Lords Sitting of 15 July 1901

Several Lords took the Oath.
The Lord Strathspey (E. Seafield) 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 further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:—

Belfast and Northern Counties Railway.

And also the Certificate that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:—

Local Government Provisional Orders (Housing of Working Classes) (No. 2.)

The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

LONDON UNITED TRAMWAYS BILL.
A petition of Messrs. Baker, Lees, and Company, of No. 54, Parliament Street, Westminster, parliamentary agents, praying for leave to present a petition of the Surbiton Urban District Council praying to be heard by counsel against the Bill, although the time limited by Standing Order No. 93 for presenting such petition has expired; read, and ordered to lie on the Table; and Standing Order No. 93 to be considered to-morrow, in order to its being dispensed with in respect of the said petition.

GLASGOW AND SOUTH-WESTERN RAILWAY 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Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, the opposition thereto having been withdrawn; read, and ordered to lie on the
358
Table. The Orders made on the 24th of June and 4th of July last discharged; and Bill committed for Friday next.

DUBLIN, WICKLOW, AND WEXFORD RAILWAY (NEW ROSS AND WATERFORD EXTENSION) BILL.
Moved that the Order made on the 21st day of March last, "That no Private Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Thursday, the 27th day of June next," be dispensed with, and that the Bill be now read 2a; agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed.
BARRY RAILWAY BILL.
Read 3a, and passed.
SWANAGE GAS AND WATER BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments; a further Amendment made; Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
BINGLEY URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
  DERBYSHIRE AND NOTTINGHAMSHIRE ELECTRIC POWER BILL.
  Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
  GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY BILL.
  Read 3a with the Amendments; further amendments made; Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
KINGSTON-UPON-HULL CORPORATION BILL.
  SHANNON WATER AND ELECTRIC POWER BILL.
  Read 3a with Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
  ECCLES CORPORATION BILL.
  Read 3a, with the Amendments; further amendments made; Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (PORT) BILL.
  Moved, That the Order made on the 21st March last, "That no Provisional Order Confirmation Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after the 27th day of June next," be dispensed with, and that the

  359
  Bill be now read 2a; agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed; the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

  PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL [H.L.]
  Commons Amendments considered (according to Order), and agreed to.
  NAVAL WORKS (PROVISIONAL ORDER) BILL.
  Moved, That the Order made on the 21st March last, "That no Provisional Order Confirmation Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after the 27th day of June next," be dispensed with, and that the Bill be now read 2a; agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 6) BILL.
  House in Committee (according to Order); Bill reported without amendment; Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a to-morrow.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 9) BILL.
  House in Committee (according to Order); Amendments made; Standing Committee negatived; the Report of Amendments to be received to-morrow.
  SOUTHAMPTON AND WINCHESTER GREAT WESTERN JUNCTION RAILWAY BILL.
  Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Lord Langford and the Lord De Mauley be proposed to the House as members of the Select Committee on the said Bill in the place of the Viscount Hutchinson (E. Donoughmore) and the Earl of Eldon: read, and agreed to.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  GREENWICH OBSERVATORY.
  Report of the Astronomer Royal to the Board of Visitors of the Royal Observatory, Greenwich, read at the annual visitation of the Royal Observatory, 1st June, 1901.
  INDIA (ACCOUNTS AND ESTIMATES 1901–1902).
  Explanatory memorandum by the Secretary of State for India.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  No. 2656, Netherlands (Dutch Guiana); No. 2657, Turkey (Erzeroum); No. 2658, China (Wuchow).
  FACTORY AND WORKSHOP (LEAD COMPOUNDS IN POTTERY).
  Report to the Secretary of State for the Home Department on the work of the Government Laboratory on the question of the employment of lead compounds in pottery, by Professor T. E. Thorpe, C.B., LL.D., F.R.S., Principal of the Government Laboratory.
  CONGESTED DISTRICT BOARD (IRELAND).
  Report of the Board, for the year ending 31st March, 1901.

  JUDICIAL STATISTICS (IRELAND), 1900.
  Part II. Civil Statistics.
  Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANKS.
  Accounts presented of all deposits received and paid during the year ended 31st December, 1900, and of the sums received and paid by the National Debt Commission on account of the Fund for the Post Office Savings Banks in the same year.

  CLERGY (WEST INDIES).
  Return of the amount payable on 5th January, 1901, out of the Consolidated Fund for ecclesiastical purposes in the West Indies.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  ARMY ORGANISATION—CAVALRY ESTABLISHMENTS.
  LORD HENEAGE: My Lords, I rise to call attention to the new Army scheme and the omission of all reference to the cavalry, and to ask His Majesty's Government what will be the future establish-

  361
  ments of the cavalry regiments in the three Army corps proposed to be stationed at Aldershot, Colchester, and in Ireland; also whether the warrant which prohibits the seconding of cavalry officers above the rank of captain will be continued, and, if so, what provision will be made in future for an efficient cavalry staff on service. I had intended to raise this question the other day on the motion of my noble friend the Duke of Bedford, who stated in his speech that he only spoke for the Infantry and the Militia, and not for the cavalry, but unfortunately I did not get the opportunity of bringing it forward on that occasion. I have, therefore, put it down in the shape of a question to-day. The Secretary of State for War used the following words in another place, in speaking of the lessons of the war—
  "It has been obvious that our artillery is insufficient, and that our field artillery requires to be supplemented by heavier field artillery. It is also perfectly clear that the exigencies of modern warfare, the greatly extended positions which are held, and the necessity of rapid movements, make it necessary that we should be provided with a much larger body of mounted troops."
  The deficiency of mounted troops was due to neglect of the cavalry before the war, and I wish to know what is going to be done to remedy the defects which then existed. When the war broke out the cavalry regiments, as is proved by the return I moved for last year, were mere skeleton regiments, without sufficient men or horses. Regiments which were ordered to the front had to be filled up with reserve men, men from other regiments, who were worse off than themselves, registered hunters, and omnibus horses. Every squadron had to be reformed and reconstituted. Surely it must be wrong that such disorganisation amongst every squadron, troop, and section should take place just when a regiment goes on service. But when the regiments arrived in South Africa, and got fairly into working order, Lord Roberts requisitioned about five-and-twenty of the most efficient lieutenant-colonels and majors for staff and special service duties. They became brigadiers, colonels, etc., on the staff, with increased rank and pay; whilst regiments were commanded for months by majors, and squadrons by captains, without the rank
  362
  or pay of their positions. This was no fault whatever of the Commander-in-Chief. It was the result of a warrant which, I am told, was forced upon the War Office some years ago by the Treasury—I suppose to save the 2s. a day—that no lieutenant-colonel or major of cavalry or artillery should be seconded. If these twenty-five officers could have been seconded, the officers who took their places would not have been deprived of the rank to which their duties and responsibilities entitled them. The most absurd part of this arrangement is that while these majors in command of regiments and captains in command of squadrons were not given the rank and pay of their positions, the lieutenants who succeeded the captains, and did captains' duties, were made captains, and the sub-lieutenants who did lieutenants' duties were made lieutenants. Therefore, while the senior officers could not obtain the rank to which they were entitled the junior officers did. I think it is highly creditable to all ranks of officers that they were found equal to the duties on the staff, as well as in their regiments. But surely the warrant under which this arrangement exists ought to be abolished, and regimental officers not deprived of the rank to which their duties and responsibilities entitle them. All our cavalry regiments went out to South Africa with three squadrons, the reserve, or fourth, squadron remaining at home. Since then these reserve squadrons have been massed together to form what are called "provisional regiments," but, as a matter of fact, there is not one single officer or man in them who does not belong to the regiments at the front, and who is not liable at any time to be drafted to South Africa.
  With regard to the question as to what in future is to be the establishment of the cavalry, I should like to call your Lordships' attention to a very important Paper which was issued last September or October by the War Office. Under this Cavalry Reorganisation Order there are in future to be six different establishments of cavalry, three in England and three abroad. In the Order officers and their chargers were included in the figures given of men and horses, but I have deducted them in each case in order to get the figures

