Lords Sitting of 11 August 1904

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order (No. 5) Bill. House in Committee (according to order). Bill reported without Amendment. Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3 a To-morrow.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill [H.L.]. Commons Amendment considered (according to order), and agreed to.
Pier and Harbour Provisional Order (No. 3) Bill. Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 13) BILL.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a." (Lord Kenyon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
LORD ARMSTRONG: My Lords, I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name. This is a Bill for confirming, among others, an Order of the Local Government Board for extending the boundaries of the city of Newcastle so as to include certain urban and rural districts. This Order will come into operation on 9th November, and, as the Order now stands, from 19th July last up to the time of the Order coming into operation, the present councils of the added areas can commit the Corporation of Newcastle to an unlimited expenditure. The object of my Amendment is to protect the Corporation of Newcastle from the liability of being committed during this short time that the councils of the added areas may be in existence to an unlimited expenditure which they may have had, perhaps, no opportunity of considering, or which may appear to them to be wholly unnecessary, or at any rate excessive in amount. To prove to your Lordships the justice of, and necessity for, this Amendment, I may mention that the council of one of the areas taken over resolved on 20th July, the day after the Corporation
150
by the Order takes over the responsibility for contracts made by the councils, to purchase land for the extension of a public park at a cost of between £9,000 and £10,000, and, in addition, they resolved to at once invite tenders for a sixty ton refuse destructor. I trust your Lordships will look upon this Amendment as a reasonable one for the protection of the Corporation of Newcastle, and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
"In page 26, after line 40, to insert the words 'Provided that no such contract, deed, bond, agreement, or other instrument entered into or made by either of the urban councils or the rural council after the 19th day of July, 1914, which involves or may involve the payment by the corporation of any sum or sums exceeding two hundred and fifty pounds shall be binding upon the corporation unless the same shall have been approved by them in writing or in case of difference by the Local Government Board or by some person appointed by them whose decision shall be final and binding on all parties.'"—(Lord Armstrong.)
Lord KENYON: On behalf of the Local Government Board I beg to say that there is no objection to this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Moved, "That the Bill do now pass."—(Lord Kenyon.)
On Question, Bill passed accordingly and returned to the Commons

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  PREFERENTIAL AND RETALIATORY DUTIES.
  Order of the 12th August, 1903, for a Return respecting, discharged, and proceedings of the 14th August, 1903, relating to the presentation of the same, ordered to he vacated. Then it was ordered that the following Return be laid before the House in substitution thereof, viz.—

  DIFFERENTIAL DUTIES.
  Return of differential duties imposed, raised, reduced, or repealed in the years 1823, 1824, 1825, 1826, 1842, 1843, 1844, 1845, 1846, 1853, and 1860, stating (1)

  151
  the rate of duty levied; and (2) the revenue derived from, and the quantities imported of, the articles concerned in the three years preceding, and in the three years following, such change.
  The said Return laid before the House (pursuant to Order of this Day), and to be printed. (No. 190.)

  HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES.
  Second Report of the Select Committee made; to be printed; and to be considered To-morrow. (No. 191.)
  LOCAL TAXATION RETURNS (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1881.
  Returns for the year 1902–1903.

  TRADE REPORTS.
  I. (ANNUAL SERIES).
  No. 3251. China (Wenchow).
  No. 3252. Norway.
  No. 3253. Russia (Foreign commerce of Russia and trade of St. Petersburg).
  No. 3254. France (Madagascar).
  No. 3255. Austria-Hungary (Bohemia).
  II. (MISCELLANEOUS SERIES).
  No. 618. Germany (Special technical schools for the wood-working industries).

  BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (INTELLIGENCE DIVISION).
  Annual Report of proceedings under the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875–1899; the Merchandise Marks Act, 1887–1894; the Fertilizers and Feeding Stuffs Act, 1893; and the Board of Agriculture Act, 1889 (Section 2, Sub-section 3); for the year 1903.
  NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND).
  Annual Report of the Commissioners for 1903.
  IRISH LAND COMMISSION.
  Report of the Commissioners for the period from 1st April, 1903, to 31st March, 1904.

  RAILWAY ACCIDENTS.
  Returns of accidents and casualties as reported to the Board of Trade by the several railway companies in the United Kingdom during the three months ended
  152
  31st March, 1904, in pursuance of the Regulations of Railways Act (1871); together with reports of the inspecting officers, assistant inspecting officers, and sub-inspectors of the Railway Department to the Board of Trade, upon certain accidents which were inquired into.

  GAS AND WATER ORDERS, SESSION 1904.
  Report by the Board of Trade on their proceedings under the Gas and Water Works Facilities Act, 1870, during the session of 1904.
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table,

  INEBRIATES ACT, 1898.
  Regulation, made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department in pursuance of the Act, respecting the photographing of inmates of certified inebriate reformatories.
  IRISH LAND COMMISSION (PURCHASE OF LAND (IRELAND) ACT, 1891).
  Return of advances under the Act during the year ended the 31st March, 1904.
  Report by the Board of Trade on their proceedings and business under the Weights and Measures Acts.
  RAILWAY AND CANAL TRAFFIC, ACT, 1888.
  Eighth Report by the Board of Trade of proceedings under Section 31 of the Act, including proceedings upon complaints made under Section 31 of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1894.

  RAILWAY SERVANTS (HOURS OF LABOUR).
  Report by the Board of Trade respecting their proceedings under the Railway Regulation Act, 1893, during the year ended 27th July, 1904.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.
  The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the Standing

  153
  Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with: Post Office Sites.
  The same was ordered to lie on the Table.

  PUBLIC HEALTH BILL [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons agreed to.
  COUNTY OF SUFFOLK BILL.
  Read 3a (according to order), and passed.
  SHOP HOURS BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a To-morrow (The Lord Belper). (No. 192.)
  OUTDOOR RELIEF (FRIENDLY SOCIETIES) (No. 2) BILL.
  Read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a To-morrow (The Lord Kenyon). (No. 193.)
  POST OFFICE SITES BILL.
  To be read 2a To-morrow, and Standing Order No. 93 to be considered in order to its being dispensed with in respect of the said Bill.

  RUSSIA AND CONTRABAND OF WAR.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: My Lords, seeing the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in his place, I beg to ask him certain Questions, of which I have given him private notice. They are as follows: What exactly is the position of the case of the sinking of the "Knight Commander"; whether there are any negotiations going on between His Majesty's Government and the Russian Government with regard to contraband of war, and whether His Majesty's Government adhere to the former practice of the Foreign Office on this question, and specially to the course which was pursued by Lord Granville during the Franco-German War; whether it is true, as stated in the newspapers, that an agreement has been come to between the Turkish Government and the Russian Government with respect to the passage of the Russian Volunteer Fleet through the Dardanelles, and what exactly is the
  154
  meaning of the words in that agreement that the ships are to fly the commercial flag "throughout the voyage?"
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE): My Lords, I have to thank the noble Marquess for the extremely considerate manner in which he has addressed these Questions to me. I feel sure there could be no one who would be more unwilling to add to the difficulties of His Majesty's Government in dealing with this important subject than the noble Marquess himself. His Questions have reference to three separate points. He has referred, in the first place, to the passage of the Dardanelles by Russian ships belonging to what is known as the Volunteer Fleet. In the second place he referred to the manner in which the Russian Government has lately dealt with the question of contraband of war. In the third place, he has touched upon the manner in which certain neutral prizes, and particularly the "Knight Commander," have been dealt with by the Russian Government. In regard to the Volunteer Fleet and the passage of the Dardanelles, your Lordships are aware of the manner in which this question is regarded by His Majesty's Government. We have explained that in our opinion these vessels were not entitled to pass through the Straits as ships of war, and that having assed through the Straits as peaceful vessels they were not entitled to reappear immediately, or almost immediately afterwards in the guise of warlike vessels, and to interfere with neutral commerce. That is our general view. So far as the incidents which have arisen out of the passage of the "Petersburg" and "Smolensk" through the Dardanelles are concerned, I think we may say that the matter has passed out of the acute stage. As the noble Marquess is aware, those two ships have been withdrawn from the Red Sea, and as we now know that the instructions which have been sent to them to desist from similar seizures have reached their destination, we may assume that no further seizures will be made by them.
  Then we come to the case of the passage of the Dardanelles by other ships of the Volunteer Fleet to which reference was made yesterday in the newspapers. I

  155
  believe that the report in the newspapers is substantially correct, and that the account given of the conditions insisted upon by the Turkish Government is in accordance with the facts of the case. The Turkish Government appears to have obtained from the Russian Government an official statement that these vessels will fly during their whole voyage, as hitherto, the commercial flag, that they will not contain either munitions of war or armament, and that they will not be "changed into cruisers." The noble Marquess laid stress upon the passage which says that these vessels were to continue to fly the commercial flag during their whole voyage. The words he used were "throughout the voyage." The words in the official version are "during the whole voyage," which suggests something more than the shorter expression quoted by the noble Marquess. I may say at once that in our opinion the larger interpretation is obviously the correct one, for it would be almost grotesque if the voyage of these vessels were to be regarded as beginning and ending with their passage through the Straits.
  Then I pass to the second and more serious question raised by the noble Marquess, I mean the question of the manner in which the Russian Government has treated the question of contraband of war. At the beginning of the war the Russian Government issued regulations dealing with this question; and it is certainly the case that these regulations had the effect of very greatly amplifying the definition of contraband of war which has hitherto been accepted by this and, I believe, by most other countries. The Russian definition included a number of articles which we have always regarded as prima facie innocent, unless it could be shown that they were destined for the enemy's use. This enlarged definition was coupled with an official intimation that the whole of the articles enumerated in Rule 6 of the Russian regulations were to be regarded not merely as contraband of war, but as unconditionally contraband of war. The list of articles enumerated in the sixth rule is a large one; but the particular articles in which we are more especially concerned are those enumerated in Subsections 8 and 10, which are as follows—
  156
  "Sub-section 8.—Every kind of fuel, such as coal, naphtha, alcohol, and other similar materials."
  "Sub-section 10.—Generally everything intended for warfare by sea or land, as well as rice, provisions, horses, beasts of burden, and others which may be used for warlike purposes, if they are transported on account of or are destined for the enemy."
  Of course that rule by itself and without the distinct intimation that all these articles were to be treated as unconditionally contraband of war would not have been such a grave matter; but taking the rule as we found it, plus the official explanation, it seemed to us a matter of such importance that we deemed it our duty to call the attention of the Russian Government to the gravity of the question.
  We took up in particular the inclusion amongst articles unconditionally contraband of war of provisions, in which I need not say this country is very largely interested. We pointed out that the inclusion of all provisions in this category was a very serious innovation; and we stated that we felt bound to reserve our rights by protesting at once against the doctrine that it is for the belligerent to decide that certain articles or classes of articles are, as a matter of course, and without reference to other considerations, to be dealt with as contraband of war, regardless of the well-established rights of neutrals. We went on to say that we could not consider ourselves bound to recognise as valid the decision of any Prize Court which violated those rights, or was otherwise not in conformity with the recognised principles of international law. I think it was with regard to that point that the noble Marquess asked me whether we adhered to the views expressed in 1870 by Lord Granville. I take it that what the noble Marquess refers to is the correspondence which passed in that year between Lord Granville and Count Bernsdorff, when the German Government demanded that the export of arms and ammunition and coal should be prevented by His Majesty's Government. To those demands we refused to accede, and our policy in that respect remains what it was at that time.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: Rice?
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Yes, I think rice was included, but I am

