Sitting of 23 July 1900

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  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 Bill, 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.:—
  Sunderland Corporation Bill [Lords].
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.

  PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS [Lords] (STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE THERETO 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 which are applicable thereto have been complied with, viz.:—

  Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 3) Bill [Lords].

  Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 4) Bill [Lords].

  Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time To-morrow.

HASTINGS TRAMWAYS BILL.
  LAMBETH WATER BILL.
    LANCASHIRE, DERBYSHIRE, AND EAST COAST RAILWAY HILL.
    Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
    BURY AND DISTRICT WATER (TRANSFER) BILL [Lords].
    Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
  BARNSLEY CORPORATION BILL [Lords].
    DUBLIN, WICKLOW, AND WEXFORD RAILWAY BILL [Lords].
    As amended, considered; to be read the third time.

    LONDON, WALTHAMSTOW, AND EPPING FOREST RAILWAY (ABANDONMENT) HILL.
    Not amended, considered.
    Ordered, That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time.—(Mr. Caldwell.)
    Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed.

    NORTH BRITISH RAILWAY BILL [Lords].
    As amended, considered; to be read the third time.

    PRESTON CORPORATION BILL [Lords].
    As amended, considered; Amendments made.
    Ordered, That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time.—(Mr. Caldwell.)
    Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.

  RAMSGATE CORPORATION IMPROVE MENTS HILL [Lords].
    ROTHERHITHE AND RATCLIFF TUNNEL BILL [Lords].
    As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
    BOURNEMOUTH CORPORATION BILL [Lords].
    Read a second time, and committed.

    CRYSTAL PALACE COMPANY BILL [Lords].
    Read a second time, and committed.
    Ordered, That Standing Orders 211 and 236 be suspended, and that the Com-
    846 8
    mittee on the Bill have leave to sit and proceed forthwith.—(Mr. Caldwell)

    BROMPTON AND PICCADILLY CIRCUS RAILWAY BILL.
    Order [12th February] referring the Brompton and Piccadilly Circus Railway Bill to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn.—(Mr. Caldwell.)
    BUENOS AYRES AND ROSARIO RAILWAY BILL [Lords].
    Ordered, That Standing Orders 211 and. 236 be suspended, and that the Committee on the Buenos Ayres and Rosario Railway Bill [Lords] have leave to sit. and proceed forthwith.—(Mr. Caldwell.)
    COSTA RICA RAILWAY COMPANY, LIMITED, BILL [Lords].
    Ordered, That Standing Orders 211 and 236 be suspended, and that the Committee on the Costa Rica Railway Company, Limited, Bill [Lords] have leave to sit and proceed forthwith.—(Mr. Caldwell.)
    ROE'S PATENT BILL [Lords].
    Ordered, That Standing Orders 211 and 236 be suspended, and that the Committee on Roe's Patent Bill [Lords] have leave to sit and proceed forthwith.—(Mr. Caldwell.)
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL, ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
    PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
    Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
    TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 1) BILL [Lords].
    As amended, considered; to be read the third time To-morrow.

    EDUCATION BOARD PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (LONDON) BILL [Lords].
    Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
    Bill, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

    MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
    That they have agreed to — Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders

    847
    (No. 3) Bill; Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (Housing of Working Classes) Bill; Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (Housing of Working Glasses) (No. 2) Bill, without amendment.
    That they have agreed to Amendments to—Gas Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Bill [Lords], Whitechapel and Bow Railway Bill [Lords], Exmouth Urban District Water Bill [Lords], Gwyrfai Rural District Council Water Bill [Lords], without amendment.

  PETITIONS.
    SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
    Two Petitions from Ryton-on-Tyne, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
    SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN (No. 2) BILL.
    Petitions in favour, from Swalwell; Dunston-on-Tyne (two); New Washington; and Usworth Colliery; to lie upon the Table.

    SUNDAY CLOSING (MONMOUTHSHIRE) BILL.
    Petitions in favour, from Dunston-on-Tyne; Blaydon; Winlaton; Hedge-field; Crawcrook; Rowlands Gill; Blaydon Haughs; and Usworth Colliery; to lie upon the Table.

    Revenue

    Expenditure

    Percentage of total Expenditure to total Revenue.

    Net Revenue.

    Net Revenue after deducting Columns 5, 6, and 7.

    Interest on stock created for purchase of telegraphs.

    Year.

    Telegraph receipts.

    Extra receipts

    Estimated value of services to other Departments.

    Total.

    Sites and Buildings.

    Telegraph extension.

    Supernnuation and other non=effective charges

    Salaries, wages, & c.

    Percentage of salaries, wages & c., to total Revenue.

    Maintenance of telegraph system.

    Percentage of maintenance of telegraph system to total Revenue.

    Other Expenditure.

    Total Expenditure.

    Purchase.

    Erection.

    Under Telegraph Vote.

    Under other Votes.

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    16

  RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
    RAILWAYS (CONTINUOUS BRAKES).
    Copy presented, of Return by Railway Companies of the United Kingdom for the six months ending the 31st December, 1899 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
    UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1889.
    Copy presented, of General Report of the Commissioners under the Universities (Scotland) Act, 1889, with an Appendix containing Ordinances, Minutes, Correspondence, Evidence, and other Documents [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
    SHEBEENS IN TOWNS (IRELAND).
    Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 6th July; Mr. Macaleese] to lie upon the Table.
    EAST INDIA (FAMINE).
    Copy presented, of Advances and Gifts to Agriculturists for Seed, Cattle, and Subsistence at the End of the Famine [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
    POST OFFICE TELEGRAPHS (REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE).
    Return ordered, "of Revenue and Expenditure of the Post Office for each year from 1869–70 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 319, of Session 1899), and an Estimate for the same for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1900, in the following form:—

    POST OFFICE (REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE).
    Return ordered, "of Revenue and Expenditure of the Post Office for each year

    Revenue

    Expenditure

    Percentage of total Expenditure to total Revenue.

    Net Revenue.

    Net Revenue after deducting Columns 5, 6.

    Year.

    Postal receipts.

    Extra receipts

    Estimated value of services to other Departments.

    Total.

    Sites and Buildings.

    Supernnuation and other non-effective charges

    Salaries, wages, & c.

    Percentage of salaries, wages & c., to total Revenue.

    Conveyance of mails.

    Percentage of Conveyance of mails. to total Revenue.

    Packet Service

    Other Expenditure.

    Total Expenditure.

    Purchase.

    Erection.

    Under Post Office Vote.

    Under other Votes.

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    —(Mr. Hanbury.)

    UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND).
    Return ordered, "of the amount of Class Fees paid by Students attending each of the Universities of Scotland, showing for each University the various Faculties, the Glass Subjects, the number of Students at the respective Glasses, and

    Name of Class

    Students.

    Class Fees.

    Winter Session, 1899-1900.

    Summer Session, 1900.

    Winter Session, 1899-1900.

    Summer Session, 1900.

    Men.

    Women.

    Total.

    Men.

    Women.

    Total.

    Men.

    Women.

    Total.

    Men.

    Women.

    Total.

    £

    £

    £

    £

    £

    £

    with Summaries showing the total number of students and amounts of fees respectively in each Faculty and each University; and also grand totals for Scottish Universities."—(Mr. Thomas Shaw.)

QUESTIONS.

  CHINA—ANTI-FOREIGN OUTBREAK— POSITION AT PEKING—RECENT NEWS.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNEKMAN: I beg to ask the Under
  from 1869–70 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 320, of Session 1899), and an Estimate of the same for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1900, in the following form:—
  the amount of Foes paid for instruction at these respective Classes, according to the following form:—
  Name of University.
  Name of Faculty.
  Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether there is anything to communicate to the House about China.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR FORKIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. BRODRICK,): We have very little in the way of news from China, but perhaps the House would like to hear the statements made to us with regard to the safety of the Legations at Peking. A communication has been received at the Foreign Office from the Chinese Minister to the effect that the Legations were un-

  851
  harmed, and we have received from Shanghai a translation of an Imperial Decree, dated July 18th, as follows—
  "In the Confucian work ' Spring and f Autumn,' it is written that Envoys shall not be killed. How can it then be supposed that the Throne's policy is to connive at allowing the troops and populace to vent their wrath upon the foreign Ministers? Excepting the murder of the German Minister by the riotous people, which offence is being vigorously investigated, the other Ministers are being protected for a month past by the Throne with a ceaseless energy, and fortunately have suffered (group omitted) harm."
  A telegram was received on Friday at Shanghai from the Governor of Shantung transmitting a cypher message from the United States Minister to his Govern- merit, which purported to have loft Peking on July 18th. This message was undated and was to the effect that the United States Minister was in the British Legation under fire from shot and shell. The date given by the Chinese to the United States Minister's telegram is the same as that of the above decree, and the assurances of safety contained in the decree are not borne out by the latter. The Consul General telegraphed to the Governor of Shantung asking how it was that a message from Peking could reach Chinan-Fu in two days, and why we had had no message from Sir Claude MacDonald. The reply was as follows—
  "The United States Minister's telegram was sent by Tsung-li Yamen by a messenger travelling 600 li (roughly 200 miles) a day. I assure you there is no telegraphic communication. I cannot explain why Her Majesty's Minister has not telegraphed. But J. beg you not to be anxious, for the Ministers and others are all living and unharmed; of this I have already had several reliable messages."
  Seeing that over a month has elapsed since any communication has reached Her Majesty's Government from the Peking Legation, and that the Tsung-li Yamen are communicating by messenger with various Chinese authorities, Her Majesty's Government feel that they cannot attach credence to any statements or decrees attributed to the Emperor or the Chinese Government unless fortified by letters signed and dated by Sir Claude MacDonald or other British official, or by telegrams in our cypher.

  THE YANG-TSZE VICEROYS.
  MR. YERBURGH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the foreign
  852
  Office have received a letter from the China Association urging that what the position in the Yang-tsze region requires is not only promise of help to the great provincial officials in putting down possible disturbance, but a clear and explicit expression of the intention of Her Majesty's Government to uphold and protect in their persons, properties, and offices those who have ventured to range themselves on the side of order and loyalty to their obligations; and whether, in view of this expression of opinion, and the pressure which is notoriously being brought to bear upon the great Viceroys of the Yang-tsze region and others, Her Majesty's Government are now prepared to give them the explicit assurances required.
  MR. BRODRICK: Her Majesty's representatives have been in constant communication with the Yang-tsze Viceroys, and the assurances they have asked for have been given.
  MR. YERBURGH: Has the Foreign Office received the letter from, the China, Association?
  MR. BRODRICK: I believe the letter has been received.

  CHINESE REPRESENTATIVES IN THIS. COUNTRY.
  MR. HEDDERWICK: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is in accordance with ordinary diplomatic usages that, while our countrymen are being. massacred in China, the representatives of the Government of China in this country should be invited to, and received as honoured guests at, State and official functions; and whether Her Majesty's Government intend to take any steps to- indicate to the representatives of China in this country their views with regard to recent events in China.
  MR. BRODRICK: The answer to the hon. Member's question depends on the state of facts at Peking, with which, as I have already told the House, we are imperfectly acquainted. Her Majesty's Government have not failed to take every measure in their power to bring home to the Chinese Government their views as to. recent events in China.

  EXPORTS OF MUNITIONS OF WAR TO CHINA.
  COLONEL PILKINGTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the Government have come to any decision with regard to stopping the export of arms and ammunition from this country to China for the use of the Chinese; and, if so, whether he will communicate the nature of such decision to the House; and whether any ironclads, torpedo boats, or other vessels of war are now being constructed for the Chinese by British firms, or are in course of transit from British builders to the Chinese; and, if so, whether the Government intend to stop these vessels, either on the water or in the building yards.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. WYNDHAM,): This question should be addressed to the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs. My hon. and gallant friend must be aware that a Bill has been introduced in another place to effect this object.

  PEKING LEGATION—NAVAL GUARD.
  SIR J. COLOMB: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that a list of non-commissioned officers and men of the German Marines, under Count Goben, who wore sent up to Peking to guard the German Legation, was published some days ago in Germany; and if he can explain why this cannot be done in the case of British Marines, under Captain Halli-day, who were sent up to Peking to guard the British Legation.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. GOSCHEN,): The Commander-in-Chief has not up till now reported the names of the men forming the Marine Guard at Peking; we have telegraphed to him to do so. He has not yet sent the information.

  PROVISION FOR THE SICK AND WOUNDED IN CHINA—HOSPITAL SHIP PRESENTED BY MAHARAJAH OF GWALIOR.
  MR. HEDDERWTCK: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what has been done to provide for the proper care of the British wounded at
  854
  Tientsin and Ta-ku; and whether there is. any hospital accommodation at Wei-hai-wei.
  THE SECRETAEY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord G. HAMILTON, Middlesex, Ealing): Her Majesty's Government have no special information as to the arrangements made at the front for the wounded in the recent engagements; but there were available the medical staffs of the various British men-of-war under Admiral Seymour, and General Dorward took with him other medical officers and appliances. As regards hospital accommodation at Wei-hai-wei, there is a good hospital on the island, and good stone barracks convertible to hospital use if wanted. General Gaselee has telegraphed that as soon as he reaches Wei-hai-wei, he will report on its suitability for the location of base hospitals. The water supply in the island is good and ample. To this I have to add that the Government of India have already provided a hospital ship, and are prepared to supplement this accommodation by converting three transports into hospital ships. The American hospital ship "Maine" has also been placed at the disposal of Her Majesty's Government, and I am glad to take this opportunity of expressing our gratitude for this great act of generosity to the Atlantic Transport Company, which has furnished the ship, and to the American ladies who have provided the funds for equipping and maintaining it. I have also to inform the House that I have received from the Maharajah Sindhia of Gwalior the offer of a fully equipped hospital ship for China, upon which he is willing to spend twenty lakhs. This princely offer is made on behalf of himself, his mother, and his wife, to testify their loyalty to Her Majesty the Queen Empress. Her Majesty's Government have expressed their acceptance of this most munificent offer, and their deep appreciation of the motives which actuated His Highness to make it.

  SOUTH AFRICAN WAR—HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL ARRANGEMENTS-COMMISSION OF INQUIRY.
  COLONEL WYNDHAM MURRAY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the instructions to the Commission of Inquiry into the medical arrangements in South Africa will include the making of a thorough inquiry on the

  855
  spot by the medical members of the Com- mission into the results of inoculation for enteric fever, in preventing the disease, or lessening its effects.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): The inquiry to which my hon. and gallant friend refers, though doubtless one of very great importance, appears to be outside the scope of reference of the Commission, and it would require some- what different circumstances to investigate a purely scientific medical subject of the kind suggested.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether Mr. Harrison, who has been appointed a member of the South African Hospitals Commission, holds an appointment as member of the Army Railway Council, a body which advises the Army authorities in matters of railway transport and engineering, and has the rank of lieutenant-colonel in the Army; and will he state in whom is the appointment to seats in the Army Railway Council vested, and was that council, of which Mr. Harrison is a member, consulted in the matter of railway transport in South Africa, which will form one branch of the subject matter of the inquiries of the South African Hospital Commission, of which Mr. Harrison is also a member.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I believe he is not a lieutenant-colonel in the Army. He is, however, a member of the Army Rail- way Council, an unpaid body called into existence at the request of a Departmental Committee of experts in order to advise the War Office, not on anything connected with South Africa or South African transport, but simply on the question of transports and mobilisation within the four quarters of the United Kingdom.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: By whom are the appointments made?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: They are made by the War Office, of course. Whom else could they be made by?

  PUBLICATION OF DESPATCHES.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Trea-
  856
  sury whether he can now state definitely that the South African war despatches already asked for will be in the hands of Members before the House is asked to consider the Supplementary Estimates for war services in South Africa.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not myself think that these despatches have any direct connection with the Estimates to be introduced by my hon. friend the Under Secretary for War, but I frankly admit I should be very glad to lay the despatches on the Table, and I had hoped that by the time the Estimates would be discussed we might have considered that the operations of the war were at an end, or practically at an end, in which case it would be possible to lay them at once. That, however, appears to be a sanguine estimate, and I do not quite see how it is possible now to lay the despatches on the Table in view of the opinion expressed by the right hon. Gentleman and others on both sides of the House that anything which contains commentary upon military operations going on or the discretion of officers engaged should not be published while those military operations are in progress.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I cannot enter into a controversy on the subject now, but I must firmly protest against any such sentiment being attributed to me.

  SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: On behalf of the hon. Member for North Kerry, I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can state approximately the amount of money to be asked for in the Supplementary Estimate in connection with the war in South Africa; and also approximately what portion of the estimated gross cost of the war in South Africa will Ireland have to contribute.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is impossible at present, I think, and certainly premature, to give any estimate of the kind asked for. As for the Supplementary Estimate which is to be brought forward, that will be in the hands of Members today or to-morrow, and, probably, it would be better for the House to wait till they have the estimate in their hands than for me to attempt to give any account of its contents. I may, however, say chat some

  857
  of the rumours I have soon published as to the magnitude of the financial operations contemplated by the Government are altogether fantastic in their proportions.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: Why should the Irish people be compelled to contribute towards the cost of a war which they abhor?
  [No answer was given.]

  TRANS PORT OFFICERS—REWARDS AND DISTINCTIONS.
  MR. LAMBERT: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the work of the transport officers at the ports of embarkation will be recognised in collection with any rewards that may be distributed for services during the past year.
  MR. GOSCHEN: I must deprecate Parliamentary questions with regard to rewards and distinctions. The responsibility rests decidedly with the Board of Admiralty, and the grace of conferring any distinction might easily be marred by any appearance of Parliamentary pressure.

  BOER PRISONERS FOR CEYLON.
  CAPTAIN SINCLAIR: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether any number of Boer prisoners of war have been or are being sent to Ceylon; and, if so, how many, and to what place.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Yes, Sir. Lord Roberts telegraphed on the 12th inst. that a body of prisoners would leave for Ceylon in a few days, but their number was not stated. Preparations have been made for the reception of about 2,000 prisoners and their guards at Bandarawolla, in the hill country.

  RECENT MILITARY OPERATIONS.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary for War whether then; is anything to communicate to the House about South Africa-There is a rumour that there is some news from South Africa.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I think that all the news there is has been published this morning.

  HOSPITAL RETURNS.
  MR. MADDISON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if he will state the number of men now in hospital in South Africa from causes other than wounds.
  MR. WYNDHAM: It has already been explained to the House that it is not practicable to give the information required. The numbers vary from day to day and we receive no telegraphic information about them. I can, however, give the admissions at any place, at any date, if that will satisfy the hon. Member.

  BOER WOMEN SENT TO THE ENEMY'S LINES.
  MR. C. P. SCOTT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if he can now state whether a proclamation was issued at Pretoria on Wednesday last ordering the wives of all Boers believed to be in the field against us to report themselves to the authorities on the following day in order that they might be sent into the enemy's lines, and whether they and their children have been so sent; and whether among these women are included any who have been rendered destitute through the destruction for military purposes of their farms and crops.
  MR. WYNDHAM: No, Sir. No Report has reached the War Office.

  3RD INNISKLLLING FUSILIERS.
  MR. MACALEESE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if he can state how many men of the 3rd Battalion Royal Inniskilling Fusiliers, stationed at Cowshott Manor Camp, responded to the call made in February last to volunteer for service in South Africa; were any deprivations of privilege made in the case of men who then declined to volunteer; and how many men responded to a further call for volunteers made upon this corps in the present month, and have any of the corps been visited with displeasure for refusal.
  MR. WYNDHAM: As I stated in reply to this question on Thursday, the 3rd Inniskilling Fusiliers was not asked by the Secretary of State for War to volunteer for service abroad, either in February or later.

  MILITARY LANDS ACT, 1892.
  CAPTAIN SINCLAIR: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, in regard to England and Scotland respectively, if he will state how many county and borough councils have exercised the powers given for the purchase of land under the Military Lands Act, 1892; what number of acres has been so purchased; what sum has been so expended; and what proportion of that sum has been borrowed under the powers conferred by the Act.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The War Office has cognisance only of cases where compulsion is required, and only one such case has occurred among purchases made by county or borough councils, viz., at Great Yarmouth. The Local Government Board has cognisance of all sums of money borrowed under the Act; two cases have occurred, a loan of £12,600 to the town council of Nottingham, for the purchase of 120 acres of land for rifle ranges; and a loan of £123 to the town council of Chesterfield, for the purchase of two roods of land for a drill hall. But when the council is able to buy the land by agreement, and without borrowing, the transaction is not reported to any Government department.

  WAR OFFICE EMPLOYEES' BONUS.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he can state whether, seeing that the privileges of certain War Office employees computed at 1s. a week, were taken into consideration when their minimum wage was raised to 22s. a week, these men are not entitled to a certain bonus; and whether he will see that a store house man named Wales (Army Clothing Department), who, after serving for seventeen years, was discharged in consequence of an accident, receives the bonus for that number of years service, irrespective of the compensation he received for injuries.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS,): The Superannuation Act directs that gratuities on discharge shall be calculated on wages, and there is no power to vary the basis of assessment. Wales obtained under the Workmen's Compensation Act a weekly allowance which cannot be supplemented
  860
  by a gratuity. The hon. Member does not accurately state the amount of the minimum wage.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: Did not the man in question receive compensation in consequence of injuries sustained? Is he not therefore entitled to a bonus?
  MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: No, Sir. The workman in question received what he got under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, and he was not entitled to anything beyond that.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: Is he not entitled to a bonus?
  MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: I do not know what the hon. and gallant Member means by a bonus. If he will speak to me privately I may clear up any misunderstanding.

  LANCASHIRE VOLUNTEER ALLOWANCES.
  LORD BALCARRES: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office when his decision will be announced as to the supplementary grant to be paid to certain Lancashire Volunteer regiments in respect of their travelling expenses, which have been 5s. per head above the usual grant; and whether any special allowance is to be made for the carriage of cycles to and from camp.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The question of the travelling expenses referred to has been decided in favour of the corps, and the necessary instructions have been sent. There is no special grant for the conveyance of cycles; the allowance of £2 is intended to cover all extra incidental charges.

  KILWORTH RIFLE RANGE.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether proceedings are at present pending or contemplated on the part of the War Office to acquire for the purpose of adding it to the Kilworth Rifle Range a large tract of land in the immediate locality; and will he state under what Act these proceedings are being taken, what stage they have reached, what area of land it is proposed to ac-

  861
  quire, and how many families it is proposed to evict.
  MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: No, Sir; there is no such intention.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: Then what was the meaning of the communication addressed to the Cork County Council, stating there was such an intention?
  MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: That, no doubt, had reference to the schedule of a Bill introduced into another place, and since withdrawn.

  ARMY SHIRT CONTRACTS.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he will state the total quantity of Army shirts tendered for and supplied respectively by shirt manufacturers in the United Kingdom for the troops in South Africa during the past twelve months; what proportion was tendered for by manufacturers in the south of Ireland, and were their tenders accepted; what were the conditions of specification as to quality stipulated for by the Government, and were those conditions complied with by south of Ireland manufacturers; and, seeing that the identical quality of shirting previously accepted by the Government was offered at a lower price by one of the largest manufacturers of those goods in the south of Ireland, and that the tender was declined, can he explain why Irish manufacturers have received none of the Government contracts for Army shirts.
  MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: The total quantity being supplied is about 700,000; 31,000 were offered by south of Ireland firms and were not accepted. The material was to be flannel or union mixture containing not less than 50 per cent. of wool. In some cases the supply was to be to War Office pattern; in others the contractors were allowed to submit their own patterns. If there had been great emergency at the time the orders referred to were placed, some samples submitted by south of Ireland firms might have been accepted, but there was then no difficulty in meeting the requirements from the more suitable samples submitted by other firms. Nothing is known as to the particular case referred to in the second paragraph, but nine
  862
  Irish manufacturers received orders, and a considerable number of other shirts were manufactured in Ireland by firms whose head offices are in Great Britain.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Out of the many millions spent on these matters, has threepence gone to Ireland?

  THE CHANNEL FLEET—VISIT TO INVERGORDON.
  MR. CALDWELL: On behalf of the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty, I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether arrangements will be made for the Channel Fleet to visit Invergordon this summer.
  MR. GOSCHEN: Beyond a visit to Berehaven for the purpose of carrying out certain exercises, the movements of the Channel squadron subsequent to the manéuvres have not yet been decided upon.

  SAILING TRAINING SQUADRON.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty can he say what officer, or officers, and what men have been in charge of H.M.S. "Raleigh" and of the other three ships of the sailing training squadron since this squadron was put out of commission and laid up on 31st October, 1899; have any officers and men lived on board the ships since that date, and, if so, how many on board each ship; are these ships now in sufficiently good condition to enable them to be fitted out again for sea; what other ships besides these four would be available for use as a sailing training squadron; and is it proposed to build any more ships that would be so available; and, if so, when is it expected that these latter will be ready for use.
  MR. GOSCHEN: It is not possible to give all the information asked for by the hon. Gentleman within the limits of an answer to a Parliamentary question. Generally speaking, the ships forming the recent training squadron have been in the hands of care and maintenance parties at the ports since they were put out of commission last year. Of these a limited number live on board when necessary. The "Cleopatra" is about to replace the "Curaçoa" as a sea-going training ship for boys. The "Raleigh" is fit for service at sea. The "Volage"

  863
  would need a thorough refit before being commissioned for sea service, and the "Champion" a refit of less extent. The following ships are available for service, but they would require extensive repairs, and re-boilering at once or after a short period:—"Calypso," "Active," "Cordelia," and "Curaçoa." With reference to the last question of the hon. Member, the hon. Gentleman knows the shipbuilding programme for this year, and I am not prepared to anticipate next year's programme.

  FOREIGN MEN-OF-WAR IN JERSEY HARBOURS.
  MR. LAMBERT: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether foreign war vessels are constantly manœuvring in and out of the harbours of Jersey; and whether there are any regulations limiting such vessels from practising these evolutions.
  MR. GOSCHEN: No recent reports of the proceedings of foreign war vessels, as suggested in the question, have been received by the Admiralty. There are no special regulations as to the limitation of vessels practising evolutions, but attention would be called to any infraction of international usage, should such occur.
  MR. LAMBERT: What are the rules of "international usage"?
  MR. GOSCHEN: I have said there are no regulations.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Is it not notorious that French men-of-war have been manœuvring in these waters? Is it in accordance with ordinary usage?
  MR. GOSCHEN: My attention has not been called to the fact.

  ROYAL MARINE OFFICERS' CLOTHING.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether officers of the Royal Marines serving on board ship in warm climates are compelled by regulation to wear white clothing, and are also compelled by regulation to wear khaki clothing when engaged in active operations ashore; and, if so, whether he will sanction the adoption of one type of hot weather uniform, so as to relieve officers of the Royal
  864
  Marines of the heavy expense entailed by the present arrangement.
  MR. GOSCHEN: I am informed that officers of the Royal Marines are not compelled by regulation to wear khaki clothing under any circumstances, but that description of uniform has been worn as a matter of convenience and discretion in some recent active operations on shore. I will inquire further into the matter.

  INDIAN FAMINE—RELIEF STATISTICS.
  MR. C. P. SCOTT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he can state the total number of persons on relief in the famine districts, and the number who are still being relieved in famine camps; and whether he will obtain the statistics of deaths from cholera, which are available in India, for the information of the House before the debate takes place on the Indian Budget.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: The famine-telegram, dated the 14th July, and published in the daily press, stated that 6,148,000 were in receipt of relief, it added that, "Village relief and advances were replacing relief works." I cannot at present specify how many out of this total were relieved at their villages and how many were on relief works. I can obtain the total figures for cholera deaths. in British districts and in Native States, so far as they are available in India, but they may not be sent in time for the debate on Thursday next.

  ADVANCER TO CULTIVATORS FOR SEED AND CATTLE.
  MR. C. P. SCOTT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether in many of the famine districts from 75 to 90 per cent. of the cattle have died; what proportion of the cultivators in the district affected will need advances for seed and cattle; and what proportion of these can be assisted out of the 123 lacs allotted for the purpose, and the charitable funds; and whether he has information to show that there are enough cattle available in India to supply immediate needs; and if not, whether any steps are being taken to make good the deficiency from elsewhere.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: I have no trustworthy information about the mor-

  865
  tality among cattle; nor can I give particulars as to the proportion of cultivators that will be relieved from advances made by Government and from the charitable fund respectively. If the funds already allotted for this purpose prove insufficient more money will be granted. No cattle have been brought into India from outside to meet the present need; but cattle are being moved into the famine districts from more prosperous parts of India.

  LOANS TO NATIVE STATES.
  MR. C. T. SCOTT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India what steps, if any, are being taken to assist the Governments of the Native States to obtain the necessary funds for making advances to cultivators for the purchase of plough cattle and seed grains.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: The loans to Native States for famine purposes and the grants to chose States from the Charitable Fund are intended to cover the necessary advances and gifts to cultivators in those tracts. In my answer to the hon. Member for Banffshire on Thursday, I stated the amount of those loans. † Up to the end of May 26½ lacs (£177,000) had also been allotted by the Central Committee of the Charitable Fund for expenditure in Native States.

  INDIAN RAILWAYS—FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENT.
  MR. GORDON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether, in calculating the rate of interest under the contract powers for paying off (by annuities) the shareholders of the East Indian Railway Company in 1880, the Eastern Bengal Railway Company in 1884, and the Scinde Railway Company in 1886, the agreed results (namely, £4 6s., £3 17s., and £3 16s. 6d.) were the outcome of the same methods of interpretation as explained before a Committee of the House of Commons in 1879 by Sir Louis Mallet, Mr. Danvers, and Viscount Cranbrook.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: The East Indian Railway was bought under a special arrangement outside the contract which the Select Committee of 1879 (of which I was chairman) agreed to, on the
  † See page 465 of this volume.
  866
  understanding that the rate fixed was not to form a precedent. In determining the terms of subsequent purchases under the Acts of Parliament the other two railways were bought under the contract, and the rate of interest was determined by the governor and the deputy-governor of the Bank as prescribed by contract. I have no knowledge of the view they took of the evidence given before the Select Committee of 1879.
  MR. CORDON: May I ask whether the same method was followed on the three occasions?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: I should imagine not, because the Committee of which I was chairman distinctly laid it down that sanction was only given to the exceptional purchase in 1879 on the understanding that it was not to form a precedent.
  MR. GORDON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the rates of interest agreed to by the Indian. Government on the termination of the contracts of the East Indian, Eastern, Bengal, and Scinde Railway Companies during the past twenty years—namely, £4 6s, £3 17s., and £3 16s. 6d. per cent. —represented the average rate of interest received by persons who invested in the three India sterling stocks during the two-year period relating to each of those three contracts.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: As I have before said, the purchase of the East Indian Railway stands on quite a different footing from those of the Eastern Bengal and Scinde Railway Companies, and was not based on the average rate of interest received by investors. I have no knowledge of how the Governor and Deputy Governor of the Bank of England calculated the rate of interest for the annuities of the other two purchases.
  MR. GORDON: Will the noble Lord make inquiry?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: According to. the contract, the Governor and Deputy Governor are given the power of deciding what the rate is. I think it would be most improper for the Secretary of State to interfere with their discretion in any way.

  STATE-AIDED RAILWAYS — DETERMINATION OF CONTRACTS.
  MR. GORDON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether it is the intention of the Indian Government to pay due respect to the precedents established during the past twenty years in their policy regarding the determination of any future railway contracts; and, if not, whether he will give due notice of this intention, and an explanation of his policy in the matter.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: It is the intention of the Secretary of State in Council to act on all occasions of this kind in strict conformity with the terms prescribed in the contracts with the various Indian railway companies.

  NIGER COAST PROTECTORATE-SPIRIT IMPORTS.
  MR. LAWRENCE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can say what was the amount of spirits imported into the Niger Coast Protectorate during the months of March, April, May, and June in the years 1898 and 1899 respectively; and whether any, and, if any, what number of native traders in Opobo and Old Calabar have paid duties on their stocks in store, under the proclamation of 17th May, and the amount of such duty.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): I regret that I am unable to say what was the amount of spirits imported into the Niger Coast Protectorate in the months specified, as the Returns received give only the total imports for each year, and no information has been received as to the duties paid on stocks by native traders in Opobo and Old Calabar.