  363
  correctly, and have assumed that each establishment will include 23 officers and 55 officers' horses, according to the regulations of the Army. After deducting them we get the following curious results:—No. 1 (the higher establishment at home), 678 rank and file and 405 horses—only two full squadrons of service strength; No. 2 (the higher establishment, with an "extra squadron," as it is called, though I am utterly unable to find the extra squadron), 865 rank and file and 538 horses—hardly three squadrons of mounted men; No. 3 (the lower establishment), 615 rank and file and 302 horses, or two men to each horse, and there is no reserve squadron. In these numbers I have included every man and horse, and not deducted any recruits or remounts. Then we come to No. 4 (colonial cavalry establishment), with 570 rank and file and 372 horses, but 110 rank and file and 50 horses are to be at the depât, leaving a regiment of 460 men and 322 horses; No. 5 (in Egypt), 465 rank and file and 300 horses, with the same number of men at the depât as in No. 4; and in No. 6 (India) the establishment would be 603 men and 470 horses. In no case are there three service squadrons, much less any reserve squadron, in any cavalry regiment.
  Now it is perfectly clear that this ever-changing system in no case provides even three squadrons, and two men cannot ride one horse. I am not going into the question whether there ought to be four squadrons or three squadrons; but surely, whatever system is right, the squadrons ought to be complete and ready for service when called upon. It is enough to break the heart of any cavalry officer, after the time he has taken to make his men perfect, that his units should be disorganised the moment they are wanted. Even with three squadrons of 200 rank and file, each cavalry regiment is only 600 strong, and a brigade of three regiments amounts only to 1,800 men, while in Continental armies the regiments consist of four squadrons of 200 sabres each, or 800 men, and the brigades of 2,400 rank and file. This means, on service, that if patrols are to be kept up at equal strength at night English cavalry soldiers and officers have to do four nights duty to their opponents' three nights. With regard
  364
  to the warrant, to which I have referred, and seconding, I contend that if officers are to be taken away from their regiments they ought to be allowed to be seconded as in the infantry. At the present moment there are four commanding officers of regiments on staff or special service duty, and nineteen majors away from their regiments; but under the warrant they are not seconded. In the Navy any officer who is acting in a higher rank has that rank conferred upon him temporarily; and, what is more, his service in that higher rank counts to him for service when he attains that rank in the Navy I do not see why the same should not be done in the Army. At any rate, cavalry and artillery colonels and majors ought not to be treated differently from infantry colonels and majors.
  Now, my Lords, before I conclude I should like to say one word with reference to stoppages in the cavalry. I consider all stoppages a great mistake. They cause irritation and a sense of injustice, and prevent soldiers being "recruiting agents" when on furlough. Lord Haliburton put the stoppages the other day at 1s. 6d. per week, but I think they are a great deal nearer 2s. in the cavalry. I was very glad to see that the Dawkin Commission, in the very able Report they issued, condemned stoppages as neither economic nor wise. To my mind the stoppages in respect to barrack damages are the worst and most unfair—they are almost a swindle. The soldiers of the regiment going out are called upon to pay to the regiment coming in the cost price for repairs. One half of the things paid for are in good tenantable repair, but the men going into the barracks know that if they pass these things they will be charged against them when they go out, and in order to make certain that things shall be replaced they are further damaged. There is another matter which is peculiar to the cavalry, and which prevents a great many non-commissioned officers extending their service—namely, that, except in the higher grade, promotion is too often loss of income. For instance, a corporal cleans his horse, but a lance sergeant, who gets no more pay, is not allowed to do so, as he has other responsibilities, and he has to pay 6s.

  365
  per month for the horse being cleaned. If the lance-sergeant is not allowed to clean his horse, and is not given any more pay on his promotion, then the Government ought to find some way of having his horse cleaned without deducting money from his pay. I will now conclude by asking the two questions which stand in my name on the Paper. I do not desire now to enter into the question of the neglect of the cavalry before the war. I give Mr. Brodrick every credit for the statesmanlike courage he has shown, and I wish his scheme every success; but I do ask for some assurance that the kaleidoscopic changes of establishment in the Order of last year will not be allowed to prevail, and that the whole question of cavalry establishments of the future, including the objectionable and unfair warrant to which I have alluded, shall have the further consideration of Lord Roberts and of those distinguished cavalry officers who are really up-to-date in the matter, which the Adjutant-General's office is certainly not.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Lord RAGLAN): My Lords, I can assure my noble friend that although there was no specific mention made of the cavalry in the speech of the Secretary of State for War to which he has referred, yet there is not the least intention to neglect the mounted branches of the Service. The question of establishments is not a very easy one, because cavalry regiments have so many different duties to perform in different parts of the world. It is quite true that establishments to the number of no less than six were laid down in the Order of 1900, but, as a matter of fact, there always have been the same number of establishments in the British cavalry. There is the Indian establishment, the Colonial establishment—namely, the regiments serving in Natal or Cape Colony—the Egyptian establishment, and the Home establishment. The origin of the extra squadron was as follows:—The cavalry on the lower establishment had the duty of finding drafts for India, and when the revised warrant was issued there were no cavalry regiments in the country on the lower establishment, and an extra
  366
  squadron was therefore added to the regiments on the higher establishments. The total cavalry of all ranks in the Vote for 1901 was 19,586 men for the cavalry, and that included household cavalry, cavalry of the line, and the cavalry depot at Canterbury. This number, as your Lordships are aware, has been very considerably exceeded by the demands of the war in South Africa. At this moment the number of cavalry actually effective and with the colours is something like 13,000 men in excess of the establishment. The number of cavalry estimated for in 1902 was 22,365, but, as will be seen by the figures I have given, the actual number at present is very considerably in excess of that, and the excess over the normal establishment will naturally be paid for out of the War Vote. Your Lordships will see, therefore, that the War Office are quite alive to the necessity of providing for an additional number of mounted men. It is quite possible that still further increases will be necessary, and that question, which is bound up with questions of barrack accommodation, is under the consideration of the Commander-in-Chief.
  I must again remind your Lordships that we are still engaged in a war which demands the presence in South Africa of a very large part of the Army, and that the duty of providing the necessities of the moment is an exceedingly heavy one. In consequence of that, as I have before pointed out to your Lordships, many of the details of the permanent establishment have been left over for future consideration. To the best of my recollection the cavalry details in our army corps are considerably in excess of those in Continental armies. The question as to the seconding of cavalry officers is one that will come under consideration with the question of establishment, not only as affecting the cavalry, but throughout the Army, and I trust the whole subject will be dealt with before long, though at present I cannot give the House any definite information.
  THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: I do not wish to prolong this debate, but there is one point in the answer of the noble and gallant Lord which, to my mind, is not satisfactory. He

  367
  stated that we had a very large number of mounted men, but my idea of a mounted man is a man who has a horse. I gather, from what I have been told, that in most cavalry regiments there are not enough horses for the men. The difficulties we have experienced of obtaining well-trained horses in good condition should have induced serious consideration of this subject at the War Office, and I regret that I did not hear my noble friend allude to that as a matter which was not being lost sight of. At this moment there would be no great difficulty in getting horses, but if we put it off till the last moment we shall naturally have to pay a great deal more for them, and not get such suitable horses. There may be difficulty in some places in finding stabling accommodation, but I think that in many camps the horses might be left in the open air. I hope this matter will receive consideration, and that we shall never again be in the same difficulty as we were eighteen months ago, when regiments of Imperial Yeomanry had to find horses on their arrival in South Africa.
  LORD RAGLAN: I am pleased to be able to inform the noble Earl that a Committee, presided over by Lord Stanley, is now engaged in taking evidence upon and discussing the whole question of remounts.

