Lords Sitting of 15 December 1902

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC
  AGRICULTURE AND TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION (IRELAND)
  Second Annual General Report of the Department, 1901-1902.
  INDIA (FAMINE)
  Speech by the Chief Commissioner, Central Provinces, on the work of the Conciliation Boards in the Central Provinces.
  PRISONS (IRELAND)
  Report of inquiry, held in November, 1902, into the facts and circumstances connected with, or relating to, the treatment while in Limerick Prison, and the nature and cause of the illness, of Mr. Timothy Flanagan; with appendices; presented [by Command], and ordered to lie on the Table.
  WEST HIGHLAND RAILWAY (EXTENSION FROM BANAVIE TO MALLAIG)
  Report by the Board of Trade as to the condition and working of the Banavie to Mallaig Railway, the rates and charges for traffic, and the receipts and expenditure of any company in working the railway for the year ended 1st March, 1902: Laid before the House [pursuant to Act]. and ordered to lie on the Table.
  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Standing Orders Nos. XXXIX. and XLV. considered [according to Order], and suspended for the remainder of the Session.

  VENEZUELA—ANGLO-GERMAN NAVAL ACTION.
  *EARL SPENCER: My Lords, I have given private notice to the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs of a Question on the subject of the situation in Venezuela. I think that Parliament has some reason to complain of the very small amount of information which has been vouchsafed on this question up to the present. We compare very unfavourably with Germany in this matter, for 1 understand that a great many
  1106
  Papers have been laid before the German Parliament with full information as to the causes of the present action. There is another point which I am doubtful whether I ought to mention; but I doubt whether the noble Marquess was right to be playfully sarcastic and jocular in a recent speech with reference to this small country—Venezuela. We are about to enter into negotiations with Venezuela, or into acts of war, and a public dinner at such a moment is not the right occasion to choose for jocular remarks on the subject. When the noble Marquess speaks in public, he speaks, not in his private capacity, but as Foreign Minister. I wish to know whether the noble Marquess has any information to give with regard to the causes which led to the issue of the ultimatum to Venezuela; whether any answer has been received from the Venezuelan Government; and whether the Government has any information as to the release of the prisoners made by the Venezuelan Government, and as to the sinking of ships taken by the fleets of England and Germany. Since I gave notice of this Question, various other incidents have been reported in the public Press, such as the bombardment of a certain port. Perhaps the noble Marquess can give some information on those points at the same time.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE): My Lords, I am sorry that so good and experienced a critic as the noble Earl should think it necessary to take exception to the tone of the very few observations which I made the other evening at a public dinner on the subject of Venezuela. The noble Earl characterised my remarks as unduly jocular.
  *EARL SPENCER: And sarcastic.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: The only observation which I can recall, which at all merits that description, was an observation in which I permitted myself to say that I thought the Venezuelan Government had indulged in a superfluous number of revolutions in recent years. I might perhaps have said that in more tragical accents. Perhaps if I had been addressing your Lordships I

  1107
  should have done so. But on such an occasion, I confess, it did not seem to be improper to deal in a lighter view with what I admit is a very serious subject. The noble Earl complains of us for not having at an earlier stage supplied information and Papers on this question. Anticipating the interest which your Lordships were likely to take in it, we prepared a collection of the more important Papers, and I laid them on the Table on Friday last, and they are now before your Lordships.
  *EARL SPENCER: We have not got them.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Here they are.
  *EARL SPENCER: We want them circulated.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: They will be delivered to day. I do not think I can do better than refer the noble Earl to those Papers for the answer to the first Question which he has addressed to me. He will find that the first of these Papers is a Memorandum in which a number of cases are recapitulated in which we have the gravest reasons for complaining of the manner in which British subjects and their property have been dealt with by the Venezuelan Government. As to the ultimatum, the noble Earl will find in the series of Papers no less than three solemn warnings addressed by His Majesty's Government to the Government of Venezuela, the last of them being the ultimatum which was presented in the early days of the present month. There were two earlier communications of a similar kind—one in the month of June and another in the month of November. Since these Papers were published we have received a telegram from our Minister in Venezuela containing a summary of a document which had been handed to him, and which purports to be a reply to the ultimatum of December 2. Mr. Haggard, in summarising this Paper, informs us that it makes no allusion to the definitive character of the ultimatum. It contains complaints that His Majesty's Government have offered no reparation for the injury inflicted by the "Ban Righ" upon the Venezuelan Government, and
  1108
  the conduct of the authorities at Trinidad; and it concludes by stating that, the Venezuelan Treasury being exhausted, it is impossible for the Government to meet its debts for the moment, but that as soon as peace is concluded it will not be necessary to remind the Venezuelan Government of its obligations. That purports to be the reply to the ultimatum; and since that we have received through the United States Government a proposal from the Venezuelan Government to refer a part of the complaints which we have made against them to arbitration. The proposal is that the present difficulty in respect of the manner of settling claims for injuries to British and German subjects during the insurrection should be submitted to arbitration. That proposal has just been received, and is under the consideration of His Majesty's Government.
  The noble Earl asks me for information as to the release of the British subjects who were arrested by the Venezuelan Government. We have already given such information as was in our possession, We received two telegrams from our Ambassador at Washington, one of them informing us that the United States Government had heard from the United States Minister at Caracas, in a message dated December 10, that all British and German subjects in Venezuela had been arrested. The United States Minister goes on to say,
  "This afternoon I shall see the President and urge him to release them all to-day."
  Then follows a telegram dated December 11, communicated by the Secretary of State. in which the United States Minister says—
  "The President informs me that he has released all British and Germans who were arrested."
  I think your Lordships will agree that we are much indebted for the good offices of the United States Minister in Caracas in these difficult circumstances.
  As to the sinking of the Venezuelan gunboats, the facts, as reported to us, are as follows: The Venezuelan gunboats were seized partly by the British and partly by the German ships of war. We are told that of the gunboats seized by the German ships of war it was found necessary to sink two. We have not received any official explanation of the circumstances, and it is obviously impossible for me to

  1109
  undertake, without such information, to explain under what stress of necessity these acts had to be resorted to. With regard to a statement in the Press that certain buildings have been bombarded by British ships, we have seen the statement, but we have received no official confirmation of it. For the rest, I cannot do better than refer the noble Earl to the Papers which are now on the Table of your Lordship's House.
  *EARL SPENCER: With regard to the two gunboats said to have been sunk, I see some account of his Majesty's ship "Retribution" conducting two of these Venezuelan vessels away. Does the sinking refer to these ships, or to the vessels seized by the Germans?
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: The remark refers entirely to the vessels seized by the German ships of war.

  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL. (THIRD READING.)
  Order of the day for the Third Reading read.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a."—(The Lord President.)
  *EARL SPENCER: My Lords, I rise to make a last and strenuous protest against the principle of this measure. I do not propose to go over the ground covered in the long and, I think, able debates on the Second Reading and in Committee. I only wish to show why I still feel opposition to the Bill. I wish to acknowledge the patience, ability and candour with which the noble Duke has conducted the Bill in this House. But I think it was my noble friend Lord Rosebery who spoke of the "adamantine front" presented by the noble Duke, and I feel that nothing has pierced that front. Not a single Amendment has been granted to those who agree with me. The Bishop of Hereford, who I think everybody will admit is a great educationist, and has shown great breadth of view, liberality, and, I will venture to say, courage in the course he has taken in this House, has also proposed some excellent and reasonable Amendments, but has been unable to break through that adamantine rock. There are various points on
  1110
  which I think this Bill will have a prejudicial effect. There is the dissolution of the School Boards, and, with it, the destruction of the special election of skilled educationists. There is the very delusive character, as I think it, of the education authority in the towns and the counties, by which a very important principle, to my mind, has been put in jeopardy and, in fact, sacrificed—namely, the popular representation of the people on the education bodies. I contend that the whole tendency of the Bill will be to throw the management of education from the representatives directly elected by the people to committees greatly made up of co-opted members.
  I wish also to refer to what I said in my speech on the Second Reading in regard to a subject which I still think contains the crux of the whole matter, and on which rests the chief opposition to the Bill in many quarters. I allude to the constitution of the boards of managers of voluntary schools. With regard to this point my noble friend Lord Rosebery criticised some remarks which the noble Duke made at the end of the debate on the Second Reading, and he and the noble Duke had a very spirited, able, and acute discussion upon it. The noble Duke referred to what he considered the rights of the State in this matter, and, with his candour, admitted that the Government thought it necessary to secure by the way they dealt with the managers in these voluntary schools religious instruction in them. I venture to differ from the noble Duke in what he said. The noble Duke pointed out that two-thirds of the cost of these voluntary schools would fall on the Exchequer, and about one-third upon the rates, and he therefore claimed that the State should have a predominant position on the boards of management. Well, my Lords, I agree with the noble Duke in saying that the State should have, probably, a majority in the management of these schools, but I entirely differ from him in regard to the way in which he obtains that majority, and also from the reasons for it. What Lord Rosebery said was that the taxpayers should be represented. The noble Duke said:— "How could the Exchequer be represented except by

  1111
  means of inspectors?" That is an argument which I do not agree with. Inspectors are appointed not only for education, but for many other things. There are inspectors of manufactories, of mines, and of other institutions. They are appointed, not because the State contributes towards those manufactories, but to protect women and children, and the other workers. I agree that the State should also have inspectors in regard to education, because it is necessary to see that proper education is given and that something like the same standard of education is maintained in different parts of the country. But I do not for one moment agree that this is the only way in which the State could be represented. I agree with Lord Rosebery that the taxpayer should be represented. The noble Duke said that could not be. Who are the people to whom we wish to give representation upon these education authorities? We wanted to give the electors the power of choosing the majority, if not the whole, of those who are to constitute these education authorities. And who represent the electors? The ratepayers. And who are the ratepayers? They are not only those who pay rates, but they are also taxpayers, and represent both interests in this matter. Then the noble Duke said the State—and in speaking of the State here he referred to the existing Government with its enormous majority—had a right to see that certain principles were maintained, and the only way of doing that was to secure a majority of the whole of the managers on these boards. I differ from that entirely. I maintain that these schools, in future, will become State schools. I am not going into the question, of what remains. I believe there is remaining a little residue of power to teach denominational religion in the schools. I maintain that the State should be independent of the voluntary teaching in religion, and it is not part of the duty of the State to pay for religious teaching in the schools. Then there is the question of the disqualification of the head teacher, which has led to great dissatisfaction in the country. You give protection to the assistant teacher and the pupil teacher
  1112
  with regard to their religion, but you omit the head teacher altogether.
  We hear a great deal as to the question of settlement. My complaint is that the Government have lost an opportunity of having a national settlement of the question. The settlement which they propose will only be a temporary one, so far as I know. I think the noble Viscount opposite said the other night that when another election came it would not be likely that the whole of this settlement would stand. I think there will be considerable objection to what has been proposed, and that the country will be disturbed by bickerings. I wish the Government had by a broad, wide, and comprehensive measure, settled this question for a long time to come. Nothing appears more clear than this, that the Government have proposed this Bill as a compromise, as a sort of concordat, between themselves and the Church. Having a number of voluntary schools under me, no doubt I shall benefit by the Bill; but I deeply regret that additional money has been asked for inconsistent with the dignity of the Church. There is one other great defect, and that is the deception with regard to the creation of one authority. The Bill in this respect has given satisfaction neither to the partisans of denominational education nor to the other side. It fails to establish a national, system of education, which is so important, and the Government have thus lost a golden opportunity of meeting the difficulty. I deeply regret that the Bill should become law. I protest against it. I fear that it will warp the education of the country and the momentous efforts which have been made to improve it, and I also fear that it will greatly increase religious animosity. I can only say that I hope I may be wrong, but as far as my humble endeavours will go, regarding the Bill as wrong in principle, and prepared as I am, if I have the opportunity, to reverse in Parliament some of its obnoxious principles, I for one shall try to work it, as long as the law of the land is not altered, so as to bring it into a state of useful utility for the purpose of spreading education In the country.
  *THE LORD BISHOP OF NEWCASTLE: My Lords, the position which those who sit on this Bench occupy is so unique and so different from that of the rest of your Lordships in reference to this Bill, that I trust the House will allow me to make a few observations in respect to what has fallen from the noble Earl. It seems to me there are two features of this Bill which are not necessarily controversial, and which both mark a very distinct educational advance. The first is that you have for the first time one authority set up in certain areas with power to co-ordinate primary and secondary education. Now, in reference to this authority it does seem to me that for the first time we have come to something like terra firma, because I cannot imagine, whatever changes may afterwards be made in reference to this Bill, or in reference to education, that the County Councils and the County Borough Councils will ever really lose the power which is given to them by this Bill. It seems to me you have a distinct principle that those who are elected for the purpose of dealing with the rates shall make the rates for education as well as for other purposes. Here you have a distinct principle laid down, and the only regret that I feel personally is that a concession has been made to small boroughs with populations exceeding 10,000 and to urban districts which have a population exceeding 20,000, a concession which seems to me in some respects to mar the efficiency of the Bill. But, with this exception, the principle seems to me to be a sound one. The areas are, on the whole, sufficiently large, and 1 have not a shadow of a doubt that this marks a very distinct educational advance.
  The second principle of the Bill, which in my opinion also marks an advance, is the fact that you have now for the first time an authority which deals with all the public elementary schools in the area, and deals with them as a whole. Hitherto we have had schools under voluntary managers and schools under School Boards, and the only sort of unity that has been given to them has been given j by a control from Whitehall; but in future there will be an authority in each area capable of dealing with these schools as a whole, and capable, I venture to
  1114
  think, of adapting them to the wants of the various localities. It is only when we come to the third principle of the Bill that we come really to what is keenly controversial ground. The third principle, as I take it, of this Bill is that it is one for bringing the voluntary schools into a national system without disturbing their basis and with adequate guarantees. Now, I know perfectly well that I am speaking of two points which are eminently and keenly controversial, but it does seem to me, in thinking this matter out, absolutely essential to separate them. Are you agreed on the first point—that is, without disturbing their basis? Because, if you consider this point the question is—How are you going to treat the voluntary schools? Are you going to rob them, are you going to ignore them, or are you going to come to terms with them? The noble Earl Lord Beauchamp said the other night that considerable grants had been made by Parliament for the building of these schools, and he said so with perfect truth. But none of these grants, which amount to £1,800,000, were made subsequent to the year 1870. The value of these buildings is something like £25,000,000, and I ask your Lordships if you do not think, even it every single voluntary school were closed tomorrow, the State would have had a good bargain in securing, in return for those grants, the use of these schools for all these years for secular and religious education.
  If you are not prepared to steal or ignore the voluntary schools, in which case the House of Commons would have to go to the country for an enormous sum, you must be prepared to come to terms with them, and, after all, there must be two parties to the bargain. It is impossible, therefore, for Parliament to propose conditions which the other party to the bargain would absolutely refuse to accept. We then come to the question of what really the voluntary schools are prepared to accept. There are two ways in which it was possible to preserve the denominational schools as denominational schools, and either of these courses might have been adopted by His Majesty's Government. It was quite open to the Government to say:

  1115
  We will give you statutory protection for your school; we will give you the protection, for instance, of having a headmaster or headmistress satisfactory to the denomination of the school; we will give you protection for the denominational teaching which shall be given within the school; we will give you ample protection so that your school shall not be handed over, by a mere snap majority, to the local authority, and, having done this, we will impose larger popular control. It was quite open to His Majesty's Government to have made some sort of proposal of this kind, and I should have preferred some such proposal myself. I am not in the least afraid of popular management, and if there had been something of the nature of statutory protection, I for one would have been quite willing to have assented to an arrangement by which half the managers should have been popularly elected. But it was no use making such a proposal when I knew perfectly well that I was in a minority in my own body in reference to this matter, and voluntary schools generally would not have accepted it. Therefore, in the circumstances, I naturally had to fall in with what seemed to be the second best proposal— namely, the one made by His Majesty's Government, by which there is a preponderance of foundation managers, but a sufficient number of other managers to give a guarantee that the public money will be properly spent.
  If you are determined to have denominational teaching you must do one of these two things, and if you cannot do the first you must do the second, and in that case it seems to me hardly fair to criticise the Government for not giving additional popularly-elected managers. When I know the great control that has been exercised hitherto by Whitehall, and when I look at the further control that will now be exercised by the local education authority, I cannot conceive what more is needed in order to insure the right dispensing of public money, whether from the rates or from the taxes. The strain upon the voluntary schools has been and is so serious that I and others on this Bench have had the greatest anxiety lest our schools should have to
  1116
  be given up. We have given our vote on the wear-and-tear Amendment as a protest against what appears to us to be not a quite equitable feature of the Bill. The noble Earl has almost charged this Bench with a breach of faith in reference to the wear-and-tear Amendment, but the noble Duke in charge of the Bill will, I am sure, acquit the representatives of the Church of any such charge, for he himself said he was perfectly well aware that the resolution of the two Convocations referred to structural repairs. What the Convocations implicitly agreed to was that the structural repairs should fall entirely on the managers, but they presumed that maintenance and wear-and-tear repairs would fall upon the local education authorities. With reference to fees and endowments given for the general use of the school, I think the equitable arrangement is that they should be divided between the managers, who have the up-keep of the school, and the local authority which has to pay the teaching, staff.
  As to what is known as the Kenyon-Slaney Amendment, with regard to which we have felt much anxiety, we are grateful to His Majesty's Government for the clear way in which the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has guarded the right of appeal in the case of schools which have trust-deeds. We only regret that they have not seen their way to extend this appeal to other schools which are absolutely denominational, and where, by some accident, or owing to ignorance of what was coming, no such appeal is-actually stated in terms. With reference, to what the noble Duke said about the bishops not having controlled certain practices of the clergy, I would point out that in certain parishes there are no trustees of the schools, and in many of the trust deeds no appeal to the Bishop is given. We further desired, if possible, that this appeal should be extended so as to apply not only de doctrina but de person.At the same time, I wish to say that I am not in the least afraid of the Clause as it stands. I believe it will not work badly, and I am prepared to accept the decision of Parliament in the matter. If I were to resume the duties of a parish clergyman, I would rather give