  IMPERIAL TELEGRAPHIC COMMUNICATION— DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE.
  SIR EDWARD SASSOON: I bog to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he would state to the House the composition of the Departmental Committee on the system of Cable Telegraphs of the Empire, the scope, and the terms of its reference.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HANBURY,): The terms of reference are "To inquire into the present system of telegraphic communication between different parts of the Empire, and to consider in what respects it requires to be supplemented. To investigate the relations between private cable companies and the Imperial and Colonial Governments (including the Government of India), the amount of control at present exercised by these Governments, and the policy which should be pursued by them in future, especially when new concessions are sought. To examine existing rates, to report how far they are fair and reasonable; and, if not, how any reduction should be effected." The Committee will consist of Lord Balfour of Burleigh, the Postmaster General, the Secretary to the Treasury, the Under Secretaries for India and the Colonies, and two members from the Intelligence branches of the Admiralty and the War Office.
  SIR EDWARD SASSOON: Will the Committee have power to send for persons and Papers?
  MR. HANBURY: Certainly.
  SIR EDWARD SASSOON: Will the evidence and Report be printed?
  MR. HANBURY: That I cannot say.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Will the hon. Gentleman undertake to supplement the Committee by two gentlemen of common sense?

  SCHOOL ATTENDANCE AUTHORITIES —BYE-LAWS IN AGRICULTURAL DISTRICTS.
  MR. JEFFREYS: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education if he can state how many school attendance authorities have made bye-laws under the Elementary Education Act of 1899, providing for the exemption of school attendance during certain months of the year of children between the ages of eleven and thirteen who are employed in agriculture.
  THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL ON EDUCATION (Sir J. GORST, Cambridge University): There are thirty-six such bye-laws now ready for sanction.

  CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION.
  MR. MATHER: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he is aware that the Association of Technical Institutions has addressed a letter to the President of the Board, asking him to receive a deputation of that body to submit to him their views on the composition of the Consultative Committee appointed by him, and named in the Draft Order in Council now lying upon the Table of this House, and to call his attention to the fact that the Committee as constituted is wholly academic and includes no representative of the scientific, technical, and commercial industries of the country, in which the practical results of our system of national education have to be tested; whether this omission is intended to imply that the Board of Education will not seek from the Consultative Committee any assistance in determining and improving, from time to time, the character and quality of the whole system of our national education; whether it is the intention of the Board of Education to exclude all questions from the matters referred to the Committee by the Board; and whether, if this be the case, the Vice-President of the Board will explain to the House what are the functions and responsibilities (if any) which the Consultative Committee will be required to perform.
  SIR J. GORST: The answer to the first paragraph of the question is in the affirmative, and to the second and third paragraphs in the negative. The functions of the Consultative Committee are defined in the fourth Section of the Board of Education Act, 1899; they are:— (a) to frame regulations for a register of teachers and (b) to advise the Board of Education on any matter referred to the Committee by the Board.
  MR. MATHER: Will Section 4 cover such questions as the improvement of our system of national education?
  SIR J. GORST: Yes, if referred to the Committee by the Board.

  GEOLOGICAL SURVEY MAPS.
  MR. HAZELL: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee
  870
  of Council on Education whether his attention has been called to the limited sales of maps prepared by the Geological Survey; can he explain how it is that while the annual cost of the Survey is upwards of £17,000, the receipts from the sale of the maps is less than £1,000; whether he has observed that the maps, being published on the one-inch scale, are too small for many purposes, and that the six-inch maps can only be obtained on special application, and coloured by hand at a high price, and that their existence is but little known; whether similar maps of other countries are printed in colours, and published at a much lower price; and will he look into the question with a view to making them more widely useful.
  SIR J. GORST: A Departmental Committee has been appointed by the Lord President of the Council to inquire into various matters regarding the Geological Survey, and no definite answer can be given to the questions asked until the Committee has reported.

  LONDON SCHOOL HOARD AUDIT CASE.
  MR. EVELYN CECIL: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he is aware of the cause of the delay in submitting to the Queen's Bench the London School Board audit case, with reference to the alleged illegal expenditure by the Board of ratepayers' money on secondary education; and will he take steps to secure that the case should in the public interest be submitted immediately.
  SIR J. GORST: I am not aware of any cause which prevents the London School Board audit case being now submitted to the Queen's Bench Division. The Board of Education is not a party to the record, and has no right to interfere in the case. I do not know what step it is possible for the Board of Education to take to expedite the proceedings, but an immediate decision of the question is of the most urgent importance in the interests of education, both to the school boards and the Government Department.

  RECENT POSTAL DELAYS.
  SIR GEORGE FARDELL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster

  871
  General, whether he can have steps taken to remedy the inconvenience experienced by residents in Sheringham, Norfolk, caused by the alteration in the postal arrangements, the effect of which is that letters coming by the night mail from London and elsewhere are not delivered until the second post instead of in the early morning as heretofore.
  MR. HANBURY: The effect of the recent alterations in the postal arrangements at Sheringham will be to accelerate the first delivery of letters at that place, and letters posted in time for the night mail from London should be included in that delivery. The Postmaster General regrets that, owing to mistakes in sorting and to the recent temporary disarrangement of the postal service in London, some letters for Sheringham which should have been included in the first delivery have not been delivered until the second. Proper notice has been taken of the errors in sorting, and the Postmaster General hopes that the Service will be more regularly performed in future.
  MR. BARTLEY: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any date when the confusion at the Post Office will be ended?
  MR. HANBURY: I can only give the assurance which the Post Office have repeatedly given me, to the effect that the confusion is over already.
  SIR GEORGE FARDELLalso asked a supplementary question, which was inaudible.
  MR. HANBURY'Sreply was that he had no information, but would find out.

  EXCESS POSTAGE.
  MR. DUCKWORTH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he is aware that quantities of letters are delivered without the ordinary penny stamp being affixed, on which twopence is charged on delivery, and that one London postman on a certain day collected 5s. in this way on his round; and can he say if the percentage of letters so charged has greatly increased since the change was made from the old red stamp, and, if so, does it arise from insufficient gumming or inferior quality of adhesive material used, and
  872
  can he state the number of unstamped letters posted in a year, and of stamps found in receptacles in which letters are posted, how much the postal authorities gain yearly by stamps thus found, how much from letters unstamped, and whether he will consider the advisability of a reduction of the twopenny fee charged on unstamped letters.
  MR. HANBURY: The Postmaster General is not aware how many letters are charged 2d. on delivery because they do not boar a penny stamp. No records of such letters are kept, and it cannot be stated, therefore, whether the number of charges has increased or diminished since the old red stamp was discontinued. The value of stamps found loose in post offices and left on post office counters by the public amounts in one year to about £300. The quality of the gum used is satisfactory, and the Postmaster General believes that postage stamps, which are now made of thinner paper, adhere more firmly than formerly to the covers to which they are affixed. It is not considered desirable to reduce the twopenny fee charged on unstamped letters. The expense of collecting charges for deficient postage is considerable.

  INCOME TAX DEDUCTIONS.
  MR. HAZELL: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, in reference to deductions for income tax, whether in the past, when the income tax has been lowered, it has been the custom to deduct the tax at the lower rate in respect of income accruing after 5th April upon the class of securities which are now under similar circumstances charged at 1s.
  MR. HANBURY: The answer is in the affirmative.

  SEIZURES OF FOREIGN PRISON-MADE GOODS.
  MR. LAMBERT: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury in how many instances the Prison-made Goods Act has boon put in force, and what has been the value and the nature of the goods that have come under its operation.
  MR. HANBURY: There have been six consignments only since the passing of the Act 60 and 61 Vic, chap. 63, in which the Commissioners of Customs were satisfied that goods imported into the

  873
  United Kingdom were in whole or in part of prison origin. The goods were in each case mats which the Commissioners were satisfied had been, at least, partially manufactured in Belgium by convict labour. The six consignments consisted of 126 bundles of the declared value of £183. The whole of the mats were seized and subsequently destroyed by fire.

  DISTRICT MESSENGERS COMPANY.
  COLONEL MILWARD (Stratford-upon-Avon): May I ask whether it is true that the licence of the District Messengers Company is not to be renewed.
  MR. HANBURY: I know nothing officially on the subject. About three years ago, on behalf of the Treasury, I reduced the royalty in connection with this company for the purpose of encouraging it.

  WATER FOR CATTLE ON RAIL WAYS.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: On behalf of the hon. Member for the St. Patrick Division of Dublin, I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether during the continuance of this exceptionally hot weather special arrangements could be made by the railway companies in the three kingdoms to enable live stock to obtain water upon journeys of any distance or delays exceeding six hours.
  THIS PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. RITCHIE,): My right hon. friend the President of the Board of Agriculture informs me that the Water Supply on Railways Order of 1895 requires that water shall be provided at about 1,100 railway stations in Great Britain for the use of animals carried by rail. He has received no complaint as to the inadequacy of these arrangements, which he believes to be fully sufficient to meet the object which the hon. Member has in view.

  THIRD - CLASS SEASON TICKETS.
  MR. STEPHENS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the fact that many of the railway companies running into London, though issuing season tickets to first and second class passengers, refuse to issue season tickets to third-class passengers,
  874
  and that, in consequence, third-class are compelled to pay in most cases more than first-class, and in all cases more than second-class passengers. Can he explain why first, second, and third class passengers are not treated alike with regard to season tickets, and required to pay an equal proportionate charge for them; and whether he will consider the position of the railway companies towards the poorer classes of suburban travellers, and take steps to secure for them conditions for season tickets similar to those accorded to first and second class passengers.
  MR. RITCHIE: The issue of season tickets by railway companies is a voluntary act on their part. They are not under legal obligation to do anything of the kind, and it follows that the Board of Trade are not in a position to intervene. If, however, the hon. Member is prepared and desires to give me a specific case, or cases, of hardship, the Board will be happy to use their good offices to obtain a fair consideration of the matter.

  CONVICT WARDERS AND THE RESERVE— PORTLAND ESTABLISHMENT.
  MR. J. A. PEASE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Reservists have been taken from the prison warders and civil guards in Her Majesty's convict prisons, and to what extent have their places been filled up; will he explain why at the present time only six warders are now employed at the West Quarries of the Portland convict establishment to supervise 170 convicts, whereas the recognised proportion is one warder for every ten convicts; and whether the absence of a larger staff has tended to produce insubordination; and how many cases at Portland of flogging for prison offences have there been during the last six months.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir M. WHITE RIDLEY, Lancashire, Blackpool): Fifty-three Reservists have been taken from the prison warders and convict guards in convict prisons. Their places have been filled with one exception. The number of convicts employed in the West Quarries is on the average 201, and the number of officers employed to supervise them is seventeen. This is one to twelve. The proportion of one warder to every

  875
  ten convicts includes officers sick, on leave, and on escort, and is a fixed proportion of staff to cover all contingencies. The percentage of staff at Portland and other convict prisons has, in fact, been increased, and is over 10 per cent. There is no foundation for the suggestion that the absence of a larger staff has tended to produce insubordination. The number of cases of corporal punishment at Portland during the last six months was five.

  CONVICT WARDERS' PENSIONS.
  MR. J. A. PEASE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the warders at the four convict prisons petitioned last year for an increase in their pensions, and what reply, if any, has been sent to them.
  SIR M. WHITE RIDLEY: I may refer the hon. Member to an answer which I gave to the hon. Member for the Rich-mond Division of Yorkshire on 12th March last, to the effect that such petitions have been received, but that the question of pensions is primarily one for the Treasury, and that I am not at present prepared to propose the legislation which would be necessary in order to carry the prayer of petition into effect.

  SHEFFIELD LAUNDRY PROSECUTION.
  MR. TENNANT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Victoria Laundries, Limited, of Howard Street, Sheffield, who have been recently prosecuted and fined for breaches of the Factory Acts, are, as they assert, contractors to Her Majesty's Government; and, if so, to what Department.
  SIR M. WHITE RIDLEY: I have ascertained that the firm in question have a contract with the War Office to wash for Sheffield Barracks.

  BAIL REGULATIONS.
  MR. HAZELL: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General whether his attention has been called to the statements of Mr. Justice Wright in charging the grand jury at the Derbyshire Assizes on the 11th instant, in reference to the detention of persons awaiting trial; whether he is aware that it appeared from the calendar before the Court that accused persons had
  876
  been detained for periods amounting in the aggregate to three years; that this was mainly due to justice's clerks being; ignorant of recent legislation which removed difficulties once existing with regard to bail; and that, in particular, a man was brought before Mr. Justice Wright charged with perjury, who had been ten weeks in prison awaiting trial, and the jury found him innocent; while in two other charges where persons were convicted of manslaughter they wore discharged because they had been three months in prison awaiting trial; and what action does the Government propose: to take to prevent similar occurrences in future.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY, Inverness Burghs): My attention has been called to the remarks of Mr. Justice Wright at the Derbyshire Assizes. I understand that in discharging the grand jury the learned Judge modified these remarks in respect of two or three prisoners who had been offered bail before the magistrates and had refused it. There appears to be no doubt that there had been a good deal of detention before trial which might have been prevented, by the exercise of the power of the magistrates to grant bail, but I have not, been able to verify all the details stated in the second paragraph of the question. The Bail Act of 1898 was passed with the object of preventing unnecessary detention, and the Government have under consideration the propriety of taking steps to call the attention of justices' clerks to the provisions of this Act.

  ROAD CONSTRUCTION IN THE ISLAND OF LEWIS.
  MR. CALDWELL: On behalf of the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty, I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the construction of the road between Cromore and Graver, in the Park District of the Island of Lewis, is now being proceeded with; and, if not, will he state the cause of the delay.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY, Buteshire): I am informed by the Congested Districts Board that they are still awaiting the information from the district committee referred to in the answer given to the. hon. Member on 1st May last.

  INVER WATER SUPPLY.
  MR. CALDWELL: On behalf of the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the Secretary for Scotland is aware that the medical officer of health for Ross and Cromarty reports that the water supply of the village of Inver, in the parish of Tain, about which complaints were made last year, is still unsatisfactory; and will he state what steps have been taken by the Local Government Board in the matter.
  MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: I am informed by the Local Government Board that they have been in constant communication during last year with East Ross District Committee and on 26th April last received from the local medical officer an assurance that the local authority had agreed to protect the wells, cover them up, and put pumps in them, and that the works were to be proceeded with immediately. As an excuse for delay in completing these measures the local authority now plead the ignorance and prejudice of the people, who are said to be quite satisfied with the present state of matters, and have accordingly broken a pump which had been put up by a private benefactor. I am to add that the Local Government Board will lose no opportunity of pressing the local authority to do their duty in the matter.

  CHIME IN COUNTY MONAGHAN.
  MR. DALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, at the recent assizes in the county Monaghan, the judge said that he interviewed the county inspector of police, who reported the county to be in a most satisfactory state and almost free from crime; and whether, under these circumstances, he will advise the removal of the operation of the Peace Preservation Act from the county of Monaghan.
  THE CHIEF SECERETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. G. W. BALFOUR,): The reply to the first paragraph is in the affirmative. The Government do not consider it desirable to revoke the proclamation of the county Monaghan under the provisions of the Peace Preservation Act.

  IRISH POLICE BATONS AND HANDCUFFS.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state where the batons and handcuffs used by the police, in Ireland are made, and what is the capital cost of those now employed by the Royal Irish Constabulary and Dublin Metropolitan Police.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: The batons and handcuffs used by the Irish police were obtained many years ago from a firm in Dublin; it is not known where they were made. The estimated cost of these articles was about £1,900.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Were they made in Germany?
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: They were obtained in Dublin, many years ago.

  COUNTY COURTS (IRELAND) BILL.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I beg to. ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will arrange., with a view to the passing next year of the County Courts (Ireland) Bill, to prepare and circulate a draft of the rules, orders, and forms proposed to be made under it, including the scale of court fees proposed to be charged to litigants.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: I cannot, without consulting the Lord Chancellor, for Ireland, undertake to act on the suggestion of the hon. Member, but the matter will be considered.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I will repeat the question.

  IRISH LOCAL GOVERNMENT RETURNS.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will grant a Return showing the population, local government electorate, and poor law valuation of each county, county district (rural and urban), and electoral division or ward in each such district in Ireland, and of the number of county and district councillors for each such county, county district, electoral division, or ward.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: There is no. objection, in principle, to a Return such as indicated, but it would take consider-

  879
  able time and labour to prepare, and could not in any case be ready before October. Under all the circumstances I think it would be better to postpone the preparation of the Return until after the approaching census, as the population and valuation of the altered areas can then be stated with a degree of accuracy which could not be shown if the Return were prepared now.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: Would not that involve postponement for another year?
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: If the hon. Gentleman will communicate with the Local Government Board, I think it would serve his purpose much better.

  IRISH TEACHERS AND RESULTS FEES.
  MR. M'DERMOTT: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will explain why the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland will mot pay the equivalent for results fees now due to teachers in whose schools the results period terminated on 30th June, such as the presentation convent school in Kilkenny and the Castle comer Convent School, sooner than the middle of next October, whereas the teachers of schools in which the results period terminated on 31st May are to be paid these equivalents in the middle of this month. And can he state when will the old arrears of the Education Grant, due to Irish National school teachers for 1892 and subsequent years, be paid to them.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: Schools examined for results in former years in the June quarter will be paid the equivalent grant, as far as possible, with the June quarterly payments, and schools, including the two specially referred to in the question, whose results examinations took place in the September quarter will be paid the grant with the salary payments for that quarter. A Supplementary Estimate for the payments mentioned in the second paragraph has already been introduced, but the payments cannot be made until the Vote has been passed.

  PUBLIC HOUSE LICENCES IN IRELAND.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord
  880
  Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will arrange for an annual Return of the number of new public-house licences granted and extinguished in each quarter sessions division in Ireland, showing in each case whether the new licence was granted in substitution for an existing licence.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: I am making inquiry into this matter, and will ask the hon. Member to repeat the question on Thursday next.

  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY— HOUSE RENT ALLOWANCES.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the allowance made for house rent to all married members of the Royal Irish Constabulary below the rank of district inspector is only 1s. per week; and can he state what allowance is made for the same purpose to district and county inspectors, and at what date the amount in question was first fixed, and on want principle it was arrived at.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: The fact is as stated in the first paragraph; but married members of the force below the rank of district inspector are also exempt from a statutory deduction of 1s. per week from their pay, which exemption practically raises the lodging allowance to £5 4s. per annum. A lodging allowance at the rate of £21 5s. l0d. per annum was fixed in 1870 in the case of a district inspector of the third class. The allowances payable to district inspectors of the second and first class vary, according to the length of service, from £27 10s. to £40, and a county inspector receives an allowance of £50. These allowances were fixed in 1882. The allowances to officers and men were fixed on a consideration of the class of house or lodging accommodation which, having regard to their rank in the force, they would be expected to occupy.

  KILTEEVAN DRUM AND FIFE BAND.
  MR. HAYDEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that on Sunday, 6th May, when the Kilteevan (county Roscommon) fife and drum band was returning from Roscommon to Kilteevan the members were accosted by District Inspector Rogers in

  881
  insulting language, and that he further stated that if he had sufficient force he would disperse them, while, upon that and the following Sunday, Sergeant Higgins interfered to prevent the leader of the band addressing his comrades; and can he state by what authority these officials acted in such a manner.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: I am informed there is no foundation for the statements in the question so far as the district inspector is concerned. It is true that the sergeant prevented one of the leaders of the band from addressing a meeting. The band, accompanied by a large crowd, had been demonstrating at certain grazing farms in the locality with the evident object of intimidating the persons who hold these farms. The sergeant had warned the ringleaders that their conduct was illegal.

  SUTTON TO HOWTH TRAMWAY.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the Great Northern (Ireland) Company dispute that the construction of their tramway from Sutton to Howth is illegal; and, if it is not in accordance with the Act, will he state whether the Board of Trade have ever previously sanctioned a line made contrary to statutory provisions; and, if so, where.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (MR. RITCHIE,): I understand that the answer to the first paragraph is in the affirmative. As to the second paragraph the Board have no powers either to sanction or not to sanction the line. They cannot determine the legal questions at issue, they are merely prepared to certify the line as fit for traffic on the understanding that the company will at an early date apply for such further Parliamentary powers as may be found to be necessary.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Will the right hon. Gentleman's inspector ascertain by reference to the Act the condition of the line, and whether the line is now in a legal state?
  MR. RITCHIE: It is no part of our duty, nor have we inspectors qualified to determine the law on matters of that kind. All that the Board of Trade have to do is to certify that the line is fit to be opened
  882
  for public traffic. We have to look after matters of safety and nothing more.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Is it not part of the function of the Board of Trade, where the Act of Parliament states that the line shall be laid on a level with the road, and when it is laid one foot and a half above that level, to state whether the line is legal or illegal?
  MR. RITCHIE: No; our functions are confined to questions of safety.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Then I will ask the Attorney General whether he will consider whether an indictment should not be presented in regard to this line.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! If the hon. Member wishes to put a question of that kind he must give notice.

  SLIGO AND NORTHERN COUNTIES RAILWAY—MIXED TRAINS.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that all trains run on the Sligo and Northern Counties Railway are not made up of passenger carriages, but mainly of heavily laden goods wagons; that on some parts of the line the engines are unable to do the haulage except at a slow pace; and that, at all the stations except two, passengers are detained at the risk of accidents and to their inconvenience while the shunting is being carried on, and about which the travelling public complain; and seeing that, owing to this practice, it takes about three hours at the present rate of sixteen miles an hour to run from Sligo to Enniskillen and vice versa, whether steps will be taken to improve the present system of working this line.
  MR. RITCHIE: No, Sir; but I shall be happy to communicate with the railway company and direct their attention to the allegation made in the hon. Member's question.

  TRUCK ACT PROSECUTION AT DUNGLOE SESSIONS.
  MR. T. D. SULLIVAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Mr. Patrick O'Donnell, of Doochary, county Donegal, was recently fined £5 and £2 costs at Dungloe Petty Sessions for a breach of the Truck Act; and that the Queen's Bench has since

  883
  ruled on appeal, in another case heard from the same petty sessions, that the Truck Act does not apply to such persons as those supplied with goods by the defendant; and whether the Government will order the amount of fine and costs to be remitted to Mr. O'Donnell.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,): My right hon. friend has asked me to reply to this question. The reply to the first paragraph is in the affirmative. The proper course to adopt in all such cases is for the person concerned to petition the Lord Lientenant praying for a remission of the fine and a return of the costs. Any such petition, if forwarded by Mr. O'Donnell, will be considered.

  UNSUCCESSFUL APPLICATION AGAINST THE DONEGAL JUSTICES.
  MR. T. D. SULLIVAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether any and what reply has been given to the application on behalf of Major Johnson and the other Donegal Justices to be allowed their expenses in reference to the recent unsuccessful application to attach them; whether he is aware that Chief Baron Palles, in refusing to make the conditional order absolute, stated he regretted he had no power to award costs to the justices, and that he was shocked at the action of Mr. Mackey, the Crown solicitor, who, in order to obtain a conditional order for attachment against the justices, suppressed the fact that the mandamus had been complied with, and pretended that no case had been stated; is he aware that the justices handed him the case at petty sessions, which he declined to take; and they then sent him the case by registered letter, which he refused to lodge; that he detatched a portion of the case thus sent him and affixed it to another document signed by a minority of the justices, and lodged the joint product as if it were a genuine case stated; that the judge of the Queen's Bench to whom the case was finally sent decided that the case originally refused by Mr. Mackey was a good case, and dismissed the attachment on the ground that the mandamus had been complied with; and that the court then heard the appeal on the case, and upheld the decision of the justices; and whether, under these circumstances, the Crown will see fit to recoup to the justices the expenses incurred by them in successfully defending themselves.
  MR. ATKINSON: A reply has been given to the solicitor's letter to the effect that, as all the costs referred to were incurred by reason of the fact that the justices illegally and improperly refused to state a case for the opinion of the Queen's Bench Division when required so to do, the Crown must refuse to pay them the costs. I believe the Chief Baron did state that he regretted he had no power to award costs to the justices. It is impossible within the proper limits of an answer to a question, to give an epitome of the facts of the intricate litigation referred to. I have read over several times the authorised shorthand notes of the judgment of the court, and do not find that it contains any censure on Mr. Mackey or any other Crown official. No reference is made in this judgment to the other statements contained in the question, but as far as I have been able to ascertain, most of them are without foundation, and others misrepresent the actual facts. I have been informed, however, that the Lord Chief Baron, speaking in ignorance necessarily of the ultimate course contemplated by the Executive should they have been successful in the litigation then at hearing, found some fault with the mode in which the case had been conducted by the counsel. Notwithstanding the observations of the Lord Chief Baron, I am quite prepared, should the occasion offer, to justify in this House the action of the Crown in every particular. The reply to the last paragraph is in the negative.

  CORK ASSIZES—SELECTION OF JURYMEN.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland whether his attention has been called to the proceedings at the Cork Assizes on the 18th instant, in connection with the trial of a man named Cadogan, charged with the murder of a land agent named Bird; whether he is aware that on the long jury panel being called over, over sixty jurors were ordered by the Crown to stand aside; was this system of jury selection adopted with the sanction of the Law Officers of the Crown; and, if so, what were the reasons; and can he state whether there is any precedent at a criminal assize for ordering such a number of citizens qualified to act as jurors to stand aside.
  MR. ATKINSON: The answer to the first and second paragraphs is in the

  885
  affirmative No directions other than those contained in the Circular of 12th February, 1894, addressed to Crown Solicitors, were given. The action of the Crown Solicitor in the present case was due to the fact that he was aware that efforts had been extensively and continuously made to influence the jurors in favour of the accused, and he reasonably believed that the men set aside would not, if sworn, have given an impartial verdict. It is impossible at such short notice to obtain particulars of the many instances in which as many or even a larger number of jurors were set aside. I may, however, mention the case of the Queen v. Morey, tried at the Cork Winter Assizes of 1893, when forty-one out of a panel of seventy-four jurors were ordered to stand aside.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: What reward will the Law Officers of the Crown receive for a service of this kind?
  [No answer was given.]

  DRIFT-NET FISHING AT ARKLOW.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture for Ireland if the Board have received from the fishermen of Arklow a petition praying for the removal of the restrictions upon drift-net fishing between sunrise and sunset; and, if so, whether the Board have come to any decision on the matter.
  THE VICE-PRESIDE VT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOR IRELAND (Mr. PLUNKETT,): The petition referred to has been received. No decision can be come to in the matter by the Department until an inquiry shall have been held by the Inspectors of Fisheries into the expediency of making a bye-law permitting the use of drift-nets between sunrise and sunset. This inquiry will be held as soon as possible.

  PROTECTION OF IRISH FISHERIES.
  MR. POWER: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture for Ireland whether the Admiralty have placed at the disposal of the new Department any gunboats to prevent steam trawlers fishing within the proscribed limits.
  MR. PLUNKETT: As I have already stated, the cost of protecting the Irish
  886
  fisheries from the depredations of trawlers must be defrayed out of the funds at the disposal of the Department for fishery purposes. The Admiralty have decided not to undertake this work.
  MR. POWER: Have not three gunboats been placed at the disposal of the Board in Scotland for the protection of the country's fisheries?

  LIGHTHOUSE AUTHORITY AT CAHIRCIVEEN.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: On behalf of the hon. Member for North Kerry, I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture for Ireland whether he can state who is the lighthouse or local authority in the Cahirciveen and Valentia districts, county Kerry, and whether, in the event of the Kerry County Council,: who have already made a representation on this matter, being the local authority, the Congested Districts Board will accede to their request, which is supported by the local fishermen, by erecting a bell buoy and perch as already requested in the Cahirciveen and Valentia districts, so as to save the lives and property of men engaged in the fishery industry.
  MR. PLUNKETT: I am informed there is no regularly constituted harbour authority at the places mentioned, but that the Irish Lights Board recognise the County Council of Kerry in the matter of local lights. The question whether the Congested Districts Board may make a contribution to the Kerry County Council in respect of the works referred to at Valentia and Cahirciveen will be considered by the board at their next meeting.

  EQUALISATION OF DUBLIN RATES.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he proposes to take steps to give effect to the unanimous Report of the Joint Committee of Lords and Commons on the Dublin Corporation Bill, recommending the Government to bring in a Public Bill for the Equalisation of Rates in the Dublin districts analogous to that passed for London, and also enabling a joint rate for drainage and a Joint Drainage Board to be established for Dublin and the townships of Rathmines and Pembroke.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Any recommendation coming from so important a body deserves and will have the careful consideration of the Government, but, of

  887
  Course, it would be premature for us to announce any policy on the subject at present.

  ROYAL COMMISSION ON LOCAL TAXATION.
  MR. LAMBERT: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can state when the Royal Commission on Local Taxation will present its Report.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am informed that the Commissioners are not in a position yet to state any date.

  CONTEMPT OF COURT.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLI beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is aware that, so far back as October, 1882, legislation for the curtailment of the power of arbitrary committal for contempt of court was promised in the House of Commons by the Prime Minister of the day; and whether, having regard to the remarks of the Chief Justice of England in April, 1896, and to the fact that one man has actually suffered imprisonment for 743 days for that offence, the Government will take steps for the introduction of legislation to define the power of Judges to commit for contempt of court, and to render that power subject to appeal.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am afraid I cannot return any very satisfactory answer to this question. I certainly could not give the opinion of the Government without a much fuller opportunity of consulting my colleagues, and, in any case, it would be impossible to attempt any legislation on the subject in the course of the present session.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Can the First Lord of the Treasury give any information as to the course of business? There is a Blue-book relating to the Cape, the consideration of which is absolutely essential to the discussion of the Colonial Vote. It only came into the hands of such Members as applied at the Vote Office this afternoon, although it was promised it should reach hon. Members this morning. I think the right hon. Gentleman will see that this is rather short time to consider it in preparation for to morrow's discussion. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, if he can with convenience to the House and
888
the public, to postpone that Vote and take some other business on Tuesday.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am sorry that a misadventure has occurred about the Blue-book. These incidents make it very i difficult for the Leader of the House to arrange the business to suit the convenience of the members. Under the circumstances, I will go forward with Bills on Tuesday and Wednesday. I cannot say when the Colonial Vote will be taken, but I will give the earliest notification to the House that is in my power. The Companies Bill will be taken on Tuesday.
MR. COURTNEY: May I urge the right hon. Gentleman to fix Monday for the Colonial Office Vote, or, at all events, to give it preference over any other Vote on the very earliest day?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: My anxiety is to bring on the Vote as soon as possible, and it is only in deference to appeal made to me in a very responsible quarter of the House that I feel myself reluctantly compelled to postpone the Vote. I must be allowed to consider what date I may fix for it, and I shall be glad to take it on Monday if it is convenient.
MR. CHANNING: Could not the Colonial Vote be taken on Thursday or Friday?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think that would be inconvenient, as those days have long been allocated.
MR. CHANNING: Will Effective Supply be put down each night?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes, but no attempt will be made to commence it after midnight.

HIGHWAYS AND BRIDGES ACT (1891) AMENDMENT BILL.
Order for Committee read, and discharged; Bill withdrawn.
LIQUOR TRAFFIC LOCAL VETO (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Order for resuming adjourned debate on Amendment to Second Reading [2nd May] upon Wednesday, 25th July, read, and discharged; Bill withdrawn.
COUNTY COURTS (IRELAND) BILL [Lords].
Read the first time; to be read a second time upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 310.]
NEW MEMBER SWORN.
James Archibald Morrison, Esquire, for the County of Wiltshire (Southern or Wilton Division).

EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.
On the introduction of this Bill,
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Will the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury explain what this Bill is? Judging from the precedent of former years, I expect it will be found to include an atrocious Act with reference to Ireland—an Act passed in 1881, and called the Peace Preservation Bill. Is it included?
THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HANBURY,): Yes, it is.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House a list of the Bills included in it, instead of dealing with the House of Commons in the cavalier manner of simply raising his hat? I believe there are something like thirty-four Acts included. I should like to give the House some information as to this Act, which was only to last five years, and ever since 1886 has been renewed year by year. It has now come to be a formal proceeding—
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must be aware that the practice has been not to discuss any particular Bill on the Second Reading, still less on the leave to introduce. The proper time to discuss a particular Act is in Committee, when the schedule is reached.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I will content myself with entering my protest against this method of keeping expiring Acts, and especially this atrocious Act, in force.
Bill to continue various expiring Laws, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Hanbury and Mr. Attorney General.

EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.
"To continue various expiring Laws," presented accordingly, and read the first
890
time; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 311.]