  LAND PURCHASE IN IRELAND.
  THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORD: My Lords, I beg to ask the Lord Chancellor of Ireland whether he can supply the House with any information as to the working and progress of State-aided land purchase in Ireland during the last five years; and whether he will give any statistics showing the scope of the operations under Section 40 of the Irish Land Act of 1896. I am sure there are many in this House who will listen to the answer of the noble and learned Lord with considerable interest. Although voluntary purchase in Ireland has lately received a check owing to certain drastic and revolutionary measures, at any rate in some parts of Ireland, it will be interesting to learn if, in the opinion of the noble and learned Lord, sales of land in Ireland are going on as satisfactorily as he could wish. The excellent bargains
  368
  which lie within the reach of agricultural tenants in Ireland through this system cannot be too widely known.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND (Lord ASHBOURNE): My Lords, I am very glad to have an opportunity of giving my noble friend the information he asks upon this subject, which in importance is second to none in Ireland. I am happy to say the system of State-aided purchase is proceeding with vigour and success. Your Lordships will not want from me a detailed statement of the long purchase code of Ireland and the numerous attempts that have been made to apply it with success. The Land Commission is the body mainly working the system, although the operations of the Land Court under Mr. Justice Ross are entitled to prominent notice. In 1897 the Fry Commission found the system was not working very vigorously, the Act of 1896 had not come into full operation, and the figures were comparatively low. In 1897 the applications were 2,787, whereas last year they reached the immense figure of 6,157, and they were higher the year before. The Fry Commission applied itself to the subject, and made various recommendations for facilitating and accelerating purchase procedure. Several of those recommendations the Land Commission have adopted. One in working by the simple process of fiat in suitable cases instead of by the more complicated machinery of vesting order; another, dispensing with inspection in proper cases; another, dispensing with statements of facts in certain cases for apportionment of superior interests; then, again, the distribution of purchase money under the simple machinery of the Land Court itself rather than by the more elaborate procedure of the High Court; another, dispensing with extracts from original patents; and, further, the Land Commission have given express notification that those engaged in valuation with a view to purchase should, while taking into account the tenant's interest, bear in mind the security of the landlord's interest.
  THE EARL OF MAYO: With regard to dispensing with extracts from original patents, may I ask for an explanation? Does it mean— —
  LORD ASHBOURNE: I think it would be better that I should give the noble Earl any explanation afterwards in private. I think the adoption of these recommendations shows that the Land Commission is alive to the desirability of doing everything possible to smooth the path of land purchase. Of course a Bill, which I hope may receive the attention of Parliament, will be necessary for further facilities, but meantime it is important to notice the steps that have been taken. The figures with reference to the applications to the Land Commission under the Purchase Acts are: In 1897, 2,787; in 1898, 6,513; in 1899, 6,644; in 1900, 6,911; and in 1901, 6,157. The slight falling in the last year I have heard attributed to the fall in the price of land stock, and I am inclined to think that is the explanation. The amount of advances shows encouraging progress. In 1897 they were £515,252; in 1898 they increased to £869,000 odd, while in the following year, 1899, they increased more than double, to £1,766,000 odd; in 1900 they were £1,454,011; and in 1901, £1,958,357. These figures show steady progress of the operation of State-aided land purchase in Ireland. Between April 1, 1897, and March 31, 1901, loans were also issued under the Act of 1896 to the Congested Districts Board to the amount of £356,726.
  The figures I have given refer to the Land Commission. As to the Land Court, it should be remembered by anyone who wishes to form a just view of its work that it has two sets of operations. It is the successor of the old Encumbered Estates Court, and comprises all the agencies to be found in Ireland for the sale of all classes of encumbered estates, on the application of either the owners or the encumbrancers. The court having to give an indefeasible title to purchasers, supreme care has to be taken to sell the right land to the right man. You cannot unduly hurry such a process as that, and many of the charges made against the methods of the Court are due to the immense care necessary to see that no mistake is made. Mr. Justice Ross is full of vigour and energy, and applies himself to the performance of all his duties with great determination,
  370
  but he naturally has to be fully alive to the responsibilities of his position. Sales under Section 40 of the Act of 1896 are a matter of great importance. The section is now in vigorous operation. The advances made in the court during the last five years, under what I may call the voluntary jurisdiction of the Court, led to sales amounting to £843,310, and under Section 40 of the Act of 1896 the sales reached £540,123; in other words, the Land Court under Mr. Justice Ross has sold, in the period I have referred to, the large aggregate of £1,383,435. These figures show that the land purchase system as at present constituted is working efficiently and vigorously, and that we may expect its continued progress and development. Mr. Justice Ross told me that he understood something had been said to the effect that the receivers were causing delay in his Court, but he assured me that these officers were working extremely well and that he had no cause for complaint.
  THE EARL OF MAYO: My Lords, what the Fry Commission said with regard to the Land Commission was that they were too strict trustees of the Treasury, and that it was very difficult, although the tenant and the landlord had agreed to the price of the land, to get the Land Commission to advance the money. With regard to the Land Court, we know that Mr. Justice Ross is doing his utmost to relieve the congestion in that court, but the difficulty is that proving title is a very lengthy and expensive business. I thank the Lord Chancellor for the statement he has made and the useful figures he has given.

  SOUTH AFRICAN WAR—REFUGEE CAMPS.
  LORD WINDSOR: My Lords, I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to an article on the Boer refugee camp at Howick, Natal, appearing in the July number of the Empire Review, and signed H. S. Caldecott (civil commandant); whether the regulations governing this camp are rightly set out by Mr. Caldecott; whether similar regulations are in force at other refugee camps in South Africa; and whether, in view of the conflicting accounts from

  371
  individual sources, His Majesty's Government will consider the advisability of publishing as a Parliamentary Paper an official statement as to the conditions prevailing at each Boer refugee camp. The object I have in view in asking this question is, if possible, to obtain an authoritative statement of the true facts regarding the condition and administration of the Boer refugee camps in South Africa. The report of Miss Hobhouse, sent to the Committee of the South African Distress Fund, has been published for some weeks, and been very much commented upon. I do not intend to make any attack whatever on Miss Hobhouse. I am sure she has acted from the highest motives in visiting these camps, and it is evident that she was profoundly touched by the sufferings she witnessed. But she does not seem to have considered whether, under the conditions of war, it was not inevitable that much suffering should follow in its train, or whether, under those conditions, the persons in these refugee camps were better or worse off than if left in their homes in a country more or less devastated by military operations.
  It is not of Miss Hobhouse that I complain. But I deplore the use which has been made of Miss Hobhouse's report by certain persons, both in the press and elsewhere, who thought it consistent with patriotism and a sense of justice to their fellow-countrymen who are administering these camps to make extracts from the report setting forth the worst possible view of the conditions of the camps, and carefully excluding certain qualifications which Miss Hobhouse herself mentioned. This is bad enough if it is only for the ears of English people, who can weigh the merits of this particular form of attack against His Majesty's Government in regard to our military operations; but it becomes much worse when such things are read by people in foreign countries, who are very often not friendly disposed towards us, and who certainly, however willing they might be, have not the opportunity of sifting the matter to the bottom. I have in my question drawn attention to some evidence which I think tells on the other side—namely, the article by Mr. Caldecott. But there is other and independent testimony. About ten days ago
  372
  Mr. Rose Innes, whose name, I think, will command respect from all sides, referred, in the course of a speech, to the refugee camps, and with your Lordships' permission I will read a short extract. Mr. Rose Innes said—
  "At the end of last year I approached the general commanding officer at Cape Town and requested him to obtain from the officers in charge of various camps a report upon the state of those camps, because it is just as well when you discuss a question to have both sides before you. Sir Forrestier Walker was good enough to obtain these reports, and I saw them all. I would submit those reports to any unprejudiced or even prejudiced man, and say, 'Have not the men in charge of those camps done their very best to minimise the inevitable hardships which children placed in those camps must undergo?' Not only have we their word, but we have, annexed to these reports, reports from Afrikanders themselves."
  Mr. Rose Innes quoted two letters—one from a Boer commandant (H. Alberts), in which he said, writing to Major Walter, at Boxsburg—
  "I must express to you and other officers of Boxsburg my heartfelt thanks for the great kindness shown towards my wife, and at the same time for the message, and I hope that this kindness may some time be repaid to you. May I and you be spared to have a personal meeting."
  The other was a letter signed by A. P. Vands, the secretary of the Committee of the Dutch Reformed Churches in Johannesburg, and addressed to Captain Snowden, as follows—
  "I am directed by the committee of the Dutch Reformed Churches here to convey to you the appreciation of the committee for the kindly interest and sympathy shown by you to the women and children under your charge; also to thank you for your courtesy to members of the committee, and for your co-operation in the committee's endeavours to lighten their present sad condition."
  There is only one other witness I will quote, and to my mind his is striking testimony. In a letter which appeared in the Cape Times on the 5th of May, Mr. J. F. Siebert, for twelve years a Government officer of the late Orange Free State, said—
  "I recently visited most of the camps, and can only express my deep gratitude to the military authorities for their kind and considerate treatment. If the British have erred at all, they have done so in displaying too much magnanimity and consideration to their enemies; else the war might long have been over."

