Lords Sitting of 27 June 1907

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Central London Railway Bill. — Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
Birmingham Corporation Water Bill [H.L.].— Returned from the Commons agreed to.
Great Yarmouth Port and Haven Bill; Taff Vale Railway Bill.—Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
Annfield Plain and District Gas Bill; City of London (Union of Parishes) Bill [H.L.]; Kingston-upon-Hull Corporation] Bill.—Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Lord Kenmare (E. Kenmare), be proposed to the House as a
2
Member of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Earl of Morley, read, agreed to.
Education Board Provisional Order Confirmation (London, No. 1) Bill [H.L.]; Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill [H.L.]; Land Drainage Provisional Order (No. 1) Bill; Land Drainage Provisional Order (No. 2) Bill. —Amendments reported (according to order); and Bills to be read 3a on Monday next.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill [H.L.]; Killery's Divorce Bill [H.L.]; Read 3a(according to order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill [H.L.].—Committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
Portishead District Water Bill [H.L.].— Reported, with Amendments.
London and North-Western Railway Bill.—Standing Order No. 93 considered (according to order), and dispensed with, with respect to a petition of the Hon. Cecil Saumarez Irby. Leave given to present the said Petition.
Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill [H.L.].—Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Five Lords appointed a Select Committee on the London County Council (Tramways and Improvements) Bill and other Bills do form the Select Committee for the consideration of the Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill [H.L.]; read, and agreed to; all petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the petitioners praying to be heard by counsel against the Bill to be heard as desired, as also counsel for the Bill.

BRIGHOUSE CORPORATION BILL.
Bill read 3a (according to order).
*LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, I wish to move an Amendment the object of which is to introduce certain safeguards and to protect private enterprise in the matter of electric supply. It may seem rather late in the day to propose Amendments after the Third Reading, but I know that my noble friend the Chairman of Committees always deprecates instructions on going into Committee, therefore it is practically the only opportunity a private Peer has of moving any Amendments upon such a Bill. No doubt the powers asked for in the Bill have been granted in other cases, but the results have been anything but satisfactory. In the case of Woolwich, where they were first granted, the corporation have lost several thousands of pounds, and they have now determined to abandon the business; in the case of Marylebone I am informed that the loss has been over £5,000; and there have been losses in other cases also. Partly no doubt upon these considerations, but partly also from the fact that many have thought these powers undesirable, the provisions which I venture to ask your Lordships to insert were, after consideration, put into the Bermondsey Bill, and have now the effect of law. Last year, after some debate, corresponding words, and in some cases, actually the same words, were
4
introduced into the London County Council (General Powers) Bill. This session, I understand, the Board of Trade have struck the clauses out of another local Bill which asked for the same powers as are in this Bill, and words were inserted similar to those I am now asking the House to adopt. Lastly, in the Aberdeen Bill these exact words have been inserted. So that the principle of the words I am suggesting has been adopted after consideration in several other cases, and I think it would be desirable to introduce them in this Bill, not only on general principles, but because of the desirability of adopting a consistent course in all cases. I cannot see why powers which have been refused to Aberdeen and even to the London County Council should be given in this case. I submit, therefore, that both on the merits of the clauses themselves and also on grounds of consistency these clauses should be introduced in this particular Bill, and I beg to move the first Amendment standing in my name.
Amendment moved—
"In page 6, line 28, after the word 'removed' to insert the words 'Provided as follows:—(a) It shall not be lawful for the corporation to expend money (except through a contractor) upon the provision of the labour and materials required for the wiring for and fixing of electric light fittings upon the premises of their consumers or prospective consumers, or upon the provision of lamps, fuzes, switches, fittings, lamp holders, and other apparatus and things for lighting purposes; but nothing in this subsection shall prevent the corporation completing the service line between their supply mains and their own apparatus upon the premises of any such consumer. (b) The corporation shall so adjust the rents and charges to be made by them for electric light fittings and for the wiring in connection therewith as to meet any expenditure by them under the powers of this section in connection therewith (including interest upon any moneys borrowed for those purposes and all sums applied either by way of instalments or by way of payments to sinking fund for repayment of moneys so borrowed)' " —(Lord Avebury.)
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of ONSLOW): My Lords, I am not at this moment going to make any comment upon the principle of the Amendments which the noble Lord desires to propose, though I shall perhaps say a word on that point before I sit down. I wish to address myself for the moment to the question of whether this is the

5
proper stage at which these Amendments should be introduced. Your Lordships are aware that there are many stages of a Bill when Amendments may be introduced. This is the last stage of this Bill in this House. It has already passed the House of Commons, come up to your Lordships' House, and now been read a third time. I would submit to the noble Lord that those on whose behalf he is moving these Amendments have had opportunities of inserting them both in the House of Commons and in this House. There is another method I would have suggested to them if I had known they were desirous of taking this course, namely, that they should have sent their Amendments to me, as has been done in similar circumstances by other corporations. I would then have considered them, and possibly I might have induced the promoters to insert them. I venture to say that the Third Reading of a Bill is a very dangerous stage at which to put in Amendments of this kind which are not agreed. A case arose in December last year on the Edinburgh Suburban Tramways Bill, and several noble Lords expressed the opinion that the Third Reading of a Bill was not a proper time to insert Amendments. But there was a vast difference between that case and this. In the Edinburgh case the Amendments were agreed by both parties; therefore I did not take objection to their being inserted. Moreover, the parties had not had those opportunities which were open to the friends of the noble Lord to insert them at earlier stages of the Bill. Under the circumstances I think I must ask your Lordships not to insert these Amendments, because there have been ample opportunities at earlier stages of which those interested have not availed themselves.
As to the merits of the Amendments, the noble Lord is the champion of the cause against municipal trading. I agree to a large extent with the views he entertains, and I think the time has arrived when what we know in the Private Bill Department as "Model Clauses" should be considered in connection with this subject. I propose between this and next session to consider whether some model clauses ought not to be prepared. They would not necessarily be embodied in every Bill, but, at any
6
rate, they would be available and might be adopted by promoters or imposed upon them by your Lordships' House. Under the circumstances I ask your Lordships not to agree to the insertion of the Amendments proposed.
*THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The Earl of Crewe): I do not propose to say a single word on the merits of the Amendments proposed by the noble Lord opposite; I shall confine myself entirely to the question raised by the noble Earl in the earlier part of his remarks as to the occasion on which these Amendments are proposed. The noble Earl alluded to what happened last December in the case of the Edinburgh Electric Tramways Bill, which, as he very truly said, was a much stronger ease than the one before us to-day. In that case the Amendments were agreed, and it was also the fact that those who desired to insert them had not had earlier opportunities of. doing so. As I understand, ill this case there is no reason why the Amendments should not have been moved at an earlier stage. In the Edinburgh case the noble Earl objected, but did not press his objection on the ground that the Amendments were agreed. Lord Balfour of Burleigh, also a great authority on the procedure of this House, protested against the way in which the matter was being dealt with, and the protest was supported by my noble friend Lord Ripon, who said that as the noble Earl did not press his objection he would not do so either, but he added—
"If my noble friend had objected to these Amendments, in the circumstances I certainly should have supported his authority."
On that analogy I should certainly support the noble Earl in objecting to the insertion of these Amendments at this stage.
*Lord AVEBURY: Your Lordships know how difficult it is to follow private Bills, and my attention was not called to this Bill until last Saturday. Even had it been otherwise, I know your Lordships do not like instructions moved on the Second Reading. Therefore, as I am informed, this is the only opportunity a private Peer has of moving Amendments

7
to a private Bill. I have listened with much satisfaction to one part of my noble friend's speech, because he has promised to consider, and I hope introduce, model clauses next session. That is quite satisfactory. I have no interest whatever in this particular Bill; it was on general principles I moved these Amendments, which have been introduced, as I have already stated, in several other Bills. Under the circumstances, I will not put your Lordships to the trouble of a division, but will withdraw the Amendments, having to a great extent secured the object for which I put them on the Paper.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  Sixty-first Report of the Commissioners in Lunacy, 1907.
COLONIES: ANNUAL.
No. 526. St. Helena (Report for 1906).
COMPANY LAWS IN THE BRITISH EMPIRE.
Comparative analysis of the Company Laws of the United Kingdom, India, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa, with a memorandum prepared for the Imperial Conference, 1907, by the direction of the Board of Trade.

TRADE REPORTS: ANNUAL SERIES.
No. 3842. Santo Domingo.
No. 3843. Japan (Yokohama).
Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

ELECTRIC LIGHTING ACTS, 1882 To 1902 (PROCEEDINGS).
Report by the Board of Trade respecting the applications to and proceedings of the Board of Trade under the Electric Lighting Acts, 1882 to 1902, during the past year. Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

BRITISH EAST AFRICA.
Lord HINDLIProse to call attention to the state of affairs in British East Africa and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, before bringing the case of British East Africa to the notice of your Lordships House, may I ask for that indulgence which your Lordships are wont to extend to those who address your Lordships' House for the first time? There is one point on which I think that we interested in British East Africa will find ourselves in complete agreement with the noble Earl the Secretary of State for the Colonies. We wish the country to pay its way and not to be dependent on a grant-in-aid. I believe, my Lords, that this desirable end can be easily obtained, and more easily than the advisers of His Majesty's Government seem to think. At present the country is not making the progress which it should make, and I am very much afraid that it is in danger of reverting to the state from which it has so lately emerged. The reasons for this are not obscure. The community is in a state of intense dissatisfaction, which has shown itself in many ways; it is a disease eating into the country and showing its presence by various symptoms.
Several petitions concerning the present situation of the Colony have been presented both locally and at home. They comprise: first, the colonists petition to the Secretary of State: secondly, the petition to individual Members of Parliament of last year; thirdly, a petition presented to Colonel Sadler by many. business men of Nairobi praying that owing to the delays in obtaining his signature to deeds and documents that when on tour he would appoint someone who could execute them for him; fourthly, a petition requesting the removal of certain persons connected with what is known in East Africa as the Wehrner Case.
This last petition was one which your Lordships will doubtless consider extraordinary and needs some explanation, but it was the! result of a serious case which left feelings of doubt as to the competence of the local tribunals; and if the petition itself went too far, I venture to consider that it was perfectly legitimate to draw the attention of the Secretary of State to the matter in question.

9
A man named Wehrner was convicted of the murder of a native and sentenced to death. This sentence was commuted by the then Commissioner, the late Sir Donald Stewart, on representations made by the jury, to a life sentence. The local Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, but, on applying to the Privy Council for leave to appeal, the then Lord Chancellor, the noble and learned Lord Halsbury, in allowing the appeal, said it was not a case of ordering a new trial as, in their opinion, no trial had been held, and what the jury had said did not amount to a verdict of guilty. The conviction was quashed on appeal, and The Times, in a leading article, spoke of the original trial as having the appearance of a mockery, followed by a string of irregularities. Those strong comments caused this rather extraordinary petition to be presented to the authorities.
Now, my Lords, I will come to the question of the means available for the enforcement of law and order. At present there are two battalions of King's African Rifles, a body of native police, a few white police, and a volunteer force. To make this question as short as possible, I will simply say, my Lords, as far as the military force are concerned, that the battalion recruited in British Central Africa is, I believe, a first-rate force, but the East African Battalion is composed of men from various parts, and I think that the companies composed of local Masai and Kikuyu tribesmen might well be spared, and in this way some money saved to the Treasury, while by the exercise of a little tact the Volunteer force, now I fancy largely existing on paper, could be much increased and, if properly organised, be made a most efficient force.
The white police should be increased and the native police re-organised. The native police, my Lords, have the power of arresting a white man, and this power is strongly resented. It has, I grant, never to my knowledge been used, but— I speak under correction — in no self-governing Colony is this allowed, except possibly under most exceptional circumstances. In another place, a statement has been made that only general complaints have been received against the black police, but I surmise
10
that these general complaints must have been more than occasional. In the local papers on 12th January this year was reported a strike of Kikuyu police in Nairobi when the troops were sent for and the strikers overawed. A more serious report appeared a fortnight later when two native police were said to be seen by two settlers robbing native women by force, and reported; the next day both these men appeared on duty and one of the Colonists who reported the case was assaulted the following night. It is this same tribe of Kikuyu who are locally said to be in a state of unrest, and I fear that, owing to letters received during the last few days, there is good reason to believe this report has some foundation.
I may add that on 2nd June the London Standard published a telegram that a child of six had been criminally assaulted during the absence of its mother. I believe the offender was arrested, but I do not know whether the noble Earl the Secretary of State has any information yet as to how this miscreant was dealt with. I can assure your Lordships that the inhabitants of the country, whether white or black, will have no guarantee of the proper enforcement of order until we have a sufficient force of mounted white police.
I come now, my Lords, to the Report of the Land Commission appointed late in 1904 by Sir Donald Stewart. This Report was presented in May, 1905, and was signed by a Member of your Lordships' House, Lord Delamere, two of His Majesty's Judges, and a prominent settler in the country. Eighteen sittings were held, and forty-four persons of all classes examined. I regret that this carefully prepared Report has not met with more response from the Government.
My Lords, may I, as briefly as I possibly can, sketch out the disabilities and difficulties under which British East Africa is groaning as regards this most important question? First, there are the great delays in granting land. I have heard more than one person say it is no use going to East Africa, you cannot get any land, and, although there is any quantity of vacant land, the