MILITARY LANDS BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order for Second Reading read.
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR AVAR (Mr. WYNDHAM,): It may be convenient that I should premise our consideration of the Second Reading of this Bill by a short explanation. The Bill comes down from another place, and since the House of Commons reserves to itself the exclusive right of initiating any proposals which may throw a charge even on local ratepayers, I need not deal with a great portion, at any rate, of the first three sections of the Bill until the Committee stage is reached. The object of the Bill is to amend the Military Lands Act of 1892. That Act, I should like the House to bear in mind, was a consolidating Act and nothing more. It was introduced as such by the late Mr. Stanhope, then Secretary of State for War, and welcomed as such by Mr. Shaw-Lefevre. Governments are too often pressed to introduce Acts to consolidate legislation of this kind, and when they do so they some times incur a certain risk, either for themselves or for their successors. The date of the Act is often mistaken for the date of the policy embodied in the Act, and when defects are revealed in the Act we are told that the policy is comparatively novel and experimental, and that any extension is to be deprecated pending longer experience. I cannot too strongly insist that the Act of 1892 was. a consolidation Act which simply codified previous attempts to achieve certain objects by certain methods. The object of previous legislation was to facilitate the acquisition by Volunteer corps of sites for rifle ranges, and these Acts authorised co-operation between local bodies and Volunteer corps for the purpose of financing the transaction. They also authorised the Secretary of State to draw up bye-laws to ensure that shooting was carried on with safety. The Volunteer Act of 1863, for example, specifically laid down that corporations of various descriptions might transfer land to Volunteer corps for a period of twenty-one years, and authorised the Secretary of State to make bye-laws. It is true that that Act only dealt with the acquisition of sites for rifle ranges, and limited

891
the area to be acquired to four acres; but these limitations disappeared in subsequent enactments. The whole matter, as far as the principle is concerned, is in a nutshell. By the Regulation of the Forces Act, 1871, the power given by the Act of 1863 was extended to the acquisition of land for drill-sheds and any military purpose sanctioned by the Secretary of State, and the provisions of the Act of 1863 were extended to the Yeomanry and the Militia. I need not, however, trouble the House with the Militia, as that force dropped out of all this legislation under the Militia Act, 1882. The House is aware that larger powers have constantly accrued by a series of Acts to popularly elected local bodies as they advanced in importance, and as they advanced also towards their present democratic basis. The whole of this series of Acts giving additional powers to popularly elected local bodies as they advanced in importance was accompanied by another series of Acts authorising local bodies to use these new powers for the very same objects and by the very same methods which were sanctioned by the Act of 1863. That is to say, they might use their new powers in order to facilitate the acquisition of land for Volunteer rifle ranges, drill-sheds, and other purposes. All this legislation was consolidated in the Act of 1892. In the course of the eight years during which that Act has been in operation, one can hardly be surprised to find, as is usual in such cases, that certain defects have been revealed and certain extensions have been suggested, and unless we now remedy those defects and grant those extensions, we shall defeat the purpose and impair the usefulness of the Act of 1892, or rather of the previous Acts embodied in that statute. In the opinion of the Government, never was it more important than now to grant facilities for rifle practice for Volunteers. If we postpone this legislation, or if we fail to pass it, we shall be taking a very great responsibility on ourselves, and we shall also, I think, be showing great mistrust in the use to which popularly-elected bodies may put the fuller powers they now enjoy. I have indicated, and I think I can prove, that the objects and methods of this Bill are in respect to nine-tenths of it precisely the objects and methods sanctioned by previous legislation, and as regards the
892
remaining tenth I might almost say its provisions are obvious. Of course, I am willing to concede that it is not enough to show in this House that a policy is an old one. It is also necessary, when we are asking for further powers, to show that it is a good one, because there are precedents for reversing a policy instead of confirming or extending it. I ask, is it or is it not a good case to say that local bodies shall co-operate financially in order to assist the Volunteer force? I think it is not difficult to prove that it is. It is sometimes urged—I believe it was urged by the hon. Member for Mid Lanark in 1897—that the whole force of anything and everything which tends towards the additional efficiency of the Volunteers ought to borne by the national taxpayer, and that no part of that burden ought to fall, even for a time or with the consent of the ratepayers, on the local body, or on the funds of the corps. That is a very sweeping proposition, and if we entertain it we shall destroy the legislation of the last thirty-seven years. But I submit it is also a very unreasonable proposition. All the Acts and the present amending Bill are based on two principles, which I think give them a very secure and sound foundation. In the first place experience bass down that the local bodies and the Volunteer corps by joining hands can secure all they want in these matters much more cheaply and effectively than the central Government could if we undertook to carry out the operations for them. In some cases it is a question not of purchasing a large fee simple or a large tract of land, but of purchasing some easement over land, and in a case of that kind the local body can approach the occupier with a much greater chance of success than could some officer sent down from the War Office, whose more arrival is the signal for a rise in ground values within a measurable area. There are other cases in which the fee-simple must be purchased, and it sometimes happens that the local body practically control the whole of the available area. In some towns you cannot purchase the site for a drill-hall without the co-operation of the town council. On these grounds of principle, convenience, and economy I claim that the experience we have had under the past Acts amply shows that much better results are obtained by allowing the local body to lend its credit under the Public

893
Works Loans Act. The Volunteer corps cannot, merely by the capitation grant which ic earns, compass some of these operations, but it can very well enter into a bargain with the local body, which may really, in the long run, impose no burden whatever on the rates; for the local body, with its power of borrowing from the Public Works Loan Commissioners, can effect a transaction so cheaply that the corps out of its capitation grant is often able to pay both principal and interest. There is another principle on which all this legislation is based. I waive altogether the fact that the councils of many boroughs have come forward and made offers of the most advantageous character to the Volunteer corps. But we believe it is the duty of every district in this country, since we have no conscription weighing upon this land, to take upon itself a fair share of the burden of national defence. It may be said that the county councils are now being carried away by a mere emotion which will evaporate, and that they are embarking on ventures which, when viewed in a cold fit, will no longer be smiled upon by their constituents. I put all that on one side, and I say that the second principle on which this Bill is based is one which has always been accepted—namely, that persons and bodies ought to pay for considerations received. If a town council, j as representative of a town, or a county J council, as representative of a county, benefits by the construction of a range in a particular locality, then it is only fair they should contribute some portion of the cost. I do not disguise for a moment that the taxpayer has an interest in the provision of ranges and drill-sheds for the use of every efficient Volunteer, but his interest by no means coincides exactly with the interest of the Volunteer or of the town council. The Government in this matter is the trustee for the national taxpayer, and before providing ranges for every Volunteer force, wherever it may be raised, it is bound by the prior claims of the Regulars and the Militia, in the provision of rifle ranges. Owing to the generosity of this House and the patriotic view it has taken of its duty, large sums of public money have been authorised for the construction of ranges for the War Department, and if we deduct from the sum authorised in the Military Works Act, 1897, the amount spent in the acquisition of land on Salisbury Plain, it
894
will be found that £500,000 has been allocated for the construction of ranges. But it is not fair to deduct altogether the sum expended on Salisbury Plain, because there we have erected sixteen rifle ranges, so that half a million of money has been spent or allocated for the provision of rifle ranges, and sixteen additional ranges have been constructed on Salisbury Plain. Until recent times this Government and its predecessors have always maintained that it was not possible or proper for the War Department to directly supply ranges to the Volunteers. We made a departure from that in the Military Works Act of 1899, under which £40,000 was specifically taken in order to provide ranges for the Volunteers, and I may tell the House that it is within the policy of the Government to provide a further sum of £130,000 for the provision of such ranges. But this total expenditure of £170,000 will not enable us to give a range to every Volunteer corps in the country, at its own door or within measurable distance, and if it is to be argued in this House that it is the duty of the national taxpayer to give every Volunteer corps a range within a short distance of its own locality, the burden placed on the country would be out of all proportion to the benefit derived. A great part of the benefit would be derived by individual members of corps and by particular towns, and if the Government is to supply ranges, not only adequate in number, but also in the most convenient places, why then the corollary of that would be that we should have to consider the composition of the Volunteers, the proportion of artillery to infantry, and the distribution of Volunteers all over the country. It would be necessary to make the Volunteers fit the range system, instead of allowing the Volunteers as now to co-operate with the local body in order to arrange a system to suit their own convenience. No Government would make itself responsible for a cut-and-dried constitution of the Volunteer force. They give us the very best available substitute for conscription. Conscription abroad gives a certain amount of military training to every male subject who is mentally and physically fit. Therefore it is not sound policy to say, "We want so many riflemen and so many garrison artillery, and no more." We are bound, if in a certain town a number of artisans come forward and wish to form

895
an artillery battery, almost to allow the formation of that battery; or, again, if in a certain district the population wished to form a rifle battalion the Department is bound to allow it. But if the argument urged by some is to be accepted, that this having once been done it becomes the immediate duty of the Government, in behalf of the taxpayers, to put a rifle range close beside that battery or battalion, the charge put on the taxpayers would be so monstrous that no one would entertain such a policy for a moment. What would happen? The corps is raised, and then comes the demand from the local body that the corps should go into camp close by the local town. Having raised the corps in this patriotic manner they wish to see their friends exercise quite near them, and to take some part of the indirect emoluments, the pleasure parties, and the trade which are derived from a camp and accruing to the benefit of the locality which has raised the corps. But if this benefit accrues to the locality, then I say it does obtain a consideration, and is bound to contribute a certain amount of the cost. Keeping in view the question of pounds, shillings, and pence, the policy and the proposals of the Bill are very reasonable. It would not suit local bodies if the Government were to say that every corps should have a range, say, within fifty miles, and that they must take their chance as to which corps was to have use of it in turn. It is better that the Government on behalf of the taxpayer, the local corps, and the local body on behalf of the ratepayers should be allowed, as they have been allowed in the past, to come to an arrangement which is for the benefit of all three. That was the object of previous legislation, and that is the object we seek to attain by this Bill. It will give a certain amount of elasticity which is found necessary in the objects contemplated -and sanctioned by Parliament. It will be found that the only extension proposed in the first section of the Bill is to authorise local popularly-elected bodies to give and purchase land, and to use the public credit to borrow from the Public Works Loan Commissioners to purchase land for the benefit of the Volunteer force. All that is added by the section is that having done this they may achieve the object they have in view by also lending their credit in order that
896
land may be used for the purpose for which it is bestowed. Unless this is done some of the operations which have been actually entered upon are defeated and rendered of no avail. In 1897 the town council of Hanley gave a site for a Volunteer drill shed. The corps began to build a drill shed on the site, but it was found that the town council could not under the legislation as it now stands transfer to the corps such a title as would enable the corps to use the borrowing powers it enjoys in order to erect a building. There was an absolute impasse; the town council had created a perpetual trust on behalf of the corps, which brought none of the benefits to the corps which they intended to give, and the corps is saddled with the useless burden of a site for a drill shed. It was the intention of the consolidating Act of 1892 that such transactions should be carried through successfully to an object which would redound to the benefit of all. That is why we introduce the words "or may contribute." It is a phrase well known to the law. It is used in cases in which local bodies are allowed to assist certain institutions. If local bodies are allowed by the law to assist local corps to get ranges and drill grounds and sheds, then it is only reasonable that we should frame the Act in such a way as to secure the accomplishment of those objects. I intend in Committee to move an Amendment at the end of line 5, inserting the words "at the request and for the benefit of a Volunteer corps." I do not think that they are quite necessary, but as it stands the section may be misunderstood by hon. Members. They may think that the words "for military purposes" cover intentions which do not exist. All the previous legislation and the consolidating Act of 1892 contemplate such assistance being given only to Volunteer corps and Yeomanry corps. Yeomanry corps for the purpose of this legislation come in as they ought to come in as Volunteer corps, all the more since it is evident that the Yeomanry are becoming largely mounted infantry, and | not cavalry, and that the rifle will be their arm, and not the lance. In passing the legislation of this amending Bill, all we contemplate is the assistance of local Volunteer or Yeomanry corps by popularly elected bodies. As a matter of fact, they did exist in the earlier draft of the

897
Bill, but they were omitted under the idea that it might be possible to bring in rifle clubs under the scope of this legislation. That might be a desirable thing, but since there is no provision for rifle clubs in the earlier Acts to provide for the purchase of sites, it is not clear that we can graft them on in this amending Bill, and it will be necessary at a later date to introduce some special enactment for their benefit. Section 2 extends to urban districts the powers which are conferred on county councils and borough councils. Why not? Urban districts of the size of such places as Aston Manor, with a population of 69,000, or Rhondda Valley, with a population of 88,350, electing their own local bodies, should be allowed, if they please, to use the powers conferred upon them by Parliament for the object which Parliament has sanctioned over and over again during thirty-seven years. Section 4 re-enacts a section of the Artillery Rifle Ranges Act. It gives to the First Lord of the Admiralty the powers which were possessed under the previous legislation, and which will be possessed under this Bill by the Secretary of State. Section 5 is also a drafting section, and Section G avoids the necessity of passing a special enactment for each Provisional Order passed under the Military Lands Act, 1892, a necessity which has arisen from some obscurity in the drafting of the Act. Section 7 applies the Act to Scotland, and Section 8 provides that the measure is to be construed as part of the consolidating Act of 1892. The House will see that the measure, therefore, is strictly an amending Act to the consolidating Act of 1892. I think the House will feel that facilities ought to be given for the acquisition of rifle ranges, and that it is our duty to remedy defects, to grant the extensions which are necessary, if the objects contemplated in previous statutes are to be effectively attained.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Wyndham.)
MR. CALDWELL: I will not follow the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary through the previous legislation. I take my stand wholly upon the Military Lands Act of 1892, which, as he says, was a consolidating statute, and which is the existing law. A great deal of what the Under Secretary has said in
898
regard to the powers granted by previous Acts is not embraced within the Act of 1892. He has told us that nine-tenths of the powers asked for under this Bill are embraced in older Acts. If that is so, there is no need for these nine-tenths, but only for the remaining tenth. I would point out that there is nothing whatever in the Act of 1892 that gives the slightest countenance to the things proposed in this Bill. The Act of 1892 was a consolidating statute passed through this House at the end of a session, and, indeed, within a very few days of the prorogation. There was no discussion on it, and the only two Amendments made in Committee were moved on behalf of the Government—one formal, and the other to omit "etc." The legislation of 1892 was therefore the production of the Unionist Government itself, so that whatever praise or blame attaches to that Act attaches to Her Majesty's Government. If the Act has been faulty, that faulty legislation must be laid at the door of Her Majesty's Government. The Military Lands Act of 1892 only dealt with the acquisition of land for military purposes; and the Act defines what military purposes are. They include rifle and artillery ranges, the erection of butts, targets, batteries, and accommodation for the storing of arms for military drill, and other purposes connected with military matters approved by the Secretary of State for War. It is, however, important to note that the Act did not, and does not, authorise the acquisition of land by local authorities for butts, targets, batteries, drill-halls, or other permanent works. The parties who are authorised by that Act to acquire land for military purposes are, first, the Secretary of State for War, who, however, can always acquire all the land for military purposes that he requires. That power is unlimited, and there is no intention on the part of the opponents of this Bill to limit in any measure the power of the Secretary of State for War to erect what- ever works he considers necessary. The second body authorised to acquire land are Volunteer corps, with the consent of the Secretary of State; and the third, the council of a county or a borough, which may, at the request of one or more Volunteer corps, purchase and hold land in behalf of these Volunteer corps for military purposes. Now in the case of purchase by the Secretary of State the money is, of course, provided by Parlia-

899
ment, but in the case of purchase by Volunteer corps, the corps may raise the money by way of loan from the Public Works Loan Commission on the security of the land so acquired, and secondly on that of the grant to the corps provided by Parliament. Now the loans by the Public Works Loan Commissioners are to be repayable within a period of fifty years, and the interest is not to be more than 3½ percent., subject to Clause 1 of the Public Loans Act. There is no question as to my facts.
MR. WYNDHAM: I rely on the same facts, and I pointed out that this Bill gave reasonable extension.
MR. CALDWELL: Then as far as regards land acquired by the Secretary of State, no matter whether the land is acquired for military purposes or not, it is under the control of the Secretary of State, and he can make bye-laws for the protection of the public, etc., and, in short, have full control. Now when a Volunteer corps is disbanded, what is to become of the butts, and building, and the land? You find that when a Volunteer corps is disbanded, if they have acquired land for military purposes and put buildings upon the land, they have no interest whatever in those buildings or the land; the whole goes to the Secretary of State. So that you are asking a Volunteer corps to contribute money for a purpose for which they have the privilege of paying; but when the purpose is served and the land is sold they are to have no right to the money which they have advanced either for the purpose of acquiring the and or for erecting buildings upon it. Where land has been acquired by a Volunteer corps by means of a loan through the borough council, and the Volunteer corps is disbanded before the borough council can appropriate or sell the land, it must be offered to the original owner at a sum to be fixed by arbitration. And we all know perfectly well that on a price to be fixed by arbitration butts and embankments and other military objects which have ceased to be used will not be said to be of any value, but, on the contrary, will be said to depreciate the value of the land. The Act contemplates, of course, use by the public of the land when it is not required for military purposes, so that it will also form an open space, and there is always eventual value
900
in such a property when it ceases to be used for military purposes. Those are reasonable considerations why a local authority should embark in the process of purchasing land in a locality where the land would eventually be valuable to the locality, but butts, rifle ranges, embankments, and drill sheds for military purposes are of no use when they cease to be required for military purposes. There is not much risk to run in acquiring land for military purposes by an easy method of payment extending over fifty years; but it is quite a different thing to-do what this Bill proposes to do, to ask a Volunteer corps, on the faith of a local authority, to expend money in all these things, which, when they are no longer used, only depreciate the land, and not repay them the money they have advanced. There is one subject which the Under Secretary in his résumé did not deal with. He did not deal with the Bill of 1897. If he had looked at that Bill and the state in which it passed he might have seen something to call his attention to the reason why opposition to this Bill was likely to take place. As the Volunteers Act limited the Volunteers and borough councils to acquiring land, the present Government brought in a Bill which was practically word for word Clause 1 of this Bill. It was said that the only object of that Bill was to make plain the Act of 1892, which was meant to give powers to build as well as to acquire land. But the Bill of 1892 did not do that. Now what became of the Bill of 1897? It came up early in the session of 1897 and was opposed, and eventually, in order to get it through, the Government had to submit to a compromise which I had some little hand in carrying through, and the effect of that compromise was that they had to eliminate everything with regard to the councils that would place a penny of expense on the local rates. In that modified form the Government consented to take the Bill, and it passed through the House and it received the Royal Assent early in the session. That being the result of the Bill of 1897 brought in by the Government, can it be supposed that the people who strenuously opposed that Bill would not oppose this, which not only proposes to do everything that the Bill of 1897 did, but proceeds still further in the same direction? Clause 1 of this Bill not only reopens the whole of the questions in the

901
Bill of 1897, but Clauses 2, 3, and 4 introduce new matter of a highly controversial nature. I admire the courage of the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for War, but if the right hon. Gentleman the present Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, then Under Secretary for War, felt bound to abandon an attempt to burden the local rates in this manner, how does the present Under Secretary for War hope to carry through this Bill this session? The Volunteer corps, who may have contributed three-fourths or nine-tenths, are to have no share or interest whatever in the buildings the moment the corps is disbanded, or after the buildings have ceased to be used for military purposes. Will the Under Secretary of State for War tell us where the Volunteers get the funds for the erection of these buildings and butts? I think they will understand at the War Office, from the Estimates, what money is given for the purpose of erecting butts and targets for Volunteers. That is quite a distinct purpose, and if money is given for that purpose Parliament should give it directly. Let the land be in the name of the Secretary of State for War; let it be subject to his control, and let him be responsible. Supposing you do not get a shilling from a local authority or a Volunteer corps, what is to hinder you from coming to this House and getting every penny you require for the erection of butts, targets, or anything else for military purposes? That is the proper course, and one advantage of it is that you can take it with the most perfect confidence, without having to consult any local authority or without being influenced by any local authority in the matter. You can act in this matter quite independently, because you do not require to consider whether, as regards the site of a rifle range, a certain local body is willing to contribute so much money. Your duty is to consider, in the interest of the Volunteer corps, where the most suitable place would be for a rifle range or the other works for military purposes. I cannot understand where a Volunteer corps is to get the money. Is it to come out of their own money? I have heard complaints that the Volunteers got too little money and require more. I have never voted against any proposal to increase the Vote to the Volunteers; and it appears to me strange that we should have appeals for more money to the Volunteers, and at the same time attempt
902
to pass this Bill, the object of which is to impose on Volunteers the burden of providing rifle ranges and all these other things. There is also this to be said, that a Volunteer corps may hypothecate and pledge in security of their loan from the Public Works Loan Commissioners the Government grant-in-aid which is given for other purposes. Where can be the morality of a transaction of this sort? It puts me in mind of what was done in the case of Ireland, when grants-in-aid to local authorities for the poor and the insane were pledged in security of the payment of certain advances under the Land Purchase Act. That was always considered on this side of the House a most immoral thing to do. I venture to say that no grants are given to the Volunteers or anybody else except for necessary purposes. I find it is proposed that these grants may be pledged for a purpose altogether foreign to those for which the money was specially granted. Observe why this burden is placed on the Volunteers. Simply because it so happens that a certain community are very patriotic and loyal and raise one or more Volunteer corps. Because, forsooth, they happen to do that they are to be called upon to contribute more for military purposes, whilst other districts with an equal or greater population are not to be asked to contribute a single shilling of these expenses. The principle is utterly unsound. Then we come to the power to be conferred on the council of any county or borough. The principle is not a whit more defensible, where it is proposed that the council of any county or borough —
"May maintain and adapt for use, by the erection of buildings or otherwise, or may contribute towards the maintenance or adaptation for use of, any land held for military purposes, and for this purpose may borrow, [and the Public Works Loan Commissioners may lend] in like manner as they may [respectively] borrow [and lend] for the purpose of acquiring land under the Military Lands Act, 1892."
The land is not vested in the county or borough council at all, and it might eventually fall into the hands of the Secretary of State for War. Then they are to borrow the money on the security of the county rate or the borough rate. The purposes for which the money is to be applied are essentially military in their character. There is nothing local as regards its uses. It is rather strange to find this proposal to saddle local autho-

903
rities with the upkeep of things which are essentially for Imperial military purposes, when these local authorities receive out of the Imperial funds grants to mitigate the burden of the local rates. The people who stand in need of assistance for local purposes are to have handed over to them by this Bill a burden for works which are essentially of a military character. They are to be asked to bear this expense because they happen to be exceptionally loyal and patriotic in the way of raising Volunteer corps. They require rifle ranges for the purpose of making themselves efficient. The ranges are only useful to the Volunteers in training for the national defence. Are not the men giving their time and their leisure for the purpose of making themselves efficient? Yet you would say to them, "Oh, these things are being done for your benefit, and therefore you should pay part of the expense." There is one essential! thing with regard to all methods of local rating, and that is that the control of the purpose for which the rates are levied should remain with the local authority. That is why I called attention to the fact at an earlier part of my remarks that this land would be entirely under the control and at the mercy of the Secretary of State for War, and not under local control in any shape or form. You are asking the local authority to tax the ratepayers, while another body outside and independent of them will have the whole power over the expenditure of the money. The local authority will have no say. That is contrary to the principle of local government, which is that everything should be under the control of the representatives of the people in the local council. Clause 2 goes a great deal further than was proposed in 1897. It provides—
"The powers exerciseable by a borough council under the Military Lands Act, 1892, and this Act may he exercised by the council of any urban district, and any expenses incurred by the council of an urban district other than a borough in the execution of those powers shall be defrayed as part of their general expenses incurred in the execution of the Public Health Acts, and any money borrowed by the council for the execution of those powers shall be borrowed in accordance with the provisions of those Acts, and may be lent by the Public Works Loan Commissioners."
This power of the urban district council is open to all the objections I have stated with regard to the granting of similar powers to the council of a county or borough. But there is this further ob-
904
jection, that in the case of the urban district council the expenses are to be defrayed as public health expenses. I daresay the Under Secretary for War is aware of what the effect of that would be. All the moneys which may be borrowed for military purposes will be computed as part of the borrowings under the Public Health Act, with the result that the amount of the borrowing power, which is limited, under that Act to two years of the annual value of the property, may be eaten up for these military purposes, and nothing may be left for the necessary public health purposes. That shows that you will even put the military purposes before the necessary public health purposes. This Bill makes no provision whatever for consulting the parishioners on the question of the expenditure of the money. You put no limit to the borrowing powers, and in this case there is no limit to the extent to which a locality may be rated. The local rating has quite a different incidence of taxation from Imperial rating. In the case of local rating, under the present system you have to make land the assessable commodity, and, in England particularly, the rates are paid wholly by the occupier. There is therefore this curious result in the Bill, that in the case of an urban district council in England the rates will be paid wholly by the occupier, while in the case of Scotland the rates will be paid half by the owner and half by the occupier. If the country is being invaded, who gets the benefit of the defence against that invasion? Surely the owners of landed property and property of all kinds, as well as the occupiers, will got the benefit, and why should the burden of making provision for national defence be placed upon the occupiers only in the case of England? I take it that by giving this power to local authorities there is no intention of having anything done which is not necessary. We may therefore assume that these buildings are all necessary for military purposes. That being so, I ask on what principle the occupier only, the shopkeeper who pays an inordinate share of local rates, should be assessed in this way, while another man, who may have a large income, but only a small rateable value, pays a very small amount? National defence ought to be paid for out of the Imperial purse, in regard to which the contributions are

905
fixed upon the nation as a whole according to what Parliament in its wisdom thinks a proper division, without reference to local considerations. Obviously, the Imperial system of taxation is the best and fairest. Volunteer corps are having these ranges for the purpose of practising for the defence not of particular localities, but of the country as a whole, and there is not a single element of local needs in the matter. Clause 3 introduces a still more objectionable system, namely, that of hiring land—an altogether novel system—for military purposes. The land is to be hired under Sections 9 and 10 of the Local Government Act, 1894.
MR. WYNDHAMsaid it was proposed to omit that provision.
MR. CALDWELL: That certainly does away with that objection. In Clause 4 you introduce a principle which is somewhat novel in its character, and if a novel principle is introduced we expect that that principle should be introduced when there is ample opportunity for its discussion, and not at the tail end of a session. Some parts are, of course, quite unobjectionable. There is no objection to the Navy having the same powers of making bye-laws for lard acquired for naval purposes as the military authorities have, but you touch a most delicate matter when you begin to apply to the sea the same elements of power that you have upon land. If you interfere with any private right, it comes under the Lands Clauses Act; you take care that the landed proprietor shall get his full pound of flesh in such an event; but observe what is done when you deal with public rights. I venture to say the Under Secretary gave us no authority whatever for this mode of dealing with public rights on the sea. In Sub-section 4 "public right" is described as—
"the right of navigation, grounding, anchoring, fishing, bathing, walking, or recreation."
Fishing, for example, I think is most important.
MR. WYNDHAMsaid the words were already on the Statute-book.
MR. CALDWELL: I am referring to dealing with the sea.
MR. WYNDHAMreferred to the Act of 1885.
MR. CALDWELL: At any rate, under this Bill you claim rights of a most exten-
906
sive character as regards the sea. You do not limit yourselves to the three-mile limit; and you take powers to dispense with those permanent marks which are necessary under the military clause. The powers here sought may seriously affect fishermen, and it must be remembered that this Act applies not only to Scotland and England, but also to Ireland. How are the public rights of fishing and anchoring disposed of here? In the case of a man with a value of £50 at stake, he will get compensation under the Lands Clauses Act, but in the case of a public right of this kind, the whole thing will be given away by the approval of the Board of Trade. One Government Department is to sit in judgment on another Government Department; they may adjudicate upon and sign away the public interest to-morrow, as far as this Bill is concerned. Moreover, there is no redress. If ever there was a case for having a Provisional Order which should come before the House, this would be that case. It is not a case of emergency; it is a matter in which there is plenty of time to make your arrangements and to know your policy; you cannot acquire lands and erect buildings all in a day. It is altogether unreasonable to expect that the Board of Trade should have the right to interfere in this way with the sea and the use of the sea. All I have to say with regard to this Bill is this: that the Under Secretary of State for War seemed to think that if we refuse the powers asked for in this Bill, we will in some way impair the national defence. There never was a grosser mistake than that. The contention here is that if these military works are necessary they ought not to be provided at the expense of the local authority. If they are really necessary, then let the Government make their arrangements and come down to this House and ask for whatever they require for military purposes. The Government would then get the money without being hampered by any local authority, and it is absurd to say that if we reject this Bill we shall prevent the carrying out of any of these military requirements. My suggestion gives you the biggest purse, and we do not ask you to be hampered by the parsimony of any local authority in providing a rifle-butt which is not sufficient, but which is, perhaps, as much as their means will allow. Instead of relying upon the local authority, who ought not to contribute out of the rates, we ask you to

907
come to the Imperial purse and get any money you require. I move that the Bill be read a second time this day three months.
MR. HERBERT LEWIS: I rise to second this motion, for the purpose of getting a reply from the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary to the important points made by my hon. friend. Previous legislation of this kind has dealt only with land, but this Bill deals not only with land but also with the buildings on the land and other things which do not necessarily belong to the land. Such things ought to come within the purview of the Imperial Government, and should not be put upon local authorities. I entirely agree with my hon. friend when he says that he has not the least desire to minimise or prevent these facilities being given to local rifle corps. The object he has in view is that Imperial funds shall be applied for Imperial purposes, and that no demand should be made upon the local rates for objects which ought to be paid for out of the Imperial purse. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree that the House has made a most generous provision at all times whenever it has been called upon by the present Government for military purposes. I have heard that acknowledged over and over again. I have never opposed any provision whatever which has been made for the Volunteers, My own opinion is that the Government have done too little rather than too much for this very useful force. It is not in the faintest degree any opposition to the interests of the Volunteers that has actuated our opposition to this Bill; but, on the other hand, it is a desire that the Volunteer force shall not be crippled in any respect, because one cannot expect that local authorities will pay the same attention to Volunteer regiments as the Imperial authority is able to do. There is another point which my hon. friend raised, which I think deserves the attention of the House. For purposes of this kind we should have complete equality of taxation as between county and county and district and district. This duty is one which lies upon all, irrespective altogether of the place in which they live, and in cases of this kind it is only right that the common purse should be used. Another very important point made by my hon. friend was that the land would remain under the control of the Secretary
908
of State, and not in any way under the control of the local authority; and, moreover, if it ceased to be necessary to use the property, the council would only be able to obtain the unpaid instalments due upon it. There is another point which has also been very properly raised, and it is that money for these purposes will be raised under the Public Health Act, and as the borrowing powers of a council are limited under this Act, and as the purposes for which money is needed under this Act are continually increasing, it would unduly limit the borrowing capacity of an urban or county council if it was found necessary to borrow for military purposes under the Public Health Act. The hon. Member opposite hinted that we had a jealous mistrust of popularly elected bodies exercising these new powers. I should like to know where any jealous mistrust exists on this side of the House of the way in which popularly elected bodies use their powers? We have tried over and over again to obtain further powers for popularly elected bodies, and when the Local Government Act of 1888 was passing the House, attempt after attempt was made to enlarge the powers of local authorities by hon. Members on this side of the House. Therefore it is not from this side of the House that any jealous mistrust of that kind comes, but we do mistrust any raid upon the pockets of the local ratepayers for purposes of this kind. It was certainly not from this side of the House that any opposition came to place the whole of the police entirely under the control of local authorities. We do not jealously mistrust these local authorities, but what we say is that it is not the business of these local authorities to spend money for this particular purpose. We say, moreover, that there are certain powers now exorcised by the local authorities which ought to be taken over by the Imperial authority. For instance, there is the work of port sanitary authorities, which really does not belong to the local authorities at all, but belongs more properly to the Imperial Government. We consider that local authorities stand in such need of assistance that we give thorn £12,000,000 or £13,000,000 a year by way of aiding the local rates. The policy now proposed is inconsistent, and for military purposes strictly Imperial in their character the local purse ought not to be drawn upon. There is one other matter to which I