  373
  We seem to have drifted into this incongruous position—that while, on the one hand, Boers are writing letters thanking us for the treatment their own people have received, there are, on the other hand, certain persons at home who say that these Boers are quite mistaken; that we are really the most inhuman people in the world, and a disgrace to civilization. It is not for me to say what is the right method to adopt to obtain information, but I hope it may be possible for the Government to appoint a commission, including ladies, to visit the camps and report upon their condition. Before we apportion any praise or blame to those responsible we ought to know the full facts, and I believe that if full information is obtained it will be shown that this country has set an example of humanity in conducting war which has not been set by any combatant in any previous war.
  LORD RAGLAN: My Lords, I will answer the questions of my noble friend to the best of my ability, but I am afraid it is not possible for me to give definite information on all the points raised. There is a large number of these concentration camps, separated by large areas—some are in the newly conquered colonies, some in Natal, and one is on the coast-line in Cape Colony—and they are of different sizes, and contain different classes of inhabitants. For these reasons it has been found impossible to frame cut-and-dried regulations which could be applied to all the camps. Rules that would be useful and necessary in one camp would in all probability be unnecessary and possibly harmful in another. This is one of the chief reasons for the discrepancies to which my noble friend has alluded in the accounts of the various people who have seen these different camps; and I have no doubt myself that the discrepancies are still further exaggerated by the personal equation. It is a truism that no two persons see the same thing in the same manner, and therefore we cannot expect a number of people going to different camps to describe them in the same way.
  My difficulty in dealing with this complicated question is increased by the fact that we are not in possession of full
  374
  information. I should like to remind your Lordships that throughout this war it has always been the policy of the Government to give to the local authorities in South Africa, whether military, civil, or quasi-civil, as much freedom as possible, because they alone are in possession of the facts, and can form a sound judgment. It is obvious that it would very considerably hamper them in the discharge of their duties if we continually demanded from them a detailed running commentary on all their actions. The writing of elaborate reports has been strongly protested against by Mr. Dawkins's Committee, and if that practice is unnecessary and harmful in peace time, it must be more unnecessary and harmful in time of war. The Government have no desire to suppress any information in regard to the refugee camps. On the contrary, they are thoroughly in earnest in their desire to have as complete knowledge of this matter as possible. I am able to inform my noble friend that one of his suggestions has been anticipated, and that the Secretary of State for War is now engaged in forming a committee of ladies who will shortly go out and visit the camps and report on their condition. The Secretary of State for War hopes to be in a position to publish the names of these ladies in the course of a few days. The camp at Port Elizabeth is a small one, containing twenty men and 330 women, and I am glad to be able to report that it is very healthy. It is apparently run by military officers, and is in charge of a matron. The camps at Howick and Maritzburg are under civil commandants and those in the Transvaal and Orange River Colony under camp superintendents, with matrons, storekeepers, medical officers, and clerks. The nature of the shelter depends on circumstances. Where no brick buildings are available marquees and bell tents or huts are used. The regulations governing Howick Camp, into which Mr. Caldecott went in some detail, have not yet reached us, and we are not aware whether the same regulations obtain at other camps, but I imagine myself that they would probably differ in different places. Much must be left to the individual discretion of the superintendents and commandants.
  Looking at the regulations as stated

  375
  in Mr. Caldecott's article, they seem to me, from a general point of view, to carry out the principles of organization and discipline which are necessary for such camps. The refugees are not regarded as prisoners of war, but are permitted to frequent the nearest town with passes, which are freely given wherever it is possible. Whenever the authorities have proof that the refugee is a reliable person, who can either support himself or can go to friends who are in a position to support him, he is permitted to leave the camp and reside with them, or by himself in the town, but he is not allowed to leave the camp in order to starve on the veldt. With regard to rations, no distinction is drawn between those whose husbands are still out on commando and the rest. They receive the same rations as the British soldiers, and we are assured by Lord Kitchener that the refugees, from a material point of view, are satisfied and comfortable. There were complaints at first in various quarters as to the quality of the rations. In some cases it is possible, even probable; they were not all that could be desired. The difficulties of transport, as your Lordships are aware, were great, but these have now been overcome. The presence of a large number of children in the camps rendered the question of rations a very difficult one. Milk was a great difficulty, but condensed milk is now being supplied. Medical attention is provided by the attendance of a doctor, matron, and certified nurse, and ministers of religion are allowed to have access to the camps. In the Orange River Colony the ministers receive pay for their ministrations. There were certain of these ministers who preached politics under the guise of religion, and these men have had, Naturally, to be excluded. Relations are allowed to visit the camps, though, of course, wherever possible, families are accommodated in the same camp. Schools have been established wherever possible for the education of the children.
  With regard to the mortality in the camps, of which we have heard so much, the death-rate for the month ended 30th June was as follows:—In Natal, with 901 men, 1,902 women, and 5,037 children, the deaths were 5 men, 15 women, and 84 children; in Cape Colony, with 31 men, 85 women, and 274 chil-
  376
  dren, there were no deaths; in the Orange River Colony, with 5,116 men, 9,646 women, and 17,953 children, the deaths were 32 men, 75 women, and 182 children; and in the Transvaal, with 8,576 men, 16,078 women, and 19,811 children, the deaths were 26 men, 48 women, and 310 children. So that, with a total of 14,624 men, 27,711 women, and 43,075 children, the deaths were 63 men, 138 women, and 576 children. With regard to the colored inmates, in Natal, with 7 men, 2 women, and 11 children, there were no deaths; in the Orange River Colony, with 2,076 men, 7,313 women, and 11,201 children, there were no deaths, and in the Transvaal, with 244 men, 800 women, and 1,835 children, there were 5 deaths. The mortality at one time was very great in some of these camps, especially in the Transvaal, though I am glad to say it is steadily decreasing. However much we regret it, I think your Lordships will see that, in the circumstances, it was inevitable that the death rate at first should be considerable. A large number of these refugees were in bad health when they arrived at the camps, and were suffering from diseases, brought on chiefly by hard fare and want of luxuries. Large numbers of them have the most elementary ideas of sanitation, and it was with great difficulty that they could be induced to ventilate their tents and huts, and give up a great many in sanitary practices to which they had been addicted. Again, some of them, I am informed, from a morbid dread of illness, constantly took medicine which laid them open to disease. Much as we regret—and we do most deeply regret—the mortality which ensued on this state of things, yet we think, having regard to the only alternative which faced these people, concentration was the most charitable course to adopt, and the one most desirable from the point of view of military operations.
  EARL SPENCER: My Lords, I do not rise to say more than a few words on this exceedingly painful subject. There can be no question that the information which came to England in one form or another with regard to these concentration camps excited very keen feeling. Profound compassion has been felt for the unfortunate women and children

  377
  There, who have no doubt suffered very largely. I do not, therefore, share the view which I understood the noble Lord to take, that attention should not have been called to this very serious subject. I quite understand that in war military necessities must arise, but I sometimes wonder whether a general, when the military necessity faces him, always looks sufficiently forward—whether he balances the immediate advantage which he may gain by a particular course of action, and its results in a more distant future. No doubt the results may at first be good, though we have not as yet heard whether any very good results have followed from the policy in this case; but whatever else may have happened, a terrible amount of ill-feeling and suffering must have arisen. This undertaking was on an enormous scale. I think that at first the Government and those who had charge of the work hardly realized the enormous extent to which this necessity would develop; and I rather doubt whether sufficient arrangements were at first made to meet the necessities which must arise from bringing together this great number of women and children in concentration camps. I am glad to learn that material improvements and changes have taken place in the condition of the people in the camps. For instance, it has been stated that some of the families were put on a different footing from others as regards rations because their husbands and brothers were engaged in warfare. That I think has now been remedied, and everybody must rejoice that that has been done. I am glad to hear that doctors and nurses have been sent out to mitigate the difficulties which have to be faced in these vast camps. I rejoice to hear what the noble and gallant Lord said as to sending out a Committee to visit all these camps. I share what has been said in regard to exaggerated statements. There may have been exaggerated statements on this subject, and I deprecate such statements. I feel sure that nearly everybody in this country attributes the utmost humanity and kindness to those who have charge of these camps. I certainly do, and I should be very sorry if any words in the press and elsewhere led to a contrary opinion. I sincerely trust that the Government will watch most carefully this
  378
  policy of concentrating the people in camps, and will diminish it as fast as they can. I am not going to argue that it was not necessary, but the ill-feeling arising from the suffering entailed may do a great deal of harm and retard a possible settlement in the future.