  1117
  religious instruction with the good will of the managers, one or two of them possibly Nonconformists, than give it under a trust deed which no layman had seen. Provided the clergy will throw themselves on the confidence of the people with whom they are working, they will find that the Clause will not work badly after all.
  I am much mistaken if the ultimate judgment of the people in England in this educational controversy will not depend less upon the soundness or unsoundness of the rival theories than upon the moral tone of those who are parties to the controversy in the treatment of the children. If the managers of Voluntary Schools are going to take umbrage at the conditions which have been imposed on them and to close their schools to the public; or if the County Councils are going to give a sullen acquiescence to the limitations imposed upon them in the Bill; or if the Nonconformists, in their very natural disappointment at their failure to secure an undenominational system of education, are going to attempt to wreck this Bill when it becomes law, then I believe that the ultimate judgment of this country will condemn a recklessness that mistakes prejudice for argument and self-will for law. If. on the other hand, the managers of voluntary schools are determined, despite untoward conditions which they little expected, to throw themselves upon the confidence of their people and do their very utmost to make the Bill work well; if the County Councils are determined to appoint their best men on these committees, recognising that there is nothing more important entrusted to them than this measure of education; if these men are willing to give their time, their skill, and their experience in the service of the State, and if our Nonconformist friends are determined, despite their disappointment, to endeavour to work the Bill loyally and so to win the approbation of the country for, perhaps, a further measure of popular management and control, then I am persuaded that, whatever the future of education in this country, this Bill will mark a very important epoch in educational progress in England. It is because I have these better hopes and because I believe that all parties will, despite the divisions of the past, endeavour, when this Bill becomes law, to give it a fair trial, that I,
  1118
  for one, before the measure leaves your Lordships' House, desire to wish it Godspeed.
  *THE EARL OF MOUNT EDGCUMBE: I cannot help regretting that the right rev. Prelate did not express his views as to the importance of giving a right of appeal to denominational schools in whose trust deed no such appeal is actually provided, when I moved my Amendment on the subject which was received with such discouraging silence.
  *LORT> STANMORE: My Lords, I do not rise to repeat what has been already said, and better said, by others on previous stages of the Bill, but I do wish before it leaves us to point out one or two practical matters with regard to its probable working which I think have not received as much attention as might, perhaps, have been expected. I shall not go into the general subject of the Bill itself, beyond saying this, that I think the debates which have taken place upon it have not disgraced the traditions of the House. They have shown on both sides the utmost fairness of thought and of speech, and they have not degenerated into anything unworthy of the speeches and discussions in this House in the past. Distance of place produces somewhat the same effect as distance of time, and I think that those who, like myself, have, un-unfortunately, lived long out of England, when they come back and find themselves unable to belong to any Party at all, sometimes see things a little more than most men as those a hundred years hence will see them; and I believe that the historian of the future, describing this debate and the discussions on this Bill, would come to this conclusion, that, on the one hand, His Majesty's Government have made an honest and fair attempt to settle this great and difficult question—whether they be right or wrong is another matter—and that, on the other hand, those noble Lords who have conducted the opposition to the Bill, though I do not think they have proved their case against it, have proved that it is a measure that will not finally settle this great question. It is, I believe, a measure of suspense, one which may make the way for a more complete settlement, but not one which we can expect to be permanent or enduring.

  1119
  But my object in rising was to call attention to some practical points in the Bill, and especially to that Clause which has been most debated and most discussed. The right rev. Bench appeared to be well satisfied with the Amendment passed in this House on the motion of the Lord Chancellor. I confess I regret that that Clause was introduced at all. I regret it, not on denominational grounds, but on grounds of a very much wider and larger scope. I regret it because I venture to think that it is always a mistake, and generally a misfortune, when measures of a far-reaching character intended to be permanent and affecting large numbers of men, are brought in for a temporary purpose, and with the intention of affecting comparatively few. Measures of that kind seldom succeed. Fifty years ago, an arrogant and tactless act on the part of the Pope led to a fury throughout the country, and caused the enactment of the Ecclesiastical Titles Act. Passed by enormous majorities both in this and the other House, that Act was repealed twenty years later without a single voice being raised in its favour. So, at a later period, the Public Worship Regulation Bill was brought in with the avowed intention of crushing a particular party in the Church. That Act has not been repealed. It exists still on the Statute-book, but it exists as a melancholy monument of impotent and futile legislation. I fear that this Clause in its inception had an object very similar, for we have been told by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack with—shall I say, robust frankness—that the Clause was intended entirely to check the excesses of certain self-willed and self-conceited individuals. The right rev. Bench seem to be extremely pleased with the appeal which has been granted to them. I doubt whether it will prove of the value they expect, and I doubt it for several reasons. In the first place, I think the House is hardly aware how very limited that appeal is. We all know that it does not apply to cases of schools which have no trust deeds, but, what is not so well known is that it will not apply to a large number of those schools which have trust deeds. I know, that in the Diocese with which I am best acquainted—the Diocese of Oxford—
  1120
  out of the number of schools having trust deeds only a very small proportion of them give an appeal to the Bishop. I find that the trust deed generally gives the religious superintendence to the clergymen of the parish, but does not mention the direct appeal to the Bishop. Therefore, I think the appeal will only apply to a comparatively limited number of cases.
  But to go beyond that, I say that the appeal, though useful as a means of punishment, ceases to be of the smallest value as a means of protection. If the managers make complaint of the teaching in the school, and an appeal is made to the Bishop, and the Bishop agrees that the teaching is objectionable, then, I admit, your appeal carries weight, and the clergyman is excluded without remedy But suppose it is the other way. Suppose the appeal is made by the clergyman, and the Bishop thinks the appeal was rightly made, and that the clergyman was in the right, he has no means of enforcing that decision, and I think we all know what, in a country parish, will be the action of the four fat farmers on the board of management who are now to take the control of religious education. They will say, "Oh! the Bishop thinks the parson's teaching is right. Well, we don't." And the Bishop has no power to make them readmit the parson to the school. As a punitive weapon against the clergy the Bill may be valuable, but as a preventative of abuse on the part of managers it is not. Again, there is a great evil likely to result from that appeal. The appeal is a final appeal, and the Bishop is empowered by it to state what is, and what is not, the doctrine of the Church of England. Now that seems to me very much to foment a dangerous tendency of setting up, as it were, an aggregation of dioceses instead of one Church of England. I say that there is already a tendency in that direction, because I think that the Government of the country, whether the present Government or any other Government, have always a great temptation to appoint to a diocese as its Bishop someone who is in harmony with the teaching and with the ideas of the Bishop who preceded him. It is a very natural and right feeling, but, at the same time, it does

  1121
  tend to foster a separate school of thought in each diocese and to keep them permanently different. That, it seems to me, will be rather accentuated by these appeals on the question of doctrine. We shall not hear a uniform voice, and that which is approved at Lincoln may be condemned at Liverpool; what is orthodox at Rochester may be heterodox at Carlisle. On the legal point, I do not know what force those decisions may have, but if the decision given is supposed tobe final as to what the doctrine of the Church of England is, I think the lawyers will be busy, for the right rev. Prelates will certainly not all agree. These seem to me to be practical difficulties in the way of working the Clause.
  There will be one other practical result of the Clause. We have heard a good deal of Nonconformists' grievances. We are told that the grievances of the Nonconformists are those to which we should specially attend. Well, then, I would say that there is one class of Nonconformists whom this Clause most prejudicially affects—I mean His Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects. Up to this time Roman Catholic schools have received large grants from the State for the education given in their schools. If the Clause is carried out in its entirety, if the religious teaching in Roman Catholic schools is committed to a body of whom the majority are laymen, and two of whom need not be Roman Catholics at all, it will be very difficult, if not impossible, for those schools to accept any grant whatever, and they will have established a very real grievance on their part. I will end by re-echoing the hope expressed by the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition, that when the Bill has become law all parties will consent to work so as to make it succeed.
  *THE LORD BISHOP OF ROCHESTER: My Lords, as one who did not trouble your Lordships with any remarks on the Second Reading, perhaps I may be allowed a few moments now for a perfectly definite purpose. I think that on all sides it must be admitted that this debate has been conducted with great courtesy and consideration for opponents, and certainly we on this Bench, have nothing to complain of in that
  1122
  respect. But the same thing cannot, I think, be said of the controversy outside. One charge aimed at the Episcopal Bench and those whom we represent has been urged in an especially offensive manner; the Bill has been described as stained with avarice and the expression "shameless greed" has been used. That charge, although it has never come up in this House, has, I think, certainly tinctured some of the remarks that have fallen from noble Lords. That such things should be attributed to the leaders of a religious body and that they should not even seem to care to reply would not be altogether good for the religious life of the country. Nobody, I suppose, would impute to the Bishops or the clergy a personal avarice in this matter, though I have seen a paper which apparently suggests that in some way the incomes of the clergy would be relieved or benefited by the passing of the Bill. Were it said that we were avaricious for our institution, it would not, of course, be enough to reply that we were conscientious in the policy which we have urged, as that might be said of many fanatical and misguided persons in different periods of history. But what we do say, plainly and publicly, is that we conscientiously believe that what we have asked and pressed for is consistent with those broad principles of liberty and justice as to which we stand on the same plane with our fellow-citizens.
  Our position is that, in a State where religious opinion is greatly divided, it is best, and fairest for the State frankly to acknowledge that division, and to provide within the area of its educational system for the various forms of conviction held. Why is there any difficulty about this? I find that we are met by certain opinions which are represented as political axioms. We are told, first, that no denominational institution or agency is entitled to any assistance from the State. That is a highly disputable proposition. The Church takes her stand on common denominational grounds, not on the ground of her establishment. Then we are told that undenominationalism is, or ought to be, satisfactory to everybody. It has always been very strange to me to suppose for a moment that by slicing across and selecting certain portions of

  1123
  men's deepest and most sacred convictions a residue can be obtained which is to be satisfactory to everybody. The noble Lord, the Chairman of the London School Board, in a speech which, if I may venture to offer an impertinent comment, was, I think, the weightiest made against the Bill, drew for us a picture in very concrete language of what undenominationalism was. He showed us how he and his colleagues desired to work it, and he brought us some interesting illustrations. I think the noble Lord would admit that it would not be necessary to go far into the utterances of those with whom the noble Lord is associated to find other definitions of undenominationalism. I find a description of it in which the Bible is to be used merely for literary and ethical purposes, and that use is defended in an apologetic kind of way. I recently read a very interesting report upon the educational system of another country whose history seems to me to be extremely impressive and edifying in this respect—I mean Holland. There was a system there which called itself Christian and also neutral, and where the neutrality was more self-evident than the Christianity which the noble Lord told us was included in the undenominationalism which he defends. As a matter of fact, undenominationalism does not satisfy us nor does it satisfy Roman Catholics and other religious bodies. It I say that I am quite aware that I tread on doubtful and debateable ground, it satisfies Nonconformists.
  One noble Lord opposite reminded the House that Nonconformists have, many of them, as strong denominational convictions as we have. I certainly should not attempt to combat that. But need we go into generalities on the matter? May I not confine myself to this statement, which I do not think admits of contradiction, namely, that after the Act of 1870, which established the undenominational system, the Nonconformists were at least so far satisfied with that system that, as a matter of fact, they gave up their schools; whereas the Church was so plainly dissatisfied with it, that she made considerable and self-sacrificing efforts to keep her schools going against the pressure of a competition which became every year more and more acute. I am quite aware—I should never
  1124
  attempt to dispute it—that secondary motives have assisted that effort on the part of the Church, and that some of what has been done has been due to an endeavour to keep out the rate in country parishes; but that, at any rate, does not apply to the efforts made in the towns where the rate has been all the while in full swing. The great efforts which the clergy in slum parishes have made to keep their schools going are a testimony to the importance which they set on denominational education. It does seem to me to be unfair that it should be laid against a body of men who hold the opinions we do that we are grasping, avaricious, greedy, shameless and the rest. In regard to more than one particular proposal, it has been said that the Church, or the Bishops, were not content with the very considerable advantages they were getting under this Bill, but were straining for more. All I have to say is that if a thing is to be done, it had better be done really and effectively. The Bill attempts to keep the voluntary schools in existence. If it does not succeed in that effort it will not be to the credit of the statesmanship of His Majesty's Government, and it will be to their disappointment. As a matter of fact, what was proposed in the Bill was not what we as representing the Church had said to be necessary for the purpose. I want to make it perfectly clear that what we on our part thought to be necessary for the help of the schools was not what the Government proposed. These are the terms of the Resolution passed by the two Convocations last year—
  "That all schools be financed as far as the cost of maintenance, exclusive of repairs of the structure of voluntary schools, is concerned, out of public funds, whether Imperial or local."
  His Majesty's Government found, as they thought, that they could not give so great a relief as that. The relief which they proposed to give to the voluntary schools was not so great as had been asked for, and it is not surprising, therefore, that Churchmen should be glad to see the lacuna filled up in part in any reasonable way. This was the motive which induced my right rev. brother the Bishop of Manchester to move his Amendment, and if it is acknowledged that the general position is honourable,

  1125
  and that the policy is one which ought to be carried through successfully, I do not see why the epithets I have quoted should be used. the noble Earl the Leader of Opposition has told the House that he hopes the bill will be a great relief to him as an owner of schools in point of money.
  *EARL SPENCER: I did not say I hoped it would.
  *THE LORD BISHOP OF ROCHESTER: At any rate, I would not advise the noble Earl to build too confidently on that relief. I do not know how the County Council of Northamptonshire will behave, but I shall not be at all surprised if the demands of the local education committee for repairs of the buildings will make him find that his net advantage will not be so great as he either hopes for fears. It is for this reason that I desire to accept the bill as a very important vindication of what I will call the denominational principle in education, that method of justice and freedom in religious matters which an acknowledgment of the denominational principle implies. It is not, of course, the only way in which you can acknowledge and vindicate the denominational principle. You might have another system altogether, and that system has sometimes been described in rather glowing language as a broad, national system, in which you would give to all denominations the right of coming in in their own time and at their own cost, and giving instruction. But as regards any system of that kind the door for the time being has been shut, if not slammed, by noble Lords who sit opposite. An alternative method of recognising denominational rights cannot be adopted until noble Lords opposite, and those whom they represent, are so far converted from the principle of universal and intolerant undenominationalism, as to be ready to open the way to something of the kind.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The Duke of DEVONSHIRE): My Lords, I have in the first place to express my acknowledgment of the extremely fair manner in which the noble Earl opposite referred to the discussions
  1126
  which have taken place in this House, and also to the assurance which he gave of his desire that the measure when it passes into law will receive a fair trial, and that it may realise the anticipations formed of it. I wish, however, that language as moderate and conciliatory as that employed by the noble Earl had been used by some of his colleagues in debate. I think that we have heard other utterances which pointed, not to any attempt to make the best of a measure which they did not approve, but to an attempt to make the Bill unworkable. The noble Earl complained of the attitude which has been assumed by the Government with reference to the Amendments which have been moved in Committee, and he also complained of what he described as the adamantine front which I had opposed to them. I do not know whether the noble Earl has carefully considered what these Amendments have been. If the noble Earl will scrutinise these Amendments, I think he will find that either they have related to points of comparative detail, to which he cannot attach any very great importance, or to such points as were utterly inconsistent with the principle and main object of the Bill. I have here the list of divisions taken in Committee. Among the divisions are those which receive the support of the noble Lords opposite, and which have been of an important character. Lord Beauchamp proposed to make the provision of secondary education compulsory. The noble Earl opposite has made it a subject of complaint that we did not accept that Amendment. I do not think that we could have accepted it—I do not think he could even have desired that we should have accepted it—because it imposed on the County Councils the duty of at once framing a scheme for the provision of secondary education throughout their area.
  *EARL SPENCER: I voted for the Amendment.
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: But I doubt whether, if we had proposed it, the noble Earl would have supported the proposal to impose upon the County Council of Northamptonshire without delay the provision of a complete system of secondary education. Next there was the Conscience Clause for scholars in