909
should like to draw the attention of the House for one moment. I was glad that the hon. Gentleman stated that the Bill is to refer only to Volunteers, and for these particular purposes. The position we take up with regard to this Bill is simply that the demand which the Government now make upon the House is to enable local authorities to do work which ought to be done by the Imperial Parliament out of the Imperial Treasury. It is neither just nor fair to call upon local authorities to do this work. At times of great and patriotic excitement there is nobody who wishes to refuse anything that is asked for in this House, and it is the duty of the Imperial Government to carry out this work. We are willing to do all you ask us in order to make the Volunteer force more efficient, and you are not likely, so far as I am concerned, to meet with the slightest difficulty in that direction. I think you might do a great deal more for the Volunteer force to make it effective, but I venture to say that such a proposal as this is not the right way to go about it. Work of this kind should not be put upon local authorities, and matters of Imperial concern ought to be dealt with by the Imperial Parliament.
Amendment proposed—
"To leave out the word ' now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words ' upon this day three months.'"—(Mr. Caldwell.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
MR. MONK: I rise for the purpose of expressing my great satisfaction with the Government for bringing in this Bill, and I hope it is their intention to carry it into law. I have listened for a good hour to the speech of the hon. Member for Mid Lanark, and I confess that I was greatly surprised at his line of argument. The hon. Member who has just seconded the motion took a similar line of argument, which is to the effect that the Government ought to provide for everything which is required for the Volunteer corps. For years past the Volunteers throughout the country have been asking the Government for assistance in providing rifle ranges, and two years ago a little flutter was caused when the Government brought in and passed an Act in which provision was made for acquiring rifle ranges in different parts of the country. When, however, the Volunteers
910
asked for a portion of the money allotted for them they were met with this answer—namely, that the whole of that sum would have to be expended in providing rifle ranges for the use of the regular forces. In many parts of the country, and in the county of Gloucester especially, the rifle ranges are far too distant from the head quarters of the Volunteer corps. I heard with great satisfaction from my hon. friend this afternoon that a further sum of £130,000 is to be applied for the purpose of providing rifle ranges for Volunteers. In the case of the rifle corps in my own county, the corporation of the city I have the honour to represent expressed their desire to co-operate with the Government as far as possible in providing these rifle ranges, and I was astonished to hear hon. Gentlemen opposite expressing reluctance to authorise the local authorities to assist in providing ranges. They seem to overlook the fact that the local authorities are under no obligation to take action under this Bill, but I cannot understand on what ground hon. Gentlemen opposite refuse to grant to the elected representatives of district urban councils and town councils permission, under the authority of Parliament, to assist in providing these ranges. I only desire to express the hope that the Government will pass this Bill, for I am sure that the step they have taken is one which will be greatly appreciated by the Volunteers throughout the country.
MR. MAURICE HEALY: I do not rise to take part in this debate because I feel the smallest interest in the subject of the Volunteer force, or the rifle ranges with which they are to be provided. The Government are afraid to permit Volunteers being established in Ireland, and accordingly, so far as this Bill deals with Volunteers, it has not the smallest interest for me. The reason I take part in this debate is that on a former occasion when this House took an opportunity of dealing with this subject of rifle ranges for Volunteers the War Office played what I can only describe as a very despicable trick on the public of the three kingdoms, and especially of the country to which I belong. I am not in the habit of using excessive language, but I think when the House hears what was done on that occasion it will not be astonished that I have characterised it as I have. In 1891 one of the most im-

911
portant of these Acts was passed. It was called "An Act to facilitate the acquisition of ranges by Volunteer corps and others," and any Irish Member reading that title, and knowing as we all know that Volunteers are impossible in Ireland, might well have assumed that the Bill had no application to Ireland, and also that it only dealt with the subject of rifle ranges and nothing else. What are the facts? Under that Act the War Office, in breach of the rules of this House, and in breach of the confidence which should exist between Members of the House and the Government, introduced a section depriving the public of these kingdoms for the first time of having the compensation, to which they were entitled when their property was taken away from them by the Crown, fixed by a jury. Until that Act was passed, when the Crown interfered with private property and took it over for rifle ranges or for any other purpose of military defence, it was the right of the subject) to have the compensation to which he was entitled assessed by a jury of his countrymen, but into this Bill facilitating the acquisition of ranges for Volunteer corps a clause was introduced not limited to rifle ranges, but enabling the War Department, whenever they took property in any part of the United Kingdom for any purpose, to have the compensation assessed, not by a jury, but in another mode, and that section was applied to Ireland. When the War Office had to take a large tract of land in the county of Cork from the statutory tenant, who, under the Land Act, has practically a fee-simple subject to a rent, they proposed to have the amount of compensation assessed by two paid removable magistrates, paid employees of the Government, who might be dismissed at a moment's notice.
MR. SPEAKER: I do not find any; reference to the Act of 1891 in this Bill.
MR. MAURICE HEALY: Oh, yes, Sir; I shall show that what I am saying is perfectly relevant.
MR. WYNDHAM: The Act of 1891 was repealed by the Act of 1892.
MR. MAURICE HEALY: That is the! point. It was repealed save the one clause to which I have been referring, and which was foisted into a Bill with which it had nothing to do, thereby practising a fraud
912
on the House and the country. I say respectfully that these Military Land Bills are becoming a public nuisance and a public danger. We never seem to be done with them. They began to be passed in 1842, and I will not venture to say how many of them have been passed since then. But it now appears to be the practice that we are to have a Military Lands Bill every session, just as we have an Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. When are we to be done with them? Very few people are acquainted with them. The average Member of Parliament cannot be supposed to understand them, and neither can the average lawyer, because they do not come within the scope of his ordinary practice, and when one of these Military Land Bills is introduced no one except a member of the Government has any cognisance of what it may contain. It is that which enables the War Department to practise its deceit on the House of Commons and the country, as was perpetrated in the Act of 1891. I think we are entitled to ask that the last word should some time or other be said on the subject of taking land from private owners in a compulsory manner for the purposes of military defence. About thirty of these Acts have been passed, and the unfortunate lawyer who is concerned with the subject has to wade through them all. It is not a subject that is treated in the ordinary textbooks, and the lawyer who has to deal with a case has perhaps to read twenty or thirty of these Acts before he knows how the rights of his client may be affected. Why do we not have one single Act, compressed into a reasonable compass and in an accessible form, showing the powers of the Government on the subject? It is a matter in which we in Ireland are very deeply interested. I asked the Financial Secretary of the War Office a question about a project for taking some four miles of territory in the heart of the county Cork for an addition to the Kilworth rifle range. We did not object to these ranges being set up in Cork, although they involved a considerable displacement of the people, but surely there must be some limitation. As I understood the hon. Gentleman, the original proposal would bring about the eviction of about thirty to forty families. That may be very well in England, because when a farmer is turned out of his land he gets compensation, and he can invest his money in a way that will bring him his living. But in Ireland, when a

913
man is turned out of his holding, he has nothing to do but go to America. When I asked the hon. Gentleman a question on the subject he first contradicted me flatly, and if I had not had some acquaintance with the matter, I would have been deceived by his denial, although I am sure he did not intend that.
THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS,): The hon. Gentleman is referring to an answer I gave him a little while ago, and I then informed him that it was never intended to permanently purchase for the purpose of a rifle range the land near Kilworth to which he refers.
MR. MAURICE HEALY: My complaint is that the answer of the hon. Gentleman would have had the effect of deceiving me if I had not been acquainted with the subject, and I venture to say that when Members of this House ask questions they ought to expect answers giving full information, and not answers which amount to a deceit upon them, though of course the hon. Gentleman did not intend that result. There ought to be no hugger-mugger about taking four miles of land for military purposes, and when questions are asked they ought to be answered frankly, and we should not be put off with an answer such as that given to me by the hon. Gentleman at first. He gave me further information when he saw I had it already, but if I had not had it I would have been deceived by the flat denial he gave mo. I am sure it was a truthful answer, but it was an answer which had the effect of an untruth, and that is not the sort of answer I desire to get. That illustrates in a remarkable way the difficulties which are involved in these Bills. I will give another illustration of the hardship under which the subject is placed by these Military Land Bills. When the Crown proceeds to take land, litigation is in effect set up between the subject and the Government. The Government can command the best legal advice, whereas the unfortunate occupant whose property is being taken away may be very poor, and even absolutely destitute. That man is placed in a position of being a litigant against the Crown. In a particular case I have in my mind, one of the litigants against the Crown succeeded in establishing in the Queen's Bench in Ireland that
914
the procedure set on foot by the Crown was wholly wrong, and that the Crown were not entitled to do what they were attempting. If an ordinary litigant proceeds against me, and I succeed, I am entitled to get my costs; but when I am a litigant against the Crown the Crown is fighting on velvet, and even if I succeed I cannot get any costs, but if the Crown wins it gets its costs against the subject. I intend for my part to take every opportunity which this Bill will afford to endeavour to effect some reform in this branch of the law. It is quite time some check were put on the extraordinary powers now exercised by the War Office. They are able to fight with all the resources of the Treasury at their back, and when an ordinary litigant gets the advantage of them, and is proved to be right, he nevertheless has to pay his own costs.
SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I desire to say one word as regards this Bill, not only as a Volunteer —in which capacity I support it in the strongest possible manner—but also as one of the Members representing a great corporation. My right hon. friend the Member for the Ecclesall Division, and myself, have been requested by the Corporation of Sheffield to do all we can to obtain all possible facilities for supporting and encouraging the Volunteers. The Corporation of Nottingham and other corporations have also recognised that it is their duty, if they possibly can, to give facilities for the drill exercise and rifle shooting of Volunteers within their districts. Many of the residents in the great towns are now anxious to follow that example, and to do away with the scandal of having a great force in this country without adequate provision for drill, and without convenient rifle ranges, at a time when so much depends on the accuracy of rifle shooting. The rifle ranges are now removed too far from the Volunteers, and are difficult of access. They do not afford sufficient scope for the use of modern arms, and there is not sufficient space behind the targets. I think landowners are now anxious to fall in with public sentiment, and much must be done in this direction if we are to amend our position. There is something to be said for the suggestion of the hon. Member for Cork that the Government ought to incorporate all these Acts in one compre-

915
hensive measure. We are grateful to the Government for having recognised what has been so often impressed on them—that facilities should be given for the training and exorcise of Volunteer corps, and that no impediment should be placed in the way of any of the great corporations of the country advancing money for such a desirable, useful, and patriotic purpose. I beg to thank the hon. Gentleman who has introduced this Bill. I trust the Government will persevere with it and that on no account will they consent to any modification in any essential particular.
MR. CHANNING: I should like to say a few words on this Bill, as I have repeatedly drawn attention to the necessity for making provision for the rifle practice of the Volunteers. The hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just spoken speaks on behalf of a very wealthy corporation, and a corporation which has a direct interest in the Volunteer movement. I do not wish to reflect in any way on the patriotism of Sheffield, but it is perfectly obvious that in that corporation there may be rather a strong feeling in favour of the expenditure of public money on the Volunteer movement.
SIR HOWARD VINCENT: We do not make rifles. We ought to, but we do not.
MR. CHANNING: Perhaps I may have stretched that argument further than it is worth, but hon. Gentlemen will see that possibly a corporation like Sheffield may have a motive in aiding the Volunteers which may not exist in other parts of the country. It seems to me that we ought to consider other parts of the country, and reflect what would be the result, or rather the failure to produce any result, of a Bill like this. I imagine in many agricultural districts there will be great reluctance to call upon the rates for these purposes, and also in many of the heavily rated towns throughout the country. What I have already said will show the Under Secretary for War that I am not out of sympathy with the proposals of the Bill, so far as they go towards extending the power of the local authorities. But it seems to me that the proper form in which to pass a Bill of this nature would be to introduce amendments enabling the Exchequer to make
916
such advances as may be necessary to facilitate the provision of ranges wherever they may be needed. I do not think this Bill will be worth the paper on which it is printed in a great many parts of the country if there is no Imperial subvention to it. I admit we may do this as a matter of local duty to a certain extent, but surely the main argument we have to consider is the extension of the Volunteer movement as an effective instrument for the defence of the country. I therefore say that my hon. friend the Member for Mid Lanark was amply justified in urging the necessity of providing out of public funds for this purpose. Owing to the continuous increase in land values it is impossible for Volunteers to provide these ranges for themselves, and even local authorities may find it difficult, owing to the rapidly increasing value of land. The upshot therefore will probably be that where there are no rich corporations like Sheffield, nothing will be done in the matter, and it seems to me that it is an Imperial duty to do what we can to assist the Volunteer movement. I have always fought against the idea of treating the Volunteer movement as merely a means of providing a certain number of men who may be turned into useful recruits for the regular Army. The Volunteers ought to be treated as an integral part of our system of defence, and developed on those lines. Having regard to these facts, the plain duty of the Government is to introduce a clause providing that the Exchequer shall aid the local authorities in these matters. So far as I am aware, in the provision made last year, nothing was done beyond making an additional allowance to enable Volunteers to attend rifle ranges, and, in the emergency scheme of February last, aid was to be given as to transport and new guns, but not as to ranges.
COLONEL PILKINGTON: I hope the Government will pass this Bill. As regards Sheffield and other districts we must remember that the bulk of the Volunteer force is recruited from such large centres of population. This Bill is really to enable local bodies to provide, or assist in providing, rifle ranges, drill halls, and drill grounds. Very often corporations or local authorities have the means, without any or with hardly any expense to themselves, to assist in providing these. I know one place, with which I am intimately con-

917
nected, where something like twenty acres have been provided, the use of which is to be given for drilling the Volunteers at such times and hours as may be convenient to the corporation. There is another direction in which the Volunteer force may be assisted. If an individual, endowed with public spirit, may assist his country by providing rifle ranges and drill halls, why should not the community be allowed, if they feel the same spirit, to grant that encouragement to the Volunteers? It is thought that the rifle meeting at Bisley this year has not been what it should be because the rifle ranges throughout the country have not been equal to the requirements of the force. It seems to me that this is a practical enabling measure, and I trust that it will be unanimously and quickly passed through the House.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I am not surprised that my hon. friend behind me should have made an elaborate onslaught on this Bill. In the first place, the Bill is of a somewhat confused character, and it shares the charm of a good deal of the legislation to which we are accustomed nowadays, in that it embodies so much reference to one statute and another. There is so much cryptographic matter in the whole of our legislation that it is very difficult for plain men to understand what it all means; and I am bound to say, even after the hon. Gentleman's speech, that I do not altogether understand this Bill. At the same time my hon. friend was very naturally led to point to one result of this kind of legislation—namely, that it tends to place a portion of national defence in a somewhat undue degree on certain shoulders while securing immunity for others. Sheffield may be taken as an example. Sheffield is very patriotic, enterprising, and enthusiastic, and it is willing to spend money on the Volunteers. In doing this the town voluntarily, and in a, praiseworthy spirit, makes a contribution to the defence of these islands which is greater in proportion than it ought to be called upon to pay. The expenses of the Volunteers ought to be a national and Imperial cost, as far as it falls upon the public at all, and not a local cost. I have always thought that it was rather a shabby thing to say to localities, when they were claiming to be defended by forts and fixed defences, that they should subscribe or show that they were willing
918
to bear a part of the cost of the defence works. I know that that argument was used to the city of Edinburgh, and I have always thought, although I have used it myself, that it was an extraordinary argument to employ. Probably the same thing might be said of my hon. friend's indictment of this Bill. But at the same time I hope that my hon. friend will not divide the House against the Bill. I would press upon him this fact, that the action taken by the municipalities and public bodies is entirely voluntary; if they do not choose to take part in this public service to the Volunteers they need not do so. That takes away the greater part of the sting of his attack. There may be defects in the Bill which can be cured or modified, but in the main I think that the House generally will sympathise with the general object of the Bill. It is somewhat singular to find that in 1897 this identical proposal was put forward by the Government, and at the very hey-day of the session they were obliged to drop it owing to the strong feeling against it. This feeling does not appear to be so strong in the present dog days. My attitude towards the Bill I must confesses is that I think this is not the time for the House to deal with a comparatively small matter; that the War Office would be much better employed with the heavy duties connected with actual warfare, and that the Department might very well leave these legislative proposals to be dealt with in quieter times. That is my view, and it applies to this Bill as well as to others. But the Bill, owing to its purely voluntary character, is not likely to cause any great injustice in any part of the kingdom. If it does anything to facilitate the training and increase the efficiency of the Volunteers, then I think that these are objects which the House as a whole will be ready to further and aid.
MR. WYNDHAM: I feel I must express my obligations to the right hon. Gentleman for having given me practically his support in the passage of this measure. I know that he includes this in a certain category of Bills, which he tells us we ought not to have undertaken at this time. He says these are small measures, and they should be postponed till after the war is over, and until we can address ourselves to the task of making the British Army adequate to any calls that can be made upon it. I do

919
not think that argument ought to weigh much. It reminds me of a practice which I myself often indulge in—namely, of putting off writing letters on Monday because I have to prepare a speech for; Tuesday. The best way of placing the Government in a proper position to deal with the grave questions to be faced, is to pass amending Bills to ensure perfect legislation of the character which has been described. It is true that the Bill contains a great deal of legislation by reference. It refers back to the Military Lands Act of 1892, and that refers to the Lands Clauses Compensation Act and various others. I admit that I have often denounced legislation by reference, but I have become somewhat converted to the practice, and I think that there is a great deal to be said for it. After all, the powers of purchasing and borrowing possessed by the local bodies are familiar to them; they know the provisions in the Act under which they exercise these powers, and it is far more simple to refer the authorities back to the Acts than to recite the same powers over again. If you recite them over again you sometimes raise a doubt. In law, as in. travel, the shortest way is the way you know. If I am to meet the objections urged by the hon. Member for Mid Lanark I would only repeat the arguments which I ventured to submit earlier in the afternoon. I do not think that as things are it can be fairly urged that the whole cost of the efficiency of the Volunteers should necessarily be borne by the taxpayers, and that no part should be borne by the ratepayers. Certainly the Government, as representing the taxpayer, ought to see that every corps should have reasonable access to a range; but many corps and many councils wish for more than that. They wish the annual camp, perhaps, to be in the park near the town, and they wish to have a range near that park; and the mayor and corporation come to the Government and say: "We are quite prepared to spend a certain amount of money in providing a range if you will allow the Volunters and the Yeomanry to come out and camp in the park." There is the consideration for both parties, and why should not each party pay for such consideration as it asks for? I am authorised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say that £70,000 of the taxpayers' money will be found for the scheme, and local authorities will contribute the other £70,000
920
for advantages received. That is my defence of the principle which underlies the Bill, and I must adhere to my opinion.
MR. T. M. HEALY: I observe the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for War has sat down without making a single observation in regard to the charges of oppression made under the Consolidating Military Lands Act in Ireland. It is all very fine for you to bring in a Bill dealing with your own country, and with your own affairs, and it is all very fine for you to be patriotic, but why should you rob us? That is precisely what the Military Lands Act has done ever since it was first passed. It is a remarkable fact that this is a Bill which nobody can understand. Certainly it is the first time I have known you, Mr. Speaker, to have arrived at a ruling that a, Bill was so badly drawn that the Speaker could not understand it. That is what has happened in the course of this debate, and the Under Secretary for War should give up the system of legislation by reference. I ask the hon. Gentleman why is it that in all the operations connected with these Acts in Ireland a desire is evinced to plunder the people of the whole of the lands taken for military purposes, while in England you are prepared to give forty to forty-five years purchase for lands similarly acquired. In Ireland the state of the law is that you provide two removable magistrates to assess the price of the land to be taken from the tenants. You might as well, if a railway company is to take land in England, appoint two railway porters at random to fix the price of the land compulsorily taken for the railway. Why should we tolerate the extension of this system in Ireland? Not long ago foursquare miles were taken from the Curragh of Kildare. That was an act of public plunder, and the people who had had for centuries the; rights of grazing on the Curragh were not paid a single shilling of compensation. I suppose that can be defended on the grounds of public policy! The meanness of the procedure was also exhibited in the case of the compulsory acquisition of one of the most beautiful spots in Wicklow, belonging to Mr. Stuart Moore. I asked twenty questions in this House on the subject before Mr. Moore, although he is a Unionist, could get the compensation to which he was entitled. Then there was the case of Bere Island, taken by the

921
Admiralty. The right of the tenants to compensation was to be decided by two removable magistrates, but it was actually subsequently laid down in a superior court that the Government were wrong in that particular procedure, although no costs were given against the Crown. Is it to be supposed that we in Ireland should agree to pass a measure of this kind, which has a different operation in Ireland from what it has in this country? One of the principal clauses of the Act was drawn in consequence of an Irish decision. I would like to ask the hon. Gentleman, does he understand Clause 6?
MR. WYNDHAM: Yes.
MR. T. M. HEALY: The hon. Gentleman does understand it! Well, I should, like to read it to the House—
"Notwithstanding anything in Section 2 of the Military Lands Act, 1892, the period of three years mentioned in Section 123 of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, shall be calculated from the passing of the Act confirming any Provisional Order under the Military Land's Act, 1892, and not from the passing of the Military Lands Act, 1892."
And the right hon. Gentleman understands that? Well, I congratulate him. To a certain extent I understand it myself, because it was drawn in consequence of a decision upon a point raised in Ireland in respect to the taking of land, but I do not believe that any person, except a specialist like the hon. Gentleman upon this point, could understand that section. One would gather from the Bill that it docs not apply to Ireland, because it begins by saying, "In the application to Scotland the following provision shall have effect." There is not a word about Ireland. It deals entirely with Volunteers, and as there are no Volunteers in Ireland one would naturally assume that it did not apply to Ireland. But the proposition I would make is this. Give us back trial by jury when you take our land for military purposes. We do not want our lands to be taken at all, but if you do take them do not take them at twenty years purchase as you have done in the past, take them at thirty-five years purchase. Let us have the benefit of English arbitration with its 10 per cent. Give us back the old right we had ten years ago, when land was taken under the Lands Clauses Act—the power to traverse before a jury. I notice that whenever the Lands Clauses Act is referred to in this case it is the English
922
Lands Clauses Act and not the Irish Lands Clauses Act at all. Is it a fact that you are not going to take three square miles of land at Glenbeigh such as you stated you would take from the county council because, if it is, why do you not write a letter to the county council saying that the land is no longer necessary, and ease the minds of these poor people who are expecting to be evicted? Have you done so? It was not done up to Saturday. You have not had the courtesy to do that. No doubt, in this House, Ministers can be courteous when they think their whole time will be taken up; but go down to Glenbeigh when they are beginning gun practice and laying their big guns—there we get scant courtesy. No human being is allowed to show his nose in the whole of that magnificent glen, which has been taken from us. The offers made upon which you take the land of Ireland do not show the consideration which you show in England. You select any part of the country which pleases you; you do not care a button for the people or their struggling sons, or whether it is a pleasure ground like the Curragh, which you took. If it pleases you, you take it. I can quite understand that if you occasionally purchased as much as a pocket-handkerchief for your troops in Ireland, the objection would not be so great; but you do not. The whole of your military system is supplied from this country; of the £50,000,000 you have spent for South Africa, not a farthing has been spent in Ireland; you have not bought so much as a biscuit. Then why should you buy Irish land so cheap? Give us back our trial by jury. Give us the privilege which the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself enjoyed, of selling land at thirty-five years purchase. We shall move to this Bill Amendments restoring the procedure of the Lands Clauses Act, and endeavour to give the people of Ireland some of the protection which it is desired to give. It is of no consequence to us what Government is in power in Ireland. If Ireland was invaded by the Chinese or the Turks it could not be governed in a worse manner than it is by the system which you have forced upon us, and which has been a curse to us from the first day you landed on our shores.
MR. JASPER MOREsaid that the owners of the land at Kilworth, taken for military purposes,

923
were perfectly satisfied with the price paid by the Government.
SIR JAMES JOICEYconfessed his inability to fully comprehend all the clauses of the Bill, but to the object of it he gave his general support. The company with which he was associated had always taken a very great interest in the Volunteer movement, and they had a great many in their employ who were Volunteers, and they found that owing to the habits of discipline which they acquired they made the best workmen. It was a scandal that the burden of supporting such a magnificent institution should be allowed to fall upon individuals, and he was not satisfied with the Bill as it stood, and
it was possible that he would support some of the Amendments which would be moved in the course of the Committee stage, as he was somewhat alarmed at the idea of the local authorities having the power to take any land they might consider suitable for rifle ranges. There was a considerable element of danger in rifle ranges, and he thought some safeguards ought to be introduced in the Bill to insure that any land that might be taken for rifle ranges would be taken in such places as would reduce the element of danger to the public as much as possible.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 186; Noes, 47. (Division List No. 230.)

AYES.

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.

Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

Allsopp, Hon. George

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Lowe, Francis William

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

Donkin, Richard Sim

Lowles, John

Atkinson, Right Hon. John

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Lowther, Rt. Hon. J. (Kent)

Baillie, James E. B.(Inverness

Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. Hart

Lucas-Shadwell, William

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

Elliot. Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Macartney, W. G. Ellison

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

Evans, Sir Francis H. (South'ton)

Macdona, John Cumming

Banbury, Frederick George

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.

Maclure, Sir John William

Barnes, Frederic Gorell

Finch, George H.

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

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

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

M'Ewan, William

Bartley, George C. T.

Firbank, Joseph Thomas

M'Iver, Sir L. (Edinburgh, W.)

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

Fisher, William Hayes

Malcolm, Ian

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose

Maple, Sir John Blundell

Bethell, Commander

Fitz Wygram, General Sir F.

Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)

Bill, Charles

Flower, Ernest

Mendl, Sigismunde Ferdinand

Billson, Alfred

Garlit, William

Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Giles, Charles Tyrrell

Monckton, Edward Philip

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Eldon

Monk, Charles James

Bonsor, Henry Cosmo Orme

Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

Montagu, Sir Samuel (Whitec'l)

Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex)

Goulding, Edward Alfred

More, R. Jasper (Shropshire)

Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn)

Gunter, Colonel

Morgan, Hn. Fred.(Monm'thsh)

Brassey, Albert

Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord George

Morrison, James A. (Wilts, S.)

Butcher, John George

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford)

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

Haslett, Sir James Horner

Murray, Rt. Hon. A. G. (Bute)

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

Hayne, Rt. Hon. C. Seale-

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Hedderwick, Thomas Chas. H.

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)

Hehler, Augustus

Myers, William Henry

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Henderson, Alexander

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Bir.)

Hermon-Hodge, K. Trotter

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

Holland, William Henry

Oldroyd, Mark

Channing, Francis Allston

Hornby, Sir William Henry

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Horniman, Frederick John

Palmer, Sir C. M. (Durham)

Charrington, Spencer

Houldsworth, Sir William H.

Pease, Herbert P. (Darlington)

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Howell, William Tudor

Philipps, John Wynford

Coddington, Sir William

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Jones, David Brynmor (Sw'ns'a)

Pilkington, R. (Lancs. Newton)

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Keswick, William

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Kimber, Henry

Plunkett, Rt. Hon. H. Curzon

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Lafone, Alfred

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Cooke, C. W. Radcliffe (Heref'd)

Lawrence, Sir E. Durning-(Corn)

Purvis, Robert

Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W

Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

Pym, C. Guy

Cox, Irwin Edw. Bainbridge

Lecky, Rt. Hon. Wm. Edw. H.

Rankin, Sir James

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton)

Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn-(Swans'a)

Remnant, James Farquharson

Curzon, Viscount

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A.R.

Rickett, J. Compton

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir Matthew W.

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. Thomson.

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

Welby, Sir C. G. E. (Notts.)

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

Samuel, H. S. (Limehouse)

Strachey, Edward

Whiteley, H.(Ashton-under-L.)

Sandys, Lieut.-Col. T. Myles

Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Uni.)

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Savory, Sir Joseph

Tennant, Harold John

Williams, Joseph P.- (Birm.)

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Thornton, Percy M.

Willoughy de Eresby, Lord

Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Wodehouse, Rt. Hon. E. R.(Bath)

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks)

Tritton, Charles Ernest

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

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

Vincent, Col. Sir C E H (Sheffield)

Wylie, Alexander

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Wallace, Robert

Wyndham, George

Spencer, Ernest

Walton, John Lawson (Leeds S.)

Young, Gommander (Berks, E.)

Stanley, Sir Henry M. (Lambeth)

Warde, Lieut.-Col. C. K.(Kent)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Steadman, William Charles

Warr, Augustus Frederick

Sir William Walrond and

Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

Welby, Lt. Col. A. C. E (Taunt'n)

Mr. Anstruther.

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

Reid, Sir Robert Threshie

Allison, Robert Andrew

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

Joicey, Sir James

Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

Blake, Edward

Tones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.)

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)

Spicer, Albert

Burns, John

Lewis, John Herbert

Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Lough, Thomas

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

Caldwell, James

Macaleese, Daniel

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

Cameron, Robert (Durham)

MacDonnell, Dr. M. A. (Qn'sC.)

Wedderburn, Sir William

Clark, Dr. G. B.

M'Dermott, Patrick

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Crombie, John William

M'Ghee, Richard

Wilson, Charles Henry (Hull)

Doogan, P. C.

M'Leod, John

Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

Fenwick, Charles

Maddison, Fred.

Yoxail, James Henry

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Hammond, John (Carlow)

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Mr. T. M. Healy and

Healy, Maurice (Cork)

Power, Patrick Joseph

Mr. Patrick O'Brien.

Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.