  EDUCATION—MINUTE OF 3RD JULY.
  LORD REAY: My Lords, in rising to move the resolution standing in my name disapproving of the Minute of the Board of Education, dated 3rd July, 1901, establishing regulations for evening schools and classes, I wish first of all to make a preliminary observation with regard to the judgment which has created such a stir. It is generally thought that that judgment convicted school boards of breaking the law. Now, what really did happen was that the interpretation given to the law by the Local Government Board was set aside by the judges. On two occasions the matter which has now been decided came before the Local Government Board, and on both occasions the Local Government Board reversed the decision of the district auditor, and ordered that the school board should have the money disallowed by the auditor placed to their credit. The first decision in what is known as the Tot-ten ham School Board case was given by Sir Henry Fowler on 2nd February, 1893, and the second by Mr. Chaplin on 6th November, 1895. As long as those decisions were not set aside it was clear that school boards were absolutely warranted in incurring expenditure for the purpose of earning science and art grants. It was only after the judges had set aside those decisions that a new situation arose. With regard to the instruction given to adults in evening continuation schools, it was fully justified by the Code of regulations issued by the Board of Education. No objections were ever raised by the Education Department to this instruction, and in this respect also the judgment was directed not against school boards but against the Government Department which is responsible for the proceedings of school boards. My objections to the Minute are that it introduces alterations in the existing regulations for evening continuation schools,

  379
  which are not required by the Cocker-ton judgment, and that in some respects it runs counter to the expressed opinions of the judges. The Master of the Rolls, in his judgment, says—
  "No objection in this case is taken to the teaching by the school board with ratepayers' money of those things which appear in the Code."
  And further on he says—
  "And for the purposes of this case, but only for this case, it is to be taken by the admission of the Attorney General that the education prescribed by the Whitehall Code is elementary education within the meaning of the Act of 1870."
  Therefore, so long as what is taught in a public elementary school—and an evening continuation school hitherto was a public elementary school—appears in the Code, it is held by the judges to be legal. The Minute shirks the duty of clearly indicating what may be taught in a public elementary school, and simply states in Article 21 that "the instruction given in the school must be in accordance with the provisions of the Elementary Education Acts." And in the memorandum also it is stated that grants will be paid "for such part of the instruction specified in this Minute as may legally be given in such schools." The judgment, on the other hand, states definitely that it is legal to teach whatever is embraced in the Whitehall Code. Whereas the judges draw a clear line of demarcation between the instruction to be given under the Whitehall Code and under the Directory, the Minute perpetuates the confusion and creates a fresh source of complications by mixing up what the judges very clearly indicate should be separated. Then, as regards the limit of age, which in Article 21 (iii.) is taken at fifteen, there is nothing in the judgment to show that the line should be drawn there. Mr. Justice Wills said—
  "Practically, I suppose that, at somewhere between sixteen and seventeen, at the highest, an age has been arrived at which no one would ordinarily call 'childhood.' "
  It is true that the London School Board obtained legal advice in favor of not going beyond the limit of fifteen, but it is quite clear that this does not prevent the Board of Education from accepting the higher limit of Mr. Justice Wills—somewhere between sixteen and seven-
  380
  teen years. The effect of the fifteen years limit will, in London alone, result in the disqualification of 125,000 out of 153,000 scholars in board schools, and in the ultimate extinction of the greater part of the schools.
  Why the subjects mentioned in Articles 2 and 3 of the Code for 1900 have been altered as they have been in this Minute it is not easy to explain. As regards physical exercises, we were told that they were taken out because they might lead to abuses. Surely, such abuses could easily be put down by His Majesty's inspectors. I am all the more surprised at this omission, because in a memorandum recently issued by the Scottish Education Department it is stated that "certain subjects, such as physical exercises, military drill and music, which, taken concurrently with other subjects of this Code, may be expected to enlarge and raise the physical, moral, and mental equipment of those who come within their influence." Why in England this physical, moral, and mental equipment should be withdrawn I cannot conceive. In the Scotch Code these subjects are placed in a separate division. Whereas the Code of regulations for continuation classes in Scotland is a very distinct step in advance, this Minute is a deliberate retrograde step.
  The regulations for evening continuation schools hitherto were the same for all schools; they had all to be public elementary schools in order to obtain the grant. This Minute creates a new category of schools not carried on under the Elementary Education Acts, and at the same time it is proposed to give them a Parliamentary grant under Article 17. There are two grants—the Parliamentary grant and the science and art grant. With the latter I am not concerned. I am dealing with the former only, which is earmarked for elementary education. It is the grant mentioned in Section 2 of the Elementary Education Act of 1870. Mr. Justice Wills stated distinctly that—
  "A Parliamentary grant means (by Section 2) a grant made in aid of an elementary school out of moneys provided by Parliament for the Civil Service, entitled 'for public education in Great Britain,' which, as I have shown, is always a distinct thing from the grant to the Science and Art Department, and is the fund

  381
  which from its establishment has been administered by the Whitehall or Education Department."
  Now, by this Minute, we get a new class of evening continuation schools, which are not carried on under the Elementary Education Acts, but which may give elementary education, and which will get the Parliamentary grant of Article 17 as well as the grant in the Directory of Article 20. To apply the Parliamentary grant for elementary instruction given in a school which is not a public elementary school within the meaning of the Act of 1870, is certainly not in conformity with the judgment and with the Act of 1870. Section 96 of the Elementary Education Act, 1870, distinctly lays down that—
  "After the 31st day of March, 1871, no Parliamentary grant shall be made to any elementary school which is not a public elementary school within the meaning of this Act."
  The Master of the Rolls stated very clearly which voluntary schools could claim the Parliamentary grant. These are his words—
  "The object and meaning of the definition clause 'of an elementary school in Section 3 of the Education Act of 1870,' in my judgment, is that inasmuch as all kinds of education were then being taught in these voluntary schools, those outside schools (I call them), only should come within the Act and derive the benefits, by way of grants and otherwise, conferred by the Act, at which elementary education was the principal part of the education therein given, and, in addition, that only those outside voluntary schools should come within the Act if they were schools at which the ordinary payments therein in respect of the instruction from each scholar did not exceed 9d. a week apiece. That voluntary schools are referred to in the Act of 1870 as elementary schools, in my opinion, is apparent from, amongst others, Section 23, Section 12 (2), Section 9 (2), and Section 7. The object, meaning, and scope of the definition was to select out of these voluntary schools those which had these two attributes—namely, if the principal part of its education was elementary, and also was a school in which the scholars paid no more than 9d. a piece a week. If there was not this definition I do not see why all voluntary schools could not have claimed the benefit of the Act, no matter what was their teaching, if they conformed to the requirements of the Act as regards religious teaching and other wise. This definition, in my judgment, instead of being a statutory enactment that the highest education prescribed by the directory should be taught by a board school at the expense of the ratepayers, is a definition whereby a limit
  382
  is placed as to those voluntary schools which should become public elementary schools within the Act of 1870, and obtain its benefits, and in my opinion this definition has no such effect as that contended for on behalf of the school board."
  According to these words of the judgment of the Master of the Rolls, the Parliamentary grant of the Education Act of 1870 can only be given to voluntary schools which are public elementary schools under that Act, and you cannot create another category of elementary schools, Voluntary or other, and give them the Parliamentary grant. If elementary education can be given in schools which are not under the Act of 1870, and if a Parliamentary grant can be earned by a school which is not a public elementary school, there is nothing to prevent the recognition of day schools on the same footing. The distribution of the grant may then be so manipulated that the Act of 1870 will cease to apply to voluntary schools. There may be doubts as to whether my interpretation of the Minute is the right one; but the interpretation given to it in a communication addressed to Mr. E. Flower, Member for West Bradford, by the private secretary of the Vice-President of the Council on July 8, Seems to me to prove clearly what is intended and to confirm my apprehension. The writer states that—
  "Under the new regulations the Board of Education will give its grants, as specified in the Minute, to all evening schools fulfilling the conditions laid down in the first twenty articles, whether for elementary subjects or for advanced work, without any age limit. Article 21 has no application to them."
  Then occurs this remarkable passage—
  "I may point out that the fact that evening schools may thus in future receive grants without being in the legal sense public elementary schools will bring two additional advantages—namely, (1) It will relieve them from the operation of the 17s. 6d. limit of grant, which, it is believed, has frequently retarded their development in the past; and (2) it will greatly facilitate in counties their organization on comprehensive bases, over a large area, on a properly co-ordinating system."
  It will do more than that, for it will relieve these schools absolutely from all the limits which are placed on the giving of religious instruction, and on the payment of fees, and from the obligation contained in Section 20 of the Elemen-