11
occupation of which would bring prosperity to the country, this statement is almost true. I will quote a passage from the Report, referring to applications—
"At present an application is referred backwards and forwards from one Government Department to another. It gets pigeon-holed in one place and then, after being at considerable pains dug out, it is as often as not forwarded on to another office, there to suffer a like fate. This method of dealing with applications has caused great loss and irritation."
Then, my Lords, I come to the all-important question of system of tenure, or rather lack of system of tenure, for system there is none. We have no security of tenure of any sort, and no freedom of transfer, and without these two things the country cannot go ahead. Transfer is only allowed with the per-mission of the Governor. May I quote again from the Report—
"But the mere fact that the power exists to deprive a man of his freehold cannot but have the effect of diminishing the value of his title, etc., and possibly preventing the land being put to the use to which it is best suited. Again, the rule as it exists at present, not only has the effect of preventing a person who is unable to develop his holding selling his interest therein to someone else who is able to develop it, but also prevents him from raising money on it by loan or mortgage and obtaining the capital which is necessary to enable him to turn his farm to account."
"The position of affairs at the present moment, if not relieved, can only have one. Dermination. A settler without sufficient means, though having an interest in a potentially valuable property into which he may have put his whole capital, will be ruined because the law prevents him either from developing or parting with it."
This situation, my Lords, has not been relieved; it is more acute than ever.
The noble Earl, the Secretary of State, apparently does not seem to have grasped the Committee's suggestions with reference to removing the restrictions on the transfer of land. They ask that—
"Title and tenure should be made as secure and the terms for settlers as easy as possible, having due regard to the observance by them of the general conditions and obligations for development."
My Lords, in reply to this, Lord Elgin observes—
"The evils of allowing land in a new country to be transferred freely without any regard to the intention of the tranferee to utilise within a reasonable time the resources of the land are not confined to the period of depression which
12
inevitably follows a time of inflated speculation, but have a wider scope."
I cannot see that the Committee ever suggested that the Government should allow land to be transferred without an obligation on the new owner to utilise within a reasonable time its resources.
I think, my Lords, a sound view to take of land transfer is that Government is justified in imposing reasonable conditions for development when granted in the first instance. The simplest condition to impose is the expenditure of a certain sum of money on a certain area of land of a particular class. But there is no reason why this land should not be transferred at any time, provided the condition remained an obligation on the purchaser to spend either the full amount or the balance which remained unspent by the first owner.
The fear of the noble Earl that the East Africa Protectorate may follow in the footsteps of Australia is, in view of the prosperity of that country, rather a difficult one to understand. I fancy those interested in East Africa would rejoice at such a calamity. The fact that several of the Australian Governments—
"Have been driven to re-purchase at higher rates, with a view to closer settlement, lands which were originally alienated for insignificant sums "—
rather points to the fact that the holders of these large areas must have provided the Governments, by their enterprise and speculation, directly or indirectly, with the means of re-purchasing alluded to. The operation of the present system in East Africa is most injurious, as, while it does not prevent the capitalist with money at his command from developing his property, it prevents the small industrious settler of limited means from raising further capital upon his land and the improvements he has already carried out upon it, as he can give no security which would be acceptable to any bank or business man.
The noble Earl has referred the Committee to the history of Australia. My Lords, I have followed the noble Earl's advice, and I venture to suggest that the Torrens Act is worthy of consideration by the Colonial Office. It appears to me that it would safeguard the Government and give those in East Africa what they

13
chiefly ask for. May I quote one more paragraph from the Report—
"Many of the complaints which have been laid before them, and much of the irritation which has been felt in the past can be removed at once by a stroke of the pen; but, at the same time, the Committee believe that the interests of the country will best be served if a somewhat more liberal policy in connection with the land is adopted by the Government in the future."
This, my Lords, does not mean granting more land or cheaper land to an individual.
"The cost of carrying out such recommendations as the Committee have suggested would not be small, but it must be remembered that, at the present moment, the whole development of the country is checked and the Government is daily losing revenue, both directly in rents, and indirectly in general revenue, owing, as the Committee believe, to the immediate want of action on the lines of these recommendations which they have felt it their duty to make."
My Lords, I cannot leave this subject without a pissing reference to the railway management. Although the railway showed a considerable profit last year, I cannot help thinking that this profit should be very much increased. The complaints are numerous and almost universal, comprising high rates, delays in transit, insufficient passenger trains, unnecessary time taken by passenger trains, obsolete rolling stock, and staff consisting of too many Indians and too few Europeans in the lower grades. I do not wish to express an opinion on the justification or otherwise of these complaints, beyond saying that they are so general as to call for a thorough inquiry.
Now, my Lords, I come to the most serious statement yet made by the local Press regarding the welfare of the country. It was in reply to a letter from a man who wished to settle, asking for information, and was to the effect—
"That until the Administration cleans up its hearth, no white man should give this country a thought."
My Lords, what an advertisement for East Africa. I fear I must, to a great extent, agree with that statement, except as regards capitalists and those who can afford to wait. I believe that very little would suffice to place British East Africa on such a footing as would permit the due development of her great natural, agricultural, and pastoral resources. I will venture to suggest to the noble Earl
14
that an independent Commissioner or Commission should be appointed thoroughly to investigate the general affairs and state of the country for the purpose of suggesting a remedy for the better administration of the Colony.
I must apologise for having taken up so much of your Lordships' time, and I hope the noble Earl will be able to present your Lordships with Papers. I would especially ask if we might have the Report from the Commissioner of Lands, if such a Report is in existence, and possibly the noble Earl could let us have the Railway Estimates for 1907–8.
Moved, "That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty for Papers relating to British East Africa."—(The Lord Hindlip.)
*THE EARL Of MAYO:My Lords, I desire to support Lord Hindlip. I am very glad he has taken this subject up, and I am sure your Lordships will welcome the fact that he has spoken for the first time in this House, as he is one of those who have bought property in British East Africa, and therefore can speak as one who has been on the spot and knows from having seen how things are going on what are the actual facts of the case. I desire to speak really more of the state of the Land Laws. There are three documents available by which one can judge of what is going on in the East Africa Protectorate, and the wants and wishes of the Colonists. The first is the Report of the Land Committee appointed by the late Sir Donald Stewart, and published in 1905; the second is the despatch of the Secretary of State for the Colonies, dated 23rd March, 1906; and the third is the petition of the Colonists' Association of British East Africa presented to Parliament in July of last year. The Protectorate of British East Africa has not experienced a gold rush. If there had been a gold rush the country would have developed more quickly, and there would have been money available to pay for many of the officials, duties, and work necessary in a new country. The colonists and settlers are essentially agriculturists, and land and the cultivation of land is their means of livelihood.

15
I must draw attention for one moment to the Land Committee to which Lord Hindlip alluded. The Report is unanimous, and a fact to be remembered is that there were two Judges of the country on the Committee. The Report avoids all reference to the past and causes which have led to the existing state of affairs in the land office, and the consequent check on the general development of the country. The Committee deal rather with what they think will remedy the existing state of affairs. What is the existing state of affairs of which this Committee complain? On page 2 of their Report they say—
"Strict covenants are inserted in leases, and assignments or transfer of interest is only allowed with the permission of the Commissioner."
The Report also says—
"Many leases have been granted for short terms and in townships with the most stringent building clauses attached; and at the end of the term it is required that all buildings put up shall become the property of the Government. Property qualifications have been required for persons desirous of taking up land. In cases of breach of covenant of a lease the land is liable to forfeiture to the Government, without any compensation whatsoever for any permanent improvement which may have been made to it."
If the Protectorate is to be considered as one vast estate with the Government acting as a private landlord it is doubtful whether it is best for the development of the country. There is no representative Government as yet in the country, and it is open to question if the present state of affairs, namely, the Government as a private landlord and a settler as his tenant, tends to develop a new country in any way or to help the work of settlement. The Report goes on to say that the existing system is largely due to a desire on the part of the Government to check speculation. Over-speculation in land we all know is bad for any new country. We have experience of that in its grossest state in the United States of America. But the Report says—
"These evils are outweighed by the fact that an impetus is given to genuine business and capital is attracted where the greatest possible security is given to title and the greatest possible freedom to transfer of interests in land."
Let me now state what the regulation is that the Land Committee complain of and their recommendation on the subject. By Article 9 of the Crown
16
Lands Ordinance of 1902 if a man buys land and does not occupy it for twelve months, the Land Commissioner gives notice that if he does not appear within six months and show he is going to develop the land it is forfeited to the Government, that is to say, the Commissioner. If a man pays down money for land he would naturally not let his money lie idle. But if after spending money on experiments in crops and buildings he finds that he is unable to work the land to his satisfaction, and he naturally wishes to part with it to the highest bidder, under the Article I have mentioned it is open for the Government to step in and take the land from him without either returning him the original purchase price or giving him compensation for any permanent improvements he has made. It is not to be supposed that the Government would do this lightly and insist on the strict letter of the law. But the fact remains that the power exists to deprive a man of his freehold, and that must diminish the value of his title. We can all understand that this very strict Article of the Crown Lands Ordidance is to prevent the locking up of large areas of land.
Let us see what the Committee recommend on this point. They are very clear about it, and they recommend that the area of land should be limited, that leases should be granted instead of inserting covenants in a freehold which the purchaser is liable to be deprived of. That seems perfectly reasonable and fair.
Then one word with regard to the small settlers. The Report says that the area of homesteads should not be so large, and instead of a settler acquiring a right to 640 acres mostly by pre-emption he should be given 320 acres outright with no right of pre-emption. If a man takes up a small quantity of land and has a right of pre-emption for a large quantity, he very often finds that he cannot deal with the large quantity properly, but if he is given a small quantity outright he knows what future is before him, and he is not likely to spend his money or his capital in useless development.
With regard to the land and survey offices they are working as a combined