VOLUNTEERS BILL [Lords.]
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. J. W. LOWTHER, Cumberland, Penrith, in the Chair.]
Clause 1:—
CAPTAIN SINCLAIR CAPTAIN SINCLAIR (Forfarshire), said that upon the Amendment which was down on the Paper in his name it was not necessary to reiterate the arguments that were adduced against the Bill on the Second Reading. He had hoped that the hon. Gentleman would have seen his way not to have proceeded with this Bill at all this session. He had no desire to impede any measure which could be shown to be useful to the Volunteer or military forces of the country, but the change which was proposed in this clause was far greater than any which had on the two previous occasions been suggested, in principle if not in words. On both those occasions the matter had
926
been considered and the proposal was not pressed. Upon the present occasion the suggestion was that the same words should be used in the case of the Volunteer Act as were used in the Militia and the Reserve Forces Acts which regulate the calling out of those forces. But the Volunteer force was upon an entirely different footing. The Volunteers were entirely for home defence, and the Militia and Army Reserve, whose duty it was to supplement and strengthen the first line of defence of the. country, could not be considered in any way to be in the same category as the Volunteers. The object of the clause was to apply the words which were used in the Acts governing those forces to the use of the Volunteer Act. The words "actual or apprehended invasion" covered every possible emergency for which it might be necessary to call out the Volunteers, at least there was no evidence to the contrary. There was evidence that the words were considered from that point of view when the Volunteer Act of 1863 was brought in, and evidence had been adduced in the debate upon the National Defence Act of 1888, and also in the discussion which took place in 1895, in the direction of showing that after full consideration it was decided and determined that those

927
words which it was now proposed to change were the most appropriate words for the Volunteer Act, and therefore should never be changed. The first attempt to alter the position of the Volunteer force in recent years was in the National Defence Bill of 1888. That contained a clause which practically applied to the Volunteer force the Militia Act. Any one referring to the discussion upon the measure would find that the wishes of the Government then were precisely the same as they were now—namely, to apply the Militia Act to the Volunteers. The proposals received considerable discussion in this House, and exception to those words was taken by the late Sir E. Hamlin, who pointed out that there was no utility in suggesting that there might be other circumstances in which the Volunteers might be required, because those were not circumstances which were applicable to the Volunteers, though they might be to the Militia and Army Reserve forces. It was necessary to recollect that the Volunteers were for home defence, and it was only for that purpose that that force was to be regarded. He pointed out the great danger which might arise as to the efficiency, strength and popularity of the Volunteers if without very deliberate and careful consideration the burden of liability upon them was increased. It could not be too strongly emphasised that the Volunteer force depended for its strength upon its popularity, consisting as it did of civilians who had to depend for their living upon their daily work, and an irreparable injury might be done to the force if the great burden of the Militia service was laid upon them. The result of the discussion in 1888 was that the proposal was dropped because it received so little encouragement in this House. The next occasion on which this matter came before the House was in connection with the Bill of 1895. That Bill was one of the consequences of the Committee to which the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for War alluded on the Second Reading of this Bill. The Committee sat in 1894, under the presidency of the Financial Secretary of the War Office of the late Government, and considered a number of matters in connection with the Volunteers. To make a long story short, just as the Government of 1888 refused to proceed in the direction contemplated by this Bill, so did the
928
Government of 1895, even after consideration of the subject by the Committee which sat in the previous year. There was every evidence to show that the Government of that day and the Financial Secretary had considered what steps they should take, and how far they should go in regard to laying further liabilities on the Volunteer force. On that subject the then Under Secretary for War said—
"The Secretary of State, after consulting his advisers, especially those responsible for the administration of the reserve forces, came to the conclusion that it would be inexpedient to render the Volunteers liable to be called upon except in the most urgent circumstances."
He went on to say that it appeared very important to the Government that they should preserve the voluntary character of the Volunteer force, and that the conditions under which they should be required to render military service should be restricted. The Government of 1895 proposed that the Secretary of State for War should be empowered to accept service on the part of individuals or any part of a corps "in case of imminent national danger or emergency." That was the extent to which they were prepared to go. On that occasion the Liberal Government received the support of more than one distinguished Volunteer officer on the other side of the House. The hon. Member for Lewes cordially supported his right hon. friend the Financial Secretary in the action that the Government then took in this most important matter, and the hon. Member for Hereford, who took part in the debate, heartily endorsed the policy of the Government in proceeding cautiously and tentatively in regard to the laying of further liabilities on the Volunteers. He did not know what might be the opinion of those hon. Gentlemen at the present time. He was perfectly certain there would be very little difficulty on either side in proceeding to the consideration of any careful scheme that might render the Volunteer service more efficient, but he thought it was greatly to be regretted, at this time of the session, that this proposal should be brought forward, especially when they remembered that it was a proposal which had not been definitely made in terms before, and the tendency of which had been rejected, not by one, but by two Governments. He hoped that even now it might seem to the Government un-

929
desirable to proceed with this particular measure. What he wanted to point out on this occasion was that in a matter dealing with the Volunteer force— changing its whole position and status, and increasing the liability to service—in his humble judgment the Bill was not lightened by the dropping of the latter part. It was quite natural that the Government should decide to drop that part, considering the welcome it received last week The first clause was a proposal to increase the obligations of the Volunteer force. If that were wise, he was sure that the Committee on a future occasion would be quite ready to consider it; but it seemed to him, seeing that proposals having a similar tendency had been rejected before, undesirable on this occasion that they should proceed any further with this measure. He moved to leave out Clause 1.
Question proposed, "That Clause 1 stand part of the Bill."
SIR HOWARD VINCENT: For my own part I can say, as one who has been connected for many years with the Volunteers, and as representing my own regiment, that I think this change suggested by the Government is absolutely necessary in the interests of the country. The Volunteer Act of 1863 only provided for the calling out of the Volunteers in case of actual invasion. The hon. and gallant Gentleman who moved the rejection of the clause has served for a considerable period in the Army, and must know that if the Government delay calling out the Volunteers—230,000 men— to repel invasion until a hostile fleet is actually off the coast, or the enemy has actually set foot on our shores, it will be too late to render any effective service; and it has been long felt not only by the Volunteers and their commanding officers, but by the great mass of the force, that they will be prevented from giving effective service to the country, which it is their desire to give, not only in the event of the country being in grave difficulty, but especially in the event of invasion, if their services are not utilised until actual invasion has occurred. The hon. Gentleman opposite is correct in a certain part of the historical retrospect which he gave. It is true that Mr. Stanhope was much impressed with the necessity for something being done, and a
930
Bill was brought forward in the session of 1888. There was a certain amount of opposition. There was a great deal of business remaining undischarged, and in the circumstances it seemed desirable that the Bill should be dropped, but there was no serious opposition to it on the part of the great mass of the Volunteer force. I have the clearest recollection of what took place. In 1894 the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, then Secretary of State for War, assented to the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the working of the Volunteer Acts and the legal condition and status of Volunteers serving under those Acts. The Financial Secretary of the War Office, the Member for Hanley, was chairman of that Committee. The recommendation of the Committee upon this particular matter was in consonance with the unanimous agreement as to the great desirability of these words being altered. For my own part, I think if the Government is to blame it is to blame for not introducing a measure of this sort before. I regret that Mr. Stanhope did not press the measure forward. It is no use introducing these measures unless the Government intends to use its majority to give effect to them. I earnestly hope that my hon. friend will not be deterred by any sign of opposition, but will persevere with this measure. I have got up to give the views of the Volunteers. The hon. Gentleman opposite affected to speak for the Volunteers It is desirable that those who speak for the Volunteers should qualify themselves by going through the service. My hon. friend who proposed the elimination of the clause said he greatly feared it would have a prejudicial effect on the recruiting for the Volunteer force. He will admit, I think, that I am very largely interested in the welfare of the force, and that it is not at all likely I should advocate a change which would entail an extra burden on those with whom I am so closely associated. I can assure you that the Volunteers thoroughly understand the meaning of the section, and the great mass of them—although among such a body as 230,000 men some may fear it will impose increased liability upon them—think the proposed change absolutely necessary in the interests of national defence. That being so, I earnestly hope that the Government having seen fit to introduce this measure, will place it this year upon the Statute-book.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I cannot speak, as my hon. friend does, in the name of all the Volunteers. Let us hope that he will not regard with superior contempt, which he does not always display, those who happen to differ from him. He spoke with something like contempt of hon. Members in some parts of this House who ventured to contest his doctrine as to what the Volunteers throughout the country desire. We all know that my hon. and gallant friend is a distinguished Volunteer, but I know many cases where Volunteers differ in opinion, and where he is in a minority, On this occasion I cannot accept his pontifical assertion as absolutely conclusive in the matter. This is a clause we all thought, and I in the innocence of my heart thought, was a comparatively harmless clause; but I have since looked a little more closely into the matter, and I find that although on the first blush it may seem to be very much the same thing to talk of "actual or apprehended invasion of any part of the United Kingdom" and "imminent national danger or great emergency," yet there has been found in these words a difference which deserves to be maintained. The hon. Gentleman referred to the speech made in the discussion in 1887 by the late Sir Edward Hamley. He was a distinguished soldier, and one of the greatest authorities on military questions from the constitutional point of view we have had in my time in the House, and he was emphatically of opinion that it would be almost fatal to the character of the Volunteer force if you were to alter these words. The Volunteer force is purely raised and maintained for domestic defence.
SIR HOWARD VINCENT: There are 11,000 at the front.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Not as Volunteers. They have entered into a new engagement. There is not a single Volunteer serving out of the country, and such a thing has never been contemplated, and you can see the confusion we would got into if you did not keep up a distinction between the forces. What would be the distinction between the Militia and the Volunteers if you abolished the present distinction? Here I am reminded of a pamphlet or paper which I read at the time. It was called, "A Discussion held by a Body of Volunteer Officers," whom I think my hon. and gallant
932
friend will consider of some authority. I do not think the Queen's Edinburgh Volunteers a very bad corps among all the distinguished corps in the Volunteer service, and I do not think that the present Lord Justice Clerk, Lord Kings-burgh, formerly Mr. Macdonald, is a mean authority on the subject. At a discussion in connection with the East of Scotland Tactical Society on the Report of the Committee to which reference has been made, they scouted the proposal to substitute a vague term for an exact term. Colonel J. B. Sutherland said—
"Under these conditions, and with the proposed altered phraseology, the Volunteer forces might conceivably be called upon to perform garrison duties at home when there was no prospect of either actual or apprehended invasion. I venture to think that this is no part of the duties of the Volunteer force. If garrison duties are to be performed in order to relieve the Regular forces, these duties should be performed by the Militia, and if the Militia is not strong enough for the purpose, the authorities have the remedy in their own hands by enforcing compulsory service in the Militia."
SIR HOWARD VINCENT: May I ask the date of that Report?
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNEEMAN: It was 1895. This distinction that the Volunteers are not to be called upon for actual military service except under the threat of immediate invasion is not a mere fancy, not a mere phantasmal case to make a distinction between one and another. It rests upon this—What would happen if there was an actual or immediately impending invasion? All the business of the country would come to a standstill, and those men who are Volunteers would be free, without loss of professional or commercial position, to take part in the discharge of their duties. At this same symposium which I have quoted, Captain Hunter said—
"The main difficulty of the question lies in this double individuality which each Volunteer possesses. A regular soldier, no matter what his rank, has one individuality and one only; and it is in his military capacity that he earns his livelihood. I, on the other hand, am two distinct and separate individuals; I am Mr. Hunter, chartered accountant, and I am also Captain Hunter, but Mr. Hunter is of vastly greater importance to me than Captain Hunter is. It is in my civil capacity that I earn my livelihood, and I have only engaged to undertake military service when, by 'actual or apprehended invasion ' the country shall have been reduced to such a state that it will be impossible for me to carry on my profession. If the Com-

933
mittee's proposals are carried out, I shall find myself liable to military service under conditions where there is nothing to prevent me from carrying on my civil occupation."
That is a view which will no doubt occur to many Volunteers. That is the ground on which it is urged that a change of this sort, although my hon. and gallant friend the Member for Central Sheffield does not believe it, may prejudicially affect the recruiting for the Volunteers. Here are the words used by one of the greatest authorities on the subject—
"Brigadier-General Macdonald, C.B., in closing the discussion, said that he was strongly of opinion that the liability for service, as at present provided for, was quite sufficient, and that the proposal to alter the words ' actual or apprehended invasion' to ' imminent national danger or great emergency,' was in all respects an unwise one. If the words suggested were inserted there might be rashness on the part of military authorities at any time in calling out the Volunteers. His feeling arose mainly from this, that they were substituting for phrases which had certain and definite meanings, words which had uncertain and indefinite meanings. 'Imminent national danger' and 'grave emergency' were phrases of very uncertain import, under which the Volunteers might be called upon to do duties differing very materially from those contemplated under the constitution of the force."
He went on to say that it might prejudicially affect the position of the force. I do not think these are opinions of Volunteers deserving to be cast aside, even on the high authority of my hon. and gallant friend. When I heard him lay down the law in so peremptory a manner I thought that the sooner I addressed the Committee the better. One point which the hon. Gentleman urged in commending this clause to the House the other day on the Second Heading was that we got rid of the awkward and inconvenient necessity for a proclamation. But a proclamation is required for calling out the Reserves or embodying the Militia; so that one more will not matter. I do not think there is much force in that. I would urge on the Committee not to make the change now—a change which has been repudiated by the House on more than one occasion, which has been condemned by high authorities, although, of course, not so high as my hon. and gallant friend—a change of which we cannot at present quite fathom and measure the ultimate effect. What is the necessity for the Bill?
SIR HOWARD VINCENT: The Bill has been recommended by the Committee appointed by the late Government.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: But who were the Committee?
SIR HOWARD VINCENT: Your own Financial Secretary was the chairman of it.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: My hon. friend the Member for Hanley, who was Chairman of the Committee, was only the bottle-holder to the hon. and gallant Gentleman, who inspired it with energy and enthusiasm, and at whose suggestion it was appointed. He deserves all the credit, and I hope he will receive none of the blame, for what it has done. The words which it is proposed to alter maintain the old character of the Volunteer force, on which all the legislation with regard to them is founded, and they ought not to be altered even under the influence of the captivating arguments of the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite.
MR. WYNDHAM: I confess that I have listened to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition with amazement. On Wednesday last the right hon. Gentleman welcomed this proposal amid unanimous cheers from all parts of the House.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: "Welcomed" is a strong word. I was directing my fire against another proposal, and I said of this one some words to the effect that it was comparatively acceptable. But I have since looked into the Bill.
MR. WYNDHAM: The right hon. Gentleman's acceptance was so warm that I, at all events, mistook it for welcome. The right hon. Gentleman has since come upon a debate of a somewhat academic character which took place in 1895, and he now presents his own Financial Secretary, not as chairman of the Committee on this subject, but as bottle-holder to the hon. Member for Central Sheffield. That may be enough excuse for the right hon. Gentleman's right-about turn, but the Government, who are responsible for this Bill, which they believe to be of the greatest importance to Volunteers, and to be generally welcomed by them, will do their best to see it passed this session. All are agreed that the Volunteers exist to repel invasion. The only point is whether Her Majesty is bound to declare to the whole world by proclamation that she appre-

935
hends invasion, at a time when diplomacy is at its last gasp. What I said the other day—and I am bound to repeat my argument—was that when a foreign ambassador accredited to this Court was in daily and hourly conference with our own Foreign Secretary, was not the time Her Majesty should be made to proclaim with her own mouth that she apprehends invasion. Of course it will not be done. Everybody knows that no Government would issue that proclamation, which is so different from other proclamations, precisely because it contains these words, which would be so inopportune. That is why we propose that the terms should be amended. If that be true—and I think it was generally said the other day—it follows that no step could be taken to put the Volunteers into a position to repel invasion until invasion had taken place. I say again, as I said on Wednesday last, that no War Office, after any amount of re-organisation, could turn the Volunteers into a, field Army, with transport and supplies, in the course of twenty-four or forty-eight hours. It could not be done in less than two or three weeks. If this change should be refused, then all the money spent on the Volunteers is wasted, and the Volunteers are being made fools of. We have heard it said that the military authorities will call out the Volunteers rashly. The military authorities will not call them out at all unless it is the policy of the Government. To call them out would cost for the first month £2,500,000 in pay and allowances alone, while each ensuing month would cost £1,570,000. If the cost of transport and provisions and equipment is added, the first month would cost £4,000,000. I have no fear that any Government will rashly authorise that expenditure. I believe that if this alteration is made other Governments will follow in the steps of all Governments who have presided over the destinies of this country, and will not incur that charge until it is absolutely necessary.
MR. RADCLIFFE COOKE: I agree to some extent that this Bill is a useful measure, but the importance of it has been exaggerated. I am sure if we were in the peculiar position of being on the verge of invasion it would make very little difference whether the Volunteers were called out in consequence of "imminent national danger "or" appre
936
hended invasion." The nation would be perfectly well aware of the reason why they were called out. I do not, myself, think very much of the argument that the character of the Volunteer force would be changed if the Bill passed into law. As a matter of fact the force has changed considerably during the last few years. When it was first established the greater part of the force were in the position described by Captain Hunter in the speech which was quoted by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition; but within the last few years a great number of the men who have joined the force really belong to the Militia. They have joined the Volunteer force because it is the easier force—because more amusement can be obtained out of it, and they are taken away from their work less. What is really wanted is not so much a measure of this kind—although I shall vote for it—as such a training of the whole Volunteer force that when a national emergency does arise those who volunteer for that force will be of immediate use. The first object of the War Office ought to be to furnish us with a Volunteer force that is thoroughly effective, so that when men volunteer for active service they may be of use at once. If some system of that kind is adopted—
THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! That does not seem to be relevant to the clause under discussion.
MR. RADCLIFFE COOKE: What I meant to imply was that in a case of national emergency the Government of the day would have at hand, voluntarily offering themselves for the Volunteer force, the class of men whom they would require to meet that particular emergency. I shall vote for this measure, because I think to some extent it may be useful, but I should not vote for it if I thought the intention of the Government was to mislead the people by making them suppose that this measure would to any large extent render the Volunteer force more effective than at present, or that by it something was done really to organise the military forces of the Empire.
MR. C. P. SCOTT: I think it is important clearly to understand from the Government what is intended to be the practical effect of the change of words here suggested. I

937
know quite well that no intention can bind the successors of, or even the present Government, but we ought to be told clearly what the practical effect will be of changing these well-known definite words for other words less definite. The Under Secretary for War gives us to understand that no change was intended, that the Volunteers would be called out under the new form as under the old form, only when the Government apprehended invasion, and that the Government did not wish to put the fact in a Proclamation for fear it should interfere with the course of diplomacy and precipitate that which they wished to avoid. If it were clearly understood that that was the intention of the Government it would make a great difference; and I hope the Under Secretary will be able to assure us on that point.
MR. WYNDHAM: I have already made two speeches in which I endeavoured to convey that idea, and I doubt whether I should be more successful if I made a third.
MR. C. P. SCOTT: I read the Second Reading speech of the hon. Gentleman very carefully, but I do not think he made it so clear as he has now done. If that is the case, and that intention is acted upon, it will make the clause practically innocuous and also inoperative. But the House had an apprehension that that was not the whole object of the Government. It is obvious that within the last few months the country has passed through circumstances which might fairly be called "a great emergency." I think after the battle of Colenso we were certainly in a position which might be so described, and the Government would have been perfectly within their rights — if the law had been as they are now proposing to make it—in calling out the Volunteers.
MR. WYNDHAMwas understood to dissent.
MR. C. P. SCOTT: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. That means, I suppose, that the Government would not have done it. I am glad of that, but they would have been at perfect liberty to have done so. The effect of this change will be that instead of depending on the definite words of the Act we shall depend upon the good will of the Government, which is somewhat changeable,
938
and the Volunteers themselves will never know exactly what are the obligations they undertake. If the change is applied in the manner suggested, I do not think it will make much difference; but if at any time the Government were in a tight place and called on the Volunteers —it would be then, after the Volunteers and the employers of Volunteers had had experience of the new condition under which these men would be called out for service—that the force must suffer in popularity, and this change be found to be a very grave one.
MR. WYLIE (Dumbartonshire): As an old Scottish Volunteer, and still in close touch with the force, and with some of the most eminent and practical commanding officers, I wish to say a few words in support of this clause, the object of which is to render the volunteers more promptly available as an important portion of the great defensive forces of our country in any time of imminent national danger or great emergency, even if that emergency or danger does not amount to actual or apprehended invasion. I believe that recent events have proved the desirability of this measure. It is argued that the introduction of such a Bill is not opportune, and that if brought forward at all it should be in conjunction with some more important measure. But I think it is a most opportune, useful, and necessary measure, and one which will form a very valuable instalment of any complete scheme of reorganisation and reform, which I hope will be undertaken immediately after the present war, and with the light of the experience which that war has afforded us. Seeing that increased duties and responsibilities are to be placed on the Volunteers, it is natural that they and their friends should be anxious to know what increased encouragement and support the Government propose to give them. My opinion is that if the Government support the Volunteers, as we hope they will do, not only would the efficiency of the force be increased, but its numbers would be doubled, so that there might easily be a force of half a million ready to be promptly availed of in case of imminent national danger or great emergency, a large portion of whom would volunteer to serve in any part of the world, still leaving in this country for the legitimate purposes of home defence a very much larger number of Volunteers

939
than are at present in existence. I give my cordial support to the clause now before the Committee.
MR. MADDISON: I shall certainly support the omission of the clause. When the Under Secretary for War stated a few months ago the effect of the alteration of these words upon the course of any delicate diplomacy which might be in progress, I admit he struck a note which, if it had been a sound one, would have compelled me to vote against my hon. and gallant friend. The whole purport of the hon. Gentleman's remarks was that the effect of the alteration of these words would be to prevent something being regarded by a foreign Power as an act of war. I am quite unable to see that the difference in these words could possibly have that effect. If we were engaged in such delicate diplomacy I should be the last to turn that diplomacy into provocation; we have had quite enough of that. But what would be the actual effect? Under the present law, if the Volunteers were called out, a foreign Power would know it was because of an actual or apprehended invasion of some part of the United Kingdom. And if these words were deleted, and for them were substituted the words, "imminent national danger or great emergency," what difference could it possibly have upon the course of diplomatic negotiations with any foreign Power? Does the hon. Member mean to tell the Committee that trained diplomatists would be so ignorant of the state of affairs that it would make the slightest difference to them what the words were which formed the basis on which the Volunteers were called out, so long as the words indicated national danger? We who are not regarded as being at all advocates of militarism have always differentiated between a force which, as the law stands, is a purely homo defence force, a body of citizen soldiers, and the regular Army; and I confess that, much as I detest war, and militarism generally, anything in reason to make that voluntary arm more effective would have my support.
SIR HOWARD VINCENT: Then you ought to vote for this clause.
MR. MADDISON: The hon. and gallant Gentleman's dogmatism is so
940
common that it really has no market price now. The Under Secretary for War needs to be very cautious of the hon. and gallant Member for Central Sheffield, because he represents the jingo section of the Volunteers of this country. That section is a very small portion of that great force; there are very few who have such great ambitions. The majority are mere citizens, and do not want to be anything else; they have no desire to become soldiers in all but name, they simply want to belong to a force whose one call upon them is the defence of their native land. I say, deliberately, that if the Under Secretary of State for War wants really to encourage volunteering, instead of tampering with the force, he should make it more and more clear that the members belong to a home defence force and that alone. The hon. and gallant Gentleman shakes his head; he, at any rate, is candid. But I am speaking of the great mass of the rank and file, the poor men—the Volunteers with wives and families—who are quite content to serve their country, and believe they are serving their country, although not treading a foreign strand, by making themselves effective, so that should occasion arise they may be prepared to defend their native land against invasion. But you do not even say "great national emergency." What do you mean by "great emergency"? I can conceive a state of affairs in which you might have an emergency which was not an emergency from outside at all, and I say deliberately, I will be no party to giving to a Minister, when Parliament is not sitting, the great power here proposed, and the duty of interpreting these words, seeing that the result might be of such serious moment to the working classes of this country. There is no need for this Bill so far as the effectiveness of the Volunteers is concerned. We who vote against this clause are not voting in any way against making the Volunteer force effective; we are voting to maintain the original and true character of the force, and to prevent it being placed in the hands of any foolish or possibly unscrupulous Minister, who might use it for a purpose foreign to that for which it was formed.
MR. WYNDHAM: May I correct a misapprehension under which the hon. Member has spoken? By the law of the

941
land we cannot move Volunteers out of the country at all.
MR. MADDISON: I did not say otherwise. I can assure the hon. Gentleman I had no such thought in my mind.
MR. WYNDHAM: Then the hon. Member seemed to think that some great emergency of a social character might arise. We cannot use a Volunteer against the civil power.
COLONEL PILKINGTON: I should like to congratulate my hon. friend the Under Secretary—
Attention called to the fact that forty Members were not present. House counted, and forty Members being found present.
COLONEL PILKLNGTON: I should very much like to say how much I congratulate the Government and my hon. friend the Under Secretary for War on the introduction of this Bill. It seems to me that Clause 1 is a clause which makes a valuable change which will be welcomed by the Volunteers. This is the opinion not only of Volunteer officers, but also of many men of business throughout the country who are not connected with Volunteers at all. They feel that these words are wanted in order to improve the scope of the Bill. Now, Sir, with regard to the new words, it seems to me that they are very much better than the old words, and may cover the old words, and as for supposing that they would be wrongly used by the Government, I think that any such remark or objection, when looked into carefully, entirely falls to the ground. It is not the War Office, but the Government of the day, and the Government of the day is the Cabinet which represents the majority of the House of Commons, and is it likely any Cabinet or Government that has behind it the House of Commons would be so foolish or rash as to do anything which in any way would be dangerous? What we find so generally in this kind of thing is that the Government, instead of being precipitate and rash, and instead of acting with great speed, the danger is that they generally act too slowly. With regard to almost all the military movements of whatever kind which have taken place for many years past, we have moved with very great care
942
and very, great wisdom, and very often with too much hesitation. I do not believe that there is any danger in the words proposed. On the contrary, I believe there is very great safety in them. In my opinion they have been long wanted, and I believe that no business man, Volunteer or otherwise, would object to the insertion of these words. I have for many years past believed that in Volunteer circles it was the opinion that some such words should be inserted. It has been urged that the insertion of such words would be distasteful to the Volunteers, and that they would not increase their number. I do not believe that for a moment. I think this will meet the views of Volunteers in great measure, and they will see something hero is done which will make their force much more effective, and I will explain to the House why I think so in a few moments. The South African War must have added 50,000 at least new members to the force. In a regiment I know very well I know that the battalion has increased very much. I think that is a proof that the Volunteers, if they see danger to the country, will immediately rally to the country's cause, and come forward in greater numbers. I will give another instance of the effect on Volunteers. It was at one time said that fourteen days camping of Volunteers would create a great deal of enthusiasm.
THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The hon. Member is travelling beyond the limits of this clause. He must confine himself strictly to this clause.
COLONEL PILKLNGTON: I accept your ruling, Mr. Chairman. I see the old words are "Actual or apprehended invasion." If the Government wait until an actual invasion begins before they call out the Volunteers, I say distinctly—knowing something of the Volunteers, and being a Volunteer officer—I think we should go simply to the shambles. I believe there would be confusion, and we should not know where we were or what we were doing. The foreign forces would be actually on our soil, probably in great numbers, and although it is very likely they would not get very much further because of the Line and Militia, we as a force should be no good at all. That is my opinion, and I will explain why I think so. We now find when we go into

943
camp that it is only after a week's or a fortnight's drill that different battalions, as it were, begin to feel at home. After a few days or a fortnight we find ourselves far better than we were at the end of the first week. Wherever we are sent, at first we should be all at sea; we should not know the ground or the town. By degrees we should get accustomed to the surroundings, and it would be found then whether we were short of transport or not. In the camp in which I was this year for fourteen days, there were many things wanted. Perhaps the ammunition cart had got no horse, and—
THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! I must ask the hon. Member to resume his seat when I rise. The hon. Member is now discussing the general training of Volunteers, which cannot now be raised.
COLONEL PILKINGTON: I am trying to show that at least a month or six weeks training would be required to ensure some amount of efficiency among the Volunteers. But it does seem to me that it is too much to expect good results if the Volunteers were called out forty-eight hours after the invasion has begun. They could not be an efficient force under those circumstances, and it seems to me that if the War Office and the Government and the country are to rely upon the Volunteers for the home defence force—looking at the great numbers and the great part they fill in the forces—it is absolutely necessary that they should be afforded every opportunity for making themselves efficient, and be put in a position so that they may become acquainted with the position and be furnished with all the requisites and transport equipment, so that if the enemy comes up they may be well prepared to give a good account of themselves. It seems to me that the changes it is proposed to make are in the right direction. They would enable the Government to take time by the forelock and get the Volunteers in that position in which they might have to make a stand eventually. What the Volunteers wish is to be sufficiently efficient to be called out at the proper time and be ready for an invasion if it should come. I hope this change will be made, and that the clause at it stands, without Amendment, will be passed. I trust that the measure will become law this session.
MR. CAWLEYsaid he was afraid this clause, if passed, would have a very bad effect upon the Volunteers. He had listened to the remarks of several hon. Members, and he preferred the opinion of his hon. friend the Member for the Leigh Division in regard to the rank and file of Volunteers to that of the hon. and gallant Member for Central Sheffield, who was an officer in the Volunteer service. He doubted whether the opinion of the Volunteers was so much in favour of the measure as it had been represented to be. For a commanding officer to merely summon the Volunteers before him and ask them whether they liked this change or not was not the correct way to arrive at their real opinions. He thought it was far more likely that the Volunteers would not be in favour of a change like this. A great many Volunteers came from small employers, and he could understand such employers not liking their clerks to be liable to be called out except in case of apprehended invasion. It seemed to him that this clause was placing a very great power in the hands of the particular Minister at any particular time. There was no doubt that the phrase "imminent national danger or great emergency" allowed a great deal of latitude, and it might be interpreted very differently by different Ministers at different times. On the other hand, the terms on which the Volunteers wore elected at the present time were not at all ambiguous, for they all knew that they were only going to be called upon for active service in case their country was invaded. When the ordinary Volunteer came to read the terms of this clause which it was proposed to substitute, an ambiguity would be found about it which was not at all desirable, and which he thought would prevent a great many men enlisting in the service. Perhaps at the present moment this provision would not deter any men from joining, but when the war was over, and the people came to pay the bills which they would be called upon to pay, he thought it would discourage people from joining the Volunteers. He had not had the practical experience of the hon. and gallant Member for Central Sheffield, although he had once had the privilege of being a full private, and he might say that his own experience did not coincide with the experience of the hon. and gallant Member

945
opposite who was a colonel in the Volunteers. He thought this provision was a very undesirable one, and unless the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill could give them a more practical and satisfactory explanation why this change was wanted he should certainly vote against the clause.
MR. JOHN WILSONbelieved that this Bill would increase the martial spirit amongst their Volunteers, Personally, when the Bill for the war came to be paid he had no fear of the result, and in case of an apprehended invasion or imminent national danger he believed that a large number of their Volunteers would be found ready to join not only in the defence of their country, but to go anywhere in the interests of their country. What had they found in the case of the invasion of British territory in South Africa? There a horde of undrilled peasants, fifty of whom could not march in line together, but who could shoot straight, had been able to oppose successfully the finest forces in the world. He thought this South African war had shown very forcibly the necessity of having a Volunteer force which would be ready to go anywhere and do anything at the call of duty. He heartily supported this measure, and he sincerely hoped that there would be appointed some person who would have charge of the Volunteer forces, for he should not like to hear of another mistake being made like the unfortunate instance of which the House was already aware.
MR. JOHN BURNS: The speech just delivered by the hon. Member does not help the Government very much, because practically what he says is wanted is a condition of things that will enable the Volunteers to be called out, and in his own words, "to go anywhere and do anything."
MR. JOHN WILSON: I did not say I wanted such a state of things to arise. What I said was that if such a condition of things arose the Volunteers would be found ready and willing to go anywhere and do anything.
MR. JOHN BURNS: But if these men are so anxious to defend their country, they only need to go down to the
946
recruiting sergeant, and then they can share the honour and distinction of going to South Africa by enlisting like the ordinary soldier, who at this moment is so pluckily doing his work. I have been out just now to the Vote Office, and what do I find? I find that we have five Bills, all of which are significant of the spirit of militarism that is being introduced into this country at this particular moment. We have a Bill for the Volunteers, one for the Reserve Forces, one on the Military Manœuvres, the Military Lands Bill, and the Naval Reserve Bill, and every one of these Bills seeks to extend the power which the Government now has for giving more men to the Reserve, and calling them out at the discretion of the Admiralty. These measures give the Government more latitude and discretion in mobilising the Naval Reserves than they have hitherto had. With regard to the Military Lands Bill, we see a military spirit pervading that measure, and military lands are to be placed at the discretion of the War Office, and it is proposed to give commanding officers Dower to close roads and to do other things. Then we have the Reserve Forces Bill, which gives the War Office similar powers in relation to the Reserve forces. I think the whole of these Bills are symptomatic of an attempt to rush through the House of Commons in the emergency of the war with South Africa a series of measures to convert the Volunteer force into the Militia force or some-thing like a conscript force under conscript conditions. I object to this Volunteers Bill, notwithstanding the fact that the Under Secretary for War has deleted Sub-section (b) of Clause 2, and I do so on the ground that if you allow the War Office to determine without confirmation of this House what an imminent national danger or a great emergency is, we shall probably see a further development of what we have quite recently witnessed—namely, the Volunteers being moved forward to the Militia stage, the Militia moved to the Army Reserve stage, the Army Reserves moved forward to the Regular Army, and the Indian Army again brought into Europe, and the Regular Army depleted at home to go abroad. The Volunteers, under the phrase "imminent national danger or great emergency," could be called upon to strengthen the depleted garrisons of the Regular Army, and they could be called

947
out for purposes which under the present law would not be legal. I protest against that. I object by a side wind or by any other patriotic subterfuge to convert what is a voluntary force into what is a more or less compulsory force at the discretion of the War Office. If this Bill is passed with this phrase, "imminent national danger or great emergency," you will change the character of the Volunteer army, which is at present well understood by the Volunteers, who joined under well-known conditions, and who do not object to be summoned when there is actual or apprehended invasion. You will damage the Volunteers as part of our national defence, and will convert that force into a more or less compulsory force, probably for service abroad. What is a "great emergency"? The Emperor of Germany, a few years ago, made his celebrated "mailed fist" speech. This country seemed to have lost its head over it. They took a great deal too much notice of the German Emperor, and more notice of him on that occasion than I would take of his utterances on any occasion. They called out the Flying Squadron, which was not out as soon as it ought to have been, and not quite as efficient as it ought to have been, considering the money spent on the Navy. It was called out in answer to the "mailed fist" speech of the Emperor. Under the Volunteer Act you could not have construed that speech as an imminent national danger or great emergency. But if this Bill is passed and the German Emperor makes another "mailed fist" speech, you will have the Flying Squadron called out again, supplemented by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Sheffield calling the Queen's Westminsters together and saying, "Here is the German Emperor making another ' mailed fiat' speech. Let us under the new Act appeal to the War Office to interpret it as an imminent national danger or great emergency, and then the Act may be put into operation." That is to happen whenever a tinpot European monarch makes a speech which cannot possibly harm England, and who has not a Navy equal to a tenth of our Navy. The whale and the elephant rarely come into collision. Under this Bill gentlemen like the hon. and gallant Member for Central Sheffield will be petitioning the War Office to call out the Volunteers. I do not think
948
this Bill is wanted. What is more, you will let the Volunteers think, by the passing of this Bill, that they are to be subject to the discretion of the War Office. I would not trust much to the discretion of the War Office. They have bungled in South Africa; they make a mess of nearly everything they take in hand, and if they have this Bill they will have power to do with the Volunteers what they did with the whole military arrangements in South Africa. I am not prepared to give a War Office such as ours the discretionary power of calling out the Volunteers when in its opinion a great emergency has arisen. If the War Office had done their duty, the necessity of discussing this Bill would not have arisen at all. If the Army had been in a state of efficiency, as it ought to have been considering the amount of money voted for it, we should not be called upon to discuss this Bill at all. Then we are asked to spoil the Volunteer force—for that is what it means—because the War Office have not acted efficiently. Immediately the Volunteers recognise you are tampering with free voluntary enlistment, and that they are to be put under the discretionary powers of Lord Lansdowne, then the Volunteer army will disappear like butter in the sun. The hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite says that the Volunteers like it. Where is the proof? What Volunteer corps has been brought together and had the terms of this Bill submitted to them? Has a plebiscite been taken of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's own regiment? I have ten times as many of the Queen's Westminsters living in my constituency as the hon. Member has.
SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I am willing to meet you in your constituency.
MR. JOHN BURNS: I will not take the trouble to meet the hon. and gallant Gentleman. The Queen's Westminster are efficient Volunteers, and they want to remain Volunteers. They do not want to listen to a lot of prancing patriots, whose idea of the Volunteer force is that every man in England who is not a soldier or a sailor should be a marine. I can assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that in his zeal to improve the Volunteers as a defensive force he is going the wrong way about it, and that if the Volunteers are placed under the discretion of the War Office, men will refuse

949
to join, and the Volunteers will suffer in number, in esprit de corps, and in efficiency, and they will refuse to be converted from a practically voluntary force into a more or less conscriptive force. It is because this Bill is one of a series of militarizing enactments, which has for its object a conscript Militia, and the making of a free Volunteer Army into a more or less conscriptive force, and because the Volunteers will be sadly damaged in efficiency and numbers, that I protest against it. I come to one of my last points. The political atmosphere just now is charged with everything of a military character. We see hon. and gallant Gentlemen like the Member for Central Sheffield and the members of town councils asking, in a fever of panic, that the police should be armed. They want rifle ranges here, there, and everywhere, and they want the Volunteers converted into a conscriptive force. The militarization of English public life is going on to an extent that would be absolutely unnecessary if the War Office did its work properly, and if the Army and Navy were looked after to the extent they should be. It is because this Bill is one more link in the chain of jingoising England that I protest against it. If the Volunteers in my own constituency are in favour of this Bill, I have received no evidence of it. I do not believe that there is one Volunteer in a thousand who knows of the existence of this measure, or who has considered its terms with his comrades. It is because I believe the Bill is intended to place the Volunteers under the discretion of the War Office, and to enable them to be called up at any time for service both at home and abroad, that I am opposed to it. I oppose it also because I have a greater regard for the Volunteer force than the hon. and gallant Member for Central Sheffield, who has the most unfortunate knack of doing the right thing in the wrong way, and of going about a good thing in a way which ultimately defeats his purpose. I intend challenging a division upon this Bill, which I believe to be unnecessary.
CAPTAIN SINCLAIR: There is one point which does not seem to have been cleared up in the discussion. It is most difficult to get the critics and the advocates of this particular clause together. My hon. friend who has just spoken has referred to the increased liability
950
of service which the Bill undoubtedly imposes on the Volunteer force. The reply made to that is that the Volunteers are patriotic, that the present emergency has shown there is need for their services and that therefore this Bill is justified. It seems to me that that does not meet the point at all. If it is said that the present emergency has shown that the Volunteers have come forward, that is in itself a condemnation of this measure, because it is perfectly clear that there is now an ample outlet for the patriotic spirit of the Volunteers. My contention is that the present law is sufficient. The Under Secretary for War has referred to the undesirability of issuing a proclamation while negotiations are going on, but does anybody mean to contend that no steps would be taken for the defence of this country or the assertion of its power until we found it necessary to call out the Volunteers? Under the present law, whenever an order is in force for the embodiment of the Militia the Government can accept the services of the Volunteers. At the present time such an order is in force, and the argument that the issue of a proclamation would render the negotiations difficult seems to have no weight whatever. For instance, a proclamation is necessary to call out the Army Reserve, and another to call out the Militia, and in such a case Parliament must meet, if it is not sitting, ten days after the proclamation is issued, and it cannot be supposed that the situation would be rendered more intense by calling out the Volunteers. That is an argument that will not hold water. The second argument of the Under Secretary is that it might be necessary- that certain particular garrisons should be manned on certain particular occasions, but surely the present situation has shown there would not be the slightest difficulty in appealing, to the patriotic spirit of the Volunteers in order to obtain a sufficient number. I should like to ask the Under Secretary for War if he would state explicitly how far the present powers fall short of the powers proposed in this Bill. This Bill really means a good deal, or it means nothing at all. If it means nothing at all except a mere change of words, then I think it is a great pity that the Government should have put us to the inconvenience of discussing it at this period of

951
the session. If it means a great deal, the Committee have a right to know all it does mean.
Question put.
The House divided: — Ayes, 127; Noes, 62. (Division List No. 231.)