  157
  not quite certain. I pass from that question to the question of the measures taken by the Russian Government for the purpose of preventing the arrival of contraband of war at the ports of the other belligerent. That, of course, raises the question of the "Knight Commander," to which the noble Marquess drew special attention. I need not point out to the House that the effect of severe rules dealing with this question of contraband is greatly intensified if the measures taken to enforce those rules are also of exceptional severity. We are now given to understand that in the view of the Russian Government it is within the right of a belligerent to destroy a neutral vessel captured by him if that neutral vessel has contraband of war on board her. My Lords, that is a view which the Government of this country have never accepted; it is a view which I believe has been repudiated, although perhaps not so distinctly, by other Powers; it has certainly not been accepted by the Government of the United States. Holding these opinions, His Majesty's Government thought it their duty, some time ago, to call the attention of the Russian Government to Article XXI. of the Russian regulations relating to the destruction the prizes, pointing out that their terms might be held to apply to the case of vessels belonging not only to the enemy, but also to neutral vessels carrying contraband of war. Sir Charles Hardinge was desired to say we assumed that the provisions of the Article were not meant to refer to neutral vessels, and to inform the Russian Government that we so interpreted their rules. In these circumstances, my Lords, we are altogether unable to admit that the sinking of the "Knight Commander" was justifiable according to any principles of international law by which this country has ever regarded itself as bound.
  That brings me to the natural reply to the question of the noble Marquess, who asked me what is the position of the "Knight Commander" after her condemnation by the Prize Court at Vladivostok? The case of the "Knight Commander" awaits trial by the appellate Prize Court at St. Petersburg. I
  need not say that if the St. Petersburg Court should reverse the de-
  158
  cision of the Vladivostok Court that would be a matter for congratulation. But, whether that be the case or not, we are in any case unable to admit that! the destruction of the vessel was justifiable or that the proceedings of these Prize Courts have any validity so far as this particular case is concerned.
  I am tempted to say one word as to the cumulative effect of the different measures to which the Russian Government has thought it its duty to resort, for it is the cumulative effect of those measures which we have to consider. It is, in our opinion. extremely serious. You have in the first place an extension of the doctrine of contraband of war altogether novel and unprecedented; you have in the next place the claim to pursue such alleged contraband of war no matter where it may be found, no matter at what distance from the theatre of war, and particularly in those narrow waters through which all neutral commerce is virtually obliged to pass on its way to the Far East; and, finally, you have the additional claim to dispose, as we think arbitrarily, and without the previous authority of a Prize Court, of vessels taken with so-called contraband of war on board them by sinking or destruction. The operation of these measures cannon fail to have a most injurious effect on the commerce of this country.
  Let your Lordships imagine, for example. what would be the result were some cruiser operating at a distance from her base to seize and sink on the spot a number of neutral vessels simply on the ground that those neutral vessels had not on board of them a sufficient amount of coal to carry them to the port from which the belligerent cruiser had started; or, again, we might find ourselves confronted with this result, that a cruiser, starting with a crew sufficient only for the purpose of navigating her, and consequently not having on board any men whom she could spare for the purpose of providing a prize crew, might sink every prize which she took, merely on the ground that there were no means of conveying that prize before a Prize Court. I am speaking, of course, of neutral prizes, because the case of enemy prizes is wholly different. I have mentioned these possible results because I desire that your Lordships should realise how serious is the

  159
  problem with which we have to deal; but I do not for a moment suggest that the whole of these consequences are likely to follow. My impression is that, in spite of these untoward incidents, both Governments would really be glad to discover a reasonable means of settling these difficulties. We on our side certainly recognise that a belligerent has a right to prevent the supply of contraband of war to the other belligerent, and to take reasonable precautions for that purpose. But we have thought it our duty to point out very earnestly to the Russian Government that their conduct in this matter has gone far beyond what, in our view, is justifiable for this purpose.
  Although this correspondence is still proceeding, and I am not able to announce anything which can be regarded as a definite settlement of the question, I am glad to be able to add that the language of the Russian Government justifies us in expecting that these acts of destruction of neutral prizes are not likely to be repeated, although they may maintain that in principle such a right belongs to them, and I am not without hopes that when we have more thoroughly discussed these questions in all their bearings we may find that upon the question of contraband also there may be room for a reasonable and amicable understanding. I can assure your Lordships that we deeply realise the gravity of the subject to. which the noble Marquess has called attention, and we shall deem it our duty to insist strongly upon the rights which this country possesses as a neutral Power, rights which owing to her predominant interest in the commerce of the Far East she is, more than any other Power, called upon to vindicate.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Moved, That Standing Order No. XXXIX. be considered in order to its being suspended for the remainder of the session.(The Marquess of Lansdowne.)
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: I should like to ask the noble Marquess to what extent he intends that Motion to apply to the Education (Local Authority Default) Bill, which stands for Second Reading this evening.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: We do not think it necessary to suspend the Standing Order in reference to that Bill.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: I waited, before rising, to hear if any noble Lord had anything to say upon this principle of suspending the Standing Order. What it means is simply this, that your Lordships' House as a practical, deliberative, legislative Assembly should give up the powers which you have under the Standing Orders of revising and checking Bills that come up from the other House. It practically makes the Government omnipotent as regards any Bill which at this late period of the session they may think it right to bring forward. My noble friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs talked last year about having a retaliatory fiscal revolver. The suspension of this Standing Order is nothing but a revolver which you put in the hands of the Government of the day, and which gives them the power of doing away with the general supervision on the part of your Lordships' House, and I venture to think it is a power which should not be given unless you know in what way this fully charged revolver is to be used. I think, before your Lordships grant this extreme power, we ought to know from my noble friend in what way it is going to be used. He ought to give us a list of the Bills with regard to which he intends to exercise this power. Standing Order No. XXXIX., which your Lordships are asked to suspend, reads as follows—
  "No Bill shall be read twice the same day; no Committee of the Whole House shall proceed on any Bill the same day the Bill is committed for the first time; no Report shall be received from any Committee of the Whole House the same day such Committee goes through the Bill when any Amendments are made to such Bill; no Report shall be received from any Standing Committee with regard to any Bill the same day on which such Bill is reported from such Committee when any Amendments have been made to such Bill either in Committee of the Whole House or by the Standing Committee; and no Bill shall be read the third time the same day that the Bill is reported from the Committee."
  It is believed that there are only two more days left of the session. Very important Bills containing great principles may be brought up to this House from another I place, and if this Order is suspended they can be passed through all their stages in one day. I contend that that is neither

  161
  constitutional nor right. There is another Standing Order, dated 1668, which refers to a Bill of an exceptional nature passing without the ordinary form of procedure, and goes on to state that this was a wholly exceptional proceeding, and that it was not to be departed from in the future. The words are—
  "Upon report made by the Lord Chamberlain from the Committee of the Whole House, concerning the Bill.… in regard to the said Bill being very long, and consisting of many paragraphs, came from the House of Commons so near the time of adjournment, he was commanded to report it as the opinion of the Committee that it might be entered into the Journal Book of this House, that there may be no such argument hereafter used in this House, as was upon this Bill (of shortness of time for the passing of the Bill), to precipitate the passing thereof; but that due consideration may be had hereafter, according to the course of Parliaments…"
  I submit that if Standing Order XXXIX. is suspended this Standing Order ought to be repealed as well. Before the House is asked to give up its power and allow the Government of the day to tyrannically pass measures in a single sitting, some information ought to be given of the Bills for which such powers are asked.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I am not at all surprised that my noble friend should come forward as the guardian of the privileges of this House, and I can assure him that I regret as much as he does the necessity of expediting our business by these methods; but I am under the impression that at the end of every session, in order to wind up our business, we find it necessary to resort to some such steps as these, and unless it can be shown that the House is really deprived of an opportunity of debating measures which it could usefully debate or amend, I do not think that the grievance is really a very serious one. I have already, in response to an appeal from the noble Marquess opposite, said we do not desire to suspend the Standing Order in reference to the Second Reading of the Education (Local Authority Default) Bill. I can rely only upon the indulgence of the House. The matter is in your Lordships' hands, and if you prefer to prolong the session for a few days we are powerless to prevent your doing so.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: Will the noble Marquess name the Bills to which the closure is to be applied? It all turns upon that. If they are Bills containing vital principles they should be capable of being discussed at every stage. I say it would be a tyrannical act to pass those Bills without any discussion, and if your Lordships agree to this Motion without knowing the Bills to which it will apply, you will be sacrificing your position as a deliberative assembly. I shall certainly say "Not Content" to the Motion.
  On Question, Motion agreed to, the Earl of Wemyss challenging a division but being unable to find a teller.

  SUPPLY OF ELECTRICITY BILL [H.L.]
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a."—(Lord Wolverton.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  LORD WOLVERTON: My Lords, I beg to move the deletion of the proviso at the end of Clause 4, which runs as follows—
  "Provided always that any local authority having power to purchase any part of an undertaking being wholly or partly within the administrative county of London may subject to the provisions of this section and to the like consents transfer such rights to the London County Council."
  In asking your Lordships to omit this proviso, I do so with the consent of all my colleagues on the Committee over which I had the honour to preside and which inserted this proviso, with the deletion of which the Board of Trade and the Local Government Board agree. I will explain shortly what would be the effect of retaining the proviso in the clause. Let me take the case of Westminster. Supposing Westminster under this Bill did not choose to become its own electric lighting authority it would be able to hand over its powers to the London County Council. But supposing the London County Council did not make a success of the enterprise in Westminster, not only would the rates of Westminster be liable, but also the rates of the whole of London. On these grounds I ask your Lordships to accept the Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  "In Clause 4, page 3, line 33, to leave out from the word 'transfer,' to the end of the clause."—(Lord Wolverton.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Moved, "That the Bill do pass."—(Lord Wolverton.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

  EDUCATION (LOCAL AUTHORITY DEFAULT) BILL.
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (The Marquess of LONDONDERRY):My Lords, in rising to move the Second Reading of this Bill I can assure my noble friend Lord Wemyss that we have not the slightest intention of rushing this measure through your Lordships' House. We propose to deal with it, I trust, in a manner which he will consider is conducive to the dignity of the House. I would first of all express my sincere regret that there has been any necessity for His Majesty's Government introducing this measure. During the last two sessions your Lordships have had before you two most important measures connected with education, and, therefore, your Lordships might justly ask why you are for a third session in succession required to deal with the question. Before I resume my seat I trust I may be able to persuade your Lordships that this third measure is one of necessity, and that if His Majesty's Government did not ask Parliament to sanction it they would be unworthy to occupy their position.
  The great duty of a responsible Government is to maintain law. It is their equally important duty to prevent injustice, and I maintain that it is my duty as President of the Board of Education to promote the efficiency of education and not to allow schools to deteriorate owing to unjust treatment. Your
  164
  Lordships will remember the details of the two Acts which have already become law. When the Bill of 1902 was passed I trusted and believed it would receive a chance of working fairly, because I imagined there was an earnest desire on the part of all those to whom the administration of the Act was entrusted to promote the efficiency of education. I think I may say, without being unduly sanguine, that in the majority of areas our hopes have been to a very great extent realised. At the present moment there are only five areas in which the Act is not working, and we have reason to believe that these will be reduced in a short time; and I would add that in many areas we have reason to congratulate ourselves on the very satisfactory way in which that Act is now working. I venture to think that where the Act has been taken up by the local education authority with the desire to promote the efficiency of education it has realised our expectations. But there are parts of the country in which those expectations have not been realised.
  I regret to say that in the Principality of Wales the Act has been flouted. The action of certain local education authorities has been conducive to gross injustice to certain schools of whose principles these local education authorities do not approve, and the result of that injustice, if allowed to continue, would be a want of efficiency in those schools.
  Let me say one word about the Act of 1902. Your Lordships will remember that in another place and in this House it occupied a considerable time in its passage through its various stages. I am not going to deny for a moment that it was a Bill of a controversial character. I should be extremely surprised to see any measure connected with education that would not be of a controversial character, and, therefore, I allow at once that it was open to criticism. I will allow also that the Bill was not a perfect one, but I have yet to find any Act of Parliament which is universally considered perfect. And when we consider that the Act of 1902 had to be built on the foundations of the Act of 1870, which I do not think any noble Lord will hold was admitted universally to be perfect, I do not think I am wrong in
  allowing that it was possible to declare

