Sitting of 26 June 1899

PRIVATE BILLS. [Lords]
Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with.
Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, viz.:—

ABERDEEN JOINT PASSENGER STATION BILL. [Lords.]
  CALEDONIAN RAILWAY (GENERAL POWERS) BILL. [Lords.]

    MANCHESTER CORPORATION TRAMWAYS BILL. [Lords.]
    SOUTH STAFFORDSHIRE TRAMWAYS BILL. [Lords.]
    WOLVERHAMPTON TRAMWAYS BILL [Lords.]
    Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time.

PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS. [Lords.]
Standing Orders applicable thereto complied with.
Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, viz.:—

ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDER No. 9 BILL. [Lords.]
Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time to-morrow.

PRIVATE BILLS. [Lords.]
No Standing Orders not previously inquired into applicable.
Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First
582
Reading thereof, no Standing Orders not previously inquired into are applicable, viz.:—

OWENS COLLEGE MANCHESTER BILL [Lords]
Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.
COLONIAL AND FOREIGN BANKS GUARANTEE FUND BILL. [Lords.]
Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
AIRDRIE AND COATBRIDGE WATER BILL. [Lords.]
  BRISTOL GAS BILL [Lords.]
  As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
DUNDEE GAS, STREET IMPROVEMENTS, AND TRAMWAYS BILL. [Lords.]
As amended, considered; an Amendment made; Bill to be read the third time.
GAINSBOROUCH URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL (GAS) BILL. [Lords.]
As amended, considered; to be read the third time.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) (RE-COMMITTED) BILL.
As amended, considered:
Ordered, that Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time.—(Dr. Farquharson.)
Bill read the third time accordingly, and passed. [New title.]

WICK AND PULTENEY HARBOURS BILL. [Lords.]
As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
BUENOS AYRES AND PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY BILL [Lords.]
  TRANSVAAL MORTGAGE, LOAN, AND FINANCE COMPANY BILL. [Lords.]
    YORKE ESTATE BILL. [Lords.]
    Read a second time, and committed.

LEEDS CORPORATION BILL.
Ordered, That the Order of the House of the 14th April, 1899, that in the

583
case of Bills reported from the Committee on Police and Sanitary Regulations, three days shall intervene between the date when the Report of the Committee is circulated with the Votes and the consideration of the Bill, be suspended in the case of the Leeds Corporation Bill.
Ordered, That Standing Orders 84, 214, 215, and 239 be suspended, and that the Bill be now taken into consideration provided amended prints shall have been previously deposited.—(Dr. Farquharson.)
Bill, as amended, considered accordingly.
Ordered, That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time.—(Dr. Farquharson.)
Bill read the third time accordingly, and passed.

MENSTONE WATER BILL.
Ordered, That in the case of the Menstone Water Bill, Standing Orders 84, 214, 215, and 239 be suspended, and that the Bill be now taken into consideration provided amended prints shall have been previously deposited.—(Dr. Farquharson.)
Bill, as amended, considered accordingly.
Ordered, That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time.—(Dr. Farquharson.)
Bill read the third time accordingly, and passed.

LONDON UNITED TRAMWAYS BILL.
Ordered, That, in the case of the London United Tramways Bill, Standing Orders 84, 214, 215, and 239 be suspended, and that the Bill be now taken into consideration provided amended prints shall have been previously de- posited.— (Dr. Farquharson.)
Bill, as amended, considered accordingly.
Ordered, That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time.— (Dr. Farquharson.)
Bill read the third time accordingly, and passed.

PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP M).
Ordered, That the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Committee on the Kilpatrick Dock Bill, in the Session of 1897, and the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Committee on the Renfrew Burgh and Harbour Extension Bill, in the Session of 1898, be referred to the Committee on the Renfrew Burgh and Harbour Extension Bill [Lords] and the Clyde Navigation Bill [Lords] of the present Session.—(Dr. Farquharson.)
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (LIVERPOOL) BILL. [Lords.]
Read the third time and passed, without Amendment.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND), PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 4) BILL.
Read the third time, and passed.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 12) BILL.
As amended, considered; read the, third time, and passed.
MILLWALL DOCK BILL.
Reported with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table.
ST. NEOT'S WATER BILL. [Lords.]
Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
GLASGOW CORPORATION (TRAMWAYS, &c.). [Lords.]
  GREENOCK AND PORT GLASGOW TRAMWAYS. [Lords.]
  Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to—
Edinburgh Corporation Bill, Wetherby District Water Bill, South-Eastern Railway Bill, with Amendments.
Amendments to Aberdeen Corporation Bill [Lords], without Amendment.
That they have passed a Bill intituled, "An Act to confer further powers on the North Staffordshire Railway Company." [North Staffordshire Railway Bill [Lords.]
And also a Bill intituled, "An Act to confer further powers upon the Great

585
Eastern Railway Company; to authorise them to execute further works; to acquire additional lands and to raise further money; and for other purposes." [Great Eastern Railway (General Powers) Bill [Lords.]

NORTH STAFFORDSHIRE RAILWAY BILL. [Lords.]
  GREAT EASTERN RAILWAY (GENERAL POWERS) BILL. [Lords.]
  Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 14) BILL.
Ordered, That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 14) Bill to divide the Bill into two Bills, one comprising the Orders relating to Isle of Thanet (Rural), Ramsgate, and Reading, the other comprising the Order relating to Rhyl, and to report them separately to the House—(Mr. T. W. Russell.)
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Does the hon. Member propose to move the second part of the arrangement with regard to the locus standi?
MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I propose to put the notice on the Paper and move the motion to-morrow.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 14) BILL.
Reported.
Divided into two Bills:

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 14) BILL AND
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 15) BILL.
  Pursuant to Instruction [26th June].

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 14) BILL.
Comprising the Orders relating to Isle of Thanet (Rural), Ramsgate, and Reading; reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Title amended; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Bill, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 15) BILL.
Comprising the Order relating to Rhyl; reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table; Bill re-committed.
PETITIONS.
  PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Pollockshaws, in favour: to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  Petitions in favour: From Melsenby;—York (three);—Danby;—Preston-under-Scaur;—Kirby Moorside;—Old Malton;—Horncliffe;—Rosedale; Salt-burn; Esk Valley (two);—Northallerton;—Carperby:—New Marske;—Loftus-in-Cleveland;—Carlin How;—Torrington;—Hovingtham;—Swinton;—Thornton-le-Clay;—Bulmer;—Barton-le-Street;—Welburn;—Coneysthorpe;—Flaxton;—Sheriff Hutton;—Snainton;—Runswick;—Seamer;—East Ayton;—Whitby (six);—Lythe;—Malton;—Thornton-le-Dale; —Scarborough (eight);—Helperby;—Rillington;—Castleton;—Nawton;—Pickering;—Scalby;—Appleton Wiske;—Eppleby;—Richmond (Yorkshire);—Liverpool;—Thornaby-on-Tees;—Newfield;—Evenwood;—Willington;—Barningham;—Mickleton;—Mickleby;—Cayton;—Slingsby;—Staithes; —North Skelton;—Redear;—South Bank;—Glaisdale;—Cloughton;—Hinderwell;—Stokesley;-and Helmsley (two); to lie upon the Table.
  VIVISECTION.
  Petition from London, for prohibition; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  PUBLIC RECORDS.
  Copy presented of Sixtieth Annual Report of the Deputy Keeper [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  MILITARY WORKS BILL, 1899.
  Copy presented of Schedules showing the Expenditure on Services to be under-

  587
  taken under the Military Works Bill of 1899, and the complete War Office Scheme [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  ARMY RIFLE RANGES.
  Return presented relative thereto [Address 19th June; Mr. Frederick Wilson]; to lie upon the Table.
  DISEASES OF ANIMALS ACTS, 1894 AND 1896.
  Copy presented of Order, dated 20th June, 1899, No. 5,952, revoking Order No. 5,912, which prohibited the conveyance of animals by the steamship "J. W. Taylor" [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANKS.
  Accounts presented of all Deposits received and paid (luring the year ended 31st December, 1898, and of the Sums received and paid by the National Debt Commissioners on account of the Fund for the Post Office Savings Banks in the same year [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 243.]
  LAND REGISTRY.
  Account presented of Receipts and Payments in respect of the Land Registry for the year ended 31st March, 1899 [by Act]—to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 244.]
  HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE AND COURT OF APPEAL, &C.
  Copy presented of Account showing the Receipts and Expenditure in respect of the High Court of Justice and the Court of Appeal during the year ended 31st March, 1899 [by Act]—to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 245.]

  SUPERANNUATION ACT, 1887.
  Copy presented of Treasury Minute, dated 16th June, 1899, granting a retired allowance, under the Act, to Mr. John Dalzell, officer of excise, Belfast Collection, Inland Revenue [by Act]—to lie upon the Table.
  Paper laid upon the Table by the Clerk of the House—

  INQUIRY INTO CHARITIES (COUNTY OF CARNARVON).
  Further Return relative thereto [ordered 10th February, 1898—Mr. Grant Lawson]to be printed. [No. 246.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  QUESTIONS.

    NAVAL AND MILITARY OFFICERS AT WEI-HAI-WEI.
    SIR J. COLOMB: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any force of marine artillery or infantry has been employed on shore at Wei-hai-wei, and, if so, for what purpose and between what dates.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. GOSCHEN,): No marine artillery have, to my knowledge, been employed at Wei-hai-wei. Some marine light infantry have been stationed at Wei-hai-wei for guard duties on the mainland and some on the island of Leu Kung for the same purpose—from an early date in the occupation till now.
    SIR J. COLOMB: Is the force still there?
    MR. GOSCHEN: Yes; there are still marines there.
    SIR J. COLOMB: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War what is the rank of the officer now in command at Wei-hai-wei, and to what arm of the Service does he belong.
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. WYNDHAM,): The senior military officer at Wei-hai-wei is Lieutenant-Colonel Bower, of the Indian Staff Corps, but a naval officer, Commander Gaunt, is acting as Commissioner. The arrangement is, however, provisional.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Is the naval officer in command?
    MR. WYNDHAM: Yes, Sir, he may be said to be senior as regards the administration of the station as a whole.

    COMMISSIONS FROM THE RANKS.
    MR. PIRIE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War would he state the number of commissions granted from the ranks, excluding those given to quartermasters and riding masters, during the following pr ods: 1886–90, both inclusive; 1891–5, both inclusive; and during each of the years 1896, 1897, and 1898; also the percentage which such commissions bear to the total number granted in each

    589
    of those periods, excluding those to quarter and riding masters.
    MR. WYNDHAM: If the hon. and gallant Member will move for a Return it will be granted.

    ARMY RECRUITS.
    CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he can state if recruits specially enlisted below the standard as to age and measurements, who are examined periodically by the Army medical authorities, are after the short period of three months' service, if favourably reported upon, retained in the service as effective soldiers, although they have not attained the standard required for enlistment under ordinary circumstances.
    MR. WYNDHAM: Yes, Sir.

    RUSSIAN RAILWAY TO PEKIN.
    SIR ELLIS ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs by what route the Russians proposed to make the railway to Pekin for which they recently presented a demand to the Chinese Government.
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. BRODRICK,): We are not aware that any route was specified in the Russian demand for a railway to the south-west, with respect to which we have no definite information.

    NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERIES.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs a question of which I have given him private notice—namely, whether Her Majesty's Government have received any intelligence as to a dispute stated to have arisen between Commander Gifford and the French naval commander on the coast of Newfoundland with reference to the taking of bait by French vessels on the French shore, or with reference to the supply of bait to such vessels, and whether he can make any statement on the subject.
    MR. BRODRICK: Some differences, I believe, have occurred on the treaty shore with regard to the question of bait, but as my hon. friend gave me private notice of his question only three minutes ago I
    590
    think I must ask him to put a question down for to-morrow.

    PATENT OFFICE REVENUE.
    SIR JOHN LENG: I Leg to ask the President of the Board of Trade what has been the total net surplus revenue of the Patent Office in the last ten years over and above the £95,000 expended on the new buildings; how much of that surplus has accrued since the reduction of the fees on the renewal of patents; and whether it is in contemplation to apply some portion of the surplus to the cost of examining applications for novelty.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. LONG,)—(for Mr. RITCHIE): The total net surplus revenue of the Patent Office during the ten years ended in December, 1898, appears from the Annual Reports of the Comptroller-General to have amounted to £1,002,232. The reduction of fees on the renewal of patents commenced in October, 1892. It is impossible to say how much of the surplus revenue accrued between that date and December, 1892. The amount, however, which accrued during the six years following the latter date appears from the Annual Reports of the Comptroller-General to have been £596,057. During the next two years the net surplus revenue will probably be considerably diminished, owing to the fact that the reconstruction of the Patent Office buildings is now proceeding rapidly, and will absorb a larger amount of the revenue than it has done in previous years. The question whether any further portion of the surplus revenue of the office should be applied for the benefit of inventors, and, if so, in what way it would be most advantageously employed, is a very difficult one. Many suggestions have been made on the subject, some of which are now under consideration.

    BOARD OF TRADE REGULATIONS IN SCOTTISH PORTS.
    MR. PIRIE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the vessel "Grove Hill," of Hull, was lately detained at Leith for a week, in order that the Plimsoll mark might be painted on her side; that the local Board of Trade surveyor could have himself done the work immediately; that the

    591
    delay arose from his having to send his report up to London for ratification; and that great inconvenience and expense is entailed generally on vessels in Scottish ports from such centralisation; whether, in such simple cases, the local authorities could be authorised to act on their own responsibility, or would he consider the expediency of appointing a central Scottish authority with the necessary powers, so that the shipping and commercial interests of Scotland may be placed on an equality with those of England in this and other matters relating to the Board of Trade; and whether the Board will make good the loss sustained by both the owners of the vessels and the shippers concerned in the above case.
    MR. LONG (for Mr. RITCHIE): Inquiry has been made in the case to which the hon. Member refers, and I am informed that any delay that may have arisen was because the first application for a freeboard stated that the "Grove Hill" was a classed ship, whereas, it appears, she was not, and because docking and repairs were necessary. The vessel was not placed in dock for examination until the 12th instant, and, as the agent was informed of the freeboard on the 14th, there does not appear to be any valid ground for complaint. There are principal officers of the Board of Trade at Leith and Glasgow fully empowered to deal with simple cases, but any change in the arrangement by which freeboards are only assigned by the central authority in London is to be deprecated. The answer to the final paragraph of the question is in the negative.

    TITHE RENT-CHARGE (RATES) BILL.
    MR. BILLSON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture if he can state the number of the clergy who will benefit by the provisions of the proposed Tithe Rent-charge (Rates) Bill.
    MR. LONG: Between ten and eleven thousand.
    SIR H. H. FOWLER: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentle-man if he can supply the House with a statement, or if he proposes to explain in his speech on the Second Reading, how he arrives at the figures £87,000.
    MR. LONG: I do not propose to make a statement in moving the Second Read
    592
    ing, but I have no doubt that in the course of the Debate I shall be able to justify the figure of £87,000. If necessary, I will consider whether it is possible to give it before.
    SIR H. H. FOWLER: It would be a convenience if we had it before the Debate began.
    MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether, under Sub-section (2) of Clause 2 of the Tithe Rent-charge (Rates) Bill, the clergy of the City of London and other parts of the metropolis, and elsewhere, whose receipts from payments in lieu of tithes have suffered no abatement as a result of agricultural depression, will be relieved from the payment of half their rates.
    MR. LONG: The Bill is not based upon the fact that the value of tithe rent-charge has been diminished by reason of agricultural depression, but upon the excessive burdens which clerical owners are called upon to bear as compared with other classes of ratepayers. It therefore applies to all payments in lieu of tithes, whether such payments vary with the price of agricultural produce or not; but the Bill has, of course, no application where the payments are not rateable, as is very frequently, if not usually, the case in the instances to which the hon. Member more especially refers.

    BOARDING OUT PAUPER CHILDREN.
    MR. FLOWER: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he can state how many boards of guardians have adopted the system of boarding-out Poor Law children since the year 1897; and if he will state how many have abandoned the system.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. T. W. RUSSELL,): Four boards of guardians have since 1897 adopted the system of boarding-out children beyond the limits of the union, and fifteen boards of guardians have boarded or propose to board children within the limits of the union under the supervision of a boarding-out committee. The Local Government Board have no precise information as to the abandonment of the system of boarding-out by boards of guardians. The last returns, however,

    593
    show that five boards of guardians, who in 1897 boarded out children beyond the union, had at the date of the return no children so boarded out.

    MARY PADWICK.
    MR. FLAVIN: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he is aware that Mary Padwick, the wife of an English soldier who died during service in India in 1890, was transferred by the Prestwich Guardians, Manchester, to the Listowel (County Kerry) Union, of which she is now an inmate, and a cost oh the ratepayers; whether he is aware that the Prestwich Guardians requested the Listowel Guardians to sign an order for the removal of Mary Padwick from Prestwich without the customary magistrate's order; awl whether instructions will be given directing the Prestwich Board of Guardians, at their expense, to remove Mary Padwick from the Listowel Union.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: The facts appear to be as stated in the question. The Guardians of the Listowel Union declined to accept Mary Padwick without a magistrate's order, and an order was thereupon obtained and the woman was removed under it. I am not aware of any ground for the removal of the pauper from the Listowel Union, and the Local Government Board would have no authority to give any instructions in the matter.
    MR. FLAVIN: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman say why the same restrictions are not imposed in England as in Scotland?
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

    METROPOLITAN POLICE.
    CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that men with less than two years' service are now leaving the Metropolitan Police Force in larger numbers than at any previous period; and also that one of the chief causes of their action is the difficulty they experience in finding suitable house accommodation in the inner or town districts, unless at the sacrifice of such a proportion of their pay as leaves them scarcely a living wage, and places them at a disadvantage as compared with the better class workers from the ranks of
    594
    which they are mainly recruited; and whether he will cause inquiry to be made into all the circumstances of the case.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir M. WHITE RIDLEY,): I am not aware that the facts are as stated in the first paragraph, or that the chief cause of removals from the Metropolitan Police Force is that suggested in the second paragraph. As about 85 per cent. of the men with less than two years' service are single, and are provided with lodgings in section houses, they are least affected by a difficulty which not only affects the police, but equally also all other classes of the community whose occupations compel them to live within the congested districts of inner London.

    DUKE STREET PRISON, GLASGIOW—HOSPITAL ACCOMMODATLON—CASE OF MARY CARROLL.
    MR. J. P. SMITH: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate what is the average daily population of Duke Street Prison, Glasgow; whether he is aware that there are no hospital wards other than association cells used as such; whether he is aware that the hon. Member for Partick on a recent casual visit to the prison found a sick untried female prisoner being nursed by two convicted prisoners; and, whether the association of prisoners, without the observation of an officer, is the only means of attending to sick prisoners within the prison.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY,): The average daily population of Duke Street Prison is 489, of whom nearly three-fourths are females. It contains two hospital wards for females and one for males. The sick untried prisoner whom the hon. Member found, had been on previous occasions convicted 13 times. She was suffering from fits, and was associated by order of the medical officer with two other prisoners who were carefully selected by the matron who has had much experience. Prisoners thus associated are regularly visited by the prison officials, and receive all requisite care from the medical officer and nurse warders.
    MR. J. P. SMITH: Are the hospital wards anything else except association cells?
    MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: I believe that to be the case.
    MR. J. P. SMITH: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether he is aware that at the Duke Street Prison, on 14th October last, a prisoner, Mary Carroll, under treatment for a gangrened foot, was left alone in an ordinary cell; that, being taken seriously ill in the night, the nurse warder was summoned, and Mary Carroll was removed to an association cell already occupied by a sick prisoner under the charge of two other prisoners; that she was left in charge of these two prisoners, who about an hour afterwards rang the bell and reported that she had a had turn, and, that on the arrival of the nurse warder, she was found to be dead; what was the report of the doctor upon the case; what were the qualifications of the nurse warder to judge as to the condition of the patient; whether any steps have since been taken to ensure that prisoners seized with serious illness shall receive attention; and, whether he will provide that in so large a prison there shall be a proper hospital where all the sick can be placed, and a properly trained nurse in constant attendance.
    MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: The case of Mary Carroll is substantially as stated by the hon. Member. The report of the doctor was to the effect that she was suffering from gangrene of the toes of her right foot. Although she regarded it herself as of no consequence, he ordered her to be put to bed and placed under treatment. On the morning of the 14th, October she complained of breathlessness, she was removed to the hospital ward and attended to by the sick nurse, till she felt better. An hour afterwards she had a sudden attack and died. The symptoms and manner of death point to a clot of blood as the immediate cause. The nurse warder had acted for more than 2½ years in the hospital wards of an English asylum, she had had 15 months' training in a Scottish asylum, and is a regularly certificated nurse. The medical officer is quite satisfied with her. When this prison was rebuilt the hospital accommodation was arranged in consultation with the medical officer. The chief medical adviser does not consider that a separate hospital building is a necessity at Duke Street Prison, and the Prison Commissioners are not at present prepared to recommend that there should be one.

    VACCINATION IN SCOTLAND.
    SIR CHARLES CAMERON: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate how many persons were sent to prison in Scotland for refusing to have children vaccinated during the first six months of 1898 and 1899 respectively; whether any alteration has been made in the instructions of the Scottish Local Government Board as to vaccination prosecutions; and whether any steps, and, if so, what steps, have been taken for the gratuitous distribution in Scotland as in England of glycerinated calf lymph.
    MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: I am informed by the Prison Commissioners for Scotland that there were eleven such cases in the first six months of 1898 and seven in the same period in 1899. I have ascertained from the Local Government Board that they have made no alteration in their instructions. Arrangements have been made, with the sanction of the Treasury, whereby parochial vaccinators shall obtain gratuitous supplies of sterilised calf lymph, as in England.
    SIR CHARLES CAMERON: Has it not come into operation yet?
    MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: No.

    EVENING CONTINUATION SCHOOLS IN SCOTLAND.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether his attention has been called to a paragraph on page 30 of the Education Report for the Northern Division of Scotland for 1898, to the effect that the development of the evening continuation school system is retarded through the managers of schools in certain districts being unwilling to place new burdens on the rates; and in view of the fact that in most of the crofting counties the majority of the ratepayers have no voice in the election of school managers, will he state what steps he proposes to take so that the growth of evening continuation schools may not be impeded.
    MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: The terms of the grants offered by the Evening Continuation School Code are very liberal, but it must rest with the local authorities to say whether they are prepared to make themselves responsible for such local expenditure as may be necessary to earn those grants. I am not pre-

    597
    pared to admit the assumption in the second paragraph of the question so far as it concerns those rated for school expenses; bat in any case the conditions of Evening School Grants must be considered apart from the question of the School Board franchise.

    THE CROFTERS ACT, 1886.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the Secretary for Scotland has received a copy of the resolution carried at the last meeting of the Ross and Cromarty County Council in favour of the extension of the Crofters Act, 1886, to leaseholders under £30; and, will he state what steps it is proposed to take in the matter.
    MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: The Secretary for Scotland has received the resolution referred to, but sees no sufficient reason for taking any steps in regard to it.

    SCOTLAND—SCHOOL CLOAK-ROOMS.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the Secretary for Scotland is aware that the Education (Scotland, Northern Division) Report for 1898, page 8, shows that in some districts suitable space is not provided in schools for the children's cloaks and caps, that they are massed together, and frequently put on damp after school hours; and, will he state whether it is proposed to take any action in the matter.
    MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: Where the cloak-room accommodation is insufficient the Department invariably urges its supply, and exerts its authority to obtain such provision. Their Lordships believe that of late years such accommodation has in general been greatly improved.
    MR. WEIR: Did not the last report of the inspector state that at Orkney and Shetland there was still insufficient accommodation, and will steps be taken to see that it is provided?
    MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: I have stated the general policy of the Department, and I have no doubt it will be pursued.

    WESTER ROSS SCHOOLS.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether, in view of the statement contained in the last paragraph of
    598
    page 6 of the Education Report for the Northern Division of Scotland for 1898, it is proposed to take any steps for the suitable inspection of schools in Wester Ross without encroaching on the annual leave of absence of the present inspector.
    MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: With a limited staff it is impossible to avoid occasional pressure, and the Department cannot consider that such occasional pressure necessarily justifies an increase of the staff. Their Lordships trust that the inspectors, as a rule, are able to obtain adequate leave; but should it be shown that the staff is inadequate they will be prepared to make representations in the proper quarter.

    ORPHAN HOMES OF SCOTLAND.
    SIR CHARLES CAMERON: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, in view of his statement on the 16th instant that the question of the education of the 900 children at the Orphan Homes of Scotland was under the consideration of the Education Department, whether the result of their deliberations has yet been communicated to Mr. Quarrier; and if not, how soon such communication will be made.
    MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: The legal of the question referred to have been under consideration. The matter must also be carefully considered by the Department from an administrative point of view. I can only add that the Department will communicate as early as possible with the parties interested.

    SCOTTISH CASTLES AND PALACES—CROWN RENTS.
    MR. PIRIE: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether feu and teind duties are collected from various properties in Scotland for the repair and up-keep of the Castles of Edinburgh, Linlithgow, Blackness, and Stirling; and would he state where those properties are situated, the various amounts so collected for each of the places named, and what becomes of the money.
    MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: I am informed by the Office of Woods and Forests that the Crown collects certain. feu, blench, and teind duties formerly paid to the Governors of Edinburgh and Stirling Castles, and to the office of Keeper of the Palace of Linlithgow and Castle of Blackness. These duties are paid with other Crown rents into the Ex-

    599
    chequer. The Linlithgow Palace buildings are under the supervision of the Office of Works, and Edinburgh, Stirling, and Blackness Castles, though remaining the property of the Crown, are in the occupation of the War Office. It would be extremely difficult to give the detailed particulars of the various lands and duties.

    SCOTLAND AND THE TITHE RENTCHARGE (RATES) BILL
    MR. BIRRELL: I beg to Ask the Lord Advocate whether it is the intention of the Government, in the event of the Tithe Rent-charge (Rates) Bill becoming law this session, to provide for an equivalent grant to Scotland out of the Estate Duty Grant; if so, what opportunities will be afforded for the discussion of the purposes to which such equivalent grant shall be applied.
    MR. A. GRAHAM MURPRAY: It is not proposed to make any increase of the Estate Duty Grant in the case of England, and there is, therefore, no ground for the increase of the grant in the case of Scotland. The amount required for the purposes of the Bill will be paid out of the English Grant, and the Scottish Grant will not be in any way affected.

    BELFAST POST OFFICE STAFF.
    MR. MACALEESE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, whether he is aware that, as the result of the last revision of the telegraph department of the Belfast Post Office, two members of the staff, who held the appointment of provincial clerk-in-charge, vacated this position on promotion, and that a third member of the telegraph staff, on being appointed to a postmaster-ship, also forfeited the position of provincial clerk-in-charge; whether, as the result of these promotions, a notice was posted in each of the telegraph and postal departments inviting applications from the members of these departments for the vacancies thus created; what was the date of such notice, and how ninny applications were received; and if, as has been stated, no vacancies exist for provincial clerks-in-charge on the Belfast staff, can he state the date upon which these vacancies were filled, and whether any notice to this effect has been posted for the information of the staff generally in the Belfast office, or has any communica-
    600
    tion yet been made to those upon whom these vacancies have been conferred; and, if so, will he give the date of such communications; and if he has any objection to lay upon the Table of the House the Report furnished by the postmaster of Belfast to the Secretary, Dublin, on a recent date on the subject of these vacancies.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HANBURY,): There is no fixed number of provincial clerks-in-charge. Three officers at Belfast who were on the list of clerks in charge have been promoted since November last, and their names have, therefore, been removed from the list; but there is no obligation upon the Post Office to add further names to the list either from the Belfast or any other office. Applications were invited on the 1st February and twenty names were sent in from Belfast, but no names have yet been added to the list. If the services of any candidate should be required he will, of course, be informed. The Report referred to by the hon. Member cannot be laid upon the Table of the House.

    THE BREHON LAWS.
    SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury when volumes 5 and 6 of the Brehon Laws, promised in 1893, will be published.
    MR. HANBURY: It is hoped that both volumes will be published together in the autumn or winter of next year.

    SELECT COMMITTEE ON SAVINGS BANKS.
    MR CHANNING: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, having regard to the probable advisability of procuring returns, reports, and other documents as preparatory to the work of a Select Committee on the subject, he will move for the immediate appointment of the promised Select Committee on Savings Banks; and whether, in moving for the Committee, he will either accept the terms of reference now standing on the Order Paper in the name of the Member for East Northamptonshire, or frame a reference at least as wide in its scope. In putting this question, may I explain to the right hon. Gentleman I do not contemplate the Select Committee

    601
    being appointed to hear evidence this session.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS-BEACH,): I do not think that the appointment of a Committee is a necessary preliminary to procuring such information as the hon. Member refers to. If he will communicate to me any suggestions he may desire to make as to the nature of the information, I shall be very happy to consider them. As to the appointment of a Committee, I can only refer him to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Dundee on the 8th June.

    SUPERANNUATION—RE-EMPLOYMENT OF RETIRED CIVIL SERVANTS.
    MR. COLLERY: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that under the Superannuation Acts the Government have power to call upon superannuated officials to serve again when in a competent state of health, such officials have a right to claim re-employment when under 60 years of age and restored to good health.
    SIR M. HICKS-BEACH: There is no such right. Heads of departments are glad, where possible, to re-employ an efficient officer, but it may often be impossible to do so with justice to the claims of those who have remained in the service; and it would very seldom happen that a Civil servant retired on the ground of permanent incapacity from ill-health would be fit for re-employment.

    RENT-CHARGE IN IRELAND-METGE V. JUSTICES OF MEATH.
    MR. WILLIAM MOORE: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether the recent decision of Her Majesty's Court of Appeal in Ireland, in the case of Metge v. Justices of Meath, applies to prevent a variation of rents in the nature of rent-charges fixed under the Statute 3 and 4 Will. IV., cap. 57, sec. 142.
    THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,): Assuming Chapter 57 of the Act mentioned to be a misprint for Chapter 37, the answer to this question is in the affirmative.

    RINNEEN AND LOHAR FISHERIES.
    MR. FLAVIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that great inconvenience is caused to fishermen and considerable injury done to fishing boats at Rinneen and Lohar, near Waterville, County Kerry, owing to the want of proper facilities for landing boats and fish; and whether representations will be made to the Congested Districts Board with a view to have inquiries made as to the great necessity that exists for the building of a small boat slip or pier at Rinneen for the convenience of the fishermen of the surrounding districts.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. G. W. BALFOUR,): The coast is very exposed in this locality, and I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of the statements in the first paragraph. The improvement of the landing place at Rinneen has been several times considered by the Congested Districts Board, but it appears that any permanently effective work would be very costly and could not be carried out without an expenditure of some thousands of pounds.

    LISTOWEL SUB-COMMISSION.
    MR. FLAVIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that great inconvenience has been caused to a large number of tenants in the northern portion of the County of Kerry by the fact that the Sub-Commission have not sat at Listowel for two years to hear fair rent cases, and that tenants in the Listowel district, whose applications to fix fair rents were made nearly three years ago, are still unheard; what is the number of tenants' applications now awaiting trial before the Sub-Commission at Listowel; and whether some steps will be taken to remedy the congested condition of fair rent applications in the Listowel district.
    MR. G. W. BALFOUR: A list containing a large number of cases from the locality of Listowel, as well as from other districts in the County Kerry, was commenced at Killarney early last month, and is now in course of disposal. That list contains all cases from the districts listed in which applications to fix fair rents were lodged in the Land Commission prior to the 1st of February, 1898. There are 90 cases from that portion

    603
    of the Listowel Union situate in County Kerry, and 22 from that portion in County Limerick, still unlisted.
    MR. FLAVIN: The Appeal Commission sits only at Killarney, but my question has reference to the Sub-Commission, which sits at Listowel. I ask as to that.
    MR. G. W. BALFOUR: I have given the answer supplied by the Land Commission.
    MR. FLAVIN: I shall put down further questions.

    QUEEN'S CLLEGES (IRELAND) PROFESSORSHIPS.
    MR. EDWARD M'HUGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can inform the House what percentage of Roman Catholics to other denominations have held chairs in the three Queen's Colleges since 1858; the proportion of Roman Catholics to other denominations who have held professorships in each of the three Queen's Colleges; and the percentage of Roman Catholics who have held the Chair of Mental and Moral Philosophy in each of the colleges from 1858 to the present time.
    MR. G. W. BALFOUR: The number Of persons who have held chairs since 1858, in each of the Queen's Colleges at Belfast, Cork, and Galway has been 49, 45, and 42, of whom 3, 15, and 10 respectively were Roman Catholics. In only one of the colleges, that at Galway, has the Chair of Mental and Moral Science been held by a Roman Catholic. Two persons only have held that chair at Galway.

    IRISH SALMON FISHERIES.
    MR. SETON-KARR: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland when the Viceregal Commission to inquire into the salmon fisheries of Ireland is likely to be appointed; and whether he can give any assurance that the evidence taken by and the Report of that Commission will be published in full for the information of this House.
    MR. G. W. BALFOUR: The Lord Lieutenant hopes shortly to be in a position to make known the names of the Commissioners appointed to conduct this
    604
    inquiry. The usual course will be followed as to the publication in full of the evidence to be taken and of the Report of the Commission.