  1127
  boarding schools. I conceive that some noble Lords opposite may attach importance to it, but it is a question of detail rather than of principle. The next important Amendment was moved by the Bishop of Hereford, in which he proposed to reverse the proportions of the foundation and popularly appointed managers. That comes under the category to which I referred of Amendments that were absolutely subversive of the principle of the Bill, for the principle of the Bill, as I have endeavoured to impress on your Lordships, is that schools having a definite denominational character should be maintained and retained, and some security should be taken for their retention. The proposal would have been absolutely subversive of any idea of security to such a body. Then the right rev. Prelate proposed to abolish the use of tests in the case of head teachers. It is difficult to see how a school can retain its distinctive religious character if it is within the option of an undenominational majority to appoint a teacher of a different religious belief, or of no religious belief at all. The noble Earl next complained that the Bill destroyed the School Boards and substituted education committees in the management, not only of non-provided, but of existing provided schools. But I must point out to the noble Earl that so little importance did he or his friends attach to this provision of the Bill that they did not even move an Amendment on the subject and, with the exception of the noble Earl's speech in moving the rejection of the Bill, we, have heard very little objection taken to the substitution of municipal authorities for specially elected School Boards. The noble Earl referred to the controversy between Lord Rosebery and myself as to inadequate popular representation on the management of the denominational schools. What I said, and what I am prepared to adhere to, is that the fact that the ratepayers of a district contribute one-third of the cost of maintenance of a school does not confer on the ratepayers any right to a dominant share in the management of the school. I still think that mainly the schools being maintained by the taxpayers, it is they, and not the ratepayers, who contribute only an extremely small part of the cost of maintenance, who have a right to the predominant influence in the management of the school.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: Let me ask the noble Duke, for the last time— Are not the ratepayers taxpayers?
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: They are, but they do not represent the whole of the taxpayers. The larger share of the cost of maintenance of these schools is contributed by the income-taxpayers and the other payers of Imperial taxes, whom the ratepayers have no claim to represent. It is Parliament alone that can represent these taxpayers, and it is the bounden duty of Parliament on their behalf to exercise a predominant influence in the constitution of the body which is to have the management and control of the schools. The Bishop of Newcastle expressed regret that the Government had not been able to concede an appeal to the Bishop in all cases; and, in reference to what I said about the Bishops not having controlled certain practices of the clergy, he pointed out that in certain parishes there were no trustees of the schools, and in many of the trust deeds no appeal to the Bishop was given. But what I pointed out was that in our opinion a Bishop ought to be able to exercise a controlling influence over his clergy altogether distinct from any formal powers of decision which might be conferred upon him within the terms of a trust deed. What we and many have felt has been that a comparatively small minority of the clergy have carried on or tolerated practices in the schools which most of us regret, and which I think members of the episcopate regret, and that the Bishops have been either unwilling or unable to exercise such influence over those members of their Church as would have sufficed to put a stop to these practices. And seeing the very little influence which in some of these cases the Bishops have been able to exercise, I do not think it was unreasonable that we should have some doubt about conferring on the Bishops the power to decide whether a certain clergyman should or should not be the sole person entrusted with the management of religious education. Before this discussion closes I should like to point out the feature which has most struck me in it, and that is the entire absence during the whole of these debates of any alternative plan or suggestion of a plan

  1129
  likely to meet with any amount of support from any considerable body of opinion, or unlikely to lead to resistance and objection equal to that which has been offered to our proposals. When I speak of a plan, I do not, of course, refer to a plan embodied in an Act of Parliament. I refer to the utter absence of any basis for a plan.
  *EARL SPENCER: More popular representation.
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: To introduce a larger popular representative basis into our plan would entirely subvert it. Noble Lords opposite have never indicated to us on what basis they would themselves propose to deal with this question. The only suggestion of an alternative policy which we have heard, either in this House or the other, has been that embodied in the Amendment moved in this House by Lord Lytton and in the other House by Lord Hugh Cecil. In the other House it received the support of a very small minority, although its principle was favourably received by the Prime Minister. It was opposed by the great majority of the supporters of the Government and also by the leaders of the Opposition. In this House it met with a reception of a different character. It enlisted the support of a very much larger proportion of Conservatives; but here, as in the other House, it was resisted by noble Lords opposite with only one exception. The one recruit which the proposal obtained in this House was Lord Rosebery, who gave to it a qualified support. But it is extremely doubtful how far it would have been possible for the right rev. Prelates and the lay Lords on these Benches to go in support of such a proposal with the noble Earl. Those who voted in favour of the proposal on this side of the House regarded it as an addition to the Bill. But the noble Earl, I conceive, only voted for it as a substitution for our Bill and not as an addition to it. A complete and satisfactory substitute for our proposals had never been suggested by any body of political opinion. The position of the regular Opposition is that they have confined themselves entirely, I will not say to misrepresentation of
  1130
  our measure, but at all events to destructive criticism. We have before us an Opposition which, as far as we can judge from their speeches, are still hankering after a universal undenominational system. But, if that is their opinion, they have never challenged the opinion either of this House or of the other House on that solution. The only basis of a constructive character which has been suggested in either House of Parliament is the one to which I have alluded. It has been rejected by an enormous majority in the other House, and is only supported by a Party here which is far from being united. I maintain, therefore, that we have only criticism of a destructive character to meet; there is no question before your Lordships of a rival policy. What is the objection which is taken to our proposal? It is that a new grievance has been created by this Bill—a grievance affecting the ratepayers generally, and the Nonconformist ratepayers especially.
  *EARL SPENCER: It is not a new grievance. It is a grievance aggravated by the circumstance of the enormous increase of the grant.
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: The grievance consists in the fact that a certain addition to the public provision for Church schools—it is a short word for denominational schools, and I use it to include all denominational schools—is not to be accompanied by a grant to the ratepayers of a predominant influence in the management of these schools. I say such a grievance has not been created by this Bill; and it is not aggravated by this Bill. For thirty years past these schools have been mainly maintained from public sources. They have been maintained to such an extent that, as we have been told by the Bishop of London and by the Bishop of Manchester, the Government grants have, in the case of many schools in the large towns, more than covered the whole of the cost of maintenance other than that of internal repairs, and the position of these schools under the Bill will be worse than it has been up to the present time. But these Church schools, that have thus been supported almost wholly from public sources up till now, have had no

  1131
  element of popular control except such as was exercised by the Board of Education through the Elementary School Code and through its inspectors. This Bill, in consideration of an increased subvention— a subvention from the rates— introduces, for the first time, the element of popular control over the whole of the secular education, and, to a certain extent, over the denominational teaching in these schools. That is the sole extent of the grievance, and the extent and scope of it has been enormously, I might almost say grossly, exaggerated. There has scarcely ever been an attempt made to excite popular passion and religious prejudice resting on so small and so slender a foundation.
  Perhaps it cannot be said that it is altogether a credit to Parliamentary institutions that public opinion is still to so large an extent misinformed, or imperfectly informed, as to the main issues which are involved in the Bill. It must, I am afraid, be admitted that even here a far larger part of our discussion has been centred on sectarian issues than upon educational issues. This Bill contains principles of great educational value and importance. Co-ordination, I know, is not a word that finds much favour, and I cannot profess any great affection for it myself; but it does mean an attempt to substitute order in our educational system for what is now admitted to be a state of chaos. The proposals in this Bill are an attempt—and I believe will be found to be a successful attempt— to establish that co-ordination, and to replace the existing chaos by something approaching a well-organised system. It is not, I think, fitting that the efficiency of any of our public schools should depend on the liberality, I might almost say the charity, of any private individual. This Bill establishes the principle that the efficiency of our schools is no longer to depend upon the support they may I receive from any individual; it makes a public authority responsible for the efficiency of every public elementary school. It is neither fitting nor tolerable, I think, that any public school in which our children are to be eudcated for the work of their lives should be under the sole control of any man. This Bill does put an end, once for all,
  1132
  to the possibility of one-man management in a public elementary school. I submit that this Bill does contain, and does give effect to, principles of great educational value, and that the sectarian issues which have been raised— the sectarian grievances, the dimensions of which I have just attempted to define—ought not to have weight in our consideration of these great educational advantages. My Lords, I trust we are about to pass this Bill; and it will be the duty of all of us to endeavour to turn our thoughts from the barren controversies carried on amongst us, honestly, I admit, as to the sectarian issues involved, to the subject of education. If these controversies are carried from the arena of Parliament into the arena of every County Council and Borough Council, then, I admit, I shall have little hope that we shall ever be able to raise the level of our educational system to that which has been attained in many other countries. But if this should not be the case, and if, as I hope and believe, the common-sense and practical ability of our countrymen—which. I fear, does not always find full expression in Parliamentary debate—should find a fuller expression in the bodies to which we have entrusted the important duties of local administration, then, I believe and confidently expect, this measure will be found capable of conferring enormous benefits upon the country and the people who inhabit it.
  On Question, agreed to; Bill read 3 accordingly.
  *THE EARL OF WEMYSSmoved to amend Clause 2 (power to aid higher education) by adding the following proviso at the end of sub-Section 1—
  "Provided also that no important steps shall be taken for the promotion of higher education by the local education authority without the assent of the ratepayers being previously obtained."
  He asked their Lordship's indulgence, as he was afraid that in moving this Amendment he might say things which were not quite in sympathy with the educational trend of the day. His Amendment referred to higher education, but before he proceeded to that, he desired to say a few words on the way in

  1133
  which the Bill dealt with voluntary schools and elementary education. Having read what has appeared in the papers with reference to voluntary schools, he was convinced that the denominational feeling was so strong that if the Government had not touched these schools they would not have perished or been thrown on the ratepayers. But the Government had thought it necessary to deal with them, and they had done so in a fair and reasonable way. As regarded elementary education, there had been a change in the Bill. In the Bill, as it was originally drafted, it was provided that elementary education was to be confined to reading, writing, and arithmetic. He was glad that these words had disappeared, because he thought that elementary education ought to extend beyond that. His Amendment referred specially to higher education. There was an excellent old saying that he who paid the piper should call the tune, or, at least, have a share in the calling of the tune; but here was a Bill which imposed taxation on the ratepayers and gave them no control over the expenditure. No doubt it would be said that they had control in electing the education authority; but that control was only punitive. If the local education authority did anything that the ratepayers disapproved of, they could be turned out of office when their term expired—but that was shutting the stable door after the steed had been stolen. He strongly urged that there should be some such control as that provided in his Amendment. The decision in the Cockerton case was that it was not within the power of a School Board to expend money raised by local rates upon any education other than elementary, even though such education was prescribed by the Code. This Bill set that aside, and allowed the rates to be used for higher education. Speaking at Greenock, Lord Balfour of Burleigh summarised the object of the Bill in these words—
  "All cramping restrictions were swept away. The local authority might spend as much money as it chose, in the way it chose, and on the subject it chose, for pupils of any age. It might charge a fee, or it might charge no fee, and it might go up to whatever grade of education it liked. The whole cost of secular education would be paid for by public funds, and would be under popular control."
  1134
  He denied that it would be under popular control, because the evil could be done before that control could take effect. What did this mean? It added another R to our educational system—it added wrangling to reading, writing, and arithmetic, because they thus might educate children at the public cost almost to the point when they might become Wranglers, and if successful what good would it do them? He asked an educational friend of his if he had ever seen a Wrangler, and he replied that he had seen one who had risen from a humble sphere of life, and that he was a bundle of bones with green spectacles, of no use to himself or to anybody else. He thought the hardearned money of the ratepayers should not be spent in producing men of this kind. The Member for his county had said that our provision of University teaching was miserably inadequate, and contrasted shockingly with that in the United States and on the Continent, and he added that—
  "It would be necessary very largely to increase the assistance given by Parliament to teaching of the tertiary order."
  So they were to have teaching of a tertiary order, and all that that implied. It was supposed that on the Continent they were better educated, and that our trade was suffering in consequence. He believed that to be a senseless parrot-cry; and in order to get to the bottom of the matter he went to the Board of Trade and obtained from the permanent officials Blue-books which went into the whole question. Here was the conclusion arrived at by the permanent head of the Statistical Department upon the statistics which had been collected—
  "Industry and manufactures abroad, particularly in the United States and Germany, have become much bigger things than they were. It is necessary, therefore, more than ever that the change of conditions should be recognised, and we can hardly expect to maintain our past undoubted pre-eminence without strenuous efforts and careful energetic improvements in 'method.' "
  I It was not a question of education, but of method and—
  "The problem as to how this could be remedied was of vital interest to all classes of the industrial and commercial community alike, though the assistance which the State could give in the matter must necessarily be of a very limited character."

  1135
  There were 171 Consular Reports, the substance of which was that British manufacturers did not go the right way to work. They sent out men ignorant of the language of the country to which they went, and who made up for that by distributing a number of catalogues and other things printed in English. The Germans, on the contrary acted quite differently, and it was obvious that this was more a matter of method than of education. It was said that our education was faulty, but in these reports it was stated by a German thoroughly conversant with the subject that as good a technical education could be got in this country as in Germany, but that its application was faulty. Only ten days ago the noble Lord the Chairman of the London School Board, in opening a new school, stated that an educational expert from Japan had come to the conclusion, after seeing the schools of the London School Board, that our system of education was better than any that could be got in Germany. There was another cause for trade leaving this country, or for the trade of other countries increasing—namely, wages. He would give the House one instance with regard to this question of wages and trade. He went the other day to the house of Mr. Mempes, the artist, which was being re-decorated by means of beautifully carved wood made in Japan. What did their Lordships think were the wages of the men who did this beautiful work in Japan? Why, 6d. a day, and so poor were they on this wage that they lived on vegetables, and twice a week had a treat consisting of fish heads and tails because they could not afford the bodies. Could they wonder, therefore, at the cheapness of articles brought into this country, and at our being undersold? Having, as he thought, shown that in the opinion of experts our system of education was not defective, and that the question was one of method, he now came to the question of cost. The cost of education had greatly exceeded the amount contemplated by Mr. Forster in 1870. It was then said that the rate would be 3d. in the £ at the outside. The present rate in West Ham was 2s. 6d. in the £ This was the cost of education under the existing law. He had obtained from an expert the fact that education in England and Wales alone
  1136
  cost £12,300,000. He asked this same expert how much extra he would require before he would undertake to run this Bill, and he replied that he would be very sorry to do it under £10,000,000; therefore, they were getting on nicely. They would possibly have bodies to manage this Act consisting of educational faddists who would think nothing of the ratepayer, but only of having the most perfect and expensive system in their part of the country. He held very respectfully that the ratepayer, the man who paid the piper, ought to have a voice in calling the tune. The education authorities were no doubt elected, but after their election they could spend what they liked, and their punishment did not come until they were turned out by the ratepayers, if, indeed, the ratepayers would take the trouble to do that. His experience, however, was that, without any exception, the most asinine beast of burden that nature had yet produced was the British ratepayer. There were precedents for what he proposed in the Borough Funds Act, which enacted that a municipal authority could not promote a Bill for new powers without first obtaining the sanction of the ratepayers, and in the Public Health Act of 1879. There was also a precedent even in the present Bill, for if the building of a new school was not thought necessary, any ten ratepayers might appeal to the Board of Education. He contended that the precedent which they applied to one description of education should apply to the other, and that the ratepayer should have a voice when important steps were proposed to be taken for the promotion of higher education.
  Amendment moved—
  "In Clause 2, page 2, line 5, after ' fix,' to insert 'provided also that no important steps shall be taken for the promotion of higher education by the local education authority without the assent of the ratepayers being previously obtained.'"—(The Earl of Wemyss.)
  *LORD REAYsaid he could reassure the noble Earl that the Bill did not deviate from the Cockerton judgment. It placed the age limit for elementary education at sixteen, and Mr. Justice Wills, in his judgment, said that—
  "He supposed that at somewhere between sixteen and seventeen at the highest, an age has been arrived at which no one would ordinarily call childhood."

  1137
  As regards the rating power for higher education, that was not new, but was only extended. It already existed in connection with technical instruction. As to the expenditure likely to arise under the Bill, if the noble Earl looked at the amount which was spent in France and in Germany on technical and technological education from public sources, he would find that we spent, in comparison, an infinitesimal sum. He did not think that, under the Bill, this sum would be very materially increased, at all events, in the counties, although England, not less than Scotland, required agricultural and forestry schools. The school to which the Japanese expert referred to by Lord Wemyss paid such a high compliment was one of the London higher grade board schools. He said that he had seen nothing equal to the extent of the syllabus of work for the upper part of the school in Germany and in other Continental countries. That school under the Bill would retain its character of a higher elementary school. What struck the Japanese expert particularly was that our system of education gave greater freedom to the teachers, and allowed scope for their individuality. Before concluding, he wished to point out to the Bishop of Rochester that in his speech this evening on the Third Reading of the Bill, he had erroneously stated that in the Netherlands the system of religious instruction was undenominational in the sense in which, it is understood in England. In a communal school in Holland such religious instruction as is given in the London Board Schools cannot be imparted. It is excluded by the Education Act.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (The Marquess of LONDONDERRY:)I gather that the effect of the noble Earl's Amendment will be that whenever the education authority propose to build a new technical school or to inaugurate a big scheme of scholarships, a meeting of the ratepayers must be held to consider the matter. The ratepayers, no doubt, may form some idea as to what the proposal would cost, and as to what charge it might entail upon the rates. But any such judgment of theirs on these points would
  1138
  necessarily be inferior to that which the Council and its finance committee would make. The financial interests of the ratepayers are surely quite sufficiently safe in the hands of their elected representatives. Surely the ratepayers are not the proper persons to revise the advice of the education committee. The proposal of the noble Earl, if accepted, would almost certainly impede the education progress of the area over which the authority is responsible. It is perfectly true that in this Bill ten ratepayers have the right, if they think fit, to protest, but they can do no more than protest; but if this Amendment were carried it would result in nothing being able to be done unless the assent of all the ratepayers had been obtained. I maintain that if this Amendment were carried it would be almost impossible to find any responsible body who would undertake the duties.
  On Question, Amendment negatived.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBURY): I wish to draw attention to the fact that there are a number of Amendments, the greater part of which are alleged to be mere drafting Amendments, of which no notice has been given. I would remind your Lordships that on the Third Reading of a Bill, Amendments are not generally admissible unless notice has been given of them; but as the Report stage was, under very unusual circumstances, taken on Saturday, there has been no opportunity of following the usual procedure, and of putting down the Amendments. If your Lordships should think fit to treat the Amendments according to the strict rule, I am afraid the only result will be that we shall have to meet again tomorrow upon them. In the circumstances your Lordships will probably think we might waive the strict rule and allow the Amendments to be discussed forthwith.
  *EARL SPENCER: The situation which has just been explained shows the great inconvenience to your Lordships of postponing important stages of a Bill to so late a period of the session. I think, that in the circumstances we can hardly object to drafting Amendments being proceeded with, but I wish particularly to say that in our opinion this is a rule

  1139
  which ought to be most strictly adhered to, and only waived under the most urgent circumstances.