  165
  that the Act of 1902 was not altogether satisfactory. But whether controversial or not, whether perfect or not, the Bill received the assent of both Houses of Parliament and is now the law of the land, and as such I maintain that it is the bounden duty of His Majesty's Government to insist on its being carried into force.
  I regret sincerely the absence of the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition, because if there is one Member of your Lordships' House to whom I could appeal to insist on the maintenance of law and order it is the noble Earl, Lord Spencer. I remember well the three years, from 1882 to 1885, when he so ably discharged the duties of Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland. He had powers given him to carry out the law of the land, and he exercised those powers to the admiration of every law-abiding subject in Ireland. Therefore, 1 should have liked to have appealed to the noble Earl and to have asked him what his opinion would be after that experience, if His Majesty's Government in the present condition of affairs had allowed the law in certain parts of the country to be flouted or administered with injustice to one section of the community. I should also have liked to have asked the noble Earl, had he been in his place, whether he supported the statements which have been made by Mr. Lloyd-George, one of his supporters.
  I have made three distinct statements. I have stated that the Act has been flouted in Wales, that injustice has been done to certain schools which are not popular with the authorities, and that the efficiency of the schools, if this injustice is allowed to continue, will be jeopardised. I hope to prove that each of those statements is accurate. Now, with regard to the Act being flouted, I will quote to your Lordships Mr. Lloyd-George's statement, and I believe I am justified in considering him the spokesman of the Welsh county councils on this subject. Speaking at Bradford, Mr. Lloyd-George described the action of the Welsh county councils as follows—
  "They were getting majorities not to facilitate the carrying out of every provision, but to throw obstacles in the way of carrying out those provisions in the Act which were not suitable to the requirements of their localities. That was their first principle."
  166
  Mr. Lloyd-George also stated in March—
  "Did they propose to defy the Act? Not at all. He simply suggested that they should walk round it."
  That is a quotation which I should have liked to have asked the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition whether he endorsed or not. I would refer to what was done in Carmarthenshire, where the county council bound themselves by resolution to have absolutely nothing to do with the voluntary schools. It was proved beyond all doubt, by the public inquiry held in March last, that that county council was in default in almost every possible way in which they could fail to do their duty in this matter.
  Having, I think, proved my statement that the Welsh county councils have flouted the Act, I now come to the injustice which is being done by certain local education authorities to the voluntary schools. I find in the Swansea Daily News of 25th May last year a report of one of the conferences that were held at which the following resolution was passed—
  "That until the Act is so amended as to give them full control over schools not provided by them, the councils of Wales and Monmouthshire be recommended to refrain from applying the rates to such schools."
  I maintain that it is a gross injustice to these schools, and one which cannot be tolerated by those responsible for the education of the country.
  The complaint of the Welsh county councils is this—first of all, that the voluntary schools have been placed upon the rates, and secondly, that the majority of the managers of these schools are not elected by popular control but are appointed under certain trust deeds. Let me deal with the question of the voluntary schools being placed on the rates. I think that action was one of very tardy justice to these voluntary schools at the hands of the Government. I think the people of this country are absolutely ignorant of the debt of gratitude they owe to voluntary schools. They seem to ignore the fact that had it not been for the voluntary schools there would have been practically no education up to 1870. When we consider the expense to which voluntary schools have been put and the work they have done, it does seem a somewhat

  167
  ungrateful act on the part of the people to declare that they should not receive support out of the rates.
  I now turn to the argument that the majority of the managers of voluntary schools are not popularly elected. It is our duty to respect the wishes of those who have endowed denominational schools on the distinct understanding that denominational education shall be given in those schools, and unless we had maintained a majority of those managers on the board of management we should have been guilty of a breach of trust, and should have betrayed the principles of those to whom these voluntary schools owed their existence. I think those who take this line entirely forget one fact, namely, that with regard to secular education, even in denominational schools, under the Act of 1902 the local authority is absolutely paramount. It is frequently argued that if the voluntary schools of Wales are not supported out of the rates they are in no worse position than they were before; but that is no answer. The voluntary schools pay rates in the counties which they did not pay before. Those rates are paid into the general fund of the county, but the county councils in some cases refuse to return to the voluntary schools their share, and distribute it among schools which are more popular with the local education authority. It must be remembered that to the local education authorities has been given omnipotent power in regard to the condition of the buildings and their maintenance, and they have in many cases exercised their power in effecting improvements. Is it just that a local authority should insist on improvements, and yet refuse just pecuniary aid to maintain the efficiency of education in those buildings? I venture to say that an act of greater injustice could not possibly be done, and it is an act of injustice which the Board of Education could not possibly tolerate.
  I will now prove my statement that owing to the injustice done to certain voluntary schools the efficiency of those schools is retarded and jeopardised. The local education authorities in certain parts of Wales have declared that it is perfectly possible to maintain the efficiency of schools out of the grants, and that they
  168
  need have no recourse to the rates. My experience has shown me that that opinion is absolutely incorrect. We have investigated that question and proved it so. There are some schools that cannot even pay the salaries of the teachers out of the grants, let alone purchase books, apparatus, and the hundred and one things connected with education. In regard to Merionethshire, the report instances two schools where the salaries were £240 and £84 respectively, and where the grants only amounted to £213 and £67 respectively, and yet, besides these salaries, which the grant did not meet, there was the expense of books, apparatus, etc., to be met. Therefore, it is absurd to say that these schools could be maintained out of the grants and had no need for rate support. There are certain schools in Merionethshire which have only been kept efficient for months past owing to the generosity of the managers. Is that the way to administer an Act which had for one of its objects the relief of voluntary schools? I maintain that we should not be doing justice if we allowed those managers to continue to bear that burden. How are those schools to fare if those managers—and they are not rich men—find themselves unable to continue to meet the expenses out of their own pockets? Your Lordships know that these schools must fall to the ground, to the detriment of the education of the rising generation in that part of the country.
  I see on the other side of the House my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley. In neither House of Parliament is there a greater expert in educational matters than he is. No man has devoted himself more to the efficiency of education, and he knows full well that if the efficiency of education is to be maintained there must be in existence the highest class of teachers. My noble friend is always persistent on the question of the efficiency of the teachers. I entirely agree with him, and, therefore, knowing my noble friend's predilection in this direction, I confess it was with some surprise that I read a letter of his in the Westminster Gazette on the 3rd instant, in the course of which the noble Lord said—
  "At this moment, in spite of the extreme tension and resentment aroused by the Education Act of 1902, the local authorities even in

  169
  Wales are administering it, and if they were left alone, time, which softens difficulties, might lead to a reasonable modus vivendi between the opposing parties."
  I confess I was at a loss to understand what the noble Lord meant by suggesting that time should be given in order to allow things to settle down. The matter is absolutely urgent. If we do not deal with this question at this moment we might find ourselves in certain of these schools without any teachers at all. I would ask my noble friend what is to be done in the interval while the modus vivendi is being arrived at. Would he allow schools to be without teachers? Would he insist on those who have been carrying on these schools at their own expense being made to continue to do so compulsorily? Well, if they do not, what does the noble Lord propose should be done in the interval before the modus vivendi is arrived at? We consider it is our duty to maintain the efficiency of each and every school, and not to differentiate between one school and another.
  We annually appeal to the country for a very large sum of money for elementary education, and the country invariably grants us that without a murmur. But what do they expect in return? They expect the efficiency of every single school; they expect us to be able to assure them, through our responsible representatives in Parliament, that we are satisfied that every teacher is up to the mark, and if we are going to allow certain schools to be without teachers or to have cheap teachers who are not up to the mark, I say we should be betraying the confidence of the country. We are asked sometimes why in this Bill the Board of Education propose to decide the case without asking for a public inquiry. The answer to that is a very simple one. Inquiry, as your Lordships know, is a very long business. It is a long business in any circumstances, and to initiate an inquiry into such petty questions as might be involved would be utterly unworthy of this cause. It might be a question merely of the salary of a teacher, or whether coals had been provided one week and not another. Would any noble Lord propose, under any such circumstances, that an inquiry should be held? If we held an inquiry, we should have to communicate with the local authority, and we find that the local
  170
  authorities have a knack of ignoring letters that are sent from the Board of Education, and absolutely declining to answer the questions put to them. Mr. Lloyd-George, speaking on this subject, said—
  "The Carnarvonshire County Council meet only once a (platter. At the last meeting there might be before the council a communication from the Board of Education. The chairman would say, 'I am very sorry, but we cannot possibly attend to that to-day,' and somebody would move the adjournment to the next meeting, which would be held in June."
  Therefore, your Lordships will see that if we had to hold an inquiry at the instigation, or with the consent, of the county council, we might have to wait. in the case of Carnarvonshire, more than three months before we got an answer to our letter. We are not likely to act in any case unless we have absolutely good grounds for doing so, but it would be better for the Board of Education to deal with the matter at once rather than leave it hung up till the next meeting of the county council.
  There is another point. It has been said that this is a coercion Bill. I took the liberty the other night of interrupting my noble friend Lord Burghclere when he called it a coercion Bill, because I think if there is one Bill associated with education which is not a coercion Bill, it is this one. if your Lordships had chosen to say that there was a certain amount of coercion about the Act of 1902, I do not think I should have been able to have given a flat contradiction, because under that Act it is possible to obtain a mandamus to compel the local authority to carry out their duty if they neglected it. But under this Bill there is no such compulsory power. It may be asked, Why have we not put in a provision for a manda nus here? My reply is that we do not wish to create in every part of Wales village heroes with dauntless breasts. This is not a measure of a coercive character. It does no harm to the conscientious scruples of any conscientious council. When an authority refuses to administer the Act this Bill simply places the Board of Education in the place of that authority in regard to the school or schools affected. I have heard it said, "Oh, but you are interfering with the spirit of the Act of 1902,