AYES.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Giles, Charles Tyrrell

Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

Pierpoint, Robert

Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W (Leeds)

Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

Pilkington, R. (Lancs, Newton)

Banbury, Frederic George

Gourley, Sir Edward Temperley

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Barnes, Frederick Gorell

Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury)

Plunkett, Rt. Hn. Hor. Curzon

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

Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robert W.

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Hartley, George C. T.

Hardy, Laurence

Purvis, Robert

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Haslett, Sir James Horner

Pym, C. Guy

Beckett, Ernest William

Henderson, Alexander

Rankin, Sir James

Bethell, Commander

Holland, William Henry

Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

Bill, Charles

Hornby, Sir William Henry

Rentoul, James Alexander

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Howell, William Tudor

Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir Matthew W.

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Kimber, Henry

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Cavendish, V. C. W(Derbyshire)

Lafone, Alfred

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Lawrence, Sir E Durning-(Corn.)

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.)

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos Myles

Chamberlain, J. Austen, Wore'r

Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Charrington, Spencer

Lockwood, Lt.-Colonel A. R.

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

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Lowles, John

Strachey, Edward

Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Thornton, Percy M.

Cooke, C. W. Radcliffe (Heref'd)

Lucas-Shadwell, William

Tomlinson, Wm. E. Murray

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Macdona, John Gumming

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Cornwallis, Fiennes S. W.

Maclure, Sir John William

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. H (Sheffield)

Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinb'rgh, W)

Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E. (Taunton)

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.)

Curzon, Viscount

Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

Williams, J. Powell- (Birm.)

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Monckton, Edward Philip

Willonghby de Eresby, Lord

Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

Monk, Charles James

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Donkin, Richard Sim

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

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

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R (Bath)

Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William H.

Morrison, James, A. (Wilts. S.)

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

Fellowes, Hn. Ailwyn Edward

Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

Wylie, Alexander

Finch, George H.

Muntz, Philip A.

Wyndham, George

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Murray, Rt. Hon. A. G. (Bute)

Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

Firbank, Joseph Thomas

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Fisher, William Hayes

Myers, William' Henry

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Flannery. Sir Fortescue

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Sir William Walrond and

Flower, Ernest

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Mr. Anstruther.

Garfit, William

Pease, Herbt. Pike (Darlingt'n)

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale-

Philipps, John Wynford

Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

Hazell, Walter

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Billson, Alfred

Healy, Maurice (Cork)

Power, Patrick Joseph

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Healy, Timothy M. (N. Louth)

Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

Horniman, Frederick John

Reid. Sir Robert Threshie

Burns, John

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Jameson, Major J. Eustace

Scott, Charles P. (Leigh)

Caldwell, James

Joicey, Sir James

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Cawley, Frederick

Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)

Steadman, William Charles

Charming, Francis Allston

Lewis, John Herbert

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

Macaleese, Daniel

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

Donelan, Captain A.

MacDonnell, Dr. M. A. (Qu'n's C)

Tanner, Charles Kearns

Doogan, P. C.

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Tennant, Harold John

Duckworth, James

M'Ghee, Richard

Ure, Alexander

Evans, Sir Francis H.(South'p'n)

M'Leod, John

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Fenwick, Charles

Maddison, Fred.

Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herb. John

Molloy, Bernard Charles

Yoxall, James Henry

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Morgan, J. L. (Cannarthen)

Gurdon, Sir William Brampton

Nussey, Thomas Willans

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Hammond, John (Carlow)

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Captain Sinclair and

Hayden, John Patrick

O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal)

Mr. Humphreys-Owen.

Clause 2:—
CAPTAIN SINCLAIRsaid that there was nothing definite in the clause. What was urged with regard to this particular provision was that before "actual or apprehended invasion" was the condition of things the Government might call upon Volunteer artillery to garrison certain forts or outlying places, but it was not definitely stated. Therefore he wished, in order to limit the clause, to insert after the word "Volunteer" the words "garrison artillery."
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 10, after ' Volunteer,' to insert ' garrison artillery.'"—(Captain Sinclair.)
Question proposed, "That the words 'garrison artillery' be there inserted."
MR. JOHN BURNSsaid before the Under Secretary replied he would like to know by what method these men were to be paid for their services. He put the question for the reason that he did not want a Volunteer to be coerced, or, to use a more expressive phrase, to be bluffed by his colonel into consenting to enlistment—
THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The only question now before the Committee is whether this clause shall be limited to garrison artillery or not.
MR. WYNDHAM: I am afraid that the hon. and gallant Member for Forfar has not quite correctly apprehended what I said the other day, although what he has just said does very nearly cover the whole purpose we contemplate. I think the language I used was that we only contemplated putting garrisons into forts in any estuary leading up to a harbour. Those garrisons, or 99 per cent. of them, are composed of garrison artillery, but there are some other Volunteers required— three or four bicyclists, for instance—to carry on communications between the fort and the rear. Under the scheme of defence as it at present exists, we require about 7,500 men in order to give requisite garrisons to the forts which have been constructed in the Mersey, at Bristol, in the Tyne and the Clyde. These garrisons are almost all composed of garrison artillery, but there must necessarily be some submarine miners and engineers. These garrisons would only go to their
954
posts for drill on frequent occasions, but these things cannot be left to mere chance. The very worst preparation for war is to issue an appeal at the last moment. It is far better that a force of 7,500 men out of a force of 250,000 who are prepared to qualify for these posts should be allowed to register their names in times of peace. I cannot go back from that view. There is no danger of any sort or kind, and the fears with which hon. Members are haunted are so illusory that I find it hard to believe their arguments are serious. It appears to be a deliberate attempt to play at the game, that we are living in the eighteenth century instead of in the dawn of the twentieth. Those forts have been built and armed, and these men ask to be allowed to form part of the garrisons, and we ask that they shall be allowed to do so. The proposition is so reasonable that I do not think I am justified in further occupying the time of the House by labouring the point.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: When this matter was before the House on the Second Reading, it was pointed out, and I thought there was a great deal in the proposition made, that instead of extending this to the whole 250,000 men it should be confined to the 7,500 you require. Supposing you are going to man the forts on the Tyne, surely you are not going to Cornwall to get men?
MR. WYNDHAM: The object of the clause is to make it definite instead of allowing it to remain indefinite. We should only take the men from the immediate districts.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Then I have no objection to it myself. I think that is a reasonable suggestion. These men would be in a very much better position to discharge their duties if they knew them some time in advance; but if this is to make it definite I cannot conceive anything more indefinite than the words in the Bill.
MR. WYNDHAM: I propose to move an Amendment which entirely meets that objection.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The Amendment of the hon. Member does meet it to some extent, but I should

955
have thought some method might be adopted by which the liability should not be put upon the whole force, but on that smaller part consisting of artillery and submarine miners and engineers who are concerned in the matter. I should have thought it better to define it than have it in this indefinite form.
MR. TOMLINSON: Then, I suppose, when a new fort was built we should have to have a fresh Bill.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Not at all; it could be done by a new rule.
SIR JOHN BRUNNERdid not consider the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman was at all unreasonable, and he hoped that the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary would see his way to adopt it. He did not think that this liability should extend to the whole of the Volunteers. This Bill had created a great deal of alarm on account of the extreme ambiguity of its language. He merely mentioned the fact in the hope that the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary would bring forward an Amendment limiting the total number of those who should be asked to offer themselves.
MR. WYNDHAM: The difference between us is not wide, and it appears the difficulty of the situation is to define the intentions of the Government without introducing definitions which might be inconvenient. If I were expected to put all the places in the Bill, I should have to say where all the forts are. If I were asked to put down the number of garrisons, I could say exactly how many met we should require; but a new improvement in the next six months might so alter the conditions that we should have to come here again for more. There is really no danger of any Government being so insane as to try and place all the Volunteers under an obligation of this character. All we ask is that, when money has been spent on the forts, and when there are corps who are to man these forts in time of war in the neighbourhood of these various forts, we should be allowed to select them in time of peace. Unless the Leader of the Opposition thinks that some benefit could be achieved by putting a limit on the
956
number, that is the only way the object could be achieved. But as all these fears are illusory, there is no reason for doing so. I think the House and the country in this matter might well trust this and successive Governments.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: It is not a question of trust or distrust of the Government. It is a question of the disturbing effect this wide suggestion has on the Volunteer force generally. The words are "to accept the offer of any member of a Volunteer corps to subject himself." I do not know whether it would not be better to say, accept the offer of a certain number of the Volunteer forces, and to then accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Forfarshire. We are both aiming at the same thing.
MR. WYNDHAM: Yes. But the word "any" does not mean "all."
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: It means from certain corps; but I should be very sorry if a Bill in Parliament named the whole of those corps. Nobody has suggested that, and I was only trying to meet the hon. Gentleman by indicating a manner in which the question might be supervised and so safeguarded.
MR. HUMPHREYS-OWENsuggested that as all were agreed upon the principle, instead of taking the discussion on the words now before the House, they should substitute the words "to be called out for coast defence and garrison duty."
MR. BUCHANANasked whether the hon. Gentleman could not accept an Amendment to the effect that those called up "shall not exceed 10,000 in all."
MR. WYNDHAM: I could not accept that Amendment. If any hon. Gentleman desires to limit the clause I will try and meet him, but any attempt to try and extract the name of a corps or fort I cannot consent to.
MR. MADDISONdid not think there was any Bill in which the intentions of the Government were disclosed so little as in this clause. As there was a perfect agreement as to the principle of the clause,

957
he suggested that the obligation lay upon the hon. Gentleman to add words that should carry out what the House intended. If the clause could be restricted in the manner suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition there would be no objection to the clause. But he was not prepared to support the doctrine of a sort of Ministerial infallibility.
MAJOR JAMESONagreed with the Amendment. The Under-Secretary had intimated that if the clause was limited in this way it was not business; but garrison artillery were quite different to other branches of Volunteers. He had been ten years in the Regulars and twelve in the Volunteer forces, and if a vote of the Volunteers was taken upon this proposal, which was distinctly contrary to the rules in force, it would be seen that they did not approve of the action of the Government. The artilleryman took a much longer time to train than the infantryman, and if there was anything unbusinesslike in this business, it was the proceedings of the Government. Had the Government reflected for a moment what this proposal meant to the Volunteer forces? What did the Government propose to give in return? Did they propose to exempt them from certain taxes, or sitting on juries, or some other unpleasant duty of a citizen?—
THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The hon. Gentleman is travelling a very long way from the Amendment.
MAJOR JAMESONsaid that with regard to the artillery, the men should know what obligations they took upon themselves when they joined; but in any case the Government had no right to go to the whole Volunteer force and say it was necessary for them, if they came forward, to come within the operation of this clause, for the reason that, like soldiers, the Volunteers did not care to see one man going and another left behind because of his home or business ties.
COLONEL SANDYSwas of opinion that the Amendment for the provision of the Volunteers who were to garrison certain forts was a good one, but the men who should undertake that duty should be garrison artillery, and he hoped that the hon. Gentleman the Under
958
Secretary would see his way to accept the Amendment to that effect proposed by the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite, which he (Colonel Sandys) intended to support.
MR. WYNDHAMsaid the majority would be garrison artillery. He did not trust his own judgment in this matter, and though the majority would be garrison artillery, still there necessarily would have to be others. It might be necessary, for instance, to have fifteen men on Brighton pier for the purposes of communications, and it was in matters of that kind that the Government ought not to be called upon to specify their requirements. They ought not to specify the particular composition of the garrisons. The only limitation could be a limitation of numbers; if that was pressed, he saw no means of resisting it.
SIR. H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANexpressed a fear that he had not been clearly apprehended. He objected to a limited number, as he did not see that it would be of any service, because the only result would be that another Bill might have to be introduced in a very short time. What he desired to see was the clause restricted to the particular class of Volunteers who would be invited to undertake these duties. If the words "garrison artillery, submarine miners, and others necessary for coast defence," were incorporated, they would very nearly meet the objections raised.
MR. BUCHANANdesired to supplement the words of the right hon. Gentleman. He moved after the words "garrison artillery" in the proposed Amendment to add the words "submarine miners, engineers, and other forces for coast defence." That would include telegraphists, cyclists, and other people whom the Government desired to have; he thought such an Amendment as that would emphasise what was intended to be carried out.
COLONEL BLUNDELLsaid he wished to keep the Volunteer force as it was, and was glad that the Under Secretary had withdrawn the registration for service in the field and abroad. He thought the Amendment would cripple our power at a time when

959
we most wanted the use of force. He should like to see steps taken to prevent regimental pressure from being brought to bear on the Volunteers—even with regard to service at home.
MAJOR JAMESONsaid he thoroughly agreed with the Amendment. The hon. Member opposite proposed this limit in order that those who volunteered might not appear in a different light from their comrades.
MR. WYLIEhoped that his hon. friend the Under Secretary of State for War would adhere to the exact terms he had proposed in connection with this clause. He did not think it could do any harm to give the whole of the Volunteers the option of being called out for service at any time.
MR. HUMPHREYS-OWENsaid there was an agreement in principle on both sides, and they were only now discussing how they could give effect to the general consensus of the House. He had handed in an Amendment, and he hoped that it might not be displaying undue partiality to say he thought it was better than that of his hon. friend the Member for Forfarshire. It was to add to sub-section (a), after the words, "military service," the words, "for coast defence duty." He hoped that the Under Secretary for War would adhere to the understanding that the whole body of Volunteers would not be called out for military duty at any time, but only those men intended to garrison forts.
CAPTAIN SINCLAIRasked leave to withdraw his Amendment. He could bring it up again on the Amendment of his hon. friend after the Under Secretary had had time to consider the proposal.
SIR JOHN BRUNNERsaid he hoped the Under Secretary would undertake to satisfy the scruples of hon. Members on that side of the House by introducing either now or later words which would limit the clause.
MR. WYNDHAMhoped that the Committee would be induced to advance a little further in the direction he had indicated in his Amendment. The Committee appeared to be on the eve of arriving at an agreement. He would undertake to amend his subsequent Amendment before Report by specifying the places more
960
clearly—not by enumeration, but by some description, or whatever might be possible.
Mr. Buchanan's Amendment to the Amendment was, by leave, withdrawn, and the Amendment was, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. WYNDHAMmoved to amend Clause 2 so that it should read as follows—
"It shall be lawful for Her Majesty to accept the offer of any member of a Volunteer corps to subject himself to the liability to be called out for actual military service at any time at such places in Great Britain as may be specified in his agreement."
He undertook before Report to bring up words which would specify the nature of those places more clearly than was now apparent from the words, and to make clear what had been their intention all along.
Amendment agreed to.
COMMANDER BETHELLsaid his hon. friend had altered his position so much since the Second Reading that the whole character of the Bill was altered. He had given notice of an Amendment to carry out the view that they should take advantage of the services of Volunteers who were willing to take upon themselves active military service generally and for all purposes. As the hon. Gentleman had accepted the limitation imposed on him by the other side of the House, he would not press his Amendment.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 10, to leave out from second ' to' to end of line 14, and insert ' the liability to be called out for actual military service at any time at such places in Great Britain as may be specified in his agreement.'"—(Mr. Wyndham.)
Amendment agreed to.
MR. WYNDHAMsaid it was necessary to amend Clause 2 in order to ensure that officers should obtain the pensions and allowances which were provided for in the Volunteer Act of 1863.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, lines 17 and 18, to leave out ' and eighteen,' and insert ' to twenty.' "
Amendment agreed to.
Consequential Amendment made.
MR. BUCHANANmoved a proviso to the effect that regulations made under this section should not come into effect until they had lain four weeks upon the Table. The alterations of the law which would be effected by the Bill were of such a substantial character that the regulations should not become legally binding unless they were laid on the Table of the House and submitted to the judgment of Parliament.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 19, at the end, to add the word, 'Provided always that regulations made under this section shall not come into effect until they have lain four weeks upon the Table of each House of Parliament whilst that House is sitting.'"—(Mr. Buchanan.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
MR. WYNDHAMsaid the hon. Member was labouring under a misapprehension. Nothing was being proposed which was beyond present powers.
MR. BUCHANANsaid power was given to issue regulations which would have the effect of law.
MR. WYNDHAMsaid the sub-section simply enabled the Secretary of State to adapt Part 2 of the Volunteer Act of 1863 to the new conditions. That was not a matter which would be laid before the House. With all respect, the hon. Member was not Parliamentary draftsman to the War Office.
CAPTAIN SINCLAIRsaid it was a. reasonable thing to suggest that if the Secretary for War was to have the power of varying the regulations applicable to the Volunteer force, the House should have some opportunity of expressing an opinion on them.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 60; Noes, 143. (Division List No. 232.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

Hayden, John Patrick

Nussey, Thomas Williams

Allison, Robert Andrew

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

Healy, Maurice (Cork)

Philipps, John Wynford

Billson, Alfred

Healy, Timothy M. (N. Louth)

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Hedderwick, Thomas C. H.

Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

Burns, John

Horniman, Frederick John

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

Scott, Charles P. (Leigh)

Caldwell, James

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

Campbell-Bannennan, Sir H.

Joicey, Sir James

Sinclair, Capt. John(Forfarsh.)

Carvill, P. Geo. Hamilton

Jones, William(Carnarvonsh.)

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Cawley, Frederick

Lawson Sir W. (Cumberland)

Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.

Channing, Francis Allston

Lewis, John Herbert

Steadman, William Charles

Clark, Dr. G. B.

Lough, Thomas

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

Crilly, Daniel

Macaleese, Daniel

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

Doogan, P. C.

MacDonnell, Dr M A (Queen's C

Tanner, Charles Kearns

Evans, Sir Francis H (South'ton)

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Ure, Alexander

Fenwick, Charles

M'Ghee, Richard

Wilson, John (Govan)

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J.

M'Leod, John

Yoxall, James Henry

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Maddison, Fred

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Gurdon, Sir William Brampton

Molloy, Bernard Charles

Mr. Buchanan and

Hammond, John (Carlow)

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Sir John Brunner.

NOES.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

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

Curzon, Viscount

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Baillie, James E. B.(Inverness)

Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)

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

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.)

Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W (Leeds)

Chamberlain, J Austen (Wore'r)

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Banbury, Frederick George

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. Hart

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

Charrington, Spencer

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

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

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Finch, George H.

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Beckett, Ernest William

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Fisher, William Hayes

Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

Bethell, Commander

Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)

Fitz Wygram, General Sir F.

Bill, Charles

Cooke, C. W. Radcliffe (Heref'd)

Fletcher, Sir Henry

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Flower, Ernest

Brassey, Albert

Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W.

Fry, Lewis

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Cross, Herb. Shepherd(Bolton)

Garfit, William

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Gedge, Sydney

Giles, Charles Tyrrell

Manners, Lord Edward W. J.

Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

Seely, Charles Hilton

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

Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

Monckton, Edward Philip

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Gourley, Sir Edward Temperley

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Greville, Hon. Ronald

More, R. Jasper (Shropshire)

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

Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord George

Morgan, Hn. Fred (Monm'thsh.)

Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk)

Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robert W.

Morrison, James A. (Wilts., S.)

Stanley, Edward J. (Somerset)

Hardy, Laurence

Morton, Arthur H. A.(Deptford)

Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart

Henderson, Alexander

Muntz, Philip A.

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Hickman, Sir Alfred

Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)

Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

Hornby, Sir William Henry

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Talbot. Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxford U.)

Howell, William Tudor

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Tollemache, Henry James

Jackson, Rt. Hn. W. Lawies

Myers, William Henry

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Keswick, William

Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlingt'n)

Warde, Lieut.-Col. C. E. (Kent)

Lafone, Alfred

Phillpotts Captain Arthur

Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E (Taunton)

Lawrence, Sir E Durning-(Corn)

Pilkington, R. (Lanes, Newton)

Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.)

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

Plunkett, Rt Hn Horace Curzon

Williams, Joseph Powell-(Birm)

Lea, Sir Thomas (Londonderry)

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Purvis, Robert

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn-(Swnsea)

Pym, C. Guy

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

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

Rankin, Sir James

Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath)

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

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

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Rentoul, James Alexander

Wylie, Alexander

Lowles, John

Richardson, Sir T. (Hartle'pl)

Wyndham, George

Macartney, W. G. Ellison

Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir Matthew W

Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

Macdona, John Gumming

Ritchie, Rt. Hon Chas. Thomson

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Maclure, Sir John William

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

Sir William Walrond and

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehonse)

Mr. Anstruther

Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.

Question proposed, "That Clause 2, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
CAPTAIN SINCLAIR: If anything could justify the opposition we have offered to this Bill as a whole, it is the present condition of this clause. As a matter of fact, as originally introduced, the clause gave the Government power to accept the services of all Volunteers who agreed to serve in any part of the world. That meant imposing an additional liability of a very serious character on the whole of the Volunteer service. The result of the criticism to which the Bill has been subjected is that the character of the Bill has been completely changed. There is now no question of foreign service, and the application of the Bill, instead of being general with the whole Volunteer service, is to be limited. It is not too much to say that the case for the Bill has entirely broken down, and the opposition to the measure has served a most useful purpose and justified itself by the result. I regret that the Government, seeing that the limits of the Bill are so small, has not consented to acquiesce in the very general desire that any increase in the liabilities cast on the Volunteers should be deferred until the matter could be considered more dispassionately and under normal conditions.
MR. JOHN BURNS: I wish to emphasise the point raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Ince with regard to the method in which Volunteers offer their services. I would submit to the Under Secretary for War that in the regulations putting this Bill into operation the same conditions should apply as in the case of transfers from one regiment to another in the Regular Army. The hon. Gentleman knows that when Volunteers are asked for from, say, the 3rd Buffs, to enlist into, say, the East Surrey Regiment for the purpose of going, say, to India, what happens is that the colonel neither of the 3rd Buffs nor of the East Surrey, but of some other regiment, sits upon a day specified to receive the enlistments from the one regiment to the other. By that means you get impartiality, and the men volunteer of their own volition and without any pressure from their own colonel. What is good enough for the regular army ought to be good enough for the Volunteer regiments, and if the method adopted in the regular army is resorted to, we should not find Volunteers subjected to the invidious distinction to which many have been in connection with the South African war. I appeal to the hon. Gentleman that in the regulations which are issued he will follow the method laid down in the regular army.
Clauses 3 and 4 agreed to.
On the question that the Bill, as amended, be reported,
MR. JOHN BURNSasked that the point he had just raised might be replied to by the Undersecretary of State for War, as it was a matter of vital importance to the successful working of the Bill.
MR. WYNDHAM: I think I have given the hon. Member a general assurance not only that there will be no pressure, but that no need for pressure can possibly arise. I will, however, consider whether any specified course can be taken, but I cannot pledge myself to apply to the one force a method which may not be applicable to that force, while it may be to the other.
Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

RESERVE FORCES BILL [Lords].
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. J. W. LOWTHER, Cumberland, Penrith, in the Chair.]
Clause 1:—
MR. BUCHANANhad on the Paper an Amendment to insert the following proviso—
"Provided always, that men in the second division liable to be called out under this section shall receive not less Army reserve pay than that received by men of the first division."
THE CHAIRMAN: The Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire is out of order, because it would impose a fresh charge upon the taxpayer.
Question proposed, "That Clause 1 stand part of the Bill."
MR. BUCHANANsaid that it would be somewhat hard if the men upon whom these new obligations were to be placed did not enjoy the same position and pay as those who constituted the first division and the Army Reserve. He, therefore,
966
asked the Under Secretary of State to give an assurance that these men should receive the same remuneration as those upon whom the obligations at present rested.
MR. WYNDHAM: I can give the assurance asked for. I can even say that in the Supplementary Estimates, which I hope to introduce on Friday, a small sum will be allocated to meet the limited number of cases which are likely to accrue this year.
MR. BUCHANAN: It will not be necessary to put a provision in the Bill, I suppose?
MR. WYNDHAM: No.
Clause 2:—
MR. WYNDHAM: I must move the Amendment on the Paper, although the necessity of it may seem a little in conflict with what I have just said. But there is a necessity, because in the Act to be amended the pay is laid down, and therefore, as we are amending the Act, it is necessary to put in these words in order to secure the proper pay.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 2, line 7, after 'and,' to add '(d) if under the foregoing provisions the rank of any such man in the Militia is raised or reduced above or below that which he held before he entered on permanent service his pay shall be correspondingly raised or reduced.'"—(Mr. Wyndham.)
Amendment agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Bill reported, with the Amendment; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

NAVAL RESERVE BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order for Second Reading read.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. GOSCHEN,),who, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, was very indistinctly heard, was understood to explain that the object of the Bill was to

967
attract to the new division of the Naval Reserve men of twelve years service who hitherto had not been induced to join the Royal Naval Reserve. The Admiralty attached great value to this additional reserve, as it was hoped to obtain men of higher position, who would be able to fill the posts of chief petty officers and petty officers in the Royal Naval Reserve, and so release a number of Regular officers at present occupied with those duties. These men would get sixpence per day as a retainer. It was also proposed to reorganise the present Seamen Pensioner Reserve. This was a simple Bill, but it was believed it would provide a large additional, force.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Goschen.)
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: There are one or two points which occur to me. I gather that this new Reserve will not be amalgamated with the Royal Naval Reserve.
MR. GOSCHEN: No.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: It will be left separate?
MR. GOSCHEN: Yes.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: There is one other question I wish to ask. Is there any limit of ago or limit of service proposed? The words are "who have served." Is any standard of service required?
MR. GOSCHENsaid there would be none over fifty years of age. There were many officers filling the position of chief petty officers who would be set free for active service, and it was hoped that greater efficiency of the Reserve would be secured.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: But is there any limit to the time which may have elapsed since their service in the Navy? Obviously a man who served when a boy would at the age of fifty-five have very little trace of the Navy left in him.
THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. MACARTNEY,): Three years.
MR. JOHN BURNS: I trust the House will notice the significant language in the Memorandum to this Bill, and also the statement of the First Lord himself. I was greatly surprised to hear that experience has shown that few men who have served in the Navy join the present Naval Reserve, which now consists mainly of seamen of the mercantile marine and fishermen. The First Lord seems to be under the impression that he can get over this condition of things by offering to men who do not now join 6d. per day to join the Naval Reserve. Such a scheme will not overcome the prejudice of time-expired men against joining the Reserve. The First Lord in some respects is a man of sanguine temperament, but I do not believe he will get 15,000 men in the Naval Reserve for a retainer of 6d. per day. It is indeed significant that we should be told that the Royal Naval Reserve is so unpopular that the men will not join it. Is it due to the fact that when a sailor has done his twelve years in the Navy he has had enough of it, that he is disgusted with it to such an extent that he does not want to have anything more to do with it for the rest of his life? If that be so, it indicates that the conditions of employment in the Navy are so unattractive that the sailor views with, pleasure the opportunity of ceasing all connection with the Navy at the expiration of his twelve years. I would suggest that instead of offering this retainer of 6d. per day for 15,000 men the right hon. Gentleman should consider the advisability of making the Navy during, the twelve years service more popular by adding the sixpence per day to the pay of the sailor, thus increasing the interest of the men in the service while they are members of it, and perhaps stimulating among them a greater love for the Reserve when they leave the active ranks. I shall be glad to hear that there is some, reason other than those I have suggested for the men not joining the Reserve, but I shall be agreeably surprised if at the end of twelve months, as a result of this sixpence per day retainer, the First Lord, has more than 300 or 400 additional men, in the Reserve. It appears to me that the condition of things is getting so unsatisfactory and intolerable, that where once a man has left the active ranks he is. only too glad to have nothing to do with the Reserve.
MR. GOSCHEN,speaking by the indulgence of the House, said that the fact that the great majority of men continued from their twelve years service to the twenty-two years service proved that the service was not unpopular. The reason they did not join the Royal Naval Reserve was that they knew all the work of the Reserve, they knew all the drill, and there was a reluctance on their part to go through drills and so on, which were intended rather for recruits and men who had not been through the training that sailors of the Navy had. Inquiries had been made as to the probable success of the proposal, and it was understood that this offer would be an attraction to men who had left the service. It was not expected that the 15,000 men would be obtained at once. The 15,000 was the limit, and it was hoped that it would be reached in a certain number of years.
COMMANDER BETHELL:: We have never yet made any efforts to secure the twelve years service men. Several times it has been suggested in Committee that something might be done to get these men back to the Reserve, but this is the first Bill ever placed before the House with that object. That my hon. friend is mistaken in his view about the popularity of the Navy is, I think, proved by the fact that such a very large proportion of the men, when their twelve years service expires, are only too anxious to serve the remaining term for a pension.