17
department, with a very inadequate staff, the result being unsatisfactory.
"Instances occur again and again in the course of the evidence of persons who have applied for land and have received favourable answers to their applications, waiting for months and months in the country and spending their time and capital doing nothing and finding themselves at the end of that period apparently no nearer to obtaining their object than at the date when they first applied."
The Committee recommend that there should be a permanent Land Board, and this I think is the most practicable and sensible suggestion in the Report. They recommend that the Commissioner for Land should be Chairman of the Board, that the second member should be the Commissioner for Agriculture and Forests, and the third the Commissioner for Native Affairs, these three to form the permanent ex officio members, having power to add to their number two or more assessors of local experience appointed with the approval of His Majesty's Commissioner. There you have a permanent Board, and His Majesty's Commissioner, who practically has the right of vetoing any other appointments, would see that the co-opted members were proper, sound people who understood their business.
Then with regard to the survey. The duties of the Director of Survey should be kept absolutely and entirely distinct from those of the Land Board. That is the recommendation of the Committee. Further, the Report goes on to say that the present system of survey is practically valueless and leads to delay and muddle. Of course, the ideal plan would be a trigonometrical survey of the whole country. But there is no necessity for going to that enormous expense at once, there being no reason why a proper survey should not be made in the districts where it is most required, and when that proper survey is made even in those parts, as Lord Hindlip has suggested, and as is suggested in the Report, there is no reason why the Torrens Act should not be applied. I do not think I need tell your Lordships what the Torrens Act is. Your Lordships are doubtless aware how simple the obtaining of a certificate is with all the details of mortgage and encumbrances of the property marked upon it. On the whole, I consider
18
that the recommendations of the Committee are sensible and moderate.
But the Answer of the noble Earl the Secretary of State for the Colonies claims one's attention. The noble Earl recognises the care and ability shown in the compilation of the Report, and agrees that a survey should be taken in hand at once. Estimates, I believe, are provided in the year 1907 for carrying out the same. May I ask the noble Earl what has been done? I am aware that an officer has been appointed to carry out this survey, and I hope with sufficient staff. The noble Earl states in Paragraph III. in his despatch—
"I have decided to take no further action in regard to those proposals"—
that is the Land Committee's proposals—
"pending the report of the officer whom it is proposed to appoint under the title of Commissioner for Lands."
That officer has been appointed and has been out nine or ten months, and the Protectorate is anxiously waiting for his Report. One would think that an interim Report might have been furnished by now. In Paragraph 4 of the despatch the Secretary of State says—
"While regretting the delay in dealing with these questions, I trust the material addition to the staff of the Survey Department and the appointment of an Assistant Crown Advocate will enable the existing system of land settlement to be worked at once with better results."
I must draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that the whole of the Land Committee's Report points out that there is no system at all, and that delays and loss of money to intending settlers is the result of the present state of affairs. In another paragraph of his despatch the noble Earl says—
"On page 3 they (the Committee) write, 'All restrictions on transfer and forfeitures without compensation should be abolished as far as possible. Title and tenure should be made as secure and the terms for settlers as easy as possible' "—
that is in the Report, but now we come to the saving clause—
"having due regard to the observance by them of the general conditions and obligations for development."
On this particular paragraph the noble Earl delivers a lecture upon the evils of over-speculation in Australia.

19
But I cannot find that the Land Committee say anything in favour of speculation; in fact, they rather deprecate there being anything that would lead up to it, and they have suggested certain safeguards. The Secretary of State says—
"I shall be unable to assent to any legislation which facilitates the holding of land in large areas for speculative purposes, either by permitting large grants of land without adequate securities for its development, or by permitting the holders of smaller areas to part with their holdings without imposing on the transferee a similar liability to make use of the land."
As I said before, I cannot find anything in the Report of the Land Committee that warrants the suggestion of the noble Earl. In fact, I say that the Land Committee's Report and its recommendations have been damned with the faintest of faint praise, and that many months after it was issued.
I must allude for one moment to the petition of the Colonists' Association of British East Africa. I will only refer to what they say about the and laws, but they deal with many other subjects. On page 5 of the petition they say that—
"The imperfections of the land and transfer. laws arc serious, retarding settlement and impeding the progress of the country, and after one year's delay on the part of the Colonial Office it is a serious injustice to this Protectorate that reforms in the land laws should be retarded still longer."
That petition was presented to the House of Commons in July last. The Colonists' Associations speak of the magnificent possibilities offered by British East Africa for white agricultural and pastoral settlement.
I have no doubt that my speech will be marked as a doleful complaint. I cannot help it being a complaint, as the documents are not very cheerful reading. But there is a gleam of comfort in the "Colonial Reports (Annual). East Africa 1 rotectorate" for 1905–6. On page 61 we read—
"It has been the constant aim of the Government to remove these disabilities"
—that is to say the disabilities which the settlers have suffered from certain provisions of the land laws which do not meet with their general approval—
"where they were found to exist, and though it has not been possible in so new a country as East Africa to concede all that the more
20
advanced views of the Colonists would seem to demand, there can be no question that a great deal has been and is being done in the direction indicated."
But these disabilities have not been entirely removed; I do not suppose they can be, but the Colonists complain that they have not been removed sufficiently. As that Report is for 1905–6 and was issued to both Houses in March, 1907,. I hope the noble Earl will tell us what is being done up to the present time, as, most of the recommendations of the Land Committee Report having been set aside, the settlers in this Protectorate seem to be in much the same circumstances as they were before any Report was made, any petition presented, or any despatch written.
*THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (The Earl of Elgin): My Lords, I rather gather from the remarks of the noble Lords who have spoken that they were not aware that last year we agreed that a Legislative Council should be appointed for British East Africa. That Legislative Council has been appointed, and therefore the Protectorate of East Africa has now become the Colony of East Africa under a Governor in the ordinary form. The Protectorate of East Africa was until about two years ago under the administration of the Foreign Office. The administration was assumed in 1895, I think, and continued under the Foreign Office until 1905, but it is since 1905 that the Office which I have the honour to represent has been responsible for its administration. I, therefore, speak only with regard to that limited period, but-even taking the history of the seven years, I think your Lordships will readily agree that in a country like this, of such vast extent, almost entirely unsurveyed, and with what I think the noble Lord rather put in the background, a very large-native population, there are considerable questions which have to be faced, and considerable caution has to be exercised in making the arrangements under which the government of the country is carried on, particularly in the question of land.
The noble Lord who spoke first I quite admit showed me great courtesy, because he came to me last year to consult or to confer with me with regard to some of the difficulties which he has now mentioned

21
and at my request he deferred bringing the matter forward in this House on that occasion. But the noble Lord has now made several criticisms—I will not put it more severely than that—of the administration which is now going on. I cannot agree that the administration is so defective as the noble Lord has represented to the House. I believe that looking to the necessarily limited staff, especially for so large an area of country, the administration has been effectively, and I am sure honestly carried on, and I rather deprecate the bringing forward of some of the cases which the noble Lord has mentioned to-night without at any rate giving me some notice in order that I might at once deal distinctly with the propositions which he has made regarding them. He mentioned a case which I understood him to say had attracted some attention, but in regard to which I am entirely unable to give an answer offhand. All I can say in regard to it is that, if he desires to pursue the matter further, if he will give me the particulars, I shall be quite prepared to deal with it.
The noble Lord seemed to think that the only thing to be done, or the chief thing to be done, was to introduce a white police, and to carry on the administration of the government of the country more by the agency of white men than of the black men who are now employed both in the King's African Rifles and the police. There is one great obstacle to our accepting the advice of the noble Lord, and that is that the expense would be absolutely prohibitive. It would be perfectly impossible to employ any considerable number of white mounted police in East Africa except at a cost which would very seriously increase the already considerable grant-in-aid which the taxpayers of this country have to pay. Besides that, it is the opinion of our officers on the spot that for many purposes the white man is not so effective as the black man, in consequence of the difficulties of climate.
I acknowledge that the greater part of this discussion turns upon the subject which the noble Earl who spoke last dwelt upon exclusively, namely, the land question. I think noble Lords have not given me quite the position which I should like to take up as regards the
22
Land Committee's report. I do not think I rejected the Land Committee's Report; in fact, I think I shall be able to show that I did not do so. But I did criticise it from one particular point of view, as to whether it is expedient in the interest of the country that land should be held in large areas by single individuals or combinations of individuals, and whether there is to be free transfer in regard to those areas. I called attention to the analogy and the example of the Australian Colonies. I think it was rather an ingenious argument of the noble Lord that if the Governments of the Australian Colonies have found it necessary since that time to re-purchase lands which they had allowed to pass out of their control in this manner, that is an evidence of the prosperity of the country, and, therefore, of the satisfactory nature of the policy which they adopted at the time. But I do not quite see that that is an argument which will hold water. After all, the Governments of the Australian Colonies were in possession of the land originally, and that they should have to re-purchase the land in order that they may again distribute it in a manner more desirable in the interests of their country seems to me to prove that the first and original distribution was not on correct lines. I admit that this question of the transfer of land is one which has been debated. I could, if necessary, give examples of the difficulty arising not only in Australia, but also in Canada, where I believe the development of Ontario was impeded by the great grants of land there, and also some difficulty has arisen in Natal from the manner in which land was held. All I have done in this despatch is to say that we cannot agree to the holding of land for speculative purposes. That is the distinct position which I put forward. I may be allowed to quote it.
"On the general tenor of this Report I would observe that while I am as anxious as the Committee can be to encourage the settlement and development of the Protectorate by persons either of large or small capital, I consider the evils of unrestricted speculation in land much more serious than the Committee appear to regard them as being."
Therefore I proceeded later in the despatch to say—
"With these examples before me I fear in the interests of the future prosperity of the Protectorate I shall be unable to assent to any

23
legislation which facilitates the holding of land in large areas for speculative purposes."
THE EARL OF MAYO: The Committee have never recommended that.
*THE EARL OF ELGIN: No. I am obliged to the noble Earl for reminding me of that point. The Committee, no doubt, did not recommend it, but they did say they were in favour of the free transfer of land. Of course, this is a debateable point. They take one view of the effect of allowing free transfer of land, and I venture to take the other.
Then as to the practical part of the Committee's Report, I have not, as I think I shall be able to show, been unreasonably obstructive. The only reasons for postponing decisions on the practical matter raised in the Committee's Report was not this particular dictum, but the condition of the administration of the Protectorate itself. I pointed out that I considered it was necessary to appoint a Land Commissioner, and that I should wish to have the Land Commissioner's Report in order that I might deal with the Committee's Report itself. I think that was a reasonable and prudent course of action, and it is the one I have pursued. In May, 1906, I was fortunate enough to secure the services of a gentleman whom I had known myself in India as a distinguished Civil servant, Colonel Montgomery. He had held a high position in the Punjab Civil Service, and was willing to assume this post in the East Africa Protectorate. Colonel Montgomery was, therefore, appointed Land Commissioner, and he has been in the Protectorate. I am glad to inform the noble Earl that I have Received his Report—not an interim report—which I shall be perfectly willing to lay on the Table. I have not only received his Report, but I have answered it, and in that despatch I have dealt with a good many of the points raised by the Land Committee and commented on by the noble Lords who have spoken. In the result we have directed that a new Ordinance should be drafted for our consideration dealing with the whole of the land question. I will not go into details, since it is for the local Government to draft the details and submit them to us. I might mention that we
24
have approved, and do approve of the appointment of a Land Board on which there shall be representatives of the settlers. I hope the noble Lord will therefore see that in the question of the administration of the land in this territory we have really no object in view in the Colonial Office except that it should be administered on lines which are just, not only to those who go out and are willing to invest their money in land in that country, but also to the country as a whole, because as I have already remarked, this is not a country only of the white man. In one of these petitions there is an assertion that it is a white man's country. I cannot imagine a statement that has so little foundation. We have not an actual census, but the population is estimated at 4,000,000. Of these, about 25,000 are Asiatics, principally from India, and 2,000 are white men. I think your Lordships will agree that for the administration of territory inhabited in that manner we, and now the local Government under us, have responsibilities towards the natives which we cannot possibly forget.
The noble Earl asked me to say what we really had done. As far as the Colonial Office is concerned, we have been in charge of the administration for about two years. I have before me a summary of the subjects we have had to deal with in the course of that time. In the first place, we have had to undertake the definition of various boundaries, especially the boundaries of German East Africa and Abyssinia, and in the second place we have had to consider the staff and provide for the increase in the staff so far as our funds would admit, especially for dealing with the questions arising in connection with settlers—first of all the Commissioner of Lands of whom I have spoken, and we have also made additions to the survey. I am afraid I cannot give the actual additions, but I can supply them if the noble Lord wishes to have them. The survey is now a distinct Department under an able officer, Captain Smith, and as the proper survey of this country is one of the most important elements on which we can proceed to allocate land, we shall certainly do everything in our power to expedite their proceedings. The next head, I think, is the law, of which I have already spoken. We have considered