  171
  which was to hand over to the local education authority the whole control of these schools."
  Their authority is absolutely untouched if they only choose to maintain it. Take any individual school. If the county council provide for it in every detail except one, they are paramount over every one of those details except that one. Therefore, when we are told that we are interfering by this Bill with the spirit of the Act of 1902, I am compelled to say that this is not the case. We are upholding it in every way. I say, on behalf of the Board of Education, that it will be with the utmost reluctance that we shall find ourselves called upon to intervene in such cases; and on the first occasion that a defaulting authority removes a grievance, automatically the power of this measure ceases. His Majesty's Government are determined to insist on the policy of justice to all classes of the community, and I venture to hope that we may never be called upon to administer this Act; but if we are so called upon we shall administer it only because the action has been forced upon us and because the claims of justice make it necessary for us to intervene.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: My Lords, it is with great regret that I rise to move, as an Amendment, that this Bill be read this day three months. I listened with great interest and attention to all that my noble friend the Lord President of the Council said upon this Bill. He gave us at length his views as to the necessity for the Bill and the mischiefs it was intended to correct, but he did not give us as full an explanation as I could have wished of the operation of the Bill itself. But I have no doubt that he or some other noble Lord may find an opportunity, in replying, to illustrate or explain one or two points which the noble Marquess passed over. At this late period of the session, and with the empty Benches I see around me, I feel it is rather an idle thing to attempt to use this House as a deliberative Assembly, seeing that we are simply recording decisions which have been come to by methods of which we are aware in another
  172
  place. I regret we should be legislating at a time when it is impossible for us to properly examine the details of Bills that come before us.
  I pass now to the reasons why I think we ought not to accept this Bill. I will at the outset make this admission, or concession, or admit this point of agreement with the noble Marquess, that I think, in the first place, any Party that has passed a law through Parliament is entitled to say that it will carry out that law effectively, and I will go a step further and admit that it is the duty of any Ministry, whether they carried that particular law or not, to give effect to the law as it stands. I think these are two ample admissions. But it does not follow that this Bill is a wise or effective way of carrying out the legislation of 1902, nor does it follow that it is a just way. The noble Marquess spoke largely of justice. I agree entirely that justice should guide our deliberations and our actions. I thought on one or two points of his speech he slid a little into an ambiguous use of the word justice, because what he described as justice would, in my opinion, be injustice. I think it would be unjust for a Government Department to use its arbitrary powers in going beyond the limits of the law.
  I will explain very briefly what I mean. The noble Marquess gave an illustration of cases in which he would put this Bill in force, namely, where there was a discrimination between the board and the voluntary schools, where a teacher in a voluntary school was getting a smaller salary than was paid in the board schools. but I would point out that, although, no doubt, in the popular sense that would be what we should call doing justice to the voluntary schools, that is not what the Act of 1902 entitles them to. That Act puts it as an obligation on the local authority to maintain all schools efficiently, and it is the duty, I agree, of the noble Marquess and his Department to see that the law is carried out. But when they have brought schools to the standard of efficiency, it does not at all follow that the local education authority may not go beyond the obligations of the law in the case of some schools. There is no clause in the Act of 1902 obliging the local authority to give a large and liberal

  173
  measure beyond what the Board of Education is entitled to demand in every school, but it was quite clear from the noble Marquess's speech that what he understood as justice to voluntary schools was the forcing of the local education authority to do more than the law compelled them to if they were not treating voluntary schools as well as board schools.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: What I pointed out was that voluntary schools in some cases are even denied the salaries of the teachers.
  Loup STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: The noble Marquess spoke of salaries which were not as liberal as they should be. That is quite a different thing. I was very much obliged to the noble Marquess for the very kind way in which he spoke of me, and I think I may claim this for myself, that I do care very much for this matter of education. I am anxious to see the education of the country efficient, and I believe that far more powerful than coercive measures for developing the efficiency of education in the country is the active sympathy, co-operation, and good will of the people, and anything which tends to divide the nation into two camps, to create a feeling of hostility and resentment, bordering, I might almost say, on civil war, is likely in the long run to be injurious to education.
  I do not in the least dispute the right of the Government to bring in a Bill to remedy the defects in their legislation of 1902, but I do think this legislation of their's is wanting in statesmanship. It will not heal the breach; it will not facilitate that compromise, that modus vivendi which I think we saw in the debate on the Bishop of St. Asaph's Bill was desired by those who are interested in this question. Some people think that when going into negotiations it is better to do so armed with loaded revolvers. My belief is that if the clergy, the Nonconformists, and the civil party, the party of democracy and citizenship, all go into a conference with loaded revolvers, there is more likelihood of the revolvers going off than of any agreement being promoted and of their killing persons other than the combatants. I am perfectly sure of this and everyone
  174
  I have spoken to on the subject admits it, that there will have to be very material changes in the direction of more popular government by those counties which have to find the money. They feel also that this religious question has somehow or other got to be met in some method of compromise. I think I may say that, generally speaking, those gentlemen one speaks to are rather impatient at the extreme eagerness of people whose theological sympathies are much more keen and much more subtle than those of the man in the street to force upon the man in the street the necessity of pressing those theological subtleties on young children. I am sure the noble Marquess, with his connection with Wales and with the populous and democratic county of Durham, must see that we have got to make a great step forward in the direction of working with the people and not against the people if we are to get a national system which will be good for the country.
  Now let me make one or two observations upon the Bill, and why I think it a bad Bill. First of all I think that if the Government had waited a little longer they would have brought things nearer to a meeting. I am sure this Bill in parts of the country where the situation is strained will make it ten times as strained as it is now. I was a little surprised at the statement of the noble Marquess that there would not be time to hold inquiries in these cases. I think it does not lie in the mouths of those who take upon themselves the responsibility of governing a country to say that they have not time to meet the claims of justice. The noble Marquess, in almost the last words of his speech, asked for justice for all classes and all persons. Well, are not the county councils in the nature of classes and persons, and are they not entitled to justice as well as anyone else? The noble Marquess claimed to put these remedies in the absolute, free, administrative discretion of the Board of Education, quite uncontrolled.
  We had a great deal of discussion last week as to what was the range of administration and what was the range of law, and, therefore, of justice, in local affairs with reference to the Licensing Bill. We saw that when the licensee

  175
  was on his trial for misconduct, every precaution was taken by proper trial at quarter sessions that justice should be administered. Even in the region of administration every care was taken that that administration should be carried out in what the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack called a judicial spirit, by securing the fullest opportunity to the party interested. and enabling evidence to be heard. But in this Bill you are substituting a new remedy for the remedies which you had under the Act of 1870, the Act of 1876, and your last Act of 1902. In the Act of 1870 there were drastic provisions for superseding school boards in default, but that enactment provided that no such school board should be superseded until there had been a public inquiry by the Education Department as it then was. The same was done in 1876, when you were dealing with school attendance committees, and in both those cases you had the further check of publicity and responsibility, for it became the duty of the Board of Education to report fully each case where they so acted to Parliament. One of my Amendments reproduces the words of those sections. By the Act of 1902, before you could proceed for a mandamus you had the obligation put upon you to hold a public inquiry. It was not only necessary in the Act of 1902 to go to Parliament. You there had greater safeguard than in the Acts of 1870 or 1876, because if the Board of Education applied for a mandamus they would have to set forth the facts they alleged, and if those facts did not disclose a legal obligation on the part of the school board the mandamus would not issue.
  My contention is that under this Bill the Board of Education have turned into administration that which ought to have been judicial. You are passing from the temperate atmosphere of British justice to the administrative despotism of Russia. The proceedings clearly are judicial in their character. To say to a public authority—to say, for instance, to the County Council of the West Riding of Yorkshire—you have failed to comply with your statutory obligations and you are in default, and, therefore, we will divert money which by the Act of Parliament should go to you and devote it to paying sums which you ought to
  176
  have paid under the Act—to make such a statement is charging them with an offence, and they ought pro-eminently to be heard. I should like to say—I do not know whether the noble Earl on the Woolsack will contradict me—that it is a fundamental axiom of law, it is what the old metaphysical lawyers would call part of the law of nature antecedent to all positive and municipal laws, that a person charged with an offence should be heard in his own defence.
  I looked up a case which happened in 1858–1859 in which the defendant was no less a person than the Archbishop of Canterbury. A high church clergyman named Poole had been hearing confessions of an indelicate character from young women. This has now become so common that nobody notices it; but in those days the Bishop of London inquired into the matter and revoked Mr. Poole's licence. The curate appealed to the Archbishop of Canterbury, but the Archbishop, with a kindly confidence in the discretion and wisdom of his suffragan, confirmed his decision without giving Mr. Poole an opportunity of being heard in his own defence. But Mr. Poole, as is often done in these cases by clergy with high notions of ecclesiastical independence, appealed to the secular arm to protect him against his ecclesiastical superiors. In those days Lord Campbell was Lord Chief Justice, and in making the rule absolute and in ordering the Archbishop to hear Poole before he condemned him, his Lordship said—
  "One of the first principles of natural justice is that no man should be convicted without being first heard."
  And the Lord Chief Justice went on in his judgment to quote these words—
  "Qui aliguid statuerit parte inaudita altera aequum licet statuerit non aequus fuerit."
  and continuing, he said—
  "A very aged judge said, not irreverently, that the Almighty and Omniscient Being would not condemn our first parents without their being heard. That precedent had always been acted upon."
  I will grant to my noble friend the President of the Council that the provisions of the Act of 1902 as to the public inquiry may be lengthy. He will notice that in my Amendment I have not asked for so much as that. I have asked that

  177
  before condemnation the charge should be communicated in writing to the incriminated persons, and that any evidence a local authority might desire to submit relative to the charge should be heard. I cannot think that the noble Marquess can seriously be of opinion that his argument as to the time an inquiry would take is material, because if, for instance, a defendant would not plead, if he remained mute of malice, then the Board of Education would be perfectly entitled—and I do not think anyone would complain of them if they did so—to adopt prompt means to deal with the case. I am quite sure that if the Board of Education had wished to give fair play to the defendants they would have given them an opportunity of being heard.
  Then, again, why should it not be reported to Parliament? The draftsman who prepared this Bill might very fairly have secured that the searchlight of publicity and full record of their action should be turned on the Board of Education. The noble Marquess represented that it was not reasonable to wait indefinitely while some paltry question was being decided, but does not the noble Marquess see that that is amply covered in his own Bill? He has made a provision in Sub-section (a)of his first clause, that any act, thing, payment, or grant which in the opinion of the Board of Education might otherwise be invalid by reason of the default of the authority shall have effect. He cannot pretend that, if there was a charge, the inquiry and finding could not be got through in a month, and that the managers could not in the meantime finance the school in the paltry things mentioned, knowing that if the Board of Education decided that the school had been improperly deprived of these things they would be reimbursed. The object, no doubt, has been to leave this in the indefinite region of administration.
  Mr. Lloyd-George seems to be the bogey man of the noble Marquess. I think we can afford to discuss this Bill without referring to any reported speech of Mr. Lloyd-George. Many politicians often crow loud on the platform, but when they come to be brought to the test of action we find that the crowing is not so effective. But does the noble Marquess think
  178
  that nobody is ever guilty of walking round an Act except Mr. Lloyd-George and those whom he instigates? One of the reasons why I object to this Bill is that even if it directed the Board of Education to proceed with all regard to the forms of justice by giving a hearing before they condemned, our experience of the Board of Education is that that Board itself is not at all unwilling to walk round the Education Acts. If the noble Marquess would introduce a short Bill enabling anybody who thought the Board of Education were walking round or violating the Act to obtain a mandamus I should be quite content with that long circuitous method and should be glad of the opportunity of bringing the Board of Education to a Court of law to answer for their conduct.
  Ever since the responsibility of the maintenance of schools has been put on public authorities and their support has come upon the rates, the Board of Education have very promptly taken the widest and most general powers, far beyond the definite obligations of the Code, when that Code was applied to voluntary schools with limited means I do not find that the Board of Education have taken any steps to apply to existing schools the sanitary and structural requirements which they now declare to be needed in regard to all new schools. The Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee and other official documents contain plenty of statements with regard to the defective structural state of many schools. We now have it stated by a former Vice-President of the Council that at the headquarters of the Board of Education reports of inspectors have not only been suppressed, but have been doctored. The father of the noble Marquess the Lord Privy Seal, in his earlier days in the House of Commons, distinguished himself as a Private Member by making an attack on Mr. Lowe, who had at that time to resign because it was declared that some accounts of inspectors had been modified or suppressed. I have known for some time that the Board of Education in its public documents forbade inspectors from commenting on the shortcomings of any teacher. In the published instructions of the Board of Education they were ordered to make their remarks general