  Drafting Amendments agreed to
  THE DUKE OF NORFOLKmoved to add the following proviso at the end of the sub-Section of Clause 7, which deals with the contribution of the local authority for the wear and tear of the schools—
  "This obligation on the local education authority shall throw no additional charge on any public fund."
  This, he said, was a purely formal Amendment, and was only intended to bring the Bishop of Manchester's Amendment into conformity with the rules of privilege laid down by the authorities in another place.
  Amendment moved—
  "In Clause 7, page 4, line 39, after 'authority' to insert 'but this obligation of the local education authority shall throw no additional charge on any public funds.'"—(The Duke of Norfolk.)
  *EARL SPENCER: This Amendment is not on the Paper, and until your Lordships have it before you, it is impossible to grasp its purport. It must necessarily alter the position of affairs in regard to the important Amendment of the Bishop of Manchester, but I am not at all sure how it will work out. If it had been brought in for the purpose of annulling the whole Clause I should not so much object to it; but if it means merely that the Clause is not to throw on the rates an additional charge, then the rates which would be available for some very important matters of education may be diverted to pay for wear and tear instead of paying for these matters. I protest against this proposal, which certainly goes beyond a mere drafting Amendment, and I am not sure that we ought to accept it without further discussion.
  THE EARL OF HALSBURY: Perhaps the noble Earl will allow me to explain. I am dealing with two different things. One is the ordinary form of procedure in this House. After we have gone through all the Clauses on which we might raise the merits, one of the ordinary forms at the end of every Bill is to put the question that the privilege Amendments be agreed
  1140
  to. But this Amendment moved by tho noble Duke is practically the same thing; it does not really, and cannot in itself, affect the Clause. But it allows the question to be discussed in the House of Commons. But for this Amendment, the Amendment already inserted might be rejected without discussion at all. In that way I think the Amendment of the Duke of Norfolk does not come within the ordinary rule about Third Reading Amendments because it is one of those which we almost always put in at the end of every Bill when the question of finance arises.
  *EARL SPENCER: I think that the Amendment not only raises the question of privilege, but affects the merits of the finance of the whole Bill. It is a very serious Amendment, and I do not think we ought to accept it without a division
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I understand that the only effect of the Amendment is to enable the other House, if it thinks fit, to discuss the Amendment of the Bishop of Manchester, which has already been agreed to, without the necessity of rejecting it summarily on a question of privilege. The noble Earl opposite is, of course, perfectly justified in objecting to the Amendment if he wishes to do so, but it is so important that the other House should not summarily dismiss the change in the Bill introduced by the Bishop of Manchester that we must support the noble Duke. If the noble Earl objects to discussing it now, we shall be under the necessity of meeting again tomorrow.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: I shall vote against the Amendment, on the ground that I do not think it is desirable that the Amendment of the Bishop of Manchester should be discussed in the other House; because I hold that your Lordships' House had no right to introduce it into the Bill at all. Having introduced an Amendment into the Bill, which it is not in the power of this House to rightly introduce, it seems to me to be a ridiculous thing to nullify it and whittle it away by the Amendment of the noble Duke, so that it really means nothing at all. What is the good of charging the cost of wear and tear on the local authority if the local authority is not to be allowed to charge it on the

  1141
  rates? I do not think any of us wish to be so churlish as to cause your Lordships to meet tomorrow to discuss it, but we shall certainly divide against the Amend-
  Verbal Amendments agreed to.
  Lord RIBBLESDALEmoved, as an Amendment to the Clause relating to the constitution of the education committees, to insert the words "or recommendation." after the word "nomination," With the object of enabling the Council to appoint representatives on a committee on the recommendation, as well as on the nomination, of other bodies. He was glad to say that the noble Duke had indicated his willingness to accept the Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  'In Clause 17, 11, line 1, to leave out of nomination and insert 'recommendation.—
  (Lord Ribblesdale.)
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I am ready on this occasion to relax my "adamantine front," and accept the Amendment.
  ment, because we believe the House has exceeded its power.
  On Question, their Lordships divided: —Contents, 56; Not-Contents, 17.

  CONTENTS.

  Halsbury. E. (L. Chancellor)

  Stanford, E.

  Belper, L.

  Devonshire, D. (L. President)

  Stanhope, E.

  Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

  Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

  Brougham and Vaux, L.

  Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal.)

  Verulam, E.

  Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

  Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]

  Congleton, L.

  Aileshury. M.

  Dunboyne, L.

  Bath, M.

  Churchill, V. [Teller]

  Ellenborough, L.

  Hertford, M.

  Colville of Culross V.

  Forester, L.

  Lansdowne, M.

  Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

  Gage, L. (V. Gage.) James, L.

  Clarendon, E. (L. Chamberlain.)

  Kuntsford, V.

  Kenyon, L.

  Llandaff, V.

  Kintore, L.

  (E. Kintore.)

  Denbigh, E.

  Lawrence, L.

  Doncaster, E. (D. Bucclenuch and Queensberry.)

  Newcastle, L. Bp.

  Macnaghten, L.

  Rochester, L. Bp.

  Ormathwaite, L.

  Hard wicke, E.

  Winchester, L. Bp.

  Robertson, L

  Hillsborough, E. (M. Downshire.)

  Addington, L.

  Somerton, L.(E. Normanton.)

  Leven and Melville, E.

  Allerton, L.

  Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloray.)

  Morley, E.

  Ashbourne, L.

  Windsor, L.

  Onslow, E.

  Avebury, L.

  Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

  Romney, E.

  Balfour, L.

  Selborne, E.

  Belhaven and Stenton, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Breadalbane, M.

  Hampden, V.

  Monkswell, L. Reay, L.

  Buckingham, E.

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

  Ribblesdale, L.[Teller.]

  Carrington, E.

  Brassey, L.

  Sandhurst, L.

  Spencer, E.

  Burghelere, L.

  Tweedmouth, L.

  Coleridge, L.

  Welby, L.

  Gordon, V. (E. Aberdeen.)

  Dennan, L. [Teller]

  On Question, Amendment agreed to.

  *Viscount LLANDAFFmoved the insertion of a new Clause. He said the Amendement was of rather a technical character. The Act of Parliament which went commonly by the name of the Charitable Trusts Act, 1888, laid down a number of condition and provisions which were to apply to the creation of charitable uses, but it excepted three sets of charitable uses, viz., grants of land for the purposes of a public park, a public museum and an elementary school. Grants of land for these three purposes were taken out of the ordinary provisions of the Charitable Trusts Act, subject to two conditions, viz., that their must elapse twelve months between the grant of the land and the death of the donor and that the grant should be enrolled with the Charity Commissioners. Considerable inconvenience had arisen from both those limitations. It had happened in many cases that the donor had died within twelve months after he had granted the

  1143
  land, and therefore his grant was void. This condition was for the purpose of preventing the improper procuring of a grant, but the grant of land for an elementary school was really of advantage to no individual, and the reason for requiring the twelve months to elapse before the death of the testator hardly applied The condition that the grant should be enrolled with the Charity Commissioners caused great expense to those who wished to found elementary schools. Parliament had permitted Orders in Council to transfer the whole subject of educational trusts from the Charity Commissioners to the Board of Education, and therefore the reason for enrolling the deed with the Charity Commissioners had ceased to exist. Under the Bill no new school could be opened without the Board of Education being consulted and its approval of the scheme obtained. Therefore he hoped the noble Duke would accept his Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  "After Clause 8, page 6, to insert the following new Clause, 'the Mortmain and Charitable Uses Act, 1888, and so much of the Mortmain and Charitable Uses Act, 1891, as requires that land assured by will shall be sold within one year from the death of the testator, shall not apply to any assurance, within the meaning of the said Act of 1888, of land for the purpose of a school house for an elementary school.'"—(Viscount Llandaff.)
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I accept the Amendment.
  THE EARL OF HALSBURY: I think the Amendment is very pertinent, and should be accepted.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Drafting Amendments agreed to.
  Bill passed, and returned to the Commons; and to be printed as amended. (No. 202.)

  BRITISH TRADERS ON THE CONGO
  *LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that the British firms trading in the Free Trade Zone of the Conventional Basin of the Congo have been compelled to close their factories on account of a decision of the Court of Libreville, that their trading forest products is illegal, and that in the
  1144
  adjacent French territory (French Congo), outside the Free Trade Zone, they have been fined heavily for not removing their goods and buildings after the stoppage of their trade; and whether he can give any information as to the position of the negotiations of His Majesty's Government with the French Government for the redress of these wrongs. I am putting this Question at the request of the Liverpool Chamber of Commerce. We do not intend any reflection on the central French Government, because we are all aware of the difficulty of controlling agents at a distance, but in this case the action of the local authorities does appear to have been very high-handed. I have also given private notice to the noble Marquess that I would ask whether he an lay any Papers or correspondence on the Table.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, the subject to which the Question refers is one which has for some time past constantly engaged the attention of His Majesty's Government. The facts, speaking generally, are as tated by the noble Lord in his Question, and I am bound to say that, apart from he legal aspects of the case, it does seem to us to be one of very considerable hardship. The firms to whom the noble Lord's Question refers are the firms which really may be said to have created the existing trade in this part of West Africa, and they are now threatened with a complete loss of that trade in consequence of action on the part of the local authorities which we, as at present advised, certainly regard as involving very great hardship and injustice. At the suggestion of the French Government, representaives of these firms came to Paris, and were received in a very considerate manner by the authorities of the French Colonial Office. Various proposals were made to them, which, however, I am sorry to say, they did not find it possible to accept. At one moment it was suggested to them that their business might be taken over by the French Concessionaire Companies, but that arrangement also fell through. In July of last year His Majesty's Government proposed to the French Government that the case should be referred

  1145
  to arbitration; we have not yet received a reply to that proposal. In the meanwhile, I am sorry to say it is the case that actions have been brought against the firms in the local courts, and they have been fined for the infringement of the rights of the French Concessionaire Companies. I have said enough to show that we are watching the case, which we regard as one of some importance, and we shall spare no pains in order to obtain redress for the persons in whom the noble Lord is interested.
  *LORD AVEBURY: I have no interest in these firms except the general interests of British commerce. I have nothing to do with these particular firms. I should like to ask whether correspondence relating to these matters can be laid on the Table.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I will enquire whether there are any Papers that can be laid.

  LONDON WATER BILL.
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  Clause 1:—
  *VISCOUNT HAMPDENmoved to leave out sub-Section 3 (which provides for the constitution of the board), in order to insert an Amendment constituting the Water Board of thirty-three members, besides the chairman and the vice-chairman, and allotting fourteen to the London County Council, two each to the City, Essex, and West Ham; three to Kent; four to Middlesex; three to Surrey; and one each to Hertfordshire, the Thames Conservancy, and the Lee Conservancy. He felt some compunction in putting this Amendment on the Paper, because it seemed to him the discussion of this question had become somewhat unprofitable—unprofitable in the sense that all the arguments seemed to be on the one side, and all the voting on the other, which was very often the case when political considerations were allowed to intervene in matters of this kind. He had put the Amendment down because he honestly believed the Government were making a grievous mistake in the
  1146
  constitution of this Board. Concessions had no doubt been made by them, but the Board remained the same, over large, and also having within itself seeds of divergent opinions and conflicting interests. He said this without any hesitation, that if they were to have the principle of representation—and he supposed in these days that was inevitable—the Board should represent the whole of the London water area directly, and should be able to treat London in the matter of the water supply as one undivided whole. It should not be representative of local, sectional, and conflicting interests. That was the main argument he wanted to address to the House. The Board was over large, and was so constituted that it would be absolutely unable to obtain the advantages which ought to be derived from the transfer of the undertakings of the Water Companies. Notwithstanding what his noble friend Lord Balfour said on the Second Reading, he contended that the action of the Government had been directly against the weight of evidence, and, more than that, it had been directly in opposition to the opinions of every impartial body that had considered the question, and even against the opinions of a quasi-impartial body, if be might be allowed the expression—namely, the Joint Committee. He was perfectly accurate in the statement he had made. For instance, Lord Cross's Bill proposed a Board of 21; Lord James of Hereford's Bill a Board of 30; and Viscount Llandaff's Commission a Board of thirty. The counsel who represented the Local Government Board before the Joint Committee stated in his opening speech that since the report of Lord Llandaff's Commission, the Borough Councils had come into existence, and therefore it was necessary that they should have representation. That being so, it was impossible to exclude the Urban Councils, and so they had the whole of the Water Board doubled in numbers at once. Not one word was said about administrative machinery, or the efficiency of the administration, but only that the Borough Councils should be represented. It was a curious fact that no claim had been made by the Borough Councils for representation

  1147
  before the presentation of the Government Bill, and no evidence was adduced by the Local Government Board until the Joint Committee requested them to submit evidence in support of this request. Therefore this was entirely an afterthought. The minority of the Borough Councils protested against their being included, and the Borough Councils that did appear before the Joint Committee gave, he thought, the most childish reasons for their inclusion in the Board. The fact was mentioned by Viscount Llandaff, on the Second Reading, that some of these Urban Councils protested that the pipes of the Water Companies went through their land, arid that they did not get sufficient profit from that fact.
  If this question was to be understood, they must study its history. He did not want to weary their Lordships by going back any length of time: he would only go back as far as Lord Llandaff's Commission, which sat for two years and exhaustively studied the question. Although the members of that Commission at first began their inquiry with divergent views, so strong was the evidence brought before them that they came to a unanimous report. One of the Commissioners had stated that the Commission had been treated by the Government in a most unreasonable way; they had given a very long time to the study of this question, and had come to a unanimous report, but the Government had put their report in the waste-paper basket. He must say that the proceedings of the Joint Committee constituted an extraordinary piece of history. The Government took action in this matter which would not have been allowed to any other promoter. No other promoters would have been allowed to put a chairman of their own body in the chair of the Committee. No one knew better than he did how equitable and just in all relations of life was Lord Balfour, but he was in an impossible position on that Committee. He would remind the noble Lord that a man could not serve two masters; he could not serve the cause of administrative efficiency in regard to this Bill and the cause of the Government. It was impossible, and so, when the Committee
  1148
  came to a decision which was in opposition to the views of the Government, the sittings were suspended, or, at any rate, the counsel appeared before the Committee and expressed the profound regret of the Government at the decision of the Committee, and there was then a reconsideration. He imagined, though he could not say it as a fact, that there had been some lobbying, but in some fashion or other the decision of the Committee was spirited away, and they came to an equality of votes. The noble Lord had been attacked in that House for the method in which he put the question. He did not attack him on that point. He thought that when he got to the position of an equality of votes he was justified in the action he took, but what struck him as clever was not the method of putting the question, but the noble Lord's ingenuity in turning a minority into an equality of votes. That was the achievement most to be admired.
  If they wanted to arrive at a knowledge of what the constitution of this Board should be, they had to inquire what was to be expected of it, what were the duties that the Board would perform. Lord Llandaff's Commission had set out the advantages to be derived from a transfer of the Water Companies' undertakings. Those advantages were a unity of management, uniformity of arrangements, the extension of a constant supply to the highest houses, a more rational and economical system of distribution, prevention of waste by the co-operation of the community, and the abolition of the existing arbitary divisions of the London Water area into districts. The whole of this might be summed up in one expression—unity of management. That was to say, they must treat the whole area of London in the matter of water supply as one undivided whole. Bearing this necessity in mind, Lord Llandaff's Commission made certain propositions. They proposed that the Board should be a permanent Board, and not a fluctuating one; that it should be of not more than thirty members, and, further, that no preponderance should be given to conflicting interests. What were those conflicting interests that Lord Llandaff's Commission spoke of? They were the conflicting interests between the districts of distribution—viz., London—and the

  1149
  districts of supply, Kent and Hertfordshire. Obviously, when Mr. Long, the President of the Local Government Board, came to look into this matter, it was impossible to reconcile those interests. It was impossible to give Kent and Hertfordshire such a preponderating voice as to protect them, and so he evaded that question and gave what was very proper, a preponderating influence to London. But he did so, not by giving the authority to the London County Council, but by the inclusion of the Borough Councils, and consequently, also, the Urban Councils, and so, in that manner, he created conflicting interests of a much graver kind, not between London and the other districts, but between different parts of London itself. That always must be the had local representation. For instance, look at London and its different districts. North London and West London were supplied at a lower rate, speaking generally, than East and South London, and therefore, if they had local representation, they were sure to have divergent views, certainly on such questions as the equalisation of rates and the incidences of charge.
  The Bill, as he understood it, enacted that the Water Board might at the end of three years, bring in a Bill to equalise rates. He would like to ask noble Lords how that was going to be done? If it was to be done at the expense of the individual consumer—that was to say, by raising the rates of one consumer and lowering the rates of the other—he would advise the Government not to do that at the time of a General Election, or they would have a lively time in London. If it was to be done at the expense of the local rate, the Board they proposed to constitute would never do it as the interests would be divergent. They had evidence of this up to the hilt before the Joint Committee. The local rate based on ratable value would produce a larger amount in Westminter, perinhabitant than the same rate would produce in South or East London although it was probable that the Westminster ratepayers would be better able to beat the higher rate than the residents in South or East London would be able to bear the lower one. What was the City of Westminter's attitude before the
  1150
  Joint Committee? It asked the Committee to make it incumbent on the Water Board to exhaust the whole rating power of the present Companies—namely, to perpetuate the existing differences—before coming on the rates at all. He held that that was clear evidence of what would happen on the Water Board. They would have all these conflicting interests fighting one against the other. Did they suppose the example of Westminster Borough Councils? They would have everyone nor be followed by the advantage of London as a whole such as an authority like the County Council would be able to do, but looking at London from a parochial view as representing their own constituents. Could they expect effective administration from a Board constituted in this fashion? What were tha duties, after all, that the Board would have to perform? They would have, for instance, such questions as the sources of supply, the distribution, the purification, and the rates of charge—questions which it would not be easy to treat from a local standpoint. The Borough Councils were elected to cleanse the streets and perform other duties which affected merely the local area; the County Council was elected for matters which affected the whole area of the county, and the distribution of water was essentially one of them. The conflictiong interests of this Board would entirely prevent the Bord from obtaining the main advantages of transfer, without which they had much better have left things alone. The Board was too large, members would not attend regularly, and they would not have any continuity of policy. The statement of Lord Balfour on the Second Reading, that it was a necessity for this Board to have committees, astonished him. He felt nearly staggered when he heard the number of committees the noble Lord proposed. After all, did not that show that the Government had not got a correct idea of what the duties of the Water Board would be? He thought the object of the Bill was to combine the eight companies into one whole, so that the Water Board could administer the business of the Companies from the centre. If that was so, what did they want with all these committees? The

