Lords Sitting of 27 April 1910

Preamble
Several Lords Several Lords—Took the Oath.
CITY OF DUBLIN STEAM PACKET COMPANY BILL. [H.L.]
Commons Amendment considered, and agreed to.
PONTYPRIDD WATER (EXTENSION OF TIME) BILL.
Read 2a, and committed.
CENTRAL ARGENTINE RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a: Amendments made: Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES.
The Lord Steward (E. Beauchamp) appointed to take the Chair in Committees of the Whole House this day in the absence of the Chairman of Committees from illness.
EDUCATION BOARD PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (BERKS, &c.) BILL. [H.L.]
A Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Education under the Education Acts, 1870–1907, to enable the councils of the administrative counties of Berks and Surrey, the county boroughs of Birmingham and Swansea, and the urban district of Rhondda, to put in force the Lands Clauses Acts—Was presented by the Lord Steward (E. Beauchamp) (for the Lord President (V. Wolverhampton)); read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners. (No. 35.)

PRIVATE AND PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILLS.
Ordered, That Standing Orders Nos. 92 and 93 be suspended; and that the time for depositing petitions praying to be heard
740
against Private and Provisional Order Confirmation Bills, also the time for depositing documents relating to any Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, which would otherwise expire during the adjournment of the House at Whitsuntide, be extended to the first day on which the House shall sit after the Recess.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 2) BILL.
House in Committee (according to order): Bills reported without Amendment: Standing Committee negatived, and Bills to be read 3a To-morrow.

EDUCATION—PARTIAL EXEMPTION.
LORD SHEFFIELD*LORD SHEFFIELD rose to call attention to the Reports of the Departmental Committee on Partial Exemption from School Attendance and of the Consultative Committee on Continuation Schools, and to move to resolve, "That in the opinion of this House, it is desirable that legislative effect should be given to the recommendations of the Departmental Committee on Partial Exemption, and that a statutory obligation should be imposed on local education authorities to provide, where it is reasonably practicable, continuation schools, and that provision be also made by Statute to aid substantially from Parliamentary funds the cost of such schools."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in introducing an educational subject to your Lordships I feel that I am in the pleasant and unusual position of raising a discussion upon a matter which, I think, involves no controversy, and on which I hope both sides of the House will be agreed. In regard to this question of strengthening the education in our day schools and securing a continuation of instruction after the day school career is over, I have the satisfaction of noticing that on April 20 last the House of Commons passed a somewhat similar Resolution after a short debate, without a Division, and with the general approval of both sides. I was also glad to note that the Minister for Education, Mr. Runciman, stated the other day that the Government contemplated legislating on the lines of the recommendations of the Departmental Committee on Partial

741
Exemption; but, as we know, no educational matter can be touched in the way of legislation during this year. Although this is not a time for introducing legislation it is a time when We may strengthen the hands of the Government with a view to future legislation by making them feel assured of the concurrence of both Houses and both Parties in anything which will make more profitable, more effective, and more lasting the expenditure, which is mounting up so high and which some people think excessively high, on our national education.
The Departmental Committee, which reported in July, 1909, recommended unanimously—

1. That partial exemption should be abolished.

2. That there should be no total exemption under the age of 13.

3. That no exemption should be allowed by reason of previous school attendance.

4. That exemption at the age of 13 should only be allowed for beneficial or necessary employment.

5. That in case of exemption before the age of 14 the obligation to attend a continuation class be imposed; or

6. That with the approval of the Board of Education the alternative of passing a standard not lower than the VI be permitted, and that these recommendations should override the Factory Acts.

It may be confidently affirmed that these proposals are in harmony with the present public opinion of the country. The criticisms of them fall substantially under two heads—(1) the allegation that the conditions of rural labour require the early diversion of children from school to field labour; (2) the needs of the textile trades where industrial half-time survives—mainly in Laneashire, but also to some extent in the West Riding and in the adjacent districts of North Derbyshire and East Cheshire.
To take the agricultural case first, it has been found by experience that what is known as the clause in Robson's Act is quite useless for farming purposes, and has either never been used or has after trial been abandoned. The return of a boy over twelve years of age to winter schooling after summer work on the farm is found objectionable as of little or no profit to the boy and as injurious to the discipline and teaching in the school to which he returns. Moreover, the farmers do not value this intermittent labour. They toll us that if they can get the boys full time at thirteen it is far better for them than to
742
get partial work before thirteen. The two counties which had the largest number of such exemptions—namely, Cambridgeshire, 978, and the East Riding of Yorkshire, 386—have both of them abolished partial exemption altogether. In Kent there is a certain amount of partial exemption for agricultural employment, but according to Mr. C. J. Phillips, His Majesty's Inspector, there are only about 200 employed in Kent in agriculture, and the demand for children for fruit and hop picking is met, according to the same witness, by arranging the school holidays. On the whole, therefore, it may be said that agricultural employment does not demand a system of partial exemption. No doubt many agricultural employers desire the children to be set free from school at thirteen, and the Departmental Committee make this concession—that where the local authority choose they may, for suitable employment, set a child free at thirteen. As the local authorities are the county council elected by the population they will act in accordance with local public opinion, but this school exemption must be for suitable employment, not, for street newspaper selling or other unprofitable or even injurious activity, and it must be coupled either with fair school progress measured by passing at least Standard VI, or it must entail attendance at a continuation school.
As to the textile trades, the employment of children is justified on the grounds of the necessities of the family, the social question, and the need for the earnings, and the expediency of a technical training. I contend that there is absolutely no social reason why children in textile towns should be put to work earlier than in others. In Lancashire, the East Riding of Yorkshire, and in parts of Cheshire and Derbyshire, the working classes are, if anything, in a better condition as to wages and comforts than in other parts of the country generally; and outside the textile towns no difficulty whatever is found in securing the attendance of children up to the age of fourteen. London has as great extremes of wealth and poverty as any town in England, but in London no difficulty has been found in enforcing attendance up to fourteen. Practically all the children in London attend up to fourteen years of age. In Hull ninety-four per cent. of the children in attendance between twelve and thirteen years of age continue in attendance between thirteen and four-

