minister, also denounced the Bill, and said that if your Lordships did not take care this legislation would reach your own households. Your Lordships cast out the Bill, without a single Member, except the mover, raising a word in support of its principle. What happened next? The same Bill was again introduced into the other House by Sir John Lubbock, the only difference being that its principle was extended to England and Wales and not to Scotland. The House of Commons also passed that Bill almost without a word, and sent it direct to your Lordships' House. Will the noble Viscount (Viscount Cross), who seems in favour of this legislation by a little observation and cheer which he just let drop, deny that a measure thus cast out by your Lordships and sent back again directly from the Commons, in the mariner in which this Bill was returned, is a slap in the face? It is a slap in the face which I have never seen given to this House in my time. And who is it that inflicts this slap in the face upon your Lordships? My noble friend, the Duke of West-Minster. Why the noble Duke has taken
  1522
  this question up I do not know. He was one of my oldest and dearest friends, and nearly thirty years ago we lived together in a cave—we were Adullamites. My noble friend was at that time a sen—sible man; there was nothing hysterical or humanitarian about him, and he did not bring in Bills of this kind. Why this change? It may be that no w m noble friend no longer lives in a cave, but resides in a great house and is a ground' landlord, he thinks that he has certain seignorial duties. This Bill, which your Lordships had rejected six weeks ago with ignominy, was passed on the 11th of July by a majority of three to one. I contend that legislation of this kind is a degradation of Parliament, and it is a matter of great regret that it should have been treated in the way it has been by your Lordships. It will prove more hurtful than useful. What has been the result of the Workmen's Compensation Bill? Why, at the Barrow Works—I see the noble Duke present—no man is admitted over fifty years of age.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE): That is not a fact.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: Then my noble friend should take care that no official paper is issued stating that no man is received over fifty. Has not the noble Duke seen it?
  THE DUKE OP DEVONSHIRE: Yes; I have seen it. Have you got the paper?
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: I have read it.
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: Have you got the paper?
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: No; not in my pocket.
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: That is not the effect of the bill.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: What is the effect? The belief is that perhaps it was found unpopular and has been altered. On the Second Reading, the Right Rev. Prelate the Bishop of Winchester said it was all moonshine to say that this Bill would have the effect of diminishing wages and substituting men for women as

  1523
  shop assistants; but my noble friend the Prime Minister brought excellent facts and data before your Lordships, from men who know what they are talking about, proving that this will be the result. The Bill is full of inconsistency. It provides that in every shop' there shall be one seat to every three persons employed. Why is this to be done? Because it is said that it is hurtful to the health of shop assistants that they should be compelled to stand. The Bill will be worthless, as it does not provide that the assistants shall use the seats. That seems to me a great inconsistency in the Bill, and, as regards the health of the shop assistants, let me say that my house looks out on the Green Park, and I constantly see these girls, in the pouring rain, going to their work. Will anyone tell me that remaining in shops in wet clothes and wet shoes and stockings is not more hurtful to them than being compelled to stand? For everyone who is injured for want of a seat, there are dozens who die through wearing wet clothes and stockings. At the rate we are going on we shall have Viscount Cross, the Duke of Westminster, and the Bishops, with the grandmotherly help of Mr. Chamberlain in another place, bringing in a Shop Girls' Dry Shoes and Stockings Bill. And if not, why not? It is to the principle of this Bill that I object. This great mother of Parliaments was never designed to touch peddling legislation such as this, which should be left to the instincts of humanity and to the progress of public opinion. The action of your Lordships in rejecting the Bill with ignominy one day, and sanctioning it by a majority of three to one six weeks later, will not tend to raise your Lordships' House in the estimation of the public. It is of no use dividing upon this Bill, but as a matter of principle and for my own conscience I move that the Bill be read this day three months.
  Amendment moved—
  "To leave out now, 'and' add at the end of the motion 'this day three months.'"—The Lord Wemyss (E. Wemyss.)
  On question whether the word "now" shall stand part of the motion, resolved in the affirmative; Bill read 3a accordingly, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