  1151
  Board would have under its control the Water Companies' officials, who were well trained, and the whole work would go like a piece of well-oiled machinery. He believed a committee of the London County Council would be able to do the whole work, and do it admirably, when they had combined the Companies into one administrative whole.
  The size of this Board and the conflicting interests in it would militate against its work, and prevent, as he believed, although he hoped not, any agreement between the Companies and the Board. He was afraid that the size of the Board would almost force arbitration upon the Companies, and the costly expense that would accompany it. He quite failed to understand the action of the Government, unless they had been impelled by political motives. They had to deal with the transfer of forty or fifty millions of money, and of vast undertakings involving the control of an army of officials and labourers. What they wanted was a small, compact, experienced body, having within itself the promise of unity of management. Instead of that, they appointed a large Board having within itself the certainty of conflicting interests and jarring discord; and for no other reason, so far as he could see, than to trick the London County Council. Whatever could be said against the aggressive tactics of the London County Council, this much could be said for them, that they had experienced officials. They had studied the question thoroughly and understood it; and if they were to have the principle of representation in London applied to the water question the London County Council undoubtedly ought to have had the dominant voice in the matter.
  Amendment moved—
  "In patre 1, line 19, to leave out sub-Section (3) and to insert '(3) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Water Board shall consist of a chairman, a vice-chairman, and thirty-three other members, the chairman and vice-chairman shall be appointed by the Water Board, and the other members shall be appointed as follows:—Fourteen by the London County Council, two by the common council of the City, two by the County Council of Essex, two by the council of the borough of West Ham, three by the County Council of Kent, four by the County Council of Middlesex, three by the County Council of Surrey, one by the County
  1152
  Council of Hertfordshire, one by the Conservators of the River Thames, one by the Lee Conservancy Board.' "—(Viscount Hampden.)
  *THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Lord BALFOUR of BURLEIGH): My Lords, I have certainly no reason to complain of the tone in which the noble Lord has moved this Amendment, but I am afraid that I am entirely unable to agree with the great majority of the arguments he has put before your Lordships in favour of the change which he advocates. I have no doubt that he honestly thinks that the Government are making a mistake in proposing this Board, or he would not have moved the Amendment which appears on the Paper in his name. I equally honestly, having had something to do with the early preparation of the Bill, though not much, and having spent some twenty-four days in considering it with the assistance of the able counsel upstairs, have come to the conclusion, that having regard to all the difficulties of the situation, this is, upon the whole, the best solution which can be devised. If you pass over all the considerations on the other side, and only criticise this Board on account of its size, and the divergent interests which it represents, and on account of the fact that it will be new and inexperienced in its work, undoubtedly you can make a prima facie case against the proposal in the Bill; but when you come to consider any other proposal which has been put forward, either before any of the Committees or Commissions, or if you take the proposal of the noble Lord on the Paper, it is easy, I think, to show that the disadvantages of that proposal are greater than those of the Government's proposal.
  Just let us clearly understand the issue as presented by the noble Lords' Amendment. The Government scheme is to give representation to the six County Councils concerned, which cover the whole of the area represented in what is known as "water London." In addition to that we give representations to the County Borough of West Ham and to all the other boroughs and urban districts within the area concerned, and to the two Conservancies which I will leave out of consideration for the moment. The proposal of the noble

  1153
  Viscount opposite is to delete all the representation from the Metropolitan Boroughs, the non-county boroughs outside the Metroplis, and the urban districts, and to take what I may call a County Council basis, making a Board of thirty-three in number, with the Chairman and Vice-Chairman. I will also leave out of consideration the Chairman and Vice-Chairman from each scheme, because they find a place both in the Government scheme and in that suggested by the noble Viscount. The noble Viscount said in his speech that the London area must have a dominant majority on this authority. The noble Lord's scheme does not give a dominant majority to London. It gives sixteen out of thirty-three, which is a minority. It gives fourteen to the other County Councils, and two to the City. The great area of London—two-thirds, at least, if not three-fourths greater in area, population, and ratable value—would be absolutely in the minority on the new Board.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: The representation would be sixteen out of thirty-one; the noble Lord himself has left the Thames Conservancy and the Lea Conservancy out of the question.
  *LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: No doubt without the other elements it would have a bare or narrow majority. The point I wish to make is this, it in no way gives adequate representation to London, either in respect of area, population, or ratable value, and if it is a majority, it is in no sense a carrying out of the decision of the Joint Committee, of which so much is made, because that Committee distinctly said in its resolution that no one County Council was to be in a majority over all the other interests concerned. The position of the Government is this, that London, with all its interests on the three grounds I have mentioned, ought to have, and must have, a majority, and the only way in which, in the opinion of the Government, you can give it that majority, is to bring in the representation of these other bodies which are so much condemned by the noble Viscount opposite. They were not in existence at the time of Lord Cross's proposal, nor was the County Council, so that I think I need hardly go back so far as that. I
  1154
  do not know whether—I am not entitled to presume—the noble Lords who are Members of this House and of the London County Council are going to support this Amendment. [Lord TWEEDMOUTH assented.] That relieves me of some difficulty. Speaking generally, this Amendment proposes very much the same sort of Board which was proposed in Lord James's Bill in 1896. That Board was absolutely defeated by the operation of the outside Councils at that time, and I go further than that and say that there was no proposal ever made by the Government, certainly by no Government which I can recollect, which was so ridiculed and so entirely condemned as that proposal by noble Lords opposite. I will not weary your Lordships with extracts from the speeches made by Lord Tweedmouth, Lord Monkswell, Lord Welby, or Lord Rosebery. But he document prepared by the Parliamentary agent, under the direction of the Parliamentary Committee of the London County Council, contains abundant material for condemnation of the particular scheme proposed by the noble the Viscount out of the mouths of the noble Lords who are also members ot the County Council I will not quote, because I do not want to rest my case upon any charge of inconsistency.
  I suppose noble Lords opposite would prefer that the London County Council should be the authority instead of the new Water Board. I am not surprised that it should be so, but the London County Council is alone amongst all the authorities in desiring that. The representatives of the County Council before the Joint Committee last summer did submit some sort of proposal similar to the one which is now before us in the Amendment of the noble Viscount, and that proposal was rejected on an equality of votes. I am not entitled to put it higher than that. At any rate, it did not get a majority of the Committee, and it did not get support from any one of the other County Councils which were represented, and it only received support from a very small inventry of the local authorities which appeared before us. Failing that proposal, I understood at that time that the County Council wished to propose a still smaller authority, such as that suggested in the Report of Viscount

  1155
  Llandaff's Commission, but an essential part of the proposal of that Commission was that the body should be an expert one, and that every member of it should be paid. Whatever may be said in the abstract of such a suggestion as that, at any rate it has found no supporters in the other House of Parliament, and, so far as I know, none in this. Therefore, I shall not detain your Lordships by arguing against it until I hear it put forward as a substantive proposal.
  The first point I make is, therefore, that unless you are content to give London an insufficient representation upon the new Board, you are absolutely reduced to some such scheme as that proposed by the Government. I do not think I need go further into the procedure before the Joint Committee. The noble Lord said he would not challenge my personal action in that matter. He told me that I was in an impossible position, and that I could not serve two masters. I was a Member of the Government at the time I was appointed to the Chairmanship of that Committee. I told the House the other day that the position was not one of my seeking, and that I understood it was unanimously desired that I should occupy the position. I believe that if I had been in the position absolutely of a free agent, as an ordinary Chairman of a Joint Committee, I could not have brought the proceedings to any other conclusion. The fact is, Party feeling ran too high, and the moment it was suggested that the Boroughs were to be struck out, or that the London County Council was to be the sole authority, it was absolutely impossible to adopt the means sometimes attempted by a Committee of saying—"You must produce some sort of a compromise amongst yourselves." That was impossible. In the end we were obliged, owing to having to deal with one or two areas not contemplated by the Bill as introduced, to increase the numbers of the Board from sixty-seven to seventy-one. In the Committee in the House of Commons a certain compromise was made which resulted in the reduction of the number from seventy-one to sixty-six, and a considerable alteration was made in the relative proportions which were to come from the County Council and the boroughs and urban districts outside
  1156
  London. The London County Council's representation was increased by four, and those outside London diminished by a like number. I am very far from either complaining about that, or saying that it was a compromise made in such a way as to prevent raising the question in this House. Undoubtedly, it was agreed to by both parties, and there the matter must rest. As I have said, the noble Lord's scheme is identical with the scheme rejected by the Joint Committee on an equality of votes.
  I am bound to tell the House that I think it is an essential part of the Bill that representation should be given to these sanitary authorities as well as to the London County Council, partly on account of the necessity for the administration of their own work and partly, as I have said, because I believe it to be the only means by which London can be given adequate representation. It is unjust to London to give it less than its proper representation on this body, and you may depend upon it that it was as clear as possible before the Joint Committee, and before the other Committees, that the outside authorities would not consent to the London County Council having a preponderant majority on the Board. I am not going to say whether they are right or whether they are wrong, but I state the fact, and as a fact, taken by itself, it cannot be disputed, that to give the London County Council such a majority on this Board as would adequately represent the interests of London would be to make confusion worse confounded, and to stir up an amount of opposition to the Bill which, I believe, would be fatal to carrying it through its subsequent stages. I am entitled, I think, to say this, that the constitution of the new Board as proposed by the Bill is practically accepted now by all the authorities concerned, except the London County Council. Without it London would not be adequately represented, and I am entitled to make this point, although I do not in this House wish to lay too much stress upon it, that the proposal of the noble Lord not only failed to get a majority in the Joint Committee, where we were equally divided, and that when brought before the House of Commons the scheme was rejected by a majority of

  1157
  105, only forty-eight Members being found to vote in favour of it. I did not understand what the noble Lord meant when he spoke of conflicting interests in London. Of course, there are divergent views, and of course the richer districts of London will dislike anything in the nature of an equalisation of rates, but I do not think that is a sufficient reason for rejecting this Board. Surely, even those who object to having their rates raised are entitled to state their views. If I were asked my opinion, I should say it was eminently desirable that, for the purposes of the water supply, London should be regarded as one entity, and the charge made similar for the whole area. So long as there were eight different companies, you could not get equalisation of charges; it could only be got by and through some such process as this Bill will arrange for. There must be an authority to acquire all the interests concerned, and then to distribute the burdens as they ought to be distributed. The reason why there is no proposal for an equalisation of rates is that this Bill is intended to be simply a transfer Bill. It is to put a Joint Water Board in the place of the eight companies, with distinct, and in some respects, if you like, conflicting interests, but to transfer the whole of the obligations of the one party to the Board, and to leave the obligations of the different authorities concerned exactly as they are at the present time. The noble Lord made great play with the Westminster proposal. That proposal was a perfectly fair subject for consideration. I am not surprised that Westminster sought to look after its own interests, but, at any rate, its proposal was unanimously rejected by the Joint Committee as entirely inadmissible, and I do not believe that in the future Westminster has much chance of getting it accepted.
  VlSCOUNT HAMPDEN: I thought the Joint Committee had partially accepted it—at least that they had made some change in the Bill on the representation of Westminster.
  *LORD BALFOUR OF BURLElGH: I rather think we refused to increase the representation of Westminster. But the
  1158
  point I was on was that Westminster proposed that there should be no equalisation of rates until every other district had been charged up to the hilt on the present powers. We rejected that because we did not think it right that any advantage should be given to one district over another until the new Board was constituted. Certainly, the Westminster proposal was rejected by the Committee. As to that I think there can be no doubt at all. While I am far from saying that the proposal in the Bill is perfect and that you cannot state objections to it. I do say that, looking at the whole question. I have come honestly and entirely to the conclusion, that conclusion that upon the whole it is the best scheme which has yet been proposed, and the only scheme which has any chance at the present time of being carried into effect. Therefore I sincerely hope the House will not give effect to the Amendment.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: I know your Lordships' House is not a lover of vain repetitions, and I shall therefore not repeat what I said on the Second Reading on this subject. The arguments of the noble Viscount who moved this Amendment seemed to me to be strangely convincing, and the noble Lord who has just sat down has to my mind entirely failed to meet them. Lord Balfour found fault with the Board proposed by my noble friend because it was to a large extent similar to that proposed by Lord James, and which, he said, was ridiculed by noble Lords who represented the London County Council. I have no doubt we did severely criticise that Board and I think we should be prepared to criticise it again if it was proposed. Whatever objection we might have thought that Board was open to, we think it immensely increased in the case of the Board proposed in this Bill, and if Lord James's Board was ridiculous we think this one most ridiculous, and if we have to choose between the two evils, we would rather take the lesser evil. The noble Lord in charge of the Bill stated that this authority was accepted by all the bodies concerned. Yes, accepted by all the bodies except the London County authority, which is the principal authority to be considered.
  *LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Accepted by a large majority of the boroughs, at any rate.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: Surely, if there is one authority which may claim to represent London it is the London County Council.
  VISCOUNT KNUTSFORD: The only objection to the proposed Board comes from the London County Council.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: Other bodies have objected as well. But, surely, it is a big exception to say that the constitution of the Board has been accepted by all the authorities except the one which more represents London than any other. The noble Lord says it has been accepted by the Borough Councils. I quite agree that many of the Borough Councils, when they were memorialised and stirred up, did pull themselves together sufficiently to pass Resolutions in favour of this proposal, but there are no less than nine Borough Councils which have passed Resolutions against this Bill. Then it comes to this that it has been accepted by all the authorities except the London County Council, which is the principal authority in London, and at least one-third of the Borough Councils. The Borough of Chelsea, in spite of all your memorials, will not express an opinion one way or the other, and I am told that on that Council the Conservative Party are in a majority of two to one. I will endeavour to compare the two authorities—the one proposed by Viscount Hampden and the one in the Bill. I leave out the Chairman and Vice-Chairman and the representatives of the Thames and Lea Conservancies because they are common to both Boards. In the case of the Government Bill you have sixty-two Members, representing no less than seventy-eight different authorities, which to a very large extent overlap one another, and whose districts are, in many cases, contained one within the other. In the proposal of Viscount Hampden you have thirty-one members representing eight separate authorities which cover the whole ground to which the Bill applies, and which do not overlap in any way whatever. Surely that is something of an advantage. I would venture to press this point, that the supply of water is essentially a thing
  1160
  which it is desirable should be undertaken on the responsibility of central bodies which really have the interests of large areas at heart, and should not be governed by the considerations of the smaller areas. I would venture to remind your Lordships that these Borough Councils are nothing more nor less than the old London Vestries. You may put any gloss you like on them; you may decorate their Mayors with the longest of chains and clothethem with the furriest of robes, but they are the old-fashioned London Vestries, with all their prejudice and smallness of mind. By no possible means can you turn a sow's ear into a silk purse. If you were to take the plan of my noble friend you would secure that there should be represented on the Water Board only those authorities which are likely to look upon the supply of water from a broad basis, from a basis on which the interests of considerable districts will be considered. My noble friend's proposal is that the London County Council shall have fourteen members; the Common Council of the City, two members; the County Council of Essex, two members; the Council of the Borough of West Ham, two members; the County Council of Kent, three members; the County Council of Middlesex, four members; the County Council of Surrey, three members; and the County Council of Hertfordshire, one member. I think the House will agree with me that that covers the whole of the London area that is interested in the Supply of Water. The noble Lord made a great point that by the Amendment the London County Council, as representing London, which was entitled to have a big majority on this Board, would not have sufficient representation. I have no doubt the London County Council would like to have a larger representation, but it is willing to accept the representation proposed in the Amendment. It believes that with this share it will be able to do its duty to the people of London, and that it will secure sufficient support from the representatives of the outside areas to deal in a large and broad-minded way with this great subject. In the Government's proposal only one representative is given to each of the County Councils of Essex, Surrey, Kent,

  1161
  Middlesex and Hertfordshire, and I certainly think those authorities have every reason to object to the amount of representation that is given to them. You have two members given to the City, and two each to Westminster and West Ham; that leaves thirty-seven members to represent the Borough Councils and the District Councils. Therefore in this Bill you give an absolute majority on the whole Board to the representatives of the smaller areas, to the very men who are least capable of dealing with this subject in a broad-minded way in the interests of
  EARL CAREINGTONmoved to provide that the Board should consist of forty-three members (instead of forty-two as stated in his Amendment on the Paper) besides the chairman and vice-chairman. He had altered his figures from forty-two to forty-three, so as to take no representation away from the City of London. He desired to compliment Viscount Hampden on the able speech he had made. The noble Lord had put the whole case in a nutshell. The County Council did not want the dominant power on the Water Board, but they wanted the dominant voice. If duplicate representation on the County Council and the local authorities
  1162
  the larger area, and who will look upon the question as affecting their own particular borough rather than London as a whole. From that point of view the proportion in the Government's proposal is not likely to work satisfactorily. I earnestly hope that Viscount Hampden's Amendment will receive very considerable support from your Lordships.
  On Question, "That sub-Section 3 stand part of the Clause," their Lordships divided. Contents, 52; Not-Contents, 16.