  179
  and not to make any definite criticism on the teachers.
  I will give an illustration or two of the neglect of the Board of Education to enforce the most elementary rules of health and decency in schools when they were voluntary schools. I have had before me, as chairman of the Anglesey Education Committee, various reports, and there are cases where year after year notes have been made, but nothing has been done to remedy the defects. There is one case which is quite comic. With regard to a certain school the Government inspector says, after talking of flagrant defects—
  "I ought to have reported this long ago, but the great age of the incumbent and the respect in which he is held in the neighbourhood made me hold my tongue; but now that a new clergyman is appointed, I feel that I must speak out."
  It is notorious that for years the grossest indulgence has been shown in cases of the gravest sanitary defects in voluntary schools. Therefore, I say that the Board of Education have frequently walked round an Act of Parliament. It is this persistent policy of favouritism by the Board of Education, spread over a long series of years, which makes us rather distrust that Board being put, not in a judicial position, but in an administrative position to perform judicial acts. I know that in the Board of Education a great deal of what my Lords are supposed to be answerable for is merely the signature of some clerk not very high up in that office. I believe there may be quite ten officials who are authorised to sign letters on behalf of the Department.
  I am sure the attention of the noble Marquess must have been called to the way in which the Board of Education have been working the schemes for foundation managers in schools which have come under this Act. To a large extent an additional denominational element has been thrown into the management of schools which was not there before. I will give one instance. It is the case of a school in Pembrokeshire, the St. Ishmael School. That school was vested in the rector and churchwardens. The rector and churchwardens were a kind of quasi corporation, but they had absolutely no rights in the school whatever. The managers were to be five persons elected by the freest suffrage of the subscribers
  180
  and with no denominational obligations whatever. The Board of Education thrust upon these people a scheme altering it in a material way, limiting the popular character, and insisting that the rector and churchwardens should have a right to one of the seats held by the five elected managers. The desire of the Board of Education broke down here because in this parish, so strong is the prevalent anti-Board of Education sentiment, that although the rector and churchwardens had the power to elect one they did not elect the rector, and, therefore, in spite of that attempt of the Board of Education, the school still remains fully under popular control. But, as I say, no thanks to the Board of Education. I could give many similar instances.
  I wish to say, in conclusion, a word or two as to the unwisdom of legislation which will set people at arms length. I hope the noble Marquess, when he comes to reflect, will see that he must not put his sympathies in the place of his legal rights, and no matter how much he would have liked to see the denominational schools treated as liberally as provided schools, the Act of 1902 has not said so. That Act provides that the schools shall be maintained in an efficient condition, and so long as they are staffed with sufficient and competent teachers, the requirements of the Act are satisfied. You may beat down illegal opposition, and, of course, illegal opposition is a thing which we do not stand up for, but what we must recognise is this, that there is a point in human endurance when, if you push people too far, a certain number will break out into illegal opposition. In Wales we have had many examples of that, from the Rebecca riots downwards.
  Within the limits of the law there are ample means for unfriendly local authorities to make a great difference in the way they treat the voluntary schools. Recollect that in the whole region of what the Act calls education other than elementary, but which I prefer to call secondary education, they have an absolutely free hand, and need not give a penny unless they choose. By the Cockerton judgment you have made the whole training of pupil teachers a part of the secondary branch of education.

  181
  I am anxious that we should come to a state of live and let live, and, getting a large public control, that we should find some way to a common ground on the religious difficulties, and that we should all of us unite to do the best we can for the schools. But I feel certain that this is not the way to get at that. Strife does not lead to friendship and to co-operation. The steps taken in this Bill, I have no hesitation in saying, are lawless steps. I call it lawless to give to a Department, with no check upon it except the ultimate check of public opinion, discretionary power where their power ought to be judicial. Such confusion of administrative and judicial power has been much more common in other countries than in ours, and was a characteristic of the ancien régime in France. It was a very prominent characteristic of the form of government of the old monarchy in France before the Revolution, and you have only to read the wisest historians to see how that habit of using lawlessness in defence of privilege set the example to the people in the French Revolution to use the same method in their own defence.
  This Bill will, I doubt not, become law; but I cannot pass from it without entering my most serious protest, because I think the Bill in itself mischievous to the cause of education, and dangerous as setting a bad example of lawless methods which may some day be turned upon those who now use them. The noble Marquess said that he had gone into the figures, and it was idle to say that the voluntary schools could be maintained by the Government grant without further aid. I quite agree that to attempt at the present day to maintain a school as it should be maintained, especially a small rural school, upon the public money without some local material effort is quite impossible; but there, again, I would like to ask the noble Marquess why, for so many years,the Board of Education acquiesced in a standard of efficiency in these schools which led to voluntary schools by the thousand being managed entirely without a shilling subscription, and that too when the public aid was less liberal than it is now? Of course, the truth is that they were not adequately maintained, and the Board of Education ought to have done their duty before. The
  182
  Board of Education have not held the balance equally or fairly. While it was a question of private means and denominational schools, the balance leaned to inefficiency rather than pinch them, but now that it is a question of public means the balance is to be pressed heavily down on the side of efficiency at the expense of the community, while leaving the management not under public control. I am truly anxious, if I can, to pause on the brink of what I cannot but describe as as a sort of hidden civil war. I do not believe the Government will subdue these hot-headed Welshmen by coercion. I believe Taffy is sharp enough to do you in some way, but perhaps not in the way that has been adumbrated in The Times as the method likely to be adopted by Mr. Lloyd-George. If the Government start on this career of coercion I am afraid they will reap such a crop as they will live to regret.
  Amendment moved—
  "To leave out the word 'now' and add at the end of the Motion the words 'this day three months.'"—(Lord Stanley of Alderley.)
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, this Bill has been much associated outside the walls of Parliament, and perhaps even in another place, with questions of denominational controversy and religious differences; but, as a matter of fact, it has nothing, of necessity, to do with those questions. What has happened is that certain schools have not received from public sources the financial aid to which they are entitled under the Act of 1902. This Bill proposes to remedy this not by coercion, for it deliberately avoids that, but by providing some mode by which, from public sources, the funds which have not been hitherto forthcoming should be supplied.
  The grievance is said to be felt mainly, or solely, at this moment in Church schools. I literally do not know whether that statement is accurate or not, and it does not seem to me to affect the question at all. Whether the managers are Churchmen or Nonconformists, whatever is the nature of the schools which have found themselves, contrary to the law, placed in a position in which they are unable to be maintained in efficiency, my sympathy

  183
  goes out to the managers who are placed in a position of such extraordinary difficulty. Many of those who have been placed in that position during the last few months have shown in the face of almost crushing difficulties a patience, a public spirit, and a quiet perseverance which are beyond all praise. I say this not because they are Churchmen. I should say exactly the same thing if they were those who were the extremest opponents of Churchmen, provided they were placed in a like position.
  What we have to consider is simply that men who are entitled by law to have certain moneys provided to enable them to discharge duties which have been laid upon them have been left without those moneys. They are therefore entitled to our sympathy and to the help which the provisions of this Bill will afford them. Were the position reversed; if it had happened that Church party spirit or Church high handedness or bigotry of any kind had led to the violation of a law clearly enacted and laid down, and that that violation was supposed to be for the advantage of Churchmen and to the disadvantage of their opponents, I should feel exactly as I do now, that the Legislature ought to provide some remedy and to see that justice was done. It is not a denominational question. It is simply a question the ordinary administration of the law of for the benefit of the citizens as a whole.
  I was greatly interested in two propositions to which, as I understood him, the noble Lord opposite committed himself. One was that it was the duty of any Ministry to give effect to the law as it stood, whether that law was passed by themselves or by their opponents, and hat illegal opposition was a thing which he certainly would not stand up for. The other was that the whole effort of educational authorities in Wales during the last few months had really been to make every school of every kind as efficient as the law allowed.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: I did not say that.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: I am sorry I misunderstood the noble Lord, but in that case I need not go on to say what I
  184
  should have been prepared to say if the noble Lord had committed himself to such a proposition, that the facts would have been against him. If it is the case that Wales is at this moment desirous of applying in all practicable ways the law as it stands for the promotion of education, then this Act will become a dead letter. It is only where the cause of education is not being promoted, where the children are suffering, and where things are going backward, that we desire, not on any ground of partisan politics or of denominational spirit, but simply in order to promote administrative efficiency in carrying out the trust, to pass such measure as the Government think is necessary for that purpose. This seems to be the true position of the matter, and I, for one, feel that the Government have only done their duty in bringing in a measure to facilitate the quiet and effective administration of the law of the land.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: My Lords, the noble Marquess who introduced this measure expressed a feeling of deep regret that the Government were, as he considered, obliged to bring it in. That regret is fully shared by us who sit on this side of the House. The only difference between us is that we place the responsibility for the measure on different shoulders from those on which it is placed by the noble Marquess. It is, of course, a matter of general agreement among all Members of your Lordships' House, as was stated by my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley in what I think every one will admit was an exceedingly well reasoned and moderate speech, that any Government is prima facie compelled to enforce its own laws, and a very heavy burden of proof rests upon those who for any reason may decline to comply with those laws. That is a matter which is of such general agreement that it really is not worth arguing in your Lordships' House.
  But if, in spite of that, we take exception to this Bill I think it is reasonable to state that there is no ground for calling upon us on this side of the House to suggest a remedy for the position in which His Majesty's Government find themselves placed. We should not have passed the noble Marquess's Act at all in the form in which it was passed, and therefore we

  185
  cannot, as I think, be called upon to suggest any remedy for the position in which the noble Marquess finds himself placed. The noble Marquess, in his opening remarks, quoted with some freedom the name of my friend Mr. Lloyd-George, and he implied, I think, that the state of things which had given rise to the introduction of tins measure was in no small degree due to Mr. Lloyd-George's action. Now, Mr. Lloyd-George, as we all know, is a man not only of very great ability, but also of very great energy and activity, and it stands to reason that in any national movement of this kind he would take a prominent place. But, on this subject, Mr. Lloyd-George has throughout shown a very strong disposition towards conciliation. I need not remind the House of the negotiations which took place between him and the Bishop of St. Asaph and others, in which I think it was generally agreed that on both sides a spirit of great conciliation and moderation was shown.
  I cannot help thinking that this is one of those cases in which the Conservative Party is wont to ascribe to agitators what is the result of a national movement. A belief in the power of agitators is as strongly impressed on the minds of the Conservative Party as was the belief in the power of witches in the 16th century; and I do not know any better test you can take of the division between Conservative and Liberal than the fact that the one believes in the almost omnipotent nature of agitators, whilst the other believes very little in the power of agitators at all. What we believe is that unless any movement has a strong national following at the back of it, all the efforts of two or three people, however eloquent and however capable, will be in vain. In a recent debate, Lord Balfour of Burleigh was bantered by the noble Marquess the Lord Privy Seal upon his general belief in the excellence of Scottish judgment when applied to legislation, and I should like to ask your Lordships whether you can conceive a measure of this kind being applied to Scotland. Of course, it is open to anybody, particularly to a Scotsman, to say that Scotsmen never ask for anything but what is absolutely reasonable, and that, therefore, the case could not arise; but I would ask your Lordships
  186
  whether, in any measure on which Scottish feeling in the opinion of the Government was wrongly roused, you would endeavour to take any such steps as those which His Majesty's Government are attempting to take on the present occation?
  The noble Marquess opposite alluded to Ireland, and expressed regret—a regret which we all share—at the absence of the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition. He said Lord Spencer had shown, during his occupancy of the Viceroyalty of Ireland, the absolute necessity of ensuring obedience to the law. I would venture to point out that when my noble friend was in Ireland and devoting himself, as we know, at great personal risk to ensuring obedience to the law, that law was directed against crime and outrage, and not against opinion; and 1 would further remind the noble Marquess that, after two periods as Viceroy, the conclusion at which my noble friend arrived was this, that it was impossible to continue to govern that country in direct opposition to popular opinion.
  The most rev. Primate who has just sat down said, and I think we are all disposed to agree with him, that it is impossible not to feel both regret and pity at the position in which some managers of schools may be placed by the action of the Welsh county councils, and also a still deeper regret if the education of any children suffers in consequence of their action. I am sure we fully share that regret. But the most rev. Primate himself admitted the keenness for education felt by the Welsh county councils, and I would ask him and the House to consider that there must be a very great depth of sincere conviction behind these county councils before they could take action, which I am certain must in many cases be painful to them, in so far as it interferes with the education of the children or inflicts hardships on those who have made sacrifices to support education.
  The speech of my noble friend, Lord Stanley of Alderley was, I think, a conciliatory speech, and I am certain he struck the right note when he said it was only by conciliation and a compromise of some kind that this matter can