COLONIAL STOCK BILL [Lords].
[SECOND HEADING.]
Order for Second Reading read.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH, Bristol, W.)said it had been the custom for many years to empower trustees in this country to invest in colonial stock, but the colonies had long desired that the power should exist where it was not specifically given in settlements. The matter required and had received a great deal of consideration, and it seemed to the Govern-
970
ment that the proper basis on which to deal with it was that there should be some sort of security to trustees that the colonies would maintain good faith with their creditors, that they would respond to any judgment of the courts in this country, and would come under the limitations of the Colonial Stock Acts, thus differentiating colonial stock from foreign stock, which, of course, was not subject to Parliament, the courts of this country, or the action of the Government. Therefore, this Bill, in the case of trust money where there was no special authority to invest in colonial stock, would enable trustees to make such an investment, provided the colony concerned came under certain conditions to be laid down by the Treasury. Those conditions would be, in the first place, that the colony should thoroughly accept the legal position, that any legislation on its part detracting from or interfering with the security of its creditors would be properly vetoed by the Imperial Government; in the second place, that their stock should be brought under the regulations of the Colonial Stock Acts of this country: and thirdly, that the colony should provide from its own revenue for the satisfaction of any judgment of the courts given against it in the United Kingdom. Further, that the colony shall provide funds in the hands of an agent or firm of high standing and position here for that purpose. These conditions would be laid down by the Treasury, and would have to be assented to by any colony coming under the Bill. An arrangement had been come to with the Dominion of Canada, and colonial legislation had been passed for the fulfilment of these conditions, and a similar course would be pursued by any colony desiring to come under the Bill. In Committee he hoped to meet a suggestion that public notice should be given whereby trustees in this country might know the colonies in whose stock they might safely invest. He was quite sure all of them would be ready to do anything they could for the welfare of their colonial fellow subjects. He did not think he needed to say anything more, and he hoped the House would give the Bill a Second Reading.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
MR. HALDANE: So far as this Bill proposes to extend the scope of those securities in which trustees may invest in Colonial stocks, it is a useful measure, but in so far as it relates to giving control to the Treasury, although it is comparatively small, I dislike it. It has been a tradition on the part of the Treasury—not in the time of the right hon. Gentleman, for this is a tradition which he has inherited from his predecessors—that it is their duty to take care of trustees not only in connection with Colonial stock but with every sort of investments. The policy of the Treasury has been systematically to proscribe the limits within which trustees may invest to an extent, which has not only proved a great embarrassment to trustees, but which has very much restricted the scope of what I think was a much better system. This Bill proposes to extend the scope of colonial investments in which trustees may invest, and so far this Bill is good. But what I very much demur to is the extent to which the Treasury is made the judge in this matter under this Bill, which I consider is the extension of a bad principle. How can the Treasury usefully supervise the conditions under which Colonial stock is to be deemed good or bad? It is all very easy in case of first-class colonies from a trustees' point of view, but when you come to deal with other Colonial stock what does this Bill hold out? On the one hand there is the Treasury an don the other hand the trustees, who, I think, would be able to form a much more reliable judgment than the Treasury. I do not think we shall get a satisfactory condition of trustee investments until the trustees are allowed to judge for themselves. I demur altogether to this guardianship of trustees by the Treasury, even under the right hon. Gentleman, who is one of the most sympathetic Chancellors of the Exchequer towards trustees. Even if this Bill were a larger measure I should take the sense of the House upon it, because I object to the principle of control by the Treasury which underlies it.
MR. COHENsaid that with all respect to the views expressed by the hon. gentleman who had just sat down he thought this Bill would be welcomed not only by the Colonies but also by the trustees. The imprimatur of the Trea-
972
sury, in his opinion, enhanced and safeguarded the value of Colonial stock.
MR. CALDWELLsaid he was sorry that a Bill of this importance should be brought forward at such a late period of the session. It had only recently come down from the House of Lords, and the House was asked to pass it without the opinion of the various legal bodies in the country being expressed upon it. The Bill applied to Scotland as well as to England, and so far as legislation of this kind was concerned the legal bodies in Scotland had always taken very great pains to furnish Scotch Members with reports upon Bills like this which were of such a technical character. On the present occasion they had had no opportunity whatever of communicating with those legal bodies or of obtaining their reports. This placed Scotch Members under a considerable disadvantage. Clause 1 made a very considerable change in the law, of which they had had no explanation. It proposed that—
"For the purpose of enabling the Colonial Stock Acts, 1877 and 1892, to be applied to stock issued before the passing of this Act, it shall not be necessary that any prospectus, notice, stock certificate, coupon, dividend warrant, or other certificate or document issued before the passing of this Act in relation to the stock should state the particulars required to be stated therein by Section 19, of the Colonial Stock Act, 1877."
The Act of 1877 laid down most distinctly that the revenues of the colony were liable, and not the Consolidated Fund of Her Majesty's Treasury. He could quite understand how they might bring in the case of Canada, where the stock, although practically the same, were not identically similar. In 1892 the same question occurred about the giving of a certain amount of relief, and Section 19 of the Act of that year provided that the provisions of the Colonial Stock Act, 1877, should not apply to any stock in respect to which the provisions of that section had not been observed before the passing of the Act. That was a very reasonable provision in the Act of 1892. With regard to investments by trustees he thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer was going a little too far by declaring that the trustees should be at liberty to invest in Colonial stock subject to certain conditions laid down by the Treasury. He thought it would be better to have Colonial stock put

973
on a proper legal footing. How were the trustees to know whether the conditions of the Treasury had been complied with or not? It was provided in the Bill that they should be set forth in the London Gazette, but he wondered how many people read the London Gazette to ascertain what had been published there. But, supposing they read the London Gazette, how would they know that the conditions had been complied with? He thought those conditions should be put into the Act of Parliament, and a certificate should be required that those conditions had been fulfilled in the case of certain stock. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer would examine the Colonial Stock Acts of 1877 and 1892 he would find that they provided for a register in this country. At any rate the Bill requires considerable care in its preparation, and he thought the House would agree with him that an important question of this kind ought not to be rushed through the House at this period of the session without very careful consideration. It was important that the legal bodies in England and Scotland should have an opportunity of considering this measure.
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: Scotland will be able to do the same thing under this Bill as she is able to do at present under the authority of the Courts.
MR. CALDWELLsaid he had not looked up the point, and he did not profess to carry the Act of Parliament in his head. He did not know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer had had his attention drawn to Section 15 of the Act of 1877. It was now proposed to repeal that section, although the law at the present moment provided that the transaction should be entered upon the register. Was it not a very strange thing, when making any alteration in the law, that they should give power to trustees to invest money in Colonial stock, when, according to the law, no trust could be entered on the register? If trustees were to be allowed to invest in Colonial stock, then by all moans that stock should be inscribed upon the register. Under these circumstances he hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would give a little more time for the consideration of this Bill. This was not a party measure at all, and there was nothing contentious about it, but he thought the conditions im-
974
posed by the Treasury ought to have the judgment of the House pronounced upon them. He did not think that a matter of this kind ought to be left entirely to regulations to be drawn up by the Treasury. He did not agree with his hon. and learned friend the Member for Haddington that this was a matter for the judges. He believed it was a matter for the Treasury and for the House, and he thought they ought to know what conditions the Treasury were going to impose.
MR. LOWLESthought the measure would be very warmly welcomed by all the colonies.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I am entirely in accord with the principle of this Bill, but I am bound to say that I see some force in the objection raised by my hon. and learned friend. I have the good fortune, or the misfortune, of being-a trustee of several marriage settlements, and I am bound to say that I think this Bill throws very great difficulties in the way of those who are trustees. Looking at this Bill as a trustee I should not be inclined to invest trust money for which I am responsible in Colonial stock, because the Bill is so complicated. The measure is another instance of legislation by reference of which we have far too much in this House. The measure gives power to the Treasury to make certain rules to be published in the London Gazette, but it is so complicated that I am afraid it will not facilitate very much the investment of trust money in Colonial stock. I think it would be better to introduce a Bill which would enable the trustee to know exactly how he stood in regard to this matter, and which would throw a little more light upon the subject.
SIR M. HICKS-BEACHsaid if the hon. Gentleman did not want to invest money in colonial stock he need not do so.
SIR JAMES JOICEYsaid he was very glad to. hoar the statement of the Chancellor of the. Exchequer, for he confessed he looked with some doubt upon the Treasury in taking up this question. No one recognised more than he did the advantage to

975
the colonists in bringing their funds under the ordinary trusts settlements, but after all he thought, when the Treasury made a move of this kind, it should take such a form as would protect trustees, so that they would have no doubt whether the funds were as safe as our own. He agreed with his hon. friend that the difficulty had been in investing trust funds. In these days, when judges construed the responsibilities of trustees so very closely, the Treasury ought to be most careful in extending the area for trust investments.
M R. BANBURYsaid he was sorry the right hon. Gentleman had taken this opportunity of enabling colonial stock to become trust stock. On several occasions it had been found that the finance of colonies had not been well managed, and he did not see that at the present moment there was any particular necessity to make a change in this direction. The facilities it would give to the colonies to borrow on cheaper terms would be increased, and he did not think the colonists had yet shown themselves to be quite alive to the position they should feel if their stocks were to be regarded as trustee stocks. They were rather too much inclined to borrow money for all kinds of purposes, some of them, he thought, with the idea of catching votes rather than making good use of the money.

IMITATION OF COUNTY COURT PROCESS BILL [Lords].
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
MR. HALDANEasked the Attorney General to give an explanation of the object of the Bill.
MR. CALDWELLalso asked for an explanation of the Bill, and particularly as to the method of procedure in the case of an accused person. He did not think it would be reasonable in a matter of
976
this kind to proceed by way of contempt of court. Was he to be tried under the Summary Procedure Act? In that case the procedure would be cheap, and there would be an appeal on questions of law to the higher courts. On conviction he was liable to a fine of not exceeding £10. Supposing a man committed the offence more than once, why should it be a fine? If a man repeated an act of that kind, imprisonment without the option of a fine might be given. He objected to Bills being brought into the House at this period of the session, when they had not time to examine them.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY, Inverness Burghs)said that he did not make a statement with regard to the object of the Bill in moving the Second Reading, because the measure was short and simple. The Bill was directed against the offence of sending out a summons for payment intending to convey the impression that the summons really proceeded from a county court. That was a serious offence which it was highly desirable to check summarily. Of course it was implied that the document sent emanated from an official of the court. The question of increasing the penalty for a repetition of the offence was a matter for discussion in Committee.
MR. LOUGHasked if there were any statistics to show whether the offence prevailed in London or in any particular parts of the country.
SIR ROBERT FINLAY: I am not in a position to give any statistics on the subject, but I have reason to believe that the offence is not an uncommon one.
MR. MAURICE HEALYsaid that the object of the Bill was a good one: but it seemed to create a sort of summary criminal jurisdiction in the county court. If the county court process was imitated, that was a criminal offence which should be treated like any other criminal offence. He asked the Attorney General to give some information on that point.
SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid the nature of the offence was really contempt of court. The process would be by motion. [AN HON. MEMBER: Why not have a jury?] If the hon. Member

977
wished an Amendment of that sort there would be no chance of the Bill becoming law. The offence was one which bore very hardly on the poor. There ought to be some way of checking an abuse which did not affect the more intelligent classes and those who were well to do. It affected only the poor and ignorant, and it was only they who could be taken in by tricks of this kind. It was for their protection that the Bill had been brought in.
MR. T. M. HEALYsaid this was to be done by motion before the county court judge. That was a novel procedure. So far as he could understand, the Bill applied to Ireland, and he saw no ground why it should not. Perhaps the Attorney General for Ireland would be good enough to inform him how the motion was to be made? Were rules to
be made? Who was the aggrieved party to give notice? This Bill came to them from the House of Lords. He was filled with gratitude to that House for sending them a Bill for the protection of the poor man. There was the greatest anxiety for the poor on the Treasury benches. The Workmen's Compensation Act was to provide for the poor, and no lawyer was to come within a hundred miles of the poor. Yet that Act had been nothing but one for lawyers. The poor man was to be protected by this Bill. He respectfully said that a measure of this kind fell beneath contempt. If the Government could not engage themselves on better legislation they should dissolve.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 113: Noes, 11. (Division List No. 233.)

AYES.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Flower, Ernest

Murray, Charles, J. (Coventry)

Baillie, James E. B.(Inverness)

Fry, Lewis

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

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

Gedge, Sydney

Newdigate, Francis Alexand'r

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

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Banbury, Frederick George

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

Pease, Herbert P. (Darlington)

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

Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

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

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.

Plunkett, Rt. Hon. H. Curzon

Beckett, Ernest William

Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robert W.

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe

Hardy, Laurence

Purvis, Robert

Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

Haslett, Sir James Homer

Rankin, Sir James

Billson, Alfred

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

Rentoul, James Alexander

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Hermon-Hodge, R. Trotter

Richardson, Sir Thos (Hartlep'l)

Bond, Edward

Hornby, Sir William Henry

Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir Matthew W.

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Horniman, Frederick, John

Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. Thomson

Caldwell, James

Howell, William Tudor

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

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

Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, E.)

Lawrence, Sir E. Durning(Corn-

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.)

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm).

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cumb' I' nd)

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

Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r)

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Stanley, Hon Arthur (Ormskirk)

Channing, Francis Allston

Lewis, John Herbert

Stanley, Ed, Jas. (Somerset)

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

Start, Hon. Humphry Napier

Charrington, Spencer

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

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

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Lough, Thomas

Thornton, Percy M.

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow

Macartney, W. G. Ellison

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W.

Macdona, John Cumming

Warde, Lt.-Col. C. E. (Kent)

Cross, Herb. Sheph'd (Bolton)

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Welby, Lt.-Cl.A. C. E.(Taunton)

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Maclure, Sir John William

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Curzon, Viscount

Malcolm, Ian

Wylie, Alexander

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

Wyndham, George

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arey

Faber, George Denison

Middlemore, John T.

Young, Commnader (Berks, E.)

Fellowes, Hn. Ailwyn Edward

More, Robert J. (Shropshire)

Finch, George H.

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

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Morrison, James A. (Wilts S.)

Sir William Walrond and

Fisher, William Hayes

Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford)

Mr. Anstruther.

NOES.

Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

Macaleese, Daniel

Tanner, Charles Kearns

Clark, Dr. G. B.

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Doogan, P. C.

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Hayden, John Patrick

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

Mr. T. M. Healy and

Lambert, George

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

Mr. Maurice Healy.

Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.

PUBLIC WORKS LOAN'S BILL,
Considered in Committee
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]
Clause 1:—
Amendment proposed—
"In Clause 1, page 1, line 13, to leave out 'Edward Howley Palmer, Esquire.' "—(Mr. Hanbury.)
MR. T. M. HEALYasked why this respectable gentleman's name was being omitted.
SIR M. HICKS BEACHsaid that some time ago Mr. Palmer had asked to be relieved of his duties.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, to leave out 'Lord Iveagh.'"— (Mr. Hanbury.)
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 2, after line 2, to insert' The Honourable James Henry Cecil Hozier, M.P.'" —(Mr. Hanbury.)
DR. TANNERsaid he desired to know why Mr. Hozier's name was going to be inserted. Was everything going to be made a family matter? He had nothing to say against Scotchmen, but he wanted to know how it came to pass that Mr. Hozier was chosen for this position? Was it a remunerative position or was it not, and was Mr. Hozier a member of the Prime Minister's family or was he not?
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment proposed—
"In line 2, after the last-mentioned name to insert 'David Lloyd-George, Esq., M.P."
Amendment agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2:—
MR. HERBERT LEWISsaid he wished to know why the amount had been reduced from seven millions to six millions, and further, whether it was not a fact that of the six millions four and a half millions had been already pledged to various local bodies for the purpose of public works.
THIS FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HANBURY,)said that the grant of seven millions last year was a very special one indeed, and was very considerably larger than the average. In 1896 it was only one and a half millions; in 1897, two and a half millions; in 1898, five millions; and therefore he thought that six millions now was a very fair average.
MR. HERBERT LEWISsaid that as there was now a Welsh representative on the Board he was sure that they would get justice, and he therefore would not move his Amendment.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 3:—
MR. T. M. HEALYasked why it was that gentlemen having large property should be allowed to escape these loans. There was a Mr. Lambert, who had been advanced £500 and had only repaid £82. It was the invariable practice of the Government in Ireland, while pressing small tenant farmers for every shilling, to let the landlords off. Here was a man whose name was perfectly familiar to them, who was let off of a sum of over £400, whereas a tenant in Ireland would not be lot off 4d. He was first inducted into the mystery of public loans by the First Lord of the Treasury, who, he remembered, in 1881 attacked Mr. Gladstone for his iniquities in connection with them. The right hon. Gentleman then made a great impression on him. He took a stand now on the case of Mr. Lambert, and he wished to know why he was to get off paying over £400.
MR. HANBURYsaid that, as the hon. Gentleman no doubt knew very well, Mr. Lambert was not getting off at all,

981
because the debt remained, although it was wiped off' the assets of the Local Loans Fund, which had to be done, of course, in the interests of the fund itself. The Treasury did not forego any claim to recover the money so far as it was recoverable. He was bound to say that the advance to Mr. Lambert was rather a foolish advance. There were two advances —one in 1874, and the other in 1881.
MR. T. M. HEALY: The Tory Government was in for the first lot.
MR. HANBURYsaid whatever Government was in did not now matter. The fact was that there was a large head rent, and sufficient regard had not been paid to that when making the advances. The payment of the head rent fell into arrear, and in order to save eviction and loss a salvage creditor paid off the arrears of the head rent and became, therefore, entitled to first priority over the other creditors. Ultimately the land was sold for £800, and nearly £600 went to satisfy the claims of the salvage creditor.
MR. CALDWELLsaid that the Secretary of the Treasury had stated that the amount of the advances might be eventually recovered, but according to another statement of his the advances were irrecoverable. In this case the money was lent for the purpose of erecting buildings and putting down subsoil. Who was to get the benefit of it? He supposed it would be the head-rent man. It was not fair that money should be spent in this way on property which practically belonged to another man, and out of which the Government would never get a single penny. This case only illustrated the principle on which these loans were given in Ireland.
MR. T. M. HEALYsaid that J. Fitzgerald received a loan of £3,000 for the purchase of his holding, which, of course, was said to be the value of the asset. The Government now wiped off £2,800. In other words, the holding on which they advanced £3,000 was not worth anything like that amount. They heard a great deal when the Home Rule proposal was before the country about the iniquity of Mr. Gladstone proposing to lend money for the purchase of Irish land. They were told it would be practically irrecoverable. The right hon.
982
Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham made a great deal of the plea that the money would be irrecoverable, but here J. Fitzgerald got £3,000, and walked off with £2,800, £200 being the value of the land.
MR. HANBURYsaid this was one of the unfortunate cases in which a purchase took place from one relation to another. A certain proportion of the money would be recoverable. The value of the land had deteriorated very much from the condition in which it was when sold. He admitted that this was a case where the sum lent was larger than it ought to have been.
MR. T. M. HEALYsaid they had protested over and over again against the system of fathers transferring land to sons, and mothers transferring land to daughters, and borrowing money from the State under the pretence that this was land purchase. They were entitled to know the name of the Commissioner. It was very regrettable that the money should be wasted, but those who were testifying year after year against this extravagant system in Ireland were not listened to.
MR. HANBURYsaid the rent of the land was £150. He did not know the name of the Commissioner, but he would ascertain for the hon. and learned Member.
MR. JONATHAN SAMUELsaid that, the restitution fund having been abolished, they ought to know out of what fund the Government proposed to pay the sums which they intended to wipe off this year.
MR. HANBURYsaid that what happened was that the loss to the Local Loans Fund was made good by a Vote of Parliament, and if any sums were subsequently recovered they were paid into the Exchequer.
MR. T. M. HEALYsaid it was understood that a fifth was always retained by the Government in such cases. The advance in this case for was £3,000, of which a fifth would be £600. Therefore only £2,400 should have been lost, whereas £2,800 was actually lost. Why was not a fifth retained? He did not for a moment suggest that the Secretary to

983
the Treasury was in any degree responsible, and doubtless the right hon. Gentleman had not the smallest sympathy with what he was defending. He would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he should supply the date of the loan, the name of the Commissioner making the advance, the name of the valuer, and the Poor-law valuation. If the Land Commissioners knew that such details would lie set out in a Public Loans Bill they would be much more careful.
MR. HANBURYsaid he entirely agreed with the hon. Gentleman. He thought more light should be thrown on these transactions, and he would undertake that in future the fullest information should be given. He had already given the name of the valuer, and would endeavour to obtain the name of the Commissioner. As for the fifth which had been retained, it was all exhausted in paying instalments.
DR. TANNERsaid he should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman who J. Fitzgerald was? He happened to know East Cork very well, and there was only one James Fitzgerald there as far as he knew. He was an agent and had grabbed a certain number of farms in the district. He did not want to put it in a painful way, but that James Fitzgerald had a brother, an hon. Baronet sitting in the House for an English constituency. In such matters the process of identification ought to be gone through thoroughly. If he were the gentleman he imagined, he should not have any difficulty in getting a loan, because he was agent to Lord Middleton.
MR. CALDWELLsaid he thought the Secretary to the Treasury would admit that it was quite proper that attention should be called to the matter, and that it should be gone into in more detail than usual. When money was being advanced on property in Ireland it should be done on business lines. The loan for £2,000, which the Committee was discussing, was only an illustration of how a bogus sale could be got up. The sale in that case was made by a mother to a son, and at that time it was represented that the rent of the property was £150. In 1899, however, only
984
£58 could be got for it. In such cases the parties walked off with the money, leaving the Treasury to bear the loss. He thought they might reasonably have a statement showing for several years past the names and addresses of persons whose loans had been written off, and how much had been recovered. It was only right that the persons who were responsible for advancing money in Ireland should be impressed with the fact that the House of Commons would see that proper security was got for the advance, and that if a loss were incurred it would be enquired into. It was only in that way that the matter could be kept on a business principle, and he hoped after what had taken place that the Treasury would see the necessity for issuing special instructions.
Clause agreed to.
Bill reported, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
On the Motion for Adjournment:—
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It may be for the convenience of the House if I say that after consultation I have come to the conclusion that the most convenient course for the House would be that the Colonial Vote should be taken on Wednesday.
MR. TOMLINSON: When will the Companies Bill be taken?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Companies Bill will be the first Order To-morrow.
MR. T. M. HEALYsaid he hoped the Irish Intermediate Education Bill would not be taken after twelve o'clock. If it were to be taken To-morrow it ought to be taken at an early hour.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that the Companies Bill was the most important Bill that now remained to be discussed, and he could not hold out any hope that they would be able to take the Intermediate Education Bill at an early hour To-morrow.
Adjourned at a quarter after One of the clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the; further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have boon complied with:—
Post Office Sites.
Edinburgh (Housing of Working Class) Improvement Scheme Provisional Order.
Also the Certificate that no further Standing Orders are applicable to the following Bill:—
Paisley Waterworks Provisional Order.
The same wore ordered to lie on the Table.

STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE.
Report from, That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the following Bills ought to be dispensed with, and the Bills allowed to proceed:—
London, Walthamstow, and Epping Forest Railway (Abandonment).
North Metropolitan Electric Power Supply.
Read, and agreed to.

WEST HAM CORPORATION BILL.
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
WEST BROMWICH CORPORATION BILL.
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
CHARING CROSS AND STRAND ELECTRICITY SUPPLY BILL.
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
CROYDON TRAMWAYS AND IMPROVEMENTS BILL.
Reported, with Amendments.
SCARBOROUGH CORPORATION BILL.
The Queen's consent signified; and Bill reported, with Amendments.
LANCASTER CORPORATION BILL.
The Queen's consent signified; and Bill reported, with Amendments.
DURHAM (COUNTY OF) ELECTRIC POWER SUPPLY BILL.
  LANCASHIRE ELECTRIC POWER BILL.
  Committed. The Committees to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 7) BILL.
  The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEESinformed the House that the opposition to the Order was withdrawn. The orders made on Monday and Thursday last discharged, and Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole Honse.
  ALEXANDRA PARK BILL.
  The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEESinformed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn. The orders made on Thursday last discharged, and Bill committed.
  TRAMWAYS PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL.
  (Weston-super-Mare Order).
  NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE ELECTRIC SUPPLY BILL.
  The Order made on Thursday last appointing certain Lords the Select Committee to consider the Bills, discharged.
  SOUTH WALES ELECTRICAL POWER DISTRIBUTION BILL.
  Moved, That the Order made on the 12th day of March last, "That no Private Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Tuesday, the 26th day of June next," be dispensed with, and that the Bill be now read 2a; agreed to; and Bill read 2a accordingly.
SOUTH METROPOLITAN GAS BILL
  LONDON AND SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY BILL.
    ABERDEEN CORPORATION TRAMWAYS BILL.
    Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
    GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY BILL.
    Read 3a, with the Amendments; further Amendments made; Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
    LONDON, WALTHAMSTOW, AND EP-PING FOREST RAILWAY (AMENDMENT) BILL.
    Brought from the Commons; read la; and referred to the Examiners.
  HAMMOND (G. H.) COMPANY BILL [H.L.]
    LONDON AND SAN FRANCISCO BANK BILL [H.L.]
    Returned from the Commons agreed to.
    BELFAST AND COUNTY DOWN RAILWAY BILL.
    Returned from the Commons with the Amendment agreed to.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 12) BILL.
  JARROW AND HEBBURN ELECTRICITY SUPPLY BILL.
    NOTTINGHAM CORPORATION BILL.
    Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
EDINBURGH CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
  MERSEY RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
    RAWTMARSH URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL (TRAMWAYS) BILL [H.L.]
    Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments. The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  GREAT GRIMSBY STREET TRAMAVAYS BILL [H.L.]
    MARGATE PIER AND HARBOUR BILL [H.L.]
    Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments.
    NEWRY, READY, AND TYNAN LIGHT RAILWAY BILL.
    Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, the opposition thereto having been withdrawn; read, and ordered to lie on the Table: The orders made on the 13th instant and Monday last discharged; and Bill committed.

    PLYMOUTH, STONEHOUSE AND DEVONPORT TRAMWAYS BILL.
    Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, the opposition thereto having been with-
    788
    drawn; read, and ordered to lie on the Table: The orders made on the 12th in stant and Monday last discharged; and Bill committed for Thursday next.

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL. ORDERS (No. 9) BILL.
    (Dorchester Order.)
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL. ORDERS (No. 14) BILL.
    (Torquay Order.)
  TOTTENHAM URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
    BRAY AND ENNISKERRY RAILWAY BILL.
    Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Earl Waldegrave and the Earl of Carnwath be proposed to the House as members of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Earl Carrington and the Lord Heneage; read, and agreed to.
  LONDON (ST. LUKE) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
    LONDON (SOUTHWARK) PROVISIONAL. ORDER BILL.
    Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
    TRAMWAYS PROVISIONAL ORDERS. (No. 5) BILL.
    (WESTON-SUPER-MARE ORDER.)
NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE ELECTRIC SUPPLY BILL.
  DURHAM (COUNTY OF) ELECTRIC POWER SUPPLY BILL.

    LANCASHIRE ELECTRIC POWER BILL.
    SHANNON WATER AND ELECTRIC POWER 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.—

    E. Carnwath,

    V. Frankfort de Montmorency,

    L. Wolverton,

    L. Aberdare,

    L. Brassey (chairman),

    Agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly. The Committee to meet to-morrow 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.

    SHANNON WATER AND ELECTRIC POWER BILL.
    Moved, That the Order made on the 12th day of March last, "That no Private Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Tuesday, the 26th day of June next," be dispensed with.—(Lord Lurgan.)
    On Question, motion agreed to.
    Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Lurgan.)
    THE EARL OF MAYO: My Lords, before the motion that the Bill be read a second time is put, I should like to say a few words with regard to this Bill. When the Bill first came before the House of Commons the scheme was a fairly good one, but now it has been completely altered. Under the Bill the promoters are enabled to take water from the river Shannon by means of a canal to enable them to generate electricity and supply electrical energy within a circuit of thirty miles from the commencement of the works. But before they can abstract any water from the river they have to make a weir, the exact situation of which is not decided upon, and cannot be until fresh plans are deposited. They cannot take property to make a weir until they have been to Parliament again, and they cannot take a drop of water until this weir has been constructed. If the Bill passes the company can, under the provisions of Clause 24, proceed, as soon as they have £10,000 capital subscribed, and,£2,000 of that sum paid up, to put in force the compulsory powers of the Bill by taking land. Thus, although they may never receive Parliamentary sanction to their future scheme, and consequently never take water, they can proceed at once to insure land with only £2,000 capital in hand. In the present session there are several Bills promoted with the view of authorising the erection of generating stations and the supply of electricity in bulk, but in these Bills the promoters are coming into extensive districts or areas of supply, where local authorities and companies are already established for supplying electricity, or where there are fields of industry already on foot which would provide customers for taking a supply. In this Bill, however, the area of supply is restricted to a small piece of land in a country parish
    790
    adjacent to the Shannon, where no industries exist, and the same area of land which is provided as the area for supplying power is provided for their generating stations. It is true that by Clause 10 the promoters take power to supply by agreement electricity in bulk to any local authority, company, or person, whose districts, undertakings, factories, mills, or industries are situate within a circuit of thirty miles from the commencement of Work No. 1, but there are no powers in the Bill for carrying mains through intervening districts to reach such authorities, companies, or persons, and the provision is therefore unworkable. Moreover, no proper provision is made for compensating the riparian owners for loss of water. The fishing industries of the Shannon are one of the great features of Ireland, and produce a rental of some considerable value. If the powers are granted which are asked for by this Bill the loss will be considerable to those employed in these industries, to private owners, and to the community generally. Further, in addition to the interference with existing industries connected with the fisheries there will be a serious interference with the navigation of the river Shannon. I trust your Lordships will not agree to the Second Reading of the Bill.
    LORD LURGAN: My Lords, I do not intend to detain your Lordships long on this Bill, and had it not been for the very unusual course of procedure adopted by the noble Earl, that of asking your Lordships to reject the Bill on Second Reading, I should have had very little to say. I shall, however, endeavour to convince your Lordships that the proper course in connection with this Bill is that it shall be referred to a Committee. The object of the Bill is to utilise the redundant waters of the River Shannon for the generation of electric current or energy for the use of undertakings, factories, mills, electric tramways, lighting, and other industries situated within the City of Limerick and the district which surrounds it. The River Shannon, as is well known, is the largest river in the United Kingdom, having a drainage area of some 4,500 square miles, and discharging for the greater portion of the year a great-volume of water, which for centuries has been running to waste. The works are extremely simple, and present no engineer-

    791
    ing difficulty. The great power station, where some 8,000 horse-power will be developed, will be situated at Clonlara, distant only about four and a half miles from the City of Limerick, which contains a population of some 36,000 people-Limerick is a seaport possessing great natural advantages for trade and commerce, being situate fifty miles inland on the finest navigable river in the United Kingdom, having deep-water docks, extensive quays, and several systems of railway converging upon them from all parts of the country, as well as water carriage by means of the Grand Canal to Dublin. The noble Lord said there were no large industries which would use the electrical power. I differ from him. The largest bacon factories in Ireland are here, as well as the biggest condensed milk factory in the United Kingdom, and the largest flour mills operating in any city in Ireland. There are saw mills, tanneries, and numerous other industries, all of which require the use of steam power. Limerick, however, being on the West Coast of Ireland, suffers greatly from the fact that it has to pay a very high price for imported coal. Thus, the existing industries are greatly handicapped, while the starting of new factories cannot be contemplated in view of the serious difficulties arising from the high cost of producing power. It is to remedy this state of things that the present undertaking has been brought before Parliament. Ireland possesses little or no coal, but has a considerable amount of water power, which, if properly utilised as in other countries, may largely tend to the development of its industries and the employment of its people. Both Italy and Switzerland are countries possessing no coal, but, like Ireland, they have the great advantage of possessing the cheapest form of power — namely, water power. By the fostering care of the Government and the energy of the people, these two countries have overcome the difficulties arising from the want of coal, and are now rapidly becoming large manufacturing centres. It is needless to refer to the vast developments which have taken place in America and Canada, where water power is used so fully for electrical development applicable to all manufacturing uses. The idea of utilising the waste water power of the Shannon dates back to the time when Sir Robert Kane pointed out the great advantage
    792
    that would occur to the whole country, from an industrial point of view, if the water power of this great river was properly employed. The case before Parliament is very different from that where water is abstracted from the river and carried away never to be returned again to its original source. Here a portion only—after the fullest allowance has been made for maintaining a great river twice the size of the Thames at Teddington, always flowing down the natural course before any water is abstracted—is utilised for driving the turbines, a supplemental steam plant being provided to meet the possible emergency of a dry summer. The Bill provides that under no circumstances shall any water be abstracted from the river unless and until 90,000 cubic feet a minute, equal to 800,000,000 gallons a day, is passing down the river between the inlet and outlet of the proposed works loading to and from the turbines. At the outlet the whole water is again returned, so that from this point to the sea the river remains absolutely as it was before; and here it is that the valuable fisheries of the Shannon exist. The whole value of the Shannon Fisheries is given as £40,000 a year, but the value of the portion of the river between the inlet and the outlet for which the 90,000 cubic feet a minute is provided is only given by the opponents of the Bill as £2,500 a year. The strongest evidence has been given that with the large flow provided under the clauses of the Board of Works and the Fishery Board no injury will be sustained, but the Bill provides the usual clauses for safeguarding the interests of any persons proved to be injuriously affected; and if the Bill is sent to the Committee in the usual way every opportunity will be afforded to those represented in the solitary petition that remains against the preamble to prove their case. When the Bill was first introduced some six petitions were lodged against it. The most important of these was the petition of the Public Board of Works in Ireland, who, under Act of Parliament, are the custodians of the River Shannon throughout its entire course from Lough Allen to the sea, a distance of some 150 miles, their especial duty being the maintenance of the navigation and the regulations of the floods for drainage purposes. Allied with them