  CONTENTS.

  Halsbury, E. (L. Chancellor.)

  Romney, E.

  Colchester, L.

  Devonshire, D. (L. President.)

  Selborne, E.

  Congleton, L.

  Stamford, E.

  Dunboyne, L.

  Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal.)

  Stanhope, E.

  Ellenborough, L.

  Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

  Forester, L.

  Abercorn, M. (D. Abercorn.)

  Verulam, E.

  Gage, L. (v. Gage.)

  Ailesbury, M.

  Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]

  Kenyon, L.

  Bath, M.

  Kinnaird, L.

  Hertford, M.

  Churchill, V. [Teller.]

  Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

  Lansdowne, M.

  Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

  Lawrence, L.

  Macnaghten, L.

  Clarendon, E. (L. Chamberlain.)

  Knutsford, V.

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

  Denbigh, E.

  Doneaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

  Addington, L.

  Ormathwaite, L.

  Allerton, L.

  Redesdale, L.

  Hardwicke, E.

  Balfour, L.

  Robertson, L.

  Hillsborough, E. (M. Downshire.)

  Belhaven ans Stenton, L.

  Somerton, L. (E. Normanton)

  Belper, L.

  Windsor, L.

  Leven and Melville, E.

  Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

  Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

  Lucan, E.

  Brougham and Vaux, L.

  Onslow, E.

  Chelmsford, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Carrington, E.

  Brassey, L.

  Ribblesdale, L. [Teller.]

  Spencer, E.

  Burghelere, L.

  Sandhurst, L.

  Coleridge, L.

  Tweedmouth, L.

  Gordon, V. (E. Aberdeen.)

  Denman, L.

  Wandsworth, L.

  Hampden, V [Teller.]

  Monkswell, L.

  Welby, L.

  Llandaff, V.

  Reay, L.

  was desirable, it was essential that there should be equality, and the district representation should not outweigh the county representation. He claimed to know something of the wishes of the people of London. He and other noble Lords on the Progressive side fought the last County Council election entirely on the question of housing and water, and they spoke several times a night for nearly three weeks before the election, in every part of London. He could therefore confidently assure the House that this was the wish of the people of London. He hoped the noble Lord would accept his Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 1, line 20, after and' to insert 'forty-three'; in line 24, to leave out 'two' and to insert 'one'; and in page 2, to leave out lines 1 and 2 and to insert, 'one by the Councils of the metropolitan boroughs of Poplar and Hackney, one by the Council of the metropolitan boroughs of Stepney, one by the Councils of the metropolitan boroughs of Stoke Newington and Islington, one by the Councils of the metropolitan boroughs of Bethnal Green, Shoreditch, and Finsbury, one by the Councils of the metropolitan boroughs of Holborn, St. Pancras, and Hampstead, one by the Councils of the metropolitan boroughs of St. Marylebone and Westminster, one by the Councils of the metropolitan boroughs of Paddington and Kensington, one by the Councils of the metropolitan boroughs of Chelsea, Hammersmith and Fulham, one by the Councils of the metropolitan boroughs of Wandsworth and Battersea, one by the Council of the metropolitan borough of Lambeth, one by the Councils of the metropolitan boroughs of Southwark and Bermondsey, one by the Councils of the metropolitan boroughs of Camberwell and Deptford, one by the Councils of the metropolitan boroughs of Greenwich, Lewisham and Woolwich'; in line 14 to leave out 'two,' and to insert 'one,' and to leave out lines 5 to 10, and to insert: 'One by the Councils of the urban districts of East Ham and Leyton, one by the Councils of the urban districts of Walthamstow, Buckhurst Hill, Chingford, Loughton, Waltham Holy Cross, Wanstead, and Woodford.' "—(Earl Carrington.)
  *LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I take note of the intimation made by the noble Lord that he would alter his number to forty-three instead of forty-two and allow two representatives to the City of London. I say no more on that, because I think the City of London is entitled to two. The noble Lord proposes to reduce the representation of the City of Westminster from two to one. Personally, I think the City of Westminster is entitled to two, not only on account of its extraordinarily high valuation, but on account of its considerable population. I am surprised that the noble Lord should not think Islington, on account of its population, worthy of a member. I believe it to be the largest in population of the metropolitan boroughs which the noble Lord opposite proposes to place in a group with Stoke Newington. Taking rather a larger view of the matter, what is the difference in principle between a Board of some sixty-six members and one of forty-three? They will both have to work through committees, and I cannot see, unless there is some great advantage to be got by reduction, that there is any reason for
  1164
  making the change. I do not think this system of grouping the metropolitan boroughs would do at all. The noble Lord proposes to put side by side the boroughs of Wandsworth and Battersea; but the noble Lord behind me commented on the occasion of the Second Reading on the extreme antagonism which was displayed before the Joint Committee by these two boroughs. They would lead a cat-and-dog life if associated with each other, and I am absolutely certain that the grouping of metropolitan boroughs would be objected to by the boroughs themselves. You would displease everybody and please nobody. I think it to be a scheme which has really no friends. It was thinly supported in another place. There is no sort of reason that I can see for taking away a member from the county borough of West Ham, which has a population of 267,000 and a ratable value of nearly £1,250,000. I hope that after the discussion we have already had, the House will not agree to make the change.
  EARL CARRINGTON: I see that London has no friends, and therefore I shall not put the trouble of dividing on my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave of the Committee withdrawn.
  EARL STANHOPEmoved an Amendment to provide that there should be one member on the Water Board representing the Councils of the urban districts of Beckenham, Bromley, and Chislehurst, and one member representing the Councils of the urban districts of Penge, Bexley, Dartford, Erith, and Footscray, instead of one member representing all these urban districts. Until the previous Wednesday, when it was changed by the President of the Local Government Board, the Bill enacted that there should be one member for the County Council of Kent and two for the populous and increasing areas of the Urban District Councils of Kent; but suddenly the representation of the Urban District Councils had been reduced to one. He thought it was especially hard that this large water-supplying area should have been deprived of proper representation. He

  1165
  asked the House to accept his Amendment on the ground of population, the population of the urban districts being at present 145,000. The other outside authorities in the London Water area had not been deprived of their representatives in the way Kent had been. Lord Avebury felt most strongly that they were in Kent in a different position altogether from the other areas. Whereas the quantity of water which might be taken from the Thames was limited, in Kent it was all pumped out of the chalk formation at a depth of some ninety feet, and the chalk formation was being gradually denuded of water. In one district twenty-two miles from London, the wells were greatly diminished in capacity, and many farmers who depended for their water supply to their farms on wells had found their water running short. Lord Avebury was of the opinion that chalk formation only held water in suspense, and that if it was squeezed like a sponge, as it was by deep well pumping, the supply of water might be absolutely taken away. At the present time the supplies of water taken out of Kent amounted to 18,000,000 gallons a day. He urged the necessity of the provision contained in his Amendment on account of the depletion of the water supplies of Kent in order to supply South London water.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 2, line 13, after 'Chislehurst' to insert 'and,' and after 'Pengu' to insert 'one by the councils of the urban districts of.' "—(Earl Stanhope.)
  *LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I am afraid I cannot accept this Amendment. I think that the plaintive appeal which the noble Earl has just made to the House entitles him to our sympathy, but I am afraid I can offer him nothing more solid than that on this occasion. He entered into the large question of the water supply being taken from Kent for the use of London. That was a question which was raised before the Joint Committee, and we held it over for future settlement and arrangement. I must remind the noble Lord that this is merely a transfer Bill, and that London has a right to draw from the large water-bearing strata in question, and
  1166
  if that right is to be taken out, it can only be after full consideration of all the interests and rights involved. The noble Earl is in error in thinking that Kent has been less fairly treated than any other area. I have had prepared the number of population in the various counties which have representation on the Water Board. The Kent County Council and Urban District Councils are to have two representatives, which is one for every 74,000 inhabitants. The only county which is in a more favourable situation than that is Surrey, which has one for every 66,000 of its population. Essex has one for every 85,000, Middlesex one for every 90,000, and London, even as we propose it, one for every 100,000. Therefore, there is no case on the merits for giving Kent more representation. I think it is fair that at the present time the outside areas should have in proportion more than the inside areas. In all the circumstances, I hope the noble Earl will not press his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave of the Committee, withdrawn.
  Clause 1 agreed to.
  Clause 2:—
  LORD WELBYmoved an Amendment providing that the Water Board shall pay to each Company, as compensation for the transfer of their undertakings, such sum as may be agreed on between the "London County Council on behalf of the" Board and the Company. He thought their Lordships would agree that this was one of the greatest transfers of undertakings that had ever been entrusted to a public body, and he thought, therefore, that it was above all things important that the new body should be in a position to state the case of the ratepayers and the water consumers as fully as possible bo the arbitrators who would have to decide on the price of the undertakings. He could not help thinking that the new Board would be at a very great disadvantage as compared with the Companies in the time allowed them to prepare their case and the circumstances in which they would prepare their case. The Companies had been studying this question for years. Every year the question had been in

  1167
  some form or other before either Parliament or a Commission or Committee, and before all these tribunals the Companies had appeared. They, therefore, had their whole case at their finger ends, and their able and expert officers were in a position to set it forth almost at once. Further than that, they had been aware, for the last fortnight at least, that this Bill was certain to pass, and they had been able to begin their work at once, and to engage the counsel who were to represent them. But what was the position of the body who were to represent the water consumers? It was to be an entirely new body. Some twenty-four different authorities were to appoint members to the new Water Board, and some of those authorities had to elect joint authorities to be brought together in order to discharge the function of electing a representative. Their Lordships knew how difficult it was to get bodies, especially newly constituted bodies, to come together; he did not think he was exaggerating when he said they would not be in a position to meet before February, and in fixing that date he was giving the authorities who would elect the Joint Committees credit for a considerable amount of promptitude which they might not display. When the Water Board met it would consist of between sixty and seventy men, the larger part of whom would never have studied the subject before or approached it in any way. This body would be without officers and without previous experience, and the first thing it would have to do would be to learn its lesson. He felt that the new Water Board was therefore put into a very difficult position. How, under the circumstances, was it possible for them to hold their own before the arbitrators against the eight Companies, and how could they be expected to secure justice for the ratepayers and the consumers? The Government was not entirely without warning in the matter. It was now over twenty years since the celebrated scheme of 1880 was brought forward, and competent financial authorities had examined that scheme in the light of subsequent experience. Their calculation was that if the seheme of 1880 had taken effect, by 1901 the ratepayers would have lost
  1168
  no less than £2,865,000. The fact that such a statement could be brought forward on reasonable, financial grounds showed at once what a very tremendous case for the ratepayers was at issue, and if that was so when so much care was taken, as in 1880, in the investigation, there was greater danger in the present case when the matter was to be entrusted to a new and inexperienced body. What security was His Majesty's Government taking that in this case justice would be done to the ratepayers and the water consumers? The remedy he suggested appeared to him to be not an unreasonable one. Why not let the London County Council be the agents of the new Board? The London County Council was, at all events, in as good a position as the Companies, for its members had been studying the question for years, and it had expert officers whom it could place against the officers of the Companies. The London County Council would frankly accept the position, if it were assigned to them, of acting as the agents in conducting the purchase and preparing the case, and would then hand the matter over to the Water Board. He ventured to think that if that arrangement were made there would be some security that justice would be done to the ratepayers, who, under the present arrangement, would run considerable risk of not having their case properly presented.
  Amendment moved—
  " In page3, line 11, after the first 'the' to insert 'London County Council on behalf of the'; and in line 12, after 'Act' to insert 'as between the London County Council on behalf of the Board and the Company.' "—(Lord Welby.)
  *LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I can say quite frankly that I do not share in the least degree the apprehensions to which the noble Lord has just given expression, and I think there is one very strong reason why this course should not be taken. Surely it will be a very unwarrantable slight to put on the new Board to tell them, even before they are constituted, that Parliament thinks they will be so incompetent to manage their work that they must be put in leading strings and under the

  1169
  control of another body, and a body which, however eminent and excellent its services may be, represents a smaller constituency than that which the Water Board will represent.
  LORD WELBY: But the same interest.
  *LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: In a great, part the same interest, but not altogether. My reason for thinking the apprehensions of the noble Lord exaggerated is this. If the Bill now stood exactly as introduced, there might possibly have been some cause for the noble Lord's apprehension; but in its passage through another place a Clause was added which prevents an agreement taking effect until it has been confirmed by the arbitrators. I think that is a perfectly sufficient guarantee that all interests will be fully considered. I will not dissent in one syllable from the praise which the noble Lord gave to the officers of the County Council as to the excellent manner in which they can get up a case, or the way in which that case is presented. As I said on the occasion of the Second Reading of the Bill, I know of no body who can get up its case from its own point of view so well. There will be fourteen members of the London County Council on this new Water Board, and I have no doubt that most of the expert brains of the County Council on this particular subject will be represented. Moreover, the new Board need not make an agreement until they have got sufficient experience and knowledge to enable them to make a proper one. When they go before the arbitrators they will be able to draw on the experience of the County Council, and will be able to call any witnesses they choose, whether members of the County Council or their officers, who have experience in these matters. Taking all these considerations into account, I think it would be very unfair to the new Board to insert this Clause, and I hope your Lordships will not agree to it.
  LORD WELBYdid not think the fact that an agreement must be confirmed by the arbitrators before it became valid quite touched his point. The whole
  1170
  question turned on the information laid before the arbitrators, and he was afraid the new body would not be in a position to run the case properly. He accepted, on behalf of the County Council, the compliment which the noble Lord had paid it, but he must say that the County Council had been treated with distrust by His Majesty's Government. He was glad to hear that His Majesty's Government thought that on the new body being constituted they could rely on the public spirit of the County Council, and on the members of that body giving the best of their ability to the carrying out of the scheme in spite of he slight which had been put upon them. He thought the noble Lord might rely with confidence that they would be so. But the noble Lord had not touched the point that the Companies would be able to place their case before the arbitrators in a more complete form than a new body which must start its work under considerable difficulties.
  Amendment, by leave of the Committee, withdrawn.
  Clause 2 agreed to.
  Clauses 3 and 4 agreed to.
  Clause 5 amended, and agreed to.
  Clause 6 agreed to.
  Clause 7:—
  LORD WELBYmoved an Amendment to provide that the amount of water stock issued to a debenture-holder should be such an amount "as in the opinion of the arbitrators will be equivalent in value to an equally good security producing the same income." The Amendment was one to which considerable importance attached. It was proposed under the Bill that a large amount of irredeemable stock held from the Companies be taken over by the new Board, water stock being given in return. There could be no question that the security must be very much improved when there was added to it the security of the rates. The present irredeemable stock varied in amount, and was in different Companies, and was not stock

  1171
  that had a very ready market. When the holders received water stock in lieu of their present securities it would form part of a large amount of stock which ought to have a fair market. These two considerations led him to the conclusion that benefit would be given to the holders of these irredeemable securities when they were taken over; and it was a benefit which was shown to be marked by the stock market returns. The amount of these irredeemable securities was £4,500,000, and as much stock was to be given as would produce the same amount of income. The new stock to be given would probably be a three per cent, stock at par, and would be rather over £6,000,000. The market price of the irredeemable debentures at the close of last year was £5,650,000, showing a difference between the value of the three per cent, stock to be issued by the new Water Board and the value of the irredeemable securities of about £350,000. That was a boon given to the owners of irredeemable debentures which they had not earned, and would be given at the expense of the ratepayers. The price to be paid on the transfer should be settled by the arbitrators. He thought the arbitrators, in fixing the price, ought to eliminate as far as they could, any enhancement caused by the addition of a new security in the shape of the rates, and add on the other side what might be fair for a reinvestment of the money. The public ought to be protected by an arrangement under which the price should be settled by the arbitrators.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 5, line 10, to leave out from 'as' to 'debenture' in line 11, and to insert 'in the opinion of the arbitrators will be equivalent in value to an equally good security producing the same income as the'"—(Lord Welby.)
  *LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I am sorry I cannot meet the noble Lord, but I think Ican make out a very good case against him. It is an important point to bear in mind that this Clause only deals with irredeemable stock. It does not touch the question of redeemable stock, or that on which the noble Viscount opposite has an Amendment in a different direction. The point for holders of irredeemable stock is much more one of income than the actual value of their security. I do not deny
  1172
  for a moment that in certain circumstances it is possible that the holders of irredeemable stock may, under the Clause as it stands, get a certain bonus, but I do not admit that the bonus would come to anything like the amount the noble Lord indicates. I think the failure in his argument arises here, that he assumed the water stock must be issued at par. I believe that is not necessarily the case. The regulations under which the stock will be issued will be carefully considered by the Local Government Board. I think the 3 per cent stock is at this moment at 98 or 98 1/2.
  LORD WELBY: It was up, not long ago, to 112.
  *LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I am a ware that it has been higher than at present, but I am giving the actual figure which was given to me at the time of our discussion upstairs. The noble Lord is not justified in assuming that at the moment it is given to the holders of irredeemable debentures the stock will be above or even at par value. This is a matter which will remain for discussion. The effect of this Amendment would be to leave the arbitrators to determine the amount of water stock to be issued to the holder of irredeemable debenture stock, and to make the amount of water stock to be issued not necessarily such an amount as would produce the same income as the debenture stock, but such an amount as the arbitrators considered to be the equivalent in value of an equally good security producing the same income. The noble Lord bases his contention on the ground that the water stock, being secured on the rates, will be of greater value than the debenture stock of the Companies. I think that will probably be the case, and that upon the whole there will be a certain rise in the capital value of the security, but, if the Amendment was inserted, it is conceivable that the debenture-holders might get an amount of water stock which would produce less income than they receive at present. This irredeemable stock is almost entirely held by trustees who do not wish to realise their securities, and to whom the whole value of this stock lies in the fact that it is