743
teen years of age; in Norwich the proportion is ninety-one per cent. Practically the great mass of the nation does without half-time. There is hardly a half-timer in the whole of Wales. In Glamorganshire and its great urban communities there are only twelve scholars—they are in Aberdare—obtaining partial exemption, and these are employed as errand boys. In Durham and its large towns there are no cases of partial exemption. Northumberland is practically in the same state. In Lancashire, Liverpool and Manchester are free from half-time. The system is concentrated in the east of the county in a few manufacturing towns. The manufacturers do not desire partial exemption, and although the opinion of the working people is not yet on a level with that of their leaders in respect to this matter, I am informed that if the practice was abolished there would probably be the same acquiescence which followed the raising of the half-time age.
It is unnecessary to dwell on the injurious effect of mill work on these children or on the schools which they attend. The evidence on this subject is overwhelming, and is only disputed by a few interested in upholding the system. The effect on the schools is also bad; either the other scholars in the class are kept back while the half-timers learn their work, or if the class goes forward at the pace of the full-timers the half-timers are unable to follow the lessons. The inability of the half-timer to profit by school teaching is especially noticed when he goes to the mill in the morning and attends school in the afternoon. The evidence before the Departmental Committee showed that employers do not desire this partial exemption; the demand comes from the parents who are unwilling to relinquish this accustomed source of income. But certainly the prosperity of the trade does not demand it. In many of the newer mills no half-timers are employed. Nor does the work of the half-timer lead, as a rule, to adult employment in the same trade, and in many cases the work done by the half-timer is no preparation or training for adult work. In a few cases it may be, but not as a rule. The evidence also showed that the amount of manual skill acquired by the half-timer required a very short period of work. On the whole it may be safely affirmed that while, there are many operatives in the textile towns who would not willingly give
744
up their right to make money out of their children before the age of fourteen, yet if the law were changed it would come quite quietly and easily into operation; the population would very soon be reconciled to the change which the more thoughtful leaders among the working-class Would welcome now. I may say that when the law enabled local authorities to raise the age of exemption from thirteen to fourteen, that change, which was far more extensive, took effect quite easily, and in London no difficulty or friction occurred but the whole population accepted cheerfully the new obligation. The whole system is one the need of which has long passed away. Germany and Switzerland do not find it necessary to have a half-time system. It cannot be justified on the ground that the children's earnings are indispensable to the parents, because, as I have said, the need of the parents in the districts where half-time prevails is often less than that of parents in other parts of the country.
One recommendation of the Departmental Committee would make a material change in many towns—namely, the abolition of exemption from school attendance on the ground of previous attendance. In many districts this attendance exemption leads to the bulk of scholars leaving soon after thirteen years of age, I am rather surprised that the great town of Leeds should allow practically the bulk of the children by previous attendance to escape from school at the age of thirteen. In Leeds nineteen per cent. of the children remain between thirteen and fourteen years of age; in Sheffield, twenty-five per cent.; in Salford, twenty-one per cent.; in Oldham, twenty-one per cent.; and in Preston, twenty-four per cent. In these towns more than three-fourths of the children escape from school through exemption on the ground of previous attendance. The experience of the districts which have not enacted the by-law shows that it is quite easy to secure the attendance of nearly all the, scholars up to fourteen. Of course, where there is real poverty and urgent necessity in the family, the local authority use a reasonable discretion in enforcing their by-laws. I will not trouble your Lordships with the evidence, but it was very strong as showing how impossible it is for these children as a rule to profit by the continuation school. Some of them go to a continuation school, and you find a few exceptional instances of wonderful

745
industry and force which enable a picked few to go ahead in spite of their disadvantages; but the evidence was clear that in these northern towns those children who have been half-timers are for the most part unable to profit by the further instruction which everyone now sees is quite necessary between the ages of fourteen and eighteen to make our rising generation grow up fit citizens.
I now pass from the question of partial exemption and the recommendations of the Departmental Committee to what I think is quite as important a matter—the recommendations of the Consultative Committee regarding continuation schools. Everyone connected with schools now sees that it is on the intermediate career of young persons between leaving the day school and growing up into manhood that the future of this nation depends. As we can interest them in good continuation schools so we shall form the characters of the young people of the future. By means of boys' clubs, boy scouts, and girls' clubs everyone is endeavouring to get hold of these young people at the impressionable age. The continuation school is one of the most important instruments for the purpose of helping them and keeping them from going to the bad. The Consultative Committee went further than I am able to invite your Lordships to go to-night. Not that I am not in sympathy with their recommendations, but I am going bona fide to assume the character of a moderate and a rather conservative person in this discussion. I do not want this House to outrun public opinion. I am not saying that in five years we may not be ripe for all the recommendations of the Consultative Committee, but for the moment I merely desire to take one or two of their suggestions for which I think we are absolutely ripe.
Many of the recommendations of the Consultative Committee do not require legislation at all. They begin by recommending an improvement in the day school by reducing the size of the classes, by increasing the proportion of qualified teachers, and, in addition to other changes, by at once abolishing all partial exemption under the age of thirteen and in a short time securing the attendance of scholars, with one or two slight allowances, up to the age of fourteen. As to increasing the proportion of qualified teachers and diminishing the size of the classes, that is within the power of every
746
local authority. The Board of Education can by the Code enforce it, and the new Code is doing a great deal in both of these directions. The proposals of the Committee which would require, statutory enactment comprise recommendations that local authorities should be compelled to provide continuation schools and empowered to make by-laws making attendance at such schools compulsory up to the age of seventeen years. I do not think the time is ripe for carrying out the latter proposal. A similar provision was made in the Scottish Educational Act of last year; but none of the great towns of Scotland have exercised the power to make such by-laws, and I am informed that none of them contemplate doing so. It is a curious and interesting fact that the one place which has made a proposal of the kind is the rural parish of Ecclefechan, the birthplace of Carlyle, showing that the genius of resolute, earnest study and tearing out the heart of things survives in that neighbourhood. I think myself that we shall do well to wait in England until the large towns in Scotland have adopted such by-laws and until we have seen how they work. Therefore I exclude from my recommendations to you the proposal for power to compel the attendance of young people up to the age of seventeen. If local authorities were empowered to establish such schools and to make, them attractive and interesting, I believe much might be done without compulsion.
We are, I think, ripe for the obligation on the local authority to establish continuation schools where they are needed. I would say, as to this proposition, that it should be enforced with moderation. Before a locality or individuals interested could demand, or the Board of Education impose the duty of providing, a continuation school there should be evidence, of a demand on behalf of, say, not less than fifteen pupils in a rural district, and not less than thirty pupils in an urban district for such a school. Concurrently with this obligation there should be a statutory subsidy where schools are opened providing for the payment out of a Parliamentary grant of one-half of the cost of maintenance of such schools up to an amount per head to be ascertained on the basis of the cost as worked out in fact under similar conditions.
A great mistake was made a few years ago when ordinary evening schools, as

