Lords Sitting of 7 April 1905

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:—Morley Corporation.
The same was ordered to lie on the Table.
Rhymney Railway Bill [H.L.] Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
Great Central Railway (Pension Fund) Bill [H.L.]. The order made on Tuesday the 7th of March last appointing certain Lords the Select Committee to consider the Bill, discharged.
Clacton-on-Sea Commissioners Bill [H.L.]. Report from the Select Committee, That it is not expedient to proceed further with the Bill; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
Southampton and Winchester Great Western Junction Railway (Abandonment) Bill. Read 2a, and committed for Tuesday next.
South Metropolitan Gas Bill. Read 2a, and committed.
Marylebone Chapels Bill [H.L.]; Mexborough and Swinton Tramways (Extension of Time) Bill [H.L.]; Clyde Navigation Bill [H.L.]. Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
Chelsea Electricity Supply Bill; Epping Gas Bill; Great Eastern Railway Bill; Higham and Hundred of Hoo Water Bill; Loughborough Corporation Bill; Norwich Union Life Insurance Society Bill; Weybridge and Walton-upon-Thames Electric Supply Bill. Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.

PETITIONS.
  SUNDAY CLOSING (SHOPS) BILL [H.L.]
  Petitions to be heard by counsel against; of Jewish Master Bakers' Association; Whitechapel and Spitalfields Costermonger and Street Sellers' Union; and persons signing; read, and referred to the Select Committee.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  TRADE REPORTS—ANNUAL SERIES.
  No. 3337. Nicaragua.

  PRISONS (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1877.
  Twenty-seventh Annual Report of the Prison Commissioners for Scotland, being the sixty-sixth Annual Report on Prisons in Scotland.
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  GREEK LOAN OF 1898.
  Account up to March 31st, 1905.
  SUPERANNUATION.
  Treasury minute, dated April 3rd, 1905, declaring that Alfred Richard Nightingale, assistant in the London Postal Service, was appointed without a Civil Service certificate through inadvertence on the part of the head of his Department.

  POLICE (COUNTIES AND BOROUGHS), ENGLAND AND WALES.
  Reports of His Majesty's Inspectors of Constabulary, for the year ended September 29th, 1904.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  SUNDAY CLOSING (SHOPS) BILL [H.L.]
  The evidence taken before the Select Committee from time to time to be printed, but no copies to be delivered out, except to members of the Committee and such other persons as the Committee shall think fit, until further order.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
  House in Committee (according to order); Bill reported without amendment; Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a on Monday next.

  CONTINUATION SCHOOLS BILL [H.L.]
  [SECOSD READING.]
  Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
  *THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORD: My Lords, I have been led to bring forward this Bill by the great desire on the part of many persons connected with education outside that something of the kind should be put on the Statute-book, and by my strong conviction that we must do a great deal more than we have yet done to educate our young people during the most critical years of their lives. I have served on two school boards and on the boards of management of a large number of voluntary schools, and have been brought to feel what an enormous amount of waste is involved in our present system of elementary education; I mean in what we may call the truncated condition of our education, owing to the fact that it stops altogether in multitudes of cases far too soon. The result is to be seen, by anyone who mixes much with ordinary people both in town and country, in a vast amount of ignorance and inefficiency, and, I am sorry to say, also in a vast amount of low taste, which a good system of education might cure in many cases, and a great deal of drunkenness and lust and other things that are doing a tremendous amount of mischief to our national life.
  I cannot but feel that if some such simple measure as this was passed into law we might add very greatly to the efficiency of our Elementary Education Acts without increasing very much the expense of their working. It has to be borne in mind that up and down the country there are a number of these continuation schools being carried on at very considerable public expense and, so far as my examination of the results has gone, with comparatively little
  876
  benefit; so that there is a great deal of direct waste in connection with these continuation schools, and if we established a really good obligatory system it would not involve a great additional expense. Looking at the large sums of money we spend on education, and the immense amount of waste because the education never carried to a satisfactory issue, I feel that we are, as a matter of fact, spoiling the ship for the proverbial ha'porth of tar, and I hope that before long a Bill of this kind will be placed on the Statute-book.
  I have another special reason for dealing with this matter. I spend most of my Sundays in going about from one parish to another in country districts, and I am profoundly impressed by the needs of a vast number of the boys in our villages. The monotony of their lives and the dulness that ensues destroy their real manliness. They leave school at the age of twelve or thirteen, and many of them drift away from all touch with persons who could exercise any higher influence upon them. They learn nothing more and forget what they have learnt and grow up in ignorance and dulness and very often with vicious tastes, and a great deal of this, I venture to think, would be prevented if we could bring about an adequate improvement in our educational system. I may say, also, that I have been encouraged to introduce this Bill by the general interest in the question which has been shown up and down the country by members of county councils, and of local education authorities, and others interested in our public life. I find absolute agreement among leading men who are practically engaged in local affairs, of all political Parties, in favour of some such legislation as this.
  I should like to say, with regard to the Bill itself, that it is a purely permissive Bill. That is the first point to be noticed in it. It only provides that local authorities may do such and such things; and they may adopt the Bill, if it is passed into law, not only for the whole of their area, but for any particular part at their absolute discretion. The Bill gives local authorities as free a hand as possible, so that they may adapt the measure to the special needs of their own particular