  1173
  irredeemable. They look to the income they will get, and not to the fluctuations of capital value. In the majority of cases the trustees cannot afford the luxury of high security at the risk of loss of income. If there is a small rise in the capital value of this stock, it will not be more than will compensate the debenture holders for having to take a redeemable stock in place of an irredeemable stock.
  *VICOUNT HAMPDENmoved to provide that water stock should not be redeemable. He did not anticipate that his Amendment would receive much support. Its object was to enact that irredeemable debenture stock should not be converted into redeemable debenture stock without the consent of the holders. That seemed to him a simple proposition of justice in dealing with public creditors, who, after this Bill became law, would become the creditors of the State. He ventured to think the noble Lord in charge of the Bill could find no precedent for the course adopted. The Clause provided that the amount of water stock to be issued to a holder of debenture stock should be such an amount as was sufficient to produce the same sum by way of income as the debenture stock in substitution for which
  LORD MONKSWELLsaid Parliament had decided in its wisdom that the arbitrators were to give nothing whatever in respect of compulsory purchase; but this Clause was by way of giving them something in respect of purchase.
  On Question, "That the words porposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," their Lordships divided:—Contents, 51; Not-Contents, 14. it was issued. As long as the income was paid, and the capital was not realised, he admitted there was no cause for complaint, but a great many of the debenture holders bought their stock five or six years ago when prices were very high, and they purchased it because it constituted a gilt-edged security and was irredeemable. It was certain that a considerable number of their executors or assigns when they came to realise the stock would suffer a considerable loss. Under the Bill the holders of redeemable stock, which was a security of lower value, were given the same terms as the holders of irredeemable stock, but inasmuch as the former had almost always bought their stock at a discount, they would get a great advantage by receiving full value, and, perhaps, a bonus in addition. In taking over the

  1175
  undertakings of the Water Companies, the new Water Board would assume their liabilities, assets, and contracts, and one of the contracts with the Companies was that this stock should be irredeemable. The holders bought their stock on the faith of an Act of Parliament, and this was just as much a State contract as that which existed between the Government and the holders of Consols. The precedent set up in the Clause was an extraordinary one to emanate from a Conservative Government. He saw no difference in principle between the case of the holders of irredeemable stock and the holders of Consols.

  CONTENTS.

  Halsbury, E. (L. Chancellor.)

  Romney, E

  Congleton, L.

  Devonshire, D. (L. President.)

  Selborne, E

  Dunboyne, L.

  Stamford, E

  Ellenborough, L.

  Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal.)

  Stanhope, E

  Forester, L.

  Vane, E (M. Londonderry.)

  Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

  Ailesbury, M.

  Vernlam, E

  Kenyon, L.

  Bath, M.

  Waldegrave, E [Teller.]

  Kinnaird, L.

  Hertford, M.

  Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

  Lansdowne, M.

  Churchill, V. [Teller]

  Lawrence, L.

  Hampden, V.

  Macnaghten, L.

  Clarendon,E. (L. Chamberlain.)

  Hutchinson, V. (E. Donough-more)

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

  Denbigh, E.

  Doncaster, E.(D. Bucclcuch and Queensberry.)

  Knutsford, V.

  Oranmore and Browne, L.

  Addington, L.

  Redesdale, L.

  Hardwicke, E.

  Allerton, L.

  Robertson, L.

  Hillsborough, E. (M. Downshire.)

  Balfour, E.

  Somerton, L. (E. Normanton.)

  Belhaven and Stenton, L.

  Stewart of Garlies, (E. Galloway.)

  Lucan, E.

  Belper, L.

  Morley, E.

  Chelmsford, L.

  Windsor, L.

  Onslow, E.

  Colchester, L.

  Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Carrington, E.

  Burghclere, L.

  Ribblesdale, L. [Teller.]

  Spencer, E.

  Coleridge, L.

  Sandhurst, L.

  Denman, L.

  Tweendmouth, L.

  Gordon, V. (E. Aberdeen.)

  Monkswell, L.

  Wandsworth, L.

  Brassey, L.

  Reay, L.

  Welby L. [Teller.]

  Amendment moved—
  "In page 5, line 33, to leave out from 'redeemable' to the end of the Clause."—(Viscount Hampden)
  *LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I will begin by admitting that I am not able to produce a precedent on all-fours with this proposal; but I think the reasons of public policy which make it necessary are of very serious importance I think I can say, without fear of contradiction, that no real injury is done to any of the holders of this irredeemable stock. If you have a part of the water stock irredeemable and a part redeemable, it will prevent the possibility of the new Water Board ever consolidating the whole of its debt. I am sure the noble Viscount will not contradict me when I say that the income is assured to the holders. They will have the same income and they will have, if they choose to realise it, which I dare say they will not choose to do, a security of greater value. That, of course, is a matter of opinion. We had a very long discussion on this matter upstairs, and, so far as prophecy is worth anything, the universal test money we received was that the stock would stand higher in capital value than the stock possessed by the holders at the present time. A considerable concession is thus made to the holders of irredeemable stock. The noble Lord seemed to imply that they were no better treated than owners of redeemable debenture stock, but they cannot be bought out compulsorily for sixty years, and the Water Board is not bound to redeem the stock for one hundred years. When you talk of loss,
  1176
  it is not enough to say that sixty years hence a loss will be so much if you do not realise it in the meantime; the fair way to calculate it is, what is the present value of the loss of £100 sixty years hence? Calculated in that way, the loss must be infinitesimal, and I do not believe that it will exist at all. Here we have the opposite side of the case. The point of Lord Welby's speech a few minutes ago was that we were treating these holders of irredeemable stock too well. Now it is contended by the noble Viscount that we are not giving them enough. I have said that this was one of the points that we most carefully considered. Except for the fact that you are forcing holders of irredeemable stock to take stock redeemable sixty years hence, there is no injury done to them at all. I think that in the interests of public policy, considering how very slight the risk is, the Clause ought to be passed, and I hope the House will agree to it.
  Amendment, by leave of the Committee, withdrawn.
  *LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHproposed the insertion of a new sub-Section in Clause 7 providing that the water stock under this section substituted for any irredeemable debenture stock should be held in the same rights, on the same trusts, and subject to the same powers, provisions, charges, and liabilities as the debenture stock before the substitution, and so as to give effect to testamentary or other dispositions affecting the debenture stock. He said the object of his Amendment was to prevent the failure of a specific bequest of irredeemable debenture stock owing to water stock being substituted for it. If a holder left irredeemable debenture stock in his will, and in the meantime it had been turned into water stock, it might be held that the bequest would fail. This provision followed the Clause inserted in railway bills when one company bought up another and substituted a certain amount of its own stock for the stock of the purchased company.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 5, line 35 ('three') to insert as a new sub-Section. (7) The water stock under this

  1177
  section substituted for any irredeemable debenture stock shall be held in the same rights, on the same trusts, and subject to the same powers, provisions, charges, and liabilities as those on or to which the debenture stock was held immediately before the substitution, and so as to give effect to, and not to revoke, any deed, will, or other instrument, or testamentary, or other disposition, disposing of. or affecting the debenture stock, and every such deed, will, instrument, or disposition, shall take effect with reference to the whole or a proportionate part, as the case may be, of the substituted water stock.' "—,(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
  LORD COLERIDGEdrew attention to the expression "in the same right," and asked whether that applied to the New River water shares, because, if it did, it would confer upon the holders of the new water stock the franchise which was now enjoyed by the holders of the New River water shares.
  *LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: This section will not apply to the New River Company shares. The noble Lord knows better than I do that the question of the remaining rights of the New River Company is exceedingly complicated and we have endeavoured to adjust a Clause so as to get rid of the difficulties, especially in regard to the franchise. But I was informed yesterday that a doubt had arisen as to the efficacy of the Clause, and the Local Government Board are so anxious that there shall be no doubt about it that they have taken the special advice of the Attorney General on the subject. A slightly altered Clause has been submitted today to the New River Company and will appear on the Paper tomorrow, when I hope to be in a position to convince the noble Lord that I have met the particular point which he has raised.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 8 agreed to.
  Clause 9, amended and agreed to.
  Clause 10 agreed to.
  Clause 11, amended and agreed to.
  Clause 12:—
  *LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: The Amendment standing in my name to Clause 12 deals with the special circumstances of Croydonan Richmond. There is no point of substance in it, and unless some noble Lord takes objection I will not occupy the time of the House in explaining it.
  Amendment moved.
  "In page 10, line 28, to leave out 'such day after,' and in lines 28 and 29 to leave out 'as the Local Government Board may fix.' "—(Lord Balfour of Barleigh.)
  On Question. Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 12, as amended, agreed to
  Clause 13 amended and agreed to.
  Clause 14 agreed to.
  Clause 15:—
  LORD MONKSWELLsaid he had received a communication with regard to this Clause from the Borough Council of Shoreditch, who were very anxious that the scheme under sub-Section 7 should be as soon as possible put into operation by the Water Board with a view of saving the expense of collecting a separate rate and having a separate body of rate collectors. He had mentioned the matter to the noble Lord in charge of the Bill, and the noble Lord's view was that it might possibly pass the wit of man to devise any scheme that would enable the charges for water to be collected together with the local rate.
  *LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I said it would be difficult to devise any scheme immediately.
  LORD MONKSWELLsaid that if the Water Board could not put forward a scheme in the first year of its existence, it ought certainly to be able to do so within three years, and this should be made compulsory. He mentioned that the Municipal Corporations Act of 1882 provided that the borough rate should be collected with the poor rate, and by the same set of collectors. In that case the matter was extremely complicated, because the Act dealt with

  1179
  parishes partly in and partly out of the borough, and it was far more difficult, he should have thought, to have carried out such a scheme in that case than in the case of the water rate under this Bill.
  *LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I think it would be inexpedient to make the preparation of the scheme compulsory. I am informed that it would be quite impossible to do it immediately. It would not be safe to make this compulsory for fear of some unforeseen difficulty arising. I entirely agree, and I speak on behalf of the Local Government Board, with the noble Lord as to the extreme desirability of carrying this reform into effect. We believe it would tend to economy, and would be greatly to the advantage of all concerned. I am able to give the noble Lord this assurance, that no effort will be lost on the part of the Local Government Board to put pressure on the Water Board to prepare the scheme, and on the local authorities to agree to it. I hope the noble Lord will accept the assurance that the Local Government Board will do all in their power to bring this expedient reform into operation.
  Clause 15 agreed to.
  Clause 16 amended and agreed to.
  Clause 17 amended and agreed to.
  Clauses 18 to 25 agreed to.
  Clause 26:—
  *LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHsubmitted an Amendment to sub-Section 3, which read as follows—
  "The Local Government Board may by order make such adaptations in the provisions of any general or local Act relating to the metropolitan water companies or any of them as may be necessary to make those provisions conform with the provisions of this Act."
  He moved the deletion of the words "to make those provisions conform with the provisions," and the substitution of the words" in consequence of the passing." He said: All the changes that are to be made by the Local Government Board must be done by provisional order, and must come Parliament for
  1180
  confirmation. The alteration I propose makes no change in the substance of the Bill, and I am sure it is a power which everyone will admit ought, under the circumstances, to be given.
  Amendment moved,—
  "In page 22, line 23, to leave out 'to make those provisions conform with the provisions,' and to insert 'in consequence of the passing.' "—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 26, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 27 to 36 agreed to.
  Clause 37:—
  *LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: The Amendment standing in my name provides that in valuing the undertakings, the debts, liabilities, and obligations of the Company are to be taken into account. It is obviously right that that should be done, but some ingenious person has suggested that unless such a provision is made it might be thought that the arbitrators were to value the undertakings and free them from their debts and liabilities. The object of this Amendment is to remove all possible doubt in the matter.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 25, line 29, after 'thereto,' to insert 'but subject to all debts, liabilities, and obligations of the company by this Act transferred to the Water Board.' "—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  *VISCOUNT HAMPDEN*VISCOUNT HAMPDEN, who had an Amendment standing in his name to the effect that the expression "appointed day" should mean "such day or days after the terms of purchase have been settled by agreement or arbitration," asked for an assurance that, subject to good faith on the part of the Companies in furthering, as far as they could, the arbitration proceedings, the Government would avoid fixing the appointed day before the terms of purchase had been settled by agreement. If the noble Lord would give him that assurance he would not move his Amendment.
  *LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: There was a considerable amount of discussion on this subject in the Committee, and it was one of the points which my noble friend Viscount Llan-daff mentioned on the Second Reading. He was most anxious that no company should be subjected to the disadvantage of having its undertaking transferred to the new Water Board until the agreement or the arbitration as to the terms of purchase was concluded, and, if possible, the money paid. At first the scheme of the Bill was to fix a certain appointed day, with power to the Local Government Board to extend it. Arguments were put before us on both sides. The Companies to some extent mistrusted the Water Board, and the County Council, acting in the interests of the Water Board or the ratepayers of London, suggested that the Companies, or some of them, might unduly delay the arbitration and prevent the transfer at a proper time. Upstairs we gave a greater discretion to the Local Government Board as to the fixing of the appointed day, and, as part of the arrangement come to in another place, the President of the Local Government Board accepted an Amendment which made it cleat that no earlier day than June 24, 1904. could be fixed as the appointed day, except with the consent of the Companies and the Water Board. The point on which the noble Viscount wants an assurance is, I understand, that even after June 24, 1904, the Local Government Board will not fix an appointed day to the detriment of a company unless they arrive at an opinion that the company has unduly delayed the proceedings before the arbitrators. I am able to give the noble Viscount the assurance that unless it is distinctly the opinion of the President of the Local Government Board, that undue delay has taken place, the appointed day will not be fixed so as to put the Companies under any disability. I am quite sure we shall feel on both sides of the House that the President of the Local Government Board, whoever he may be, will be sure to do his duty fairly and honestly, and, if he does not, either House of Parliament can call him to account.
  *VISCOUNT HAMPDENsaid the statement of the noble Lord was satisfactory, and he would not move his Amendment.
  Clause 37, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 38, and 39 agreed to.
  Clause 40, amended and agreed to.
  Clause 41 to 46 agreed to.
  Clause 47:—
  Drafting Amendment agreed to.
  *VISCOUNT HAMPDENmoved an Amendment to bring an officer whose salary was reduced within the scope of sub-Section 10. He said the Bill was so drafted as to make the position of these officers rather difficult. Sub-Section 4 seemed to be quite clear, it gave compensation to the officers, but it was qualified by sub-Section 6, which dealt with those officers who might be dismissed or whose services might be dispensed with by the Water Board within five years alter the appointed day. He was afraid the construction of sub-Section 6 would rather limit the application of the previous sub-Section; and when they came to sub-Section dealing with superannuation allowances, the same words were not put in as appeared in sub-Section 6—the words "or whose salary is reduced." He was advised by legal experts that there was some doubt in the drafting of the Bill whether these officers would be included in sub-Section 10. The words in his Amendment were to make it clear.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 32, line 28, after 'misconduct,' to insert 'or whose salary is reduced.'"—(Viscount Hampden)
  *LORD BALFOUE OF BURLEIGH: The exact position is this. The case that the Amendment is intended to meet is that of an officer who has been in the service of the Water Board for five years, and then has his salary reduced. The noble Viscount's proposal is that he should then be entitled to retire on a pension. For the first five years he is perfectly safe, and even after the expiration of the five years he would be