747
distinguished from technical schools, were treated as part of the system of secondary education. There should be two forms of continuation schools, and those which form the necessary supplement of ordinary day schools should be under the management of the authority controlling elementary education. These schools would be so intimately connected with the elementary school by the use of the buildings, services of the teachers, and immediate transference of scholars from the elementary school, that in the smaller urban areas the two managements should be identified. In counties the cost, like that of the elementary schools, should be a county charge. Possibly it might also be well to continue school obligation in the day school up to fifteen for those who are not suitably employed. There is much to be said in the case of girls for making this instruction largely connected with domestic training, and possibly of a half-time character. The wider proposals for enabling local authorities to enact compulsory bylaws for attendance at evening school might stand over until we had seen the effect of the milder provisions I suggest, and until we could see how far the new powers of the Scottish Act are used and how they work. I am content in England to wait upon the experience and progressive action of Scotland. I could only wish that our authorities were more ready to follow Scotland's example where it is shown to have succeeded.
I may notice that even now the difficulty of establishing continuation schools in rural districts has not been found insurmountable. The Departmental Committee report that in Bedfordshire, Cornwall, Kesteven, Cardiganshire—all rural counties—there is at least one continuation school to every three public elementary schools, and the number of scholars in the evening schools is comparable with many of the urban enrolments. In Cambridgeshire, according to Mr. Keen, the secretary of the Education Committee, out of 130 parishes 100 had evening schools though the official figures do not confirm this statement. But if we are to make real progress in securing further study on the part of our industrial population after they leave the day school, I am sure that the following conditions are essential—(1) greater State aid; (2) the schools should be free, or at least the fee should be returned to scholars who make a reasonable number of
748
attendances; (3) great liberty should be left to the local authority and also to the local committees as to the subjects taught; there should be no limitation of the freedom of the scholars to take one or more subjects, and we should rather consult the desires of the scholars than our own general notions as to enforcing any one subject rather than another.
Moreover, the recreative element should be introduced—singing, gymnastics, dancing, magic lantern lessons, anything to attract somewhat sluggish and weary young people to the school. Where a school can be started in connection with a club so much the better. The young people's club might be a feature of every parish, town and county, and the managers of the club would be valuable co-operators in pushing and popularising the evening school. I am sure that at the present day one of the most valuable improvements we can make in our national education is the preserving of what has been learnt and the utilising of the school knowledge by means of cheerful instruction carried through the critical years from fourteen to seventeen. To do this we want the community, through its official agency of the education committee, to furnish the teaching and the equipment, but we want every local voluntary force that exists for the welfare of the population to be called in as helpers, to enlist the sympathy of those who are to be taught and of employers and all others who control or influence these young people. It is, then, to the free life of the locality, both the wider life of the county and the town as a whole and the more restricted activities of the parish, that I look for the real impulse. The State should find a large part of the means, but should not try from Whitehall to be over wise or too directive in controlling the wisdom and action of those who are administering the work throughout the country.
Moved to resolve, "That in the opinion of this House, it is desirable that legislative effect should be given to the recommendations of the Departmental Committee on Partial Exemption from school attendance, and that a statutory obligation should be imposed on local education authorities to provide, where it is reasonably practicable, continuation schools, and that provision be also made by Statute to aid substantially from Parliamentary funds the cost of such schools."—(Lord Sheffield.)
THE LORD BISHOP OF SOUTHWARK: My Lords, I think we shall agree that the noble Lord has added to his long roll of services to education by the speech which he has just delivered. I do not think we have any happier experience than when the noble Lord is able for a time to lay aside the controversial side of his position on these matters and to come before us with his instructive thoughts and in the character of one, I suppose, of the greatest living authorities on the whole matter of public education, and perhaps the greatest authority in this House. I may take the opportunity of saying that the most rev. Primate desired me to express this evening his regret that an ecclesiastical engagement of a peremptory character, which will be seen in the newspapers to-morrow morning, absolutely forbade him from being here. The most rev. Primate felt it his duty to break a lance last night with the noble Lord. All the more, therefore, would he have desired to be here tonight to give the noble Lord the cordial support which he certainly would have given. I think, further, we shall agree that the noble Lord has fully justified his claim to appear before us this evening as a moderate reformer. He has shown us that he sees that beyond the lines which he indicates for present action there is, perhaps now and certainly in a little while, more to do, and I think we shall admit that he has restrained himself within quite a limited province.
There are two parts in the noble Lord's Motion. First of all, he grounds himself upon the Report of the Departmental Committee on Partial Exemption. When We look at those excellent recommendations there is very much that we are glad to see, and which would be a gain. The noble Lord dealt in a very skilful manner with the whole question of half-time, and we are glad to feel that this rather dismal controversy is apparently drawing to its close. But when we come to the matter of the total exemption which may still be granted at the age of thirteen, I cannot help expressing my regret that the Committee have not felt themselves strong enough, for I assume that they desired it, to make attendance at a continuation school the only ground for total exemption. They do make attendance at a continuation school the ordinary condition of total exemption, but the authority may adopt as an alternative condition the passing of a standard
750
not lower than the sixth. I do not know what was in their minds when they made that qualification, but whether or no they are right in making it, I think we shall agree that it is regrettable if such a qualification has to be made, because what is the effect of it? The effect is that if a boy by thirteen years of age has reached Standard VI, then we are, certainly not without regret but without any practical protest, to allow him to drop out of education altogether. As the noble Lord has said, it is one of the greatest evils at the present time in this matter of education, that those upon whom we have spent so much money, upon whom the teachers have spent so much in pains, upon whom the parents have in a way spent so much in wages not earned, go out after the age of thirteen and constantly lose, as there is abundant evidence to show, the greater part of what they have learnt. Of course, if they have reached a higher standard there is less likelihood of their losing it, but the danger is real.
The noble Lord, in the latter part of his Motion, passes away from that particular Report, and he would compel local authorities everywhere to provide continuation schools. I should think that would be excellent. But the most anxious and important question about these schools will be, what scholars will go into them. I cannot but feel—perhaps I am an extreme reformer compared with the noble Lord!—that the day cannot be far distant when we shall have as a nation to apply pressure upon young people in the years that follow the age of thirteen and fourteen to be educated; or, as I would prefer to put it, we shall as a nation have to surround those young people with safeguards against the pressure which prevents their continuing their education. Are there not some rather anxious features about this? I trust that the noble Earl will correct me if I am wrong on this or on any other point, but I believe that evening schools at present tend to decline rather than to go up. Certainly they have not made the large progress which we should have hoped. The suggestions referred to by the noble Lord with regard to making evening schools more attractive in their character are probably mere expedients which people have been devising in order to try and overcome that difficulty. But it is not a question only of quantity. It seems almost a more important matter