  877
  district. I propose also to give them a free hand both with regard to the subjects and method of instruction, and the time during which the instruction should be given. In country places, for instance, there are certain holidays which might be used; and it is obviously desirable that if girls in the country are to have continuation classes they should not be held in the evening, but in the afternoon if possible. I venture to think your Lordships will agree that the best way to get a thing well done is to excite as much local interest in the matter as possible, and then to give a free hand to the responsible local people, and so stimulate local patriotism and local competition as between one locality and another.
  I am free to confess that there are one or two defects in the Bill which I should be glad to remedy if there were the opportunity. We have fixed sixteen years of age as the age up to which these lads should be kept under an educational system. Personally, I should much prefer to make the age seventeen. I think that age is on all grounds a better age. Then, again, in this Bill we only require after leaving the elementary school seventy-five attendances in the year in a continuation school or class. I should be inclined to make that 100 attendances. I have been led also to make a further concession by reducing the age of exemption from attendance at an elementary day school to thirteen; and in agricultural districts where boys are engaged in agriculture, in horticulture, or in any other cognate rural industry, I propose to reduce the age of compulsory attendance to twelve, subject to attendance at a continuation class. This, I think, goes to the extreme limit of what ought to be conceded, and I can well imagine that some of your Lordships will think the concessions go too far. I am impressed, however, by the need of keeping in touch with our lads during the most critical years of their lives, from thirteen to sixteen, and I feel that if we could get our hold on them and keep them growing in intelligence and under discipline during those years we should have a far better chance of making good men of them. I have also been induced to make these concessions
  878
  because I think it important, if an Act of this kind is to be well and efficiently worked, that it should be cordially accepted by the people who have to work it in the neighbourhood, and I have a good deal of evidence to show that if the clause is adopted allowing a boy of twelve years of age to work on the farm or in the garden provided he attends these classes, even the farmers, who are not, as a rule, very enthusiastic for education, would cordially accept the Bill; and I lay great stress on the cordial acceptance of legislation which has to be worked in our rural districts.
  In Clause 4 I have introduced a provision which I venture to think will prove of the greatest possible value, especially in country districts. It is that, if a parent so requires, attendances at a recognised Sunday school or class for religious or moral instruction, not exceeding in the aggregate one-third of the minimum number of attendances required in the year, should be reckoned as if they were attendances at a continuaton school or class. I have been met by one or two objections to this clause which I desire to say a word upon in case they should by any chance be held in this House. They come, curiously enough, from very opposite quarters. There is, first of all, the objection which emanates from what I might call the Sabbatarian quarter, from those who have the fear that any provision of this kind, if it were largely worked, might tend to spoil Sunday observance and be a step, so to speak, in the direction of secularising the Sunday. With those feelings I strongly sympathise, but our religious friends who are afraid of anything in the nature of such instruction as this Bill would provide on Sunday forget the high authority we have for doing good on the Sabbath day.
  I feel that Sunday might be used to a far greater extent than it is as a day of good instruction. The instruction given in classes like this might have a great effect on the character of our young men and lift them to a higher life. I am not speaking without reference to actual experience in this matter. We have already a good deal of evidence as to the value of what can be done on the Sunday through such classes as these; the most striking

  879
  evidence is provided by the work which is being done in the adult schools of the Society of Friends. Nothing has done more than the wonderful work of the Society of Friends in their adult classes to impress me with the unused opportunities of the Sunday. The Society, as your Lordships know, is only a small one; yet it has nearly 77,000 persons attending its Sunday adult schools. In the City of Birmingham alone—to take only one instance, though we have such classes in my own city and up and down my own diocese, and some of my clergy, I am glad to say, are imitating them—in the city of Birmingham alone there are 20,000 persons attending the Sunday classes of the Society of Friends. Many well known men give their Sundays to instructing those who attend these classes, among them two previous Lord Mayors of the City. The late Mr. Richard Cadbury, to my knowledge, walked three miles every Sunday morning to meet his class at half-past seven, and that class averaged 500 men. Mr. George Cadbury goes five miles every Sunday morning for a similar purpose, and he has done this for forty-six years or more. We have the example of schools like these to guide us in legislation, and the immense amount of good that has been done by them is more than we can estimate. The Sunday classes contemplated in this clause which some of my friends object to are exactly of the kind which are being conducted by the Society of Friends—chiefly Biblical, but also giving instruction in anything which could be called moral instruction, and so insuring a considerable area in choice of subjects, but, as I have said, chiefly Biblical.
  Then there is another objection, in answer to which I desire to say one word. It comes from the Parliamentary side. The average Member of Parliament says—We like your Bill, but for Heaven's sake do not introduce anything about religious instruction or Sunday teaching. I cannot but feel that this objection rests on an entire misconception of the real aim which we have in view. These objectors do not feel the Sabbatarian difficulty at all. They would even play golf or tennis on Sunday, or give dinner parties; they have no objection to laxity in Sunday observance,
  880
  yet they would draw the line at these classes from some fear which they have not clearly defined; and there are a great many such persons, owing to our unfortunate divisions in the political sphere on matters of religious instruction, who have come to look upon religion as a thing which must not be touched in political life. They almost look upon it as a thing only to be quarrelled about. Some of these objectors remind one of a certain Scotsman who the other day, in consequence of a famous decision of this House, declared that he meant to give up religion altogether and join the Establishment. There are a great many in English public life who hold that sort of view. I feel that if we are to build up the character of our people, especially in the rural districts, we must discard this kind of objection and attack their needs in a sincere spirit, remembering always that our working people in the country have very little leisure except on Sundays, and that Sunday is very often to our lads and young men a very dull day. They live in a dull and sometimes vicious atmosphere, and my desire is to permeate their lives with higher interests and higher tastes and more wholesome enjoyments. This is a subject which has been on my mind a long time. Along with various friends I have been pleading for some continuation in our education for thirty years. We have tried many experiments, but have long ago come to the conclusion that only some obligatory system such as this will cure the defects in our national educational system and help us to educate the mass of our young men and make them better men and better citizens. I beg to move the Second Reading of the Bill.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Bishop of Hereford.)
  *THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I waited some moments before rising in the hope that some lay Member of your Lordships' House rather than another from the Episcopal Bench would say a word upon this subject. It is a subject that cuts deep and reaches far in our national life, and I should like to express complete