  383
  tary Education Act of 1876, "that the income of the schools shall be applied only for the purpose of public elementary schools." The letter goes on—
  "It was necessary to add Article 21 to the regulations in order to preserve to school boards the power of carrying on evening schools at the expense of the school fund, so far as the judgment in 'Rex v. Cocker ton' allows, with the aid of grants from the Exchequer"
  Then follow these words—
  "Sir J. Gorst does not anticipate that there will be many such schools hereafter."
  Neither do I, my Lords. The letter concludes—
  "The restrictions of Article 21 are the unavoidable outcome of the recent decision of the courts of law as to the limits necessarily attaching to the functions and powers of school boards in this regard."
  I may remind your Lordships that the only authority for issuing this Minute is Section 97 of the Act of 1870, as is stated at the head of the Minute. That section expressly provides that the conditions laid down in any such Minute—
  "shall not give any preference or advantage to any school on the ground that it is, or is not, provided by a school board."
  This Minute clearly violates this essential principle and ought not, if only for that reason, to be approved. The Minute ignores the Act of 1870 as interpreted quite recently by the courts of law. We on this side of the House can only enter a protest, but we are bound to oppose this Minute because we take our stand on the principles of the Act of 1870, because it creates a privileged position for voluntary schools, and because it deprives a large part of the population of schools which they require.
  Moved, to resolve "That this House disapproves of the Minute of the Board of Education, dated 3rd July, 1901, establishing regulations for evening schools and classes."—(Lord Reay.)
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The Duke of DEVONSHIRE): My Lords, I do not think the House would desire that I should attempt to follow the noble Lord in the discussion of his legal arguments, which were supported by copious extracts from a judgment of the Master of the Rolls, not one word of which reached my ears. I will leave the legal part of the noble Lord's speech, there-
  384
  fore, to be dealt with by some one more competent to undertake the task, and will make, as shortly as I can, a statement, which will not be legal, but which I trust will be clear, of the present position of these evening schools and of the reasons which have made it necessary to issue this Minute. These evening classes were originally conducted under the same managers, by the same teachers, and in the same buildings as elementary schools. The instruction which was given in them was entirely elementary, and the age of the scholars in them was between the years of twelve and twenty-one. In 1893 a very great revolution took place—the Evening School Code was issued, which removed altogether the age limit, and opened schools to all forms of higher education. That Code was taken as an invitation from the Education Department to school boards to enter upon a considerable invasion of the sphere of secondary education. Though they were potentially in all their schools, and actually in a great many of them, secondary schools, they were still called public elementary schools, and this Code was accepted by school boards as an invitation to enter upon the work never contemplated under the Elementary Education Act. The income of a voluntary school consists of grants from the Board of Education, grants from the county council, fees from the scholars, and voluntary contributions. The income of a board school is the same, except that that part of its income which is derived from fees and from county council grants is much smaller, and there are no voluntary contributions, and the deficit is made up from the school rate. In many of our large towns, acting on the invitation in the Code, evening schools managed by school boards and maintained by the rates have come into competition with technical schools conducted by the town council, with polytechnics, schools of art, and other institutions. In some places the evils of overlapping have been mitigated by arrangements made between the local authorities and the school board, but in other places this competition for scholars which has arisen has had the natural consequences of deterioration in the quality of the instruction given, and great waste of funds, central and local.

  385
  This was a state of things with which Parliament would have had to deal under any circumstances, and Parliament no doubt would have been asked to deal with it as soon as a secondary educational authority could be established. But before Parliament arrived at any decision on the point the Cocker ton judgment intervened, and produced a situation which made dealing with it at once absolutely necessary, not waiting for future action by Parliament. That situation, whatever may be the merits or demerits of the evening school Code, made it impossible to continue a great deal of the work that had been carried on. The judgment, of course, did not interfere with that part of the work carried on in voluntary schools, Because the sources of income in their case, in addition to the income derived from fees and voluntary contributions, were either grants from the Board of Education or subventions from county councils from funds legally applicable to secondary education. But in the case of the evening schools carried on by the school boards a great part of the instruction could not have been given but for the rate, which was their principal source of income, and which, according to the legal judgment, cannot be applied to secondary education or the education of adults. Under these circumstances, it was impossible for the Board of Education to reissue the evening school Code. To reissue it would have had the effect of inviting school boards to break the law as decided by the courts. But, although some of these schools may have, as it is thought by some, only a slight educational value, while some of them may be superfluous and others actually mischievous, still the Board of Education had no desire summarily to suppress and put an end to a very large number of schools, many of which undoubtedly do excellent work, which certainly were established with the best intentions, and in accordance with an invitation from the Board of Education, but, unfortunately, Established and conducted under a certain misapprehension as to the state of the existing law. The Board therefore proposes to deal with the difficulty partly by the Minute which is now under consideration and partly by legislation. This Minute divides evening
  386
  schools into proper categories—those which are elementary schools and those which are not elementary but secondary schools. Now, the number of the first is not large, as the noble Lord has said, but such schools of the first class as have existed may exist still, and may be managed by school boards without infringement of the law, and can receive grants under Article 21. But as to the second category, those that are really secondary schools, in this will be included all those under voluntary management, to which I have referred, which are not affected by the Cocker ton judgment, and also all those board schools in which the instruction given has been declared illegal by a court of law; and it was proposed to legalize these by Clause 8 of the Education Bill first introduced, and it is now proposed to legalize these for the present year by the Education (No. 2) Bill. As to both these last-mentioned classes of schools—voluntary schools which are not affected and board schools to be temporarily continued—the Minute greatly simplifies the regulations under which they may be conducted, and, as was stated in the letter of the Vice-President referred to, it will facilitate their organization on a wide basis over a wide area.
  What the future of these schools will be is decided neither by the Minute nor the Bill; it must come under the future consideration of Parliament. The chief objection, so far as I understand, taken by the noble Lord is that in regard to these elementary schools still legally managed by board schools the limit of age is fixed at fifteen years, and the instruction in them must be of a purely elementary character. Of course, the age limit is arguable, but the Department has acted on the advice of experts and have adopted fifteen as the limit. But this limitation will apply only to a small class of schools which will still be conducted under Article 21. In all the remainder—all those to which the authority of the county council is given—the same education can continue to be given. The disability which attaches to a certain class of evening schools now conducted by school boards is not through the action of the Minute; it is due to the Cocker ton judgment; the Minute has done nothing but to bring the regulations of the