751
still that only a small percentage of those who attend the evening schools are children of unskilled labourers; that is to say, the class which demands from us most of our sympathy, which causes us most of our anxiety, which economically and nationally in all ways is our crux—that class is the one which is getting comparatively very little benefit from continuation schools. Therefore this is the class whose present defective educational condition is going to be prolonged. Those are the children that we most particularly want to get into continuation schools. We can imagine reasonable parents, themselves unskilled and having encountered all the difficulties which beset unskilled labour, saying that they want their sons to get on better than they have done themselves. We can imagine them saying, "I cannot get my boy to go to the continuation school. I wish to goodness the powers that be would help me by making it a rule that he should do so." I believe that things are moving in that direction. I saw an account of an interesting experiment not long ago in America—I think it was in the town of Chicago—where employers had made a move voluntarily in the direction of allowing their younger employés to have half their time off in order that they should enjoy the advantage of continuation schools. The noble Lord (Lord Sheffield) informs me that some employers are doing that in England too. That follows the line of most promise, because everyone knows that the great difficulty about anything like compulsory attendance at continuation schools is that when a lad has had the vital force taken out of him by a hard day's labour he has not much to give in the continuation school, and you may injure his health by compelling him to attend. But in such cases as I have referred to, where employers consent to allow their junior employés to have half their time off, they make in that way two boys count for one. We are abolishing—at least we hope we shall abolish—half-time exemption from school under the age of thirteen. I myself feel very much that we shall have to go on to a new kind of half-time exemption—not half-time exemption from school for the sake of work, but half-time exemption later from work for the sake of school, in order that young people may continue the education which they have received and get a training which will carry them forward into the ranks of skilled labour.
752
The last word I desire to say is upon the importance of what may contribute to that result. Directly we deal with an education question here, however skilled the speaker may be, we are landed at once in what appear to be a number of technicalities. No one feels more than the noble Lord, as his concluding sentences show, that what on one side sounds technical is on the other side the most vital question before the nation. I think I can speak for a good many people of different sorts, all of them actively and intelligently employed upon the work of dealing with the young people of this country, when I say this has got to be more and more urgently felt as the thing with which we must deal. Both Reports of the Poor Law Commission have set this on high as the prominent object of public attention. It is so everywhere. The response to that is coming, I think, from all sides. Incidentally I cannot help feeling a little proud and pleased that the religious bodies of this country have, to their honour, one and all contributed to the care of those who are in the critical years between fourteen and eighteen; and now, as so often happens, it is suggested that all this voluntary work may fall in and be combined in different ways with what can be done under public authorities. Let no one imagine that we are dealing here with technical points. We are dealing with the draining away of the vital force of the nation. I do not mean merely the physical force in their limbs; I mean the power which is in growing lads by which they may be made efficient citizens, and which is the highest asset the community possesses.
THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORD: My Lords, I desire to support the contention of the noble Lord which has been so strongly supported by my brother Bishop. Having been engaged in the education of the young for the greater part of my life, I have of necessity been led to feel that legislation of this kind is long overdue. It seems to most of those who are actively doing work in the education of the young that it is both most wasteful and even absurd that we should continue to allow the great mass of our children to leave the elementary schools at the early age of thirteen and drift we know not whither, to grow up through all the most critical years of early life without any certain discipline or instruction or those higher

753
influences which tend to make the good man and the true citizen. I have been led to feel over and over again that it is really absurd that we should allow the great bulk of our children thus to drift away from all the higher influences of life at the very time when your Lordships are sending your sons to Eton or some other public school for the best part of their education.
In supporting the contention of the noble Lord, my only regret is that he did not go a step further with the Consultative Committee. He urges that it should be made obligatory for local authorities to establish, wherever they seem to be required, continuation classes or schools. It seems to me to be only reasonable that, if we impose that duty on the local authorities, we should at the same time give them the power to see that the expenses incurred and the organisation set on foot should be really made use of by those for whom they are intended. They should be enabled to make by-laws obliging the children of their district to attend these classes or schools during a certain period. I myself have felt this so long that five or six years ago I ventured to introduce into your Lordships' House a Continuation School Bill. At that time the noble Marquess opposite was Lord President, and he did not see his way to give any support to that Bill. But I venture to think that during the last few years public opinion has advanced very much in this respect, and we are all thankful to see what a great impetus has been given to the progress of public opinion in this and other matters by the admirable Report of the Poor Law Commission. I sincerely hope that the measures for which my noble friend has pleaded so well to-night may be very shortly taken in hand. I hope that at the same time it may be found that public opinion is sufficiently advanced to go even one step further and to make attendance at continuation schools or some kind of training for life obligatory on our growing lads up to the age of seventeen or eighteen, so as to save them at this critical period from all the risks of an undisciplined youth.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF CREWE): My Lords, the Lord President, to whom it would naturally have fallen to take part
754
in this debate, is not able to be in his place. In these circumstances I hope my noble friend will excuse me if it is with brevity that I deal with the important and interesting question raised by him. I heartily concur in what has fallen from other speakers, that we are always glad when my noble friend, speaking as he does with unique authority, gives us the advantage of his knowledge of this subject in such a debate as this.
Of the two parts into which my noble friend's Motion is divided I will first say a a few words on what is called partial exemption, or more familiarly half-time. I have no doubt that my noble friend, like many other educational enthusiasts, would have desired, if he had thought he was not going too far ahead of public opinion, to stop exemption altogether up to the age of fourteen; but he felt, and his colleagues on the Committee undoubtedly felt also, that it was useless to attempt more than public opinion would support. They therefore made the suggestion to which the right rev. Prelate the Bishop of Southwark alluded. As regards half-time exemption, I think my noble friend is justified in saying that public opinion has advanced in the direction of abolishing half-time altogether. There can be no doubt that whenever its abolition takes place some employers would consider that they had a grievance. There would be, perhaps, even more parents of children who might be half-timers who will resent the loss of the small sums earned by those children. But, speaking generally, I think my noble friend is justified in his contention.
I feel that the one argument which used to be advanced with some force in favour of the half-time system has been swept away by the Report of the Committee. If it could be maintained that the half-time system was a kind of substitute for apprenticeship, and that those children who were subjected to it proceeded by an easy stage to undertake their life's work in the trade in which they had been half-timers, even at some sacrifice of education it might be maintained, the organisation of labour being so difficult as it is, that there is something to be said for half-time. But my noble friend has shown, I think very clearly, that this is not the case. It is not the fact that in the textile trades the half-time children

755
proceed by a sort of labour ladder to become regular workers in the trade, and in those circumstances I think we must feel that the case for the half-time system has practically altogether vanished.
Then my noble friend dealt with the rural side of the question, and I think the House must have listened with great interest to what fell from him on the subject. At the time that what was known as Robson's Act was passed—the effect of which, as your Lordships know, was practically to allow a child to do most of his schooling in the winter and be therefore able to undertake agricultural labour in the summer months—high hopes were entertained that that might operate in some degree as a solution of the problem. But my noble friend has pointed out that this Act has been very little used, and where it has been used it has not apparently been found to serve its purpose. That, I think, is a disappointing fact in itself, because this rural problem is something more than an educational problem. It is not merely a problem of teaching the children in the schools at one time and allowing them to work at another. It is a problem of giving them the kind of education in the rural schools which should induce them to remain on the land, and I think it was hoped that this form of the half-time system might assist in the object which we all desire to promote. If it cannot be assisted in that way, we must hope that it may be assisted in other ways—namely, by changes from time to time as may be found necessary in the curriculum of rural schools, in perhaps a still larger attention to various forms of technical training which may be later on applied to an agricultural life, and by expedients of that kind. But I am bound to say that, so far as the half-time system or any application of it to rural life is concerned, I think that my noble friend has again shown that it is of no very great value.
I pass to the second part of my noble friend's Motion—to the question of continuation schools, which, as he has reminded us, are by no means in all cases properly to be described as secondary schools as that term is generally understood. My noble friend stated, with some pride, that on this subject he was playing the part of the moderate man. That has, indeed, proved to be the case, because those who have spoken from the right rev.
756
Bench have shown themselves in this matter more advanced than he is. What my noble friend asks is that the provision of some form of continuation school should be made compulsory on the local education authority where a demand exists, the demand to be proved by the existence of a certain number of scholars wishing to attend the school. I confess I do not feel quite sure that the passing of a Statute of that kind would have in itself a very far-reaching effect. My noble friend will correct me if I am wrong, but I am under the impression that the greater part of the local education authorities do now make provision of a kind for continuation schools. It really, therefore, comes to this, that it is not so much a question of merely saying that the local education authority must open, if required, a continuation school or class; it is not so much a question of merely ordaining that the local education authority should open a school or class, as the sort of obligations or regulations in reference to that school which you are to impose on the local authority.
I confess myself I should be very sorry—and this also, I believe, is the view of my right hon. friend—altogether to close the door to the idea of instituting in England and Wales the same kind of local option which was applied in the Scottish Act of 1908. The noble Lord told us that permissory power to enforce the attendance of scholars at continuation schools has not been used in Scotland so far; but the time has been very short, and I am not quite sure that there are not special circumstances which have caused some delay in the matter in the minds of some of the principal Scottish local authorities. Therefore I do not believe myself that we should be proceeding ahead at any rate of better public opinion if we were to institute some similar form of local option in this country. I am sure that in saying that my noble friend will not quarrel with me in any way. It is merely that he fears that the power may not be used. I quite agree that, speaking as a general rule, it is undesirable to confer upon local authorities or upon any administrative body optional powers of a nature which they are not inclined to use. It has been pointed out, so far as compulsory attendance is concerned, that there are several large and important firms who practically make it a condition that youths in their employment should attend continuation schools, and something of