UNIVERSITY OF LONDON ACT (1898) AMENDMENT BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, it has been found, with reference to the University of London Act passed last year, that, although it was framed so as to recognise the teachers of Holloway College, it has had the effect of preventing that college from being so recognised. The Commissioners have reported that should their powers be enlarged by Parliament in this respect they will have no hesitation in recognising this college. The object of the Bill is to apply Section 8 of the University of London Act, 1898, to Holloway College, in like manner as it applies to the South-Eastern College at Wye.
  Moved: "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord President of the Council.)
  On Question, agreed to.
  Bill read 2a (according to Order), and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Monday next.

QUESTIONS.

  REORGANISATION OF THE EDUCATION OFFICE.
  THE EARL OF MORLEY: I rise to ask the Lord President of the Council if, in the reorganisation of the Education Office, it is intended to appoint a Principal Assistant Secretary for Secondary Education of equal official status with the Principal Assistant Secretaries responsible for primary and for technical education respectively. Since I first put the question on the Paper it has been answered in the House of Commons in a way which is altogether satisfactory, and my only excuse for again putting it down is to give my noble friend the Lord President of the Council the opportunity, if he thinks fit, of making a statement on the subject, and somewhat amplifying the information which we have already received. I will explain to your Lordships why I put this question on the Paper. Many of the secondary schools

  1525
  of the country, including the large public schools, expressed their willingness to fall into line with a general education scheme, and they did so in the belief that in the Education Office, as reorganised, there would be a Department devoted exclusively to what I may call, for want of a better name, secondary education proper. When it appeared in the newspapers that in the new organisation of the office there would be two principal departments, one for secondary and one for primary education, and that the secondary department would be subdivided into secondary proper and technical education, it seemed to the authorities of those schools that in their communications with the Education Department, as reorganised, they would be relegated to an official twice removed from the head of the Department, instead of one immediately subordinate to him. I am informed that that is not going to be the case now, and that the division of the office—we were informed so in the House of Commons—is to be tripartite, namely, primary, secondary proper, and technical education. The fear of the authorities of these large schools and of the Universities to some extent was, that if a bipartite division had remained, secondary education, or the literary part of secondary education, might have been considerably prejudiced, and that would have been especially the case if the head of the united Secondary Education Department had been one qualified rather by his knowledge of technical than literary subjects. I do not think it is necessary for me to labour this point, but I venture to make this remark, that if a double arrangement had been maintained, or if it is ever hereafter reverted to, it seems to me, without unduly depreciating the very great importance of technical education in this country, it is of paramount importance to the best educational interests of the country that the head of the Secondary Department should be one who is qualified by his general knowledge of secondary education proper, and that technical education should be, at any rate, only a branch of that large division. I understand that the division of the new office will be tripartite, as the Schools and Universities desire. I should like to ask my noble friend the Lord President of the Council if he can give the House some information with regard to the Departmental Committee which is to supervise the reorganisation of the Edu-
  1526
  cation Office, and to state whether, on the Committee, secondary education proper will be represented as well as the Treasury, the Education Office, and the Science and Art Department.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: My Lords, perhaps it would be more convenient to the noble Duke if I were to put one or two questions to him before he answers the noble Earl, so that he may not have the trouble of making two speeches on the same subject. I do not altogether take the same view as that taken by the noble Earl who has just sat down. When the Board of Education Bill was passing through this House I ventured to say that I hoped the plan advocated by some persons of dividing Secondary Education into two branches in the office would not be adopted. To divide the office into three branches, and to call one Primary, the other Secondary, and the third Technical, is really a misuse of the word "Secondary." A great deal of technical education is quite as much secondary education as literary education. My noble friend talked of secondary education proper. That is not a convenient title, but it shows how difficult it is to adopt this division. Surely the natural division of the Education Office is into departments dealing with primary and secondary education. My noble friend has urged that this division should not be made, because literary education would suffer. I entirely agree with my noble friend in desiring that literary education should not suffer, but I confess that I look at the matter from a different point of view. My fear is that if the new Education Office is divided into tripartite arrangements of Primary, Secondary, and Technical Education Departments, literary education will suffer. No doubt some years ago the promotion of technical education was a matter of urgent importance. It is a matter of great importance now, but in consequence of the grants which were made—in the rather singular manner we all remember—to county councils for the promotion of education being confined to technical education, the result has been to give a stimulus to technical education, as compared with literary education, which is injuring the latter; and one of the great objects of my noble friend in his reorganisation ought to be to put literary education in