    ARMAGH WORKHOUSE ADMINISTRATION.
    MR. EDWARD M'HUGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the proceedings at the Local Government Board inquiry held in Armagh Workhouse on the 31st ult., at which evidence disclosed that a pauper inmate, named Catherine M'Kenna, who was admitted on the 23rd ult., was immediately thereafter, owing to ill-health, removed to the infirmary, and that the priest was sent for and came the same night; for what reason a doctor was not then sent for; whether he is aware that this woman was kept lying on a straw bed on the floor; that there was no bedstead nor any fireplace in the ward; and that there was only one nurse in the ward; and whether an inquiry will be made with the view of having a sufficient number of qualified nurses here, and proper fittings and appliances for the accommodation of the destitute paupers coming to Armagh Workhouse.
    MR. G. W. BALFOUR: The facts appear to be generally as stated in the first paragraph. The woman was admitted to the workhouse on the 23rd March, and was immediately sent to the infirmary or medical hospital. The matron, however, who was at the time acting for the master, absent on leave, did not deem it necessary to send for the medical officer to see her. On the 24th March she was ordered by the acting medical officer to be removed to the infirm wards, which are not under the doctor's care, but this order was not carried out, and the woman was removed to a ward which is called the "Auxiliary Infirm Ward," which is described by the medical inspector who held the inquiry as being quite unfit for infirm people to sleep in, in its present condition, as it is without proper ventilation, and the inmates are only provided with straw ticks placed on a raised part of the floor. The medical inspector has pointed out that from the time of Catherine McKenna's admission she did not receive the care and treatment which the gravity of her condition demanded, and for this failure to attend to her needs the matron was partly responsible. The fault in this case

    605
    was not that there is any insufficiency in the nursing staff, but that the woman was not placed in the hospital wards where she might have received due care and attention. The inspector has also stated that in his opinion the temporary medical officer was not free from blame, having regard to the directions given by him in the case.

    KILKENNY GRAND JURY SECRETARY.
    MR. PATRIC O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can say what was the amount of salary paid to the Secretary of the Grand Jury of the County of Kilkenny before the passing of the Local Government (Ireland) Act; and whether that other is now entitled to receive from the County Council the various emoluments, such as fees on application for tenders, specifications, &c., which were then paid to him by the Grand Jury.
    MR. G. W. BALFOUR: The only information the Local Government Board have as to the remuneration of the Secretary to the Grand Jury of the County Kilkenny, before the passing of the Local Government Act, is that contained in the Return, No. 237, laid on the Table of the House in June of last year, in which his emoluments were stated to have been £520 with fees and allowances. Sections 22 and 24 of the Grand Jury Act of 1837, which authorised the secretary to demand from persons requiring them payment for forms of tender and proposals, and for preparing recognisances, are repealed by the Local Government Act. These sums were not paid by the Grand Jury and will not be paid by the County Council.

    IRISH BILLS.
    MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is now in a position to state when the Second Reading of the Agriculture and Industries (Ireland) Bill, the Tithe Rent-Charge (Ireland) Bill, and the Charitable Loans (Ireland) Bill will be taken.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I hope to reach the Agriculture and Industries Bill to-night. As regards the other two Bills, I can make no statement.
    MR. DILLON: Have the Government any idea of proceeding with the Charitable Loans (Ireland) Bill? It is a Bill in which all classes in Ireland are intensely interested.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: We shall be very glad to see the Bill pass. I should have thought it would have met with no opposition, but, as the hon. Member is aware, that is not the fact; there is a good deal of opposition from his own side of the House.

    LICENSING EXEMPTION (HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT) BILL.
    SIR. WILFRID LAWSON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government intend to proceed during this session with their Licensing Exemption (Houses of Parliament) Bill.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have no statement to make with regard to this Bill at present.

    TITHE RENT-CHARGE (RATES) BILL.
    MR. PIRIE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether, seeing that the Tithe Rent - charge (Rates) Bill could only be delivered in Scotland on Saturday, 24th instant, thus only giving one day for its consideration in that country before the date proposed by the Government for the Second Reading Debate, and that the interest taken by Scotland in the measure is very great, he could see his way to give further time for consideration of the measure by deferring the proposed date for Second Reading from the 27th instant.
    SIR J. FERGUSSON: Before the First Lord of the Treasury answers the question on the Paper, I wish to ask whether it is not the case that in Scotland parish ministers do not pay any rates on their stipends.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: My right hon. friend is perfectly right in his statement that in Scotland parish ministers pay no rates upon the teinds. As regards the question on the Paper, this is not a Bill which applies to Scotland, nor is Scotland asked to pay any of the money which will go in relief of the rates of the clergy
    MR. STRACHEY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will grant a Return showing

    607
    the loss that will accrue to each administrative county and county borough under the Tithe Rent-charge (Rates) Bill.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: We do not, I beg to say in reply to the hon. Member, acknowledge that any loss will accrue to any administrative county under the Tithe Rent-charge (Rates) Bill.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
MR. R. G. WEBSTER: At what date is it proposed to take the Report stage of the Food and Drugs Bill?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I cannot give my hon. friend specific notice when the Report stage of the Sale of Food and Drugs Bill will be taken. I have endeavoured, with regard to Bills with which the Government desire to deal, to give as long notice as we can, but at this period of the session there must be some uncertainty, as we do not know how long the House will be occupied on Bills that precede particular ones. Therefore I hope the House will be tolerant if the Government cannot give as long notice as we should desire to give.
MR. DILLON: Will the First Lord of the Treasury give a week's notice of his intention to take the Irish Tithes Rent-charge Bill, because in the case of the English Bill the House had only two days' notice.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR,I think I will be able to give two or three days' notice of that Bill. At present I do not like to promise more.
MR. DILLON: It is a very contentious Bill.
MR. WEIR: What Supply will be taken next Friday?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Irish Estimates.

THE TELEPHONE BILL.
MR FAITHFULL BEGG: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether it is a fact that an arrangement has been come to between the Government and the Telephone Company with regard to the Telephone Bill, and if he will state precisely what are the mutual concessions that have been made.
MR. HANBURY: I cannot state the concessions as fully as I ought in answer
608
to a question, but I have no doubt I shall be able to state them this evening when the motion for a reference to the Committee is brought forward.

NEW MEMBERS.
New Members sworn:—Arthur Dewar, Esq., for Burgh of Edinburgh (South Division); George M'Crae, Esq., for Burgh of Edinburgh (East Division).

ALLEGED BREACH OF PARLIAMENTARY USAGE.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I desire, Mr. Speaker, with great respect, to bring under your notice what I conceive to be a breach of the custom of Parliament with reference to the canvassing, direct and indirect, by the agents of a monopolist company called the National Telephone Company. This matter has had fresh emphasis given to it by what occurred only a minute ago, when the Secretary for the Treasury gave an answer which shows that the Government are supposed to have conceded to the members of this monopoly——
MR. HANBURY: It is quite true that my hon. friend used the word "concessions," but I cannot admit that any concession whatever has been made.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I am relieved at hearing that statement, but at the same time I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that a concession would be a matter of argument. When we have the facts before us we shall know whether it is a concession or not. The question which I desire to bring under the notice of the House is a canvassing circular sent to me, and to me only in my capacity of Member of Parliament, in the hope of influencing my vote. This canvassing circular is signed by no fewer than 16 Members of the Unionist Party, who hold among them 47 directorships.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has risen to a point of order; and I must ask him to confine himself to those matters that are relevant to the point of order.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Yes, Sir, I may be a little out of order. It is not,

609
perhaps, without interest that these matters are out of order to those hon. Gentlemen. The circular runs as follows:
"We, the undersigned, beg to express the hope that after the Second Reading of the Telegraph (Telephonic Communication, etc.) Bill you will support the motion to refer it to a Select Committee."
The alpha to these signatures is "John Lubbock." The right hon. Baronet is a gentleman of whom I say in his presence that he is directly and personally interested in this telephone company. Dates are of importance here. The Second Reading of this Bill came on on Tuesday, 20th June. whereas on June 15th a circular was issued out of the Stock Exchange announcing an issue of £263,000 3½ per cent. debenture stock. The right hon. Gentleman in that circular is advertised as trustee for the debenture-holders, and it is also announced that the bankers to the company are the eminent firm of Messrs. Robarts, Lubbock, and Co. It is clear, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman was endeavouring to influence my vote when he sent that circular to me signed, 'The Right Hon. Sir John Lubbock, Bart., M.P." There is something rather insidious in this circular. Although it is signed by sixteen Members, it is remarkable for those who have not signed it. There are no fewer than four right hon. Gentlemen, Members of this House, whose names are not attached to the circular.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member is not addressing himself to any point of order. The hon. Member is, apparently, about to make an attack on four gentlemen who have not signed the circular.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Far from it, Sir. The right hon. Gentlemen who have not signed the circular are to be commended for not signing it, and I consider therefore that the circular is all the more insidious. I desire to call the attention of the House to it precedent which occured on March 16, 1888. On that occasion the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton drew attention to a circular which had been issued by Colonel Hughes asking hon. Members to vote for a motion in connection with grievances alleged to exist on the part of workmen employed at Woolwich
610
Arsenal, and the then Speaker held that such a circular was contrary to the usages of the House and tended to lower its dignity. It is within the memory of the House that in the course of a speech on Tuesday night the right hon. Gentleman the Member for London University spoke strongly in favour of the National Telephone Company as against municipal trading. Enclosed in the circular to which I have referred is a post-card asking me to say whether I am or not in favour of municipal trading. That post-card, taken in connection with the right hon. Gentleman's speech and his capacity as paid agent of this company, is clearly a breach of Parliamentary etiquette. For mercy's sake let us advocate either public interests or our own interests. If we do the latter let us say so, and not style ourselves public men. I do not suggest that this circular is a breach of privilege, but I contend that it is a gross breach of Parliamentary decorum, and in accordance with the precedent I ask you to say so. Whatever may be your ruling, Sir, I have made a statement which will be heard and read by the public.
MR. SPEAKER: I am unable to see that the hon. Member has brought under my notice anything that amounts to a breach of any Standing Order or rule of this House. The hon. Member has brought two matters before the House. One is a circular signed by a number of Members requesting hon. Members to attend and vote against a particular motion on a Bill. That is a very common proceeding, not only on the part of private Members, but it is a daily proceeding, as we all know, on the part of Government Whips and Whips of the Opposition. The mere fact of the issuing of a circular requesting hon. Members to attend and vote is not contrary to the usage of this House. But the suggestion of the hon. Member, as I understand, is that the right hon. Baronet ought not to have sent such a whip because he has some personal pecuniary interest in the Bill. It is not for me to say whether he has a pecuniary, personal interest or not, but if he has that does not prevent him from signing a whip. The matter is in the discretion of each hon. Member whether he should send one or not, and is not contrary to any rule of this House. The right bon. Gentleman would be perfectly in order, even assuming that he had a

611
pecuniary, interest, in addressing this House and arguing in favour of the vote which the House should give, though he ought not to record his vote; and I certainly cannot say that it is out of order for him to send a circular asking hon. Members to vote in a particular way. If the hon. Member votes on a question in which he has a direct personal pecuniary interest, apart from his public general one, that is a matter which, as he knows, the House may inquire into. But I cannot see that in the matter the hon. Member has brought under my notice there has been any breach of privilege or of the rules and orders of this House. Then the other matter the hon. Member brought before me was the question of a circular which, I understand, was issued with a postcard inviting Members to express their opinion as to whether they adopted the same view as the right hon. Baronet with regard to municipal trading. That is not at all on all fours with the case which was cited by the hon. Member. The case cited by the hon. Member was one in which a Member had written and requested hon. Members to sign a postcard, which he enclosed, pledging themselves to vote for or against a measure which was coming before the House. The Speaker was appealed to. He did not rule that that was a breach of order or a breach of privilege. He said—and I entirely agree with him—that it was contrary to the best usages and traditions of the House. But the hon. Member is well aware that there is at present a motion standing on the Orders of the House for a Joint Committee of both Houses to be appointed to inquire into the question of municipal trading. It has stood there for, I think, some weeks now, and the right hon. Baronet from the beginning of the session onwards has had many motions in respect of Private Bills in regard to municipal trading, and I cannot see that he is committing any breach of the privileges of the House or its Orders in inviting Members to attend, or express their interest in a meeting in a committee-room for the purpose of considering a question which is about to come before a Joint Committee of both Houses. It appears to me quite in accordance with the common practice, and I cannot say that the hon. Member has brought before me anything that calls for my intervention.
SIR JOHN LUBBOCK: As I have been referred to personally, perhaps I may be allowed to say a few words. I only had notice of this question as I came into the House two or three minutes ago, and I think I might reasonably complain that I had not longer notice. Still, it is not material, as my answer is so simple. I have not been acting on behalf of the Telephone Company, but from the beginning of the session, at the request of the London and other Chambers of Commerce I have been opposing the extension of municipal trading, and it is on that ground that I oppose the present Bill. You, Sir, have been good enough to say that I have acted within my right. The hon. Member supposes I have some pecuniary interest in the National Telephone Company. Bat whether the Bill passes or not makes not the slightest difference to me in a pecuniary sense. I am, it is true, one of the trustees, not however for the company, but for the debenture-holders, and my duty as trustee simply is, if necessary, to protect the creditors against the company. I am not, however, myself a debenture-holder, nor do I hold a single share in the company. I have no pecuniary interest whatever in the matter, and hope, therefore, that the House will consider that the attack which the hon. Gentleman has thought fit to make upon me is quite uncalled for.

BOARD OF EDUCATION BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL FOR EDUCATION (Sir J. GORST,): The contents of the Bill of which I move the Second Reading are very well known already to the House, and have been the subject of considerable discussion, not only in another place, but out of doors among all those who take an interest in this question. But I feel it would not be respectful to the House of Commons if I did not say a few words in support of the Bill when I move the Second Reading, although I am afraid I may repeat observations which have been made elsewhere. The object of the Bill is to obtain statutory power and statutory sanction for a reconstruction of that Department of the State which has mostly to do, though not exclusively to do, with the education of the people in England

  613
  and Wales. The functions which the present Education Department exercise give it direct and complete control of the elementary education of most of the children in the country. It also, through that branch of the Education Department called the Science and Art Department, exercises a very considerable influence on the teaching of science and art, because it has the power of distributing the grant that is annually made by Parliament for the promotion of instruction in science and art, and it distributes it practically through the rules and regulations which it makes itself, of course with the consent of the Treasury; and that gives it very considerable influence in the promotion of science and art teaching among the various schools of the country. It also has very limited powers in relation to technical instruction, derived from the Technical Instruction Act. That Act gives no real initiative to the Education Department, but it enables it to exercise a certain amount of supervision and control over the application of the funds in the hands of county councils and the funds which they may themselves raise by rate for technical instruction. But the Education Department has no power and no function whatever in relation to the general higher education of the country, in what is roughly and rather loosely called secondary education. The object of this Bill is to enable the Government to create a Department of State suitable and fitted to have conferred upon it powers in relation to secondary education, which it is believed that Parliament wishes to be granted to it. The Royal Commission on Secondary Education recommended that there should be a central authority, a Government Department, in London, to supervise secondary education, and local authorities in the country. The opinion of the Government is that the central authority in London must be created and arranged before the local authorities in the country can be usefully set on foot, and it is to organise and arrange a proper central Department in London to exercise the sort of functions recommended by the Royal Commission that this Bill has been brought before Parliament. The Bill proposes the abolition of the existing Committee of Council on Education, and to replace it by a Board of Education consisting of the First Lord of the Treasury, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the Secretaries of State
  614
  for various Departments, having a President and a Parliamentary Secretary, in the same manner as the Local Government Board and the Board of Trade possess Parliamentary officials by whom the executive work of the Department is done. To this new Board of Education are to be transferred all the powers and functions which are at present exercised by the Committee of Council, so that it will stand in relation to educational matters and the distribution of the science and art grants and technical instruction exactly in the same position, and have exactly the same powers, as the present Education Department. Further, the Charity Commission is also dealt with. The functions of the Charity Commissioners in relation to education consist of two perfectly distinct parts. They exercise, first of all, a sort of judicial function, taking in this the place of the old Court of Chancery. They determine, in relation to any charitable fund, whether it is or is not applicable to educational purposes, and they determine this rather as a judicial body, exercising the functions formerly exercised by a court of law. Then their second, and entirely distinct, duty is, having determined the particular fund which is applicable to educational purposes, administratively, to frame a scheme by which it is to be applied, and, after that scheme has come to have the force of law, to exercise certain functions in the way of inspection and visitation. This Bill does not propose to touch in any way the judicial functions of the Charity Com-missioners. After the Bill has passed they will, as heretofore, have jurisdiction over charitable endowments, and they will be the Department to say whether any particular endowment is or is not applicable to the purposes of education. Of course, that is a power which they exercise under appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council on all questions of law, and subject to the supervision of this and the other House of Parliament on all questions of policy. That power will, under this Bill, continue to be exercised just as at present by the Charity Commissioners. But with regard to their administrative functions, power is given in this Bill to transfer from time to time any part or the whole of those functions from the Charity Commissioners to the Board of Education. Nothing is actually transferred by the Bill itself, but the Bill gives power for the

  615
  transfer, by Order in Council, of any part of those administrative functions, subject to the condition that any such Order should be laid on the Table of both Houses of Parliament, and not cone into force until it has so laid for four weeks. Besides that, sanction is given to the new Board of Education to inspect secondary schools under certain conditions. I suppose without Parliamentary sanction the Board of Education would have no right to exercise this function, but by the Bill the sanction of Parliament is given, and on the Board is cast the duty of looking into the secondary education of the country, either by inspectors of its own or by employing inspectors from the universities. It is also provided that this power is to be exercised with the consent of the managers, governing bodies, and proprietors of the schools so inspected, and if consent is obtained the inspectors may inquire into the character of the teaching given in those schools, into the provision made in the schools for teaching, and the number of teachers they have; also into the sanitary condition of all these schools as affecting the health of the pupils. Provision is also made enabling county and borough councils to apply the local taxation money, which by law is applicable to secondary instruction, to the payment of the expenses of inspectors under the Bill; but there is nothing in the Bill pledging the administration to the particular kind of inspection they will have.
  MR. BARTLEY: Will the inspection only be made on invitation from the school?
  SIR J. GORST: Yes. In the ordinary schools they will have no power to inspect unless with the consent of the governing bodies and proprietors of the schools. Under many schemes which have become law under the Charity Commissioners the Charity Commission has certain compulsory powers which they can exercise, whether the governing bodies please or not, and those compulsory powers can be transferred to the Education Board.
  SIR ALBERT ROLLIT: May any private school invite inspection?
  SIR J. GORST: No doubt any school may invite inspection, but there is no
  616
  absolute compulsion on the Board of Education. It is not obliged to inspect any school, but it may inspect any school if inspection is asked for. The next feature is the creation of the Consultative Committee. A great deal has been said about a Consultative Committee, to which the Minister of Education should have recourse on any technical question upon which the Department itself is scarcely qualified to determine. It is proposed under the Bill to sanction the formation, by the Board of Education, of a Consultative Committee. The constitution, the numbers, and the mode in which it is to be applied, are not provided for in the Bill. It will be an experimental proceeding, and it is thought better to leave the appointment of the Committee and the conditions under which it is to hold office to the discretion of the President of the Board of Education. But a certain portion is to be representative of universities and other bodies taking an interest in education. In the view of the Government it would be a mistake to make this Committee into a Parliamentary Committee, so as to tie the hands of the President. It would be better if Parliament, at all events at the outset, would entrust the matter to the President of the Board of Education, who might from time to time make alterations in the constitution of the Consultative Committee as experience would show to be desirable. The functions of the Committee are two. In the first place, they are to make a register of teachers for England and Wales, and I think that the regulations will be framed in a generous and liberal spirit. It will be a register to which everyone can find access who is qualified to teach the higher subjects of education.
  SIR F. S. POWELL: Is it to be confined to higher teaching?
  SIR J. GORST: It is to be a register of teachers qualified to teach higher subjects. A great many elementary school teachers are so qualified, and they would, of course, be entitled to be put on the register. A great many representations have reached the Lord President of the Council, asking that the register should be applicable to Scotland and Ireland as well as to England. I am afraid it will be impossible to make this extension under the Bill. Personally, I think it a

  617
  great misfortune that the education of the three portions of the United Kingdom has been so divided; but whatever may be our private opinion as to the advantage of such a separation, I am afraid that the register of teachers must follow the same course. There is nothing, however, to prevent any Irish or Scottish teacher who is qualified from being put on the register of England and Wales. Now I think I have described, as nearly as I can, the purposes of this Bill. This is not a Secondary Education Bill; it is a Bill to make preparation for secondary education by establishing at headquarters such an organisation as will enable Parliament hereafter to confer upon those who have charge of education such functions and powers as the condition of the country in the matter of secondary education will require. I beg to move the Second Reading of the Bill.
  Motion male, and Question proposed—
  "That the Bill he now read a second time."—(Sir J. Gorst.)
  MR CHANNING: We are indebted to the right hon. Gentleman for the clearness with which he has brought this question before the House. The Bill, although small, is of enormous importance. The central principle of the Bill, which we heartily welcome, is the creation of a central authority to co-ordinate and stimulate and develop all branches of education. In view of the commercial competition in which we have to engage, it is essential to develop the technical and secondary and commercial education of the country as rapidly as possible, and place the whole system at the earliest moment on the maximum basis of efficiency. I have placed a notice on the paper, not in hostility to the principle of the Bill, but to obtain some assurances that local authorities will be created, and to raise the conditions under which they are to be created. So far as I can see we have no positive guarantee that there will be any local authorities established, or that there will be any local machinery created, during the present Parliament. This Bill will come into operation, we are told, on the 1st April, 1900, and it is therefore obvious that the central authority cannot be in operation with a view to the development of the local authorities for a considerable time after that date. The
  618
  Duke of Devonshire told us that the central authority was created for the purpose of guiding the local authorities, but this explanation in another place on this point was unsatisfactory, and we have a right to demand some assurance from the Government that we shall have an intelligible and workable scheme of local machinery within a reasonable time. I think the Bill is open to serious objection from its vagueness. Of course I do not expect that this Bill will be used by the Lord President of the Council and the right hon. Gentleman for a despotic and autocratic reconstruction of the education of this country. But in discussing this Bill we must bear in mind the central fact that this is a Bill to deal with the whole educational system of the country—elementary as well as secondary, and that we are giving very great powers to the new Department, as to which in the course of the Debate we should receive from the Government some assurance as to what the new Department will do, and what it will not do. But there is a question of still more urgent importance. The Department by the Bill will have extraordinary powers for delegating its most important functions of fixing the standard of education to other bodies. The fixing of the standard of education is a very serious matter, and should, in the opinion of many, remain solely in the hands of the Department. An important Amendment was obtained by my noble friend Lord Spencer in another place by which words were struck out of the Bill. The words were: "The Board of Education may, by their officers, or by any university or other organisation approved on that behalf by the Board, inspect, &c." The words, "or other organisation," were struck out of the Bill on the motion of my noble friend in the other House, and they were words of considerable danger, and I think it should be emphasised at the beginning of the Debate that if there is any attempt made to reintroduce those words it will be resisted to the utmost in their power by the friends of education. Many of us who were in the House during the Debates on the great and abortive Education Bill of 1896 will remember perfectly well that there was a feeling, as strong on the Government side as on the Opposition side of the House, that the proposals then made of delegating the supreme authority

  619
  of the Education Department of inspecting and testing education to all sorts of local committees, constituted in all sorts of ways, not specially responsible even to their own localities or to Parliament, and empowering them to fix the standard of education, was a serious danger. I think we ought to ask during the course of this Debate that we should have some guarantee against the indiscriminate delegation of these powers in constituting this central authority. All friends of education are delighted to see the Science and Art Department and the Education Department united, and to see the authority concentrated under one head, and we welcome the probable handing over of nearly all the educational functions of the Charity Commissioners to this new Board. I say we welcome all these proposals, and are willing to support them most heartily, but we must again, as we did in 1896, offer our determined hostility to the delegation of the authority of fixing the standard of education from the Department responsible to the House. I hope before we arrive at a further stage of the Bill that we may have all these points, and this point in particular, thoroughly cleared up. There are several details which had better be reserved for the Committee stage. So far as I am concerned I agree with the opinion given by the Archbishop of Canterbury that the proposed Consultative Committee is a superfluity not without its serious dangers. I hope that if this Consultative Committee is constituted in the Bill during its passage through this House we shall at least have the proposals which were made by the Royal Commission inserted in the Bill, that the appointment should be made for a certain specific period, and that these appointments shall be open to the revision of Parliament in case the Department in any sense passes over the bounds that Parliament intends, and in any way mischief arises in the working of this machinery. I wish also to express considerable doubt as to the advisability of devolving upon county councils the machinery for education to any larger extent. But what I wish to raise on the Second Reading is the broad question of principle. Her Majesty's Government are creating the most important engine created since 1870 for the development
  620
  and grouping together of all these branches of education, which are of the most vital importance to the future of the country. I think we have a right to ask for some guarantee, even at this stage, that certain principles shall be aimed at ultimately in carrying out the machinery of this Bill. The first is that education shall be continuous. Suggestions have been made in various Bills and proposals that secondary education should be separated from technical education, and that you should draw an absolute barrier between elementary and secondary education. By linking together elementary and technical and secondary education you will draw into the higher education the largest number of young people and make your whole system most effective. The second principle which I should like to insist on is that you should enlist the intelligent interest of the largest possible number in directly co-operating in the work of making your organisation efficient to meet the needs of the whole people. In emphasising that point I am insisting upon the view originally laid before Parliament by Mr. Acland, when, after the passing of the Technical Instruction Act in 1889, he put down a motion that the advantages of secondary and technical education could best be extended to all classes by a system of universal school boards in large areas. I support that view, and I ask Her Majesty's Government to favourably consider the plan of dealing with the whole series of the questions relating to elementary, technical, and secondary education laid before the country by my noble friend Lord Spencer last winter. His suggestion was that you ought to have directly elected educational authority everywhere to deal with elementary education, as a fundamental basis upon which to build your educational machinery for secondary education, which should be controlled by a body composed of representatives of the directly elected local authorities with representatives of the county council. While passing some time in Massachusetts (U.S.A.) I have felt a great envy at the way in which the great branches of education, from the elementary through the secondary and leading up to the university, are co-ordinated and are intelligently and vigorously worked by a local committee for the district, and a similar body deals in a similar way with the State. It co-ordinates and brings into regula-

  621
  tion the whole State, and brings into operation and urges into activity those localities which lagging behind and not cluing good work. What is the gist of my suggestion? It is that Her Majesty's Government should frankly and honourably admit that the use of Article 7 of the Directory of the Science and Art Department to create these cabinet-window authorities to deal with secondary and higher elementary education is a mere stop-gap expedient, and that they should boldly say, We are going to replace this confusion of authorities and jurisdictions and claims and interests by a simple and intelligible and work able authority such as the friends of education can accept. I have had many communications, especially from the North of England, in the last few years to work of the county technical committees. Some gentlemen are extremely proud of the work they do, and excellent work is now being undoubtedly by such a body as the Technical Board in London. At the same time, I have had representations that the work of those committees is very often the work of one or two officials, and is therefore divested not only of popular control, but of popular interest. In many districts the working classes for whom the matter was of most importance did not take the interest they ought in the development of technical and higher education. The result of having a directly elected authority would be to bring the largest number of minds into contact with these problems, the working out of which was now left in the hands of a few well-intentioned experts, and that is an aspect of the question which should nor be lost of. I have made one or two specific demands on the Government on this occasion. We ought to have a guarantee, with regard to inspection, that the Department retains its essential responsibility to the country, and we are entitled to say in the settlement of the local authority, that the principle shall be considered by the Government that the real interests of the masses would be best preserved by giving them a direct share in the working out of the new system of education.
  MR. JEBB: The Government is to be congratulated on the introduction of this measure. It is confessedly of limited scope, but none the less on that account it is a measure of great importance. It takes a step
  622
  which is the first and indispensable condition of any better organisation of our system of secondary education. It would be vain to set up new local authorities if they had still to deal with the various unconnected agencies which share among them the central control of secondary education. You must begin by doing what this Bill does, by creating a strong central authority such as will command public confidence, and can take a survey of the whole educational field. I do not regard this measure as a small and tentative instalment of educational reform. I regard it as effecting in itself a large and far-reaching, result. It creates an organ which is essential to the unity of any system of secondary education which may in the future be developed. I have observed, and I hope the hon. Member for East Northampton shire will also note, that the Government, speaking through the Lord President of the Council in another place, made clear their intention that the institution of local authorities is to follow the institution of the central authority, find is to follow it at no distant date. It will be observed that this Bill mentions the 1st of April next year as the date upon which the Bill is to come into operation, and it has been asked why the date fixed was not the 1st of January. The Lord President answered that question in another place, and that answer was that the Science and Art Department, which has always been in law part of the Education Department, was now to be formally united with the Education Department under a single administrative head. The Science and Art Department is to be revised as soon as Parliament has sanctioned the principle of this Bill. It is in contemplation to appoint a Departmental Committee for the purpose of undertaking the revision of the constitution of the Science and Art Department at South Kensington, and that Departmental Committee must perform its Work before the central authority sketched in this Bill can be fully constituted. Therefore it is necessary to give the Departmental Committee time to accomplish that work, and therefore the 1st of April has been named. But, as the Duke of Devonshire pointed out, that is no reason why the Bill for the institution of the local authorities should not be introduced next session. It is not necessary to defer that Bill until the

  623
  central authority is actually in operation. What is necessary is that, Parliament having passed a Bill for setting up the local authorities, the central authority shall be actually in operation before the constitution of these local authorities is taken in hand, because the central authority is the source to which those who have to constitute the local authorities would naturally look for guidance, advice, and information The question of the transfer of the functions of the Charity Commission to the new Education Board is one of very great complexity, and one which engaged a great deal of attention in the Royal commission on Education, which ultimately came to the conclusion that the whole of the educational faculties of the Charity Commissioners should be transferred to the Education Department. If such a transfer had been attempted in this Bill it would probably have made the Bill highly controversial. The Government, therefore, have been well advised in providing in this Bill that the transfer of the educational functions of the Charity Commission should be gradual and should be effected by Order in Council. One function of the Charity Commission, however, is transferred at once—namely, the function of examining schools subject to the Endowed Schools Acts. The Charity Commission under this Bill retain the power of determining what endowments are applicable to education, and when the Charity Commission have decided that, the future Board of Education will have the function of determining to what educational purpose the endowment shall be applied. There is a fear in some quarters lest this new Education Board should have a tendency to divert small endowments from primary to secondary education, but I venture to lay before the House this general consideration, which should tend to allay any such apprehension. The Charity Commission have had, for a long time, the power of so diverting small endowments from primary to secondary education; but, as a matter of fact, it has seldom exercised that power, for the reason that a proposal to do so generally excites strong local opposition. Such local opposition will be experienced by the new Education Board not less than by the Charity Commissioners. On the other hand, where the new Education Board and the inhabitants of a particular locality may agree that such an application of an endow-
  624
  ment now devoted to primary education was desirable, there should be facilities for effecting that change. Now I should like to say one word about the Consultative Committee. The hon. Member for Northamptonshire rather deprecated the Consultative Committee. The object of establishing the Consultative Committee was to place at the disposal of the new Education Board the advice of persons who had practical knowledge, and who were conversant with the details of secondary education. It was proposed in another place that the number should not be less than 12 or more than 25; and the Duke of Devonshire, while declining to fix the number in the Bill, indicated that those would be about the limits. In the Teachers' Registration Bill of last year the Teachers' Registration Council were to be 18. The Royal Commission proposed that its Education Council should not exceed 12 in number. We may take it, then, that something between 12 and 25 will be the number of this Consultative Committee. Not less than two-thirds of the members of that Consultative Committee are to be representatives of universities and other bodies interested in education. The functions of the committee are to frame regulations for forming the Register of teachers and to advise the Board of Education in the matter of the inspection of schools. The Consultative Committee is also to be taken into counsel on any matter referred to it by the board, but on such matters only. It is to have no statutory powers whatever. It is to be the creation of the Minister of Education, who can choose his own advisers, subject only to the proviso as to the two-thirds. The Minister will not be obliged to take the advice of this committee more than he sees fit to do so. I do not think, therefore, that those who are apprehensive that the control of secondary education might pass too much into the hands of educational experts have any reason to be alarmed by anything in this Bill. In administering the Army and Navy statesmen have at their disposal the advice of professional experts. To that extent, but no further, the statesman who directs education will have the assistance of educational experts. There is a further strong reason for appointing the Consultative Committee. The Bill takes power to inspect all schools for secondary education which it may be desirable