757
the same kind is being done by the Post Office. As matters now stand, I take it that it is only possible for very large and well-known firms, into whose service young men are particularly anxious to enter, to make an obligation of that kind. So far as the smaller employers are concerned it would, no doubt, be difficult for them on grounds of expense, and each man would feel that he was doing something that he was not obliged to do—sacrificing something, perhaps, which his neighbour was not prepared to sacrifice.
My Lords, on the general question I agree most heartily with what fell from the right rev. Prelate the Bishop of Southwark as to the supreme importance of what happens to the youth of England after they leave the elementary schools. The right rev. Prelate alluded to both of the Reports of the Poor Law Commission. Certainly those who were responsible for those Reports have in no way under-estimated the gravity of this question, I do not know any feature in our national life at this moment which ought to make us feel more thoroughly uncomfortable than the fact of this perpetual waste of power and of money which is going on by the blind alley, as it is called, into which so many of these young people enter after they leave the elementary school. In one point the Board of Education are anxious to assist, and it is a direction in which I think something practical may be done. It is, I admit, only a palliative, but still it is of some service. That is to say, to bring the school authorities into communication with those who desire to employ young people when they leave school—to institute a sort of information agency, or, if you like to call it so, a juvenile labour exchange, in each case, through which boys when they leave school may be tempted to undertake some employment which would be of a permanent character, and not slide so easily as they do into various forms of temporary employment which lead to nothing, and which, when they come to an end, leave the youth or young man, as he then is, unskilled in any useful trade, and almost certain before long to join the ranks of the unemployed. If noble Lords refer to the Scottish Act of two years ago they will see that a somewhat similar provision exists there of establishing these information agencies, and I understand that the Board of Education are about to issue an important
758
circular on the subject for the benefit of this country.
It is, of course, impossible for a Minister, when he speaks on a subject like this, not to draw attention to the fact that most of these improvements must mean a great deal of money. My noble friend behind me is well aware of that. He has indicated that it would be proper for Parliament when dealing with this question to tell the local authorities that it is prepared to pay half the cost which may be involved. I am afraid it is not very often the custom of the Treasury to undertake to pay half the cost of anything without knowing pretty clearly what that cost is likely to be, and I am afraid that, whatever contribution may be made from public funds, it is not likely to take the form of offering to pay half of an expenditure the gross amount of which is to be fixed by somebody else. But, short of that, I think it is quite evident that the cost of this education, semi-secondary if you like to call it so or in some cases secondary, will have partly to be met by contributions from the funds of the nation. It is too heavy a burden for the local authorities to bear alone. Upon that we should all be agreed. If you are going to institute a system of compulsory continuation schools for 1,500,000 or 2,000,000 of young people, it must mean a vast expenditure. I do not say that the expenditure would be wasted. Indeed, I conceive it might be necessary. If you can show that unless you undertake at any rate a considerable expenditure the enormous amount which you are expending upon elementary education is in some degree wasted, that, of course, is a strong argument for making your elementary education expenditure fruitful by going a little further. But we know that all those arguments, excellent though they are, do not always appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He has to think of balancing his accounts, and although every Chancellor of the Exchequer, to whatever Party he belongs, would sympathise with the objects of such expenditure as this, he is not able, in the particular position which he fills, to look at ultimate results to such an extent as many of us desire to do. But, subject to that, I can assure my noble friend that his objects have the sympathy of His Majesty's Government, and I hope that when it is found possible to put forward a legislative project on the subject in the main at any

759
rate the provisions which he desires to see inserted in an Act of Parliament may be found to form part of the proposed measure.
THE EARL OF MEATH: My Lords, I desire to express my great pleasure at having heard such a very sympathetic reply from the noble Earl the Leader of the House to the Resolution moved by the noble Lord. I am certain that many of your Lordships have for years felt, as I have, that one of the greatest dangers to our country is the fact that we allow our children to leave school at the age of thirteen, and that all the money expended upon them up to that age is in many cases lost to the country. Many of them after that age really forget for a time how to read and write, and if we are going to make our education of real use to the country and to place ourselves on a par with other nations, it is absolutely necessary that we should turn our attention to the subject brought before us by the noble Lord, and strain every effort to have these continuation schools made as far compulsory as possible. I fully admit that it is impossible for us to go in advance of public opinion; but I have some knowledge of what those are thinking who are interested in educational matters, and I am convinced that the public opinion of the present day, so far as those classes are concerned, is entirely in favour of the noble Lord. I have only lately returned from a long voyage. I visited many countries, and it is always a grief to me to feel when I come home that our young people are the only people in the world amongst civilised nations who have not the opportunity of continuing their education up to the age of sixteen, seventeen, and even eighteen. It is one of the great dangers which I fear to the Empire, that our young people are not being trained in the same efficient manner as the younger generations of other countries. I thank the noble Earl for his sympathetic reply, and also the noble Lord for having brought such an important subject to the notice of your Lordships' House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COUNTY COMMON JURIES BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
GLASGOW UNIVERSITY (CHAIR OF CLINICAL MEDICINE AND CHAIR OF CLINICAL SURGERY) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.] (No. 36.)
A Bill to confirm a Provisional Order relating to Glasgow University (Chair of Clinical Medicine and Chair of Clinical Surgery):
ST. MUNGO'S COLLEGE ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.] (No. 37.)
A Bill to confirm a Provisional Order relating to St. Mungo's College: and

MUIRHEAD TRUST ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.] (No. 38.)
A Bill to confirm a Provisional Order relating to the Muirhead Trust:
Were presented by the Lord Pentland (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, sections 8 and 9); read 1a, and to be printed.

THE HOUSE AND GOVERNMENT BILLS.
THE EARL OF DARTMOUTH: My Lords, I rise to ask His Majesty's Government whether they will grant a Return stating—

1. The number of Bills brought before the House of Lords, whether introduced in that House or the House of Commons, from 1906 to the present time.