  1527
  the provinces in its proper position by enabling the county councils to apply their funds in aid of literary secondary education, as well as of technical secondary education. I am not now speaking, as my noble friend has spoken, on behalf of the large public schools, but I believe that an increasing amount of what may be called technical education is being taught in these schools. I know many University colleges in the country in which technical education is being taught alongside with literary education. The principal University colleges of the present day give both kinds of education, and if you adopt a tripartite arrangement you will put these colleges under two different Departments. You will be perpetuating the somewhat narrow spirit of the Science and Art Department, you will not he raising secondary education and placing it on one equal footing, but you will be compelling those institutions which recognise the importance of secondary education in all its branches to go to two secretaries in the Education Office, who will probably look at the matter from a competitive point of view, which is very undesirable. What is the present state of things? You have confined the use which has been made of what we call in the North of England the whisky money, or the beer money, to technical education. What has been the consequence? The meaning of technical education has been stretched to almost breaking point, and anything in the world which is not Latin, Greek, History, or, possibly, Philosophy, is called technical education. This is a very unreal state of things, and I would ask the noble Duke not so utterly to commit himself as to preclude him from reconsidering this matter. I am sure that if there is any danger on the side alluded to by my noble friend, there is also great danger of literary education suffering from the tripartite arrangement.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE): My Lords, I have already stated that it is impossible to sketch out completely what will he the organisation of the future Education Department until the Departmental Committee appointed to inquire into the matter has reported. If my noble friend had given me notice I could have furnished him to-day with the names of the members of the Departmental Committee, but they will include Sir
  1528
  Horace Walpole (of the India Office), as Chairman of the Committee; Sir George Kekewich, Secretary of the Education Department; Captain Abney, principal Assistant-Secretary of the Science and Art Department; Mr. Spring-Rice, of the Treasury; and Mr. Tucker, principal Assistant-Secretary of the Education Department. My noble friend asked me whether the interests of Secondary Education would be represented on this Committee. As the list of names. which I have given will show, it is a purely Departmental Committee upon which no special form of education will he directly represented. Nor do I think, looking to the duties of this Committee, which are simply to organise a Department so as to enable it to discharge the new functions imposed upon it, it is desirable that the Committee should consist of persons particularly interested in any special form of education. It is far better to have it composed of persons of great administrative experience, who will be able to ascertain, so far as is necessary, the views of the various educational authorities. I quite admit, however, that, although I look to a great deal of assistance from this Committee, there are certain principles upon which educational authorities have a right to receive some information, and which are, perhaps, too important to be left entirely to the discretion of any Committee, however-able may be the members of whom it is composed, and I will endeavour to state, as to those general principles, the views which I entertain as to the future organisation of the Department. I understand that some misapprehension has been caused by recent appointments which have been made in consequence of the resignation, at the expiration of his term of service, of Sir John Donnelly, late Secretary of the Science and Art Department. As a first step towards bringing together-under one head the whole of the Education Department, Sir John Kekewich, the Secretary of the Education Department, has been appointed in addition to the position of Secretary of the Science and Art Department, and two principal Assistant Secretaries have been appointed in respect of Elementary and Science and Art instruction to discharge the duties. which had hitherto been discharged by Sir John Kekewich and Sir John Donnelly respectively. Some misapprehension has been raised by these appoint-