  625
  to inspect, and schools subject to the Endowed Schools Acts will be liable to compulsory inspection by the new Board, as they are at present by the Charity Commissioners. It is not intended at present to undertake any complete or systematic inspection of secondary schools. For financial reasons alone that would not be possible. But many masters of public schools have signified their willingness to accept inspection under certain conditions, in the hope that their example will influence smaller schools, and because they believe it is to the public interest that there should be an ultimate possibility of a complete and systematic inspection. But many headmasters of public schools are naturally and rightly anxious to have every possible security that the inspection shall not be such as will impose a rigid uniformity of method or system. In elementary education such uniformity is to a certain extent inevitable, but in secondary education elasticity is indispensable. The headmasters of public schools feel that they could not have a better security for such elasticity than that the Minister of Education should, at all events occasionally, refer to the advice of persons who are intimately and practically acquainted with secondary and university education. The Headmasters' Conference, representing the great public schools, and the Incorporated Association of Headmasters, representing a very large number of other secondary schools, have passed resolutions that the Consultative Committee, though not statutory, should at least have an assured and permanent existence, and the Government have, very wisely, assented to that view. With regard to the omission, by an Amendment in another place, of the words in Clause 3, "or other organisation approved by the Department," it is most desirable that there should be imposed strict limits on the delegation of such authority by the Board of Education. But the Bill in its original form proposed that an organisation other than the universities, if approved by the Board, might be employed as an inspecting agency. There is something to be said in favour of reinstating the words which have been omitted, since the clause as it now stands cuts out the examinations of such valuable agencies as the College of Preceptors and the City Guilds, and others. The Government has not seen its way to sanction the
  626
  application of the beer-money to secondary education generally as distinguished from technical education. Possibly when we come in some future session to the constitution of local authorities for secondary education that point, which is more particularly pertinent to that part of the question, may come up again. Meantime, I note with satisfaction that Clause 4, which gives powers to counties and county boroughs to contribute towards the cost of inspection, makes no limitation to schools giving technical instruction. The Lord President of the Council has expressed the opinion that that clause is so far an extension of the limits with which the beer-money may be applied. It must be remembered how very important this Bill is for the commercial and technical education of the country, and therefore for all its commercial and industrial interests. The example of foreign countries, and pre-eminently that of Germany, teaches us that the best use of school time, even with a view to a commercial or industrial calling, is to train the intelligence. The basis of commercial and technical education should be liberal. To obtain such a liberal basis it is necessary to organise all our resources for secondary education. What is wanted is not so much fresh expenditure of money, but rather a better, more systematic and more intelligent adjustment of existing means and agencies. This Bill is the first and a large step in that direction—a step which ought to have been taken many years ago. Now that it has come let us give it a cordial welcome; and let us earnestly hope that the Government will see their way next session to introduce a Bill for setting up local authorities for secondary education.
  SIR WILLIAM ANSON: This measure is, in fact, a concentration of educational authorities in one Department. The new powers which are conferred upon this Department are not compulsory in their character. There is a power to inspect schools, but no school need be inspected unless it desires to be. There is a provision for the registration of teachers, but no disability falls upon any teacher who does not trouble to have his name on the register; there is a Consultative Committee, which seems to inspire alarm in some quarters, but the duty of consulting that committee, thrown upon the Board, does not appear

  627
  to be very onerous. And yet in regard to the secondary education of the country, I look upon this Bill as a very large and important measure. The question of local authorities is very wisely postponed until the central authority is created. The constitution of those authorities is a more difficult subject than that which is now before us, but I hope we shall deal with the difficulties as they arise, and not risk the progress of this measure by anticipating difficulties which do not arise in this Bill, and which this Bill will not in any way increase. As to the inspection of schools, so far from desiring that it should be limited strictly to the official members of the Board, I earnestly hope the Department will use all the existing agencies. I say nothing as to the demand which is made in other quarters for inclusion among the bodies which may, with the approval of the Board, be admitted to inspect schools; but I can answer for this, that at my own university there is a Board, acting jointly with members of the Cambridge University, which does inspect schools, and although the matter has not gone very far a considerable number of schools have been inspected by this Board, and there is every prospect that the demand will be increased, and such inspections continued. As regards the lower grade schools, there is another Board, confined to Oxford University, which does conduct examinations, and the examiner, who goes down to the school to examine viva voce, is encouraged to report as generally as he can upon the education of the school. I venture to hope that it will not be made more expensive for schools to be inspected and examined from the universities than from the Department. As regards the Consultative Committee, I cannot share the apprehensions which have been expressed. The Committee would, no doubt, consist of a body of persons interested in education. It has been said that they would be "faddists," and that their crotchets would seriously impair the working of any educational system. Everyone who has been engaged in teaching has his own views as to the best way in which subjects should be taught. I myself, having been engaged in teaching for more than twenty years, have very decided views as to the teaching of the subjects on which I have been engaged, but if I were to confer with some other gentleman who has been engaged in education as long as I have he would very
  628
  likely tell me that those views were, to a certain extent, "fads." I do not say that I should agree with him. But I do say that a subject so large and various in character as secondary education should be under the guidance of persons possessed of ample knowledge, and should be treated with a light hand. There is another point to which I wish to refer—viz the registration of teachers. It is, no doubt, to be voluntary, but our hopes are that it may become a matter of honour and distinction to be on the register. And in order to be placed on the register there must be evidence of qualification—not only of general attainments exemplified by university degrees, or some such certificate of a good general education, but there must ultimately be a test of examination of some sort. I know there is a great mass of expert opinion in favour of the training and examination of teachers. I believe that outside expert opinion there is a very general belief that anybody can teach anything so long as he has obtained a university degree, and possibly has also distinguished himself in athletic amusements at school or college. On the other hand, it is said that the art of teaching is incommunicable, and that no one who is not a born teacher can possibly teach. My own view is something which lies between these two extremes. There is no doubt that in the past, and to a certain extent in the present, we have suffered from the belief that anybody could teach. On the other hand, I do not believe that teaching is an incommunicable art, and not to be imparted to another. Undoubtedly, there are born teachers, the great headmasters and professors like Arnold and Jowett, whose pupils fill great offices in Church and State, just as there are born orators and statesmen inevitably destined to occupy the front benches. But I hope and believe that, as there are a very considerable number of persons who, if they are modest and industrious, may, in time, become useful Members of the House of Commons, so there are a great many who—if they are taught how to teach, and required to have a certain amount of practice before they are turned loose upon a school, who if they are content to learn, as a teacher must learn, that he must understand the difficulties of other minds, and distinguish the difficulties which arise from honest stupidity and the difficulties which arise from perverse ingenuity—may become useful,

  629
  if not eminent, in their vocation. But they must be content with small results, hope for little, and hope too that, although the apparent results are disappointing, they may have done some good to those who have passed through their hands. It is contended that before registration there should be an examination in the theory and history of education. You may say that is not very valuable; but if a man is going to be a teacher, it is as well that he should know what other people have thought upon the subject, and what is its history. There is such an examination at Cambridge, and also at my own university. I was looking at these examination papers the other day. I know that I could not answer the questions, and in consequence I regarded them with a mixture of anxiety and dislike. I know that there are hon. Members of this House who have encyclopædic knowledge, and the papers are at their service. I welcome this proposal for the registration of teachers, not only because it will impress upon them that they have something to learn before they teach others, but because it will impart a sense of comradeship in the great profession of teaching which I believe to be one of the most honourable which any man can follow. I would say, in conclusion, that I know it is never wise to expect too much from legislation, and this Bill is studiously modest in its character. Yet I do hope that if it is honestly and generously welcomed and worked by the various bodies which may come under its purview, as I feel sure it will be by the universities, it will be the first step towards the co-ordination and harmonising of the secondary education of the country.
  MR. BRYCE: I hope I may be allowed to express the pleasure with which I have listened to the lucid, interesting and eminently practical speech of my hon. friend who has just sat down; and also the pleasure which is felt by a member of the University of Oxford at the fact that the members of that university have used their right to return to Parliament one who has long held so distinguished a place within its walls. It is a very great satisfaction to those of us who are attached to our university and who are interested in the cause of education to see two such distinguished representatives of the two
  630
  ancient universities, and that these representatives, so eminent by their learning and scholarship, should associate themselves at once with our discussions on this Bill, and should make such valuable contributions as they have done to our debates. I hope we shall often have the benefit of similar contributions from them. The Bill is a dry Bill; and it must he admitted that the subject is rather a dry subject. It is dry in the first place because it is technical, and in the second place because it is not controversial. There is no Party heat or excitement to be had out of the Bill in its present shape. It is a very important Bill, much more important than the House might have gathered from the speech of the Vice-President of the Council. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I say that I have seldom heard so important a measure introduced in so perfunctory a way. He appeared to minimise the Bill, and he played what musicians call the diminuendo; he showed the House what the Bill did not contain, but dwelt very little indeed on the points of the Bill, which were subsequently explained by the two hon. Members who have just spoken. I think that is rather a pity, as it obliges me to go a little more into detail than I would otherwise do. One expected from the right hon. Gentleman an explanation of the Bill, which he admitted himself was somewhat vague, somewhat obscure, and rather in the nature of a blank cheque, to be filled up by the Education Department. It is not very easy to criticise a blank cheque; and while a blank cheque contains great possibilities which may be used in different ways, it becomes rather essential to convey to the House what the possibilities are and to point out the different uses that may be made of the Bill. This Bill is the first attempt on the part of this House to deal with secondary education. As the right hon. Gentleman perfectly truly said—and I have no quarrel with anything he did say—the Bill has been conceived in a very judicious spirit, though it is a very little Bill.
  SIR J. GORST: I think the right hon. Gentleman ought not to accuse me of that. There is not the slightest shadow of foundation for it. I think he himself thought very little of the Bill a short time ago.
  MR. BRYCE: I beg to withdraw, of course, what I said, but that was the impression I gathered from the right hon. Gentleman. Everybody agrees as to the evils of the present system; everybody holds that there is a great deal of competition, overlapping, and waste, a great deal of unnecessary expenditure and unnecessary labour in the working of the different authorities, which, to a large extent, conflict the one with another, and therefore overlap. What everyone wants is to organise secondary education so as to get rid of competition and overlapping among the different authorities, and to bring them into just relations and harmony, and to co-operate for the common aim. That involves two processes—the organisation of the local authorities, and the organisation of the central authority. This Bill does not touch the local authorities at all. It passes them by. It deals with the central authority only. My hon. friend the Member for East Northamptonshire seems to think that it would have been better if the Government had brought in a Bill dealing with the whole matter. I subscribe, however, to the view that the Government have done right in presenting a Bill dealing only with the organisation of the central authority. In the first place, to deal with the whole subject would have been a large task, would have occupied much time, and would have involved much controversial matter. And, in the second place, it must be of great advantage to the local authorities that they should find a central authority already in being which would take their infants by the hands and guide their wavering steps. I hold that it was wise to deal with the central authority first. Let me say further that the object at which the Bill aims is right. It proposes to connect elementary with secondary education; it proposes to unify university and secondary education and bring them under one Education Department; and it proposes to collect the different funds now applicable to secondary education into one, which will be administered upon common principles. Further, it proposes to bring the endowed schools of the country into that organic relation with the secondary schools which ought to have been made long ago. These are all excellent objects, and I do not find in the Bill anything that one can object to as being positively wrong. What I com-
  632
  plain of in the Bill is rather its defects in vagueness and obscurity. It entrusts to the Government an uncontrolled discretion which it is not wise to entrust to any Government, even in the matter of education. One merit, however, the Bill must be admitted to have. It scrupulously avoids all controversial topics. I wish very much it had included a proposal to deal with the technical education money under the Act of 1890, but the Government apparently thought that that would be a little outside the scope of the Bill, and perhaps that would be true. I hope that the Government will adopt the same course which was adopted with so much firmness and judgment by the Lord President in the other House, and will keep this Bill entirely on its present lines, and not allow it to be extended so as to deal with any controversial topic, and particularly with any topics which excite ecclesiastical controversy. If the Government resist any attempt to bring in those topics, which are really irrelevant, I believe the Bill will become law easily and speedily, because I am not aware that there is a disposition—at any rate on the side of the House—to offer to it any opposition. But if those topics should be unfortunately introduced I think it does not require the gift of great prophecy to see that the Bill will have a troubled course, and it will be found very difficult to put it on the Statute Book this session. To come to the provisions of the Bill, which may cause a good deal of disappointment, I would like to call attention to them under the five different topics to which they relate. The first is the creation of a Board of Education; the next is the method of dealing with the Charity Commission; the third is the provision for inspection; the fourth is the Consultative Committee; and the fifth is the registration. In the first place, why have a Board of Education at all? Why a "Board"? Why not a secretaryship? Of course, it may be said that a secretaryship would set up a new Secretary of State. But why not have a secretary like the Secretary for Scotland, who is not a Secretary of State? The only argument I have heard in favour of the proposal is that it enables one Minister to act for another in his absence, but surely that is hardly a sufficient reason for multiplying the existing boards. The Bill extinguishes one old friend, the Committee of Council on Education, just at a

  633
  time when it had become not only familiar, but, I had almost said, beloved by the House and by the country, and the Vice-President himself vanishes just at the moment when he had succeeded in showing us how interesting and novel might be the relations of the Vice-President of the Council with the rest of the Government. But we should like to know what is to become of the Science and Art Department. That is one of the important things upon which we have no light in this Bill. We are told that there is to be another Bill. The subject of the Science and Art Department has been under consideration for at least four years, and it is quite time we knew whether the Science and Art Department is to be kept a distinct body or blended in the Secondary Education Department. Now, I come to the Charity Commission. The method of dealing with the Charity Commission is by far the most difficult, intricate, and controversial part of this proposal. That it is difficult is proved by the fact that this House has repeatedly investigated its working by Committees, and the greatest difference of opinion has been found to exist in regard to the manner in which it ought to be handled. The present measure does not in the least attempt to solve the difficulty. The Bill, as it were, walks up to it, looks the difficulty boldly in the face, and then passes by. The Charity Commission was originally a branch of the Court of Chancery, and it has two sets of work—the work under the Charitable Trusts Act and the work under the Endowed Schools Act. I think the right hon. Gentleman's recollection must fail him for the moment when he said that the appeal from the Charity Commission lies with the Judicial Committee. The appeal from the Charity Commission lies with the High Court of Justice. The two kinds of jurisdiction which the Charity Commission has are rather inextricably intermixed. They cannot without the greatest difficulty be separated, and that is the difficulty which this Bill ought to solve. It has not touched it. The Bill draws no line whatever between the powers that are and the powers that are not to be transferred. It does not say that the Order will transfer the powers relating to the Endowed Schools Act. In fact, if all the powers that the Charity Commission needs to conduct its over-
  634
  sight of educational matters are transferred, the House will have set up by this Statute a second Charity Commission. There would be two authorities, both exercising the same powers, and exercising them over the same schools, and perhaps from different views of policy. One would hardly think that that can be contemplated, but it is clearly within the powers of the Bill, and I think it would not only perpetuate the existing confusion, but be found very vexatious and annoying to the schools themselves, because it would subject them to double inspection and double control—first by the Education Department, and then by their old friends the Charity Commission. I therefore think that the consideration of these difficulties will satisfy the House that the Bill really does not go to the root of the question. But there is another point which ought to be referred to. The Bill gives power to make such provision as appears necessary for the exercise by the Board of Education of the enactments relating to the Charity Commission. But if the powers of the Charity Commission are transferred to the Education Department, what becomes of those provisions which contemplate a Charity Commission apart from the Education Department? Clearly the Endowed Schools Acts will require to be re-drawn for that purpose. What we are asked to do, or at any rate what it is possible to do under this Bill, is to give power to the Education Department in the form of an Order of the Privy Council, to re-draft the Endowed Schools Acts, and to introduce new enactments which will be required to meet the new condition of things. I think it is going rather beyond the very wide latitude which we have lately been accustomed to give to Government Departments in legislating by way of Order. If we are going to modify in many important points these existing enactments, if we are going to deal with the new state of things created, we surely ought to submit those provisions to Parliament, and have them discussed here in Committee. No Order can do it properly, because no Order can be discussed in this House. Even if an Order is laid before the House, it is not the same thing as discussing it in Committee in this House, and therefore I submit it is too much to ask the House to give these powers without some information as to the scheme which the Govern-

  635
  ment have in their minds. Everything, in fact, will depend on the Order, and the Order is not before us. The simplest course would have been for the Government to propose to take over the Charity Commission altogether. I do not deny that there are objections to be taken to that course. Those who have read the Reports of the two Commissions which have sat on the subject know what are the objections raised, but they seem on the whole to be rather less than the objections which will arise by adopting the plan of the Government. We shall be landed, I think, by this Bill into a number of difficulties which would at any rate be avoided if the Charity Commission were bodily incorporated with the Education Department. The question of inspection illustrates what I was endeavouring to put before the House with regard to the position of the Charity Commission. The inspection proposed by this Bill is not the inspection of the Charity Commission, and that is the only point on which I was not able to agree with the speech of my hon. friend the member for Cambridge University. I understood him to say that the inspection of the Charity Commission was to be taken over under this Bill. But the inspection contemplated in Clause 3 is not quite the inspection which is carried on by the Charity Commission. It is really the complement to that which is carried on by the Charity Commission. It has been already observed that the inspection under this Bill is to be optional. It is so much an optional inspection that it is not compulsory even as regards health. That seems to me to be an unfortunate defect in the Bill. We are all agreed that the health of children is a matter which might rightly and properly be dealt with in a compulsory way by Statute. That was a point on which the Education Commission were unanimous, as well as the witnesses, and it is clearly a matter of the utmost concern, and one to which I think even a private school would have no right to object. I do not quite understand how much the Government contemplate by this inspection. The Secondary Education Commission recommended that inspection should be left to local authorities. It is true they took the safeguard of providing that the inspectors should all be persons who had been approved by the central authority, the Education Department; but it seems to me that the Government
  636
  would probably have done better to have reserved the inspection of local schools for their measure dealing with local authorities, rather than to have thrown this extremely large task upon the Education Department. There is a considerable advantage in giving the inspection to local authorities. They would probably have to make the grant, and it is better that those who make the grant shall make the inspection on which that grant depends. The Bill is extremely uncertain and doubtful about the Consultative Committee. In the first place, we are told that it is to consist of "persons representing universities and other bodies interested in education." Now the word "representing" is ambiguous. It may mean persons chosen by universities and other bodies interested in education, but it may also mean persons who are qualified to represent the views and interests of those bodies, but who may be appointed by some other authority. Of course, all universities are interested. Then I suppose it would be admitted that such a body as the College of Preceptors, or the Teachers' Guild, or the Head Masters' Association, or the Head Masters' Conference are interested. Then the technical instruction committees of the county councils are interested; the borough councils are interested; chambers of commerce are interested; and the Association of Municipal Corporations which deal with these things are also interested. Then, as the noble Lord the Member for Rochester observed, the National Society are interested, and I suppose the National Union of Teachers are interested. In fact, there are a very large number of bodies who may be interested, but I think it would be extremely difficult to find any of those bodies having a special claim to be represented. I hope that the Government, either now or in Committee, will give us some indication of their views on that subject. Then, we should like to know whether the proceedings of this Consultative Committee are to be private or not. We understood from what passed in another place that the proceedings are to be private, like those of the Council of India, but perhaps the Government will give us some information on the subject. It will make a good deal of difference to the view we take in Committee. Then, we ought to know for what term the members are to be ap-

  637
  pointed. It is clear that if we give the Government the power of filling up this Consultative Committee we ought to know for how long members are to be appointed, because the House will scarcely be disposed to give any Government power to fill these positions for a great number of years. One of the two functions which the Consultative Committee has to discharge is that of registration, but the Bill contains no provision for the creation of a proper register. I was rather surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman speak as if we were to understand that the Bill establishes a register of teachers. I should have thought that there ought to have been an express provision in the Bill for the creation of a register if it is to have any effect. Does the Government intend that the holding of a place on the register shall have a legal effect, similar, for instance, to that of being on the register of the Medical Council? It is very doubtful whether the Education Department is the right body to keep this register. It is a professional matter, and hardly a matter to put into the hands of a Government Department. Ought not the profession itself to run the register, in the same way that the Medical Council work the "Medical Register"? Another function of the Consultative Committee is to advise, but this provision goes a good deal beyond what has been contemplated. Whenever this power has been spoken of before it has always been with reference to secondary education. But here the Government purpose to give this body equal jurisdiction and equal scope in the matter of elementary education also. Is it, indeed, equally desirable to import the Consultative Committee into such a controversial arena as elementary education, with all its dangers? There is, for example, some danger that the Consultative Committee may advise the Education Minister to take some action which may place him in a disagreeable dilemma. The Minister may be pressed to convoke the Committee on some controversial question by an hon. Member, or by public opinion outside. He may, of course, refuse to yield to the request, but still it is not pleasant for a Minister to let it appear as if he were afraid to consult the Committee. There are a number of other points in the Bill which I will not trouble the House
  638
  with because I have detained it long enough. I have analysed the Bill somewhat minutely, because it seems to be essential for the House to know how nebulous when it is analysed are its provisions, how very little it tells the House as to what would happen when the Orders in Council are made which it contemplates. It is a leap in the dark, as to the results of which even the Government seems to be as much in the dark as the House itself. The Bill evades the difficulties of the question with so much caution that it suggests to me either that the Government has a divided mind as to the method of treatment, or else that they are afflicted with different counsels—either different views prevail among the members of the Government which it is thought desirable to conceal by looseness of phraseology in the Bill, or the Government have not made up their minds which view they should take as to these difficult problems. It is a pity that the House has not received more guidance from the Government than that which is vouchsafed by the Bill. It is very difficult to say what will emerge from it. At the same time, these defects do not prevent me from expressing hearty satisfaction at the fact that the Bill has been brought forward, and that at last we are taking a definite step forward and doing something to grapple with what has been one of the greatest defects of our educational system—namely, the absence of an organised authority to deal with secondary education. We all remember how this question was laid before the country by Mr. Mathew Arnold, who I regret is not alive to see what he wished come to pass. This measure may be worked so as to produce great good to the country, and I accept the Bill, and those on this side of the House are all disposed to accept it; and I will venture to say, in conclusion, that, if the head of the ship be carefully steered away from those rocks and shoals of controversy which endanger most educational proposals in this House, we can venture to prophesy for the Bill a smooth, easy, and safe passage to its desired haven.
  MR. GRANT LAWSON: One of the features of this Bill is that it to a certain extent curtails the powers of the Charity Commissioners in educational matters. This may commend itself to some hon. Members, and I

  639
  certainly do not on this occasion raise objection to that particular clause in the measure. Let it not be understood that I stand here as the representative of the Charity Commissioners to object to this Bill. The Charity Commissioners have always recognised that their powers over endowed schools are provisional and temporary. The Charity Commissioners have worked in a friendly manner with the Committee of Council for Education for years, and I have no doubt that in the future they will work well with the new bodies proposed to be established. Hon. Members need not be afraid of double inspection and double control. The Charity Commissioners have plenty of work to do, and they have no need to go and seek for work. The last, speaker suggested the alternative that the Charity Commission and its work should be taken over by the Board of Education now to be set up. I should certainly oppose any such suggestion, on the ground that there are many charities which rest on the boundary line between educational and eleemosynary purposes, and if we diverted any of the moneys devoted to eleemosynary purposes there would very soon be a vote of censure in this House. There is one matter in this Bill which commends itself to me, as it will relieve the Charity Commissioners from an an absolutely impossible position. The hon. Gentleman forgets the possible interruptions to any scheme put forward by the Charity Commissioners at one stage. The Charity Commissioners, after long labour and after the fullest investigation, draft a scheme which then has to be submitted to the President of the Council, who considers the objections and approves or disapproves the scheme. The objections are generally made by some local Member, who is put up in this House more often than not by a gentleman whose child is receiving education from one of the Charity Commissioners' endowed schools to which he is not entitled, and then after a short discussion in this House, generally taken after midnight, unless the Government, whose President of the Council is responsible for their appearance in the House, chose to protect them, the result of all those years of labour is overthrown. That has been the result of a good many schemes, and I think it is right that, according to the Bill, more direct responsibility for the schemes should be thrown on the head of
  640
  the Education Department. The Charity Commissioners are not anxious to enter into any controversial question; and since I have had the honour of a seat on the Board, with one exception, no scheme has been passed and afterwards brought to this House. I hope that the result of the Bill will cause the President of the Board of Education to be recognised as a Minister for whose ministerial acts his colleagues share the responsibility. This will be satisfactory to the Charity Commissioners, but exceedingly embarrassing to the Government of the day. To make the best use of these educational endowments you want above all things independence and impartiality—impartiality as between different denominations, different localities, and different classes of persons. But of all the virtues impartiality is the most odious to the multitude. The result of the Bill will be that the honourable odium, which at present attaches to the Charity Commissioners, will attach to the head of the new Board of Education and to the Government of which he is a member, and I have grave doubts whether the Minister of Education will have the same invulnerable constitution and robust conscience as the Charity Commissioners. But, given a strong Minister, backed up by his colleagues, it is obvious that the Board of Education would do far more for secondary education than the Charity Commissioners have been able to do with their limited powers. The Charity Commissioners have always been compelled to look on each school as a unit and not as part of a general educational system, and it has been found very hard to move a school from a locality where there are too many, and they have no power to prevent educational authorities setting up entirely unnecessary schools. The principal use that the Charity Commissioners would be to the new Board would be in supplying them with a trained staff of experts whose services would be invaluable. If both efficiency and economy are considered, all these gentlemen will find permanent posts on the new Board of Education. The strongest ground for the present Bill is to be found in the state of confusion and divided authority which at present exist in regard to educational matters. The Report of the Royal Commission states that within the same town or district the local power over secondary education may be shared between the county or

  641
  borough council, the school hoard, various governing bodies, managing committees of proprietary schools, local committees under the Science and Art Department, and managers of Voluntary schools; and each of these local agencies must or may have relations with one or two or, perhaps, three central authorities which were similarly independent of each other. Speaking, not as a Charity Commissioner, but as a private Member, who has taken a great deal of interest in education, I think the first duty of the new Board will be to discover some definition of the word "elementary." So far as I know there is no legal definition of that word except in the Act of 1870, which says that an elementary school is a school in which the main portion of the teaching given is elementary. That is a definition founded on the undefined. The absence of a clearly defined boundary line between elementary and secondary education does an infinity of mischief. It encourages trespass, it is very hard upon the teachers, who are expected to know everything nowadays, and it casts upon the ratepayers the cost of many subjects which are not elementary. I believe there is plenty of money already granted to give to the children of those parents who are not able to pay for it education sufficient for their fullest capacities. So much money is wasted at present because the dull child cannot acquire these higher subjects, and the bright child would acquire them a great deal better in a secondary school. I hope the Board of Education will be able to provide a scheme under which elementary subjects will be so implanted in the child that it will take something little short of a surgical operation to eradicate them. This process should go on long enough for a certain safe distinction to be made between the children to whom book learning, as it is called, is possible and valuable and the children to whom it is not. The latter would go to work for which, perhaps, they had some aptitude, and the former would go on with their education at the expense of the State as high as their ambition or their talents would carry them. It is because I believe that only such a central authority as is now proposed can give a business like system of education of that kind that I support the Bill.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Vice-President of the Council was taken to
  642
  task with unnecessary asperity by the right hon. Member for South Aberdeen for the somewhat subdued and melancholy tones in which he introduced a Bill which not only abolishes himself, but that Committee which he has with such infinite skill introduced on many occasions to the notice of the House. The hon. Member for Cambridge University, in speaking of this new Board, spoke of it as a strong body and one well fitted to grapple with the great problem of education; but after all, the new Board would only be a Party body, and it is difficult to see how it is to possess the strength which it ought to possess if the education of this country is to be, as I hope it some day may be, removed from Party considerations and treated as a great national work in which all are equally concerned. That this is to be a political and uninstructed body is proved by the way in which the Government have called from the vasty deep another phantom called the Consultative Committee, which may be a good thing, though I doubt it. This Committee is to teach the Board its business. The Lord President always speaks when it is necessary for him to do so on educational matters in a manner which clearly shows how greatly disqualified he considers himself to be to speak upon such a subject. I myself am rather sorry to see the Consultative Committee constructed as it is in this Bill. It will soon be as stereotyped as the Board itself. There is one question upon which I should like to have some information. While the Education Department has acquired a considerable amount of information with regard to primary or elementary education, it does not know very much about secondary education. But the Endowed School Commissioners, working under useful Acts of Parliament passed in 1869 and 1874, are essentially experts, and have garnered a great amount of experience in the management of secondary schools. Is it proposed to annex the Charity Commissioners by this Bill? The language of the Bill is extremely vague, and I doubt whether it is possible, by a mere Order in Council, to carry over to this new Board all the provisions of the Acts of 1869 and 1874. Those provisions proceed entirely on the basis that there should be an Educational Department to whom the schemes prepared by the Charity Commissioners should be submitted, and if that body is to be destroyed

  643
  or altered in any way the whole gear of the machinery is destroyed. I really do not see how, by an Order in Council, these very important Statutes, under which a great amount of good has been done, can be practically repealed. The Vice-President told us there was to be no interference with what he called the "judicial" work which the Charity Commissioners now do in determining questions as to the allocation of charitable endowments to educational purposes. But my point is in regard to the administrative work. If the Charity Commissioners are not to be annexed, the new Board will be a very phantom body, with very little work to do. As to the adjustment of the claims of higher grade Board schools and Grammar schools, it is of the utmost importance that some way should be discovered whereby these two classes of schools should be placed under one authority, and assigned their respective rights, so that there should be no jealousy or rivalry between them, but that one should feed the other in due and proper course. Elementary teachers appear to think they can teach everything; but I do not share that faith, and it is very important that this process of distinguishing and separating, but yet carrying on in harmony, the work of the elementary schools and the really secondary schools of the country should be completed. The Endowed School Com-missioners are now engaged in this useful work. I was much alarmed by reading that some sort of instruction seemed to have been given to the Charity Commissioners to suspend for the next two years their operations in that direction, and not to carry out the Acts except where absolutely necessary. That is certainly carrying administration a little too far; it is suspending by an administrative Order the useful powers and work of the Endowed Schools Commissioners, and amounts to the suspensory power which in times past has cost monarchs their crown. If it be the intention of Her Majesty's Ministers to take over the Charity Commission, well and good; the new Board will then have very important powers and functions to exercise; but unless that is done, this Bill, instead of con solidating and concentrating authorities, will only make confusion worse confounded.
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: Undoubtedly it is high time that secondary education should be dealt with. Nobody feels more than myself how important it is that the necessary provision should be made to meet the wants of secondary education, that the existing confusion should be removed, and that there should be some means of giving the public a guarantee both of the efficiency of the schools and of the teachers. But in approaching a solution of this problem the Government have given to the world a Bill which, I think, well deserves the charge of vagueness which has been made against it. The Education Department is a very remarkable Department. It is sometimes loquacious, as in its Code; it is sometimes extremely reticent, as in this Bill; but it is always obscure. It is extremely difficult to fix the precise meaning of the proposals they make either to school managers or teachers, or of the proposals they make to Parliament. I hope the Second Reading of this Bill will be carried, but in many respects it will require very careful consideration. The question of the contributions from local sources for the purposes of inspection has the same vagueness as the rest of the Bill. Are the local authorities to contribute the whole or part of the expense? Is the Imperial authority to contribute any part? If so, in what proportion is the amount to be shared? As to the provisions for the registration of teachers, they are probably the greatest success in the direction of reticence that the Department has achieved. The subject is not new; it has been before both Houses on previous occasions. It was before the other House last session in a Bill which dealt with the subject in great detail, and consisted of five pages and 20 clauses. Those 20 clauses have reappeared in the present Bill in the form of about 20 lines. Doubtless that alteration has been made in order not to raise discussion. Clause 2 is very important. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Aberdeen congratulated the Government upon having left the question of local authorities for a future occasion, so that subjects of acute controversy would be avoided. But you cannot escape these questions of controversy; they come up sooner or later, and the wise man would meet and deal with them at once. I doubt the wisdom of the supersession of the Charity Commissioners. While not admiring everything

  645
  the Charity Commissioners have done, I think they are an impartial body, and I regret to see them evicted from any control of educational endowments under the Endowed Schools Acts. It may be said that the clause does not propose to transfer the whole of the power immediately, but I assume that that is what will be done, because the Government attempted last year to make a division of the power as between the Charity Commission and the Committee of Council for Education, and the proposal was not very satisfactory. We are always bound to assume that the whole power will pass out of the hands of this House when we know that the House is going to lose all opportunity of preventing it, and will have to submit if that is the case. Clause 5 is supposed to preserve the control of Parliament. A clause of that sort appears in a great number of Acts of Parliament, but there are two forms of phraseology used. One is that it should be laid upon the Table of both Houses of Parliament for a certain number of days before it becomes operative, and the other is that if during that period either House carry an Address to the Crown objecting to the proposed Order or part of it, it ceases to be operative and is thrown out. As a general rule Radical Governments adopt the first form, and Conservative Governments the second, and for very obvious reasons; but I regret that on this occasion the Radical form has been adopted, which reduces the control of Parliament to a minimum. As regards the transfer of the powers of the Charity Commission, there is no doubt it is possible to so transfer them, because there is a clause in the Endowed Schools Act, 1869, which provides that any Order upon any scheme issued under the powers of the Act is conclusive. All we require to know is how the Government will interpret the power which is given to them under this clause. When we find that the powers under the Endowed Schools Act with regard to endowments are to be handed over to the Board of Education I naturally proceed to consider what protection is likely to be afforded to certain endowments which may be dealt with. The clauses dealing with the conditions upon which endowments may be used for educational purposes are very inadequate, and may be interpreted with great severity as against the apparent purpose
  646
  of the endowment. At present the power is wielded by the Charity Commissioners. We are setting up a system of secondary education all over the country—that I subscribe to and support—and in consequence there will be an immense amount of educational zeal brought to bear upon every sort of endowment which may by any possibility be laid under contribution, and there is very little doubt that the Act of Parliament will be interpreted rigidly and fully, and without any kind of that elasticity which tempers the wind to the shorn lamb. That power is to be transferred from the Charity Commissioners to a Minister who, whoever he may be, must be a partisan. He is not a judicial person, and is not, generally, judicially minded. His object is to carry out a policy which may be agreeable to his own convictions and his own political faith, and his whole bias is very properly against all the restrictions which an Act of Parliament may seem to place in the way of fully developing that policy. This Minister will not only be a partisan, but he will preside over the Education Department, and in matters of law that Department are not very well advised. On one occasion I had to approach the Department on behalf of one of my constituents who wanted to build a school room 30 feet wide, and the Department held that for the purposes of calculating the cubic space the width must be counted as 27 feet, because they had a rule that if a room was not 37 feet wide it must be considered to be 27 feet wide, and they proposed to treat it on those terms. The House will remember what took place with regard to the Berriew schools, where the Department were advised that their action in allowing certain signatures to a petition to be withdrawn was legal, but which, when the law officers of the Crown were consulted, was declared to be absolutely illegal, and great trouble had to be taken in three sessions of Parliament to get a special Act to set right that illegality. Some of the provisions in the End owed School Act are very arbitrary and inequitable, and the Charity Commissioners are placed in a very difficult position. They are very often bound to rule that an endowment is not a Church of England endowment which in all equity is a Church of England endowment. What resource have we? We come to this or the other House and point out that a great injus-