  881
  sympathy with the object and purpose of the Bill which my right rev. brother has introduced. The details of the measure obviously require careful consideration. There are questions about the limits of age, the manner in which the cost of such an arrangement should be borne, and a great many other things in the Bill, which, should it go beyond its present stage, would require very careful consideration at the hands of your Lordships; but I am perfectly clear that some measure of this kind is urgently needed. There are many of your Lordships who have, indirectly at least, had brought to your knowledge the educational standard reached by the men who are at present being enlisted as soldiers in His Majesty's Army, and I think everyone who has investigated that subject must have been startled by the portentous ignorance which is displayed by young men who only a few years ago were sharp and apparently quick-witted boys in the upper standards of our elementary schools.
  The extent to which a boy who leaves school at the age of fourteen may lose all the education he has acquired is really appalling. Some of your Lordships may remember that about ten years ago an investigation was made in the Eastern Counties by one who was keenly interested in this matter as to the degree of knowledge retained by boys who had a few years before left school. The matter was brought forward in an important speech in the House of Commons at that time, and the statistics are well worthy of the perusal of any one who doubts the urgency of the need to which the Bishop of Hereford has called attention. The Report which was then laid before the House showed that 100 boys were taken at haphazard from the ranks of the young agricultural labourers, and it was found that of the boys between sixteen and eighteen one quarter could write fairly, one quarter moderately, and quite one half could only write in the most disgraceful manner, both as to penmanship and as to spelling; while in arithmetic 75 per cent. could not answer a single one of the simple questions set. Yet many of these boys had a few years before been in the village school, and
  882
  some of them had attained to the sixth standard, and your Lordships will remember that the sixth standard means no inconsiderable degree of attainment. It covers not only a thorough facility in reading and in writing, in parsing and in English composition, but it includes also the higher branches of arithmetic, and sometimes the elements of algebra. What we have to note is that it is possible, by the absolute discontinuance of anything which stimulates intellectual powers, to lose to a degree which would seem incredible every vestige of such knowledge which has already been acquired.
  The object I have at heart in furthering such a proposal as that which the Bishop of Hereford has put before your Lordships is that by some means or other there shall be compulsion on boys to ensure that they shall, during those critical years, keep alive the learning they have already acquired, and we have to remember that very little work—say a single hour a week—will serve to keep it alive. The exact process by which that can be done is a most legitimate subject for discussion, but that something of the sort is needed does seem to me to be outside controversy altogether. There can be no doubt that to allow to go to waste the education which has been given to the young at considerable labour and expense must be most injurious to the country. What is wanted is some prophet or leader to show the country, what none of us at present understand, how to give to the youth of the country, between the ages of ten and thirteen, that kind of education which will be most effective in the years that immediately follow, and to ensure that it shall not disappear altogether when the school days are actually over. I venture to hope that the wider consideration of the subject, which will be stimulated by the introduction of such a Bill as this, may lead to some fruitful suggestion being made for bringing about that result.
  I do not for a moment contend that the education which these youths receive in the primary schools is worthless because it is so soon forgotten. The teaching of what is called "the three R's" exercises an influence upon a boy's

  883
  intelligence, even if the actual power of reading, writing, and doing sums has largely passed away. Many of your Lordships will recall the years you spent in the writing of Latin verses. I do not know how many of those to whom I speak would be able to produce this afternoon such a set of Hexameters as you could write with tolerable ease at the age of eighteen or nineteen. Yet it cannot be said that these Latin exercises bore no fruit. In the same way it cannot be denied that these youths may have attained to a higher type of intelligence because of their efforts for the acquisition of something which subsequently passed away. But still the country is not doing what it might do to keep alive in after years such a glimmer of intellectual knowledge as would enable a boy to take advantage of plain and simple literature that might be put into his hands. I do not believe in the theory that the thing is impossible, and that it is not impossible is shown by the indisputable fact that the state of things is not the same all the land over. Many of your lordships are familiar with the intellectual standard attained and maintained by boys and young men in the Highlands of Scotland, and you must have been struck by the higher intellectual intelligence of the gillies in the Highlands as compared with boys of the same age and circumstances in the South of England. That is due to the fact that great pains were taken in Scotland a little while ago to set up the tradition of a higher education and intelligence which has permeated from generation to generation, and it is because we want to stimulate in this country something of that kind, which should ultimately at all events produce a different condition of matters from that with which we are familiar to-day, that we support this proposal. Let anybody contrast the boys he will find in an elementary school at the age of thirteen, sharp, keen, and quick-witted, and take those same boys five years afterwards and see the condition of stolid animal stupidity into which many of them have fallen, and he will realise that some measure such as that suggested by the right rev. Prelate is urgently required if we are to look forward hopefully to the real advancement of the people of England.
  *THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (The Marquess of LONDONDERRY): My Lords, I can assure the most rev. Primate who has just spoken, and also the right rev. Prelate who is responsible for the introduction of this Bill, that I sympathise to a great extent with their remarks, and I recognise that the objects of the Bill are approved by all classes. My mind goes back to a deputation on this subject which was introduced to me by the right rev. Prelate, composed of gentlemen whose names are household words as experts not only in educational matters but on all questions connected with local government, and I do not for one moment regret that the right rev. Prelate has brought this matter forward. The Bill deals with a question of great interest and great importance in the educational training of children. I have listened, as I always do, with respect and admiration to the words which fell from the most rev. Primate, who seldom addresses your Lordships on any subject without giving us some practical advice. I do not differ from him in his remarks as to the deterioration which is found in the youths of this country between the time they leave the elementary schools and enter the Army and other walks of life, but I ask, where does the remedy lie? It is a very difficult problem to solve. We have done our best, at great expense, to provide the very best education that can be given in elementary schools, and from there undoubtedly the boys turn out bright, cheery, and intelligent; but as to how we are to deal with them after they leave school in order to maintain that condition of efficiency while they are passing through that hobbledehoyhood, if I may use the expression, between boyhood and manhood, completely baffles me at the present moment. But I can assure the right rev. Prelate that I shall consider what he has said and endeavour, so far as lies in my power to find some solution of the problem, though I do not say—indeed I should be unwise if I did—that I anticipate being able to find a satisfactory solution.
  I turn now to the provisions of the Bill. At present children, under general circumstances, must attend school until