  387
  Department into conformity with what has been declared to be the law. I think this statement covers most of the points of the speech of the noble Lord, excepting his legal argument. He has referred to the omission in the Minute of some subjects of instruction which formerly found their place in the Evening School Code. Grants can no longer be earned for physical exercises. This has been very carefully considered, and we are advised that the grant for physical exercises should be omitted because of a certain amount of abuse to which the subject has been considered liable, and in some, Perhaps not in numerous, schools grants are said to have been earned by holding dancing parties. The noble Lord also referred to the omission of the grant for nursing, Ambulance work, and one other, but I would point out that those are not necessarily excluded by the Minute. Those are what are considered to be technological subjects, and he will see under Group A in the appendix of the Minute, that "any other subject approved by the Board of Education as of educational value can be taught and can receive the grant." It will only be necessary for the managers of schools to satisfy the Board of Education that a certain course of instruction which they propose to give is of educational value and it will still be eligible for the grant. I am quite aware that the Minute has not found, and is not likely to find, favor with Lord Reay or the school boards. They would have preferred a Minute which would have perpetuated the fiction that these secondary schools were still public elementary schools. What they would have preferred would have been a Bill which would have given to all these schools a like protection from the existing law. What they would really have desired is that the law should have been altered altogether. We were not prepared to take that course. If we had taken that course, and had proposed, even temporarily, to legalize these schools without the intervention of any other authority, when we came to propose legislation in another year we should have been told that by our legislation we had made the admission that these schools were rightly, if not legally, in possession of the field, and no doubt, during the interval which may have
  388
  elapsed before further legislation was proposed, many, if not all, of the school boards would have taken the opportunity of making still further steps in the direction of secondary education. I do not desire to minimize the importance of the Minute or the Bill. Combined, they, in my opinion, assert, as strongly as the Bill which was first introduced, the negative side of our position. We have not succeeded, Unfortunately, in the present year in constituting a new authority for secondary education. But this Minute and the Bill combined indicate clearly the policy of His Majesty's Government that in the future the secondary authority is not to be the school board.
  I am not sorry that the school boards should have realized, as clearly as they seem to have done, the actual position and importance of the principle to which Parliament is now asked to give its assent. This is not a new controversy. It broke out, certainly in a Jess acute form, not more than twelve years ago. Precisely the same sort of opposition, emanating from the same quarter as this Minute and Bill are opposed by, was offered to the Technical Instruction Bill twelve years ago. That Bill had its origin in a purely educational body with which I was associated—the National Association for the Promotion of Technical and Secondary Education. It was brought in without any political object and taken up by the Government and passed. But it was opposed by some of the school boards and their champions on exactly the same ground as the present Bill and Minute, because it was said that it narrowed the power of the school boards in the future to provide higher education. This controversy has continued from then up to the present time. It is a controversy to which Parliament has not given much attention, but it has fought out in the great towns and centers of population in this country to the great detriment of the real cause of education, and accompanied by a large waste of public funds. The decision which Parliament will have to give on this Bill and this Minute will, I trust, go far to establish a principle on which this controversy may, in a future Parliament, be definitely and finally settled, and I hope your Lordships will not be induced by the motion of the noble Lord to withhold your sanction.
  THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: My Lords, I do not wish to say anything disrespectful of, or derogatory to, Voluntary schools, of which I am a strong supporter; but I think the noble Duke has concealed—I do not say intentionally—the real injustice of this Minute. The Minute proposes one scheme for voluntary schools and another for board schools. If your Lordships will look at the terms of the Minute, you will find that voluntary schools will be under no limits as to the age of their scholars, Whereas in board schools the age is limited to fifteen, and at the same time voluntary schools will be free to give elementary or advanced instruction, according to the needs of the locality or the wants of individual students. The noble Duke said in the course of his remarks that one thing he wished to make clear was the intention of the Government that secondary education should not remain in the hands of school boards. But that does not seem to me to justify the action of this Minute, which says to voluntary schools: "You may either conduct these evening continuation schools for elementary instruction or secondary instruction; you may practically have a free hand in the matter, but the board schools may not." I do not understand precisely what the prejudice in the mind of the Board of Education is to board schools. The noble Duke said the opposition to this Minute was confined to a certain number of Radical educationists.
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I did not say so.
  THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: I think the noble Duke referred to the National Union of Teachers.
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I did not mention them.
  THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: What I wish to remind the noble Duke of is that opposition to the Minute is not confined to the body of men my noble friend Lord Reay represents, but that there is a very large body of opinion on the Conservative side against this treatment of board schools. Sir W. Hart Dyke, neither an extreme nor inexperienced
  390
  Man, said a few days ago that, Although a strong supporter of voluntary schools, he had never failed to recognize the necessity for board schools throughout the country, and he saw no reason to regret his action, for he could not doubt that the system was a good one. And he went on to say that he could not help feeling that the present phase of the question was owing to the want of appreciation of the importance of education on the part of His Majesty's Government, and to deprecate the derogatory statements relating to school boards which were made by the Vice-President of the Council in another place. In this matter it is well to remember that this Minute is intended to commit the country and the public to a policy and a principle hereafter. Therefore the Minute assumes an importance which it would not otherwise have. This is the view taken by another Conservative Member of Parliament, Major Banes, Member for South-West Ham, who made use of this very strong language—
  "I cannot but express my surprise and disgust at the unworthy and undeserved sneers and remarks made by the Vice-President of the Council against the members of school boards and their work. The teachers and even the electors, and I am confident the people, will not forget them, and I regret the Government and the Unionists have in their ignorance been so misled as to support instead of disclaiming any part in these misleading and cowardly attacks made under the shelter of town councils."
  These are not the words of an opponent of His Majesty's Government. They are the outspoken expression of opinion of a Conservative member. I should very much regret if, by such language as the Vice-President of the Council indulged in when he introduced his Bill, any weight should be given to the belief, which I am bound to say does not appear to me to be unfounded, that it is the covert and the real intention of the Government, by means of this legislation, to put an end, as far as possible, to the development of the work of school boards. I say that, not in behalf of the towns, because I believe that, whatever line is taken by the Board of Education as regards the towns, the great towns value the work of the school boards and the spirit in which that work has been done. But why are the country districts, by a Minute of this kind, to be

  391
  prevented from making use of the machinery of the school boards? The Minute starts by throwing cold water upon any evening school. It says—
  "In order to obtain these grants it must be decided by the Board of Education that the school is not unnecessary."
  I do not think, my Lords, there is that great interest in education in the country districts that there is any likelihood that schools that are unnecessary will be started. My experience is that it is extremely difficult in country districts to get any interest taken in secondary education. There is another condition of the grant—that the school must have adequate local support. I should like to know what is the meaning of the words "adequate local support." I shall vote for my noble friend's motion because I do not see why voluntary schools should fee placed in a privileged position in this matter. In doing this the Government are giving credence to the belief that they are striking, not merely at a system of efficient education, but also at the conscience clause, because in this Minute, as it stands, there is nothing to prevent sectarian education from being given in these evening continuation schools.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORD: My Lords, I desire, very briefly, to support the motion of the noble Lord opposite. I had hoped that it would have commended itself to the judgment of the House, and that the Minute would have been referred back to the Board of Education for further consideration. We must all agree with the noble Duke that it is desirable that some Minute should be issued, but, reading it from a strictly educational point of view, I am bound to say that it would be very difficult to frame a Minute less likely to give general satisfaction. Though I was not able entirely to follow the argument of the noble Lord (Lord Reay), he seemed to establish a pretty strong prima facie case that the Board of Education has in this instance assumed powers which it does not possess, and proposes to give grants of public money to a new type of schools to which it has not yet been authorized to give grants. I cannot but feel that the House may very well pause before it sanctions the
  392
  issue of such a Minute. This is an unfortunate Minute, because it tends to discourage, hamper, and thwart the efforts of those who have been really doing the good work of continuation schools hitherto, and I cannot help feeling that those who framed the Minute have not yet risen to a due appreciation of our system of continuation schools. At present our elementary education in many parts of the country ends in an immense amount of cruel waste; for this reason that it stops at such an early age. In a few years those who leave the elementary schools are practically uneducated, and are left outside of nearly all educational influences during the most critical period of their lives. If we are to amend that state of things I do not see how it can be done except by instituting a system of compulsory attendance at continuation schools. That, as your Lordships know, has been done in Germany; and in Saxony a boy from an elementary school has to attend continuation classes twice a week for three years after the age of fourteen. All over the German Empire the municipalities are empowered to make technical education compulsory from, I believe, fourteen to eighteen years of age. I cannot but feel that it is high time we faced the question in a similar fashion. But until that is done I venture to hope the Government will do nothing to discourage those who are doing their best to encourage voluntary attendance at continuation schools. It is absolutely necessary that we should make these schools attractive, and also that we should give as frees a hand as possible to those managers of schools, school boards, and others who have done the work hitherto, and done it well. The noble Lord who introduced this motion reminded the House what the effect of the Minute would probably be upon London. I will quote the case of the city of Manchester, which has a system of evening continuation schools at least as good as that of any other town in the country. In Manchester, under the action of Mr. Acland's Code, and by combination between the school board and the voluntary managers, the school board has built up an admirable system of con-