  647
  tice has been committed, and the curious position of the law is that while the Charity Commissioners are bound by those arbitrary conditions the Houses of Parliament are not, but can act according to the equities of the case, and set right the injustice which the Charity Commissioners have been forced to commit. The question is not made a Government question; it comes to us perfectly free, and we vote according to our conscience—or so much of our conscience as may be awake after midnight, when these Orders come up for consideration—and there is a chance of justice being done. What will be the position under this clause? These Church of England endowments will have this tremendous educational zeal applied to them, and being pushed in that way into the melting pot will come before the Educational Department, who, anxious to lay everything under contribution, will not act mildly, but will pass a scheme which will be laid upon the Table of the House. Shall we be able to vote freely upon it after 12 o'clock? Of course not; it will be a Party question. Consequently there will be none of that resource which at present exists for correcting an admitted inequity. It may not be possible to save the Charity Commissioners, but if the Endowed Schools Acts are to be applied with rigour and without there being, practically, any control left to independent Members of this House, they ought to be amended. We ought to look into these definitions to see that they are really equitable and not arbitrary before we allow the Charity Commissioners to be disestablished and the Education Department put in their place. I have naturally dwelt upon the religious provisions, but there are others which requires very careful treatment, such as the local claim on which independent Members of the House have an independent say, and are able to prevent injustice being committed to the localities which they represent. I shall not dwell upon the omissions of the Bill. It does not deal with over-lapping, or the definition of elementary education; it does not determine whether school boards are to supply secondary education or not. That is a matter which is absolutely urgent—more urgent even than the abolition of the Department of Science and Art. At present the question whether school boards may supply secondary education is being
  648
  tried before the Auditor in London, but whatever decision is arrived at the matter is urgent, because if the Auditor decides that the London Board has no right to supply secondary education something will have to be done in the secondary schools the school boards already supply. If the decision is in the opposite sense, we must look forward to a great extension of the activities of the school boards in that direction, and the House ought to have a very early opportunity of making up its mind whether these bodies who are not limited in the extent to which they may draw upon the pockets of the ratepayers are to be allowed to supply secondary education. The Bill does not deal with what ought to be the degree of religious education insisted upon by the State. The right hon. Gentleman opposite hoped the House would not deal with controversial matters; I hope it will.
  MR. BRYCE: I said, if the Government desire to get the measure through the House this session. At this period of the session a controversial Bill could not get through the House, and I desire this Bill to pass.
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: I thought the right hon. Gentleman was one of those who declare there is no religious question in connection with secondary schools. There are a large body of gentlemen who hold that view. We were told when the Welsh Secondary Education Act passed that no religious question would arise, but I cannot say how many hours after 12 o'clock I have been engaged in trying to decide the way in which the religious education question ought to be settled in connection with that Act.
  MR. BRYCE: I do not think the noble Lord understands the view of the gentlemen to whom he refers. What they say is that hitherto there have been no religious controversies with regard to secondary education in general, and that is amply borne out by the evidence given before the Secondary Education Commission. But nobody has said that it is not possible to make a religious question if it is desired to do so.
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: I cannot honestly say that I have read the evidence, but I have read the Report of the

  649
  Secondary Education Commission, and it contains only an extremely brief reference to this subject, and one which I thought was inadequate. There is no insuperable difficulty in dealing with the matter. There is a Bill actually before the House which deals with this subject completely, so far as all these questions are concerned. I earnestly hope the Government will treat the matter on a more generous principle and attempt to deal with the difficulties with which it is faced. I hope when we come to consider the various clauses the Government will see their way to extend to some extent the operation of the Bill, so as to protect the interests of so many of their supporters.
  MR. F. S. STEVENSON: As far as the main principle of this Bill is concerned—the establishment of a central education authority under a responsible Minister—that is surely a reform to which no serious objection can be taken. My only regret is that it should be to a great extent impaired by the fact that a great part of the Bill is in so very indefinite and hazy a form, and I am afraid that hazy atmosphere is hardly calculated to enable this measure to be steered perfectly clear of all shoals and reefs. At the same time, if anything can he done by which to avoid the more contentious questions which the noble Lord appears desirous of introducing, so much the better for what is, after all, the initial and antecedent step to the creation of local authorities and the co-ordination of the whole system of education in this country. In connection with Clause 2, the Vice-President, in his opening remarks, differed widely from what was said in another place by the Lord President of the Council, who was under the impression that the Charity Commissioners simply took over certain administrative work from the Court of Chancery. I am glad the Vice-President has corrected that, and shown that the Charity Commission has to exercise certain judicial or quasi-judicial powers; but granting that to the full, there is no reason why certain, at all events, of them should not be transferred to a Government Department. But there is one reason which would tell very strongly against the whole of the work of the Charity Commissioners being handed over to the Education Department, and that is that,
  650
  in addition to the powers which may be divided into judicial or quasi-judicial on the one hand and administrative on the other, there are distinctly two kinds of administrative work which are carried out by the Commission. There is the administrative work which is akin to that of the Education Department, partly under the Endowed Schools Acts, and partly under the Charitable Trusts Acts, and there is also the administrative work which is not in any way akin to that of the Education Department, but far more akin to that of the Local Government Board; and if the Charity Commission were merged wholly and entirely in the Education Department the latter body would have foisted upon it work which would be altogether alien to the objects and ends for which that Department was constituted. The way in which the powers are to be transferred is incorporated in the Bill in a very vague and indefinite manner. The provision set forth in the second part of Clause 2 imposes upon the Charity Commissioners a very difficult and laborious task, namely, to distinguish between what is religious and what is non-religious. Here you have a difficulty which appears to me to be as great as to distinguish between what is educational and what is non-educational, because, in many cases the two are absolutely intermixed, and so closely intervoven that it is quite impossible to separate them. Under this Bill the Charity Commissioners are to do that work. Are they to proceed by scheme? Will it be necessary, in every case in which the sum of £200 is allotted in part for educational purposes and in part for non-educational, to frame a new scheme to sever the two, and to go through all the stages which by law have to be passed through in order that a scheme may pass into law and have administrative effect? If so, it will be the work of years, involving an enormous expenditure of time, and probably the results will not be very satisfactory. If there is a more expeditious mode of producing that distinction, it ought to be incorporated into this measure. Clause 2 is evidently the most contentious part of the measure, and it is very doubtful whether that severance can, indeed, be produced between what is educational and what is non-educational. At the same time, I entirely agree in principle that the educational work of the Commission ought to be carried over

  651
  to the Education Department. As far as the Endowed Schools Acts are concerned, there can be no doubt on the subject. At the present time there is actually no Commissioner under the Acts on the Charity Commission, so that obviously there can he no work being done under the Endowed Schools Acts, and as soon as those powers are transferred to the Education Department it will be possible for something to be done in that respect. With regard to the Consultative Committee, the object of this Bill is to establish a responsible Minister of Education, and that Minister takes the shape of a President of the Board of Education rather than that of a Secretary of State, which is perhaps rather a matter of form than of principle. As to his responsibility, there may be some very serious objections urged in regard to the position which he may occupy in respect to this Consultative Committee. We know that in the present and previous sessions the Vice-President of the Council has come down to this House and put forward the existence of the Council of Education as a cloak for proposals which he has been obliged to bring before the House, and has sheltered himself to some extent behind the authority of that Council. If the Vice-President can do that now, will it not be possible for the Minister for Education to shift his responsibility to this Consultative Committee? There will be a dual responsibility, and it is not at all clear how that dual responsibility will work out. The Committee are only to speak when they are spoken to, and only to give advice when they are asked for it. On what subjects that advice is to be asked, and to what extent it is to be treated as binding by this House and in the delarations of the Minister, is not expressed in the Bill, and is obviously open to great diversity of interpretation. Then as to the form of the Consultative Committee. There are certain groups of questions that vary from year to year, which are more likely to be of importance from an educational point of view in one year than they are a few years after. If therefore you have a stereotyped body which does not change in its constitution, it is possible that the condition of affairs may be so altered that those who have been able to give very good advice on matters affecting, say, science may not perhaps be able to give equally good
  652
  advice with regard to matters affecting, say, language and other questions which may come before them. Our only refuge is in the individual responsibility of the Minister of Education. Let him take his advice from the best possible quarters; let him vary the sources to which he goes; but it would be a very great mistake to have this body consisting of members who cannot be changed. It seems to me that the two portions to which I have referred are open to serious controversy, and there are points of detail which will have to be discussed at a later stage; but nevertheless I earnestly hope that the principal portion of the measure may be passed into law this session—that is, that portion which establishes a central Board of Education and a responsible Minister of Education.
  COLONEL LOCKWOOD: We have had three criticisms of the Bill now before the House. With regard to the one put forward that the Minister of Education would shelter himself behind the Consultative Committee, I do not think there is any more fear of that than of the Secretary for India, in matters concerning India, coming down here and saying that his Council would not agree to his ideas. As to the criticism of the constitution of the Committee, there would be very few men found to serve on it unless their position were likely to last some time.
  MR. F. S. STEVENSON: I did not suggest that the Consultative Committee should be changed when they did not agree with the Minister. I suggested that it should not be a constant and unchanging body, because different questions might come to the front in different years, and those who spoke with authority on one question might not necessarily speak with the same authority on another question.
  COLONEL LOCKWOOD: I regret very much the line taken by the Member for Rochester. When we come to discuss the question of local authorities it will be time enough to enter upon the question he has raised, which must be a thorny and difficult one, and one which will raise controversy. I should have hoped the noble Lord would have approached the question with a broader mind, and that it would have been possible on this occasion to get away from the religious difficulty. If this Bill passes it will be found that many of

  653
  the difficulties which are feared will be smoothed away, and I hope we may enter upon a course of uninterrupted smoothness, not only for secondary education, but for all education. I am deeply imbued with the belief that if we take this first step in the organisation of our education we shall have already begun a great work. But if we do not take it, not only shall we not keep abreast of other nations, but we shall lag behind. On the question of education the House is apt to leave itself too entirely in the hands of experts. Experts are all very well in their way, and they certainly have their uses. But here we have a question which interests every single man, woman, and child throughout the Empire. It seems as if we were afraid to speak of educational matters in this House. The Bill concerns individual parents, because they have a right to demand at the present time a sufficient number of schools, public as well as private, easily accessible, and not, as at present, existing in large numbers in one part of the country, and altogether absent from another. These schools ought to be at a reasonable fee, and have a course of study planned out in such a way as to make it easy for parents to understand the course of study through which their children will be put. These schools must be properly linked by curriculum to the other schools of the national system; and above all the parents have a right to demand that the schools, few or many, shall be efficient. "Sire," said the French Senator to Napoleon I., "the desire for perfection is one of the worst maladies that can afflict the human mind." We must not expect perfection, but we must not pitch the standard of expectancy too low. It concerns every class in the community, who have a right to demand that when their boys and girls grow up they shall be able not only to maintain their position in their class, but to improve on it. We must remember that in these days, when we are assuming enormous responsibilities connected with the continual increase of our territories, we have not only the duty of conquering and protecting, but the still greater duty of educating those whom we conquer and protect. And the young men whom we send out to these countries to rule and assist in ruling our dependencies should be the best educated men whom the world can produce. We must not only keep abreast with, but excel others. I believe
  654
  that, when other achievements of this Government are forgotten, this commencement of the organisation of a new system of secondary education will be looked upon as one of the best Acts passed by this Parliament, and will reflect credit not only on the Government, but on hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House who have helped to pass it. I believe it is possible to disassociate this measure from Party feeling. I call the Bill a wise measure and a dignified measure. It is true it deals only with the central authority, and for that reason it has been found fault with by the hon. Member for East Northamptonshire, and the right hon. Member for South Aberdeen. I put it to these hon. Gentlemen what chance we would have of passing a Bill of this description if it dealt with both the central authority and the local authorities. We have already seen this evening the possibility of opposition. If it had been brought in next year, we would have been nearer a General Election, and we would have discussed the local authorities with that warmth which I believe is the greatest enemy to education at the present time; and in trying for both we should probably have lost both. The foundation on which we have to place this very tall and heavy edifice of education must be broad based, and therefore we must establish a sound foundation first, and afterwards raise the super-structure. Another difficulty as regards the creation of local authorities now is that there is no agreement at the present time between the county burghs and the non-county burghs, and the ground for that will be well paved by this Bill. Now, first of all the Bill provides for a Minister of Education. If it did nothing more, it would be an extremely valuable measure for creating, for the first time, a Minister who is responsible for the education of the country. Then it unites the Education Department with the Science and Art Department, and it provides for the taking over of the educational side of the Charity Commissioners by Order in Council. This is a provision which seems to have excited the fears of the noble Lord the Member for Rochester, but I believe there are safeguards in the Bill which will prevent the allocation of moneys to secondary education which were meant for religious purposes. At the end of Clause 2 it is provided:
  "That any question as to whether an endow-

  655
  went, or any part of an endowment, is held for, or ought to be applied to, educational purposes, shall be determined by the Charity Commission, as at the present time."
  Well, this allocation of the educational side of the Charity Commission will avoid waste and friction and divided counsels. I agree that the duties of the new Minister will be very heavy, but the present Vice-President is not likely to shirk them. The Bill has safeguards which I believe will ensure its successful administration. The great public schools were consulted, and have expressed their willingness, with one exception, to come under its provisions, provided that the system of university supervision to be set up is parallel and equivalent to the inspection conducted by the State. It is, therefore, necessary that the first inspectors chosen should be men of the very highest possible position, and should be equal to the very best that the universities possess. They ought to be men of wisdom, tact, experience, and kindly sympathy; and their appointment will fix the plane, but not the extent, on which the work will be undertaken. Then we have the Consultative Committee which has been so much criticised by hon. Gentlemen. This is an extremely important part of the Bill, and it is viewed as such by all the teaching profession. Some hon. Members wanted to know what would be the use of a Consultative Committee. I think it is very apparent. It will be a means of ascertaining and focussing educational opinion on many difficult matters. But its methods should be diplomatic, methods of gentle suasion, and not of coercion. It will encourage experiments, prevent stagnation, register results, and pave the way for a satisfactory way of dealing with the local authorities. Lastly, this is a dignified measure, because it deals with all schools, without distinction or disqualification, and recognises that what the public ask for is some official and intelligible certificate of efficiency. At the present time a parent has no guarantee as to whether the school he wishes to send his son to is a good school; there is no intellectual test, no sanitary test, and there is no guarantee that the teachers can teach. All these the Bill provides for now or in due course. Inspection is optional for all, and rightly so, but if the best schools accept it, and we know that they will, it will very soon be a stigma for any
  656
  school to remain uninspected. Further, to this Consultative Committee is entrusted the registration of teachers. Thus in time the public will possess a guarantee not only of the efficiency of the schools, but of the efficiency of the teachers. Further, this is a conciliatory measure. It paves the way to deal successfully with the creation of local authorities, and a pacific settlement of the religious difficulty. It is a Bill of potentiality in the sense used by Dr. Johnson, who, when he sold the brewing business of Mr. Thrale, said "We are not selling a parcel of tubs and vats; we are selling the potentiality of growing rich beyond the dreams of avarice."
  MR. HOBHOUSE: I am afraid I cannot take quite such a roseate view of the Bill as my hon. and gallant friend who has just sat down; but I can say that it is a great relief and satisfaction to those who take an active interest in education, and have been trying for many years to get legislation on the subject, that the Government have now taken up the question in earnest. It is now nearly four years since the reform of secondary education was dealt with by a Royal Commission. Most of the conclusions arrived at by the Royal Commission have been acceptable to the profession and to the majority of local authorities, and it is rather a matter of surprise that the Government have not dealt with the question seriously before now. We all remember the Bill of 1896, which I would call a hasty and false start. The Government, no doubt, dealt with some of the questions touched upon by the Royal Commission, but they mixed up with them in their Bill all the controversial topics which rage in regard to elementary education. They have shown much greater discretion in the present Bill, by proposing to begin with organisation at the top, rather than at the bottom. The first part of the Bill professes to give us a really responsible Minister of Education which the House so earnestly desires. We shall, I trust, have no longer a divided responsibility on the matter of education, but have a Minister who can grapple with the matter as a whole. It is proposed to amalgamate the several Departments, but I presume that amalgamation will not be an absolutely complete one. I imagine what is in-

  657
  tended is to have one Department, one Secretary, and a certain number of Sub-Departments somewhat analogous to the Board of Trade. I think the elementary education of the country can hardly be at first administered on very different lines from what it is at present. As regards secondary education, what is wanted is the careful preservation of the freedom and elasticity so often spoken about. We also desire to have some guidance and more judicious supervision of the whole field of secondary education than we have hitherto had. In order to combine these two policies I trust we shall have in charge of secondary education a man of large grasp—not a doctrinaire, not a man of the type of the ordinary schoolmaster, but a man who will be able to take a large view of the field of local administration as well as school management and school teaching. The question of the separation of secondary from technical education deserves further inquiry by the Departmental Committee to be appointed. There are many institutions where technical education is entirely covered by secondary education, but there are other schools which are purely technical, and which should be treated on different lines from secondary schools. The Agricultural Department is not mentioned in the Bill, but it has the distribution of a considerable sum of money, and the power to send inspectors to inspect certain kinds of teaching given in the schools. I hope that we shall have some assurance that part of the new policy will be to bring the educational side of the Agricultural Department more closely in contact and co-operation with the other educational departments. As to the Charity Commission, I think this Bill is wise in avoiding the difficulties raised in last year's measure. The difficulties of dealing with the problem of dividing the functions of the Charity Commissioners are very great, and I cannot take the sanguine view adopted by some hon. Members. The noble Lord the Member for Rochester apprehends great danger from the amalgamation of the Charity Commission with the Education Department. I myself believe that his alarm is unnecessary, as no Minister will go any further in converting charity endowments to educational purposes than the Charity Commission have already done. I think the way in which some charity schemes have been rejected after twelve
  658
  o'clock by this House, and without the Government of the day raising a hand in support of them, is something of a scandal. I believe the responsibility for all these schemes should lie with the responsible Minister at the head of the Department. These administrative schemes should be referred for inquiry to Committees, the same as Provisional Orders, and finally decided upon by this House. Under this Bill there will be transferred to the Education Department the inspection of the schools now vested in the Charity Commission, and therefore we shall do away with the absurdity of a double inspection, which is a great waste of time and public money. I confess I would like to ask a few questions on the subject of inspection. The intentions of the Government do not seem to me quite clear. I do not think they have made up their minds as to whether inspection should be central inspection, or local inspection, or central inspection paid for by the local authorities. The Government evidently propose to employ the university bodies for the purposes of inspection. But why should the universities have a monopoly of this kind? Such a body as the City of London Guild and some of the county councils could provide men who would be very useful and suitable as inspectors. I consider the proposed appointment of a Consultative Committee is eminently wise, both for the schools and for the teachers, and it will probably work well. Surely we need not be alarmed about advising. Departmental Committees are appointed every day to advise Ministers, and the Minister can take the advice offered him or not, as he thinks fit. A great deal has been said about the omission of the difficult problem of local authorities. I wish to warn the Vice-President that mere delay will not solve this question. On the contrary, the difficulties will increase. For instance, we have seen quite recently in London a new difficulty cropping up owing to the greater zeal and activity of the London School Board. Therefore the question will have to be grappled with sooner or later. I agree that it cannot be grappled with in this Bill, but sooner or later we must face this question, and necessarily cut this Gordian knot by enactments made by this House. If we are to have legislation on this subject, we must, as far as possible, observe two conditions. We must banish the jealousies

  659
  of the different local authorities and have regard only to the interests of education, awl we must, as far as possible, avoid unnecessary denominational controversy. It was pointed out before the Royal Commission that this controversy did not exist to any large extent in the case of secondary schools, and I would refer to Dr. Temple's evidence on the subject. I do not say that this difficulty is wholly non-existent, but do not let us do anything to exaggerate it or to anticipate the evils which may arise. I wish to support this Bill most heartily on the understanding that next session we shall have some further measure on the more difficult parts of this controversial question. I understand that the date put into this Bill does not in any way pledge the Government not to introduce legislation in the early part of next session, and if they can only follow up this measure by a measure dealing with local authorities also then the reorganisation of secondary education may be one of the most important and beneficial portions of Unionist legislation.
  SIR ALBERT ROLLIT: I desire to thank the Government and the Vice-President of the Council, on behalf of the Chambers of Commerce and commercial classes, for the introduction of this Bill. Some differences of opinion have arisen upon its introduction, and the speeches in which they were raised have been brief and to the point. Some of us feel great confidence in the work of the right hon. Gentleman, and thank him for what is done in the cause of education. What struck me especially in the speech of the right hon. Member for South Aberdeen was that if his advice had been taken and his views adopted the matter would have been full of controversial points, and we should not have had any Bill at all. I consider education the greatest and most urgent of all our problems, and we are behind the world in this matter. Only a century ago a great statesman in Germany said it was imperative that they should make up intellectually the loss which they had sustained materially. I think that should be a stimulus to us to do all we can for this great national object. We have already done a good deal, and we have paid a good deal for elementary education, but in secondary education we have not done very much in the way of organisation and co-ordination. We had,
  660
  until this Bill was introduced, no Minister of Education, no public inspection, no public consultative board, no royalties given except by the Science and Art Department, and few public moneys to support secondary schools, though some work has been done by municipal bodies, yet secondary education is of the most vital importance, as it is the only way to technical education and on to commercial education.
  Attention called to the fact that forty Members were not present; House counted, and, forty Members being found present.
  SIR ALBERT ROLLIT: I admit that a great deal has been done in recent years for technical education, and when I hear criticisms passed upon the municipal authorities as to the way the work has been conducted, the wonder is that with such a small amount of money so much could be done, because the money was thrown to the authorities, and they were left to the task of distilling wisdom from whisky and genius from gin if they could. So much has not been done as ought to have been in the case of commercial education, and the work seems to be incomplete which gives so much to obtain a knowledge of production and which neglects that which tends to distribution. The neglect of foreign languages in a large measure contributes to the serious growth of commercial competition to which our country is subjected and there is a tremendous amount of money which could be appropriated to that purpose, and would be better appropriated than it is at present. The great success which has attended German trade since 18 3 has been attributed by many people to the support which has been given to technical and secondary education in Germany, but that is not the view of others. The thing which I desire to advocate to-night is that this Bill will place our secondary and general education in its proper position, and that is the only royal road to technical and secondary education. If we wish to follow the example set us by other countries, this is the only way it can be done. As to the Bill itself, I think, although the Bill will never do much, it will do something towards removing the difficulties in the path of progress, and that is urgently required. The authorities would derive

  661
  great advantage from central direction and control, and I think it was a wise and prudent course to introduce that in this Bill. One criticism on the Bill to-night has been as to the constitution of the new Board. What we require is a Minister of Education, and provided the Bill gives a Minister responsible to Parliament for the greatest of all subjects for administration in this country, we shall be content. May I just make one remark on Clause 3. When the Bill was in another place it stated that "the Board of Education may by its office or any university or other organisation inspect schools." As the Bill comes up to us the words "or other" are struck out. Now, although the university, no doubt, will do excellent work in this direction, I must point out that the words are not that the university must inspect the schools, but that they should be inspected through the university's organisations, which may be composed of members of the university or persons selected from elsewhere. Those persons selected would be educational experts, and I am bound to re-echo what was said by another speaker, that educational experts do not get all the respect that is claimed for them. I think they are responsible for the present condition of things in this country, and therefore I am not in favour of putting this work upon them. I think it is most undesirable that they should inspect the schools. The single point I desire to draw attention to is that I trust there will be no attempt whatever to divert the work the local authorities have been doing in regard to inspection, and placing it in other hands. Now that the municipal authorities have shown their ability in the inspection of technical education, to divert this power would be a great mistake The university, for instance, would hardly be the authority to inspect polytechnic and other industrial institutions. When we remember that the City Guilds, the College of Preceptors, and the London and other Chambers of Commerce have been strenuously, and at considerable outlay of funds, promoting the extension of commercial education—to take all that away and place it in the hands of the universities would be a very serious mistake. In Clause 3 there is the continuance of a practice against which I must enter my ery strong protest, that is, that money
  662
  payable to county boroughs may be devoted to the cost of inspection. It is a serious mistake to divide boroughs by a population line, which is arbitrary, instead of by a line which is discriminating, and without any consideration whether they have been doing good educational work or not. That is a great impediment to the progress of education in this country, and I hope that at no distant date some new arrangement, which will reduce the present friction between non-county boroughs and county boroughs, and which will give the former the proper recognition which is due to the work that they have actually done for education, will be adopted, instead of one which I believe to be seriously prejudicial to educational progress. I think the Bill as a whole will accomplish a great object, and I trust it will command, as it deserves, the support of the House.
  SIR F. S. POWELL: I feel that no friend of education would be doing his duty if he did not thank the Government in the warmest terms for the introduction of this Bill. We have many years for this measure, and I should feel the greatest regret if through any friction or any undue desire to extend its scope the passage of the Bill were to be for a moment in jeopardy. The Government have acted wisely in confining the measure to the setting up of a central authority. The opinion in the country on that point is entirely unanimous, but when you come to deal with the local authorities disagreement begins. This measure is in accordance with precedent. In 1871 the Local Government Board was established and took over the administration of the health laws which had been carried out partly by the old Poor Law Board, partly by the Privy Council, and partly by other authorities. From the time that central authority was established most wholesome reforms have been carried out in the whole province of our sanitary and Poor Law administration. Subsequently the Board of Agriculture was established, and while before there had been confusion, embarrassment, conflict, and absence of progress, there has since been advance, and everyone interested in agriculture is grateful for the establishment of the Board. There has also been the same progress and absence of friction in every department of its work since the estab-

  663
  lishment of the Secretariat for Scotland. When the Minister of Education is once in his place and has the opportunity of examining the whole educational field many of the difficulties and embarrassments which now afflict us will disappear, and there will be the same progress in education that there has been in other departments of administration. Allusion has been made to Manchester in reference to overlapping which takes place. In Manchester the School Board, the authority which deals with technical education, and the Victoria University are all working together, and there is a complete ladder from the humblest elementary school to the Victoria University itself; and a similar result may be achieved in other towns if like energy and wisdom is displayed. The recommendation to have an Education Minister is not made now for the first time, but has been made by successive Commissions and Committees, the last of which was the Committee of last year, which dealt with museums at South Kensington and elsewhere. Reference has been made to the Charity Commission. I have the greatest regard for the work done by that body, and have no hesitation in speaking of it in the warmest terms of commendation. In many cases that work is of a judicial character, but such work is subject to review by the courts of law. No doubt hardship is inflicted upon some schools by the operation of the Charity Commission, but that operation is not voluntary, it is forced upon them by the Statute, and I should rejoice to see some modification of the Act of 1869. The law in this respect should be the same in England as it is in Scotland. At the same time I believe the Commissioners have done right and have acted in accordance with law; and if Parliament has rejected the schemes presented by the Commissioners the only result has been that those schools have remained entirely unreformed, all the evils have continued, and in many cases a great wrong has been inflicted upon the community. There is much ground for separating the charity work of the Commission from the educational work. Education is a subject which requires greater flexibility than mere charitable endowments. There is a growth in education, a rising of new wants and a continual development, which cannot attach to the ordinary charity where you are dealing with blankets or food. I
  664
  admit there would be great difficulties in such a division of functions, and one of the many which must arise would be with regard to the sale and purchase of land. About such a point it would be impossible to decide without very careful and full consideration. Registration of teachers is also not a new subject, as it was the recommendation of a Committee some years ago. No one ought to be entrusted with the education of youth in secondary schools, any more than in elementary schools, who has not undergone and has had the advantage of a technical training. Mr. Acland was strongly of opinion that no one ought to be a teacher in an endowed school who was not so qualified, and I think there is great justice in that view. There has been some confusion between inspection and examination. Inspection, as defined in this Bill, is one thing, and examination is another. The Charity Commissioners have lately introduced into many schemes a clause by virtue of which the school is compelled to submit to examination. That means a careful examination of each individual student by such an authority as the Oxford and Cambridge Examining Board. But the inspection mentioned in this Bill is of quite a different character. It relates to the character of the teaching, the safety of the buildings as regards health, and the qualifications of the teaching staff; and such an inspection ought to be made of every school. No group of gentlemen can have a heavier responsibility than that for the health of 200 or 300 boys who are entrusted to their charge; and great advantage would accrue from the Government pointing out any defects in the arrangements of the school by which the health of the scholars was affected. As to the Consultative Committee, the only difference between it and the Council recommended by the Secondary Education Commissioners is that the latter mentions a term of office. It would be a wise amendment of the Bill to lay it down that no one should hold office on the committee for more than a certain number of years, there being power to reappoint where desirable. Five years is a very convenient period, as it gives the officer an opportunity to learn his work and to give the benefit of his experience to the school. It is clear that the Government is not bound to act on the recommendation of the Committee, whose function is rather to convey information than to direct. The idea

  665
  is really that recommended by the Museums Committee last year. It is a wise policy that the Consultative Committee should consist partly of educationalists and partly of those who are not strictly educationalists. In all these matters there ought to be an intimate connection between the purely educational expert and the man of the world. The former is too apt to live by himself in his own library, and it is desirable that he should have the assistance of men moving in society who know the wants of the community and the needs of the population. I sincerely trust that this Bill will become law this session, as we have already delayed too long. It is miserable to read reports of education in other countries and to find how far behind we are. Let us take this step in advance, and constitute a powerful and experienced central authority. I believe that then all other difficulties will fade away, and that the common desire to advance education will prevail, become dominant, and overrule all obstacles, and that we shall have in the course of a year or two a system of education in this country of which every Englishman and every Welshman will be proud.
  MR. C. P. SCOTT: I hope the Vice-President will give us a little more light upon the constitution of this new Board. This is the central point of the Bill, and yet it is the point upon which the Vice-President has given us the least information. He has told us nothing of the reasons why we should have a board rather than a different organisation, and certainly the reason given in another place was not a very convincing one. We do not want any more sham boards. We have suffered quite sufficiently by one phantom Board without establishing another. We have heard again and again of the Committee of Council for Education, which is brought out when some screen is required behind which the Vice-President can take refuge for the responsibility which is not, but which ought to be, his own. This Bill is demanded because at present there are at least three bodies doing parts of the work which would be better done by one authority. It is also required because the Education Department itself is not properly organised. There are, indeed, two Education Ministers, but we do not know
  666
  which has authority and which has not. The one is the working head of the Department, apparently without power, the other has power but does not work the Department. The one has knowledge and no responsibility; the other has responsibility and no knowledge. It is not a satisfactory state of things to have a Department spending £10,000,000 a year, and having charge of the greatest functions of Government, and not to know who we are to regard as the chief of this great engine of State. What arrangements is this Bill going, to make? There is to be a President and also a Parliamentary Secretary; and there is be besides, this phantom Board. Is this Board to be absolutely a phantom or is it not? Is it to do nothing whatever or is to do something? If it is to do something, what is it to do? There are other phantom Boards already in existence. There is the Board of Agriculture, the Board of Trade, and the Local Government Board. None of these Boards ever meet, and they are practically of no use whatever. The Committee of Council for Education does meet sometimes, and on more than one occasion it has been consulted, and, presumably, the Committee has counted for something in the consultation. As the Bill provides that the Board of Education shall take a place in educational government, presumably the powers of the Committee of the Privy Council will be transferred to the new Board, and it is conceivable, therefore, that this Board will meet and discharge certain important functions on critical occasions. It will not meet often, but it will meet sometimes, and on the occasions it does meet it will count for something. I think we ought to know whether that will be the case, or whether the Board will be absolutely of no use whatever, and is to be simply a sham. Then, I think we ought to know what is to be the position of the President of the new Board. At present the Lord President of the Council is the President of the Committee of Council for Education. He is a great officer of the State, holding a very dignified position, and he invariably is a Peer, and therefore cannot sit in this House. That does not matter when, as happened when the last Government was in power, the Vice-President of the Council is the real head of the Department, and the President is nothing at all. But what exists at the