  885
  they are at least twelve years of age. In 1899 a Bill was passed through Parliament which made special provision for children in agricultural and rural districts, enabling them to go to work in the fields at eleven years of age, provided they attended school 250 times a year till the age of thirteen years. That is the condition of affairs at the present moment. The right rev. Prelate proposes to change that thirteen years to twelve years, on the understanding that, after arriving at the age of twelve years, four years are to be spent by these children in attendance at evening continuation schools. The object, of course, is to give assistance in rural districts where labour is scarce, and knowing the difficulty of getting labour in agricultural districts, especially at certain times of the year, I have every desire to assist agriculturists in the matter. Therefore that object commends itself to me, as I am sure it does to all your Lordships. We must admire the desire of the right rev. Prelate to give some kind of education to the youths and maidens of the country between the age's of twelve and sixteen, which is a very important period in the lives of the rising generation. I can assure the right rev. Prelate that he has my most sincere sympathy in that, and were his Bill to go no further, and it could be proved that these two points could be carried into effect without any difficulty, he would have no more cordial supporter of the Bill than myself.
  But I am bound to point out that there are difficulties which, I regret to say, prevent our giving him assistance in passing the Bill. In the first place, it introduces an absolutely new principle in authorising the application of compulsion to secure attendance at other than elementary schools. On this ground alone I could not advise my colleagues or your Lordships to accept the measure. I know the right rev. Prelate will say that this is an entirely permissive measure, and that the local education authority need not put it in force unless they consider it necessary; but I would point out that if a local education authority did take advantage of the Bill, should it become law, they must be prepared to enforce all the details of the Bill, and those
  886
  details, I think, from the compulsory point of view, would be extremely dangerous and detrimental to the interests of the country. The right rev. Prelate took credit for moderation in only requiring in his Bill this year that there should be seventy-five hours attendance a year up to the age of sixteen; but I object to extending compulsion beyond its present limits even to secure seventy-five hours attendance. The principle of the Bill would operate most unfairly on parents whose children had shown special talent, and who might not have the same need as others to remain at school till the age of sixteen.
  I turn to the question of expense. I do not suppose the right rev. Prelate will contradict me when I say that if his Bill was accepted by Parliament in its entirety it would add to the cost of education. The last speech I addressed to your Lordships was in reply to Questions put to me by Lord Galway and Lord Harris, who complained of the great height to which the education rate in their respective counties had risen. I regret the height to which the education rate has been allowed to rise, but I pointed out in my reply that it rested to a great extent with the local education authorities. The right rev. Prelate's Bill must necessarily increase the cost of education whenever it becomes operative. If the Bill became law, teachers and school attendance officers would be called upon to perform extra work, which they would no doubt gladly do, but for which they would expect some extra payment.
  I am not quite certain from the wording of the Bill whether the right rev. Prelate intended to place these schools under Part III. of the Education Act, which, as your Lordships know, deals with elementary schools, or under Part II., which deals with secondary education; but I assume, looking to the terms of the right rev. Prelate's Bill of last year, that these schools are to be regarded as coming under Part II. If that is the case, I would point out to the right rev. Prelate that Clause 18 of the Act of 1902 confers this power on the local education authorities—
  "The county council may, if they think fit, charge any expenses incurred by them under

  887
  this Act with respect to education other than elementary on any parish or parishes which in the opinion of the council are served by the school or the college in connection with which the expenses have been incurred."
  Therefore, if this Bill becomes law, and if these schools are to be regarded as coming under Part II., it may be possible to set one up in a particular area, to force children in the area to go to it, and to charge the cost on the area, although the people of the area do not want the school.
  The funds for higher education are already heavily burdened. I have been told privately by noble Lords that at the present time the demands on these funds are so large that some counties may have to approach the Local Government Board for power to extend the limit of the twopenny rate. If they have to do that with the expenses at present involving upon them, how much more so would they have to do it if they had this extra burden put upon them? Then, again, comes the question: How are these evening continuation schools to be provided? There are a large number of such schools in the country at the present moment, and they are doing a great work, but how are these schools to be provided in the remote rural districts? In the big towns and even in the smaller towns there would be no great difficulty in providing them, but how are they to be provided in remote rural districts? And if they are not provided in those districts the concession given to agriculturists by allowing children to go earlier to work on the fields cannot be taken advantage of. Experience has taught us that in thoroughly rural districts evening continuation schools, which have done a great amount of good in supplementing elementary education, cannot do effectively the work of an elementary day school. The right rev. Prelate laid stress on the advantage of encouraging attendance at Sunday schools. No one has more sincere regard for Sunday schools than I have, and I endorse all that he said on that subject; but the provision in this Bill with regard to Sunday schools would necesitate these schools being placed in some measure under State supervision, a formidable undertaking which would require serious consideration.
  888
  I trust that the right rev. Prelate will not think that because I have pointed out the great difficulties which surround this measure I am throwing cold water on his well-intentioned efforts. I have, of course, to look at the question from every point of view; I have to regard it from the point of view not only of the Government but also of the ratepayer. I regret I cannot ask the House to support the Bill because it introduces a spirit of compulsion of which I do not approve, and throws an extra burden on thelalready overburdened ratepayers. I hope the right rev. Prelate, while accepting my sincere sympathy, will not think it necessary to go to a division.
  *THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: My Lords, I confess I am a little doubtful of the value of the sincere sympathy of the noble Marquess who has just sat down. He has left the matter, it seems to me, in a very unsatisfactory condition. The question which is being discussed tonight is one of the most important connected with our educational system. After what has been said, with all the authority of the most rev. Primate and of the right rev. Prelate who has charge of the Bill, it would be simply wasting your Lordships' time if I were to repeat what they have said, but I think it is impossible for anybody who is at all acquainted with the condition of education in the country, and especially in the rural districts, to deny that unless something more is done after children leave school they lose in an almost singular manner the knowledge which they have had imparted to them in the elementary school. There can be nothing more important than to prevent the sacrifice of what has already been taught at great expense and with a great deal of labour by tiding over the interval between the time when lads and maidens leave school and the time when they fully enter upon the business of life.
  Now that is a question of first-rate importance, and we are told by the noble Marquess the President of the Board of Education that it baffles him. The noble Marquess will, I hope, pardon me if I say that I think it is part of the functions of his office that he should not be baffled by these difficulties, but should