2. The number of such Bills passed by the House of Lords.

3. The number and titles of such Bills, which having been before the House of Lords, were dropped by His Majesty's Government.

4. The number and title of such Bills rejected by the House of Lords.

I have ventured to ask for a Return which seems to me to be of very great importance, and as there exists some little misunderstanding as to what precisely I ask for, perhaps I may be allowed a short time in which to explain.
In the first place, I would like to point out that what I refer to are public Bills. One of the principal reasons given for the destruction of what is known as the Lords' Veto is the unfair treatment that Liberal measures are supposed to receive at our hands. This is a very grave charge, and in view of what is before us I think it is desirable than an official statement should be given showing what we have actually done. We have had

761
experience of the difference between general statements and particular statements. The former, of course, are not always very easy to meet, but the experience we have had of the particular statements that have been made against individuals is that almost in every case there are important omissions, and often gross misrepresentation, which entirely alter the character of the charge that is made, and refutation is a simple and easy matter. Perhaps I might be allowed to state my own experience.
Your Lordships will remember that there was a campaign of Peers during the last General Election in which many of your Lordships took a not inglorious part. I was one of those who took part in that campaign, and I am bound to own that the exaggerations which I met with made my position one of considerable difficulty. Take the many decorative posters that offended the artistic eye during the whole of that campaign. In localities where a peer was known it did not very much matter, because the people knew what to expect and were not disappointed; but in localities where Peers were not known there was a considerable amount of disappointment when the audiences realised the difference between a Peer in the flesh and a Peer on the posters, and I think many of them were inclined to agree with the description of this House which was given by Mr. Redmond. Speaking soon after the Prime Minister spoke at the Albert Hall, he referred to the fact that for the first time for over a century the Nationalists had the best opportunity they had had of trampling on and tearing up the Act of Union, and the only obstacle in the way were three or four hundred common-place, obscure, unrepresentative old gentlemen. The audiences on those occasions would always listen to what one had to say, and while they could judge for themselves of the exaggerations in the posters they felt that there might possibly be an equal amount of exaggeration in the picture of the Peer as painted by the speakers on the platform. I should like to take this opportunity of recording my own experience with regard to those who differed from my political opinions in the audiences I addressed. I had occasion to address audiences sometimes consisting of a majority of those opposed to me in politics, and in no single instance did I fail to meet with courtesy and fair play.
762
What is it we are charged with? In the first place, we are told that our motives are always mean, selfish, and sordid. The attribution of motives is not a very powerful argument, because, obviously, no one knows our motives but ourselves, and if others accuse us of sordid and selfish motives we can imagine where they get their ideas from. Then we are supposed always to be opposed to progress. That is absolutely untrue, and for proof that it is untrue you have only to compare the Statute Book of to-day with the Statute Book as it was on the accession of the late Queen Victoria. I will undertake to say that in no country during a period of the same time has there been so much social progress, so much improvement in the conditions and in the welfare of the people, as has taken place in that time in this country. When I was a Member of the House of Commons it was an interesting controversy between the two parties as to which Party was responsible for these measures of improvement; and while I do not propose to argue that point now I think I can safely say that the Unionist Party have no need to be ashamed of its share. But no matter which Party has the credit for the inception of those measures, your Lordships have the credit of having passed all of them.
Then we are told that we set ourselves against the will of the people. That is not true either. We always endeavour to carry out the wishes of the people, but we always like to make certain what really is the will of the people. It is a remarkable fact that when in 1906 a large majority of the electors supported the Liberal Party, they were then supposed to show great intelligence and political integrity; but when, after four years experience of a Liberal Government, they changed their opinions and voted the other way in large numbers, then we are told that it is beer in the boroughs and feudalism in the counties. The reason of the change, my Lords, is neither beer, feudalism, plural voting, nor undue influence. We say that the reason for the change is to be found in the disappointment felt by the electors at the failure of the Government to carry out the lavish promises made at the last election and distrust of the methods employed.
Again we are told that we are the lethal chamber of Liberal legislation, and if

763
I am granted the Return for which I ask, we shall have all these matters definitely shown to the public. If this House is the lethal chamber of Liberal legislation, at any rate the death rate is not a very heavy one. There was a letter written by Lord Avebury the other day in which he quoted from an article in the Fortnightly Review, from the pen of a Liberal, in which it was stated that 236 measures had passed the House of Commons and of these 232 had also been passed by the House of Lords. Therefore in view of the difference between these two estimates it is of very great importance that we should have a definite and official statement as to what actually has taken place. We cannot forget that there are great changes promised in the future the result of which no one can foretell. If those changes are to come, I maintain that they should not be produced by vague general charges incapable of substantiation, but that, in fairness to your Lordships and in the general interests of the country, the facts should be fairly placed before the electors.
THE EARL OF CREWE: My Lords, I hope the noble Earl will not press for this Return. As the guardians of the paper and ink of this House, we are bound, I think, to consider what the real value of such a Return as this would be. The noble Earl devoted a considerable part of his speech to matters which he would be the first to admit do not directly concern this House—namely, what he describes as the exaggerations and misrepresentations which accompany electioneering campaigns—although I am glad to know that he himself always met with the cordial reception which I am confident, knowing something of the neighbourhood in which the noble Earl lives, would be certain to meet him everywhere. But when you come to this particular Return, would it have any real meaning or value? As I understand, the noble Earl's one argument in favour of granting the Return is that if it is possible to show that you have passed two or three hundred Bills and have only rejected four or five, then the case as to undue harshness in regard to Liberal legislation is disposed of. Is that so? I will put a parallel to the noble Earl. His return for some reason only goes back to 1906. I think the starting point ought to have been 1895. He would find that during the years 1895 to 1906 no Bill coming from the House of
764
Commons was rejected in your Lordships' House.
THE EARL OF DARTMOUTH: That is just the reason I did not ask for the Return from that year. I knew there were none.
THE EARL OF CREWE: Supposing during that whole time only three Bills had been thrown out by this House, and those three Bills had been the Education Bill of 1902, the Irish Land Bill of 1903, and the Licensing Bill of 1904. It is quite true that an enormous preponderance of Bills brought up from the House of Commons would have been passed by your Lordships' House, but the result would have been that no important measure of the then Government would have been allowed to pass into law. My argument, therefore, is that the purely numerical test is an absolutely misleading one. If it is of any value to the noble Earl to say at one of his public meetings that the House of Lords passed 300 Bills and only threw out four, he can say it. I do not think it is a very difficult argument to dispose of, or that it really meets the gravamen of the charge brought against your Lordships' House. Therefore I do not think that such a Return would have any real value, and in view of the fact that it would be actually misleading I must ask the noble Earl to be good enough not to press for it.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I was rather surprised when I heard the noble Earl who leads the House express his unwillingness to grant the Return asked for by my noble friend. If it had been a difficult and expensive Return to compile I could have understood his opposing the request, but I take it that the preparation of these figures would be an extremely simple matter. The noble Earl complains that my noble friend only desires to carry the Return back to the year 1906, but I think there is an excellent reason for which my noble friend adopted that limit of time. It is constantly stated by the friends and supporters of the Government that the last four years during which they have been in office have been years of humiliation to them—that is the usual expression—years during which their position has become intolerable owing to the practice of this House in throwing out Government measures. That is a charge which my noble friend wishes to disprove, and he says, I think naturally enough,