  187
  be happily settled. I cannot think that in introducing this Bill, as they have, the Government have shown a sense of the possibility of conciliation. The form of the Bill does not concern us materially in this House, because it will be passed rapidly through its different stages, but I feel bound to remind your Lordships that the form is an unusual one. It is distinctly unusual to include in one clause, as is done in this Bill, a number of very distinct provisions which I have no doubt noble Lords who are used to the drafting of Bills will agree it would have been infinitely more usual to place under the heading of separate clauses. That form, so far as I know, was taken with the view of facilitating the passage of the Bill in another place; but if it had that effect it was only, as we know, after unfortunate incidents to which I need not further allude. There is no doubt that the adoption of that particular form added very considerably to the exasperation of those who were opposed to the Bill on its merits. I fear it is a case, as my noble friend said, that His Majesty's Government in this measure have declared war on public opinion in Wales. I most deeply regret it, and I can only say that, whatever unhappy consequences may ensue, and in particular whatever unfortunate consequences may ensue to the cause of education in that country, which, after all, is the main matter, in our opinion the principal responsibility will rest on the head of His Majesty's Government.
  EARL CAWDOR: My Lords, I do not think we have had placed before us what is really the issue we have to consider. The noble Lord who moved the rejection of this Bill made a very interesting speech, but, with great deference to him, I venture to say it did not touch the fringe of the question. The question we have to discuss is whether or not the Bill is necessary in consequence of the position taken up by certain local education authorities, notably in Wales. The noble Lord did not attempt to show that local authorities were endeavouring to do their duty. Does he maintain that the Act of 1902 is being administered in Wales?
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: In several counties.
  EARL CAWDOR: But what about the others?
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: I know nothing about the others.
  EARL CAWDOR: As a matter of fact, every one knows that it is not so administered. An inquiry was held some time ago by Mr. Lawrence, and it is shown distinctly that, point after point, the county in which that inquiry was held was in default. They declined to appoint managers, to properly maintain the schools, or to take any steps whatever to bring the Act into force. I am aware that subsequently many of these matters were ostensibly set right, but that took place the moment that this Bill had been introduced into Parliament and not before. Another action taken in the same county was the withdrawal of all provision as to attendance of children in non-provided schools, which produced such an enormous loss in revenue in regard to grants, owing to non-attendance, that the county council had to meet again and reverse their policy in that respect. I would like to know from the noble Lord what step he and his friends think ought to be taken. Is the noble Lord, with his. love of education, content that the Act of 1902 should be a dead letter, even in one county? I am sure the noble Lord would not undertake the responsibility of saying "Yes" to that question. If that is the case, what is the position? Are we to wait, and if so, how long? 1 How long are the children in these schools to be starved? How long are we to tolerate. the position of schoolmasters not having their salaries fixed and vacancies not filled up? I do not believe the noble. Lord would tolerate for one moment the idea that we should wait until the county councils came to their senses and administered the Act. The noble Lord said that the duties of the Board of Education should be solely judicial and not administrative.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: I did not say that.
  EARL CAWDOR: I understood the noble Lord to say that the Board of Education in a matter of this kind should not undertake administrative duties.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: I said that when they took upon themselves a judicial duty they should not turn it into an administrative one.
  EARL CAWDOR: You have to deal with the position as it stands. There is a non-administration of the law. A judicial decision has already been given, particularly in the case of Mr. Lawrence's inquiry, but that could not put the matter right. He merely discovered that certain local authorities were in default, but that did not, and could not, mend the matter. Therefore you are driven to the alternative of having some administrative power behind, which can say, "If the local authority does not do its duty we will step in and see that it is done for them." We are told that this Bill is going to give rise to great disturbance and great trouble. Who is it going to hurt? It cannot by any possibility hurt any authority which administers the Act properly. It can only come into operation when the local authority sets itself deliberately to defy Parliament. Any Government that did not, in these circumstances, bring in a Bill of this kind would not be fit to administer the affairs of State. The noble Earl who spoke last taunted the Party on this side with thinking a great deal too much of agitation. Possibly I have had more experience of agitation than the noble Earl.
  Let me tell your Lordships, in a few words, what agitation has done in this matter. In Carnarvonshire the education committee appointed by the county council set to work to enforce the Act, whereupon they brought down upon themselves a whirlwind of political agitation. It was declared that this was wrong and that the education committee must go back on what they had done, must pass what was called a "no-rate" resolution. That agitation was conducted in every polling district for county council election purposes, and the members of the education committee were held up to execration and told that if they did not turn round they would be turned out. What was the result? There was a meeting of the county council and of the education committee. The education committee turned clean round and reversed the decision to which
  190
  they had arrived, consequent, of course, on this political agitation, and they passed a resolution practically declaring that they would not administer the Act. Does the noble Lord call that agitation which has nothing in it? We are told that in face of this agitation we are to wait, that a little time will heal everything and put things right. I wonder whether the noble Lord has noticed in the newspapers during the last day or two statements of a proposed autumn campaign. I will not say whether or not there is anything in it, but the people who fanned the present agitation into being have threatened to get the county councils to set themselves up against this Bill. This is a Bill which cannot hurt anyone; it is only intended to work against, local authorities which will not administer the law; and I hope your Lordships will give it a Second Reading.
  THE EARL OF ABERDEEN: My Lords, it is very gratifying, not only, I am sure, to my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley, but also to those who sit on these Benches, to observe the very courteous manner in which members of His Majesty's Government recognise the noble Lord's claim to speak with especial authority upon this subject. We on this side of the House, on the other hand, fully recognise the zealous and conscientious manner in which the noble Marquess the President of the Board of Education discharges the duties of his office, though unfortunately we find ourselves in disagreement with him on this occasion. There is one feature in this measure which has not been alluded to except incidentally. Perhaps your Lordships will say it ought not to be alluded to. What I have in mind is the history of the Bill before it left the other House of Parliament. I know it is regarded as out of order to refer to what occurred in the other House, but I could quote a very good precedent for the sort of allusion I am about to make in a debate on the Compensation for Disturbances (Ireland) Bill. On that occasion I remember Lord Beaconsfield alluding to certain matters connected with the course of that Bill through the House of Commons, and therefore I think it is not altogether out of place for me to remind

  191
  your Lordships that some very remarkable occurrences took place in connection with this Bill. I allude to that matter by way of illustrating the fact that there is good ground for the apprehension of Lord Stanley and others that the passing of this Bill will not necessarily have the effect which the noble Earl who has just spoken seems so confidently to assume that it will have, namely, the effect of settling this question.
  One of my noble friend Lord Stanley's chief objections to the Bill is that it confers discretionary power on the Board of Education. That may have an irritating effect and accentuate the feeling of injustice which, as we know, has been at the bottom of the opposition to the Act of 1902. Though it may not be easy to suggest a remedy, I think a further attempt at conciliation, and the giving of a little more time for that purpose, would have been more likely to succeed than this drastic measure. It is very easy to say that the local authorities are defying the law; but it must be remembered that they are animated by conscientious objection, and not by a mere spirit of lawlessness. We have had plenty of evidence as to the nature of the movement, which shows that the agitation is conducted by men of unimpeachable character, and is marked by deep earnestness and conviction. That being so, any attempt to deal with it in a hard and fast manner by Act of Parliament will lead, not to the peaceful settlement which we all desire, but to fresh complications.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF ST. DAVID'S: My Lords, I do not think, as a Welsh Bishop, I should be doing my duty if I were to let this debate pass without saying a few words. First of all, let me say that I most heartily concur with the noble Earl opposite that there are earnest and deep-seated convictions against the Act of 1902; but I am quite sure the noble Earl will agree with me when I venture to claim that earnestness and deep-seated convictions are by no means all on one side of this unhappy controversy. The managers of Church schools in Wales fully deserve the cordial recognition which the most rev. Primate gave of their patience and public spirit. I also would like to recognise the moderation and the candour of the able speech of the noble Lord the
  192
  mover of the Amendment, whom we are very glad now to find is a chairman of a Welsh education committee; and I, for my part, who take, if I may venture to say so, sincere interest in education apart from its controversial aspect, have great hopes that the tone of the noble Lord's speech to-day will animate all his share in educational matters in Wales, and will do great good.
  Regret has been expressed on both sides of the House at the necessity for the introduction of this Bill. No one in this House can regret that necessity more than myself. For, as a Welshman, I am very proud of anything which redounds to the credit of my countrymen, and I always read with great satisfaction the testimony of His Majesty's Judges year after year as to the law-abiding character of the Welsh people. I am quite sure that the noble Lord opposite, when his residence in Wales has extended over a longer period, will give to my countrymen a praise somewhat warmer than he has extended to them to-night. I have risen particularly to say that, in my opinion, the reason why this Bill is unfortunately necessary is that those who are responsible for leading Welsh opinion have committed two serious mistakes. The first is a mistake of fact—namely, that there is no necessity to charge any part of the cost of the maintenance of the non-provided schools on the rates, as the increased grant from the Exchequer would cover the loss of voluntary contributions; and the second is, that the Welsh county councils will have done their business if they keep the non-provided schools up to the level of efficiency of 1902. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education has shown in another place that the first calculation is £12,000 a year wide of the mark; and that it is impossible to maintain the standard of 1902 in the non-provided schools without the assistance of the rates.
  It has been asked whether in several districts in Wales the Act has been fairly administered. I hold in my hand a list of nineteen schools in Montgomeryshire where at the present moment the teachers are not paid, and the Bishop of St. Asaph, in The Times a few days ago, gave a very pathetic incident of the ha dship involved. There are fifteen schools