25
representations of the settlers, and the local Government is engaged in drafting amending ordinances on that subject. In agriculture we have appointed a gentleman who was Assistant Director of Agriculture in the Transvaal to report on the whole subject. That Report we are still awaiting, but in the meantime he is assisting the Department and the Department is assisting him.
Then I come to a matter which interests some noble Lords, and that is the question of forests. We have in this dominion extremely valuable forests from two points of view. They have large intrinsic value of their own, if and when they can be properly developed, but they are also of immense value with regard to the water supply of the country. Any action taken by the Government to deal with these forests in a way to bring about their destruction might be absolute ruin to many, if not all, of the interests of this great dominion. I do not hesitate to say that it is incumbent upon us to be extremely careful in any step we take for the effective working of these forests.
THE DUKE Of MARLBOROUGH: Could the noble Earl tell the House, since he is discussing the question of forests, whether the Government have assessed the approximate value of these forests, and whether it is true the Government have already granted concessions to certain firms to work them?
*THE EARL Of ELGIN: I have had an estimate given me in a Report.
THE DUKE Of MARLBOROUGH: Could you give it?
*THE EARL Of ELGIN: I think I should prefer not to give the actual estimate, but it was a very large sum indeed. We have not arranged any concessions yet, and that is the reason I was making a caveat with regard to the matter just now. Perhaps I ought not to be so precise as that. There had been concessions of forests granted before I assumed office, but we have not in regard to a special forest which no doubt the noble Duke has in mind granted any concessions as yet. We have called in the aid of an expert, Mr. Hutchings, who
26
has been the head of the same department in Cape Colony for some years, and he has made reports on certain of these forests, and we have now appointed him chief conservator for the Colony. I have no doubt that under his direction we shall be able to meet the views of those who wish to work the forests, and yet to keep them, as is absolutely essential. We have also endeavoured through the assistance of a gentleman from the Geological Survey to investigate further water supplies, which are very necessary in certain parts of the country. I am afraid that so far we have not got much more than negative results, but even so, that prevents expenditure which might otherwise be incurred through ignorance of the circumstances. Again, in Nairobi, we have considered a scheme for the improvement of the sanitation, and though that scheme in its complete form is a very large and costly one—one that we cannot face all at once—we have in the present Estimates provided a sum for an instalment of the work that is so necessary for this place, where there is a certain European population.
Noble Lords asked me about the railway. The Uganda railway is a subject which has attracted a good deal of attention from time to time. On this occasion I think I can mention it, in one direction at any rate, from a satisfactory point of view. I can give the receipts for the last three years. In 1904–5 the net receipts were £2,639; in 1905–6 they were £55,676, and in 1906–7 they were £76,150. I think if there were any railway directors in the House those figures might make their mouths water in some respects. Then I should like to notice that we do not overcharge our customers, as I find that the rates imposed on most grains and seeds average about a ½d. per ton mile. I should also say that in order to develop this traffic still further, additions have been made and further additions are contemplated to the steamers and wharves on the lake from which a great deal of the traffic comes.
Then, one word as regards the natives. In the course of these years we have settled one large tribe, the Masai, on a reserve, and that is of great importance because it opened up a valley called the Rift Valley, which is suitable for the

27
occupation of white men, to that form of occupation. We have had disturbances in the Nandi country, but those have been got over, though I am sorry to say they involved an expedition. But the people are settling down, and they are now paying hut tax regularly and without demur. We have inserted in these Estimates for the first time some grants for education through the missionary societies, who have done good work in that direction, and we have arranged that a Secretary for Native Affairs should be appointed.
With regard to the position of white men, there is this to be borne in mind. In 1906 an ordinance was passed, which provided for trial by jury for Europeans in certain cases, and an additional Judge was appointed to prevent delay in the proceedings. With regard to the police affairs, we have had some reorganisation. We have appointed new officers, and we have defined the duties of the police under a new police ordinance. We have also provided for a small white police force. It is impossible to have a large force, but so far as it was possible to go we have not disregarded that wish which was expressed by the settlers.
Now there is one other thing I have to say in regard to the position of this country, which is not perhaps quite so satisfactory. We are still dependent on a grant in aid. As in the case of the railway, so in regard to the general revenue there is a satisfactory increase. In 1905–6 the receipts were £270,000, and in 1907–8 our Estimate is £557,000; but, on the other hand, our expenditure has increased from £418,000 to £803,000, which means that there is still a charge for a grant in aid on the taxpayers of this country of £150,000, in addition to the sums which we have to provide for the interest and sinking fund of the Uganda railway. The position I would like to put before your Lordships is this. This is a country which is still in the earlier processes of development. When that is the case we cannot expect to move so rapidly or so surely as we can in later stages; but I think what I have laid before your Lordships—and I have done it as freely and as frankly as I could— will show that we are moving, that we have great hopes—I would almost say
28
great expectations—that as this moves on we shall endeavour to meet the wishes which have been expressed by the noble Lords who have brought this matter before the House. But I wish to insist once more that in our administration of this country we cannot look only to those who, no doubt greatly for the benefit of the country, have gone from Europe and settled, and taken possession of lands which they can make the best use of, but we must bear in mind and exercise the greatest caution in order not to over look the interests of the great populations which the course of events has entrusted to our keeping.
*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: We all listened with interest and pleasure to the statement made by the noble Lord who introduced this subject to that House. He speaks with authority upon this question, for he is himself a pioneer and is probably the only Member of this House who can speak on these matters with knowledge derived form personal experience on the spot. Therefore, we listen with attention to whatever he has to say on the subject. I do not think the noble Lord has any reason to be dissatisfied with the statement which he has elicited from the Secretary of State for the Colonies. The noble Lord naturally expresses what may be termed the local view of those who have settled in this part of the British Empire. But there is another point of view which we cannot leave out of sight— that which I suppose will be described as the Downing Street point of view. Although hard things are very often said about those who hold the Downing Street point of view it is none the less necessary that that view should be held by some people, because while these undeveloped regions are under our management and control we must regard ourselves as trustees, with very responsible duties in regard to them. In this case we are dealing with a region of great extent, with large undeveloped resources, which have had necessarily to be administered by a very small staff. The Secretary of State has not spoken at all too strongly of the obligations under which we are to do nothing in regard to this particular Colony without bearing fully in mind the interest of the great

29
native population already there. We owe that to the native tribes; it would be a grievous hardship on them if we allowed them to be crushed out of existence before the influx of European settlers. And we owe it to ourselves, because if these races, some of which are very warlike, are treated with insufficient consideration, you may depend upon it the settlers themselves will suffer for it in the end. I therefore fully admit that in dealing with the land question as it presents itself in British East Africa we must proceed with the utmost caution. That I think is the explanation of those particular provisions in the Land Ordinance to which the noble Lord referred as bearing hardly on the settlers. If we were dealing with the tenure of land in a settled country, it would be different. But these are reservations made with reference to the transition period during which the Colony is being opened up to settlement. Therefore while, on the one hand, it is most desirable that we should spare no pains to draw settlers to the country and make the terms offered to them as attractive as possible, on the other hand I believe the noble Earl to be right in holding that we must be careful how we alienate permanently large areas of good land, or even of country covered by forests, in our endeavour to obtain the introduction of a European population.
The noble Earl is, I think, right to set his face against what he has spoken of as unrestricted speculation in land. Nothing can be more unfortunate than that a comparatively virgin territory should be handed over to become the sport of such speculation. This particular Colony is now opening a new chapter; it has passed from the Foreign Office to the Colonial Office, and it now becomes a Crown Colony with a legislative council of its own. I was glad to hear from the noble Earl that he has been able to secure the services of an eminent Indian official to take charge of the most important question of land survey.
THE EARL Of ELGIN: He is the Land Commissioner.
*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I think the noble Earl is entitled to say that he desired to await the full informa-
30
tion which he will receive from that source before he committed himself upon some of the points to which the noble Lord behind me has drawn attention.
*THE EARL OF ELGIN: I said that that was the reason why a request for delay appeared in my first despatch, but I have since received a Report, which I have answered and am prepared to lay on the Table.
*THE MARQUESS Of LANSDOWNE: I am glad to be corrected by the noble Earl. There is, I understand, to be a Land Board with representatives of the settlers upon it. I think, therefore, the noble Lord behind me may take it that the representations which he has made to-night, and which have been made by those who are acting with him, are sure to receive the full attention to which they are entitled.
I will only say one word more to express the satisfaction with which I heard the noble Earl's reference to the Uganda Railway. That undertaking has been a frequent subject of debate in and out of this House. Many hard things have been said about it. It was in the first instance a political railway, and we do not always expect political railways to pay. It was constructed with extraordinary rapidity, and in the face of great difficulties, with very insufficient surveys. All the dice, so to speak, were loaded against it, and I am glad to know that in spite of that it is prospering and I believe it has a great future before it.
Lord HINDLIP: May I thank the noble Earl for promising to present to the House the Report of the Land Committee? I would also associate myself with the noble Marquess in saying that I have no reason to be dissatisfied with the reply of the noble Earl. We in East Africa do not at all wish to disturb the natives; on the contrary, we look upon the natives as a most necessary adjunct to the development of the country; we cannot develop the land without their help.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

ROYSTON SCHOOL—APPOINTMENT OF HEAD-MASTER.
*THE EARL OF DARTMORTHrose to call attention to the action of the Board of Education in connection with the Royston non-provided school, West Riding of Yorkshire; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: I make no apology for bringing this question before your Lordships' House, because I think it is a very important one. There are a great many cases in connection with the action of the Board of Education that suggest oppressive administration, and no doubt the most convenient way of raising those questions would be in another place when the Education Estimates are before the House of Commons. But unfortunately last year there was no opportunity of discussing them, and this year that other place appears to be so busy dealing with other people's business that it has not much time for attending to its own. Therefore I venture to bring the matter before your Lordships. I propose to deal with only one of these cases, although as I say there are a good many others which no doubt will come up for consideration before long. I take the case of the Royston school because it seems to me that it traverses what I believe is a leading principle of our Constitution, that you must not try to achieve by administration that which Parliament refuses to allow by legislation.
The facts are these: the Royston national school is a school near Wakefield, a mixed school with accommodation for 256 children, and an average attendance of 221. Last autumn the head-master resigned, and in accordance with the duty imposed upon them by the Act of 1902 the managers proceeded to appoint a successor. There were sixty-seven candidates, whose applications were gone into, three were selected, and finally, on November 2nd of last year, a decision was arrived at. Two out of the three selected candidates, viz., Mr. Milnes and Mr. Gar-dam, obtained an equal number of votes on the board of managers. In accordance with the provisions of the Act the chairman of the board of managers, who in this case is the vicar of the parish, gave a casting vote in favour of Mr. Milnes.
32
The minority of the managers appealed to the local education authority, the West Riding County Council, attributing motives. I will not go into those motives because there are motives suggested for their desiring the appointment of Mr. Gardam which I think are even stronger than those attributed to the supporters of Mr. Milnes. On the strength of this communication the local authority on November 21st refused to confirm the appointment of Mr. Milnes on educational grounds, those being the only grounds on which a local authority can interfere. The managers appealed against this action to the Board of Education, denying the imputations made, and giving their reasons for appointing Mr. Milnes. The reasons were very simple—that in their opinion Mr. Milnes was the best man, that it was a mixed school, that the other teachers being women they considered a married head-master would be better than an unmarried man (Mr. Milnes is married and Mr. Gardam is not), and that Mr. Milnes has had experience as a headmaster in another West Riding school at Sharlston, while Mr. Gardam had been assistant master at the Royston school for some time. These were the reasons given, and I think most people would regard them as perfectly sufficient.
Communications passed between the Board of Education and the local education authority. The local education authority claimed full discretion in the appointment of teachers and referred to the fact that they had made a visit of inspection and tested the educational qualities of the master. I would call your Lordships' attention to what that test was. Two members of the West Riding County Council Education Committee, not experts, and an official, paid a surprise visit to the Sharlston school. They arrived at 1 o'clock talked to the head-master and examined the scheme of instruction. At 1.30 the children came in, and as soon as they were sitting in their places the inspection began. One class only was examined, and, according to Mr. Milnes, six questions were asked by the visitors and one by himself, the whole business being over in a quarter of an hour. It is true the local education authority suggests that the inspection lasted half an hour. It does