765
that it is impossible to disprove it unless you have authentic and official figures to which you can appeal. I admit, as the noble Earl has said, that a purely numerical test is not by itself conclusive. Supposing this Return were to be produced, everyone who studied it would, of course, have to distinguish between small, trivial, and unimportant measures and measures of an opposite character. The noble Earl would find, however, that this House has not only accepted the passing, but done a great deal to facilitate the passing, of a considerable number of measures of great importance promoted by His Majesty's Government, measures which at some points might have been expected to tread upon the toes of the particular class to which your Lordships are supposed to belong. I do not know whether, after the objection of the noble Earl, my noble friend will press for this Return. But I must say that if the Return is refused we shall draw our own conclusions, and when my noble friend reappears on the public platform I fancy he will be much tempted to comment on the manner in which this very useful information is being withheld from the House.
THE EARL OF DARTMOUTH: My Lords, after what has fallen from the noble Earl and the noble Marquess it is not my intention to press for this Return, but I should like to endorse what has fallen from my noble friend Lord Lansdowne. I quite realise that a numerical test is of no value at all, but as one of my requests was that the Return should give the names and titles of the Bills so rejected, obviously everyone would be able to form his own conclusion as to the importance of a particular measure. I am sorry we are not to have this Return, but after what has been said I will not press for it.

THE ANGLO-RUSSIAN CONVENTION.
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, I rise to ask His Majesty's Government how far the Anglo-Russian Convention of 1899 affects the proposal to build a railway from Chinchow to Aigun. The Convention lays down that this country engages not to seek for any railway concession north of the Great Wall of China in return for a similar undertaking by Russia in the Yangtsze Valley. In November last I drew attention in this House to the fact that Russian financiers had intimated their intention of
766
participating in railway enterprise in the Yangtsze Valley, and I asked whether, in those circumstances, British subjects were still debarred from enterprise north of the Great Wall. The noble Earl the Leader of the House, in a reply couched in language all too kind to me, stated that the proposed participation by Russians did not appear to contravene the terms of the Anglo-Russian Convention, and he went on to add that" His Majesty's Government did not anticipate that British participation in railway enterprises north of the Great Wall of China on similar terms to those on which the Russians were engaged in the Yangtsze Valley would occasion any protest on the part of the Russian Government."
Since that time there appears to have been some change in the policy of His Majesty's Government, for on March 23 the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, replying to a Question in another place, said—
"In the matter of the Chinchow-Aigun Railway, in which His Majesty's Government have been pressed to take an active part, they are unable to do so as they are bound to pay some regard to the provisions of the Anglo-Russian Agreement of 1899, which has never formally teen abrogated."
I am advised that the terms under which it is proposed to construct this railway north of the Great Wall are considerably more favourable to China than are the terms under which Russian financiers propose to construct the railway in the Yangtsze Valley. If His Majesty's Government are of opinion that the Russian loan in the Yangtsze Valley does not contravene the terms of the Agreement, then the proposal to construct this railway north of the Great Wall would not appear to do so either. What is sauce for Russia in the Yangtsze Valley should be sauce for Great Britain north of the Great Wall. There appears to be some feeling that this country is being made the catspaw of Japan in regard to Manchuria and Mongolia. That is not a question into which I propose to enter at the present moment. But I trust that His Majesty's Government will make it clear that, so far from backing up those who oppose the construction of this railway, they will take at any rate as active a part in promoting the enterprise of British subjects north of the Great Wall as the Russian Government have done in the matter of the enterprise of Russian financiers in regard to the railway in the Yangtsze

767
Valley, and that it is not to be the open-door policy in the Yangtsze Valley and the spheres of influence policy north of the Great Wall, but the same policy in both regions.
THE EARL OF CREWE: The noble Earl has stated quite correctly the purpose of the Agreement of 1899. The proposed Chinchow-Aigun Railway would begin north of the Great Wall, and, therefore, at first sight might seem to fall within the scope of the Agreement; but it is, of course, also true that China proposes to construct the line, and therefore, in a strict sense, it might be argued that this particular line does not fall within the terms of the Agreement. If it does not fall within the letter of the Agreement His Majesty's Government think that it certainly does fall within its spirit, because the Russian Government have intimated to us that on strategical and economic grounds generally they consider themselves interested in the scheme for the line. When the noble Earl compares the two spheres it must be remembered that this line runs right up to the Russian frontier, and I believe actually crosses the Russian railway. The Government have been pressed to take an active part in the matter because British contractors are interested in it; and it is only this regard to the spirit of the Anglo-Russian Agreement which in our opinion forbids us to do so. But it would be altogether a misapprehension to say that in doing this we are running counter to the British or American interests involved. We are obliged to take the line that in view of the terms of the Agreement it is not proper for us to exercise diplomatic interference in the particular region in which it is proposed that this railway should be made.

THE CHINESE MARITIME CUSTOMS.
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, I rise to ask His Majesty's Government what is the nature of the changes which the Chinese Government have made or propose to make in connection with the Imperial Maritime Customs Service by the establishment of a Board of Control; what are the powers and composition of the Board and whether, in view of the recent changes in the personnel of the Board, His Majesty's Government will insist upon a full recognition of the Inspector-General's undivided control over the personnel and finances
768
of the Chinese Imperial Customs in accordance with the Loan Agreements of 1896 and 1898.
This is a question of considerable importance touching very vast interests. It really concerns the security of capital of the amount of over £40,000,000, the greater part of which is invested by people in this country, but a great deal of which is also invested by persons living on the Continent and in America. Perhaps it would be to the convenience of the House if I should state, very briefly, the views which I believe are generally held, and thus give an opportunity to the noble Earl of contradicting such as are erroneous or based upon misconception. In 1896 and 1898 the Chinese Government desired to raise this loan of something over £40,000,000, and the sole security was to be the Imperial Maritime Customs Service. In order that this service should be administered to the satisfaction of Great Britain and foreign countries, it was agreed that the whole service should be under the absolute control of an Inspector-General who should be an Englishman. The clause in the Agreement reads as follows:—
"The Chinese Imperial Government undertake that the administration of the Chinese Imperial Maritime Customs shall remain as at present constituted during the currency of the loan."
That is to say, up to the year 1943. Sir Robert Hart, the then Inspector-General, had been already, I think, about thirty years in the service of the Chinese Empire.
That remained the position of affairs, perfectly satisfactory to this country and other countries on the Continent, until May 9, 1906, when an Imperial Edict appeared appointing two distinguished Chinese officials to be Administrators-General of the Customs, with control over all Chinese and foreigners in the Customs Service. Naturally that move on the part of the Chinese Government created a considerable feeling of alarm on the part of those interested in this matter, and, not unnaturally, a perfect avalanche of questions descended on the head of the Secretary of State in another place. There was also a debate in this House, in which the then Under-Secretary was enabled to inform your Lordships that His Majesty's Government were pressing for an assurance that the authority of the Inspector-General should be in no way interfered with. Shortly after that an assurance was given