  1529
  ments in the minds of conductors of public schools, who think that this is a permanent arrangement, and was intended to place them in a subordinate position under a Department in the nature of the existing Science and Art Department, but that misapprehension is unfounded. This arrangement is purely a provisional one until the new Act comes into force, and there is no doubt that it will require some modification when, under the new Board of Education Act, the Board has to discharge wider duties than it now possesses in respect of Secondary Education. Notwithstanding the caution which has been given me by the noble Marquess opposite, I have no hesitation in saying that I am disposed to think that something in the nature of a tripartite organisation of the Department will be necessary. However, in saying that, I must not be understood to accept the principle of division suggested by the question of my noble friend, who divides the Board into primary, secondary, and technical Education Departments. That division takes no account whatever of the Science and Art instruction which has been carried on by the Science and Art Department, and which, of course, must be continued, or it assumes that the Science and Art teaching will become part of the secondary Education division. In my opinion, that would not be a convenient arrangement, and I am inclined to think that it will be necessary that Scientific, Artistic, and Technical Education will have to be continued to a great extent under a division similar in character to that which exists in the Science and Art Department. I quite admit that there are duties relating to what my noble friend has called Secondary Education proper, which will, on the passing of the Act, be for the first time entrusted to the Education Department, and which could not he properly and advantageously entrusted to such a Department as the present Science and Art Department. I think it will be necessary that a third division should be created, which will be independent of, and equally responsible to, the Permanent Secretary, as the divisions charged with Primary Education and Science and Art and Technical Education. In all the speculations which I have seen on the subject of the organisation of this Department, sufficient regard has not been had to the extremely close connection
  1530
  that there will be between the various divisions of the Board in their subordination to the permanent head. Schools and educational authorities will, I conceive, have to deal not only with one division, but with the Department as a whole. There will he many cases, as, indeed, there are now, when the same school may have to communicate with more than one Department. For instance, it may be that while the public schools, great or small, will be mainly concerned with the Secondary Education division of the Department, they will, as to their science course of instruction, be in communication with the Science and Art division, and it may very well be that the inspectors specially attached to that division may be usefully employed to conduct the scientific examination of those schools. On the other hand, the County Council, in whose name the noble Marquess opposite spoke just now, will, so far as their existing work is concerned, be mainly in communication with the Science and Art Department; but if future legislation, as I hope it will, enables them to assume larger duties in regard to what is called education proper, there is nothing to prevent them, in so far as those duties are concerned, entering into direct communication with the Department charged more with the literary side of secondary education. I can assure those who are connected with the great public schools of the country that there is not the slightest intention of placing them in a position of undue subordination to any existing authority connected with the Science and Art Department. On the other hand, I do not think that any disposition will be, found in the new Department to check or hamper the county councils in the direction of extending, as I hope they will extend, that education which they have given in certain scientific and technical subjects to the promotion of a wider and more complete course of secondary education.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, this is, of course, a matter concerning the internal management of the Department, and it will depend upon the spirit in which the Department is administered as a whole. Nothing to my mind would be more disastrous than to separate these Departments. They should constitute practically two Departments. There is great fear entertained that under

  1531
  another name there may be perpetuated a system which, in the opinion of a great many persons, has not worked well up to the present. I am anxious to impress upon the noble Duke that what is wanted is that Secondary Education and questions connected with it should be considered as a whole, because I do not think there is anything more disastrous than the severing of good, sound, general education from scientific and artistic education. The practical working of the Department will depend largely upon the kind of authority which is exercised by the Permanent Under Secretary. My only reason for making these few observations is lest by any chance you should in any way drift into the former state of things in this new Department.
  House adjourned at twenty minutes before Seven o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven o'clock.