  393
  tinuation schools. There are something like 9,000 pupils attending them, and I do not suppose anyone knowing the work of these schools would be able to speak of the results in any terms but of praise and respect. There are in Manchester at the present time 118 of these schools, and the advantage of having them in the hands of the school board is that the school board is able so to regulate the work done that it is really continuation work.
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: All these schools will be continued under the Minute.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORD: But the Minute will apparently involve taking them out of the hands of the present managing body. [The Duke of DEVONSHIRE dissented.] At any rate, the present managing bodies have interpreted the Minute in that way. I now understand that the Minute is to be interpreted by a Bill which is still to be passed. The Minute, to begin with, will bind the present managers of schools hand and foot. Again, it introduces the fifteen years limit. I do not know why this limit should be introduced in England, while Scotland is left free in the matter. The advantages given to Scotland are so obvious that we could not do better than imitate a great many of the points in the Scottish Code. Again, we are told that the elementary classes containing pupils up to fifteen years of age must not be conducted in the same building in which the school for senior scholars is conducted. How will that affect country districts where only one building is available? There is also a very ambiguous reference to school fees. Are school fees to be required of all students in these continuation classes in the future, or are the local authorities to be free to demand them or not, according to circumstances? Hitherto the practice has varied in different localities according to the circumstances of the locality. Is that freedom to be taken away?
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: No.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORD: I am glad to hear that, because if it were taken away it would tend to
  394
  lessen the number of pupils. I hope that the centralizing process indicated by the Minute will not go on too much, because I have seen nothing in the action of the Board of Education since it was reconstructed that tends to give me confidence that it is in a position to undertake these additional duties. Therefore, I sincerely trust that this Minute will be referred back to the Department for further consideration.
  EARL SPENCER: My Lords, the noble Duke the Lord President of the Council, in the observations he made, answered a speech which my noble friend behind me did not deliver, and did not answer the speech which he did deliver.
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I did not understand it.
  EARL SPENCER: I estimate that, According to the figures for the year 1899, at least 83,880 children in board schools will be affected by Article 21 of the Minute. The right rev. Prelate alluded just now to the very important continuation schools in Manchester, and the noble Duke said there was no reason why these schools should not go on, but they cannot go on with any children over fifteen years of age.
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: Certainly they can.
  EARL SPENCER: They will not receive the same Parliamentary grants.
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: Certainly they will.
  EARL SPENCER: They will for this year, but after that they will not be able to receive Parliamentary grants if the pupils are over fifteen years of age.
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: After that, I have said, they will have to be dealt with by Parliament.
  EARL SPENCER: That is the only consolatory remark I have heard from the noble Duke, and I sincerely hope that when Parliament comes to deal with the matter it will not adopt the policy laid down by the noble Duke.

  395
  The reason why we feel strongly on this subject is this, that those who have been receiving money, if you may so call it, illegally under the Cockerton judgment, will be allowed to continue receiving that money if they come to terms with the county council. The Bill and this Minute lay down really the policy for the future, and we think it necessary to at once protest against the policy which these measures propound. I should deprecate altogether depriving school boards of the power of dealing with these continuation schools for pupils over fifteen years of age. They are very competent to do it, and they do it better almost than any other body. I cannot agree with what has been said elsewhere, that the education given in board schools has been bad—I think the noble Duke said it was mischievous.
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I said in some cases.
  EARL SPENCER: I think the noble Duke was referring to cases where physical exercises took the form of dancing; but, as I understand, those cases only numbered twenty, and they received the permission and sanction of the inspectors. I will not dwell more on this question, owing to the lateness of the hour, but I should like to press this on my noble friend—that this Minute runs counter to important clauses in the Education Act of 1870. Nothing could be clearer than the clauses which my noble friend behind me quoted, and which provide that the Parliamentary grant distributed by the Education Department must be given to a public elementary school. Further than that, Clause 97 provides that the grants must
  be made without giving any preference to any school on the ground that it is, or is not, provided by a school board. Under this Minute the Education Department can, although refusing to give to school boards power to continue the education beyond the age of fifteen, allow voluntary schools to go on without some of the most binding conditions imposed by the Act of 1870. One of those conditions is the Conscience Clause. We certainly think it is of the utmost importance that that should be maintained, but under the Minute we believe—we may not be interpreting it correctly—that voluntary schools may set up evening continuation schools without any of the conditions laid down in Clauses 96 and 97 of the Act of 1870. That is a very important matter. It is said that the giving of the Parliamentary grant to voluntary schools is justified under the new clauses of the Appropriation Act. I should like some information on that point. This Minute, in our opinion, extends a favouritism' to voluntary schools which is denied to school boards, for the noble Duke cannot deny that, under the Minute, voluntary schools can establish these evening continuation schools without coming under any of the stringent conditions imposed by Clauses 96 and 97 of the Act of 1870. It is because we feel that this is apparently the foundation of a policy which is to deteriorate the position of school boards, to diminish their influence, and in other ways to evade the great Act of 1870 to which the noble Duke was a party, that we strongly oppose the Minute now before the House.
  On Question, their Lordships divided: Contents, 18; Not-Contents, 69.

  CONTENTS.

  Carrington, E.

  Hereford, L. Bp.

  Kinnaird, L.

  Chesterfield, E. [Teller.]

  Leigh, L.

  Portsmouth, E.

  Battersea, L.

  Lingen, L.

  Spencer, E.

  Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.)

  Reay, L.

  Burghclere, L.

  Ribblesdale, L. [Teller.]

  Gordon, V. (E. Aberdeen.)

  Davey, L.

  Tweedmouth, L.

  Hobhouse, L.

  Welby, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Halsbury, E. (L. Chancellor.)

  Abercorn, M. (D. Abercorn.)

  Carnwath, E.

  Devonshire, D. (L. President.)

  Bath, M.

  Denbigh, E.

  Salisbury, M. (L. Privy Seal.)

  Bristol, M.

  Derby, E.

  Hardwicke, E.

  Portland, D.

  Pembroke and Montgomery, E. (L. Steward.)

  Mar and Kellie, E.

  Wellington, D.

  Mayo, E

  Morley, E.

  Addington, L.

  Macnaghten, L.

  Mount Edgcumbe, E.

  Ashbourne, L.

  Manners, L.

  Onslow, E.

  Belper, L.

  Manners of Haddon, L. (M. Granby.)

  Powis, E.

  Carysfort, L. (E. Carysfort.)

  Selborne, E.

  Chelmsford, L.

  Monckton, L. (V. Galway.)

  Shaftesbury, E.

  Churchill, L. [Teller.]

  Monk Bretton, L.

  Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

  Colchester, L.

  Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

  Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]

  De Mauley, L.

  Norton, L.

  Westmeath, E.

  Farquhar, L.

  Pirbright, L.

  Glanusk, L.

  Ponsonby, L.(E. Bessborough.)

  Cross, V.

  Glenesk, L.

  Raglan, L.

  Falkland, V.

  Grey de Ruthyn, L.

  Robertson, L.

  Frankfort Be Montmorency, V.

  Harris, L.

  Rowton, L.

  James, L.

  Saltoun, L.

  Goschen, V.

  Kenyon, L.

  Savile, L.

  Llandaff, V.

  Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

  Sherborne, L.

  Portman, V.

  Langford, L.

  Southampton, L.

  Ridley, V.

  Lawrence, L.

  Tredegar, L.

  Sidmouth, V.

  Ludlow, L.

  Windsor, L.

  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
  House adjourned at twenty minutes before Eight of the clock, till to-morrow, half-past Ten of the clock.