  193
  in Merionethshire in the same condition. We are told that our voluntary schools are in an unsatisfactory condition structurally, but in Carmarthenshire there was no imposition of any kind made upon the managers in regard to buildings, and in Montgomeryshire I understand the sole reason alleged why the teachers are not paid is that the Parliamentary grants for those schools have been exhausted. It is strange, too, that those who have said that we ought to be content with the standard of efficiency of maintenance in 1902 should now turn round and say that we must have a very much higher standard with regard to buildings. The critics of the Act of 1902 cannot be allowed to have it both ways.
  I sincerely hope that this Bill, which, I have no doubt, will pass into law, may not be put in operation. I particularly hope that because I believe that the agitation which has brought us to the present position in Wales rested on a mistake, but neither Welshmen nor any other nation can very well be blamed for not being infallible. Those who are persuading the county councils of Wales to take up this unhappy line of action may, however, now that the facts have been brought out, reconsider their position without any loss of honour, and I am quite sure that if they do they will find that the managers of Church schools in Wales, and the clergy and laity of the Church in Wales, will be delighted to meet them at least half-way.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: My Lords, I probably approach this question from a somewhat different point of view from that of my noble friend who moved the Amendment, but I concur in the conclusion to which he has arrived. No one who has listened to this debate can doubt that we are placed in a very difficult position in regard to the Education Act of 1902, and it is necessary that we should carefully consider the results to which that Act has already led. When that Act was passing through Parliament there were many—and I was one—who had great doubt about it, and who believed that it would not lead to a satisfactory result in many respects; but I do not profess to have had sufficient foresight to have discovered all the evils which I think have arisen out of it. In
  194
  one part of the country public bodies are taking a course which is inconsistent with the Act of Parliament, and in other parts of the country there are large numbers of persons who sympathise with the action which is being taken in Wales.
  This is, very properly, a general Act, and it concerns the whole of the country, but, of course, when it is passed it will have operation mainly in Wales. I was very glad to hear the right rev. Prelate who has just spoken say that he hoped it would not come into operation. That feeling I share; but I am bound to say I do not in the least expect that it will not come into operation. I am convinced that one of its main effects will be to increase the difficulties and irritation which now exist on this subject. The present state of things may be dealt with in two ways. It may either be dealt with by conciliatory or by unconciliatory measures—I will not, in deference to the noble Marquess, use the word coercion. But where those engaged in controversy are on both sides earnest and conscientious men, as in this case, nothing is more necessary than that you should proceed by a method of conciliation. By rejecting such methods, and relying alone upon methods of an opposite character, such as the present Bill, you will not bring this controversy to an end; you will not approach the day when some statesmanlike solution of the difficulty may be found; you will only increase and aggravate it and render more and more difficult any really satisfactory solution.
  Earlier in this session there seemed for a moment to be an opportunity of turning to the ways of conciliation. The right rev. Prelate the Bishop of St. Asaph, who, unhappily, is not in the House on this occasion, made a speech and introduced a Bill instinct with the spirit of conciliation. I do not say that a settlement could have been made on the exact basis of that Bill—I do not think that it could—but I do say that if His Majesty's Government had been inclined to proceed by way of conciliation, they might have done a great deal in that direction if they had discussed and endeavoured to amend the Bill of the right rev. Prelate. Everybody spoke kindly on that Bill, but nothing was done. I

  195
  looked the other day to see in exactly what position the Bill was at the present moment. My Lords, it is waiting for Committee, and it will wait for Committee till Parliament is prorogued. The opportunity which it offered was rejected, and we have instead proposals dealing with the matter in a very different spirit.
  Do not let the noble Marquess believe that this measure will not aggravate the difficulties that exist. I will make no allusion, because it is, perhaps, not right that we should do so, to anything which passed in another place upon a recent occasion; but does the noble Marquess really believe that the Welsh people are likely to give up their opinions, and to abandon the advice of those who lead them, in consequence of this measure? I could hold no notion of the kind. I believe that that which ought to be our foremost object in this matter, namely, the bringing together of the parties who differ so as to come to some settlement upon it, will be rendered infinitely more difficult by the passage of this Bill. I do not at all say that in a case where the persons on both sides of the controversy entertain honest and sincere convictions of a conscientious nature it is easy to come to a settlement. It is not. But, my Lords, I cannot believe that it exceeds the statesmanship of this country to arrive at a settlement of this matter, if there is the real desire to do so, upon fair and equal terms.
  It is often thought that the views put forward by Nonconformists are not really conscientious views. I differ entirely from that opinion. I have known the Nonconformists of this country for some fifty years; I have known particularly their views on this subject of education, and I have no doubt that the views which they hold—views which I do not myself share—are quite as conscientious as my own views in respect to the necessity of definite religious instruction. Therefore, my Lords, this Bill will not do what we want. It will aggravate and prolong the controversy and render it more difficult to bring it to an end. I was reading this morning a speech by Lord Hugh Cecil in another place, and I find that he there said, or is reported to have said, that he was certian that no educational settlement would be permanent until all religious
  196
  bodies acquiesced in it. I agree entirely with Lord Hugh Cecil in that; but I do not believe—I cannot believe—that that is a state of things which cannot by skill and conciliation be brought about. Lord Hugh Cecil went on to say that Nonconformists must try to understand the Church position—that is to say, the position of those who are in favour of the existence of denominational schools. I quite agree with that statement, but I must add to it by saying that I think that the friends of denominational schools must also on their side try to understand the feelings of Nonconformists. That is the proper method of conciliation. There will be, of course, up to the end of time, extreme men on both sides who are incapable of understanding the meaning of conciliation, and who look only to the methods of force. But force will not settle the question. In the meantime the education of this country is to grievously suffer; in the meantime the difficulties that have arisen are not at all being allayed, but rather increased; and it is my firm conviction that if something is not done to settle this question and to bring about a general agreement—so far as such a thing is possible in regard to this matter—we shall be heading straight for a system of secular schools. That is not a system I desire to promote or to see established, but, honestly, I believe it is the continuation of this controversy which will tend to bring it in. This Bill, then, will make no settlement. It will be met, as I believe, with stern opposition and resistance. It will not benefit the education of this country; it will not improve our schools, and I believe still more that the class of schools which will suffer most from the erroneous policy which is now pursued will be the denominational schools.
  On Question, whether the word "now" shall stand part of the Motion, resolved in the affirmative.
  Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

  THE TRANSVAAL LABOUR ORDINANCE AND NATIVE TAXATION IN FIJI.
  LORD STANMORE: I desire to call attention to the Twenty-second Article

  197
  of the Royal Instructions issued to the Governor of the Transvaal on the 23rd September, 1902; and to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it is still in force. Also to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether His Majesty's Government has any objection to lay upon the Table any correspondence which has lately taken place with regard to the recent alterations in the native taxation system of Fiji.
  My Lords, at this late period of the session, and in this thin House, which I am sorry to see I am making thinner, I have no temptation to dwell at any length upon the Questions I wish to put. I ought, perhaps, to make some apology for putting them at all, were it not that I think there is a point of some gravity to which it is desirable to call the attention of this House and of the public before the close of the session. Two years ago Royal Instructions were committed to the Governor of the Transvaal on his appointment. The Twenty-second Article of these Instructions contains a prohibition to the Governor to assent to certain classes of Ordinances, some half-dozen of which are enumerated. One of these prohibitions, couched in the strongest possible terms, is a prohibition to assent in the name of the Sovereign to any Ordinance by which disabilities or restrictions are imposed on persons not of European birth or descent which are not equally imposed on persons of European birth or descent. I need not point out the glaring inconsistency between this prohibition and the ordinance lately passed in the Transvaal with regard to Chinese labour. That inconsistency is clear and manifest and needs no comment, nor will it receive any from me.
  I think I know what will be the answer of my noble friend the Under-Secretary of State with regard to it. He will point out a proviso at the end of that clause of the Instructions, which allows the Secretary of State to dispense in any particular case with any of these prohibitions, and he will probably add as a further answer that similar provisions have been already enacted in other places without objections being raised to them. As regards the second objection I simply deny it. I am not at present, in this House and under the present circumstances, going into the details of the sub-
  198
  ject or to argue it. It is quite unnecessary for me to go into any detailed examination of the various points in which the Ordinances on similar subjects in other colonies differ from that which has been passed in the Transvaal. In my opinion the provisions are absolutely different, and in themselves are sufficient to show how different they are. But without going into them at this time there is one distinction, and one alone, which makes them absolutely different, i.e., the object of each is different, however much separate provisions may be similar. The object of the Mauritius, West Indies, and Fijian Ordinances with regard to immigration is to ensure the performance of a contract and that only. The disabilities to which persons are subjected in those places are only those strictly requisite to ensure the performance of the contract. But the object of the Transvaal Ordinance is different. It is to prevent or hinder all association or contact between the European population and those non-European elements introduced under it. This is effected by provisions which are directed to that object, and which are not necessary merely to ensure the performance of a contract for labour. Therefore the second answer that is likely to be made to me I pay no attention to. To the first and more important answer that the Secretary of State has a dispensing power I at once admit that that forms a perfect technical answer to my objection, but not, I think, an equally satisfactory moral answer. That power of dispensation is given to the Secretary of State manifestly in order to meet practical difficulties. I do not suppose that those who framed that proviso had in their minds any intention whatever that it should set aside principles that were laid down as being of general and universal application. Occasions may arise on which on many of the subjects set out practical difficulties may occur which the interference of the Secretary of State can remove, but the great principle laid down, viz., that European and non - European residents in a country are to be treated alike, is not one which it was intended by the framers of the Instructions to be dealt with in this way.
  I do not know that that alone would have induced me to ask these

  199
  Questions; it is to a much wider question that I desire to call your Lordships' attention. This action is only one of many things which lead me to fear that the whole action, tone, and spirit of the Colonial Department of the present day show a grave and growing departure from the maxims which prevailed there some thirty or forty years ago. In the Transvaal Colony I see it is proposed—setting aside Chinese labour—to limit and restrict the liberties which belong to His Majesty's Indian subjects resident in that Colony. It is said that the proposal is looked on with no disfavour that all Indians resident in that colony should be restricted in their rights of shop-keeping and selling. These debates have led me to go very carefully and minutely into the subject, and I find that in the West Indies regulations which were some years ago deemed not only by me but by those of higher rank than myself, under whom I was employed at the Colonial Office, and by those who worked under me in the colony, to be essentially necessary to the protection of the imported labourer—that these regulations have one by one gradually been dropped and abandoned, and that they now no longer regulate the state of things in those islands. I see every symptom of the same thing recurring. I am not attacking His Majesty's Government or the present or the late Secretary of State for that; it is not a matter that concerns one Government or one period. All I am saying is that I believe a change, and a great change, has come over the Department which is looked upon as a permanent institution. There are many causes which may naturally account for this and I will not weary your Lordships by going into them now, at a future time I may propose to do so. I wish before the close of the session to say that taking all these things together it is my intention, if I am still on the roll of living Peers next year, to move for the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the present state of the immigration laws prevailing in the West Indian Colonies and the abandonment of protective measures for the non-European races.
  That leads me to the second question. I ask my noble friend whether he will lay before the House the correspondence
  200
  which has passed with regard to the alterations lately made in the native taxation system of Fiji. I do not say that those alterations may not be necessary; possibly they are; but I do know that some amendment of these regulations has long been thought to be necessary for the preservation of the native races there, and therefore I trust that any modifications which have been made are alterations decided on with great care, judgment, and moderation. We cannot form a judgment unless we see the correspondence which has passed. My noble friend will not be suprised at my taking a strong personal interest in what passes in those islands and any legislation with regard to them. I hope he will see his way to give us that information, without which we cannot accurately judge of the measures which may be called for, but which on the other hand may be measures destructive to the preservation of the native races in that region.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE FOR THE COLONIES (the Duke of MARLBOROUGH): I am sure my noble friend's connection with the various matters relating to Colonial administraiton entitle him to be listened to with respect. He has told us that next session he hopes to bring the matter before your Lordships, and it will then be my duty to reply or give such information as I can. I am sorry that my noble friend is under the impression that His Majesty's Government have only technically kept within the bounds of the Royal Instructions. I cannot agree with him, for, as he is perfectly well aware, this clause to which he refers is still in force. The clause in question Clause 22, runs as follows—
  "No ordinance shall take effect until assented to in Our name by the Governor, and the Governor shall not assent in Our name to any Ordinance of any of the following classes."
  The following classes, which are enumerated, include the one to which my noble friend alluded, namely, any Ordinance whereby persons not of European birth or descent may be subjected or made liable to any disabilities or restrictions which are not imposed on persons of European birth or descent. Although the Governor cannot assent to any

  201
  Ordinance of this kind, yet, as my noble friend has pointed out, there is a proviso in the case of emergency for the immediate operation of an Ordinance. The proviso runs as follows—
  "Unless in the case or any such Ordinance as aforesaid he shall have previously obtained Our Instructions upon such Ordinance through one of our principal Secretaries of State."
  My noble friend is perfectly well aware that these Asiatic Importation Ordinances have been the subject of prolonged discussions and correspondence between the Secretary of State and Lord Milner, and as that is the case it is clear that we have already complied with the proviso. But there is yet another proviso which reads—
  "Unless such Ordinance shall contain a clause suspending the operation of such Ordinance until the signification of Our pleasure thereupon."
  That is to say, the Ordinance must have in it a clause, the effect of which is perfectly clearly stated in the Transvaal Labour Importation Ordinance itself. That Ordinance contains a clause providing—
  "This Ordinance may be cited for all purposes as the Labour Importation Ordinance and shall not take effect unless and until the Governor shall proclaim in the Gazette that it is His Majesty's pleasure not to disallow the same, and thereupon it shall come into operation upon such a date as the Governor shall notify by proclamation."
  My noble friend will see that this proviso to which I have alluded is contained in the Transvaal Labour Ordinance, therefore he will admit that Lord Milner has complied in every way with Article 22 of the Royal Instructions. Whether we have only complied technically or not is a matter I am afraid I cannot discuss with my noble friend. He thinks we have only complied technically and that morally we are open to censure and criticism. I confess I am not able to follow my noble friend on that point, which is somewhat abstruse, but I think he will see that so far as the technical aspect or the legal aspect of the case is concerned both Lord Milner and His Majesty's Government have complied absolutely with the Royal Instructions which were laid down some two years ago.
  LORD STANMORE: I perfectly admit that my noble friend is technically
  202
  justified. My point was only this; that when you lay down a great and general principle, if you proceed at once to act contrary to that principle, you had better abolish it at once.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBURY): Order, order! The noble Lord has no right of reply.