  667
  present day is not so satisfactory, and I wish to know whether the President of the new Board is to sit in this House invariably or whether he is to sit in the other House. The Bill expressly provides that the Lord President of the Council may be the President of the Board. In that case he must be a Peer by rule or practice, and he cannot sit in the House of Commons, and therefore we shall have here only an Under Secretary. That would not be a satisfactory arrangement, and the existing arrangement is more satisfactory, because we have a working head in this House, and the only fault we have to find is that he has not the power and responsibility which he ought to have. The Lord President of the Council, who may be President of the new Board, has, apart from this Bill, important educational functions to perform, such as the granting of charters to new universities, and there will be a certain temptation to put into the hands of the Lord President all of our educational functions, so that the whole educational work of the country may be concentrated in one man. We shall strongly object to the House of Commons being deprived of the control it now has. I hope the Vice-President will relieve our anxieties on that subject. As regards the registration of teachers, the Vice-President appears to imply that the register is to be exclusively for secondary teachers.
  SIR J. GORST: No.
  MR. C. P. SCOTT: I hope that is not true, and that the register, will include elementary teachers as well. There seems to be no reason why we should not have different classes in the register. It seems to be a matter of vital importance that the whole of the education staff of the country shall, as far as possible, be brought under registration, and I am glad that the Vice-President has now indicated that that is likely to be the case.
  MR. EVELYN CECIL: I rise to give the Bill my general support, and I am all the more glad to do so because I think it is certainly the bginning of a solution of numerous problems connected with this very important subject, which have been waiting for a solution too long. I trust that in setting the ball rolling, both in regard to the question of overlapping
  668
  in various districts by various authorities, and in regard to the registration of teachers and the institution of a Consultative Committee, the Bill will be beginning a very useful work, and as such I shall heartily support the Second Reading. But I do regret a little, notwithstanding the reason that has been given, that its date of commencement is put off until 1st April 1900. It is important that a supplementary measure should follow this Bill, and though I have no doubt that the Government in no sense adopted 1st April because of its tricky and delusive associations, I trust that the reputation of 1st April in this respect will be belied, and that next session will see the introduction of a supplementary measure. The portion of the Bill as to which I have the greatest doubt is the clause dealing with with Charity Commissioners. My hon. friend the Member for Thirsk, though he expressly said that he was not speaking as a Charity Commissioner, was as exceedingly ready to abrogate and give up the functions of the Charity Commission as regards matters which are to be referred to the Committee, and I think it is a pity that the Charity Commission should be dealt with in that way. Of course it would be possible that the Charity Commission should be dealt with wholesale and transferred to the new Board of Education, but, on the other hand, I am very well satisfied as a whole with what the Charity Commission has done. It is at present decidedly an impartial body, and its decisions in general, not merely as regards England, but under the Welsh Intermediate Education Act, have been very widely received with satisfaction. If, on the other hand, you are going to transfer these powers to the new Board of Education, you are running the risk, no matter which Government may be in power, of handing over those powers to an authority which has some Party bias. Under these circumstances, I repeat that I have a doubt whether it is altogether desirable to transfer the powers of the Charity Commission. But there is another omission in this Bill on which I should like to touch, and that is the entire absence in the Bill of any definition or indication of what is to be treated as primary education and what is to be treated as secondary. This is one of the fundamental questions which has to be decided, and without which we cannot properly deal with the secondary educa-

  669
  tion problem, and I think it would be much more satisfactory if this new Board of Education had some indication of the principles upon which it was to go in treating primary and secondary education. The policy of administration so far as regards this Board is a leap in the dark, and it is impossible to say in what direction the Committee might, under the present proposal, think it its duty to work. Everybody, I think, admits that the transition between primary and secondary education ought to be made easy; but at the same time the fact that there is a transition ought not to be lost sight of. All of us will no doubt agree that the secret of good secondary education is a good foundation of primary education, but that is no reason to my mind for cramming secondary education into primary schools, to the detriment of both. It is in that respect that I should like this new Board of Education to exercise a very careful supervision. For myself, it seems to me that the connection between primary and secondary education ought to be the Board of Education. That should be the connecting link between the primary and secondary local authorities. I cannot help feeling strongly that the whole of the two sets of education are essentially distinct. The methods of the two are distinct, and the inspectors who inspect the two separate schools ought, in my opinion, to be distinct. The subjects which are taught are essentially distinct. There is, as one speaker pointed out, more elasticity to be practised in secondary educational subjects than in primary, and, both for the benefit of primary education and secondary education, I should much prefer to see two sets of authorities established locally to deal in the first place with primary education and in the second with secondary education, and the connecting link between these local sets of authorities the new Board of Education. There is another question which I should like to see more specifically dealt with in this Bill, or referred to in the speech of my right hon. friend who introduced it, and that is the question whether secondary education ought to be entirely free. It is a question which very materially concerns the administration of this new Board, and until it is more or less settled I think we shall be groping about in the dark with reference to the management of our
  670
  secondary schools. I do not know what precisely is likely to be the policy of the new Board, but one has to remember that this question of free administration of secondary education is every day becoming more and more pressing. According to one very competent authority engaged very directly with London evening continuation schools, some 90 per cent. of the attendances are merely for pleasure. They are for the purpose of attending magic lantern entertainments or something of that kind, and the attendances drop off as soon as the humour takes the scholar. Ten shillings in the pound, I am informed, is really wasted, and I am also inclined to think with regard to these evening schools that there are far too many subjects taught. There is the danger of turning our people, who have dabbled in a number of subjects and are not very competent in any one of them, into jacks of all trades and not masters of any. That is not a very satisfactory result, but it is a result which can largely be avoided by supervision. Scholarships are, to my mind, the secret of the solution of many problems connected with secondary education. By them there is every means of finding out boys or girls with a genius for any particular subject and enabling them to pursue that particular subject for which they have a genius, and to pursue it free. This is a most estimable and desirable aim for every educational enthusiast, and I should have welcomed any scheme of that kind, a scheme such as is largely set up by the Technical Education Board in London, if it could be spread more widely throughout the country through the means of the supervision of the new Board. The object of scholarships, no doubt, is to find the right man for the right place. But my doubt is whether there are always right places enough to put the right men in. We must do our best to make sure that so far as we can there shall be. If the new Board can work out these problems I think it would do a great good to the community; but at the same time I do not believe that we can work them out unless we very rapidly proceed with a further Bill to establish local authorities. Should the result of this Debate be to ensure that the Government will bring in such a Bill next year its value will be considerable, and for my part I shall all the more heartily sup-

  671
  port the Second Reading of the present Bill.
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I think that we shall all agree that this Debate has been a very interesting one. A great number of important points have been raised during the discussion, and probably other points will be raised as the discussion proceeds. But I find that we are placed in rather a peculiar position in regard to many of these points, and I think that the feeling and desire of the House is that the Vice-President of the Council should be in a position to give some reply in the course of this Debate. But owing to the rules and practice of this House the Vice-President has no right to reply, and will not he able to again address the House. That, I think, is extremely inconvenient, because, as I have said, a very great number of points have been raised which certainly require elucidation and reply. I therefore propose to conclude the observations which I shall with the permission of the House make by proposing a motion, for purely formal reasons, that this Bill be read this day six months, This will necessitate a further question being put from the Chair, and give the Vice-President the opportunity of replying which I have no doubt he desires. Before I touch upon the points raised I would ask the permission of the Vice-President to offer him my humble congratulations upon being the Minister to put forward a proposal to terminate a controversy which has been carried on for a great number of years—namely, as to whether there is to be or not in this country one Minister—a Minister of Education—responsible for the whole education of the people. I can recollect this question being raised over and over again in this House, especially by one, I think, this House will always bear in honour—I mean Lord Play fair, who was for many years a Member. It has been very truly asked why we are to have a Board of Education instead of a Minister of Education. My hon. friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Scott) has pointed out with, I think, unanswerable force many objections to inventing another Board. My opinion in regard to these Boards is very much the feeling of Oliver Twist in regard to the Bench. We know perfectly well that there is no such thing as a Board any more than there was such a thing
  672
  thing as a Bench in his case. We are told that if it is our good fortune to be summoned before the Board, we will find behind it the Lord President, the First Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury, the Chancellor of the Exchequer; and we may also find the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Lord Chancellor, but we know perfectly well not one of them will be there. My right hon. friend the Member for South Aberdeen criticised the right hon. Gentleman the Vice-President of the Council for having attempted to minimise the importance of the Bill, and for having adopted a rather depressed and lugubrious tone in addressing the House. But by Sub-section 2 of Clause 1 and the next sub-section the Vice-President conies forward to abolish his own office, and therefore it is not to be expected the Vice-President should glory too much in being the last of the Vice-Presidents. I think I may venture to pay him a tribute of respect; and that, so far as we are concerned on this side of the House, we shall not look back with regret to many of the utterances of the last Vice-President of the Council, and if he had adopted a more solemn tone in regard to it we should not be inclined to criticise it. I wish to put in a caveat to what fell from my hon. friend the Member for Leigh, who assumed that the Lord President must be a member of the other House. The Lord President can be, and has been a Member of this House, and it is a right that we should not allow to pass away from us. Lord John Russell held the office of President of the Council when he sat in this House. Passing from that aspect of the question, I would ask the Vice-President of the Council when he replies to try and give us some little assistance as to what the distribution of the work is to be between the Education Department and the Charity Commission. I am not disposed to attack the Vice-President himself on the vagueness of the drafting of this clause. That is the great fault of all Parliamentary Bill drafting. But I would ask any hon. Member of this House to imagine a court of law having to construe such words as, "The Order may transfer or make exercisable by the Board of Education any of the powers of the Charity Commissioners in matters appearing to Her Majesty to relate to education, and the Order may make such provision as appears necessary for applying

  673
  to the exercise of those powers by the Board of Education the enactments relating to the Charity Commissioners." Why, there are forty or fifty Acts of Parliament dealing with these questions, and it seems to me that the clause opens up an indefinite vista of litigation. And for this reason: Supposing an Order is made by the Education Office in regard to a charity, partly educational and partly eleemosynary, and that that Order is sent to parties in the local district affected by that Order, naturally the first step they would take would be to dispute the jurisdiction of the Education Department, and it would require a decision of a court of law to settle the point. As to the question of inspection, although it may be a desirable thing to keep the inspection of secondary schools in the hands of the Education Office, and of university bodies, county council and other committees ought not, even by implication, to be deprived of those powers which they have exercised with such excellent results to schools to which they have given pecuniary grants. I would advise the right hon. Gentleman to introduce words into the clause to safeguard the interests of the county councils who have voted money to these institutions. This brings me to a point as to which a great Variety of opinion has been expressed, in regard to the action of the Education Office in connection with Clause 7. I am inclined to think that the action of the Vice-President has worked for good, but we should reserve our right to ask whether the Education Office has exceeded its legal right. I think the County Council Education Committees have done good work. These County Committees are, after all, the representatives of the people, and where they have co-opted members from the outside, these are the very persons who would under a representative system be elected on these committees, such as the leading members of the school boards. I certainly hope that the large school boards of the country will in the future take their position on these committees as a matter of right. I would also ask the special attention of the right hon. Gentleman to a point raised by more than one speaker as to inspection. I know there are a great number of gentlemen connected with education who do not realise that inspection and examination are not the same thing. But I am not pleading for the
  674
  restoration here of the exact words struck out in another place, because if diocesan associations attain the right by law of inspecting and examining schools, or even inspecting without examining, we should at once get into a sphere of jealousy which it has been the feeling of this House if possible to avoid. One discordant note I observed with regret fell from the noble Lord the Member for Rochester. I earnestly hope that when we get into Committee we shall be animated by but one desire—to keep out of this Education Bill those difficult and thorny religious questions which have so obstructed and interfered with the progress of education. Let there be a truce at least for one year on that point, and let us pass this measure into law. If we do not do that, I am bound to say that at this late period of the session the chances of the Bill becoming an Act will be greatly interfered with. I believe it will be nothing short of a public disaster and a public scandal if we allow any considerations of that sort to stand in the way, and if we do not unite in a work which I believe will be an honour to this session. I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time this day three months.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day three months'"—(Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): The noble Lord ended his speech with an eloquent appeal to pass the Bill, and expressed his earnest desire that this session should not pass without this measure being carried into law. I am afraid the Amendment of the noble Lord is hardly calculated to carry out the end he has in view.
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I only moved the Amendment as a matter of form, in order to give the Vice President the opportunity of replying.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If the reply of my right hon. friend to the various points raised were to be regarded as concluding the Debate, there might be no

  675
  objection to such a course. But, as my noble friend is perfectly well aware, such a reply might give rise, under certain circumstances, to a new Debate. Am I wrong in saying that most of the points raised by my noble friend, and by other speakers, can be more properly dealt with in Committee than at this stage? Every speaker, on both sides of the House, including the noble Lord, has blessed the Bill, and expressed a desire that the Second Reading should be carried without a Division, and agreed to as soon as may be. Under these circumstances may I venture to suggest that the House should now read the Bill a second time, and reserve to the Committee stage the reply upon the details which my right hon. friend is perfectly ready to give when that time comes. We would then be spared at present a further Debate which might in its turn lead to further discussion.
  SIR H. H. FOWLER: It is unfortunate that the right hon. Gentleman was not in the House when my noble friend began his speech. I wish to be perfectly frank with the First Lord of the Treasury. There is a feeling prevailing on both sides of the House that in a Debate of this importance the House is entitled to have some answer from the Vice-President of the Council to the variety of questions which have been raised before the Bill is read a second time. Moving that the Bill be read a second time this day three months is a course which is constantly adopted in order to give an opportunity to the Minister in charge of making explanations. We on this side of the House do not wish to prolong the Debate, and we do wish that the Bill shall be read a second time before 12 o'clock. At the same time we think that at half-past ten the time has arrived when it is due to the House that the Minister in charge of the Bill should, at all events, give sonic opinion on the variety of questions raised during the Debate. That is all we ask for; there is no intention of delaying the Second Reading. If that be done I will undertake that the motion of my noble friend will be immediately withdrawn.
  SIR GORST: Upon that understanding I will try to answer the questions that have been put. I should like to premise,
  676
  however, that most of the questions are questions of detail, which ought to be dealt with in Committee, and many of them are questions which it would be impossible, until the Bill has come before the Committee, for even a Minister of Education to answer. In the first place, I have been asked the reason for establishing a Board of Education. As my noble friend the President of the Council has given his reasons in another place, it is rather hard for me to be asked to explain the matter. But inasmuch as there is a Board of Trade, a Local Government Board, and a Board of Agriculture, it was thought that it would be in accordance with the general desire of the House that there should be a Board of Education. I do not know that it makes a great deal of difference, but a Board will be set up with a President and a Parliamentary Secretary, instead of a Secretary of State and an Under Secretary. A great deal has been said about sham boards and paper boards, but they are potential. It is quite true that they do not often meet, but that is because the Minister in charge is in contact with his colleagues, understands the feelings of his colleagues, and has their confidence. Certainly the Committee of Council for Education has met, and I have the authority of my noble friend the Secretary of State for India, who held the office which I now hold, for saying that the Committee of Council for Education had on one occasion been called together, and had actually met and transacted business. I have been asked by the hon. Member for the Leigh Division of Lancashire who the new Minister is to be. It is rather hard to ask me such a question, seeing that the House has not yet passed the Bill, and that I am not Prime Minister.
  MR. C. P. SCOTT: The right hon. Gentleman misunderstands what I said. I wanted to know what position the new President would occupy; whether he was to be a Member of this House or would sit in another place.
  SIR J. GORST: That depends upon the advice to be given by the Prime. Minister to Her Majesty, and I cannot foresee whether he will advise Her Majesty to appoint a Member of this House or the other House. I have been lectured for not having shown a proper sense of the great importance of this Bill; but I

  677
  would refer the right hon. Gentleman who made the criticism to a speech which he himself delivered a fortnight ago at Cambridge, in which he said that the Bill was a slender and meagre measure as regards the central authority, and an entire evasion of the most important questions connected with education. Then the right hon. Gentleman asked some questions about the transfer of the powers of the Charity Commissioners. I think the right hon. Gentleman's speech to-night, and other speeches which have been made in this House, show how extremely difficult it would be to transfer those powers which are now in the hands of the Charity Commissioners to the new Board of Education. I will tell the House how it is proposed to effect this extremely difficult operation. What are the proposals of tile Bill itself? It proposes that these powers are to be transferred from time to time, and the idea of the framers of the Bill is to undertake that extremely difficult task very gradually. They will begin by transferring to the Charity Commissioners sonic of the powers which are most easily transferred, and which it is quite obvious that the new Board of Education might more conveniently exercise, such as the power of inspection. Such a power as that might be conveniently exercised by the new Board of Education. I desire it to be understood that it is intended to proceed, from time to time, tentatively. It I were at the present stage to attempt to tell the House how these different alterations were to be carried through, or to even attempt to explain some of the difficulties and some of the modes by which they might be surmounted, I am sure I should give rise to a Debate in this House which would cause a grave waste of legislative time. I have been asked questions with regard to the inspection, and I might point out that the provision alluded to was introduced in another place by Earl Spencer, and therefore I do not know why the noble Lord the Member for Cricklade should find fault with that Amendment.
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I did not find fault with the Amendment. On the contrary, I approved of it, and what I said was that it would be better if certain other words were substituted.
  SIR J. GORST: I am glad to hear that that is the view of the noble Lord oppo-
  678
  site. It is most important that we should employ the inspectors of county councils and bodies of that kind as well as inspectors of universities. I might point out that the people who struck those words out think we have gone too far, and some other words should be substituted. When we get into Committee on this measure I shall be glad to consider any Amendment proposed by the noble Lord opposite in order to carry out the views which he has expressed. The hon. member opposite has asked questions about the teachers' registration, but hon. members must recollect that the teachers referred to are practically registered already, and are qualified to act as teachers of higher education. This, however, is a matter which the Sub-committee will deal with when it is appointed, and it would hardly do for me, before the Sub-committee is appointed, to tie them down by any declaration stating exactly what sort of a register they will have, and what conditions they will attach to it. In the Bill as it stands this matter is purposely left at large so as to give the Sub-committee the greatest possible amount of discretion, and it would not do for me to curtail that discretion by any pledge on the part of the Government at the present moment. A general complaint has been made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Aberdeen as to the vagueness of this Bill, but that vagueness really consists in leaving a considerable amount of discretion to the Board of Education and the Consultative Committee. I really do not see how that vagueness, as the right hon. Gentleman calls it, could have been avoided, unless the Government attempted to put into the Bill a cut-and-dried scheme. Again I say that if a scheme of that kind were to be inserted in the Bill it would give rise to an amount of discussion—for there are so many difficulties connected with the matter—which would certainly make it impossible to pass this measure through the House this session. It is quite true that this Bill gives a large amount of discretion to the Board of Education, but the House will still have a hold over the question, for it will have to be done under the supervision of this House, and every Order will be laid before this House. If the House should happen to disagree with the amount of discretion given to the Board of Education as administered by

  679
  that body, it has the remedy in its own hands.
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Under the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
  Main Question put and agreed to; Bill read a second time.
  Motion made and Question proposed:—
  "That the Bill be committed to the Standing Committee on Law, etc.'—(Sir John Gorst.)
  MR. BRYCE: I think that this is certainly a Bill which ought to be dealt with in Committee of the whole House, for it is a measure which is not of a highly technical character. I am not aware that any Bill of this kind which concerns so many interests as this measure involves has ever before been referred to a Grand Committee. This measure deals with a great many different interests which cannot be well represented on such a Committee as the Standing Committee on Law.
  SIR J. GORST: I am very much astonished at the opposition of the right hon. Gentleman, for in his own speech he admitted that this was not a Party question, and stated that he did not wish to oppose the Bill. He also said that he agreed with the principle of the Bill, and in the speeches which have been made tonight not a single hon. Member has got up and objected to the principle of the Bill. Even the noble lord the Member for Rochester did not object to the principle of the measure, although he desires to see a provision to guard certain interests which he represents put into the Bill, and he announced that if there was a Division he should vote in favour of the Second Reading of the Bill. I am, therefore, most astonished to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that this is not a technical Bill. Why, the measure bristles with technicalities, and I think everybody agrees that a Bill which is so very highly technical is in every way suited for reference to this Committee. I think if ever there was a Bill suitable for the consideration of the Standing Committee on Law it is this measure.
  MR. YOXALL: Since this Debate began we have had
  680
  from the noble Lord the Member for Rochester and the hon. Member for Hertford some very ominous pronouncements. They agree with the principle of the Bill, but they declare their intention of putting in some very important Amendments. I think their views are not likely to be shared by a majority of the House, but may be by a majority of members of the Grand Committee, and therefore I think this Bill ought to be sent to a Committee representative of the whole House. There is also a further question of grave importance involved, and that is the selection of the President of the Board. I think it ought to be made absolutely sure in the terms of this Bill that this House should possess the President, and therefore I think this question should be considered in Committee of the whole House.
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCK: The hon Member who has just sat down has given as his first reason against referring this measure to a Grand Committee the fact that the noble Lord the Member for Rochester and the hon. Member for Hertford have declared that they will have to move important Amendments of a contentious character. The hon. Member, however, knows that the Government are most anxious to pass this Bill, and they would therefore doubtless object to the introduction of any Amendments which would have the effect of rendering it impossible to pass this Bill this session. Surely, therefore, the hon. Member may entirely relieve his mind from any fear on that score, as the Government would naturally object to the introduction of foreign matter likely to endanger the passing of the Bill. As the whole House appears to wish that the Bill should pass, I think the course which the Government propose is the one most likely to be successful. Under the circumstances, I hope my right hon. friend the Member for South Aberdeen will not press his Motion.
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: There seems to be an impression that we shall gain a certain advantage by referring this matter to a Grand Committee, but personally it does not affect me. A great many people do not know what is intended to be done after this Bill is passed, and whether this measure is to be looked upon as the last word of the Government upon

  681
  the subject of secondary education, or whether there is going to be something to succeed it. I think it would be more satisfactory if we can have some assurance from the Government that it is intended that this measure shall be supplemented at a later period by another Bill. For my part, I shall not oppose the sending of this measure to a Grand Committee, but I do think it would be a great mitigation to the feeling of many gentlemen interested in this subject if they could be assured that there was a very definite intention on the part of Her Majesty's Government not to deal with this question in a slipshod fashion, but to really do something with the view of placing secondary education on a proper footing.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not quite know what the noble Lord means by stating that he hopes we do not intend to deal with this matter in a slipshod fashion. If he means that this Bill is not to be taken as a complete settlement of the secondary education question, I quite agree with him. This is only to be taken as an instalment of some further Bill which will place secondary education on a more satisfactory basis. I think the right hon. Gentleman opposite, the Member for South Aberdeen, was rather hasty in pressing upon the House his objection to this motion, because this measure is essentially one which ought to be sent to a Grand Committee. I think it is precisely the particular kind of Bill which would be most properly and satisfactorily dealt with by a Grand Committee. I could quite understand, if the Grand Committee was the only further opportunity which hon. Members would have of discussing the details of the measure, that they, might regard its relegation to that Committee with some jealousy and doubt; but if any hon. Gentleman will look at the measure closely he will see that there are certain provisions which the House of Lords were not able to introduce, and which remain, therefore, to be introduced in Committee. If, therefore, the discussion in the Grand Committee is not satisfactory, hon. Members will have full opportunity of revising the decision of that Committee when it conies down to this House for discussion on the Report stage. Therefore I hope the House will not carry out the view suggested by my right hon. friend, but that in the interests of secondary education they will send this measure in the first place to
  682
  a Grand Committee, and then on the Report stage take it into full consideration in the presence of the Members of the whole House. If it were worth while to bring forward precedents for the course we suggest, it would be easy to do so, but I do not care to deal with that question now, because I think that the general sense and feeling of the House is that no Bill was ever more fitted to be dealt with by the Grand Committee than this measure is.
  MR. HUMPHREYS-OWEN: If I thought that the view taken by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the London University was correct, and if I thought that the religious question raised by the noble Lord the Member for Rochester would be effectually stifled in Committee if any efforts were made to introduce it, I should be glad to see the Bill go to a Grand Committee, because there are obvious advantages in discussing such a Bill in that Committee. But if we are to have discussions on the religious difficulty as it might arise in secondary schools, I think it is of the utmost importance that such a discussion should take place in the full House, so that the country as well as every hon. Member of this House might: take an interest in the proceedings, and we should know exactly where we stood in the matter. If, therefore, we can get some assurance that the burning controversial questions which we have all done our best to avoid will not be raised in Grand Committee, I should advise my right hon. friend the Member for South Aberdeen not to press the point. On the other hand, if there is a chance of these questions being raised, I think we ought to have an opportunity of fully considering them in Committee of this House.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is not in the discretion of the Government to decide what shall or shall not be raised either in Grand Committee, in Committee of the whole House, or on the Report stage, but it is emphatically the earnest desire of the Government that these religious questions shall be excluded, as far as possible, from the discussion of this Bill.
  MR. C. P. SCOTT: No serious defence for the course which has been proposed has been set up by the right hon. Gentleman, who has treated this matter in a

  683
  manner with which we are all so familiar, and he has not given a single reason in support of the reference of this measure to the Grand Committee, except one reason which eminently has no weight whatever. I think this is a matter which ought to be discussed in Committee of the whole House, and should not be left to the Report stage. I believe there is every desire on the part of hon. Members on this side of the House to see this Bill passed into law, and they do not desire that it should be unduly delayed. We have no desire to obstruct this Bill; but, on the contrary, we are anxious to help it forward in every way we can. But we do require adequate opportunities for discussion, and we do not want to be put off to the Report stage, where the discussion cannot be so effective, and where nobody can speak more than once. As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Aberdeen has pointed out, with regard to such a question as that relating to the Charity Commission we ought to have the benefit of information from those who are competent to give an opinion on questions of this kind, which is a matter of vast public importance. It is a matter of the greatest interest, and instead of its discussion being curtailed and suppressed its consideration ought to be encouraged in every way. If the Bill were discussed in Committee of the whole House I venture to say that it would pass through very quickly, and therefore I trust this Bill will be proceeded with and discussed in the ordinary way.
  LORD HUGH CECIL: I rise for the purpose of asking my right hon. friend the Leader of the House whether, when he says that this is not a final scheme of secondary education, he really means that the question is to be reopened during the course of the present Parliament. Probably the discussion on this Bill might very easily be shortened if it was understood that next session a more important Bill would be brought in dealing with these various questions. I think it would be necessary to discuss in the Grand Committee matters which have been raised in various parts of this House which are of great interest, and which, sooner or later, must he discussed by the only tribunal which can possibly deal with them—namely, by the House of Commons.
  MR. CHANNING: I wish to bring before the First Lord of the Treasury one point which I understand has not been alluded to in this discussion, and that is the inconvenience which arises from the undesirable course adopted in dealing with two of the sub-clauses of the Bill appertaining to the money question, and the rating and making provision for the cost of the Department, which are withheld from the consideration of the Grand Committee. This is certainly a most irregular course to take, for it will divorce those clauses from the proposals which will go before the Committee upstairs, who will be called upon to deal with the remaining portion of the Bill. Those two matters will have to be dealt with across the floor of this House. It seems to me a most irregular and improper course to adopt, and that in itself ought to induce Her Majesty's Government to reconsider their proposal to send this Bill to a Grand Committee. It is a very irregular course, and one which is peculiarly open to objection in dealing with such a measure. The rating question will certainly raise a good deal of discussion, and it would be almost impossible for the discussion in the Committee upstairs to be carried on fairly unless the provision with regard to rating has been dealt with in the usual way in the first instance in this House in Committee of Supply.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I desire to remind the hon. Member that the sub-sections to which he refers can be dealt with in the Grand Committee. The part which cannot be dealt with there is Sub-section 2 of Clause 6, which I think it is very essential should be dealt with in Committee of the whole House.
  MR. CHANNING: These sub-sections raise the question of money, and that question alone raises a great many other questions in which money has to be voted by this House. I think the arguments which have been advanced against the course which has been proposed deserve the careful consideration of the House. It seems obvious that one or two very important questions will arise which will naturally call for expert opinion, which cannot be provided by the ordinary composition of the Grand Committee and the small number of Members who may be added to it. I hope that even now

  685
  the Government will reconsider their proposal to send this measure to a Grand Committee.
  SIR W. HART DYKE: I do not think there is any doubt that this Bill can be fully discussed in Grand Committee. It seems to me that it is ridiculous to raise all these intricate matters which must be dealt with later on as a whole, and I would not support the Second Reading of this Bill unless I believed that Her Majesty's Government could see their way to deal with this question more fully at an early date. It would place Her Majesty's Government in a very unenviable position to go out of office and leave this question without filling up the gap which this measure will leave open. With regard to the matters which have been raised they are no doubt of great importance, but they must be dealt with when legislation on the subject is completed by the addition of the local authority. When a measure is introduced for the purpose of constituting the local authority, that will be the time to raise these questions, and not when the present Bill is being referred to a Grand Committee. This Bill is one which deals purely with one portion of a great question, and that is the establishment of a properly co-ordinated central authority to deal with secondary education.
  SIR H. H. FOWLER: If the Bill before the House assumes the shape which my right hon. friend has pointed out, I do not think there will be very much objection to it on this side of the House, or to the views which he has expressed. The House, however, has already had notice so clear and unmistakable that my right hon. friend himself has had to appeal to those who gave that notice. We have had notice that questions of the greatest gravity are to be raised in Grand Committee. Of course it is perfectly true, as my right hon. friend the Member for the University of London has pointed out, that it is very improbable that the Grand Committee will accept those views. Nevertheless there is a possibility of it. Various questions have to be discussed and settled there, and those of us who are acquainted with the strong interest which the noble Lords who have spoken have in this question know that when they make up their minds to raise a question which they think of vital im-
  686
  portance they do so. This Bill bristles with very controversial questions which will have to be settled by this House whatever the decision of the Committee may be. Now, assuming that the decision of the Committee followed the views of my right hon. friend the Member for the University of London then the noble Lords opposite would not accept it; assuming that the Committee accepted the views of the noble Lords, then I assume that Members of this House—and also the Members of the Government—would not accept that view. Therefore sooner or later these questions will have to come to this House to be decided, and as a matter of convenience it seems to me that time will be saved by having those questions settled in Committee of the whole House rather than upon the Report stage. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House to consider these points, because he is peculiarly sensitive about taking any step which might indicate a prolongation of this Debate. I assured the right hon. Gentleman an hour ago that if we were offered an opportunity of fully discussing one or two points at a later stage the Amendment to which he objected would be withdrawn and the Bill allowed to be read a second time. That course was agreed to, and the Bill was read a second time an hour earlier than it otherwise would have been. On this side of the House we want this Bill to pass; but we say that the settlement of these matters, which are of great importance, can best be taken in Committee of the whole House, and if that course were adopted it would be a saving of time. But there is another point which I desire to raise. The right hon. Gentleman said he would not refer to precedents, but I should like to refer to one precedent. I cannot give him the exact time, but I remember a very powerful speech made by the right hon. Gentleman opposite when he was Leader of the Opposition, in which he laid down with singular accuracy and clearness the true constitutional position of Standing Committees, namely, that they were not to be the means of a Government getting through controversial Bills without full discussion in the House, but that the Bills to be sent to Grand Committees should be bills upon the details of which vital questions could not he raised. I always thought that the views which

  687
  the right hon. Gentleman stated then were sound and statesmanlike views. There is a danger that this habit of sending Government Bills to Standing Committees will grow, and Bills of great importance may be taken from the general consideration of the House, and practically the Committee stage may be eventually abolished altogether, and we shall be thrown entirely upon these Grand Committees. Now these Grand Committees are not attended as they ought to be by the Members. I remember a Report being presented of the numbers of the Members who took part in the Grand Committees during a period of seven years, and I think there were very few divisions in which more than thirty Members recorded their votes. That is a very small Committee to deal with important questions, and even the Government have not that force in a Grand Committee which they have in the Committee of the whole House. I know that questions are sometimes settled in a haphazard way on the Grand Committee, and where there is a principle involved I think the question should be taken from that Committee and settled by a Committee of the whole House. If the right hon. Gentleman had said a Select Committee, I should have supported that, because the House would not have been deprived of its control in that case, and no doubt these technical questions which require discussion by experts would have been more effectually dealt with in a Select Committee which cannot be done in a Grand Committee. I make one more appeal to the right hon. Gentleman on this question, and I make it in the interests of the Bill and in the interest of the rapid passing of the Bill. At all events, by keeping these questions out of the Bill you avoid setting up a dangerous and tempting precedent to all Ministers, not only to use this power, but to abuse the institution of Grand Committees. I, therefore, earnestly appeal to the right hon. Gentleman not to send this Bill to the Grand Committee.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The right hon. Gentleman has laid down the rules which he thinks ought to govern the relegation of Bills to Grand Committees, and perhaps this appeal may be allowed as an excuse for my adopting the unusual practice of making a third speech. I do not want to controvert those rules, and I
  688
  do not say whether I agree with them or not. I think it is unnecessary for me to do so, for, in truth, this Bill conforms to every canon which can be laid down to govern the conduct of this House in relegating Bills to Grand Committees, and the quotation which the right hon. gentleman has made from some forgotten speech of mine supports that view. It is true that my noble friend and one or two other hon. Gentlemen in this House desire to raise questions of principle, but if the topic of religious education is introduced in Grand Committee into this Bill, then I frankly say that it is clearly impossible that this Bill can pass into law in the course of this session. I do not think it is likely that such questions will be introduced, and I do not believe that we shall find this measure burdened with this additional weight of controversy. If it is, I confess that, with such forecasts as I am able to make, we shall not have time to deal with it this session. But if the measure remains as it is now, as a measure altogether outside the limits of acute religious controversy, then surely we may hope that the labours of the Grand Committee will assist the Report stage, and the Bill will remain what it is now, a non-controversial measure as to the principles of which there is no dispute upon either side of the House, and which in the nature of things may very properly be dealt with by the Grand Committee. I venture to press very earnestly upon the House the propriety of sending the Bill up to the Grand Committee, because unless we do that the chances of this Bill becoming law this session are very faint indeed, and the result would be that the chances of dealing with the question of secondary education, of which this is only an instalment, would become fainter and fainter.
  DR. CLARK: You are sending this Bill now to a Grand Committee where 20 Members may determine any question of principle in it. There are two clauses here to which I should like to call attention. They are Subsection 2 of Clause 3, and Sub-section 2 of Clause 6, which affect the money to be voted by Parliament. Such proposals will necessarily have to go before the Committee of Ways and Means, because you are placing a burden on the country. I wish to know if a Grand Committee can insert such sub-sections. If so our

  689
  control of finance in this House is gone altogether. The only course that can be taken will he, after it has come to the Report stage, to again recommit the Bill so that these clauses may be considered. That being so, why should we he placed in this position? Why should one portion of this Bill go before one Committee and another portion be dealt with by another Committee? The Grand Committee has often modified clauses in Bills' during the present Parliament, and when it has been proposed to modify those proposals in this House you, Mr. Speaker, have ruled that we cannot do it. Therefore, so far as those clauses are concerned, when they come back to this House we shall be unable to modify them. Any thing which is done in the Grand Committee we cannot modify in this House, and the only means of doing it would be to recommit the Bill to the House for that purpose.
  MR. SPEAKER: With regard to the hon. Member's first question, I may say that as regards Sub-section 2 of Section 3 that can be dealt with by the Grand Committee because it does not involve a charge upon the revenue, and therefore need not be preceded by House resolution in Committee of the whole House in accordance with Standing Order No. 62. As regards the second point, which refers to
  the second sub-section of Clause 6, it would be necessary, before the Grand Committee dealt with that sub-section; that there should be a Committee—not a Committee of Ways and Means—but what is generally called a Money Committee of this House, and a resolution put in that Committee authorising the expenditure, and that would have to be passed in Committee, and would be reported to the House. After that had been done, then the Grand Committee would be in a position to insert the clause.
  DR. CLARK: Could Clauses 3 and 6 be modified in this House on the Report stage?
  MR. SPEAKER: They could be modified, but the charge cannot be in creased, or its incidence altered: If the hon. Member wished to increase the salary he could not do it, but he could reduce it. The procedure which I have described in regard to Sub-section 2 of Section 6 has often been followed in this House.
  Question put.
  The House divided: Ayes, 182; Noes 80. (Division List No. 206.)