  889
  set his mind to deal with them. If the noble Marquess had come down to the House and said that he did not like this Bill, that he thought the proposals in it were bad, but that he had a much better scheme which he would lay before your Lordships either to-night or on some other occasion, I should have felt it my duty not to support the right rev. Prelate if he had thought it necessary to press his Bill to a division. But that is precisely what the noble Marquess has not told us. He admits the difficulty; he admits the urgency; he admits the necessity; but he has no idea what ought to be done in order to meet the case. In those circumstances it seems to me that the House had much better pass the Second Beading of the Bill and affirm the principle. I do not profess to say that I do not see difficulties in the details of this measure. I do not profess to say that it could not be amended in Committee. I believe it could. But I do say undoubtedly, after the non possumus speech of the noble Marquess, the House ought to pass the Second Reading of the Bill.
  *THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFOBD: My Lords, before the debate concludes I hope I may be permitted to add one or two observations. I do not propose to follow the noble Marquess through his arguments on the details of the Bill, but I should like to remove one misconception in regard to the Sunday classes. As I said previously, the proposalsimply means giving a remission of one-third of the minimum number of attendances required in the year if the child attends at a recognised Sunday school for religious or moral instruction. All that would be required would be a certificate from a recognised authority that the child had been under instruction for so many Sundays. There would be no necessity for State inspection or any expense whatever. There is no doubt some force in what the noble Marquess said with
  regard to the expenses of the continuation schools falling on the secondary education fund, and as a member of my own county authority I am well aware how great is the objection felt to adding anything to the expense of secondary education. Our county authorities are averse to anything like a county rate for secondary education. As things stand at present, the Education Act of 1902 unfortunately throws all the expense of education, except for elementary schools, on the secondary education fund, which consists mainly of what is known as the whisky money. I cannot but hope, however, that some change may be introduced in that respect. I do not look upon the Act of 1902 as in the nature of a law of the Medes and Persians which must not be changed. I venture to think that the comparatively small additional expense which such a system as this would involve might be readily met, if not out of Imperial taxation, at any rate out of some combination of taxes and rates. I thank the noble Marquess the President of the Board of Education for the sympathy he has expressed, but I must confess I do not appreciate the difficulties he sees in the way. The noble Marquess and those who agree with him think it is not opportune that this Bill should be pressed. This being so I have no desire to take up the time of the House unnecessarily upon it. I am in the hands of the House, and am prepared to withdraw the Bill if it is the wish of your Lordships.
  EARL SPENCER: No, no!
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: Divide! Divide!
  On Question, their Lordships divided:—Contents, 14; Not contents, 16.

  CONTENTS.

  Canterbury, L. Abp.

  Spencer, E.

  Belhaven and Stenton, L.

  James, L.

  Ripon, M.

  Gordon, V. (E. Aberdeen.)

  Monkswell, L.

  Hill, V.

  Monteagle of Brandon, L.

  Crewe, E.

  Shuttleworth, L. [Teller.]

  Portsmouth, E.

  Hereford, L. Bp. [Teller.]

  Tweedmouth, L.

  Halsbury, E. (L. Chancellor.)

  Cawdor, E.

  Colchester, L.

  vane, E. (M. Londonderry.) (L. President.)

  Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]

  Harris, L.

  Heneage, L.

  Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

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

  Bath, M. [Teller.]

  Lansdowne, E.

  Ridley, V.

  Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)

  Windsor, L.

  Camperdown, E.

  Barnard, L.

  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  THE QUADRANT OF REGENT STREET.
  VISCOUNT RIDLEY: My Lords, I rise, in accordance with the Notice standing in my name on the Paper, to ask His Majesty's Government whether the buildings now being demolished in the Quadrant of Regent Street have any defect which necessitates their removal; whether the sites on which they stand are under the control of His Majesty's Office of Woods and Forests; and whether, in rebuilding on those sites, His Majesty's Government will have due regard to the architectural continuity of Regent Street.
  I do not think it necessary to trouble your Lordships with any lengthy remarks, because I am anxious more to obtain information than to pass criticism on any action taken in this respect. I do not think there is any need to remind your Lordships of the unique position and the unique features of Regent Street, and especially that part of it known as the Quadrant, which is now under the hammer of the housebreaker. This part of Regent Street is one of the most interesting, I might even say beautiful, architectural features of a town which does not abound in architectural beauties, and I therefore ask, first, whether there is any real and sufficient reason for the demolition of these houses. I ask that question, knowing full well that at the time of their erection by the architect Nash, it was generally stated that they were not well built, and were not of a sufficiently good material to last a long time. A rhyme was current at the time that Augustus had found Rome of marble but had left it of brick, and that Nash had found London of brick and left it of plaster. Therefore, there may be real reason for the demolition of these houses. I ask, secondly, if it is necessary to pull these houses down for architectural or other reasons, whether His Majesty's Government will do their best to see that some architectural continuity, if not the
  892
  exact facade as now, is preserved in the rebuilding of these houses. There was a parallel case in Paris. Two or three years ago it was proposed to build a large hotel, and the French Government insisted that in the building of that hotel certain architectural features should be preserved. His Majesty's Government have additional right to take action in this matter because, as I understand, the land on which these houses stand is under the control of the Woods and Forests Office. They have therefore a considerable locus standi in the matter. I do not know whether it is completely under their control. I do not know how far the County Council has control over it; but I am sure the County Council would be in every way desirous of considering the architectural features of the metropolis. I hope His Majesty's Government will be able to give satisfactory assurances that in the rebuilding on this site due regard will be had to one of the most important find interesting architectural features of the Metropolis.
  *THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Lord WINDSOR): My Lords, I rise, on behalf of the Treasury, to answer the Questions which have been put by the noble Viscount. There are three distinct Questions in the Notice which my noble friend has placed on the Paper. The answer to the first is that the buildings in the Quadrant and in other parts of Regent Street are not considered suitable for modern requirements; they are for the most part not well built, and do not utilise the sites which they occupy to the best advantage. It is, therefore, proposed to rebuild the Quadrant as the present leases expire, or earlier if suitable opportunities occur. The reply to the second Question is that it is quite true that the ground landlords are the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, and the answer to the third Question is that it is

  893
  intended to have regard to the continuity of architectural design. I may add a word in explanation and tell the House that Mr. Norman Shaw has been requested to prepare a design for the whole Quadrant. Mr. Norman Shaw is familiar to your Lordships as an eminent architect. This design is not yet finally settled, but it is the intention of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests to rebuild the Quadrant in one design, and not allow buildings of a patchy description. The Commissioners of Woods and Forests are fully alive to the importance of the houses in the Quadrant being rebuilt on the design of an eminent architect, and of the continuity of the buildings and the present curve of the Quadrant being maintained.