  1183
  entitled, under Clause 6, to compensation. But if, after five years, the salary is reduced, it is quite possible that the officer might refuse to accept the reduced remuneration, and if he did he might be dismissed. In that case, if he had been in the service of the Water Company for five years he would be entitled to a superannuation allowance under this sub-Section. I think the Bill sufficiently provides for every reasonable case of difficulty. It deals with the officers on a liberal scale, and I do not think it is possible to put a large number of individual officers under a public body with the security that during the whole of their period of service they are never to have their salary reduced. It might be better for them to take a reduced salary and do less arduous work. It seems to me it would be impossible to carry on any large undertaking if the authority was to be prevented from reducing upon fair consideration the salary of any one of its officers. I think you may trust a public Board on such a matter as this. I am afraid I cannot accept the Amendment.
  *VISCOUNT HAMPDENsaid that if that was the intention of the Government no more need be said. But he thought their object was the same as his, and that there had been a mistake in the drafting of the Bill.
  Amendment, by leave of the Committee, withdrawn.
  Drafting Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 47 agreed to.
  Remaining Clauses agreed to.
  First and Second Schedules agreed to.
  Third Schedule:—
  LORD TWEEDMOUTHmoved an Amendment to provide that any person should be disqualified for appointment to the Water Board unless he were a member of the constituent body appointing him. He could quote the speeches of the noble Lord opposite in favour of his proposal. Over and over again the noble Lord in charge of the Bill had
  1184
  insisted that the superiority of the Board as contained in this Bill was that it would be a representative Board, and he had told the House that the smaller Board only received acceptance from Viscount Llandaff's Commission because it was to be a Board of experts and not a representative Board. The object of his Amendment was to make the Water Board a really representative Board by providing that each member of it should belong to the particular body which sent him to the Board. As the Bill stood, they might have the whole sixty-six members of the Water Board elected, and not one of them members of the authorities which elected them. He could not think that that was what was intended. If they were to have a representative Board then the representatives, however indirectly they might be elected, should be brought into direct connection with the ratepayers. To do that they must insist that the various members should belong to the bodies which returned them. He quite admitted that a single member, say, of the Finsbury Borough Council, was not brought into any very close connection with the ratepayers of that borough, but he was with the ratepayers of the particular ward which he represented, and to that extent he had the influence of the ratepayers brought to bear upon him. If they pretended that this was a representative Board they ought to accept his Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 35, line 2, after 'Board,' to insert as a new paragraph:—1. A person shall be disqualified for being appointed a member of the Water Board by any constituent authority unless he is a member of the body or one of the bodies forming that constituent authority.'" —(Lord Tweedmouth.)
  *LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: There is, no doubt, some strength in the plea for absolute direct representation, and in the case of such a body as the London County Council I think it is very unlikely that they will appoint anyone who is not a member of their own body. Therefore the suggestion of the noble Lord that you might have a Board of sixty-six representatives, none of whom were members of the bodies electing: them, is impossible.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: I did not say that. I said it was possible, though I did not pretend that it was probable.
  *LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Knowing my County Council as I do, I do not think it is possible. It seems to me a very great advantage that the groups of bodies who are to elect by a committee one man to represent them should be able to choose whom they like. There should be absolute freedom of choice, and no restriction whatever. I am willing to put in an Amendment to provide that if a constituent body chooses one of their own body, and that gentleman ceases to belong to the constituent body, he should cease to be a member of the Water Board.
  EARL CARRINGTONsaid that under the Schedule as it stood men might be put on the Water Board who represented nobody and were trusted by nobody. This proposal was not originally in the Bill. The principle of the Amendment was one he had very much at heart, and he hoped his noble friend would go to a division.
  *LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: The noble Lord is correct in saying that this proposal was not originally in the
  Drafting Amendments agreed to.
  Lord COLERIDGEmoved to insert the words "or shareholder" after the word "director" in the Section which provided that a director of a Metropolitan
  1186
  Bill. Although we had every authority represented—the County Councils and the other local authorities—no objection was taken to the proposal by the representatives of the bodies who appeared before the Committee, and after discussion it was accepted by my Committee by six to two. I cannot see that it is a very important point, but, on the whole, I do think it would ho an advantage to the outside bodies to be able to appoint experts who would have weight on the Water Board. I think we shall be more likely to secure a business-like Board if we give that freedom. Therefore, if the noble Lord divides the House, I shall vote against the Amendment.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTHsaid he thought that one effect of this, in the case of the Borough Councils, would be that they would probably appoint their clerks to represent them on the Water Board.
  On Question, "That the new paragraph be here inserted," their Lordships divided.—Contents, 12; Not-Contents, 41.

  CONTENTS.

  Carrington, E.

  Coleridge, L.

  Sandhurst, L.

  Spencer, E.

  Denman, L. [Teller.]

  Tweedmouth, L.

  Monkswell, L.

  Wandsworth, L.

  Hampden, V.

  Reay, L.

  Welby, L.

  Ribblesdale, L. [Teller.]

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Halsbury, E. (L. Chancellor.)

  Morley, E.

  Colchester, L.

  Devonshire, D. (L. President.)

  Onslow, E.

  Congleton, L.

  Romney, E.

  Dunboyne, L.

  Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal.)

  Selborne, E.

  Ellenborough, L.

  Stamford, E.

  Kenyon, L.

  Bath, M.

  Stanhope, E.

  Kinnaird, L.

  Hertford, M.

  Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

  Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

  Lansdowne, M.

  Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]

  Lawrence, L.

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

  Clarendon, E. (L. Chamberlain.)

  Churchill, V. [Teller.]

  Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

  Redesdale, L.

  Denbigh, E.

  Robertson, L.

  Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

  Kuntsford, V.

  Somerton, L (E. Normanton.)

  Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)

  Hardwicke, E.

  Addington, L.

  Hillsborough, E. (M. Downshire.)

  Balfour, L.

  Windsor, L.

  Belhaven and Stenton, L.

  Lucan, L.

  Chelmsford, L.

  Water Company should, until the compensation payable to the Company was determined, be disqualified from being appointed or being a member of the Water Board. He said it might often happen that a director only had a

  1187
  qualifying share, whereas a large shareholder might be appointed on the Water Board and negotiate the purchase.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 35, line 25, after 'director' to insert 'or shareholder.'"—(Lord Coleridge.)
  *LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: The Amendment strikes me as going rather far. Of course, the supposition is perfectly accurate that some shareholders might hold more stock or shares than a director, but I do not think it is likely they would stand for election. It is extremely improbable, if they did stand, that they would be elected, and I do not think a man should be disqualified from being appointed a member of the Water Board if he only holds a single share in a Water Company. As this Amendment has not been placed on the Paper, I have had no opportunity of consulting those who are more responsible for the Bill than I am. If the noble Lord will place his Amendment on the Paper, I will promise to consider it between this and the next stage of the Bill.
  LORD COLERIDGEintimated that he would put the Amendment down, in order to give the noble Lord an opportunity of considering it.
  Amendment, by leave of the Committee, withdrawn.
  LORD RIBBLESDALE LORD RIBBLESDALE, who had given notice to move the insertion of a new paragraph providing that—
  "Any member of the Water Board shall cease to be member of that Board, if and when he ceases to be a member of the body or of one of the bodies forming the constituent authority by which he was appointed a member of the Water Board."
  —said the noble Lord in charge of the Bill had placed a new paragraph in his hands which he thought met the case. It was to insert, after the word "Board," the following:—
  "If a person appointed to be a Member of the Water Board is a Member of the Council or one of the Councils by whom he is appointed, he shall, if he ceases for two months to be a member of that Council, at the end of that period vacate his office as a member of the Water Board."
  He accepted those words, and begged to move the Amendment in that form.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 35, line 27, after 'Board,' to insert the above new paragraph."—(Lord Ribblesdale.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Drafting Amendment agreed to.
  LORD RIBBLESDALEsaid everything was provided in the Bill except the term of office of a member of a Joint Committee, and as three years seemed to be the period generally accepted, he moved that that term be fixed.
  Amendment moved.
  "In page 37, line 6, after 'thereon' to insert as new paragraphs: 10. The term of office of a member of a Joint Committee shall be three years. 11. On the first day of January, one thousand nine hundred and seven, and on the first day of January in every third year hereafter, all the members of a Joint Committee shall go out of office, and their places shall be filled by new appointments, but a person going out of office may, if otherwise qualified, be reappointed."—(Lord Ribblesdale.)
  *LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I think three years will be the period of office, but the noble Lord's Amendment will not do in its present form. The first Board will go out of office probably in June, 1907; at any rate, the appointment will be a triennial one. Most of the constituent bodies that will elect members to the Water Board come into office about the month of April. If January 1 is fixed for the retirement of the members of a Joint Committee, as proposed in the Amendment, it will mean that the new appointments will be made by dying bodies.
  *LORD RIBBLESDALEsaid he recognised that January 1 would be a very inconvenient date. He therefore desired to substitute May 15 for January 1 in his Amendment. As the new bodies came into existence on or about April 15, that would allow them a month to get into working order.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I do not think that will do either, because all these bodies will not come into existence at the same time. It is very expedient that careful and detailed regulations should be made for the conduct of this election. That can best be done by the Local

  1189
  Government Board after carful inquiry. This method of election does not touch bodies like County Councils and Borough Councils, which elect members themselves without reference to other authorities, but only the Joint Committee, which has one duty only, that of appointing the representative to the Water Board. I am sure it will be better, in the interests of all concerned, that the Clause should remain as it is, rather than put stereotyped provisions in the Bill which would not work.
  LORD RIBBLESDALE: Do I understand that the retirement of a Joint Committee is to be fixed by Parliament, or left to the option of the Local Government Board?
  *LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I understand that the Joint Committee will expire after having elected the member to the Water Board. There will be no further use for it. There is no object in keeping it alive, because, having once sent its member to the Water Board, it will not be required again till a vacancy occurs.
  Amendment, by leave of the Committee, withdrawn.
  LORD MONKSWELLmoved an Amendment providing that the term of office of the Chairman and Vice-Chairman should be one year instead of three years. He said it was entirely contrary to all precedent that the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of a body of this kind, which would be for the most part inexperience, should be elected for more than one year. He did not mean to say that if they had a good Chairman or a good Vice-Chairman they should not re-elect him, but he thought it was desirable that the term of office should only be for one year.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 37, lines 10 and 11, to leave out 'Chairman and Vice-Chairman, or' and to insert 'the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Board shall be one year, and the term of office of.'"—(Lord Monkswell.)
  *LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I think the noble Lord has himself given an extremely good reason why the period of three years should be adhered to. He said the Board would be large and inexperienced, and argued that therefore they ought to have and annual election of chairman. I venture to think that the more inexperienced the body is the more it requires experienced guidance, and it would be better that the chairman should be a man of experience with a certain tenure of office. I know that it is the case in England that mayores and chairmen of local authorities are appointed for one year only. I may be, perhaps, excused for preferring the Scottish custom, which allows a Provost to hold office for three years. This Amendment was raised on Report Stage in another place, was discussed at certain length, but was opposed by the Government and negatived without a Division. I hope, in the circumstances, the noble Lord will not press it.
  EARL CARRINGTONhoped the noble Lord would reconsider his decision.
  *LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I can hold out no hope of the Government changing its opinion on this matter. It has been very deliberately considered and agreed to, and if a precedent is wanted I would refer to the chairmanship of the School Board for London, which is not changed during the three years' tenure of office of the Board.
  On Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," their Lordships divided:—Contents, 39; Not-Contents, 11.

  CONTENTS.

  Halsbury, E. (L. Chancellor.)

  Clarendon, E. (L. Chamberlain.)

  Onslow, E.

  Devonshire, D. (L. President.)

  Romney, E.

  Denbigh, E.

  Selborne, E.

  Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal.)

  Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

  Stamford, E.

  Stanhope, E.

  Bath, M.

  Hardwicke, E.

  Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

  Hertford, M.

  Hillsborough, E. (M. Downshire.)

  Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]

  Lansdowne, M.

  Lucan, E.

  Churchill, V. [Teller.]

  Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

  Congleton, L.

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

  Dunboyne, L.

  Knutsford, V.

  Ellenborough, L.

  Redesdale, L.

  Kenyon, L.

  Robertson, L.

  Addington, L.

  Kinnaird, L.

  Somerton, L. (E. Normanton.)

  Balfour, L.

  Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

  Somerton, L. (E. Normanton.)

  Belhaven and Stenton, L.

  Lawrence, L.

  Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)

  Colchester, L.

  Windsor, L.

  NOT-CONTENETS.

  Carrington, E.

  Coleridge, L.

  Sandhurst, L.

  Morley, E.

  Denman, L. [Teller.]

  Tweedmouth, L.

  Spencer, E.

  Monkswell, L.

  Wandsworth, L.

  Ribblesdale, L. [Teller.]

  Welby, L.

  Drafting Amendments agreed to.
  Standing Committee negatived; the Report of the Amendments to be received Tomorrow; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 203).

  GLASGOW CORPORATION (WATER AND GENERAL) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
  Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
  HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES
  Third Report from the Select Committee considered (according to Order), and agreed to.
MILITIA AND YEOMANRY BILL

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (The Earl of HARD-WICKE): My Lords, I trust, even at this late hour, I shall be interpreting the wishes of your Lordships if I say just a few words in reference to the Bill that I now have the honour to move. The object of this Bill is to provide a Reserve for the Militia and Yeomanry, and it is in accordance with the modern idea of possessing as strong a Reserve as possible in all branches of the service. It is proposed to recruit from two classes: from men who have completed their term of service with the colours and with the Reserve, and from men who have served a certain number of trainings with the Militia or Yeomanry. It will be in the recollection of your Lordships that by the Militia and Yeomanry Act, 1901, the Yeomanry, which had hitherto been to all intents and purposes an independent branch of
  1192
  the service, was placed practically on the same footing as the Militia, and it naturally follows that, in creating a Reserve for the Militia, it is necessary also to create a Reserve for the Yeomanry. As regards the Militia Reserve, I do not think I need say more than a very few words to prove how necessary it is that we should have such a force. During the South African War, the, old Militia Reserve, which was a Reserve only in name, consisted of 30,000 men. Before the war was eight months old, these 30,000 men were absorbed by the regular forces. The Militia, when they were embodied, were, therefore, minus their Reservists, and the battalions sent to South Africa had absolutely no means of replenishing their ranks except by the recently joined recruits that were sent out. This, I am sure your Lordships will agree, was an undesirable state of affairs, and it is therefore with full confidence that I ask your Lordships to accord a Second Reading to this Bill, which will enable the military authorities to create a real Militia Reserve and place the auxiliary forces, as regards the Yeomanry and the Militia, on a sound, and I hope, a far more satisfactory basis than they have been in the past.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Earl of Hardwicke.)
  THE MARQUESS OF HERTFORD: My Lords, at this late hour I do not propose to discuss the provisions of the Bill. I merely rise to ask the noble Earl a question in which the Yeomanry are very much interested, viz., whether he can state if it has yet been decided whether the Yeomanry training is to be for fourteen or seventeen days. I believe that if the training is to be for seventeen

  1193
  days, a great many men will be obliged to leave the Yeomanry force, because their employers, who are perfectly willing to give them leave for a fortnight, cannot allow them to break into the third week. The doubt which at present exists as to the length of the training is acting very prejudicially against recruiting.
  THE MARQUESS OF GRANBY: I should like to ask the noble Earl to explain one little matter in this Bill. The whole system of the Bill seems to be subversive of the principle we have gone on hitherto as to the sanctity of the territorial system, because, under this Bill it will be possible to transfer a man in this newly formed Militia Reserve from, say, a Yorkshire regiment down to a Cornwall or Devonshire regiment. That might act prejudicially in some respects. But, on the whole, I should say the formation of a Militia Reserve is a most important and excellent step to have taken. I am well aware what a sham the old Militia Reserve was, because the Militia Reservists in time of war went straight off to the Regular battalions. Under this system the Militia will have a permanent Reserve. That is a very valuable thing. Nothing disheartens the Militia more than to find, when they go to the front, that a quarter of their entire strength, many of them being the best and most seasoned soldiers, have been absorbed by the Regular battalions of their territorial regiments. I should like to know whether this transference is to take place during embodiment, or if there is any system of training during which that transference will take place.
  LORD MONKSWELL: Do I understand that it is intended that the men in the Reserve should have no training? If not, what amount of training are they to go through, and will a man in the Reserve know what the intentions of the War Office are with regard to the relaxation of the training which, under other Acts of Parliament, he would be subjected to?
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKE: I am extremely sorry that noble Lords should have found it necessary to ask these questions, because, obviously, I should
  1194
  have explained them in introducing the Bill. I did not do so merely for the convenience of the House. In reply to the noble Lord behind me, I do not think his question actually arises in connection with this Bill. Perhaps he was not present a few nights ago when I was asked a question with regard to the forthcoming issue of the Yeomanry Regulations. I then stated that these new regulations would be provisionally issued on the 1st of February. I gather from the noble Lord that the question whether the Yeomanry are to serve for fourteen or seventeen days is one a immediate importance. I am unable to answer his question tonight, but I will draw the attention of the Secretary of State to the matter, and if a decision can be arrived at in the course of a few days on that point, and it is possible to make it public. I shall endeavour to do so. As to the question raised by the noble Marquess, he seems to be under the impression that the provisions of this Bill are contrary to the territorial system existing in this country. I can assure him that the provisions contained here for the transference of men from one battalion to the other are wholly in accord with the existing system in the Regular Army as regards the Reserve. When a Reservist is called up, although the authorities naturally place him in the battalion in which he served, if possible, they are at liberty to attach him to any regiment they may think necessary. As to the Militia, we should only call up Militia Reservists in the event of a national emergency, and when a general mobilisation takes place. In Cornwall there are many Militia battalions which are only about 200 strong, whilst there are in Lancashire Militia Batalions very much over strength, and the authorities think it is essential that they should reserve to themselves a right, on a national emergency arising and a general mobilisation taking place, to make use of Reservists to strengthen the weak regiments rather than to place them to regiments which are already over strength. In reply to the Question of the noble Lord opposite, I would point out that Sub-section 2 provides that—
  "All regulations made in pursuance of this Section shall be laid before Parliament as soon

  1195
  as practicable after they are made, if Parliament be then sitting, and, if Parliament be not sitting, as soon as practicable after the beginning of the next session of Parliament."
  The Bill, of course, does not enter into any detail, and in order to give effect to it regulations must be issued. As I stated the other night, the Secretary of State is shortly going to appoint Advisory Boards for the Yeomanry, Militia, and Volunteers. The principal duty of these Boards will be to consider regulations appertaining to the force to which they belong. The regulations under this Bill will be issued provisionally, and the Yeomanry and Militia Advisory Boards will have an opportunity of considering them and of making such suggestions to the Secretary of State as may be necessary to secure their thorough working.
  On Question, agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House tomorrow.

OSBORNE ESTATE BILL
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) (No. 2) BILL.
  House in Committee (according to Order); Bills reported without Amendment; then (Standing Orders Nos. XXXIX. and LXV. having been suspended); Bills read 3a, and passed.

  MAIL SHIPS BILL.
  Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
  House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past Twelve o'clock a.m., till half-past Ten o'clock a.m.