  AYES.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Chamberlain, J.A. (Worc'r)

  Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Man.).

  Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Finch, George H.

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Charrington, Spencer

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r)

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Firbank, Joseph Thomas

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W.(Leeds)

  Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Barry, Rt. Hn. A. H. S. -(Hunts)

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Folkestone, Viscount

  Barton, Dunbar Plunket

  Colomb, Sir John Charles R.

  Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)

  Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H (Bristol)

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Garfit, William

  Beckett, Ernest William

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Goldsworthy, Major-General

  Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe

  Cornwallis Fiennes S. W.

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Cotton-Jodrell, Col. E. T. D.

  Goschen, Rt Hn G. J. (St. G'rge's)

  Bethell, Commander

  Cox, Irwin Edward B.

  Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

  Bill, Charles

  Cross, Herbert S. (Bolton)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Blakiston-Houston, John

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Curzon, Viscount

  Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Dalbiac, Colonel Philip Hugh

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Bousfield, William. Robert

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Gull, Sir Cameron

  Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex)

  Denny, Colonel

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert W.

  Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn)

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Hardy, Laurence

  Brassey, Albert

  Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Heath, James

  Brookfield, A. Montagu

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Helder, Augustus

  Butcher, John George

  Drage, Geoffrey

  Henderson, Alexander

  Carlile, William Walter

  Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Hart

  Hill, Sir Edward Stock (Bristol)

  Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Hobhouse, Henry

  Cavendish, V. C. W.(Derbys.)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Cecil, E. (Hertford, East)

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Howell, William Tudor

  Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Savory, Sir Joseph

  Hutchinson, Capt. G. W. Grice-

  Moore, Arthur (Londonderry)

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Jackson, Rt. Hn. Wm. Lawies

  Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

  Sidebottom, T. H. (Stalybr.)

  Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

  More, R. Jasper (Shropshire)

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Morgan, Hon. F. (Monm'thsh.)

  Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.)

  Johnstone, Hey wood (Sussex)

  Morrell, Geo. Herbert

  Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

  Kemp, George

  Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

  Stanley, Hon. A. (Ormskirk)

  Kenyon, James

  Mount, William Geo.

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William

  Muntz, Philip A.

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Keswick, William

  Myers, William H.

  Strauss, Arthur

  Kimber, Henry

  Newdigate, Francis Alexander

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Lawrence, W. F. (Liverpool)

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

  Northcote, Hon. Sir H. S.

  Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

  Lea, Sir T. (Londonderry)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Lecky, Rt. Hn. William E. H.

  Pease, Herbert P. (Darlington)

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Percy, Earl

  Valentia, Viscount

  Llewellyn, E. H. (Somerset)

  Pilkington, R. (Lancs, Newton)

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Llewelyn, Sir D.- (Swansea)

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Pollock, Harry Frederick

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset))

  Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Liverpool)

  Priestley, Sir W. O. (Edin.)

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

  Purvis, Robert

  Wilson, J W. (Worcestersh. N.

  Lowe, Francis William

  Rankin, Sir James

  Wilson-Todd, W. H. (Yorks.)

  Lubbock, Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Lucas-Shadwell, William

  Rentoul, James Alexander

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

  Lyell, Sir Leonard

  Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir Matthew W.

  Wylie, Alexander

  Macartney, W. G. Ellison

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Wyndham, George

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Robinson, Brooke

  Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Rothschild, Hn. Lionel Walter

  Younger, William

  Maclure, Sir John William

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

  Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)

  Ryder, John Herbert Dudley

  Milbank, Sir P. C. John

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  NOES.

  Allan, William (Gateshead)

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Murnaghan, George

  Allison, Robert Andrew

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir H.

  O'Connor, J. (Wicklow, W.)

  Austin, M.

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J.

  Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

  Bainbridge, Emerson

  Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

  Pease, Joseph A. (Northum.)

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir W.

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Billson, Alfred

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. C. Seale-

  Price, Robert John

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. C. H.

  Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

  Burt, Thomas

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Reckitt, Harold James

  Caldwell, James

  Humphreys-Owen, A. C.

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Cameron, Sir Charles (Glasgow)

  Johnson-Ferguson, Jabez Edw.

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Carmichael, Sir T. D. Gibson-

  Joicey, Sir James

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Shaw, Charles E. (Stafford)

  Cawley, Frederick

  Labouchere, Henry

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Lambert, George

  Souttar, Robinson

  Clark, Dr. G. B. (Caithness-sh.)

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cmb'land)

  Steadman, William Charles

  Colville, John

  Leng, Sir John

  Strachey, Edward

  Commins, Andrew

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Lough, Thomas

  Sullivan, T. D. (Donegal, W.)

  Crilly, Daniel

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

  Dalziel, James Henry

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Davitt, Michael

  M'Crae, George

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Dewar, Arthur

  M'Ewan, William

  Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (H'fl'd.)

  Dillon, John

  M'Ghee, Richard

  Donelan, Captain A.

  M'Leod, John

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Doogan, P. C.

  Maddison, Fred.

  Mr. Scott and Mr. Yoxall.

  Douglas, C. M. (Lanark)

  Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

  Bill committed to the Standing Committee on Law, &c.

TELEGRAPHS (TELEPHONIC COMMUNICATION, &c.) BILL.
Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question (21st June), "That
692
the Bill be committed to the Standing Committee on Trade, &c."
Question again proposed.
THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (MR. HANBURY, ): Perhaps I may be permitted to take this opportunity of stating to the House what are the arrangements that have been made with the National Telephone Company since this subject was last before the House. There are three points that have been discussed with the National Telephone Company. The first is the difficulty which has arisen with regard to certain large boroughs where the National Telephone Company have practically done away with the overhead system, and have spent considerable sums of money in establishing an underground system. This was done before there was any probability of any Bill of this kind being introduced into the House, and that money was expended although the way-leaves were granted under leases terminable on very short notice. There was a very strong fear expressed on the part of the National Telephone Company that the corporation of a borough which, under this Bill, has new powers given it to establish a telephone system of its own, might see its way under this Bill to establish a telephone monopoly of its own within its own bye-laws, give notice to the Telephone Company to terminate its way-leaves in six months, and so practically confiscate large sums of money expended in such a borough by the Telephone Company. That is, of course, something which I do not think is at all likely to occur, though, of course, if any corporation did take such a step it would be sheer confiscation, and I agree with the National Telephone Company that it should be a condition of any licence to be granted to any corporation or company in a borough where such money had been expended that these way-leaves should be practically secured to the company during the remainder of their licence. I think that only a fair step to take. In the first place, it is no great concession, because I do not think any corporation would have behaved in the way in which the National Telephone Company thought was possible, but, as a condition of so securing their way-leaves, I required that the company should come under control. One of the greatest complaints made against the company was that they were unregulated, that we had no control over their rates, either maximum or minimum, and that they were not obliged, as all other public companies were, to treat with the public at all upon equal terms. That in the future will be limited, and
694
the company will be prohibited from granting any preferential terms what-ever.
SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: They never did.
MR. HANBURY: At any rate, that will be impossible in the future. Although my right hon. friend is right in saying that they never did, still, my right hon. friend will admit that theoretically they have that power now. The second point is this, that I realise that if we are going to induce either new companies or special corporations to embark on this work, a licence extending only to 1911 is hardly sufficient temptation to them. I think we ought to give to those new companies and corporations a substantial term of either 20 or 25 years; and if we were to do that it would be grossly unfair, I think, not to extend the National Telephone Company's licence also, subject, however, to the same restrictions and prohibition of preferential rates. Everywhere the company will cease to be a monopoly. In those limited areas where the company have already exchanges, competition will be encouraged by the Bill, and the company have undertaken to enter no new areas—that is to say, that, whereas under existing conditions they have a perfect right to compete throughout the whole of the country, in future the licence will be so limited that they will not be able to set up exchanges in any area whatever. That, of course, will be a great protection to the smaller municipalities, where there is no exchange at present, and where the National Telephone Company will be prevented under the present Bill from setting up competition. I hope the House will acknowledge that the company have treated the Government most fairly, and I trust that, now they have come to terms, the result will be a more efficient service throughout the length and breadth of the land. The House will, I hope, deal with perfect fairness by the company, now that terms have been arranged, and allow the Bill to be sent to the Standing Committee on Trade.
MR. COHEN: I believe I shall he in order if I move to omit the words "Standing Committee on Trade,"

695
and insert the words "Select Committee of this House." I only wish to say that my right hon. friend some time ago said he did not know how anybody could object to this proposal who had served on the Select Committee upon this question last year. Now it is precisely because I have served on that Committee that I make this motion, because the Bill before the House is diametrically opposed to the recommendations of that Committee. I should not be in 0111er if I attempted to establish the truth—which I could do—of what I have just said; but I am in order, I think, when I ask the House to refer this Bill to a Select Committee, because, in consequence of the form which it has now assumed, it raises entirely new issues. It now affects different considerations upon which we ought to have an investigation and evidence, and we ought to have witnesses who are capable of informing us how far the proposals of the Bill will be affected by the change which it has now undergone. I am not able to argue on this motion why I make this statement, but I claim in support of my Amendment not only the vote of the right hon. Gentleman who presided over that Committee with conspicuous ability, but I also claim the support of my right hon. friends on the front bench who, by consenting to the appointment of a Joint Committee of both Houses to inquire into this dangerous growth of municipal trading, have themselves recognised that the principle is wrong. I submit, therefore, that they ought not to oppose the appointment of a Select Committee, and I beg to move.
Amendment proposed,
"To leave out the words 'the Standing Committee on Trade, &c.,' and add the words 'a Select Committee.'"—(Mr. Cohen.)
Question proposed, "That the words 'the Standing Committee on Trade, &.,' stand part of the Question."
MR. KIMBER: I think it is somewhat hard upon hon. Members who, with due diligence, have endeavoured to find an opportunity on the Second Reading of this Bill to express their views that a great many of them have been prevented from doing so by circumstances over which they have no
696
control. I presume that now I am limited, as a matter of order, to discussing only the question of the Committee to which the Bill can be referred, and it is not open to us to discuss the merits of the Bill. It is more hard still that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury should have brought forward this evening more new matter which seems to shift the ground, and alters the reasons upon which the Bill was referred. In referring this Bill to the Grand Committee many of us probably will be deprived of that opportunity which we should get either in a Committee of the whole House or on a Select Committee, where we should have the right of bringing evidence upon the subject. The Bill appears to me to be a money Bill involving an expenditure of £2,000,000, and it seeks to give power to local authorities to raise money out of the rate-payers' pockets for the purpose of entering upon municipal trading.
It being after midnight, the Debate stood adjourned.
Debate to be resumed To-morrow.

BOARD OF EDUCATION (SALARIES).
Committee to consider of authorising the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of any salaries and remuneration that may become payable under any Act of the present Session to provide for the establishment of a Board of Education for England and Wales (Queen's recommendation signified), Tomorrow.—(Sir John Gorst.)

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE:—AGRICULTURAL AND TECHNICAL INSTRUCTOIN (IRELAND) BILL—TITHE RENT-CHARGE (RATES) BILL.
On the Motion for the Adjournment of the House:—
MR. DILLON: I desire to ask the First Lord of the Treasury when he is going to take the Agriculture and Technical Instruction (Ireland) Bill, for which ire have waited so long. This Bill has received scurvy treatment, but it is a Bill of great importance. Although we accept its principle, I think we are en-

697
titled to get fair notice when the Bill is going to be taken, and we are also entitled to have a reasonable amount of time for its discussion. I mention this matter because I heard a rumour that it was the intention of the Chief Secretary for Ireland to introduce this Bill after 11 o'clock this evening. I have no hesitation in saying that to introduce it at any such hour as that would be nothing short of a public scandal. I was denounced the other day because I asked for a reasonable time for the discussion of Subjects which were not Irish questions. This, however, is an Irish measure, and we should have a reasonable time allowed for its discussion, and our convenience should also be considered in setting it down for discussion. I think I have a right to complain of the way we have been treated to-night, for this measure has been set down as the second Order, after a Bill which everyone knew must have taken up nearly the whole of the evening. We have waited very patiently for this Bill to come on, and I do say that this is not the way in which a Bill of such importance ought to be treated, and it is not the way in which the Irish Members ought to be treated. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to put this Bill down its the first Order.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman opposite complains of the treatment meted out by the Government to the Irish Members. I think he has very little ground indeed for that complaint. It is perfectly true that this is an important Bill; in fact, I think it is of the greatest possible importance. It does not, however, follow from that that it is a Bill that needs to have very great discussion. It may require very great discussion or it may not, but if it does it cannot be passed in the course of the present session. That will be obvious to all hon. Members who have followed the course of business this session, and who know the amount of time left at our disposal. Last session was mainly occupied by Irish business, for the great Bill of that session was an Irish measure. This Bill of the Chief Secretary for Ireland was received—and I think is still receiving—the general approval of the Irish Members, and, if that theoretical approval is accompanied by the practical advantage of a brief discussion of its details, it might be passed
698
in the course of the present session, and that would be an advantage to Ireland. It is quite manifest that this advantage can only be obtained on the conditions which I have stated, and if these days of discussion which hon. Members require are indeed necessary to carry it into law I greatly fear that Ireland must wait until next session for the advantages which this Bill is intended to give to her. I can only put this Bill down on occasions when I have some hope that it may come on. If, unfortunately, this measure should be discussed at length, the alternative I have suggested is the only one which is possible, and we shall have to defer until next session this Bill which is intended to confer so many advantages upon Ireland.
SIR T. ESMONDE: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not be under the impression that small interest is taken in this measure. I think it is a Bill of very great importance indeed, and possibly it might be for the convenience of Irish Members if the right hon. Gentleman could name some day on which he could take it.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I shall put it down for Wednesday next.
SIR T. ESMONDE: As the first Order?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I cannot do that.
SIR T. ESMONDE: All I wish to say is that if this Bill is not passed this session there will be great disappointment in Ireland. I hope that under the circumstances the measure will not be lost through any want of effort on the part of the Government.
MR. WILLIAM MOORE: I agree that this is a very important measure, and the sooner the Government can make it convenient to put it down as the first Order the better will the Unionist Members he pleased. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see his way at least to give us reasonable notice, so that we may attend,
CAPTAIN PIRIE: Will the discussion on the Tithe Rent-charge (Rates) Bill, if unfinished to-morrow, go as the first Order on Wednesday?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes.
MR. FLYNN: When an Order has been put down as the second or third Order we never can tell when the Bill is going to come on. I do hope the right hon. Gentleman will adopt a reasonable tone in regard to this measure, for it is practically the only Irish Bill this session. All we ask is that it shall be put down as the first Order, and that we shall have reasonable notice. It contains an enormous number of details dealing with large sums of money which is principally Irish money, and I claim my right to discuss this Bill at a proper length. I am not going to be a willing party to the modern practice of discussing business under the Ten-minutes Rule or
700
taking Irish measures at the tail end of English or Scotch business; I would prefer that it should go over to another session rather than have an incomplete Bill this session, for we never can get Irish business in a complete form. Surely it is not asking too much of the Government to give us a reasonable share of the time of the House for one day or a portion of a day with this Bill as the first Order, when Irish Members can have an adequate discussion of their own affairs. We are asking nothing unreasonable, but after the treatment we have received we shall not be content, and the Government will save more time by being reasonable than otherwise.
MR. MURNAGHAN: I should like the right hon. Gentleman to put this Bill down as the first Order on Thursday.
Adjourned at a quarter after Twelve of the clock.

The Earl of Malmesbury sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 7).
And the Certificates that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:
IONIAN BANK.
  WORCESTERSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL.
    BROMPTON AND PICCADILLY CIRCUS RAILWAY.
    The same were ordered to lie on the Table.
CORK CORPORATION (FINANCE) BILL.
Committee to meet on Thursday next.
STOCKPORT CORPORATION BILL.
To be read 2a on Monday next.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 4) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners; and to be read 2a To-morrow.—(The Earl of Denbigh.) (No. 145.)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 12) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners; and to be read 2a To-morrow.—(The Lord Harris.) (No. 146.)
CENTRAL ELECTRIC SUPPLY BILL.
The Queen's consent signified; and Bill reported from the Select Committee with Amendments.
GAS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 2) BILL. [Lords.]
Reported from the Select Committee with Amendments, and committed to a Committee of the whole House.
WEST MIDDLESEX WATER BILL.
The Queen's consent signified; and Bill reported from the Select Committee with Amendments.
LEITH HARBOUR AND DOCKS BILL.
  SOUTH-EASTERN AND LONDON CHATHAM, AND DOVER RAILWAY COMPANIES (NEW LINES) BILL.

    BAKER STREET AND WATERLOO RAILWAY BILL.
    BLACKPOOL IMPROVEMENT BILL.
    GREAT NORTHERN AND STRAND RAILWAY BILL.
    LONDON IMPROVEMENTS BILL.
    Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bills; viz.:

    L. Zouche of Haryngworth,

    L. Sherborne,

    L. Granard (E. Granard),

    L. Hawkesbury (Chairman),

    L. Muncaster;

    Agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly: The Committee to meet on Thursday next, at Eleven o'clock; and all petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the petitioners praying to be heard by counsel against the Bills to be heard as desired, as also counsel for the Bills.

FISHGUARD AND ROSSLARE RAILWAYS AND HARBOUR BILL.
  BIRMINGHAM CORPORATION BILL.
  Read 2a, and committed.
HASTINGS HARBOUR BILL. [Lords.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
ST. JAMES'S AND PALL MALL ELECTRIC LIGHT BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendment, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
LEEDS CORPORATION BILL.
  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL.

    LONDON UNITED TRAMWAYS BILL.
    MENSTONE WATER BILL.
    Brought from the Commons; Read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.

CARDIFF RAILWAY BILL.
  RHONDDA URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
  Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
HASTINGS AND ST. LEONARDS GAS BILL. [Lords.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments; the said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL.
To be read 2a To-morrow—(The Lord Harris.)
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 7) BILL.
    ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 16) BILL.
    To be read 2a To-morrow—(The Earl of Dudley.)
MILITARY LANDS PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
To be read 2a To-morrow—(The Marquess of Lansdowne.)
TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 2) BILL. [Lords.]
  TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 3) BILL. [Lords.]
  House to be in Committee To-morrow.
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (LONDON) BILL. [Lords.]
Amendments reported (according to Order), and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.
  HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES PROVISIONAL ORDER (BORROWSTOUNNESS) BILL.
  Read the third time (according to order), and passed.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 18) BILL.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 19) BILL.
    PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
    Read the second time (according to order); and committed to a Committee of the whole House To-morrow.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 3) BILL.
House in Committee (according to order); Bill reported without amendment; Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read the third time To-morrow.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL.
Amendments reported (according to order); and Bill to be read the third time To-morrow.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 6) BILL.
Read the third time (according to order), and passed.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 8) BILL.
House in Committee (according to order); Bill reported without amendment; Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read the third time Tomorrow.
RETURNS, REPORTS, &c.
  ARMY (MILITARY WORKS) BILL, 1899.
  Schedules showing the expenditure on services to be undertaken under the Military Works Bill of 1899 and the complete War Office scheme.
  Sixtieth Annual Report of the Deputy Keeper of the Public Records.
  FISHERIES (IRELAND).
  Annual Report of the Inspectors of Irish Fisheries, for the year 1898.
  DUBLIN HOSPITALS.
  Forty-first Report of the Board of Superintendence; with appendices.

  AGRARIAN OFFENCES (PROVINCES) (IRELAND).
  Return for the year ended 31st December, 1898.
  Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  PEACE PRESERVATION (IRELAND) ACTS.
  Two Orders in Council, dated 17th June, 1899, with respect to the importation into Ireland of arms and ammunition.
  DISEASES OF ANIMALS ACTS, 1894 AND 1896.
  Order, dated 20th day of June, 1899, No. 5952, revoking Order No. 5912, which prohibited the conveyance of animals by the s.s. "J. W. Taylor."
  SUPERANNUATION.
  Treasury Minute, dated 16th June, 1899, granting a retired allowance to Mr. John Dalzell, officer of Excise, Belfast Collection, Inland Revenue, under Section 2 of the Superannuation Act, 1887.
  Account of receipts and payments in respect of the Land Registry for the year ended 31st March, 1899.
  HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE AND COURT OF APPEAL.
  Account showing the receipts and expenditure in respect of the High Court of Justice and the Court of Appeal during the year ended 31st March, 1899.

  POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANKS.
  Accounts presented of all deposits received and paid during the year ended 31st December, 1898, and of the sums received and paid by the National Debt Commission on account of the Fund for the Post Office Savings Banks in the same year.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

PETITIONS.
  LONDON GOVERNMENT BILL, 1899.
  Petitions for amendment of—of the Whitechapel District Board of Works, the Vestry of the Hamlet of Mile End Old Town, the Vestry of the Parish of St. Martin-in-the-Fields; read, and ordered to lie on the Table,
  VACCINATION ACTS.
  Petition for repeal of compulsory clauses in—of the Guardians of the Poor of Reading Union; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
LIGHT LOAD LINE BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  EARL GREY: I would venture to appeal to the noble Lord in charge of this Bill (Lord Muskerry) to postpone the Second Reading till a later date. The Bill was only printed on Saturday, and the shipowners in the North of England, who have telegraphed and written to me on this subject, strongly protest against a Bill of this great importance, which vitally affects the shipping industry, being dealt with in this hasty manner. I hope the noble Lord will see his way to comply with the request which I venture to make.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: On behalf of the Shipowners' Parliamentary Committee, I desire to support the appeal of my noble friend for the postponement of the discussion upon this Bill.
  LORD MUSKERRY: I have no hesition in agreeing, after the appeal of the noble Lords, to postpone the Second Reading of this Bill. I might mention, however, that the Bill was read a first time on Monday last, and I do not know why it was not circulated before Saturday. Would it suit the noble Lords if I put the Bill down for to-morrow?
  EARL GREY: That would be too short a time for the Bill to be properly considered, and I certainly think it is only proper that so important an industry should have ample opportunity of looking into this Bill before your Lordships are asked to give it a Second Reading.
  Order for Second Reading discharged.

QUESTION.

  MAIL STEAMER CONTRACTS.
  LORD KELVIN: My Lords, I beg to ask "Her Majesty's Government (1) whether British mail steamers carrying

  535
  mails for the Post Office are under contract with the Home or Colonial Governments to perform the service contracted for in stated times under penalties in case of late arrival, or with bonus in case of arrival before the specified time, and with or without a clause remitting the penalty when it is proved that the lateness of arrival is due to seamanlike care for the safety of the ship; (2) whether the Government will undertake that in future every contract made by the Postmaster-General for the carriage of letters by mail steamer shall include a saving clause such as that last mentioned; (3) whether the Board of Trade has licensed, or will in future license, a British ship for the carriage of passengers which sails under any contract including such a clause as the following: "Such penalties to be inflicted from whatever cause the delay may arise," referring to penalties of from £2 1s. 2d. to £6 5s. for every hour of lateness in arrival after the appointed time. My object in putting this question is to annul one of the causes which at present tend to produce, dangerous navigation of ships carrying mails and passengers. It is necessary to have penalties for non-fulfilment of contract in every business arrangement, but I contend that, in the case of a ship arriving later than the time contracted for, a saving clause should be inserted in the contract annulling the penalty when it can be proved that the delay is due to seamanlike care for the safety of the ship. The introduction of such a clause into the contract would not materially alter the usage which, I believe, has been generally followed by our own Government, who in every case where good reason for the delay has been shown have remitted the penalty. But the question is of vital importance, whether or not the conditions at present imposed upon the companies and upon their officers tend to promote running at a high speed when it is dangerous so to do; and it seems to me that a clause ought to be inserted in the contract providing, not for the non-exacting of a penalty by the forgiving of a crime, or an act which is penal, but for the annulling of penalty when it is proved than the lateness of arrival is due to seamanlike care. The insertion of such a clause would, I believe, bring about a decided diminution of the dangerous pressure brought to bear upon captains to run their vessels at too high speed for safety. I do
  536
  not suggest that the Home Government should dictate to the Cape Government in this matter, but I venture to think that the example of the introduction of such a clause into our contract would have a good effect in regard to the contracts entered into by the Cape and other Colonial Governments. The Board of Trade have a locus standi for taking this, matter in hand. The Board of Trade refuse to license a ship for carrying mails and passengers if she is unseaworthy in any respect, and I would ask whether the Board of Trade consider that a ship would, when penalties are inflicted for delay, no matter from what cause the delay arises, be sailing under a system and under regulations suited for the safety of the mails and passengers. I do not expect any immediate action to be taken in the matter, but I do hope the consideration of the subject will be taken up by the Postmaster-General, the Colonial Office, and the Board of Trade.
  THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (The DUKE OF NORFOLK): My Lords, the question put by the noble Lord relates to the Department over which I preside, and also to the Board of Trade. I thought it desirable to submit to the Board of Trade a draft of the answer which I proposed to give, and as they approved of it I do not think I can do better than read that answer to the House. In regard to contracts made by Her Majesty's Postmaster-General for the conveyance of mails by sea, it has for many years been customary to provide in the sense advocated by the noble Lord. The clauses relating to over-time at sea are what are known as non-absolute; that is to say, there is a proviso that no deduction for delay shall be made from the subsidy if it can be shown to the satisfaction of the Postmaster-General that such delay arose from causes beyond the control of the contractors. It is the duty of all masters of packets to adopt all necessary measures and precautions for the safety of the mails—which duty, of course, necessitates care for the ship's safety. Delay caused by taking care of the ship would obviously come within the proviso mentioned already, and would not give rise to deduction. Similar provisions are believed to exist in regard to packet contracts made by colonial Governments. At all events, such is the

  537
  case in the current contract of the Cape Colony with the Castle and Union Companies, in which the rates of deduction mentioned in the third paragraph of the question are provided. Bonuses or premiums for extra speed are not now paid to packet contractors. I am informed by the Board of Trade that they could not withhold their certificate on the ground that words such as those quoted in the third paragraph occurred in a contract under which a steamer might be employed. A certificate granted for a passenger steamer by the Board applies solely to the vessel for which it is granted and her fitness for passengers on certain voyages within the time covered by the certificate. I understand the noble Lord to advocate that there should be a distinct clause rather than a clause modified by a proviso. I am not prepared to say, at the present moment, what special advantage would be derived from that clause, but I can assure the noble, Lord that I am prepared to consider any clause he might draft. In my opinion, however, the safeguards already provided are sufficient to meet the case, and have been found hitherto to do so.

  LONDON GOVERNMENT BILL.