  THE IMPERIAL YEOMANRY COMMITTEE'S ACCOUNTS.
  *LORD HARRIS,on rising "to call attention to the Report of the Accounts Committee on the final account of the Imperial Yeomanry Committee (Third Report, page 13), and to ask His Majesty's Government what steps they propose to take to rectify the mistake into which the Accounts Committee has been led," said:—My Lords, It would not have been necessary for me to trouble your Lordships this evening upon the matter I am about to bring to your Lordships' notice if the War Office had, as I think they might fairly and even in justice ought to have done, protected a very limited number of individuals who consider themselves to be aggrieved, and whom on this occasion I represent. Your Lordships may remember that there were a few gentlemen who were suddenly impressed, so to speak, by the War Office a few years ago, and placed in a position of considerable publicity, in order to assist the War Office in raising the Imperial Yeomanry for service in South Africa. That body was entitled the Imperial Yeomanry Committee, and certain funds were entrusted to it for expenditure. In course of time, that expenditure, being of public money, came under the review of the Auditor-General, and subsequently the Public Accounts Committee of the House of Commons. Last year, late in the session
  894
  —I think in the month of August—the Public Accounts Committee published their Report, and I will take leave to read to your Lordships the portions of the Report upon which I wish to comment to-night. "The Final Account of the Imperial Yeomanry Committee" is the heading of a paragraph on page xiii., and the Committee there say—
  "Out of the total sum granted (£1,265,000), it appears that for more than one-third (£460,000) no details or vouchers can be produced, and failing these the Comptroller and Auditor-General asked for a certificate from the accountants. He has received this certificate, bat it is to an account in a summary form, without any sub-vouchers for purchases. It is obvious that this, being the certificate of the accountant of the expending parties, and unsupported by vouchers, is in the highest degree unsatisfactory, and precludes any real audit of the accounts."
  That paragraph is full of errors. It says, in the first place, that
  "No details or vouchers can be produced."
  That is absolutely incorrect. All the details and vouchers are in existence. It goes on to say—
  "And failing these the Comptroller and Auditor-General asked for a certificate from the accountants."
  The Auditor-General never asked the accountants for a certificate. What happened was this. Directly the Imperial Yeomanry Committee was formed, it appointed a very well-known firm, Messrs Kemp, Sons, and Co., to be the accountants of the Committee, and the body from whom the Auditor-General asked for a certificate was not our accountants, but the War Office. It is quite possible that the request passed first through the Treasury, and then on to the War Office, but in the form in which it finally reached our accountants—I have the letter here—it did not say that any vouchers were required; it simply said that the Auditor-General required a certificate, and suggested to our accountants the form in which the certificate should be supplied. Upon that request the certificate was supplied. Our accountants, as a matter of fact, were never asked for any vouchers by the Auditor-General, and that is the reason none were supplied. The Report goes on to say—
  "The Director of the Finance Department at the War Office expresses the hope that this experiment of trusting outside parties to perform

  895
  War Office work will never again be resorted to, in which your Committee cordially concur."
  Of course, the Director of the Finance Department at the War Office is quite entitled to express a pious opinion on a subject of that kind, if he pleases; all I can say is that that opinion is absolutely opposed to the opinion of the noble Marquess who was at the head of the War Office at the time the Imperial Yeomanry Committee was formed, who insisted upon the Imperial Yeomanry Committee being a separate body, and who would not allow it to be brought under the immediate supervision and control of the War Office.
  Now, my Lords, what I complain of is not the Report of the Public Accounts Committee. They have obviously been misled by the evidence that was placed before them. The evidence was placed before the Public Accounts Committee by Sir Douglas Richmond, as I believe he is now—he was then Auditor-General—and in the presence of a representative of the War Office. The representative of the War Office was Sir Guy Fleetwood Wilson, who, I believe, is now Accountant-General at the War Office, and he was present when Sir Douglas Richmond was asked certain questions which I take leave to read to your Lordships—
  "Did you make any attempt to get any details and vouchers?—Yes, I have asked for vouchers.
  "And you have not obtained them?—I have not received them.
  "Am I right in presuming that it is in consequence of your failure to obtain them that as a last desperate resort you fall back upon the suggestion that the Committee's accountants should give their certificates?—Yes, that is so. I observed that accounts were mentioned, and I thought at least I might get a certificate from the accountants.
  "In this case, where so large a sum is involved, the total expense of the Committee, if I am right amounting to something like £1,265,000, in respect of £460,000 odd, that is to say, more than one-third of the whole amount, you have received no vouchers and no details?—That is so.
  "And, as a matter of fact, you have only fallen back upon that suggestion because you were unable to get either vouchers or details?—That is all I could get, and I thought I would state the facts plainly to Parliament."
  896
  Subsequently this question was put to Sir Guy Fleetwood Wilson—
  "Have you any remarks to make with regard to this matter?"
  This was the representative of the War Office, but I submit he was also something more under these circumstances—he was there to defend the business capacity and the honour of the Imperial Yeomanry Committee, because that Committee were never called by the Public Accounts Committee. Not only were the Imperial Yeomanry Committee never asked, or any member of it, but its own accountants were never asked to go before the Public Accounts Committee or to give any evidence whatever about this subject. I submit, therefore, that Sir Guy Fleetwood Wilson, as representing the War Office, was bound to consider the interests of the Imperial Yeomanry Committee when its system of business was being challenged by the Auditor-General. He was asked if he had any remarks to make with regard to this matter—"this matter" being that the Auditor-General had told the Public Accounts Committee that no vouchers could be produced for an expenditure of half a million of money; and he said in reply—
  "Yes. I have this remark to make—that the Yeomanry Committee was an organisation entirely outside the War Office."
  Yes; of course it was, because the Secretary of State for War had put it outside the War Office, and Sir Guy Fleetwood Wilson was a subordinate of the noble Marquess who was then at the head of the War Office. He continued—
  "The Government at the moment decided to entrust to a Committee of noblemen and gentlemen the creation of a field force, and they took such steps as they considered necessary to create it. The War Office action was limited to paying for it."
  The Chairman said—
  "We are not blaming you."
  and Sir Guy Fleetwood Wilson went on:
  "No; but I think it is fair to state that to lead up to what the hon. Member is putting to me. The War Office action was limited to finding £49 per horse and £35 per man, and the whole administration, accounting, and everything concerning this force was to be kept entirely in the hands of the Yeomanry Committee, and we were not to interfere with it. Later on the conditions of affairs changed, and