33
not matter much whether it was a quarter of an hour or half an hour; it was on that test the local education authority refused to confirm the appointment of the properly appointed head-master. The Board of Education were not quite satisfied with the action of the local education authority and they express their opinion to that authority in the following terms—
"The Board would certainly have felt great reluctance in basing a decision of so grave a character upon a single report made under the circumstances described, and it appears to them doubtful whether any teacher could do himself justice if suddenly called upon to give lessons in the presence of three comparative strangers, and under circumstances which must have made it difficult for the children to give their undivided attention."
I should like to quote also the opinion of the Board of Education on the educational fitness of Mr. Milnes. With regard to the ability and character of Mr. Milnes the Board quoted the testimony of Mr. Marvin, His Majesty's inspector, who on behalf of the Board made special inquiry. This is Mr. Marvin's Report—
"Mr. Milnes is unquestionably one of the most deserving of the younger men in my own part of the West Riding, one out of quite a small number of men whom we would naturally have thought of for such promotion as this. I enclose copies of his reports, etc., both of my own and of other inspectors which, favourable as they are, do not fully describe his work or merits. He is a very popular teacher and has a great personal influence on the scholars, caring for them out of school as well as in, starting football clubs, etc., having in this way not only largely increased the number of scholars on the roll, but attaining generally the most regular attendance in the neighbourhood."
That is the opinion of the Board of Education on the educational capacities of Mr. Milnes.
Now we go a step further. There have been questions asked in another place, but their privileges of questioning are not so great as those we enjoy, and they have not been able to get a very satisfactory answer from the Minister in charge of the Board of Education. On the 10th April, Mr-Lane Fox, the Member for Barkston Ash, asked a question to which he got the following reply—
"The Board of Education have to satisfy themselves that the decision was come to on educational grounds. There is no shadow of doubt that the decision was come to in the present case on those grounds."
34
And that reply was given when the Board had in their possession the Report of their own inspector which I have just read! What is the position of the Board of Education in matters of this kind where there is a controversy? I was always under the impression that the Board of Education was the final court of Appeal. Is it the duty of the Board of Education merely to satisfy themselves that the alleged grounds are educational, or have they to satisfy themselves that the grounds on which the refusal to confirm is made are genuine? If they have not to do the latter, it seems to me that the appointment of the head teacher by the managers becomes an absolute farce, and, that as in this case, a local education authority that object to a particular appointment may set up some perfectly impossible standard and refuse to confirm simply because the man has not come up to the impossible standard which they themselves have imposed. There is one other answer to which I should like to refer, given on 15th April to Lord Turnour—
"The jurisdiction of the Board of Education, in this and similar cases, is strictly limited to determining whether the local education authority withheld their consent on educational grounds. These grounds in the present case are, of course, within the knowledge of the Board, but it seems unnecessary "—
and this is the important part of it—
"and in the interests of the teacher undesirable to state publicly the precise educational reasons on which the local education authority grounded their decision that Mr. Milnes was unsuited for the post."
Now, my Lords, when we consider the difficulty of a teacher in his profession, when we consider how difficult especially is the position of a teacher in the Church of England schools—I think it is a cruel thing, unless there is some strong justification for it, to make a charge of that kind, that there is something behind that must not be made public in the interest of the teacher. It is in the interest of the teacher that I speak, and I claim that we shall have the facts upon which that answer was given made as public here as the statement itself was made in another place. My Lords, perhaps there may be some due found to what has taken place. We do not forget that Mr. Birrell,

35
in his farewell to the Bill of last session said—
"Whoever is at the Board of Education will administer the law fearlessly, without predilection, and with a perfectly bloodless indifference, to see that the due course of law is observed, and that the course of education is kept at a proper level."
We shall do all we can to assist the Board in maintaining Education at its proper level, and to see that the due course of law is observed; but when we talk of "bloodless indifference," do let us bear in mind that where the prospects of a teacher are concerned, though the indifference may be there, it will not be a "bloodless" one. It seems to me that the Board has tried to administer the Act so as to give to the local education authority such an extensive and unrestricted veto as practically to place in their hands the appointment of teachers in voluntary schools— an appointment especially reserved to the managers by the Act of 1902. It is notorious that the Board took the view that Mr. Milnes was thoroughly suited for the appointment as headmaster of Royston School, yet they allowed the local education authority to maintain their objection. As I say, I am speaking now in the interest of the teacher himself, and in his interest, and in justice to him, I would ask that we may have laid upon the Table all the correspondence that has taken place between the respective authorities—the Board of Managers, the local education authority, and the Board of Education— and all the Reports made during the time that Mr. Milnes has been headmaster of the Sharlston School.
Moved, "That there be laid before the House Papers in connection with the Royston non-provided school, in the West Hiding of Yorkshire."— (The Earl of Dartmouth.)
*THE EARL Of CREWE: My Lords, the noble Lord has made a very full and clear statement of this somewhat remarkable case—a case which has excited very great interest throughout the West Riding of Yorkshire, and which has also excited, as the noble Lord stated, no small amount of comment in another place. Now the noble Lord has stated.
36
I think with perfect accuracy, the main facts of the case, although I am not entirely in agreement with the conclusion he drew from those facts, or with all the comments which he made upon them. It is perfectly true that Mr. Milnes was appointed by the managers, as the noble Lord stated, by the casting vote of the vicar. Two of the managers then appealed to the local authority, asking them to overrule the managers' decision in favour of another candidate, Mr. Gardam. The result of that proceeding was that the Education Committee deputed two of their number, accompanied by their school inspector, to pay a visit to the school. The noble Earl stated, I think, that these gentlemen who attended were not experts, but as a matter of fact both of them had been for some years members of the Staffing Committee— one, I think, as Chairman—both had very full knowledge of the appointment of teachers, and their inspector was also, of course, a competent man. Well, they paid a visit to this school, and the conclusions they reached, and which were stated in a Report which they issued, were not entirely favourable to Mr. Milnes. I will not trouble the House by reading the Report now, although it is not very long, but the general result of it was that they stated that although they did not deny that he was a good school master, they did not think he was up to the mark as regards this particular school. They say in conclusion that "without wishing in any way unduly to reflect upon Mr. Milnes, who is, they believe, a very painstaking teacher, the Committee do not consider he is the proper man to put at the head of Royston National School, which has been very skilfully organised and taught by the retiring headmaster, and where he would have to deal with a greater number of children, and a larger staff, and receive a largely increased salary." That conclusion was arrived at after a visit which, I think, lasted about three-quarters of an hour, and as a result of this Report, the local education authority refused their consent to this appointment under Section 7 of the Act. Then the managers, as they are empowered to do—
Lord ASHBOURNE: Who was appointed?
*THE EARL Of CREWE: The alternative candidate, I suppose.
Lord ASHBOURNE: I, of course, do not know.
*THE EARL Of CREWE: The noble Earl stated that there was a tie between the two candidates, Nobody was appointed at the moment, of course, because the matter was under appeal. They appealed under Section 7. The Board made inquiry as to the fitness of Mr. Milnes, and they received a very excellent Report from one of their inspectors—a Report from which the noble Earl has quoted. In consequence of this, they suggested that the local authority had been misled in the opinion which they had formed, and they hoped that the matter would be reconsidered, and the appointment approved. This, however, the local authority refused to do, and the Board itself had to consider what was the proper course for them to take under the Act of 1902. I must remind the noble Lord that my right hon. friend Mr. McKenna does not sit administering justice under a palm tree, but he has to administer a particular Act of Parliament, and he is bound to be governed by the sections of that Act of Parliament. The section of that Act relating to this matter is this—
"The consent of the local education authority shall be required to the appointment of teachers, but that consent shall not be withheld except on educational grounds."
And then a further subsection of the same clause says—
"If any questions arise under this section between the local education authority and the managers of a school not provided by the authority that question shall be determined by the Board of Education."
Well, the Board had to consider what is meant by withholding consent to an appointment on educational grounds, and the result of their deliberations was the following letter. They said—
"The duty of the Board in such cases is confined to determining in accordance with the provisions of Section 7 (I.) (c) of the Education Act, 1902, whether the consent of the authority is withheld upon educational grounds, and the authority informed the Board that after taking such steps as they deemed to be satisfactory and sufficient to ascertain the educational qualifications of Mr. Milnes, they have come to the conclusion that he is not up to the standard
38
which they consider desirable, and for that reason have decided not to confirm his appointment. Under these circumstances the refusal of the authority appears to be based upon educational grounds within the meaning of the above-mentioned section, and the Board so determine. They are not prepared therefore to interfere with the discretion of the local authority in the matter."
In sending a copy of this letter to the local authority the Board added words, some of which the noble Lord quoted, but which by permission of the House I will read again. They said—
"From the information before them the Board feel some doubt as to the correctness of the view taken by the authority as to Mr. Milnes' qualifications. The Board would certainly have felt great reluctance in basing a decision of so grave a character upon a single Report made under the circumstances described, as it appears to them doubtful whether any teacher could do himself justice if suddenly called upon to give lessons in the presence of three comparative strangers, and under circumstances which must have made it difficult for the children to give him their undivided attention."
It is obvious, I think, by this time to the House that the real, substantial question which the Board of Education had to decide was whether its jurisdiction is confined to determining whether the education authority's refusal is based upon educational grounds, or whether the Board has then to proceed to decide whether those educational grounds are adequate grounds — that is to say, whether the Board's estimate of the fitness of a teacher for a particular appointment is the same as the local authority's, and, if not, which is the right one. In view of the wording of the Act of Parliament the Board are advised, and have decided, that they have no jurisdiction to determine the adequacy of the educational grounds. If, of course, it was shown to them that the whole thing was not bona fide, if there had been no attempt to discover educational grounds, and if no Report had been made, the matter would have been different. But in this instance, where the grounds alleged by the authority are personal to the teacher—not merely showing that a better teacher could be found, but showing that this particular teacher was not suited to this particular school—which is what the local authority do show—the Board hold that they have no further jurisdiction to interfere in the matter. That is to say

39
that, although the Board think in this particular instance that the conclusion at which the local authority have arrived is an incorrect one, they are not able to say that the local authority did not take such steps as established their bona fides in the matter.
*THE EARL Of DARTMOUTH: The Board said so in their own remarks, which have been read. They have said that the local authority did not take sufficient steps to find out. What you have just read yourself says it is not sufficient.
*THE EARL Of CREWE: No, but it is an educational test, and on educational grounds.
*LORD ASHBOURNE:Does the letter contain what the noble Lord has just been stating—that it was not within the jurisdiction of the Board of Education to decide?
*THE EARL Of CREWE: No, I am stating what the opinion of the Board is. The statement that the Board has no jurisdiction is the opinion at which the Board arrived in considering the legal aspect of the case.
LORD ASHBOURNE: But that is not stated in the letter.
*THE EARL Of CREWE: No, that is not stated in the reply. The noble Earl says that we ourselves admit—the Board admit—that the examination was not sufficient. Well it might be possible on that to say, "Go down again and make a further inquiry;" and the local authority might do so; but of course there would be no guarantee that they would not arrive at the same conclusion at which they arrived on their first examination.
There is just one further point that is worth mentioning—that if the words "educational grounds" are taken to mean adequate educational grounds, it would appear to follow that the words of the latter part of the same subsection, alluding to religious grounds, must also be taken to mean adequate religious grounds. And after all, we did not draw this Act of 1902. I quite believe that if the noble Marquess had been in opposition and had been drawing the Act for
40
somebody else to administer, he would have been quite willing to place upon the Board the onus of stating whether the educational grounds were adequate. But as he was in office at the time, he knew quite well that the Board of Education would not be prepared to take the responsibility of entering into a sort of competition with the local authority as to whether the fitness of a particular teacher for a particular school could or could not be established.
The noble Earl mentioned some of the Answers to Questions given by my right hon. friend in another place, and he seemed to think that a hardship had been inflicted upon the teacher in not publishing the Report of the local authority concerning him. I can assure the noble Earl that what my right hon. friend said was entirely in the interest of the teacher. He, in our opinion, is not a very well used man in this particular connection, and it does not seem that it would be in his interest to advertise still further the fact that the local authority found him, in their opinion, unfit to conduct this particular school. But as a matter of fact, on the 17th April last my right hon. friend was asked by Mr. Bridge-man in the first place—
"Whether any directions with respect to the educational qualifications of teachers had been issued by the local educational authority for the West Riding of Yorkshire;"
and then the hon. Member went on to ask—
"Whether the Report of that local education authority, as to the educational grounds on which consent to his appointment was withheld by that authority, is corroborated in any single respect by the Reports of the inspectors of the Board of Education; and whether he will consider the desirability of publishing the Reports of the local authority and of the Board's inspector."
"I have no information,"
said my right hon. friend,
"is to the first two paragraphs of the hon. Member's Question."
And he then went on to say:
"I doubt whether, in the interests of the teacher, it is desirable to publish the Report which the Board had received from the West Riding County Council upon his teaching capacity, but as the hon. Member presses for it, I will lay copies of both Reports upon the Table."