    COMMITTEE.
    House in Committee (according to Order).
    Clause 1 agreed to.
    Clause 2:—
    THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN: The Amendment which I have to move to Clause 2 so alters the clause as to provide that no woman shall be eligible for the office either of alderman or of councillor. I feel very strongly upon the principle which is embodied in the clause as it stands, and I entertain a very strong objection to it upon two analogous but somewhat different grounds. I think the clause as it stands will not only be of no benefit, but will be of considerable detriment to us both in public and in private life. The principle involved in this clause is so novel and so large that it cannot, if it becomes law, be long confined to the bodies to be created under this Bill, but will very speedily extend over a much larger area of operations. In my opinion
    538
    a principle of this character ought not to be allowed to sidle its way into recognition on the Statute Book in a clause of a Bill, but ought to be brought before Parliament either as a small and distinct Bill, or by means of a Resolution, so that in some way Parliament could have an opportunity of considering the question in all its hearings. I trust that those of your Lordships who have the slightest doubt as to the wisdom of the principle will not forget that the clause found its way into the Bill in the other House of Parliament practically through an accident. It does not, therefore, come up to your Lordships with the sanction and weight of adequate discussion in the other House, nor with the support of any deliberate opinion expressed by that branch of the Legislature. The principle of removing the disqualification of sex and allowing women to sit as councillors and as aldermen on the new borough councils to be created in London is an absolutely new principle; or, if it is contended that it is only an extension of the present principle which prevails in the case of the vestries, it is, at any rate, so great an extension as to be tantamount to novelty. I think your Lordships will agree with me that if the disqualification is removed so far as the municipal bodies to be created in London are concerned, it will be absolutely impossible, with any show of reason or logic, to prevent its removal in connection with municipal bodies all over the country. If it is a good thing that this disqualification should be removed in the case of the London municipalities, on what possible principle can that good thing be withheld from the municipal councils and county councils in all the great cities and towns? And if it is a bad thing, what harm have these, as yet, uncreated London municipalities done that this experiment should be tried upon them? I do not think it will be possible, with any regard to logic or reason, to confine the operations of the clause to the position of councillors and aldermen, and I should like to know on what earthly principle a woman, if she can be an alderman, should not be a lord mayor, a mayor, or a chairman of a county council. I suppose women are excluded in this Bill from becoming mayors because the latter exercise judicial functions, but if you are going to enact that the women are eligible to sit as borough councillors and

    539
    as aldermen, I submit you will be forced very shortly to make them eligible as mayors and county councillors. I think I might really carry that argument still further. If you are going to allow women to exercise the functions of councillors and aldermen in connection with the new borough councils, that principle will of necessity extend to all the municipal councils throughout the country, and also, to be logical, to the Corporation of the City of London; and I fail to see how you can find any sound grounds on which to prevent them taking part in the legislation of the country, and sitting in Parliament. I admit that there is considerable difference between the functions of Parliament and those of the great municipalities, but still the latter bodies have to deal to a certain extent with legislation in the framing of bye-laws, and with enormous questions of finance and other matters so important that if you consider women qualified to sit upon these bodies, you will find it very difficult in the future to give a sound reason why they should not sit in Parliament also. However, I do not wish to press that point. All I want to impress upon your Lordships is this, that in voting for this clause, which says that disqualification of sex and marriage shall be removed so far as the borough councils to be created in London are concerned, you are in reality expressing an opinion that women are eligible, and should be elected as councillors and aldermen, not only on these new bodies, but on all the old existing bodies throughout the country, including among, them the Corporation of the City of London and the London County Council. Well, my Lords, I think that is so large a departure from existing practice that it ought not to have been introduced as a clause in a Bill, but ought, as I have said, to have been brought before Parliament and the country as a distinct measure upon which Parliament could give a distinct and clear opinion. All that my Amendment does is to bring the new municipal bodies to be created into line with the municipal bodies already existing throughout the country. We are, under this Bill, extending to London the same principles which obtain all over the country, and I cannot understand on what principle this departure with reference to women is made in the case of London. It would be much more in accordance with our usual legislative methods if, in creat-
    540
    ing municipal bodies in London, we carried out the main principles and the main details which govern municipal bodies in other parts of the country. It may be argued that as the greater contains the less, and as the new borough councils will take over the work and exercise the functions of the present vestries, the effect of my Amendment will be to deprive persons of statutory rights which they already possess in regard to the vestries. In the first place, there is an enormous difference between a municipal council and a vestry, and before dealing with that point I would remind your Lordships of the fact that the disqualification of sex and marriage was removed, so far as the London vestries were concerned, entirely by a mistake. Parliament was not in the least aware of what it was doing. Your Lordships will remember the long session of 1893–94. Parliament sat for a little over a year. It met on the 31st of January, 1893, and sat till March 3, 1894, and the Parish Councils Act of 1894 was debated at intervals all through that session. It was read the first time in the House of Commons in March, 1893, and the third time in this House in the same month of the following year. It was discussed on every stage, and was no less than 32 days in Committee in the other House. The Bill was debated in both Houses of Parliament until obviously Parliament scarcely knew whether it was on its head or its heels, and certainly did not, understand the meaning of the later clauses which were introduced. I will, if your Lordships will permit me, briefly explain how women became eligible to sit on the vestries under the Local Government Act of 1894. The Bill as introduced abolished the qualification of guardians, but had nothing whatever to do with the London vestries. The anomalous position thus created as regards the property qualification was called attention to on the First Reading of the Bill by Sir Charles Dilke. It was commented upon on the Second Reading by Mr. James Stuart, Mr. Rowlands, and others. I do not want to trouble your Lordships with quotations, but the gist of the contention was that the property qualification, having been removed in one case, ought to be removed in another. Mr. Stuart said:
    "One thing was certain, and that was that the property qualification for vestries would have to be abolished, and the electorate put,

    541
    upon all fours with the electorate of district councils."
    Mr. Rowlands put the thing in a nutshell when he said:
    "He felt very keenly the exclusion of London from the general provisions of the Bill, because if the measure became law London would be the only part of England in which the property qualification would remain for vestries."
    That was the nature of the criticism on the Bill—namely, that the property qualification having been removed so far as the country was concerned, should also be removed in the case of the London vestries. Section 23 of the Bill, after a great deal of discussion, was passed, enabling women to sit on parish and district councils. Then came Section 29, which applied certain provisions of the Act—the provisions dealing with property qualification in respect of guardians—to the London vestries, but that section specially specified that except in that respect the provisions were not to apply to London. The result was that the property qualification still applied to the London vestries. To remedy that condition of things the Minister in charge of the Bill, Sir Henry Fowler, moved an Amendment, which eventually became Clause 31 of the Bill. That is the clause under which women became eligible to sit on the vestries, and it is perfectly obvious that the Amendment was moved for the purpose of meeting the objections to the fact that the property qualification remained in respect of the vestries. It abolished the property qualification, it abolished the ratepaying qualification for electors, and it also abolished the ex officio right of incumbents to be chairmen of vestries. I have carefully read the Debate that took place, and I find that the whole discussion centred upon those three points—the taking away of the property qualification, the ratepaying qualification for electors, and the ex officio right of incumbents to be chairmen of vestries. There was not a single allusion made to the fact that under that clause the disqualification of sex was also removed. Not a single word was said in any Debate which occurred, from the First Reading of the Bill in the other House to its Third Reading in your Lordships' House, to show that women would become qualified under the measure to sit upon the London vestries. In the last Debate
    542
    which took place in this House in Committee, the noble Earl opposite, the Leader of the Opposition, spoke about this particular clause in the Bill. He said he could not for the life of him see why persons in London who would be entitled to vote for members of sanitary districts, if they lived in the country, should be excluded from voting at the London vestry elections. The noble Earl spoke entirely about voting. He did not make the slightest allusion to the fact that the power was conferred upon women by this clause to sit upon the vestries. Neither did the noble Marquess, who spoke on the same occasion. It is not very strange, my Lords, that Parliament should not have understood the meaning of the clause. It was severely criticised by the Prime Minister, who said the noble Earl (the Earl of Kimberley) had been kind enough to give their Lordships his interpretation and view of what was intended to be done, but the drafting of the clause was so wonderful, said the noble Marquess, that he defied any human being who had not been provided with some special code of interpretation to discover what it meant. The noble Marquess said that probably the noble Earl possessed some, cipher by which he understood what the draftsman meant. In the course of his speech the noble Marquess commented only upon the effect of the voting power of women, and did not refer for a single moment to the fact that the clause qualified women to sit upon the vestries. Seeing that, during the whole of the Debate, not a single reference was made to the fact that the clause would give this power, and that the noble Earl opposite, who had charge of the Bill, and the noble Marquess who criticised it, failed to perceive that the clause admitted women, I think I am justified in pressing it upon your Lordships that the fact that women now sit upon the London vestries is due entirely to an accident, and that Parliament, when it passed that clause, had not the slightest idea that the clause would have the effect it did. I ask your Lordships, therefore, to agree with me that there is no sound argument for saying that if my Amendment is carried in your Lordships' House any persons will be prevented from enjoying any right or privilege that Parliament ever intended they should possess. There is an enormous difference between the whole status of the London vestries

    543
    and the new municipal bodies to be created under this Bill. It is true that the borough councils will be largely occupied in carrying on the work of the vestries, but they will have a great deal more to do. They will exercise additional powers under the Adoptive Acts, and will have further powers transferred to them from the London County Council. In any case, the areas are in almost every instance considerably larger, and the borough councils will have to deal with matters much more complicated, financial and otherwise, than the vestries now have under their control; indeed, I submit that the whole object of this Bill is to create municipal bodies which should be superior to, and different from, the existing vestries and district boards. I do not think that any advantage to the public service can accrue from women sitting as councillors and aldermen. The work they would have to perform is not work which is congenial and natural to them. Women sit at present on Poor Law boards and deal with educational matters, and they perform invaluable service as factory inspectors. In all these matters I am sure the House will agree with me that the country has derived enormous benefit from the work of women, and that it owes them a great debt of gratitude for the energy and the intelligent manner in which they have on these bodies performed their duties. But these are matters women are particularly qualified to deal with; they are all matters in which humanitarianism comes into play. As Poor Law Guardians, members of educational bodies, and factory inspectors women have done admirable work, and the country can very ill afford to lose their services, and it is for that very reason that I do not desire women to be encouraged to go into work which is not congenial and which is unnatural to them. I never yet have understood that women take a particular delight in drains or are interested in paying, or derive much joy out of ascertaining the cubic contents of buildings. Neither do I understand that they take any interest in unravelling the intricacies of finance, or studying the stern simplicity of a balance-sheet. These are matters which men can attend to considerably better than women, and for many reasons. It is impossible for your Lordships to say that in passing this clause you are passing a permissive clause. If Parliament makes such a
    544
    great change as this, it is tantamount to Parliament saying that it is desirable that women should do this kind of work. They can perform the work in which they are engaged, and to which I have referred, just as well as men, and in many respects better; but I believe you will be doing great harm to the conduct of our public affairs if, by retaining this clause as it is, you encourage women to embark upon work for which they are not fitted, and abandon work which they have shown themselves abundantly qualified to perform. There are all kinds of minor inconveniences in this Bill which I do not think I need parcularly mention to your Lordships. For instance, a man is disqualified from sitting on a council if he is pecuniarily interested as a contractor. In such a case, can that man's wife sit upon the council? Would not that be rather contrary to the general spirit in which we regard the marriage relationship? Moreover, if the clause as it at present stands is adopted you will have to make some little modification in the English language, for your Lordships will scarcely, I am sure, tolerate the barbarism of speaking of a woman as an "alderman." "Alderman" is a good old-fashioned word, and means "an elder of the community." If you pass this clause you ought also to enact that in future "aldermen" shall be "old women." I am curious to know, if a lady should become Lord Mayor of London or an Alderman, whether her husband would derive any precedence, glory, honour, or title of any kind from the position held by his wife. These are comparatively unimportant matters, but when you see small matters of this kind which require a change in the general meaning of an old English word, you may be sure that, small as the matters are, they relate to something which goes very deep into the lowest strata of English society. I do not know that I need address your Lordships at any greater length, but I sincerely hope that the clause will not be allowed to remain in the Bill in its present form. If it is so allowed, I believe it will do a great deal of harm to the public service, and will prevent women from doing a great deal of good work which they now admirably perform, by inducing them to undertake work which is not suitable to them. I do not know that I would describe the position of things thus created in language

    545
    quite so vigorous as that which was used by the Prime Minister not very long ago. Lord Salisbury delivered a wisely humorous speech, which I am sure your Lordships will remember, at the recent banquet of the Royal Academy. He there said that he believed that if there were a Dante to write an artistic "Inferno," its lowest circle would be assigned to the ladies who dressed themselves in the divided skirts or knickerbockers. The noble Marquess went on:
    "A few years hence those who are then alive will see all the principal ladies of their acquaintance as aldermen and common councillors."
    I am glad, therefore, that I may feel confident of receiving the strong support of the noble Marquess in putting off to the furthest possible date the realisation of that horrible nightmare. I thank your Lordships for having listened to me with such patience, but I have spoken at this length because I feel that if you pass this clause you will not only be introducing the thin edge of the wedge, but that you will be driving the wedge home in such a way that some day or another it will be calculated to split the fabric of society. I think the enormous influence for good which women exercise, the great civilising influence that they possess, is due principally to the fact that they do not jostle men, and are not jostled by men in fulfilling the onerous duties which the possession of all these positions entails. I do not see how, if you agree to this clause, you can logically say that any disqualification of sex ought to be maintained in respect of any position, whether it be administrative, legislative, or executive. Whether that is a wise thing or an unwise thing to do is too large a question for me to go into. This is a matter which appeals more to intuition, perception, and instinct than to argument, and I will leave it to your Lordships' clear perception and common-sense to decide. I would, in conclusion, ask your Lordships to remember that in accepting my Amendment you are not disqualifying women from exercising any of the functions which they so adequately discharge now as Poor Law guardians and on the various other authorities, but that you are simply putting the new borough councils to be created in London upon the same lines as the other municipal bodies throughout the country. I beg to
    546
    move the Amendment which stands in my name.
    Amendment moved—
    "Page 1, line 19, leave out from 'councillors' to the end of the sub-section, and insert 'Provided that no woman shall be eligible for any such office."—(The Lord Kenry, E. Dunraven and Mount Earl.)
    THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, my noble friend did me the honour to quote some observations that I made some time ago upon the dress of women. I have not the least objection to the quotation if he would make it correctly. I did not object to women being aldermen or common councillors any more than I object to their riding bicycles. What I objected to was their putting on an absurd and offensive and comical costume to do so. That is a matter which, however grave, hardly enters within the purview of this Bill. My noble friend introduced a simile to which we are very much accustomed—namely, the use of the thin end of the wedge. That is a very ancient simile, to which I render all homage, and I daresay I have often used it myself; but in order that that simile of the thin end of the wedge should be in the least applicable the end of the wedge must be inserted in the log upon which it is intended to operate. If the thin end of the wedge is inserted into a totally different log some distance away there is no fear to be apprehended for the welfare of the original log. Therefore, that suggestion is wholly irrelevant. If there are persons who really believe that, because you allow women to sit as members of these new bodies, you are therefore hastening the admission of them to the Parliamentary suffrage, I can only say that that is a system of argument I am wholly unable to understand. The two things have nothing whatever to do with each other. Whenever woman suffrage, if ever it does, comes up to be judged in this House, we shall know how to pay attention to the nature of the proposals that are made and to the conditions under which they are laid before us; but they are not before us now. There is not the slightest chance of their being discussed or passed, and it is merely leading us off on a false scent to ask us to discuss these things on this Bill.

    547
    My Lords, my noble friend evidently felt that his great difficulty was the action of the House of Commons and the action of Parliament, and he suggested a very original method of disposing of difficulties of that kind. If the House of Commons in this session, or Parliament in former sessions, has come to any conclusion distasteful to him, he says, "Oh, they did that by accident." Well, of course, that destroys the authority of Parliament altogether. If the House of Commons and the House of Lords are incapable in the course of twelve months of appreciating the fact that they are introducing so large a revolution as my noble friend depicts the admission of women to vestries to be, they are certainly unfit to be entrusted with the legislative business of this country, and in the same way this clause comes up to us with the sanction of the House of Commons, which has been given twice and once refused. It seems to me very irrelevant and trivial to say that the refusal was given after dinner and the acceptance was given before dinner; but that is really the only ground upon which it is possible to criticise the decision of the House of Commons. We must take the decisions as they reach us. The suggestion that if a Division was taken suddenly only the friends of women would be found in the lobby, and those who are against women would be better employed elsewhere, is not respectful either to them or to the House of Commons. I think my noble friend has given your Lordships what seems to me an entirely false view of the clause which he is opposing. He represents it as a great innovation and as introducing something that is absolutely new. What it does is to give to women precisely the same access to the new municipal councils which they have to the vestries at present. These councils differ very little from the vestries. It is not pretended that they do. They have one or two additional powers, one of very great importance, to which I shall refer in a moment—namely, the housing of the working classes; but beyond that the change is only a change of the area of jurisdiction and a change of name; and because of a mere change of name you are asked to strike off women who are now serving. It really amounts to a Parliamentary condemnation to turn them out of the seats and jurisdiction they have hitherto held and exercised, and that not
    548
    on the ground that they have been unworthy of the trust reposed in them or that they have done harm with the powers entrusted to them. That seems to me so violent a step that some cause should be shown for it. It is not enough to tell me that a new name has been given to the bodies to which they belonged. I gather from my noble friend that he fears there is something infectious in a name, and that if these bodies are called municipal councils in London, and women sit on them, straightway all over the country women will start up and want to sit on the municipal councils in all the other towns. Is it really contended that our institutions are constructed on this logical basis? Are there no cases in which a different arrangement has come down from other times, so that bodies having the same name have, in many respects, different powers and different constitution? You are perfectly aware, my Lords, that there are, and that the mere fact that the new London bodies are called municipal councils will no more introduce women into the municipal bodies of Manchester and Birmingham than it will change them into some unknown animal. It is ridiculous to suppose that so great a change will come over municipal bodies, because what were formerly called vestries in London are now called municipal councils, and because these bodies contain women, that therefore women will sit on municipal bodies in provincial towns. It is so absurd an assumption that you cannot possibly deal with it as affording sufficient ground for condemning women who have already performed the duties cast upon them by Parliament, or for suggesting that they have performed those duties badly, or for repealing the powers which five years ago were so deliberately conferred upon them by Parliament. I think merely on the ground of justice that would be a most objectionable thing. But there is a good deal more than justice. My noble friend had the hardihood to say that the new duties imposed on women were alien to their nature and capacity. He said: "You must not tell me that they are on boards of guardians, because there a humanitarian element enters." Has he noticed the fact that one of the main duties of these bodies will be to provide for the housing of the working classes? Is there no humanitarian element in that? On the contrary, my

    549
    Lords, I believe it is one of the most burning and difficult questions with which our future local governments will have to deal. The difficulty increases year by year. It is not the first time we have discussed it in this House. Many years ago, at the request of this House, a Commission was appointed to examine into the condition of the lodging of the working classes, and the result which that Commission reported was most un-satisfactory and, I should add, most alarming, and yet things have got worse since. The difficulty of the conditions is that the ordinary economic laws do not come into play. You are yourselves obliged constantly to destroy vast masses of poor men's dwellings, and every effort to provide an adequate substitute has hitherto, I am afraid, been a failure. And it is not only that. There is a constant flow of the working-class population from the country to the town. They all press, as it is natural they should, near the scene of their employment and their work. To remove them far from the scene of their work is a very great hardship, and rather than incur this hardship they will submit to conditions of lodging in which health and decency, one would almost say morality, are surrounded with the most fatal difficulties. This is an evil which has been so much discussed that I need not press it on your Lordships, but it is an evil with which these local bodies will have, above all things, to contend. The London County Council itself has undertaken part of the duty, but it will not be only on the London County Council that this duty will fall—the duty of providing, I will not say of providing but of striving to provide, adequate lodging for the vast multitudes who inhabit this city. It is one of the principal duties which these municipal bodies will have to perform, and you ought to arm them with every weapon and every assistance that may enable them to perform it with success. Now, I maintain that women are as necessary for the purpose of assisting these local bodies to provide decent lodging for the working classes as they are for the purpose of administering the Poor Law. It is quite as essential, and a far more pressing and urgent duty. And it is an entire misapprehension to suppose that this work is removed further from their ordinary functions or the capacity which they possess. These women are, I may say—I am anxious, in dealing with the matter, not to use words
    550
    of exaggeration, but I think it is true to say that women are in closer touch—these women who give attention to the working classes are in closer touch with them than any man can be. What touch there is, what contact there is, between the working classes and the classes that are above them—apart from matters of business—passes almost entirely through the hands of women. All the charitable work—I will not say charitable, because it conveys, perhaps, an unjust interpreta-tion—but all the sympathetic work, and the knowledge of their daily life, is, to a very large extent, the possession and the privilege of women, and not of men. They are in touch with the working classes more, I think, than men. They are able to guide the bodies on which they sit in the administration of those parts of the law which most closely concern the social life and the moral existence of the working classes, and you will be sacrificing a very great instrument of good if you remove from these councils those who are able to guide the administrators charged with the execution of the law in a way in which they can only be guided by those who know the wants, and not only the wants but the wishes, of the working classes themselves. My Lords, there is another consideration on which I can only dwell lightly, but we ought not to leave it out of account. The vestries have not hitherto enjoyed a very high reputation. They have been accused—I know not whether justly—of using their prerogative more for the purpose of protecting their own interests than of advancing those interests which are committed to their charge. Whether that be true or not I do not know, but it seems to me that in the presence of a woman on those councils you have a security against indolence, against selfish administration, which you will not have if they are removed. They—to use the words of my noble friend—are impressed with the humanitarian element. They feel the terrible evils with which vast multitudes in this city are oppressed. They are moved to act in those matters less by motives of a secondary character and more by the highest philanthropy than the men by whose side they sit, and if you remove them front the council chamber you are taking away from that council one of the highest, one of the most constant, and one of the most reliable stimulants to a true, and honest, and

    551
    unflagging administration of the law. These, my Lords, seem to me considerations of the highest moment. The power with which you have armed these bodies is in the present state of London one of the most momentous powers which they can be called upon to exercise. It is not right to remove from them any condition which will help them in the execution of their duties unless you are led to do so by motives of clear and overwhelming cogency. Such motives, I maintain, do not exist. It is nothing but a name—in order to secure the identical meaning of a name you are asked to drive these women from the council chamber; you are asked to prevent the influence which they have hitherto exercised, and which they will in the future exercise, I believe, in a much higher and more beneficial degree; you are asked to prevent them merely for a technicality—for a pedantic similarity of meaning in the name of two different organisations. I regret very much that I know I am opposed in this matter by many with whom I usually act. I earnestly deprecate the idea that there is anything in the name or principles of Conservatism which is opposed to making these councils as efficient as they can he made for the beneficent purposes for which they are to be set up. I earnestly protest against that idea. I protest against our being asked to differ with the other House of Parliament on a matter of this kind, to refuse to make use of all the instruments of good that lie to our hands, and to do so from motives which are of a trivial character and from apprehensions which do not deserve a moment's thought. Whatever may be the feelings of others, for myself I cannot refuse to vote for that course which will help forward in some degree, it may be to a great degree, a high and noble cause, and which is the course of right, of justice, and of true philanthropy.
    THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The EARL OF HALSBURY): My Lords, I regret very much that I am obliged to differ on this subject from my noble friend at the head of the Government, but the argument of the noble Marquess I am unable to follow. That the question is far wider and more important than my noble friend regards it the crowded and unwonted state of the benches furnishes conclusive evidence. Does anybody in their senses believe that if the only question involved
    552
    in this matter was whether a woman was to become an alderman or not the state of the House would be what it is at this moment? When I look at the state of the House I recognise the fact that it is felt on both sides that the question at issue is not less momentous than this—whether or not, for all purposes and in respect of all political power, distinction of sex or disqualification of sex shall be maintained. This is a matter of great delicacy, but I venture to remind your Lordships that this clause had not found its way into the Bill when it was originally introduced by the Government. It occurs to me that, when this Government Bill was first introduced, those who had to consider this question must have had it before their minds. Yet the Bill was introduced without this clause, the history and importance of which is well known. The profession of faith which is involved in the retention of this small clause is not made very prominent. I would ask the right hon. Member for Bodmin, if he were here, whether this is or is not part of the change in the Constitution which he and his friends recommend—namely, that women should be admitted to the franchise, and that they should vote——
    THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Certainly not.
    THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am delighted to hear my noble friend say that. Of course, my noble friend's view is entitled to great weight and authority; but its importance is I think, considerably diminished by the observation which I have succeeded in eliciting. I do not follow my noble friend in the view he takes that the change will rest here. Where is the line at which we are going to stop? What argument that has been advanced, or suggestion that has been made, will not be equally applicable to the question of a Parliamentary vote? I quite admit the distinction between government and administration, and no one can appreciate more strongly than I do the admirable work women have done in administration as distinguished from government. I cannot, however, help admiring the wonderful subtlety with which my noble friend introduced his observations about the housing of the working classes, from which I suppose no one will for a moment differ, and wove them into his defence of

    553
    this particular clause. If one has not good and cogent arguments for the proposition one endeavours to maintain, it is very wise in rhetoric to introduce something else as to which there will be no contradiction, and then assume that the one thing involves the other. It seems to me that that is what the noble Marquess did. I have myself to make confession on this matter. I admit that at one time I took a different view, and thought that it was an anomaly in our Constitution that the possession of property should give a vote to one sex and not to the other. If I may venture to say so, it was not an unnatural mistake, but my experience in political life for the last 10 or 20 years has taught me that I was mistaken, and therefore I come forward and confess myself, in a white sheet, as a penitent. When I refer to my past political experience your Lordships will understand that I mean the attitude assumed by women in regard to various public questions that have come before us. There are some questions on which, for obvious reasons, I do not desire to enter. The attitude of women on the Turkish question, the temperance question, the vaccination question, as well as one or two others that I would rather not discuss, has convinced me that those very qualities which are exhibited in the burning zeal of a woman to do what she believes to be right, so that she will accept of no compromise—will accept nothing that is not perfect—render her a dangerous guide in political questions. That is no derogation to women's character, on the contrary what makes them the light and charm of human life is the possession of these qualities; but the fact that they will neither consider ways and means nor those considerations of statesmanship without some portion of which no State, I believe, can long continue, renders them unfit to be entrusted with political power. It seems to me that when once you invest women with political power it is not true to say that you will get the average women; those who put themselves forward as representing their sex will not be the best. Unfortunately, also, it is not unlikely that those who would shrink from advancing into political life may be influenced by others. It seems to me that those elements of citizenship—the possession of an independent mind, and the power to act according to one's lights with both
    554
    prudence and courage—are not qualities which we can expect from women. I regret that for these reasons I am unable to take the same view as my noble friend. I think this is a most serious constitutional change, and my Conservatism undoubtedly does recognise the fact that the Constitution, which has been supported and guided by men, is a Constitution with which it is extremely unwise to tamper, and it would be a most unwise thing to hand over half the government of this great country to women. Then there are the difficulties that may arise with reference to a vote for married women. I know it may be said that I am not arguing the question now before the House. That is the whole point between us; I say that this is the question with which we have to deal. It is part of a dangerous policy, and I shall therefore vote against my noble friend, for the first time, I believe, since I have been in this House.
    THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, if I thought this was a question of granting political franchise to women, with all the consequences which might follow, I certainly should take the same view as the noble and learned Lord who has just sat down. I am not, and never have been, in favour of granting political franchise to women. It is, no doubt, an extremely convenient thing, and a very good rhetorical artifice, to introduce into the discussion a question which, in my opinion, does not really belong to it. It seems to me there is a wide distinction between allowing women to perform the duties which they might perform if they became members of these councils, and allowing them to perform duties of an entirely different nature—namely, legislative duties. To my mind the point that was cogently put by the noble Marquess opposite ought to weigh even with those who might have doubts whether it is expedient in itself that women should be—members of these councils—I mean the point that they already in the vestries enjoy the privilege. As to the Bill of 1894, one clause says in distinct terms that the members of urban district councils may be women, and another clause applies that without reservations to the members of vestries. There could be no mistake about it; it was not by a side wind, it was put openly and distinctly by the Act, and no one who took part in the

    555
    discussion could be under the smallest doubt that that was the distinct pledge and well-known intention of the Government which brought in the Bill, and to which I belonged. I entirely agree with the noble Marquess opposite that it is contrary to our usual practice, and I think to an ordinary sense of justice, that having given to women the privilege of sitting upon certain bodies, you should take that privilege away when you merely change the names of those bodies, and add a few new powers which certainly women are as well able, if not more able, to exercise as any other members of the vestries. There is not one tittle of allegation that they have misused their power, or one argument to show that they are not as well fitted to discharge the duties of these local bodies as the duties of the school boards or of the boards of guardians. I draw a wide distinction between that and the political franchise. I believe that women are quite well qualified to deal with many of the subjects which come before these local bodies, and I agree with the noble Marquess that it would be a great misfortune if you excluded them from these bodies in London. I think there are a great many people who are terribly frightened by the famous old argument about the thin end of the wedge; but I must confess I am not very much disturbed by that; if I were I should not vote in favour of this clause. I believe the existing privilege they enjoy is a useful one, which ought to be maintained, and I am further distinctly of opinion that no one who votes in favour of maintaining the clause as it now stands commits himself in the slightest degree to giving political franchise to women.
    THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE): My Lords, my noble friend at the head of the Government has said that in the views he has expressed he does not find himself in accordance with many of those with whom he usually acts; but I do not think he stated as clearly as was stated by the Leader of the other House that this question is one upon which, as a Government, the Government are not prepared to advise Parliament; votes, therefore, will be uninfluenced by Party allegiance. No doubt that position has been made quite clear by the speech of my noble and learned friend beside me me (the Lord Chancellor); but I may say
    556
    that, so far as I am aware, the only members of the Government who are strongly opposed to the Amendment are, I admit, two of its most distinguished members, but they are not, I think, supported by any of their colleagues. In what I say on this subject I shall confine myself to it as affecting the Bill itself, apart from the more general question that has been raised. The question is one which presents difficulty only to one side of opinion on the subject of women's rights. Of course, all those who are in favour of a wide or the widest extension of those political rights are strongly in favour of anything that admits them to, or claims for them, any new privilege approaching a political character; it is only to those of us who are, generally speaking, opposed to a wide extension of this kind that the question presents any difficulty at all. We none of us desire to deprive women of any of those privileges or duties they so admirably discharge in connection with the administration of the Poor Law and of education; but the one argument addressed to us for the Bill as it stands and against the Amendment is that women are already qualified to sit as members of vestries, and that, inasmuch as vestries are to disappear and to be replaced by municipalities, they will no longer be possessed of that privilege. But that argument applies to a great number of people besides women. The effect of the Bill will be to replace by a number of other people several hundreds of vestrymen, many of whom have admittedly discharged their duties well and efficiently. If you are going to look at the question from the point of view of the privileges of a certain class or of certain persons you must not confine your attention to the case of women alone; you must extend your attention to the privileges of vestrymen who are necessarily under the Bill going to be disqualified from the further performance of duties they have hitherto well discharged. You have, however, decided to abolish vestries and to replace them by bodies governing larger areas; and you are bound, in my opinion, to accept the consequences of the change. You cannot retain the incidents of the old system and ignore those of the new. It would be most unfortunate for the future working of this measure if you were from the outset to stamp these new municipalities you are

    557
    going to create, and which you are doing all in your power to make closely resemble those now existing all over the country—if you stamp them from the outset with this obvious inequality, saying, as in fact you do say if you pass this clause without the Amendment, that whatever you may choose to call these new bodies they simply are vestries under a new name, and your intention is that they shall remain vestries. It is argued that women are as well qualified as men to discharge the duties of councillors and aldermen, not only on these, but on other municipalities. In reply to that, I agree with the noble Earl who moved the Amendment that this is not the time, nor the place, nor is this the measure upon which so great and far reaching a change ought to be proposed. It is absolutely, certain that this extension will be made the basis of a demand—whether successful or not it is not possible for me to say—but it certainly will be made the basis of a demand for the extension of the privilege to women on all municipal councils, and, notwithstanding what has fallen from my noble friend at the head of the Government, I personally should have great difficulty in finding a logical argument that would enable me, if I resisted this Amendment, to refuse a demand made in respect to other municipalities. I confess I am not prepared to assent to the establishment of a principle of such importance, at any rate until I know more of the feelings of municipal councils themselves and the constituencies they represent. My noble friend says we can go thus far and stop here, but that is not our experience in respect to the agitation for the extension of women's political privileges. Concession has been followed by other claims; women obtained the municipal franchise, and the question was immediately asked, Why should they not have the Parliamentary franchise also? So, again, it being decided that women were qualified to be members of vestries, that concession is taken advantage of to found a claim to be considered qualified as members of municipalities and as aldermen. I cannot help thinking that when you have given the right which you will give if you reject this Amendment the question will certainly be asked, Why should you prevent women from representing the people in Parliament also? Whatever the decision of Parliament may ultimately be, it is a question a great deal
    558
    too large, a great deal too wide, to be decided incidentally in a measure of this character, and is one which ought to be brought forward as a separate measure, and decided on its merits; and I certainly think further demands ought not to be raised on the very inadequate foundation that women have in the past made good members of vestries, and are therefore necessarily qualified for the more important and responsible positions on borough councils. For these reasons I, without hesitation, shall certainly support the Amendment which has been moved by the noble Earl.
    THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF YORK: My Lords, there is one consideration, to which attention has not been drawn, which is of some importance, and may go some way to allay the somewhat wild alarm of more than one speaker who has addressed your Lordships, and it is this, that the ultimate decision of the question will rest, as it ought to rest, with the people, who will be under no constraint whatever to elect a single woman as a councillor. The result of the elections will show whether we have mistaken the feeling of the constituencies or not. If we find that they elect very few or no women to be members of the new borough councils, it will show that the Amendment was justified; but I believe the result will be very different, and it is because I believe this will be so that I feel bound to vote in favour of the retention of the clause as it at present stands. Observations have been made in the course of this Debate which seem to disparage the power and fitness of women to deal with the important questions which will come before the new borough councils. I will not repeat the argument that they have already been occupied in dealing with a number of these questions as members of vestries, but taking the larger question as affecting the comfort, happiness, and housing of the poor, which I do not admit is in any degree irrelevant to this discussion, I cannot forget that, after, perhaps, the great name of the late Lord Shaftesbury, more has been done to promote the comfort and well-being of the poorer classes of London by women, two or three of whom are happily still alive, than has been done in the last 20 or 30 years by any association of men. The capacity shown by women in success-fully dealing with such questions proves

    559
    that they are qualified for places on the new councils, and I think we shall be doing right in rejecting the Amendment which has been submitted by the noble Earl.
    THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, I have had the privilege for two years, ending only last year, of presiding over one of the most important public boards in the whole of the Empire—I allude to the London School Board. At that time there were four ladies who represented constituencies on that Board—I believe the number is larger now—and they discharged work of an extremely useful character on the committees to which they were allotted. They frequently took part in our weekly debates, and their speeches were always of a thorough and explicit character, and enjoyed the additional advantage of never being too long. I frequently found that if the Debates had somewhat wandered away from the question under discussion, but not so far that I felt myself compelled to intervene, the lady members always brought them back into the original channel and gave them a thoroughly practical turn. I had the advantage, during those two years, of visiting various parts of London which were represented on the School Board by these ladies, and I therefore had the opportunity of seeing the enormous good they were doing in details connected with education and other work of, to use the words of the noble Marquess, a humanitarian character, and which I do not think they would have had the means of performing had they not the prestige and the influence of being members of the London School Board. There are, as your Lordships are aware, what are called "go-betweens" between the members of the London School Board and the teachers—a large number of ladies and gentlemen known as School Board managers. These managers do splendid work, and, of the vast number of managers, upwards of 500 are women. I venture to bring this matter before your Lordships became, when we have women doing this good work on school boards and upon local governing bodies, it seems hard to deprive them of the opportunity of doing similar work on the bodies about to be created. I know something of the good work done by women in the overcrowded districts in the metropolis, and of the influence
    560
    they have brought to bear on their fellow women in their homes. That influence, I am convinced, has had, and will continue to have, a great share in lessening the rate of mortality. I can endorse what the right rev. Prelate has said will be the opinion of the electors in the future if this clause is allowed to stand as at present. The electors have embraced the opportunity afforded them under the Act of 1893 to return a large number of women to the public boards, and under the new Local Government Act in Ireland there are already 4 women members on urban district councils, 27 on rural district councils, and 82 on boards of guardians. I would ask your Lordships not, by passing the Amendment, to stultify your previous action, but to allow women on the new bodies to do a still greater work than they have yet had an opportunity of doing. As to giving women the Parliamentary franchise, I certainly do not say that, if they are permitted to become councillors and aldermen, they may not desire to be given the Parliamentary franchise, and I do not deny for one moment that there are many women who are more qualified to enjoy it than men; but that does not alter my extreme objection to any measure of that sort. I consider that the extension of the Parliamentary franchise to women would be disastrous to Parliament and to the country, and, whilst in favour of having them as members of school boards and local government bodies, I would retain to myself the right of doing the utmost I can to oppose the extension to them of the Parliamentary franchise. I give my most hearty support to the clause as it stands, and shall vote against the Amendment when the Division is taken.
    THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: My Lords, the speech which has just been delivered, however convincing it may have been, was a speech in favour of extending to women seats upon all municipal councils, and every word uttered by the noble Marquess was an entire corroboration of the argument that you cannot stop here. I will yield to no one in my appreciation of the work which women have done in the way of educating people in sanitary matters in our great towns, but much of that valuable

    561
    work has been done by women who have not had seats on the public bodies. I need only mention the name of Miss Octavia Hill, who has done more for this metropolis, perhaps, than almost any other woman, and she has done the whole of that work without a seat on any Board so far as I am aware. I want for one moment to bring this Debate into the narrowest compass. I do not wish to discuss whether this Amendment will, or will not, lead to further change. I wish to put before the House one or two considerations with regard to the measure itself. It seems to be an unfortunate incident associated with this metropolis that legislation with regard to it has for a long time been in an experimental stage. This is unavoidable, because you have no precedent to go upon. The size of London renders it an exception to all rules, and, therefore, you have been obliged to try one experiment after another. You tried the Metropolitan Board of Works, which was not altogether, I believe, an unmitigated success. You then tried the County Council, and no one who was present at the Second Reading of this Bill, and who witnessed the manner in which the Bill was received by noble Lords opposite, could have failed to observe that even from them it received a certain amount of acceptation, and that the worst they had to say was to damn it with faint praise. Therefore, I take it that a change of some sort or kind is again admitted to be necessary, and until the noble Marquess spoke to-night I imagined that it was the intention of the Government to convert the vestries into municipalities, with all the importance of municipalities, so far as the peculiar conditions of the case would allow. It was impossible, no doubt, to give them all the powers possessed by municipalities in the provinces; but, while you were unable to put them on urn equality with other municipalities in every respect, I believed you were going to give then all the dignity and privileges of those municipalities in order to attract the best men to serve upon them. The noble Marquess has informed the House that the proposal is merely to call the vestries municipalities, and to give them a few slight additional powers, and he says it is very hard, therefore, to take away from women the powers they at present exercise when so very little change is to be made. I confess that I hardly understand why, if that is really the
    562
    nature of the Bill, the Government have considered it such a very important measure as to spend so much time upon it in the other House. I prefer to think this is an honest attempt to magnify these bodies in every way possible, and to make them equal to the other municipalities, and I contend that you will stultify your action if you give them a franchise or representation which is different from that of any other important body in the country. By so doing you will be saying, in other words: "We propose to call you municipalities because we think you are vain enough to like it better than the term 'vestry'; we are giving you aldermen and other titles, but you are to be in effect what you have always been—a vestry, and not a municipality." I cannot help thinking that this is a very unwise course. Although the noble Marquess rather deprecated our referring to what happened in the Lower House, I venture to think we are allowed to use the knowledge which comes to us through the public prints of what goes on in the other House upon any question of this kind, and to form our own judgment. That being so, I cannot refrain from saying that if your Lordships vote against this Amendment you will be taking advantage of what was really a chance vote in the House of Commons. An effort was made to have the question reconsidered in the other House, but the forms of the House made that inconvenient. I contend that your Lordships should have a mind of your own, and not follow the lead of the other House. We are often told that this is a House for revision, and I think we may all admit that if ever there was an occasion on which we should give the Lower House an opportunity of again considering this question, surely this is the occasion. In conclusion, I would like just to point out that if you admit women to the new municipalities you will be taking an irrevocable step. On the other hand, if you adopt the Amendment, you will not take an irrevocable step, because it will be open to you, supposing the House of Commons returns the Bill with the clause reinstated, to adopt it.
    On Question "Whether the words proposed to be left out shall stand part of the clause," their Lordships divided: Contents,68; Not-contents, 182.