  897
  we were brought into close touch with the administration by the Committee of the Yeomanry—"
  —this is the remark to which I take exception—
  "And we have done our best to put things on that footing which is the recognised footing in dealing with Army accounts; but we have to deal with what we found, and not with what we created."
  That is as much as to say that no accounts were properly kept until the War Office took the matter up. I submit that that is absolutely incorrect, that the accounts connected with this £460,000 were kept properly, and in an admirable manner, by the accountants, that the officials who preceded Sir Guy Fleetwood Wilson in his office as head of the Accountants Department in the War Office knew perfectly well that these accounts were properly kept, that the vouchers were in existence, and were forthcoming with all the crossed cheques as well. But Sir Guy Fleetwood Wilson, without reference to his predecessors, who would have known the facts, took it upon himself to throw over the Yeomanry Committee and to suggest that they never kept their accounts properly, and that it was only when he and his colleagues came in that a commencement was made towards the proper keeping of proper accounts. I submit, my Lords, that that is not a fair way of protecting the gentlemen who were the colleagues of the officials of the War Office for some twelve months, and that we might have expected from the officials of the War Office a more considerate regard for our character as business men. The suggestion is that although we might be good business men in our private affairs, we considered that this being public money it mattered not two-pence to us whether proper accounts were kept or not, and Sir Guy Fleetwood Wilson makes no attempt to protect us from the charges brought forward by the Auditor-General.
  But, my Lords, I go further. The fact that this was a complete mis-statement of the facts was brought before the War Office during the course of certain correspondence in the autumn of last year, and up to January of this year, but the War Office have absolutely declined to take any step publicly to
  898
  rectify the mistake or to withdraw the charge which has been made against the Imperial Yeomanry Committee. It is quite true that a Question was asked the other day in the House of Commons upon this paragraph in the Report of the Public Accounts Committee, and Mr. Arnold-Forster in reply said—
  "The statement in question would appear to be based on replies given by the late Comptroller and Auditor-General—"
  Yes, but they were replies made in the presence of Sir Guy Fleetwood Wilson, the representative of the War Office, who took no steps whatever to correct them.
  "I understand that vouchers are, as a matter of fact, in existence, although they have not been rendered to the War Office."
  They could have been rendered to the War Office at any time if the War Office had asked for them, but they never asked for them. So far from asking for them, they said they did not want them. In addition to that, I am told on very fair authority that the War Office even suggested that they should be burnt, and it was only the care of our accountants which prevented that suggestion being carried out. The Secretary of State went on to point out that the War Office treated the whole of this expenditure in the same way that it treats the capitation grant of the Volunteers; that is to say, that the money is put into the hands of the commanding officer, and as long as he produces the man properly equipped, and evidence that he has put in a certain number of drills, etc., they require no further voucher. Very well; I think that that is a very reasonable way of dealing with that expenditure, but it was not what the War Office required of us. As regards the money spent by the Yeomanry colonels, the War Office first told us that they would require no vouchers at all. Two years afterwards they changed their mind, and asked for all the vouchers, and we produced all the vouchers we could. But that money is not the sum referred to by the Accountant-General. It is an entirely different sum. The sum I am referring to is the £460,000 spent by the Yeomanry Committee itself. We kept the accounts of it; we have those vouchers now; the War Office knew or ought to have known that we had them

  899
  it ought to have been, and I have no doubt that it is, on the records of the War Office that those vouchers were in existence. When that fact was challenged by the Auditor-General, the representative of the War Office ought at once to have corrected the error, and I submit that in addition to the grievance which I and my colleagues think we lie under, the Public Accounts Committee of the House of Commons have every right to complain of the way in which the evidence was placed before them. The course I suggest the War Office should now adopt is to do in consequence of my public appeal to-day what they have declined to do in response to the private appeals which have been made to them, viz., to acknowledge that the information that was placed before the Public Accounts Committee was not correct, and to express their opinion that if correct information had been placed before the Public Accounts Committee that body would not have passed upon the business capacity of the Imperial Yeomanry Committee a judgment, which in our opinion, is decidedly injurious to us, both as regards our capacity as business men and also as regards the public duty which was laid upon our shoulders at the time.
  *THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (The Earl of DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, the noble Lord who has just sat down has, under the shadow—I do not use the word in any offensive sense—of a rather innocuous Motion, made a very severe attack upon a distinguished public servant. I am not going to follow the noble Lord in that attack further than to say that I believe, and I hope I shall be able to prove to your Lordships, that it is absolutely and entirely unjustified. The noble Lord complained, secondly, that Sir Guy Fleetwood Wilson believed that the accounts of the Imperial Yeomanry Committee were not kept properly until it fell to his lot to have to deal with them. I confess that after a very careful reading of the evidence I can find no justification for that complaint. But, after all, the gravamen of the charge lies in this—and the noble Lord will correct me if I am misrepresenting him. The noble Lord complains that the
  900
  Comptroller and Auditor-General gave the Public Accounts Committee the impression that these vouchers did not exist, and that Sir Guy Fleetwood Wilson should have contradicted him. My Lords, the Comptroller and Auditor-General stated nothing of the kind. He stated that he had never seen these vouchers, and that was an absolutely true statement. He made that statement three or four times.
  *LORD HARRIS: It is in consequence of your failure to obtain them. That is from the question put by the Public Accounts Committee.
  *THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: Quite so. Perhaps I may go through this rather more in detail. In reply to Question 3303 the Comptroller and Auditor-General says—
  "I have had no vouchers for any of those purchases."
  In reply to Question 3305—
  "I have asked for vouchers."
  In reply to Question 3306—
  "I have not received them."
  My Lords, that was an absolutely true statement, and obviously it was perfectly impossible for Sir Guy Fleetwood Wilson to contradict it. I admit at once that the Public Accounts Committee in their Report state that these vouchers did not exist, and they refer to these very questions—I think they quote in the body of the text Question 3308—as their justification for stating that they did not exist. I regret that they drew that conclusion. It is not my business or the business of anybody else to dictate to the Public Accounts Committee what impression they should take from the evidence submitted to them. I can only say, with great respect, I do not think I should have drawn the conclusion they drew from the evidence placed before them. I am perfectly aware that these vouchers did exist, and I regret very much that by the statement of the Public Accounts Committee what I cannot help feeling is an injustice—though I am sure an unwitting injustice on their part—has been done to the noble Lord who represents the Imperial Yeomanry Committee, to his Committee,