41
And I suppose as far as the House of Commons is concerned, that has been done. No doubt it has not been circulated as a Parliamentary Paper, but it can be placed at the disposal of the noble Earl, or of noble Lords generally, if they would like to see it.
I may merely say in conclusion that the Board of Education bases its action entirely upon its duty under the Act of Parliament. It expresses no further opinion than I have expressed upon the particular merits of the case, but it considers itself limited in a particular way by the Act of Parliament, and of course it has been obliged to act accordingly.
*THE EARL Of DARTMOUTH: My Lords, I should like to say a word or two further, because, as I gather from what the noble Lord has just told us, he has implied that the local education authority at any rate, and possibly the Board of Education as well, are not satisfied with the teaching powers of Mr. Milnes for this particular school. The chairman of the West Riding Education Committee on the 19th February last wrote a letter to the Yorkshire Post. Of course it is not official, but this is his opinion of this case, and I should like to call the noble Lord's attention to this. Mr. Dunn says—
"That he had not heard of one single word being said by any member of the education committee to the effect that Mr. Milnes was unlit for the post.…The competence of Mr. Milnes to take charge of the school has not been questioned, but it was considered that a few of the sixty or more candidates were preferable."
Here is the opinion of the head of the Education Committee of the West Riding County Council, and as regards his opinion that other candidates were better, surely the persons to judge which candidate is the best are the managers who go into all the circumstances of the case, and for their decision to be upset in this way is, I think, extremely hard, especially when there is a suggestion that there is something behind that action which in the interests of the teacher cannot be made public.
LORD ASHBOURNE: I think it is manifest from listening to the Lord President of the Council that he does not
42
a bit like the job which has been cast upon his shoulders of trying to explain (it is impossible to defend) this transaction. In my opinion harsher measure never was meted out to any man than has been meted out to this gentleman who was elected to this post after consideration. I do not want to deduce anything unduly from anyone's manner, but it is perfectly plain from the letters, and from the action of the Board of Education, that they too did not like the job cast upon them, and they did their best, I am bound to say—except that they did not have the courage of their final opinion—to stand by this man, and ensure that he should not be treated harshly and unjustly.
My Lords, the matter is one that really does not stand a moment's examination. There is not one of your Lordships on either side of the House who does not feel that if he had had the decision of the matter, this man would not have been treated in this way, and that it was not reasonable, it was not fair, it was not English, so to treat him. I am not going to repeat the facts again. They lie in a nutshell. The barest, and the plainest, and the nakedest statement of the facts takes away the possibility of justifying what has been done. Hero is a man who had served for a number of years as a master in a school. I believe he had always given satisfaction to the Board of Education. I have gathered that there were earlier Reports in addition to the particular one which has been referred to by my noble friend and the production of which he challenged. It appears that he had always been a deserving headmaster. Then he was elected, whether by a casting vote or not, I do not know; but he was elected by the managers, and their decision was sent up to be confirmed by the local education authority. For reasons which I will not now discuss—I wish to make no imputations — they refused to confirm the manager's decision. As I say, I make no imputation, and I assume that they acted upon their view of the merits of the facts. The appeal went from them in the proper legal way to the Board of Education, and the noble Earl has told us what view the Board of Education took. I believe

43
the noble Earl was desirous—indeed, he was most obviously anxious—to tell everything to the House, but he has not read that clause. The subsection in question was subsection (3) of Clause 7. That was the clause under which the appeal was taken, and that clause commences thus—I have not the words before me just now, but I believe I am right—
"If any question arises between the local education authority and the managers of a school"
—not a particular question, be it noted, but "any" question—
"any such question is to be determined by the Board of Education."
And the Board of Education, it is manifest from all that took place on the correspondence and on the Report, took the view that it was a question for them, and they sent down one of their most trained and competent inspectors, who made a special Report upon the case, and reported strongly in favour of this man (I never heard a Report more strongly in favour of any man)—of the merits, the character, and the worth of this man as a headmaster. He was worthy of being selected, worthy of being retained, unworthy of having all his claims set aside, and of being sent adrift upon the world. What does all that indicate? That the Board of Education themselves shrunk from the task of confirming what was done by the local education authority; and in the letters that have been written, as well as by the Report of this trained inspector of their own, it is obvious that they did their very best, by expressing the strongest, most vigorous, and clearest opinion that this transaction should not be. allowed to stand. The local education authority adhered to their views. They were wrong, and if the Board of Education had followed up their previous correct action—if I may presume so to describe it—of writing this clear letter in this man's favour, and sending down an inspector to get a Report—if they had said, "We must act upon our own clear views which we have already expressed in our letters, and which our inspector has expressed in the form of a Report which we accept and adopt "— if they had said," under those circumstances, this being a question raised between the managers and the local
44
authority, we decide that it is not a case in which we can shrink from our duty of confirming the appointment of this man "—then they would in my opinion have acted properly, and in a manner against which no exception could have been taken.
*THE EARL Of CREWE: Will the noble Lord go as far as to say that in his opinion, if we had done it, we should not have broken the law?
Lord ASHBOURNE: I prefer that that Question should be addressed to the Lord Chancellor. I never read the letter before, but I listened carefully to the noble Lord when he was reading it, and the words used at the end were that the Board were not prepared (why were they not prepared? under the circumstances to overrule the discretion of the local authority.
*THE EARL Of CREWE: What they said was—
"The refusal of the authority appears to be based upon educational grounds within the meaning of the above-mentioned section, and the Board so determine."
LORD ASHBOURNE: But I think the words that linger in my hearing are also to be found there, that: "under these circumstances the Board are not prepared to overrule the discretion of the local authority"; and the noble Earl qualified that again by introducing the statement that he did not say that if the Board arrived at the conclusion that the reason was not one which could be accepted it would not give an opinion. Surely there must be a point where they are bound to give effect to their own clear opinion against the action of others when it has been brought before them. If not, it would make this appeal really and truly worthless. It might be that it would not be a case of a casting vote. It might be a case when; there was a majority of three-fourths of the managers, and it might be that the local education authority had said: "We do not mind this great consensus of local opinion; we will act upon our own opinion in this matter, although the local opinion may be composed of four-fifths of the managers, and although their opinion may be distinctly approved

45
by the Board of Education." I submit; that it is intelligible and reasonable that the law intended that such a question as this, being a question between the parties, should be decided upon a fair consideration of the facts, the merits, and the reason of the case. My Lords, it would not be reasonable to apply any other consideration, I suggest, to this case, otherwise the whole appeal, which is an appeal upon ''any" question between the parties, could be made illusory and worthless. In. the light of the discussion that has taken place I would very much wish that on a fairer view of the facts, the Board would consider whether they are bound—that is the question— as a matter of jurisdiction to ignore their own reading of the merits and the facts of the case, and to overrule the Report of their own inspector and say: "We are bound hand and foot; an appeal has come to us; we have a clear opinion that the appeal should be allowed, but there is something in the Act of Parliament that takes away our discretion, and we will not decide the question, because we do not think that under the circumstances of the case it would be convenient for us to do so."
THE MARQUESS Of LONDONDERRY: My Lords, I had no idea of joining in this debate, but in view of what has fallen from the noble Earl the Lord President of the Council, I think it is only right that, as a recent Minister of Education, I should say a few words on the subject.
My noble friend (the Earl of Dartmouth) has so clearly stated the case, and has brought out so fully what is, in my opinion, the unjust treatment this teacher has received at the hands of the local education authority in the West Riding of Yorkshire, that I do not think it is at all necessary for me to enter into that question. But, my Lords, the Act of Parliament, as I read it during the time I was Minister of Education, laid down very clearly that except on educational grounds the education authority had no right to reverse the decision of the managers in the appointment of a teacher to a voluntary school. That, I think, was laid down in clear terms. As I gather from what I have heard
46
in the course of this debate, the education authority in the West Riding seem to have been determined to assist the three out of six managers who were opposed to the appointment of this gentleman, and at the same time (as I gather merely from listening to the debate this evening) they suddenly, at a moment's notice, and without warning, sent down three members of their Education Committee, who were very likely gentlemen hostile to the whole system of denominational education, to make a surprise visit— swooping down upon this school, perhaps not giving either the master or the children a chance of doing their best, and condemning that master as being inefficient on educational grounds. As I say, I know nothing of the matter except what I have learnt from listening from the debate to-night, but that is how it strikes me, and if the view which I have formed is correct, I think it is most unfair to that teacher that he should be condemned in that way. I do not know that amongst the many certificates of qualifications that I have seen, I ever heard one of greater weight than that which was read by my noble friend Lord Dartmouth, with regard to the master whose interests he is now defending. I do not think the noble Earl (Lord Crewe) would for one moment challenge that, and yet for this reason— because he is declared, upon the result of this surprise visit, to be unfit on educational grounds to be appointed to this post—that man is practically ruined. My Lords, it seems to me a very hard case, and, to my mind, entirely contrary to the spirit of the Act of 1902. My noble and learned friend (Lord Ashbourne) has dealt with the matter from the legal aspect, and therefore I will not go further into that branch of the question; but what I should like to ask is this: Did the President of the Board of Education take legal opinion before he wrote that letter in answer to the letter of the local authority?
*THE EARL Of CREWE: Yes, certainly, the action taken was taken on legal advice.
THE MARQUESS Of LONDONDERRY: Then on that I say nothing.
THE MARQUESS Of SALISBURY: What legal advice?
*THE EARL Of CREWE: I will find out exactly.
THE MARQUESS Of LONDONDERRY: It seems to me to be so contrary to the spirit of the Act of 1902 that such an injustice should be brought about by the operation of that Act that I hope the noble Earl will consider the matter and bring it up again. I do not wish to say anything controversial, but what rankles in our minds is the threat held out by the noble Earl (the Earl of Crewe) in his concluding speech upon the Education Bill of last session, when he said that he feared its rejection would lead to harsh words and harsh actions. Perhaps this is one of those harsh actions. If so, I can only say that I am sorry to think that a great Department like the Board of Education should be able to bring itself to do such a harsh action to a man who is qualified, as far as I can gather, on every ground, simply because the local authority happens to be hostile to the system of denominational schools. I think it is a great advantage to us to have had this question raised by my noble friend (the Earl of Dartmouth), and I wish that I had known more of the details myself before entering upon the question. But, merely speaking offhand as a past President of the Council, I can only say that I deeply regret the line which has been taken in this case by the Board of Education.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord Fitzmaurice): I would ask permission to recall the attention of your Lordships to what is really the point before the House. It is not whether we think that the refusal of the West Riding Local Education Authority with regard to this particular teacher was harsh or not; nor are we really justified in discussing all the complicated facts of what is evidently a very controversial story.
*THE EARL Of DARTMOUTH: It is a very simple case.
LORD FITZMAURICE: I fully agree with what the noble Lord has just said
48
across the House. The point is really a very simple one. Is the Board of Education justified or not in its construction of the sub-section of the Act of Parliament—Subsection (c) of Section (1) of the 7th Clause of the Act? I have had some experience as a member of a local education authority, and I know this— that Section 7 of the Art of 1902 is a clause of very great length and of very great difficulty in many ways, and points of law are constantly arising upon it. In reality what we are discussing tonight is, as I have just said, not merely the merits of this case but the point of law. One view has been placed with great authority and great clearness before the House by the noble Lord who addressed the house from the Front Opposition Bench (Lord Ashbourne), and of course his opinion upon a legal question is bound to carry great weight with your Lordships. But, on the other hand, I must remind your Lordships that there is another view, and I must also add that I have a recollection—though I am not able to give chapter and verse—of this point having arisen before, and that, although it may not have been within the intention of Parliament, or of the late Government, when they framed that particular section, the best view of the meaning of this clause was that if the Board of Education is once satisfied upon what is really almost more a question of fact than a question of law —namely, that the education authority, whether in their view rightly or wrongly, has acted upon educational grounds— then the Board of Education, whether it wishes to do so or not, is not able to intervene on the merits of the case. That may or may not be a desirable state of things. That may be a reason for extending the jurisdiction of the Board of Education in appeals of this kind so as to bring it back to what the noble Lord said that in his opinion it was the intention of the late Government to make it. But while the Board of Education, upon adequate legal advice, has come, rightly or wrongly, to the conclusion that as long as it is satisfied that a local authority has acted upon grounds which are educational in their character, and not upon reasons of favour, or of prejudice, or of something involving injustice, they cannot interfere with its decision, then I think it would be