769
stating that the Imperial Edict did not make any change in the administration of the Customs Service. That assurance, however, was never really circulated, although Sir Robert Hart was authorised to inform the Customs Service some months afterwards—in September, 1906—on the authority of the Administrators-General, that the work was to proceed as before and the staff remain in the same relation to the Inspector-General as before the issue of the Edict.
An assurance has very little weight in China as compared with an Imperial Edict; and, as The Times correspondent in Peking has on several occasions pointed out, the Administrators-General, or the Board of Control as they came to be known, were issuing orders in every one of which they repeated the words "in accordance with the Imperial Edict"; and it soon became apparent that the Board of Control were beginning to take considerable hold over the Customs Service. That at first did not appear to be of any great moment, for Sir Robert Hart naturally had such immense influence and was so respected on all hands in China that one could be perfectly certain that his authority would remain unimpaired. But it was found that the Customs Service, by being severed from its connection with the Wai-wu-pu, of which till then it was a department, lost a certain amount of authority and standing in its intercourse with Chinese officials. In April, 1908, Sir Robert Hart left Peking on leave of absence, and Sir Robert Bredon was put temporarily in charge of the Customs Service. With Sir Robert Hart's retirement from Peking the Board of Control naturally took the opportunity to strengthen their hold over the Customs, and that, I think, is more or less continuing up to the present time. Recently Sir Robert Bredon retired from the appointment of acting Inspector-General, and Mr. Aglen was appointed in his place, but on retiring Sir Robert Bredon was forthwith added to the Board of Control. I venture to think that by that appointment the whole character of the Board of Control was completely changed.
Recently Sir Robert Bredon retired from his position on the Board of Control, and His Majesty's Government have now a favourable opportunity—one, perhaps, that will never recur—in view of the appointment of a new Inspector-General and of the Board of Control returning
770
to its original composition, of pressing the Chinese Government to make the Inspector-Generalship absolute over the personnel and finances of the Customs Service—as absolute as it was before the issue of the Imperial Edict of 1906. By so doing I believe His Majesty's Government would not only ensure the safety of British and foreign capital, but would also maintain the financial stability of China herself. I venture to hope that His Majesty's Government will be able to give such information to the House as will satisfy the natural anxiety which is growing on this matter, and that they will endeavour not only to get an assurance from the Chinese Government, but an Imperial. Edict so that there shall be not the slightest doubt as to the absolute control of the Inspector-General over the Imperial Maritime Customs Service.
THE EARL OF CREWE: My Lords, in the latter part of his speech the noble Earl seemed to imply that by the creation on May 9, 1906, of this Board of Control or, as I think it is more technically called, Revenue Council, some important change took place in the relations of the Imperial Maritime Customs Service to the Chinese Government, but, as a matter of fact, the changes resulting from the creation of that Council have so far been purely changes of form, departmental changes, because the relations of the Inspector-General to the Council are, exactly the same as those which formerly existed between him and the Wai-wu-pu. The noble Earl has stated what the Revenue Council is. When that Council was created its chief member conveyed an assurance to Sir Robert Hart that the only changes which were involved in its creation related to the manner in which the ordinary reports were to be sent in and to other purely routine matters.
Then the noble Earl spoke of the changes in the personnel of the Revenue Council. It of course is common knowledge that Sir Robert Bredon became for a short time a member of the Council, but he has since then, as the noble Earl knows, resigned that appointment, and therefore I do not know that anything special arises out of that. When the Council was created His Majesty's Government entered a protest against its creation because they were quite content with the relations as they existed at the time between the Chinese Foreign Office and the Customs, and they

771
received a written official assurance from the Chinese Government that the existence of the Revenue Council was to make no change in the Customs administration laid down in the Loan Agreements of 1896 and 1898. Sir Robert Hart issued, by direction of the Revenue Council itself, the circular of September, 1906, to the members of the Customs Service, stating that the two Controllers had explained to him that work was to proceed as before the institution of the Council, and that they had authorised him to announce that the Inspector-General would have the same relations with the Revenue Council as he had had with the Wai-wu-pu, that his duties would continue to follow the same lines, and that the officials would work as heretofore and remain in the same relation to the Inspector-General.
It was naturally important that this circular should receive publicity, and His Majesty's Minister at Peking arranged with the Chinese Government that the Revenue Council should officially forward it to the Wai-wu-pu in order that they might authorise the Council to instruct Sir Robert Hart to publish it in the Customs "Quarterly Gazette," which is the regular organ for making announcements and which is circulated and published both in Chinese and in English. In those circumstances, and in view of the fact that no specific instances of interference on the part of the new Board with the Inspector-General have been brought to the notice of the Foreign Office, there does not seem to be, as matters stand at present, any means for addressing further representations to the Chinese Government with regard to the position of the Board. I did not hear the noble Earl say anything about Papers. As a matter of fact, I am informed that there are no Papers of any public interest on the subject since last we laid Papers in 1906. In those circumstances I hope the noble Earl will not ask for Papers.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I think the House is indebted to my noble friend for having brought this matter before our attention. If I may be permitted to say so, he did so in a speech characterised by great clearness and evidently careful study of the intricacies of the question. It is of vital importance to this country that the work done by Sir Robert Hart should be continued and should not have been performed in vain. I was under the impression—
772
though I am bound to say that my knowledge of these matters is not very recent—that there had been continual attempts on the part of the Chinese Government to set up a Chinese Commission composed of Chinese officials, in a position which would have impaired the authority of the official at the head of the Board of Customs. That was, unless I am mistaken, the real source of contention between His Majesty's Government and the Chinese Government. Now it is quite clear that any arrangement of the kind would be a violation of those pledges and assurances which my noble friend recited during the course of his speech. I am glad to gather from the statement of the noble Earl that His Majesty's Government are, upon the whole, satisfied that this Revenue Council is not intended to usurp functions which did not belong to it before. That, as far as it goes, is satisfactory, but what I did not gather from the noble Earl, and what I cannot help thinking my noble friend desired to elicit, is this. Sir Robert Bredon has resigned, and what he would like to know is whether he is to be replaced by a British official who will be in the same position in relation to the Revenue Council.
THE EARL OF CREWE: I have no information on that point. But I think it was stated by the Chinese Government that Sir Robert Bredon's appointment was of a purely honorary character.

SMALL DWELLING-HOUSES IN BURGHS LETTING (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
A Bill to amend the Law as to the Letting of Small Dwelling-Houses in Burghs in Scotland; and for other purposes relating thereto—Was presented by the Earl of Camperdown; read 1a, and to be printed. (No. 39.)
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.
The Lord GRANARD (E. Granard)The Lord GRANARD (E. Granard)—Chosen Speaker in the absence of the Lord Chancellor and the Lords Commissioners.

FINANCE BILL, 1909–10.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a Tomorrow (The Lord Privy Seal (E. Crewe)). (No. 34.)
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before Ten o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.