  THE CROWN AGENTS AND THE TRANSVAAL AND ORANGE RIVER COLONIES.
  EARL GREY:I desire to ask His Majesty's Government whether arrangements have been made for transferring from the Crown Agents to the Administrations of the Transvaal and Orange River Colony the responsibility for the placing of freight contracts and the purchasing of stores.
  The approaching conference which has been convened by Lord Milner to consider the question of shipping freight to South Africa makes it important for us to know whether the Crown Agents, acting under the control of His Majesty's Government, or the Administrations of the Transvaal and Orange River Colony, are to be responsible in future for the placing of freight contracts.
  If If the Crown Agents are to remain in the future, as they have been in the past, responsible for the purchase of all the Government stores and railway material required by the Transvaal and Orange River Colonies, they will approach the conference with all the weight and importance of the predominant partner, and unless they can recommend a definite policy of their own they will occupy a position which will not add to the dignity of, or reflect credit upon, the Imperial Government.
  Although I have repeatedly called your Lordships' attention to the fact that under the present system, supported, as I think, most unwisely by His Majesty's Government, British shipping companies are charging English shippers more than twice the rates charged to American shippers on manufactured goods consigned to South Africa, the Government have shown, up to now, no sign whatever of ability to cope with this question.

  203
  The noble Duke stated on the 12th July, when the matter was last under discussion, that until the Government were informed of the wishes and views of the people of South Africa upon the shipping question it would be premature for His Majesty's Government to offer an opinion upon such a difficult and complicated matter.
  My Lords, I certainly hope that this declaration on the part of His Majesty's Government means that they intend to hand over the responsibility of placing their freight to the Administrations of the Transvaal and the Orange River Colonies. They cannot contemplate attending this shipping conference as the largest shipper, with no mind of their own and nothing but a drifting policy.
  I wish to state, with all the emphasis I can command—and I have good reasons for my statement—that if the various Governments of South Africa agree to a common policy of refusing to place their freight contracts with any shipping company which employs the 10 per cent. rebate system, or which refuses to carry for the ordinary public at the same rates as for the Governments, or which carries goods from United States ports which are more than 600 miles further from South Africa than the ports of the United Kingdom at lower rates than from British ports, the present system, which is driving trade to America, which under the free play of natural conditions belongs to England, will at once disappear.
  If the Government have no mind of their own on this matter, is it not better that they should transfer the responsibility to those who recognise that they have both an opportunity and a duty of safeguarding the interests of the South African consumer and of the British producer?
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: My Lords, I hope I shall not be out of order if I allude for one moment to a Question put to me by Lord Stan-more to the effect whether His Majesty's Government would lay upon the Table any correspondence in connection with Fiji. I can assure him that between now and next session the Papers to which he refers will be laid, and that will give him
  204
  an opportunity of discussing the affairs of Fiji when Parliament re-assembles.
  THE EARL OF HALSBURY: The noble Duke will be somewhat out of order in alluding to that question.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: My Lords, with reference to the Question of the noble Lord, Earl Grey, as to whether His Majesty's Government have come to any arrangement for transferring from the Crown Agents to the Administrations of the Transvaal and Orange River Colony the responsibility for the placing of freight contracts and the purchasing of stores, I have to say the reply to the Question is in the negative. Our intention is not as the noble Earl surmises, but Lord Milner has asked us, and the Secretary of State has agreed, that the local Government of the Transvaal may, in those cases where economy can clearly be shown, and where it is likely to be promoted, issue tenders for stores locally as well as through the Crown Agents to the merchants at home. Those tenders will be issued simultaneously, and it is hoped by this departure from the previous system that the local merchants may be given every facility for seeing whether they can complete on as favourable terms as the merchants at home have done hitherto through the Crown Agents. The noble Earl, in the course of his remarks, said His Majesty's Government did not know their own mind in this matter, but I think that is rather a severe criticism of their action. We are as aware as the noble Earl that this matter of contracts, and especially of freights, is one that is exercising the minds not only of people in this country, but also in South Africa, and it is our desire to co-operate, so far as lies in our power, in discovering whether any machinery can be employed for rectifying any of those evils which, in the opinion of the noble Earl, exist. Perhaps he will allow me to tell him exactly the position of the South African Conference which is to take place on 22nd August. The Governments of the South African Colonies have decided to hold this conference with regard to shipping freights. The terms of reference and the methods of procedure have not been finally settled, but Lord Milner has informed the Secretary of State that the

  205
  object of the conference will be to inquire into the charges now obtaining for ocean freight to South Africa and the disposal of shipping orders by the various Governments, and to endeavour to arrive at some means of securing advantages for the general public equal to those enjoyed by the Governments. The delegates will be invited to present a report and recommendations. The Colonies asked through the High Commissioner that an expert should be sent out to assist in the labours of the conference—an expert who was unconnected with any Government or any ring. In response to that request Mr. Douglas Owen, a barrister-at-law, has been selected and sent out. Mr. Owen is a recognised authority in all branches of shipping law and practice; he is well known for his work in connection with the Port of London, and is not connected with any Government or any shipping firm. In view of the fact that this conference is going to be held, and of the important matters which will be discussed at that conference, I do not think that the observations I made to the noble Earl the other day were altogether misplaced. I then said that it would be premature, in view of these facts, for the Government to offer any opinion until we were able to ascertain the views and ideas of the various Governments of South Africa upon this very difficult and complicated question, a question which is exercising the attention, not only of the noble Earl and people in this country, but also of our fellow countrymen throughout South Africa.

  RHODESIA.
  EARL GREY: My Lords, I desire to move for a Return of the cost of the several Colonies of the British Empire at the expense of the British Exchequer for each of the years from 1853 to 1903 in the same form, as nearly as may be, as the information supplied in the House of Commons Paper, No. 417, of Session 1881; and also their population, and the annual value of their trade with the United Kingdom, so far as it can be given, for the latest year for which the figures are available. I regret that I have to trespass again on the indulgence of your Lordships, but I think your Lordships will agree that it is a very important question that I am raising.
  206
  My objects in moving for this Return are both general and special. I think it is desirable that we should have authoritative data supplied which will enable us to form some approximate idea as to the pecuniary sacrifice which has been made by the people of the United Kingdom during the last fifty years, for the purpose of strengthening the British position in the Greater Britain across the seas. I am aware that the data asked for will not supply us with all the material required to enable us to make a complete statement on this subject, but the impartial historian will be able to make his own independent research and supplement the information which it is in the power of the Treasury officials to supply. They can add to the cost shown by this Return what additional charges have been thrown upon the people of the United Kingdom by the wars in the early part of last century, and what proportion of that cost can be fairly debited to Canada, India, and other possessions of the Crown.
  But I have a special reason in asking for this Return. I wish to be able to compare the present value of Rhodesia as an Imperial asset with that of the other African Protectorates under our control, and their respective costs to the British taxpayer. I claim that it is only fair to the British South Africa Company and to the memory of Cecil Rhodes that it should be placed on record that Rhodesia is honourably distinguished in this as well as in other respects, that it is the only part of the British Empire which has not cost the British taxpayer a sixpence beyond the salary of the Deputy-Commissioner, for whose office the people in Rhodesia think there is no necessity.
  I desire a Return which will show that while Uganda, British Central Africa, Nigeria, and other protectorates and dependencies, with their comparatively small trade and population, are all costing the British taxpayer large annual grants-in-aid, which I do not for one moment grudge, Rhodesia alone is an asset which has been won for the Empire not by the enterprise of the British taxpayer, but simply through the action of Mr. Rhodes and the Chartered Company. It should further be remembered that it was only because the late Prime Minister, Lord Salisbury, refused

  207
  to ask the House of Commons for the money that was required to enable the healthy plateau north of the Limpopo to be brought under the Union Jack, that the Chartered Company was formed at the request of the Imperial Government to do the work which the Imperial Government refused to do.
  It is not too much to say that if it had not been for the action of Mr. Rhodes and the Chartered Company, the British position in South Africa would have been lost. That country, which is now admittedly the richest agricultural section in South Africa, and highly mineralised throughout, with a great future before it, would now be under the German or Dutch flag. The march of the Australians across Rhodesia to the relief of Mafeking could never have been undertaken, and the war against the Boers, with the high plateau behind the Transvaal under the German and Dutch flag, might still have been exhausting the resources of the Empire.
  I desire this Return in order that I may have, and the people of England may have, the material which will enable us, at a time when the services of the Chartered Company are called in question, sometimes by interested and sometimes by ignorant people, to show what has been the cost to the British taxpayer of a country which has been able, owing to the foresight of Mr. Rhodes, the generosity of the Chartered Company, and the courage of its settlers, to contribute no mean service to the Empire. I desire, if I may do so, to add the words "protectorates and dependencies" after the word "colonies," in line 2, in order to make it quite clear that the Return will include the protectorates as well as the self-governing Colonies of the Crown. beg to move.
  Moved, "That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty for a Return of the cost of the several Colonies, Protectorates, and Dependencies of the British Empire at the expense of the British Exchequer for each of the years from 1853 to 1903, in the same form, as nearly as may be, as the information supplied in the House of Commons Paper, No. 417, of Session 1881; and also their population, and the annual value of their trade with the United Kingdom, so far
  208
  as it can be given, for the latest year for which the figures are available."—(Earl Grey.)
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: My Lords, in reply to the noble Earl's Question, I am informed that the Return which he is anxious to have will be granted. I think he will realise that the Return will be made up by officials of a Department other than that which I have the honour to represent, so I cannot pledge myself that the words he wants inserted, "protectorates and dependencies," will be agreed to.
  EARL GREY:I only want to make it clear that it covers Uganda and Rhodesia.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: I should say there would be no objection to that, but I will certainly promise the noble Earl the Return which is on the Paper, and I will take note of the word s he wishes to add. I should think that in all probability the noble Earl's request will be willingly acceded to.
  On Question, Motion agreed to; and ordered accordingly.
  House adjourned at a quarter past Seven o'clock, till Tomorrow, a quarter past Four o'clock.