    CONTENTS.

    Canterbury, L. Abp.

    Selborne, E.

    Erskine, L.

    York, L. Abp.

    Spencer, E.

    Glenesk, L.

    Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

    Hawkesbury, L. [Teller.]

    Argyll, D.

    Hobhouse, L.

    Rutland, D.

    Bridport, V.

    Kilmarnock, L. (E. Erroll)

    Cobham, V.

    Kinnaird, L.

    Bristol, M.

    Gordon, V. (E. Aberdeen.)

    Manners, L.

    Dufferin and Ava, M.

    Knutsford, V.

    Monkswell, L.

    Ripon, M.

    Peel, V.

    Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

    Salisbury, M.

    Mount Stephen, L.

    Chester, L. Bp.

    Rayleigh, L.

    Brownlow, E.

    London, L. Bp.

    Reay, L.

    Buckinghamshire, E.

    Manchester, L. Bp,

    Rendel, L.

    Camperdown, E.

    St. Albans, L. Bp.

    Ribblesdale, L.

    Carlisle, E.

    Winchester, L. Bp.

    Robartes, L.

    Carrington, E. [Teller.]

    Worcester, L. Bp.

    Saye and Sele, L.

    Coventry, E.

    Stanley of Alderley, L.

    Craven, E.

    Battersea, L.

    Stanmore, L.

    Feversham, E.

    Boston, L.

    Thring, L.

    Grey, E.

    Braye, L.

    Tweeddale, L. (M. Tweeddale.)

    Kimberley, E.

    Burghclerc, L.

    Tweedmouth, L.

    Nelson, E.

    Clonbrock, L.

    Wantage, L.

    Northbrook, E.

    Colchester, L.

    Welby, L.

    Russell, E.

    Coleridge, L.

    Wrottesley, L.

    Saint Germans, E.

    Davey, L.

    NOT-CONTENTS.

    Halsbury, E. (L. Chancellor.)

    Fortescue, E.

    Ashcombe, L.

    Devonshire, D. (L. President.)

    Hardwicke, E. [Teller.]

    Balfour, L.

    Cross, V. (L. Privy Seal.)

    Hillsborough, E. (M. Downshire)

    Barnard, L.

    Bateman, L.

    Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal.)

    Iddesleigh, E.

    Belper, L.

    Beaufort, D.

    Jersey, E.

    Bolton, L.

    Bedford, D.

    Kilmorey, E.

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

    Fife, D.

    Leven and Melville, E.

    Grafton, D.

    Lichfield, E.

    Brampton, L.

    Marlborough, D.

    Malmesbury, E.

    Brancepeth, L. (V. Boyne.)

    Northumberland, D.

    Mansfield, E.

    Brougham and Vaux, L.

    Portland, D.

    Mar and Kellie, E.

    Burton, L.

    Richmond, D.

    Morley, E.

    Calthorpe, L.

    Somerset, D.

    Morton, E.

    Carysfort, L. (E. Carysfort.)

    Westminster, D.

    Onslow, E.

    Chelmsford, L.

    Orford, E.

    Cheylesmore, L.

    Abercorn, M. (D. Abercorn.)

    Portsmouth, E [Teller.]

    Churchill, L.

    Ailesbury, M.

    Powis, E.

    Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

    Cholmondeley, M.

    Ravensworth, E.

    Hertford, M.

    Romney, E.

    Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

    Zetland, M.

    Shaftesbury, E.

    Cranworth, L.

    Sondes, E.

    Crawshaw, L.

    Pembroke and Montgomery, E. (L. Steward.)

    Strange, E. (D. Atholl.)

    Crofton, L.

    Temple, E.

    De L'Isle and Dudley, L.

    Albemarle, E.

    Waldegrave, E.

    De Mauley, L.

    Amherst, E.

    Westmorland, E.

    de Ros, L.

    Annesley, E.

    Yarborough, E.

    Digby, L.

    Bandon, E.

    Dinevor, L.

    Bathurst, E.

    Bangor, V.

    Dunmore, L. (E. Dunmore.)

    Bradford, E.

    Falkland, V.

    Elphinstone, L.

    Cairns, E.

    Falmouth, V.

    Farnham, L.

    Cowley, E.

    Hood, V.

    Farquhar, L.

    Cowper, E.

    Landaff, V.

    Fermanagh, L. (E. Erne.)

    Dartmouth, E.

    Portman, V.

    Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

    Dartrey, E.

    Sidmouth, V.

    Gerard, L.

    de Montalt, E.

    Greville, L.

    Denbigh, E.

    Hopetoun, L. (E. Hopetoun.) L. Chamberlain.)

    Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)

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

    Harlech, L.

    Aberdare, L.

    Harris, L.

    Drogheda, E.

    Aldenham, L.

    Hatherton, L.

    Dudley, E.

    Amherst of Hackney, L.

    Heneage, L.

    Durham, E.

    Ampthill, L.

    Herries, L.

    Egerton, E.

    Annaly, L.

    Hillingdon, L.

    Eldon, E.

    Ashbourne, L.

    Hood of Avalon, L.

    564

    565

    Hothfield, L.

    Monk Bretton L.

    Sinclair, L.

    Iveagh, L.

    Morris, L.

    Southampton, L.

    James, L.

    Mostyn, L.

    Stalbridge, L.

    Kelvin, L.

    Muncaster, L.

    Stratheden and Campbell, L.

    Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.)

    Newlands, L.

    Sudley, L. (E. Arran.)

    Kenry, L. (E. Dunraven and Mount Earl.) [Teller.]

    North, L.

    Suffield, L.

    Norton, L.

    Templemore, L.

    Kenry, L.

    O'Neill, L.

    Teynham, L.

    Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

    Ormathwaite, L.

    Tredegar, L.

    Lawrence, L.

    Penrhyn, L.

    Tyrone, L. (M. Waterford.)

    Leconfield, L.

    Rathmore, L.

    Ventry, L.

    Llangattock, L.

    Revelstoke, L.

    Wandsworth, L.

    Loch, L.

    Romily, L.

    Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)

    Macnaghten, L.

    Rothschild, L.

    Wenlock, L.

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

    Rowton, L.

    Westbury, L.

    Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown.)

    Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)

    Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

    Saville, L.

    Windsor, L.

    Mendip, L. (V. Clifden.)

    Scarsdale, L.

    Wolverton, L.

    Methuen, L.

    Shand, L.

    Worlingham, L. (E. Gosford.)

    Middleton, L.

    Sherborne, L.

    Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

    Monckton, L. (V. Galway.)

    Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)

    On Question, "That the proposed words shall be here inserted," agreed to.

    LORD TWEEDMOUTH: Though the Amendment of which I have given notice looks a formidable one, it is not meant to be so. It endeavours to set out clearly what is to be gathered by inference from the clause as drafted. It is an inconvenient practice of Parliamentary draughtsmen, instead of stating clearly what the particular provision is, to refer you to several other Acts of Parliament, and compel you to gather from them the meaning of the clause. I have endeavoured to understand the references, and have obtained the best legal assistance, but it seems that there may be two interpretations as to the qualifications necessary for election to the office of alderman. It may be, on the one hand, that he is to be a person who may be 'elected a county councillor, or, on the other hand, a person who is fit to be a member of the borough council. I have come to the conclusion that the former is really what is intended to be the qualification. It does seem to me that, if I have found difficulty in understanding what the qualification of an alderman is to be, some reason exists for thinking that great difficulty will also be experienced in this direction when the Bill is passed, unless the matter is cleared up. It may be that I have set the qualifications out wrongly. I am very sorry if that is the case, but I do not at all wish to insist upon my words. The object of my Amendment is simply to draw from those who are in charge of the Bill their assent to the principle that it is desirable to set out in the Bill definitely and clearly what the qualifications necessary for aldermen in the new borough councils will be.
    Amendment moved—
    "In page 2, line 1, leave out sub-section (4) and insert the following sub-sections:
    '(4)—(i.) The aldermen shall be fit persons elected by the council from among persons qualified to be London county councillors, provided that women, whether married or single, shall, if otherwise qualified, be eligible for election.
    '(ii.) If a councillor is elected to and accepts the office of alderman, he vacates his office of councillor.
    '(iii.) The term of office of an alderman shall be six years.
    '(iv.) On the ordinary day of election of alderman in every third year, one-half of the whole number of alderman shall go out of office, and their places shall be filled by election.
    '(v.) The half to go out shall be those who have been aldermen for the longest time without re-election.
    '(5)—(i.) The mayor of a metropolitan borough shall be a fit person elected by the council from among the aldermen or councillors, or persons qualified to be such, provided that a woman shall not be a mayor.
    '(ii.) An outgoing alderman is eligible.
    '(iii.) The term of office of a mayor shall be one year, but he shall continue in office until his successor has accepted office, and made and subscribed the required declaration.
    '(iv.) He shall, by virtue of his office, be a justice of the peace for the County of London, but before acting as such justice he shall, if he has not already done so, take the oaths required by law to be taken by a justice of the peace other than the oath respecting qualification by estate.
    '(v.) Sections 60 and 61 of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1882, shall apply to the election of aldermen and mayors under this Act, provided that aldermen shall not as such vote at the election of an alderman."—(The Lord Tweedmouth.)
    THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: It is not, I think, for me to defend on this

    567
    occasion the principle on which Government Bills are now drafted, and I am inclined very much to agree with my noble friend that to the non-legal mind, at all events, the form is extremely inconvenient. Your Lordships would, however, hardly be inclined at this stage of the Bill to set about re-drafting it. A large number of controversial issues would certainly be raised if the clause went back to the other House in the form proposed by my noble friend. As to the substance of the clause, I do not believe there is any fundamental difference between us, and I am advised that there is no doubt whatever about the qualifications in question. Any person is qualified to be an alderman who is rated in respect of property occupied within the borough, or who has the ownership qualification in any part of the County of London.
    LORD TWEEDMOUTH: Do I understand that property ownership in any part of the County of London would qualify a person to hold the office of alderman in any of the borough councils?
    THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: Yes.
    LORD DAVEY: My Lords, I much regret that the Government cannot see their way to accept the Amendment. If the House could only realise the amount of trouble, confusion, and difficulty which is occasioned to those who have in judicial places to interpret the law in consequence of this referential form of legislation, I am sure the Government would determine to set out plainly on the face of the Bill the nature of the enactments which they mean to make, instead of leaving them to be ascertained by looking through a number of other Acts of Parliament. If it is difficult for persons skilled in the interpretation of Statutes to understand it, how much more difficult is it for those who are not acquainted with Acts of Parliament? If a man wants to find out whether he is qualified for the position of alderman or councillor, and the conditions of the office he wishes to seek, he looks in this Bill, and he looks in vain. I contend that it is absolutely impossible for a person unskilled in the interpretation of Acts of Parliament to discover without assistance what the qualifications are, and I think it would be much better to state them clearly on the face of the Bill.
    LORD TWEEDMOUTH: The next Amendment I have to move to reduce the number necessary to constitute a quorum of the new bodies from one-third to one-fourth. With a quorum of one-third it would be necessary to have 24 members present in order to do any business, and this number seems to me extremely high for the purpose of transacting the ordinary routine work which comes on at the beginning and at the end of the meetings of these bodies. A fourth of the members of the London County Council constitutes a quorum, and in the case of boards of guardians it is laid down that a third shall be the quorum, provided that in no case the number need exceed seven. This clause, as I have said, would require a quorum of 24 out of 70. My proposal is that the quorum should be 18 out of 70. The change I am asking the noble Duke to agree to is a very small one, and one which will facilitate the business of these councils and enable the work to be carried on much more expeditiously than could be the case if the clause is passed as it at present stands.
    Amendment moved—
    "In page 2, line 16, to leave out 'one-third' and insert 'one-fourth.'"—(The Lord Tweedmouth.)
    THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, the Bill follows the provisions of the Municipal Corporations Act in the matter of the quorum, and I see no reason for departing from well-established precedent. I do not believe that in any case there will be difficulty in securing a quorum of one-third. One of the objects in adopting this proportion is to endeavour to secure a better attendance than has hitherto been usual in the case of vestries, and we have every reason to believe that the councils elected under this Act will, if only from a wholesome dread which they may feel of their constituents, be more regular in their attendance. I think it would not be advisable to depart from the precedent of the Municipal Corporations Act, and therefore I cannot accept the Amendment.
    THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, I have a separate sub-section to insert, with the object of clearing up a point that is in doubt in this Bill. Under the various Acts there are different periods within which the acceptance of office must be specified. The period prescribed by the Vestrymen and Auditors Election Order for acceptance of office by vestrymen is one month. The period fixed for existing vestrymen will apply to the new councillors, and it is proposed to adopt the same period in the case of the mayors and aldermen.
    Amendment moved—
    "In page 2, after line 17, insert as a separate sub-section, 'The mayor and an alderman of a metropolitan borough shall be required to accept office within the same period as is allowed in the case of a councillor.'"—(The Lord President of the Council.)
    Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 3, amended, and agreed to.
    Clause 4:—
    LORD WELBY: My Lords, the Amendment which I have to move to Clause 4 will, I hope, find acceptance at the hands of the noble Duke. The clause transfers to the new borough councils the powers hitherto possessed by the vestries and district boards. Among those are the powers of raising loans, and that power is exercised in most instances subject to the sanction of the London County Council. The Bill, as it was amended by Her Majesty's Government, kept that power of sanction to the London County Council, and only added this restriction—that, in case of their refusal, there should be an appeal to the Local Government Board. Later in the day, however, a further Amendment was moved in the House of Commons by the hon. Member for South St. Pancras, and accepted by the Government, which provided that if the London County Council did not, within six months after the application to them, give their sanction to a loan, an appeal
    570
    should lie to the Local Government Board. I cannot help thinking that there is a certain slight of the London County Council in the insertion of such a provision as that. It is, if I may so call it, a punitive provision which assumes that the County Council unnecessarily delays dealing with applications for loans. I understand that the hon. Member who moved this clause in the House of Commons supported it by reference to a statement that the County Council had unduly delayed for a long period various applications for loans which had been made to them. I have had an opportunity of investigating the number of loans for which the Parish of St. Pancras have applied, and I cannot help thinking that the hon. Member made his statement under a very great misapprehension. By far the larger number of the loans which St. Pancras applied for were granted in a very short time, and without any delay. There were a few which extended over the period of six months, but in each case there exists a very fair explanation. The explanation is that St. Pancras applied to the London County Council prematurely, and before the works in respect of which the loans were to be taken up were ready to be commenced. In other cases where delays have arisen the London County Council have had very good reason for not giving their sanction. Mr. Courtney's Commission reported that the power exercised by the County Council in this direction was not exercised in what they called an arbitrary manner, and I may add further that our requirements, before we give our sanction to loans, are those which the Local Government Board insist upon. I hope that the noble Duke will see his way to remove this punitive provision, and insert after the word "made," the words "with necessary particulars." Delays are often caused through the local authorities not supplying the necessary particulars when they make application for loans.
    Amendment moved—
    "In page 3, line 17, after 'made' to insert 'with necessary particulars.' "—(The Lord Welby.)
    THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I am advised that the words which the noble Lord proposes to insert are unnecessary, because the Local Government Board

    571
    would not countenance appeals if the necessary particulars had not been supplied. In such a case the application could hardly be held to be a proper application. Therefore I cannot accept the Amendment.
    THE EARL OF HARDWICKE: Having the honour of a seat upon the Finance Committee of the London County Council, I feel with Lord Welby that the reference which was made to the London County Council and the Finance Committee by Captain Jessel, when he spoke in the House of Commons in reference to this matter, did imply that the Finance Committee were rather lax in attending to the matter of sanctioning loans. As a matter of fact, the contrary is the case. The applications for loans are dealt with by the Committee as speedily as possible, and, so far as St. Pancras is concerned, it is well known by members of the Finance Committee that it is extremely difficult to get that Vestry to comply with the very necessary requirements of the Committee, and to supply the particulars of the different improvements to carry out which they desire to borrow money. I am sorry Her Majesty's Government do not see their way to accept this Amendment, because it will give the new borough councils who apply for a loan, and withhold the necessary particulars, thereby causing delay, power to apply to the Local Government Board at the end of six months and say that the County Council have not given their consent, when, as a matter of fact, the delay had been caused by the withholding of the necessary particulars on the part of the new Borough Council.
    LORD WOLVERTON: As a member of the Finance Committee of the London County Council, I should like to endorse what has fallen from the noble Earl who has just spoken. From my experience on that Committee, I can safely say that there has been no unnecessary delay in the sanctioning of the loans that have come before us.
    THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I quite agree with the noble Lords that there is no reason for accusing the Finance Committee of the London County Council of any undue or unnecessary delay. The effect of this Amendment will be to im-
    572
    pose upon local authorities the obligation of furnishing particulars of their applications within reasonable time, and I believe there is no case in which a local body has failed to furnish the necessary particulars within six months. I do not think the Government regard this as a clause which penalises the County Council in any way.
    THE EARL OF HARDWICKE: The St. Pancras Vestry applied on July 11, 1898, for a loan. The London County Council asked the Vestry to supply them with particulars, and these particulars have not yet been supplied.
    LORD WELBY: The Vestry once wrote asking why the sanction of the County Council had not been granted, whereas the sanction had been some two or three months in their hands.
    On question, "That the words 'with necessary particulars' be here inserted," resolved in the negative.
    LORD TWEEDMOUTH: The object of the Amendment standing in my name is to secure uniformity in the administration of the Adoptive Acts throughout the whole area of a borough. There are a number of Acts which enable local authorities to take over powers with regard to public libraries, baths, and wash-houses, the maintenance of burial grounds, and so forth. These powers have been adopted and undertaken by many local authorities throughout London; but it happens that in the amalgamation of these local authorities into borough councils it is found that one parish has adopted the Baths and Libraries Acts and that another has not. The effect of the Bill as it I stands will be to set up within the area of the borough council different sub-areas dealing with these subjects and being individually rated in respect of them, instead of the rate being spread over the whole area of the new boroughs. Simplicity of government is one of the great objects to be aimed at, and I contend that, when the present authorities are merged into boroughs, the latter should assume all the responsibilities which have been taken over by the various local authorities under the Adoptive Acts. It may be said that this would be unfair to those portions of the new boroughs

    573
    which, up to now, had not adopted these Acts; but as the new boroughs will share in the advantages of these institutions it is only fair that the charge in respect of them should be spread over the whole of the area.
    Amendment moved—
    "In page 3, line 26, at the end to add, 'and the council shall have and exercise the powers of any such Act over the whole area of these boroughs.'"—(The Lord Tweedmouth.)
    THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: There is a provision further on in the clause which provides that, where any of the Adoptive Acts adopted before the appointed day do not extend to the whole borough, the Act may be adopted in the rest of the borough in like manner as if it were a separate borough, and the borough council were the council thereof. I think it would not be safe to extend the provisions of the Bill further in this direction. If the Amendment were carried, and one part of a borough wished to adopt the Libraries Act, the whole of the rest of the borough would be obliged to adopt the Act whether it wished to or not.
    THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I desire to raise a point at this stage which is of some little consequence to a particular parish in London. If Lord Tweed-mouth's Amendment were adopted no question would arise such as the one I am about to put. I refer to the case of Chelsea, which is a very peculiar parish. The parish of Chelsea includes the outlying district of Kensal Town. Chelsea has adopted the Libraries Act, but Kensal Town, being an outlying portion of that parish, must, under this Bill, be joined to some neighbouring parish. The two neighbouring parishes are Kensington and Paddington. If Kensal Town should be annexed to Kensington, then I conclude that it would be able to maintain the library under the Libraries Act which has been adopted in that parish; but if it should be annexed to Paddington, there arises a very important point. The area of Kensal Town only produces £236 by means of a 1d. rate—the total rate allowed in respect of the Libraries Act—but the expenditure incurred in Kensal Town in maintaining the library amounted last year to £1,104. Therefore a large portion of the expenses of keeping up the library in Kensal Town
    574
    will fall upon the rest of the parish of Chelsea, and the question which I, and those who are interested with me in this matter, have never been able to solve is whether Paddington will have to bear the whole of the additional sum to make up the £1,100, and, if so, under what power in the Act can the rate be levied; because Paddington, not having adopted the Libraries Act, has no power to raise any money under the Act. I cannot see that there is any power given in the Bill to enable Paddington, if it does not adopt the Libraries Act, which it is not likely to do, to provide the necessary sum. In another part of the Bill it says that adjustments are to be made in order to prevent any undue charge falling on one parish, but I think power should be given, in case Kensal Town is joined to another parish where there is not a library rate, to enable the amount necessary to make up the cost of maintenance to be raised by the parish. We are by no means certain that the Commissioners would have the necessary power to enable them to make this adjustment.
    THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I believe this point is specifically raised by the Amendment standing in the name of Lord Windsor.
    THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: If the Amendment of Lord Windsor is adopted, of course all that I have said falls to the ground. If the noble Duke intends to accept that Amendment, the case is altered.
    LORD MONKSWELL: The noble Duke said it would be unjust to insist upon the whole of the borough adopting the Act, but there is injustice caused if that is not done. The noble Duke will observe that, under his own clause, where an Adoptive Act has been adopted, the borough council is to be the body to administer it. In the case of Kensal Town, the new Borough of Paddington, if Kensal Town is joined to Paddington, will not be obliged to contribute to the maintenance of the library, but will, nevertheless, have the power of superintending the library. The whole power of management will be placed in the hands of Paddington. I would suggest that a middle course might be adopted, and that power should be given to the Commissioners, not to rate the whole of

    575
    the borough, but to decide what additional part of the borough should be rated for the maintenance of this library. It may be that in some parts of Paddington this library will not be of much use, and the noble Duke may say that it is not right that the whole of Paddington should have to contribute; but the best way out of the difficulty will be to empower the Commissioners to carve out a district which would benefit, and which should pay the rate for the support of the library. Even if the Commissioners were to join Kensal Town to Kensington I think some difficulty would arise. I believe the limit of Kensington is a ½d. library rate, and they spend the whole of the stun produced by that rate in supporting their own libraries. The people of Kensington would probably regard it as as injustice if they were compelled to raise their library rate from ½d. to 1d. when they had sufficient library accommodation of their own.
    THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: As regards the case of the Kensal Town Library, I am advised that it will be within the powers of the Commissioners to frame a scheme which will deal with that difficulty. I do not exactly know how the scheme will be framed, but I am afraid the difficulty is one which cannot be dealt with in any other way. I do not see what Amendment we can put into the Bill to deal with this case without inflicting injustice upon someone. Perhaps, however, it will be convenient to discuss the case further when we come to Lord Windsor's Amendment.
    On Question, "That the proposed words shall be here inserted," resolved in the negative.
    Clause 5, agreed to.
    Clause 6:—
    LORD TWEEDMOUTH: The Amendment which I desire to move to this clause is simply intended to preserve to the London County Council the same power which is now possessed in common with county councils throughout the United Kingdom of declaring roads to be main roads. Under this Bill the existing
    576
    main roads in London, which cover over 12 miles, are done away with as main roads, and handed over to the several borough councils to deal with, but I think it is conceivable that at some future time, in connection with some improvement, it may be desirable to declare some, road in London to be a main road, and one to be kept up by the central authority.
    Amendment moved—
    "In page 4, line 27, after 'road' to insert. 'existing at the passing of this Act.'"—(The Lord Tweedmouth.)
    THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: This was promised, I understand, in the House of Commons, and I agree to the Amendment.
    Other Amendments made.
    Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
    LORD TWEEDMOUTH: The next Amendment I have upon the Paper is one which I regard as of considerable importance. It is to omit the words giving to the new councils power to promote or oppose Bills in Parliament under the Borough Funds Act, 1882, in order to insert "power to promote Bills in Parliament to make improvements of public utility wholly within their districts, and not intended to be paid for either wholly or in part out of the county fund." The power to be conferred by the clause is such as is exercised by other municipalities throughout the kingdom, but the conditions attaching to administration by the new councils will be very different to those which obtain in provincial towns, where the municipality is distinct, separate, and supreme within its own area. There will be twenty-seven administrative councils in London huddled up together, abutting on and dove-tailed into each other, and to give them this large power unrestricted will, I think, be unwise and undesirable. The powers given to municipalities under the Borough Funds Act allows expenditure from the rates in promoting and opposing Bills in the interests of the inhabitants of the district. That is a very large power indeed. The London County Council

    577
    succeeded only to the powers of the Metropolitan Board of Works, and they were permitted merely to promote Bills for the "execution of works." But you are giving to these new boroughs far greater power than that. You are indeed tying them down to nothing at all. I do not ask the House to take away from these new bodies the power of promoting Bills in Parliament, but I do suggest that there should be a certain limit placed upon that power. I propose that the new boroughs should have power to promote Bills in Parliament to make improvements of public utility wholly within their own districts, and not intended to be paid for either wholly or in part out of the county fund. In my opinion the power so limited would be quite sufficient for the purposes of the new municipalities. Personally, I think the London County Council has used its powers in a manner open to criticism, and expenditure has, perhaps, not always been incurred to the best advantage of the ratepayers. The experience of the County Council opens up a dismal prospect to me if we are to have 27 other bodies taking similar action with regard to every Bill which may be said in any way to affect the interests of the inhabitants of these particular boroughs. I can understand that the legal Members of your Lordships' House may be anxious to support the clause, as the provision will certainly bring further grist to the mill of the Parliamentary Bar; but in the interests of the ratepayers I propose this limitation on the powers to be conferred on the new boroughs.
    Amendment moved—
    "In page 5, line 22, to leave out from 'have' to end of clause, and insert 'power to promote Bills in Parliament to make improvements of public utility wholly within their districts, and not intended to be paid for either wholly or in part out of the county fund.'"—(The Lord Tweedwouth.)
    THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I do not believe the Amendment of the noble Lord, as it stands, will meet even that which he is willing to concede to the new boroughs. The words "power to promote Bills in Parliament to make improvements of public utility wholly within their districts" would exclude action in cases where two or three authorities might wish to join together to promote or oppose a Bill. The question of limitation upon the
    578
    power given by this clause has been very carefully and fully considered in the House of Commons, and I do not think there can be any doubt that it is desirable that as far as possible the analogy of the Municipal Corporations Act should be followed, and that appears to have been the strong opinion of the House of Commons. The question was raised by Mr. Stuart, and the provision, as it stands, was maintained by a large majority, and was again maintained on Report. The Borough Funds Act gives considerable protection to the ratepayers against the misuse of the power, and the matter has been discussed in the House of Commons by Members well acquainted with the working of the Act and the dangers likely to arise. I do not think it would be judicious for your Lordships to give to the constituencies a protection which the House of Commons on two occasions deliberately declared to be unnecessary. I think out the whole it is desirable to maintain the clause as it stands. At any rate, I do not think the noble Lord's Amendment carries out what he desires.
    LORD TWEEDMOUTH: The decision in the House of Commons was on the question of withholding this power, which I only propose to confine within reasonable limits. I am afraid I must put the House to the trouble of a Division on this proposal—on the principle of it. I do not myself attach great importance to the particular words I have proposed; it is the principle that this power should be given to the new boroughs only in a limited form.
    LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: May I point out to my noble friend that he is really taking away a restriction upon these bodies. Under Clause 10 the powers given are the same as those under the Borough Funds Act. My noble friend strikes out those words, and then gives a direct power to promote Bills where the object is undoubtedly within their districts. He takes away the restriction of the vote of the ratepayers, and the consent of the Local Government Board, and the consequence is that he will be giving to these bodies, if this Amendment is carried, far greater powers than municipal bodies now have. Then comes his limitation, which would very often act in a very inconvenient way. In the matter of electric lighting, for instance, you may

    579
    want to put one portion of your Bill outside your area; but, under this Amendment, directly you go outside you will have no power. So that the restriction proposed by my noble friend is bad, and I think the extension is equally bad also.
    LORD TWEEDMOUTH: I do not think my noble friend opposite has correctly stated the effect of the Amendment. With regard to the first point, as to the vote of the ratepayers, I do not think that is very material so far as London is concerned. Meetings of ratepayers in the London boroughs are not so easily had as in the case of the country
    Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 7, amended, and agreed to.
    House resumed, and to be again in Committee To-morrow; the Committee to have precedence of other Notices and Orders of the Day.
    municipalities. But this I would say, in order to assist the progress of business. If the noble Duke will say that he will consider, at any rate on Report, an Amendment in the direction of the principle that I wish to insist upon, then I will not put your Lordships to the trouble of a Division. If I take a Division, it will be on the principle, and not on the exact words to be found in this Amendment.
    On Question, whether the words proposed to be left out shall stand part of clause, their Lordships divided: Contents, 59; Not-contents, 21.

    CONTENTS.

    Halsbury, E. (L. Chancellor.)

    Nelson, E.

    Farnham, L.

    Devonshire, D. (L. President.)

    Onslow, E.

    Glenesk, L.

    Cross, V. (L. Privy Seal.)

    Selborne, E.

    Harris, L.

    Marlborough, D.

    Wadegrave, E. [Teller.]

    Hatherton, L.

    Northumberland, D.

    Heneage, L.

    Portland, D.

    Falkland, V.

    James, L.

    Westminster, D.

    Knutsford, V.

    Kenry, L. (E. Dunraven and Mount-Earl.)

    Bristol, M.

    Winchester, L. Bp.

    Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

    Salisbury, M.

    Lawrence, L.

    Hopetoun, L. (E. Hopetoun.)(L. Chamberlain.)

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

    Pembroke and Montgomery, E. (L. Steward.)

    Aldenham, L.

    Muncaster, L.

    Bathurst, E.

    Ampthill, L.

    Rayleigh, L.

    Camperdown, E.

    Ashbourne, L.

    Stalbridge, L.

    Denbigh, E.

    Ashcombe, L.

    Sudley, L. (E. Arran.)

    Dudley, E.

    Balfour, L.

    Teynham, L.

    Egerton, E.

    Belper, L.

    Tredegar, L.

    Feversham, E.

    Churchill, L. [Teller.]

    Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)

    Hardwicke, E.

    Clonbrock, L.

    Windsor, L.

    Jersey, E.

    Colchester, L.

    Wolverton, L.

    Malmesbury, E.

    Crawshaw, L.

    Wrottesley, L.

    Morton, E.

    De Manley, L.

    NOT-CONTENTS.

    Ripon, M.

    Spencer, E.

    Kinnaird, L.

    Loch, L.

    Gordon, V. (E. Aberdeen.)

    Monkswell, T.

    Buckinghamshire, E.

    Burghclere, L.

    Reay, L.

    Carrington, E.

    Coleridge, L.

    Ribblesdale, L. [Teller.]

    Crewe, E.

    Davey, L.

    Tweedmouth, L.

    Kimberley, E.

    Hawkesbury, L. [Teller.]

    Wandsworth, L.

    Russell, E.

    Hobhouse, L.

    Welby, L.

  MANCHESTER CANONRIES BILL. [Lords.]
  House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without Amendment: Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read the third time on Thursday next.
  House adjourned at Eight of the clock till To-morrow, half-past Ten of the clock.