49
exceedingly difficult for your Lordships' House, or the other House of Parliament to intervene in a matter of this kind, and to constitute itself, as it were, upon the whole merits of the case (the story being a very complicated one) a sort of extra Court of Appeal to try and reverse the decision of the Board of Education.
EARL CAWDOR: My Lords, the noble Lord who has just addressed your Lordships has so much authority and experience in regard to local government that I should not venture for a moment to question anything which he puts before your Lordships founded upon that experience. But, as the noble Lord has pointed out, we are really discussing a point of law, and therefore perhaps I may assume that, as neither the noble Lord nor myself am a lawyer, we are equally competent to discuss it from that point of view.
THE EARL Of CREWE: My noble friend is a lawyer.
EARL CAWDOR: Then, the noble Lord being a lawyer, and I not being one, it is clearly not open to me to discuss a point of law against him. All I desire to draw attention to is the very grave importance of the question we are discussing. I do not wish to raise it as a controversial matter so far as Party politics are concerned, but I do put it to the noble Lord the President of the Council that it is a matter of great importance.
The clause we are discussin;—Subsection (3) of Clause 7—says—
"If any questions arise under this section between the local education authority and the managers of a, school not provided by the authority, that question shall be determined by the Board of Education."
My Lords, we are told now that the Board of Education hold that in arriving at that determination they are limited in the scope of their inquiry. I think we must press again, as was pressed just now, that we should like to know the legal authority for that limitation which is stated to exist in this clause. I do not express any opinion as to whether it exists or not, but I do press upon your Lordships and upon the noble Earl that this is a matter which should be
50
cleared up. And for this reason. Your Lordships will remember very wall that, when the Act of 1902 was before Parliament, it was first of all argued that the managers should have the appointment of teachers in non-provided schools. The objection was then raised, as I remember very well, that if that were so you might be paying teachers who were educationally unfit, and therefore the clause was put in giving the local education authority the right to dissent from the appointment of teachers by the managers, but upon educational grounds alone. No other power was given to the local education authority. That was the safeguard of the ratepayer against inefficient teachers. Then came in the question of a difference of opinion arising between the managers and the education authority, and that contingency was dealt with by Subsection (3) under which it was to be decided by the Board of Education. I do not want to prolong this discussion, but I venture to make an appeal to the noble Lord that he should give us in full the papers and correspond-once on this subject, and the reports of inspectors referred to in the course of that correspondence. This is a matter which concerns not only the teacher in whose behalf Lord Dartmouth has pleaded; I think it is essential that we should have the whole story clearly before us, without reservation of any kind, in order that we may know where we stand on the matter; and I hope the noble Earl will not rest satisfied by telling us that some legal authority or other has given his opinion, but that he will take care that the highest possible legal authorities are consulted. The opinion should be taken of the highest law officers of the Crown, and that opinion should be laid before Parliament.
*THE EARL Of CREWE: I can only address your Lordships again by the indulgence of the House, but I will certainly ask my right hon. friend, who I cannot conceive will have any objection, to lay the Papers in this case before the House, bearing always in mind, of course, that the merits of the case have nothing to do with the point which we have been discussing or with the action of the Board of Education.
*THE EARL Of DARTMOUTH: May I interrupt the noble Earl for one moment? My object is to get these Papers laid on the Table of the House in order that the public may know that the answer of the Minister of Education in another place as to something more being behind which could not be justified has no proper foundation.
*THE EARL OF CREWE: In the interests of the teacher.
*THE EARL OF DARTMOUTH: In the interests of the teacher I ask that the whole case should be made public.
*THE EARL Of CREWE: By all means As far as I know, the Papers in question are now in the possession of the House of Commons, at least I imagine so, because my right hon. friend said on the 17th April that they would be laid before the House. I will of course also consult my right hon. friend as to the method of once more determining the legal point. He acted upon the legal opinion which was at his disposal, but of course I quite admit that the matter is one of very considerable gravity, and it is very proper that it should be decided by the most competent authorities possible. Perhaps I might be allowed to say that the explanation, to my mind, is an exceedingly simple one why this burden was not thrown upon the Board of Education. It is because, when Acts of Parliament are passed, a. Department undoubtedly desires to relieve itself, as far as possible, from the settling of awkward questions, and I am bound to say that the Board of Education would view with very great dismay the prospect of having practically to appoint the teachers in these cases, because that is what it would mean.
*THE EARL Of DARTMOUTH: You merely appoint the managers.
*THE EARL Of CREWE: And when I am told (and I was only told by the noble and learned Lord, and not by the noble Marquess who was responsible for the Bill of 1902) that the intention of the Government at that time was that the Board of Education should settle these questions, I take great leave to doubt it.
LORD ASHBOURNE: I beg to correct the noble Earl. I said nothing of the kind. What I said was that in case of an appeal to the Board of Education it was unfair that there should not be a power of veto in that Board. There is a veto with regard to educational grounds.
*THE EARL Of CREWE: My point was that the Board of Education at that time—by intention, and deliberately—refrained from saying the educational grounds should be "adequate," but, as they believed, left the matter in the position in which it is now. That is the only further point I now wish to make.
*THE EARL Of DARTMOUTH: It is, of course, understood that I move for the production of the reports of the inspectors, the correspondence, the legal opinion, and any other papers that may be useful to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

INTIMIDATION IN IRELAND.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: I am indebted to the noble Lord (Lord Harris) for allowing me to address the House before him. I beg to ask His Majesty's Government the question that stands in my name—namely, whether any regulation carrying out the pledge given by the Lord President of the Council on the 5th June last, that in cases of sale of estates "persons guilty of intimidation shall not obtain any allotment on that estate" will be framed, and when its terms will be published.
*THE EARL Of CREWE: My Lords, it would have enabled me to save the time of the House if the noble Lord in framing the question which he has placed upon the Paper had quoted the words which I used instead of placing upon the paper the interpretation which he has put upon those words. The words used by me were used on the occasion of the debate of 5th June last, and I had been describing what had happened with regard to the proposed regulation under which estates upon which intimidation was alleged to have taken place should be held up, so to speak for purposes of

53
sale and purchase, and placed lower down upon the list in order to punish those in the neighbourhood who had been guilty of intimidation. I pointed out that this plan might operate very hardly in some cases—and in fact had so operated— upon landlords and tenants, and I went on to say—
"If we are to have a remedy of that kind, I think the proper remedy is not to stop the sale of the estate, but to see that persona guilty of intimidation do not obtain any allotment on that estate; and that is the course which I am led to believe is likely to be pursued."
Well, my Lords, that does not amount, if the noble Earl will forgive me for saying so, to a pledge to issue a regulation on that subject. What I had in my mind when I made that statement were observations made in this connection by the Estates Commissioners. Now one of them said, in adjudicating upon a particular case—
"If the Estates Commissioners find that an applicant for an advance is a notoriously bad character, or a disturber of the peace, or a per son who has himself exercised intimidation upon others, they may, in exercise of their discretion decide that ho is not a person to whom they should make an advance for the purchase of a "parcel" of land vested in, or acquired by, them, and we have already announced our intention to exercise our discretion in that direction."
Now that is what I had in my mind when I made the observation in question, and I am bound to say that I am not prepared to go further to-day. We do not think it would be reasonable (and I do not think the Estates Commissioners would be willing to undertake the duty) to lay upon the Estates Commissioners an absolute obligation to decline under any circumstances to give any allotment of land to a person who merely in public opinion has been guilty of intimidation.
Now I think we all agree that it would be a most improper thing if the class of persons mentioned by the Commissioner in the observation which I have read were to receive an allotment of land, but I do think that in that matter it is quite possible to trust to the discretion of the Estates Commissioners, because after all a great deal must depend upon the circumstances of the case. I confess that I for one—it is only my own personal opinion—should not be prepared to say that a man who had joined in a mob which had hooted an unpopular grazier,
54
should therefore for all time be debarred from obtaining any allotment of land in the neighbourhood. I think it is conceivable that there might be cases in which much ill-feeling would arise in consequence of what would be really dealing out hard measure because of what had happened in times of excitement, so that it would not be desirable to make an iron rule on the subject. On the other hand I am convinced that the discretion of the Estates Commissioners can be fully trusted to see that in cases where any serious intimidation or guilt of any kind in connection with this matter has been proved against an individual, a black mark should be placed against his name, and I believe that that would act as a most valuable deterrent in a great many cases. I am not at all sorry that the noble Earl has raised this point, because I feel that its being generally known that the Estates Commissioners strongly desire, and are disposed, to take that course, will be of great value in helping to maintain order in these disturbed districts.
THE MARQUESS Of LONDONDERRY: I do not propose to discuss this matter at all, but what I would point out to the noble Earl is this—that the reason my noble friend's question was put down was owing to both my noble friend and myself pressing him in the debate for information as to what instructions the Estates Commissioners had received following the speech to which he himself has alluded, because the noble Lord said that he would make a statement again, we did not press the question. I hope we shall hear from him what instructions were given, because the reason we both raised the question was this—that the noble Earl spoke in no uncertain terms in your Lordship's House as to the course he proposed to take, and with his opinion I most cordially concur, but he must remember that the Chief Secretary had a good many questions put to him upon this subject in another place, and that he fenced—
*THE EARL Of CREWE: May I interrupt the noble Marquess? The Question was put in the other House by a supporter of the boble Marquess in a form which contained a modified allusion to what I had said in this House. Now

55
in the other House they are very strict in matters of order, and the Speaker would not allow the Question in the form in which it was framed, because it was out of order in that it alluded to what I had said here.
*THE MARQUESS Of LANSDOWNE: Would the noble Earl tell us whether the Estates Commissioners have any means of obtaining information as to persons guilty of intimidation, and who would, therefore, according to the pronouncement we have heard, be held ineligible for grants of land? Are the Estates Commissioners, for instance, in any sort of relation to the police authorities, and do the police authorities make it their business to communicate with the Estates Commissioners before the latter make allotments of land?
LORD KILLANIN: I understood from what has fallen from the noble Earl that it is the desire of the Government to withhold allotments of land from this class of tenant, and he went on to say that they had announced their intention of doing so. Would he mind informing me and the House where and how they had announced that intention?
*THE EARL Of CREWE: In reply to the noble Marquess, he will see that it is difficult to answer a Question of that kind when one is not in the Department concerned, but I imagine that when a disturbance of this kind has arisen the facts are perfectly well known to the Estates Commissioners, and bearing in mind that they have announced their intention of dealing with such cases in this particular way, no doubt they take steps, through the medium of the constabulary, to find out who the guilty persons are; but I will inquire of my right hon. friend whether any means can be devised of bringing this matter to their notice.
With regard to the Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Killanin, it was made in the case of an estate in Tipperary.
LORD KILLANIN: When?
*THE EARL Of CREWE: The noble Lord wants the date. It was the 17th January, 1906.