  901
  and, above all, to the firm of accountants whom they employed to manage the accounts for them. It is the case that these vouchers exist; I admit it at once; and I claim that there is no justification in this evidence for saying that they did not exist. That is the reason why Sir Guy Fleet wood Wilson—obviously, as I think—did not contradict the Comptroller and Auditor-General. I think perhaps I ought to say why these vouchers were not called for, and here I disagree with the noble Lord as to a matter of fact. I am informed that the reason we did not call for the vouchers was that we considered that the sums expended were covered by the capitation grant of £75 per man and horse that we had provided for the Imperial Yeomanry Committee. We knew that they had employed a firm of first-class accountants to help them manage their financial affairs, and we did not consider it necessary to call for detailed vouchers. We had an absolute precedent for the course we followed. It is exactly the same course as is followed with regard to the Volunteer capitation grant, although, of course, that is a much smaller amount. The 35s. per man is given to the commanding officer, and we ask for no vouchers. We followed exactly the same course in dealing with the Imperial Yeomanry Committee.
  *LORD HARRIS: Would the noble Earl mind reading Question 3322?
  *THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: I think that supports what I have just said. It was for them to decide what form of accounts they should use. I am not contesting that for a moment.
  *LORD HARRIS: But would the noble Earl mind reading the question?
  *THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: Well, my Lords, I think this is hardly necessary. This is not the Public Accounts Committee and the noble Lord is not catechising me. I do not recognise the question straight out as regards the context, but I am informed by my financial advisers that what took place was as I have just stated. Of course, the noble Lord has a great advantage over me in this matter. He put the Question down only last night, and
  902
  my financial advisers have been employed on the Public Accounts Committee all day; but I have done my best to meet him, and these are the facts as given to me by my financial advisers. I have but one word to say in conclusion. The noble Lord asks what attitude the Government intend to adopt in regard to rectifying the mistake into which the Public Accounts Committee had been led. I can only say that it is impossible for us to dictate to the Public Accounts Committee as to any opinion they may take. They are not subject to the Government or to anybody else. But I can assure the noble Lord that we do not associate ourselves with them upon the statement of fact which they put forward in regard to this particular matter, viz., that vouchers were not kept. We know that vouchers were kept; we are quite satisfied as to the way in which they were kept; and we regret the unjust impression that has been allowed to obtain in consequence of what I can only regard as a misconception of the evidence placed before them.
  LORD SHUTTLEWORTH: My Lords, I am unwilling to trouble your Lordships, but as an old member of the Public Accounts Committee, and as one who served on that body for a great many years, perhaps I may be allowed to say a word or two on this matter. The noble Earl who has just addressed the House has spoken as if the Public Accounts Committee had fallen into an error. I think the noble Lord who brought forward the question was perfectly justified in saying that everything the Public Accounts Committee state in their Report was based upon the evidence placed before them. The noble Lord has called attention to the questions which were asked and the answers given to those questions, and I submit that taking questions and answers together it is perfectly clear that the Public Accounts Committee put the questions to elicit whether or not these vouchers existed. The answer given by Sir Guy Fleetwood Wilson was, to this question—
  "Were any explanations given by the Committee as to their not keeping proper accounts?"
  Perhaps I had better read his answer It was—
  "I do not know exactly what their explanation was, but I think they considered that they

  903
  received a certain amount of capitation grant, and expended it practically in the interest of the country, and it was for them to decide what form of account they should use."
  But that is no answer to the suggestion that no proper form of accounts was used, and I confess that reading, as I have read, the evidence upon which the Committee base their Report, I can come to no other conclusion than that the Committee were perfectly justified, on the evidence given by the Comptroller and Auditor-General and by the representative of the War Office, in reporting as they did. I just say that as an old member of the Public Accounts Committee, as I am a little jealous of the proper performance of the work of the Committee of which I was for so long a member.
  But, my Lords, I think the noble Lord who brought forward this question might have strengthened his case if he had referred to the exact procedure employed by the Comptroller and Auditor-General. The Comptroller and Auditor-General has in the War Office and in the Admiralty his own officers who carry on what is called a continuous audit. In that respect the system in the War Office and the Admiralty is different from the system pursued in some of the Offices. It would be impossible in those great spending Departments to carry on the audit in any other way. Therefore, it is the practice to ask for these vouchers continuously, and it is obvious to me, reading the evidence of the Comptroller and Auditor-General, that these vouchers had been asked for in the regular course. If there were vouchers and there was some reason for not producing them, he would have been informed of the fact, or the Committee should have been informed of it. It seems to me that the noble Lord has a grievance, which has not been answered by the noble Earl representing the War Office, in the fact that the War Office did not inform, in the first instance, the officers of the Comptroller and Auditor-General; in the second instance, the Comptroller and Auditor-General when he made his Report; and, in the third instance, the Committee of Public Accounts, that proper accounts were kept, and that there were vouchers, although there may
  904
  have been reasons of policy for not producing them.
  *LORD HARRIS: My Lords, may I be allowed by way of reply to say a word? I have to apologise to the noble Earl for not giving him earlier notice of my intention to raise this question, and I am extremely obliged to him for having consented to reply at such very short notice. I was very sorry to have to make an attack upon Sir Guy Fleetwood Wilson, who is an old friend and colleague of mine, but I gave him fair notice a fortnight ago that I was going to put the Question, and I think that what he has to complain of is that the War Office did not earlier make that handsome apology which the noble Earl has made to-night, and which I am perfectly certain will be as satisfactory to my colleagues as it is to myself.

  YESTERDAY'S DIVISION.
  LORD NEWTON: I have to inform the House that a mistake was made in the votes in the division yesterday in which my noble friend the Chairman of Committees and myself were named tellers. My noble friend desires me to say that the mistake arose from the fact that it was the first time he had discharged the duty.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBUEY): Do your Lordships agree that a correction be made in the Journals of the House? The number of the "Contents" should have been 70, not 68.
  The correction was ordered to be made.

  ADVERTISEMENTS REGULATION BILL.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: In accordance with the notice I gave yesterday, I beg to move that the House resolve itself into Committee pro forma to have the Bill reprinted, and I would suggest that the Amendments be made on Report so as to save a further Report stage.
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  Bill reported without Amendment; Standing Committee negatived.
  On Report—
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH moved that the Amendments of which he had given notice be inserted.
  Bill recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House; and to be printed as amended. (No. 43.)

  BILLS OF EXCHANGE ACT, 1882, AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend Section 82 of the Bills of Exchange Act, 1882. Was presented by the Lord Chancellor; read 1a; and to be printed. (No. 44.)
  House adjourned at half-past Six o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven o'clock.