CHINESE IN THE TRANSVAAL.
*LORD HARRISrose to ask His Majesty's Government "if it is a fact that they have conveyed to the Government of the Transvaal information that they will veto any legislation providing for the retention of any Chinese after March, 1908"; and to call attention to the speech of the Secretary of State for the Colonies on 17th December, 1906.
The noble Lord said that he would not have troubled the House again on this question if it had not been that it appeared to himself and some of his friends absolutely necessary that they should give the Secretary of State an opportunity of giving a distinct contradiction, if he could, to the suspicion that had arisen as to the intention of the Government with regard to the contracts entered into between the employers and Chinese employed in South Africa being respected. The rumours upon which that suspicion was based was to the effect that the Government had advised General Botha's Government that they would veto any legislation providing for the retention in South Africa after March, 1908, of any Chinese employees. That was so diametrically opposed to what they understood the noble Earl to mean when he spoke in December last year in explaining the Letters Patent that he was sure he would be glad, if he could, to give a contradiction to the rumour. He did not think, however, he would be surprised. if he found it had aroused considerable suspicion and apprehension. In March, 1908, or at any rate one year after the first meeting of the Transvaal Parliament, the Chinese Ordinance would lapse, and with it all those regulations governing the life of the Chinese in South Africa. Their Lordships would imagine under such circumstances that everything would disappear, but the Government were far too astute for that. They took care to safeguard themselves and left two liabilities, one upon the Transvaal Government of making some arrangements, and the other upon the employers that they should go to the cost of repatriating the Chinese. Therefore, in March, 1908, every liability that ever rested upon the employers under the terms of the Ordinance would remain upon their shoulders, whilst every advantage that they could have got under the

57
Ordinance would have been swept away. The opportunity of renewal was an immense advantage to them, and there was no doubt that some of the employers and some of the employed would have been glad to renew. In all probability if that great advantage had not been allowed by the late Government—and they naturally thought they had the protection of the law—they would not have entered into the engagement of Chinese at all. It was the advantage of getting experienced and skilled workmen in the second three years that, to a very great extent, induced them to take up the question of the importation of the Chinese. That advantage had been swept away. He knew the noble Earl would reply that the question had been left to the Transvaal Government, and that they could have brought forward an Ordinance providing for renewals; and that he said in December that His Majesty's Government objected to renewals. They naturally, however, had a hope that the Transvaal Government would be able to influence His Majesty's Government and show that they were anxious for renewals. He did not think there had been anything said by General Both until he left this country that went to show that he objected to renewals. He had several quotations from his speeches. On the 6th December, 1906, he was reported to have said—
"Het Volk must stand to this point. When the Chinese Ordinance has expired, they must be repatriated."
He went on in subsequent speeches to speak far more encouragingly from the employers' point of view—
"My Party is firmly resolved to repatriate the Chinese, but that they may be so repatriated that they will not dislocate the mining industry. Further, my Party undertakes to bring enough native labour to supply the mines when they are at the head of affairs. You can be sure that we will not allow one mine to close."
Then the Daily News of 13th February headed a communication from General Botha, "Botha's message to the British"—
"This talk of wholesale Chinese repatriation, regardless of consequences, is nonsense. I say that nothing shall be done to embarrass the mines so far as unskilled labour is concerned. We want to restore confidence in the country. Could we do that by crippling or hampering the mines?"
58
He could give their Lordships several other quotations, but time was so short, and he must get on. General Botha arrived in this country, and he made several speeches here, as their Lordships knew.
On 28th April General Botha was entertained at a dinner given him by the London representatives of the Transvaal Banking Commercial and Mining Interests. It was a thoroughly representative gathering, including many who could follow General Botha in his own language, and had not to depend on an interpreter. He said—
"I do not hesitate to say here to-night that my Government will use their best endeavours to make the mining industry a success, and a great success at that, because we know that the prosperity, and the progress, and the welfare, not only of the Transvaal, but of the whole of South Africa are materially dependent upon the development of that industry."
Subsequently he said—
"In the gold industry there we have large mineral areas which have still to be opened up, and I hope that the people of the Transvaal will put their shoulders together and develop the country."
"The mining industry has undoubtedly supplied the farmer there with a great market, and I only want to give you the assurance that the farming population of the Transvaal are not going to quarrel with their best market."
Subsequently, he received a deputation of managers of mining companies. His reply was not taken down in shorthand, but a summary of it was submitted to him which he approved before publication, and he (the noble Lord) guaranteed that only what he approved was published—
"He could assure the deputation that he and his Government were entirely in sympathy with the mining industry, and that they would endeavour to increase the supply of natives, and he emphasised the fact that during the elections he had stated that the policy was repatriation and replacement."
He thought it was perfectly clear from those speeches that up to the time of his leaving this country General Botha had given them the greatest encouragement to believe that there would be no serious interruption to the industry. Then in General Botha's last week in England a significant announcement appeared in the Press, viz., that the Government were going to guarantee a loan of £5,000,000 to the Transvaal, and General

59
Botha's attitude in the recent debates in the Transvaal Parliament, so far as they could judge from the cabled reports, had not been so sympathetic as it was during his visit to this country or as indicated in the speeches previous to his return to power, and, as he (the noble Lord) had said, they had considerable doubts with regard to the question of renewals. They felt that they had been most unjustly treated, and that the loss which would result to the shareholders from the repatriation policy was a most unjust loss to put upon them. It had resulted in a most serious want of confidence. He did not know whether the noble Earl studied the reports of financial matters in the Press, but there was a pretty significant announcement in The Times a day or so ago. He observed that the President of the Local Government Board said a few days ago that he was not aware that the Government had in contemplation any legislation which need deter any investor from investing his money in any legitimate enterprise. It was very necessary that some statement of that kind should be made, for in consequence of the statement that the Government meant to guarantee a loan of £5,000,000 to the Transvaal Government very serious doubts had apparently risen in the minds of many investors. The following was the statement which appeared in The Times money article a few day's ago—
"Quotations opened very firm in all departments, owing to Mr. Asquith's statement in the House of Commons yesterday that there would be no issue of a Transvaal guaranteed loan this financial year. This welcome announcement was not generally known yesterday afternoon, but many people had regarded it as likely to be made sooner or later, partly because it was a matter of common knowledge that no such loan could be issued except on terms which would have been regarded as discreditable to the British Government."
That was a wry statement to be made in a financial article in a paper like The Times. What did it mean? "Terms discreditable to the British Government!" The construction put upon it in many circles was that the Government found they could not get those terms, as regarded interest, which they ordinarily could get, and that for some reason or other the financial world was not prepared to meet them in this particular loan. He did not know whether the noble Earl studied
60
the papers, but in the Morning Post that morning was the following statement—
"The 387 representative securities quoted monthly by the Bankers' Magazine depreciated between May 1st and June 20th by no less than £68,000,000."
That depreciation in the other passage which he had read was attributed to the action the Government had taken as regarded the Transvaal Loan. It was no wonder that investors in South African mines should have the greatest apprehension. Knowing from what the noble Earl said last December that the Government disapproved of renewals, it was not much to be surprised at that they had suspicion that this rumour that the Government were disposed to veto any legislation providing for the three years contracts being respected was possibly true. He was sure the noble Earl would acknowledge that when he spoke last December he said in the most distinct terms that the three years contracts would be respected. If they were not, he confessed he (Lord Harris) had the gravest doubts where the labour was to come from which General Botha and his colleagues promised. The fact was—though he did not wish to be too critical—that the standard of education in economical problems and in the practical management of mines of General Botha and his colleagues with the Boer Government was very elementary even on the subject of the supply of labour. He supposed the noble Earl had noticed a speech made by Mr. Rissik on the subject of the supply of labour from certain parts of South Africa. He was advised by the most competent authority, an official who had reported annually on the subject of labour supply in South Africa, and whose report of last year the noble Earl could get if he wished, that the figures given in Mr. Rissik's speech were absolutely fallacious, the number of Basutos given never existed, and, even if they did, that was not the factor. The factor was what proportion of all the natives who would come up to the Transvaal would be willing to go underground. General Botha, when he was here, said he hoped to make arrangements for the importation of Zulus. If they were willing to work, why in Heaven's name didn't they go and work in Natal on the

61
sugar plantations, where there was employment likely to appeal to their sentiments more than work underground? But they would not go there. The Zulus had never gone underground, and the Basutos had never gone underground. There was only one race which had gone underground, and they wore the Poruguese natives. They were therefore under the gravest apprehension that the Boer leaders did not know what they could do in the way of replacement. General Botha first talked about replacement as well as repatriation, but he had receded from that and now said that whilst his Government would do what they could it was the business of the miners to replace. The miners had done their best during the last five years to find natives, and they had found as many as they could, but the question was governed by the fact that they would not go underground. Therefore, their apprehensions were very serious, and they were enforced by the rumour that there was an intention on the part of the Government to interfere with any Transvaal legislation which was necessary for the government of the Chinese after the ordinance had lapsed. He hoped the noble Earl would be able to contradict the rumour.
*THE EARL OF ELGIN:In answer to the direct question of the noble Lord, I have to say that we have made no such communication as he has indicated to the Transvaal Government. We have, of course, the same information as he has, and as the public has, as to the statements which have been made by General Botha in the Transvaal Parliament, but, as regards any communication from ourselves to the effect mentioned in the question, I can assure him that we have made none. I do not think that it would be useful, or indeed that it would be altogether decorous, for me to follow the noble Lord through his criticisms of the speeches of the Prime Minister of the Transvaal in this country, or in his own Parliament. I observe that he said that those speeches during his stay in this country were regarded as up to a point favourable to the Party of the noble Lord, but he gave quotations which he said came from a Report which was approved by General
62
Botha to the effect that what he looked for was an increase of the supply of natives, by which I imagine he meant not Chinese, and that his policy was repatriation and replacement.
LORD HARRIS: Yes.
*LORD ELGIN:If that is a policy which approves itself to the noble Lord, then I do not know that. I need quarrel with him on the subject. It seems to me exactly what General Botha has announced himself.
LORD HARRIS: He gave no date for repatriation. Of course, we know that they have got to be repatriated some time.
*THE EARL OF ELGIN:I understood the speech of the noble Lord to go on the footing that the three years contract was the only one of which he spoke and that renewals could be set aside. That is what has been announced by General Botha. As far as I am concerned—the noble Lord has referred to my statement here in December last—I adhere to what I then said. It is now the second alternative which I put in the speech which faces us. In the first alternative, I presupposed that the Transvaal Government might introduce an ordinance early in this year in order to meet the question of shipments which are to take place now. That was not done, and the shipments, as we have been told, are immediately to begin. I was glad to hear it. I went on to say—
"If, on the contrary, it decides against the continuance of the system, the absence of renewals will greatly facilitate their operation, and also the withdrawal of the coolies."
LORD HARRIS: May I call the noble Earl's attention to another remark which he has not yet read—
"If it does act, and acts with reasonable promptitude, I do not think any serious questions will arise about renewals."
I did not hear the speech, but I construed it to mean that possibly—you hoped not— but possibly renewals might take place.
*THE EARL OF ELGIN: That is exactly what I was trying to explain. If the

63
Transvaal Government had chosen to bring forward an ordinance, subject to a condition I am going to mention in a minute, and renewals were to be made, it must have been brought up early in this year in order that the contracts which expired this month should be renewed. That is exactly what I mean. But I say that has passed. It does not exist now; the time has gone. What we have now before us is what I am reading. I went on to say—
"A gradual process is beyond doubt the one which would be to the advantage of those concerned with the mines with their endeavour to supply a different form of labour."
I wish, in order to make it quite clear, to prevent any misconception, to add that later in the debate I was challenged by Lord Courtney, who said that I seemed to throw it on the unrestricted discretion of the new legislature to frame that new Labour Ordinance. That I denied at once, and, when I replied, I explained the position. I said—
"I also desire to say, with [regard to the new and old ordinance, that I ought perhaps to have brought out that we, of course, entirely adhere to the provisions of the Letters Patent by which any fresh ordinance that was to be drafted by the new Government of the Transvaal would have to come home as a reserved Bill."
That is the position in which we now stand. It is quite true, as the noble Lord has said, that a year from the meeting of the first Transvaal Parliament the whole of the present Ordinance comes to an end. If, therefore, the Transvaal Government desire that the contracts should be carried on under any ordinance and restrictions, they must present it to their own Parliament in the form of a Bill, and that Bill must be reserved and come home to us for our decision. I think the House will agree with me that it would have been, and is now, most improper for me, or for the Government, to express, in advance, the action which we might have to take with regard to a Bill which would be solemnly reserved for us under the provisions of the Letters Patent. We have not done so, and that is the state of matters so far as we are concerned.
House adjourned at half-past Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past. Ten o'clock.