    793
    to a large extent were the inspectors of Irish fisheries, also constituted by Act of Parliament and now incorporated into the Irish Agricultural Board, presided over by the Chief Secretary and the Right Hon. Horace Plunkett. These two Government bodies having the charge of the navigation and the fisheries considered with the greatest care the project now before Parliament as affecting the questions of navigation and fisheries, and, after several months of negotiation, clauses of a very stringent character were put forward in the joint interests of the two bodies, accepted by the promoters, and embodied in the Bill. By these clauses it is provided that no water shall be taken from the river until the 90,000 cubic feet, before referred to, passes over the weir situated below the proposed intake of the canal, and, further, that the Board of Works shall have the right to shut down the sluices on the promoter's canal the moment a less quantity than 90,000 cubic feet a minute is passing down the river. Numerous other clauses have been embodied giving power to the Board of Works and the Fishery Board to control the regulating weir and sluices, to provide such openings for salmon, eels, and other fish as they may deem requisite, and to oblige the promoters to put up such screens at the inlet and outlet as may be thought desirable. Thus in every manner the fullest precautions have been taken by the two public Departments to safeguard the public interests. Of the other petitions, that of next importance was the petition of the Corporation of Limerick for the protection of their waterworks, but here, again, after the most careful investigation and a report made to the corporation by a very experienced waterworks engineer, that body came to the conclusion that it was in the best interests of the city that the project should be carried out. They have, in fact, settled clauses and sealed a petition in favour of the Bill, and will appear before the Committee of your Lordships' House to support it in every way in their power. In like manner the Harbour Board of Limerick have sealed a petition in favour, and by glancing at the statement made by the promoters it will be observed that twenty-three bodies, including the county councils of Limerick, Clare, and Tipperary, all the district councils in the proposed area of supply, the boards of guardians and
    794
    numerous other bodies have sealed petitions or passed resolutions, in almost every case unanimously urging upon Parliament the desirability of passing the Bill. It is significant that the Commissioners of Public Works have absolutely petitioned your Lordships' House against alterations, and paragraph 3 of that petition recites that—
    "During the passage of the Bill through the House of Commons, clauses were introduced for the protection of the petitioners, and your petitioners are content with the Bill as the same is now settled."
    They beg that no alteration should be made, and that the Bill should pass into law as it now stands, showing that they, as representing not only themselves, but as acting in concert with the Fishery Board, are fully satisfied that the promoters have agreed to every reasonable condition. It would, therefore, seem in the public interest that the unusual course adopted by the opponents to destroy the Bill on the Second Heading, after it has passed every stage in the House of Commons, should be resisted by your Lordships' House, and that no narrow view or petty interest should be allowed to stand in the way of a project which must confer lasting benefits on the whole community.
    LORD MASSY: My Lords, as one of the riparian owners and an owner of Shannon fisheries I have great pleasure in supporting my noble friend's motion to reject the Bill. If this Bill becomes law a large portion of a very important spawning bed between Limerick and Castle Connell will be left high and dry at the most critical time of the year—namely, from 1st November to 1st February, when the fish are spawning. The other portion of the spawning bod will have so little water flowing over it that it will be perfectly impossible for heavy salmon to spawn. Not only rod fishing, but the fisheries in general all along the Shannon, will be interfered with by this Bill. The noble Lord said the water will be all returned. True, but between the inlet and the outlet there are several miles of river that will be left practically dry. The noble Lord said the promoters proposed to place their generating station at Clonlara, and to transmit electricity from there to the principal works in Limerick; but, as a matter of fact, not a single one

    795
    of those mercantile works has applied for electrical energy, knowing perfectly well that they can work their machinery, as they do now, by steam at a much less cost for power than would be the case if they used electricity. The noble Lord said the Fishery Board has supported this Bill. They may have done so, but they have withheld their Report, which looks very much as if the Reports of the Fishery Inspectors were dead against it.
    THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of MORLEY): My Lords, I think the House, after having heard the speeches that have been delivered, will have come to the conclusion, without a shadow of a doubt, that this Bill ought not to be stopped at the Second Reading. The Bill is one for a very large commercial enterprise. It has passed through the House of Commons, it was fought in Committee there, and it is extremely unusual, I may say quite unparalleled, that it should be thrown out on Second Heading. I am surprised that the noble Earl should have adopted the unusual course of asking the House to reject it at this stage. I do not think it is necessary for me to say anything more, but I hope your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading and allow it to go to Committee.
    On Question, agreed to. Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed; the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

  RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
    UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1889.
    General Report of the Commissioners under the Universities (Scotland) Act, 1889; with an appendix containing ordinances, minutes, correspondence, evidence, and other documents.
    INDIA FAMINE.
    Advances and gifts to agriculturists for seed, cattle, and subsistence at the end of the famine.

    RAILWAYS (CONTINUOUS BRAKES).
    Return by the railway companies of the United Kingdom for the six months ending the 31st December, 1899.
    Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

    CHINA—ANTI-FOREIGN OUTBREAK-PRESENTATION OF PAPERS.
    THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I desire to ask the noble Marquess the Prime Minister a question of which I have given him private notice—namely, whether it is his intention to lay upon the Table of the House any Papers relating to Chinese affairs, and, if so, whether they are likely to be presented soon.
    THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY): In reply to the noble Earl, I have to say that the Papers in regard to Chinese affairs are in an advanced state of preparation, but that, as they involve communications with other European Powers, a certain amount of reference is necessary before they can be laid upon the Table of the House. I hope, however, the delay will not be very long, and that they will be laid on the Table in a few days.

    EDUCATION BILL [H.L.]
    [SECOND READING.]
    Moved, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(The Duke of Devonshire.)
    LORD NORTON: My Lords, I should like to call your Lordships' attention to a feature in this Bill, and one that has appeared in every proposition which has lately been made for the purpose of secondary education, which seems to me of the gravest importance and fraught with mischief to this country. I hope we are not entering now upon a course of free secondary education for all classes in the country. The Bill, if extended and developed, as I have no doubt it will be next session, seems to me to be a most satisfactory mode of dealing with this important subject, but it must be borne in mind that the Bill cannot be all one would wish, because it has to deal with a subject which is already very much complicated. It has not a free field. The field is already largely occupied and is being more occupied every year, so that the Bill cannot propose the best scheme in the abstract, but the scheme which will least conflict with what is going on already. It cannot organise, as it pretends to do, a system of local authorities for secondary education throughout the country, but has to co-organise with what is largely existing at

    797
    present with as little conflict as possible. It will be observed that there is no attempt in this Bill to draw any line of demarcation between secondary and elementary education. The whole is handed over to the central authority, which we constituted last year, with a principal secretary at the head and two principal assistant secretaries under him, who are stated to be for two branches—one for elementary education and the other for secondary education. But there is no attempt whatever made in the Bill to draw the distinction between the one and the other. The nearest thing to a definition is in the title of the Bill which calls everything secondary that is not elementary, but that does not give a very distinct idea of what the intention of the Bill is. The Bill proposes to hand over all public money hitherto devoted to secondary education to county councils and other local authorities. What is known as the "beer-money," amounting to nearly a million a year, and the local rate for technical instruction are handed over, and a public seizure of private endowments. But it is not proposed to ask the rich manufacturers and the tradesmen, who will make use of this Bill for the education of their sons for lucrative employments, for one penny by way of fees. I do not think it is right or safe that we should undertake in this country to give rich manufacturers and well-to-do tradesmen the apprenticeship of their sons to remunerative employments at the public expense, for that is what the Bill amounts to. The pros and cons of free secondary education were amply discussed in the Report of the Royal Commission, who rightly came to a conclusion against it. Though there is no line drawn between elementary and secondary education, yet we must all understand what elementary and secondary education broadly mean as distinguished one from the other. Secondary education is in the nature of higher scientific instruction, and, in fact, when you consider the class to whom it applies, it is practically an apprenticeship to industrial and skilled employments. Technical instruction is included in secondary education generally, and I observed that, when the noble Duke said that, there was a murmur of approval, showing that the House approved of the merging of technical instruction into secondary education generally. But if secondary education is
    798
    a higher class of instruction for a higher class of society, who are perfectly capable of paying for their own sons' education, I maintain that it is a matter for serious consideration whether the State should undertake it for them, and relieve them of their primary and most important natural responsibility. I think that we have gone too far already in the way of gratuitous education, in the elementary schools of this country. I attribute the lax attendance in elementary schools, complained of in all the recent reports of inspectors, to the depreciation in the estimate of parents of that education of their children which is forced upon them as a public gift. A thing that is offered for nothing is supposed to be worth nothing. If we extend gratuitous education where there is no excuse of poverty at all we shall strike a blow at the spirit of independence and self administration in the people. It is a minor consideration that taxpayers who have no use of the schools will resent having to pay for those who have. For secondary education which is of a higher kind, the whole expense in the schools so provided should be covered by the fees of the well-to-do parents who take advantage of them. I am for an unlimited number of free scholarships for the poorer classes where there is any case of exceptional aptitude shown for higher scientific education; but I would make wealthy parents defray the cost of the education of their children. The idea of the doctrinaires who are pushing us on in this ideal scheme is, a free State education which should include Eton and Harrow up to the Universities—they are really trying to force upon this country a Prussian State system of education for all classes. They are always quoting foreign schools as inferior to ours, and advising us to imitate them, but I am quite certain England has not the slightest wish to do so. The feeling in this country I am sure is very much more in favour of the independent education of their children by capable parents. They have no wish to introduce the Prussian system here. I do not believe there is an Englishman who does not think an English youth is preferable to a German student. I fear that the present private enterprise and municipal ambition in promoting secondary education will be stopped if such education is to be paid for by public money

    799
    for all classes; and when the Bill is brought up next year I will move that the cost shall be generally met by fees, and public money which is devoted to secondary education shall be spent in providing free scholarships for the poorer classes. To define poorer classes may be somewhat difficult, but it is done by their limit of income, or by their belonging to the wage-earning classes.
    EARL SPENCER: My Lords, I was very glad to give way to my noble friend Lord Norton when he rose to speak on this subject, for he has a much longer experience than I have of these matters, and his opinion ought to be heard with attention by your Lordships. I shall not follow my noble friend through the arguments he has used. I, for one, am not likely to approve of any system which is to introduce what he calls the Prussian system into this country. I value extremely the peculiar, perhaps, but independent education given in this country, and I should be the last to approve of trying to found a new system on the lines of those we see abroad. I shall not follow the noble Lord even on the subject of free education. I shall leave that to the noble Duke who will reply, but I am at a loss to see the danger there is in this Bill on that subject. Certainly, if the noble Lord urges his view against free primary education as well as this I should not agree with him. The discussion to-night must be somewhat academic, as the noble Duke has announced that he does not intend to carry the Bill beyond the Second Reading this year, but he challenges those of us in this House who are interested in the subject to discuss the measure. I confess that I was somewhat surprised when my noble friend the noble Duke made his speech in introducing the Bill to find that three parts of that speech was confined to a description of the reorganisation of the Education Department, and only a small portion of it, in comparison, to a description of the Bill itself. When I had the Bill in my hands, however, I was not surprised at the importance which the noble Duke attached to the reorganisation of the Education Department, for I will venture to say that very large, I think too large, powers have been given to the Education Board without Parliamentary restrictions, and therefore it is of more consequence
    800
    than even that the Board shall be placed on such a footing that the country will repose confidence in it. I do not, myself, object to the proposals which the noble Duke has made for rearranging the system of dividing the work of the Education Department. I do not materially differ from that course, for I have always held that all parts of education should be bound together. They are co-ordinate one with the other—primary, secondary, and technical. Each must depend and have: a direct influence on the other, and I therefore do not seriously object to the noble Duke's change of attitude in having only two principal assistant secretaries, one for primary education and the other for both secondary and technical education. But I am bound to say that, very properly, a good deal of notice outside. Parliament has been taken of the manner in which the noble Duke has made these appointments. At the head of secondary and technical education the noble Duke has placed a very able man—Sir William Abney. I for one shall not say a word against Sir William Abney. I know him to be a man of first class ability, and I should say of liberal and broad views; but he has been entirely, so far as education is concerned, connected with science and art, and there is a fear outside that if he is placed at the head of the proposed double Department he may lay too much stress on science and art, and not deal as broadly and as liberally as he ought with secondary education. That view is somewhat strengthened when it is seen what has been done as regards the assistant secretaries There are two assistant secretaries already, and two more have been added. The two present assistant secretaries are old South Kensington men, entirely devoted to the Science and Art Department, and one of the new assistant secretaries, whom the noble Duke did not name the other day., is to be connected with the technological system. Therefore, three out of the four assistant secretaries are directly connected with technical education. The fourth assistant secretary, Mr. Bruce, a man of whom I speak with the highest possible admiration, is to deal with the secondary part of education. He possesses all the qualifications for dealing with the subject, and was Secretary to the Secondary Education Commission, which brought so many important facts to bear on this subject, and whose Report is of

    801
    such great value. There are many persons of influence interested in education who feel that Mr. Bruce ought to have been a joint principal secretary with Sir William Abney, instead of being placed under him. I wish for a moment to refer to what the noble Duke said in moving the First Reading of this Bill,✶ and which, I think, may have been misunderstood in the country. The noble Duke—I am quoting from The Parliamentary Debates— said—
    "We hope and intend that the idea of the future education branch of the office will be to make science and art instruction a part of general education in addition to those clerical and literary studies which have hitherto formed its main portion."
    With that I entirely agree; but the Lord President went on to say—
    "In the schools and institutions directly assisted by the Board of Education the teaching of science and of art, with the addition, perhaps, of some commercial subjects, will probably remain the principal object."
    The noble Duke went on to refer to the older secondary schools, and said—
    "We hope that the scientific resources of the Board will be. placed at their disposal if they desire, as many of them do desire, to develop the more modern sides of instruction and education…. As I have said, it probably will be the case that any interposition of the Board in-regard to secondary education will be in the direction of endeavouring to substitute more modern for the older studies; but it ought not to be difficult to find administrators of sufficiently wide knowledge and experience to make the latter result impossible."
    Those sentences of the noble Duke seem to imply that the new development is almost entirely to be in science and art, and he ends in this remarkable way, referring to Mr. Bruce —
    "Under him (Sir William Abney) the assistant secretary, who will be chiefly concerned with the literary side of instruction, will be Mr. Bruce."
    With regard to that, I think the noble Duke has suffered some injustice, because in the report of his speech in the public press, which has been circulated throughout the country, a very important word is left out. In The Times the noble Duke is reported to have said—
    "Under him the assistant secretary, who will be concerned with the literary side of instruction, will be Mr. Bruce."
    The important word "chiefly" is omitted, and I think it is only fair to the noble Duke
    * See The Parliamentary Debates [Fourth Series], Vol. lxxxiw, page 1031.
    802
    that I should mention this, as the insertion of the word makes all the difference. I am afraid that the speech of the noble Duke in introducing the Bill will create the impression in the country that the new Education Board will lean a great deal more to the old Science and Art modes of action than to a genuine and sound system of secondary education, which is so much wanted. I hope the noble Duke will be able to be more explicit than he was on that occasion as to his views when he replies to the debate to-night. If he leaves the case as it now stands I am afraid there will be a considerable chance of the Department losing the confidence of those interested in education. I now come to the Bill itself. I am afraid there will be some disappointment in regard to it. The Bill is not as far-reaching as it might be, and I am afraid it will not establish in the country the means of secondary education which are so much wanted. When I say that I am not for a moment wishing that in every locality, quite irrespective of its requirements, a new secondary school should be erected; but I think secondary education should be within the reach of every clever boy or girl in the country by means of scholarships or otherwise. What do we find elsewhere? In other countries and in the colonies we find such a system in existence. You will find in almost every district in the colonies an admirable secondary school, established sometimes with free education, which my noble friend Lord Norton dislikes so very much, and sometimes with low fees. Not many years ago I had the pleasure of visiting a fine set of schools at Winnipeg, in Manitoba. I found there an admirable primary school, and there was in the same building a secondary school, admirably furnished and admirably equipped for giving secondary education to all within reach of that school. I think the people of this country may really have a serious complaint to make of Parliaments and Governments if they put the young men and women of this country at a serious disadvantage as compared with those in the colonies. I at once admit that there are certain parts of the Bill to which I can give my hearty approval, such as the provision which makes it compulsory on local authorities to use the whole of the "whisky money," or, as the noble Lord opposite called it, the "beer money," for education. I do not

    803
    know that that will reach very far, for I am happy to think there are very few districts in which the money is devoted to the relief of rates or for any other purpose than education. I welcome also the alteration in the rate. It is not altogether an increase of a penny in the £, as I think the noble Duke explained, for in some places urban authorities can raise a penny in the £, and in the same county the county authority may do the same; but in the arrangement proposed in this Bill the county authorities will have the whole distribution and control of this twopence in the £. I think there will be considerable gain by doing away with the fiction which now exists in the definition of technical and secondary education in many places. The county authorities, believing that it is absolutely necessary that there should be a system of sound secondary education before trying to engraft into it technical education, have strained that principle and there has been considerable fiction in what has been done with regard to this point. In my opinion the method by which the Bill proposes to raise the new authorities for secondary education is much too vague. A great deal too much is left to the Department without any control, or very little control, by Parliament. In a matter of such great national importance, Parliament ought to lay down very precisely certain conditions on which these bodies are to be formed. The noble Duke has probably taken the machinery for this to some extent from the Welsh Intermediate Education Act, but he has not followed the precedent of that Act very closely. In that Act there was a special joint Committee for proposing schemes created before the final authority was made. I do not know that the difference is very great, but the present Bill leaves it to the county council to form the scheme and submit it to the Education Board. I think the other plan would be more preferable, and would bring more local interest to bear. I recognise that a certain amount of elasticity must be introduced for the formation of these schemes. Speaking roughly, there are two bodies, or two kinds of bodies that have to be considered. There are urban bodies and rural bodies. The urban bodies are in a very different position from the rural bodies, for they cover what are called the non-county towns. I know that raises a
    804
    very difficult question, but at some time or other it will have to be faced. Possibly the noble Duke will say it will be faced by the schemes which will be submitted to the Department by the county councils. I for one should like very much to see certain elected bodies represented on these Committees for managing secondary education. There are a great many references in the Bill, and it is not quite clear whether certain matters are included in it or not. I do not know whether when a council aids a school they are entitled to place on the management of that school representatives in proportion to the grant made. This is to my mind most essential. I think county councils ought in every case to have a majority on the Committees, and in the towns I should like to see the school boards represent the minority. It is essential, particularly in towns, that near connection should be maintained between primary and secondary education. There are difficulties, such as those to which the noble Duke alluded, as to higher grade schools which will be removed to a large extent by having representatives of the school boards who have to deal with these higher grade schools on the committees for managing secondary education. In rural districts, I know, this will be impossible, for there are not school boards all over the country. I deeply regret this. I am not against Voluntary schools, and I do not wish to see them all turned into Board schools, but I do wish to see throughout the country school boards established through which the sums voted by Parliament or the rates should pass. At present no such bodies exist in many rural districts; and, therefore, it is impossible to lay down that the rural county councils should have representatives of school boards on their committees. It seems, therefore, probable that with regard to these rural county councils some system of co-optation will have to be agreed to, but I should be opposed to Government nomination. Universities and colleges are named. That may be all very well in certain places where colleges or universities are placed in the midst of counties, but there are many counties where this could not take place. I now come to certain other difficulties which I see in the Bill. To those who have followed the education debates and discussions throughout the country it must be a matter of deep sorrow that such bitter

    805
    feuds should exist with regard to matters connected with the religious question in primary schools. I believe that the very fact of the existence of these feuds prevents the spread and the management in the best way of education throughout the country. Happily, up to this moment technical education has not had any difficulty of this sort. I wish I could think that this Bill would not introduce any difficulty in the future, but I confess that I fear that some clauses of the Bill may bring the religious feud into questions connected with secondary education. The noble Duke may be able to explain the clauses better than they are under-stood elsewhere, but there are many people who believe—and there is reason for thinking they are right in their belief —that you will be able under this Bill, with hardly any restriction on the management, to what is called bolster up purely denominational schools by the large grants made to them for apparatus and various other matters. I must say I should deeply regret that, and I am quite certain there will be throughout the country very strong opposition to anything which might be regarded as indirect endowments to denominational secondary schools without any representative control. I should be content, and I know a great many of those with whom I have been spoken would be content, if the noble Duke introduced into the Bill some such restrictions or conditions with regard to religious instruction, as are to be found in the Welsh Intermediate Education Act, and I hope that if the Bill comes before Parliament again it will be modified in this respect. I come now to the question of private schools. No doubt there are a great many private schools in the country which give very good secondary education. I should be very sorry to see those schools deprived, under certain conditions, of the benefits which would arise under inspection, or to prevent clever boys from them winning scholarships under these schemes; but I confess I have a strong opinion that private schools for secondary education should not directly receive aid under this Bill. I have admitted that there are very excellent private schools, but private schools depend on the skill of the man who is at the head of them. He is often a very clever man, and makes the school succeed and become a great financial success; but, should death un-
    806
    fortunately remove him, would it be right to go on with his successor, who might be a perfectly incompetent person? If you once get committed to aids to a particular school it is very difficult, on the first change of the headmaster, to give up making your grant. It is quite different in the case of public companies, who manage their schools on a broad and liberal basis. I should be quite ready to agree to exceptional treatment being allowed to some of these private schools which are under public companies not making a large profit. Unless something of this kind is done, I am afraid that there will be a race on the part of private schools to obtain grants under the Bill, and there will be a chance, in certain districts, at all events, of a great many incompetent schools, giving secondary education, receiving these grants. I therefore do not like the third section of Clause 3. There are certain omissions from the Bill, some of which are of considerable importance. I do not find a clause throwing upon the local authority the duty of satisfying public demands for secondary education in their district. I have in vain searched for it. I have looked back at some of the other Acts which are to be read with this Bill; and I am afraid I do not see anything which will meet the difficulty. It seems to mo absolutely necessary, if you are to provide sufficient secondary education for every child all over the country, that the duty should be thrown on the authority managing secondary education to provide such education as the demands of the district require. There is another omission. There is no clause in this Bill like the seventeenth clause of the Bill of 1896.
    THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The Duke of DEVONSHIRE): The Bill of 1896?
    EARL SPENCER: I mean the Bill that did not pass. That clause is of great importance for this reason. Ever since this subject has been dealt with it has always been urged that the endowments which exist in different parts of the country should be used for the purpose for which they were originally intended—namely, secondary education. We all know that in many districts numbers of these grammar schools have fallen into a hopeless state of decrepitude. Their

    807
    funds are absolutely useless for the purpose of education, and the money is being wasted. I know, from my own experience, that in some parts of the country old grammar schools have been revived and put under new schemes, with the result that they are doing exceedingly well. In Wales the power of approaching the body who have the granting of new schemes— the Charity Commission—was placed in the hands of the secondary education bodies, and I am told that in Wales, owing to their influence in the localities, those bodies have been in many instances successful in getting old grammar schools put on a better footing and in utilising their endowments for the public good. If that is so I consider this is a matter of very great importance, and I regret that the noble Duke has not included some such provision in this Bill. On two points explanation is necessary to satisfy the fears of some highly intelligent persons outside Parliament, who are not, perhaps, so versed in dealing with Bills as members of your Lordships' House, and who have read the clauses of the Bill as enabling the authorities under it to make grants to any other form of education. That expression appears at the end of the first section of Clause 1, and it appears again at the end of the first section of Clause 2. An idea has been created that this might place primary education under the control of local councils. I confess myself that I do not share that idea, because the clauses are governed by the title of the Bill, which declares the Act to be—
    "An Act to make better provision for enabling county councils and other local authorities to aid forms of education not being elementary."
    If it were intended that the Bill should go to Committee, I should move that these words be added to the first sub-section of Clauses 1 and 2 in order to make this point clear. The noble Duke will no doubt be able to say something which will explain how this matter stands, for the benefit of those who are exceedingly anxious about it outside Parliament. Another matter I press upon the noble Duke is that he should not hastily draw a line of demarcation between secondary and primary schools. I quite agree with the noble Duke that there is very considerable difficulty in so doing, and I rejoice to see that he is not, at all events, in a hurry to draw that line. I think it
    808
    would be a very great loss to education if the line were so drawn as to take the higher grade schools away from the management of the school boards. I am aware that the noble Duke has issued an Order regulating what are to be the higher grade schools still remaining under the Board of Education, but I am afraid, from what I hear, that the Order will throw a good many schools into very great difficulty, cause great dissatisfaction, and stop their admirable educational work in many parts of the country. I believe that these higher grade schools have become almost a necessity in many places. I will quote the opinion of a gentleman who was very well known to the noble Duke and myself when we were both at Cambridge—the late Chief Inspector of the Education Board, Mr. Sharpe. In his general Report for 1897 Mr. Sharpe said—
    "But if a good system of secondary schools should in the distant future be established, I do not think that even then a hard-and-fast line can be drawn between primary and secondary schools, and there must be of necessity some overlapping of subjects; it would be unjust to deprive the higher primary schools of the liberty of taking some part of the subjects which might be held to belong to secondary schools. Unless a system of County Council or other scholarships can be devised, which would remove all the more clever boys to a secondary school at an age that would leave three or four years of subsequent study, boys who have only two years longer of school life would be better left in the higher primary school, with whose methods and teachers they are familiar."
    I think these are very wise words, and I venture again to press on the noble Duke that he should not be in too great a hurry to draw this line of demarcation, though at some future day it will have to be drawn. I am afraid I have detained your Lordships at considerable length, but my excuse must be the great importance of the subject. It is one in which the country takes the deepest possible interest. In my opinion this Bill is hardly adequate, and in some respects I am afraid it opens dangerous topics. If I am mistaken in this I shall be glad, for I am certain that the sooner a sound, good system of secondary education in the country is established, the better. We talk a great deal of the absolute necessity, in these days of keen competion in commerce with other nations, of giving a wide and good technical education, but I venture to say that we must include secondary with technical educa-

    809
    tion, for without a good grounding in secondary education it is vain and futile to impart technical instruction to pupils.
    THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I think it is quite true that the proposals in the first clause of the Bill are too vague, and that we ought to have a more distinct statement of the principle on which these educational committees are to be formed. It is a very marked thing, and I do not think it is a right thing, that for the first time in legislation of this sort, so far as I can remember, these schemes are not to be submitted to Parliament. Parliamentary control over them is altogether gone. Hitherto it has been the practice, when schemes are made for endowed schools, for instance, that every such scheme should be submitted to Parliament and discussed either in this House or in the other House. I think it is rather a misfortune that Parliament is not called upon in the same way to deal with such schemes as are proposed under Clause 1 of this Bill, because there can be no question at all that the discussions in Parliament have a great effect not only upon the scheme under discussion, but upon the general course of public opinion on those matters. As to the proposals with regard to religious education, the noble Earl seems to think that denominational religious education is something bad in itself.
    EARL SPENCER: I do not think it is bad in its proper place.
    THE LORD ARCHBTSHOP OF CANTERBURY: I think it is a mistake to say it should not come within secondary education. That is the place where, indeed, it is most wanted. The experience of the working of schools since 1870 has very distinctly brought before us this fact, that the undenominational education given does not roach the religious instruction desired by religious people to be given. Those who are anxious that religious education should be given mean not only that the learners should be taught particular doctrines but that they should be trained to apply all religious doctrines to their ordinary life, and you do not get that training from any teacher who is not very much in earnest about the religious instruction which he gives. There
    810
    are teachers, I have no doubt, who are very much in earnest and who would do good work of that kind, although restricted from handling the religious instruction which they give quite freely. I have no doubt there are such teachers, but they do not abound. As a rule, if you leave a man free he will teach such religious education as he himself believes in, and he will teach it tolerably well in proportion to that belief; but you will not get a man who is very much in earnest in these matters to give a thorough - going religious education if you say to him he must leave out a large part of that which, in his own eyes, is of very great importance as an ingredient in all such education. Denominational education has this merit about it, that it always tends to carry with it, not merely religious knowledge, but religious training in a sense in which I do not believe that you would get it from teachers who are hampered by the undenominational system. I do not mean to say that I have any fault to find with the undenominational system if you can get teachers who are really able to give true religious instruction under that form, but I do say that the number of teachers who can do it is extremely limited, and that whilst you can get a few to do it, and to do it well, you do not get a very great number. Therefore, I think that anything which damages denominational education in this part of the educational system would be a very serious mischief. I do not wish to find fault with the proposals that are in the Bill, but I should like, if possible, to secure for denominational teaching what was allowed by the Department a little while ago in a training college that was established for mistresses. In that case it was provided that the residential part of the training college should be denominational, but that it should have also a non-residential part, and there the conscience clause came in. There was a fair compromise between the two systems, and I think the application of that principle in the provision of schools for secondary education might very well be allowed, and would got rid of all the difficulty on this subject with greater ease than any other proposal that I have yet heard of. That in day schools there should be a conscience clause is fair enough. The teaching in day schools can be managed in such a way that the with-

    811
    drawal of certain children is not a very serious difficulty; but when you come from day schools to boarding schools the thing is different, and I hold that, where these boarding-houses are in the hands of denominational managers, religious instruction should be given to all who are living within those houses. It would be a difficult thing to provide anything of this sort in elementary schools, because there, from the nature of the case, you have not got boarding-houses at all. But in secondary education it is certain that a very large proportion of the pupils will be living in boarding-houses, and to impose a conscience clause in such cases would be doing nobody any good whatever, but would impose on a good many a great burden, because it is so very difficult to manage a home in which you have different religious persuasions present. The students ought to be treated as if they were in their own homes. I venture to put this before the House and before the noble Duke, the Lord President, because it is consistent with the principle that has been already adopted, and will, I think, make a very great difference in the working of a Bill such as this. I should be very sorry if the result should be to bring denominational religious instruction into any place where it ought not to come, but I venture to think you ought to be very careful indeed before you decide that secondary education is such a thing that into the homes which I have described denominational religious education ought never to enter. Those are the only remarks I wish to make at this point on Clause 3; but I desire also to say a word with regard to Clause 4. In that clause it is stated that—
    " Every council shall, in the exercise of their powers of establishing and aiding schools under the said Acts," etc.
    I think it would be a help to us all when this Bill reaches Committee if in the margin a reference was made to the places in those Acts where this power of establishing schools is given. The power of aiding schools is given plainly enough, but I have not boon able to find where there is power given in the Technical Instruction Acts to establish schools. I think it would be as well that that matter should be cleared up. In conclusion, I wish to add that while I have not the slightest desire to prevent the Bill from becoming law, I think it comes twenty years too late.
    LORD REAY: My Lords, after the careful analysis of the Bill which has been made by my noble friend behind me, I do not intend to go into the details of the measure, but I wish to call the attention of the House to the general aspect of the question of secondary education. What is the great need of the country with regard to secondary education at the present time? The answer is, a proper distribution of the time which is available for education. The great danger at the present moment is the overloaded curriculum, because insufficient allowance is made for the great variety of existing demands. Where a boy's education ends at fifteen, it is quite clear that he will have to distribute his time differently than if he ends his education at eighteen; and the next question which arises is, what kind of education will be required in view of the profession or career on which the boy will enter? A sailor must have a different education from that of a soldier, and a doctor must have a different education from that of an engineer. We must therefore provide for two things, and keep them very distinct—general secondary education, and special secondary education, taking into account the leaving ago and the profession on which the scholars intend to enter. I am very thankful that no attempt has been made in this Bill to draw the line of demarcation between primary, secondary, and higher education. It is a very remarkable fact that quite lately two very eminent statesmen in France—MM. Poincaré and Bourgeois— in giving evidence before a Secondary Education Commission, both agreed that it was quite impossible to draw the line between primary, secondary, and higher education. That is all the more remarkable, because in the organisation of the French Ministry of Public Education there is a director for primary education, a director for secondary education, and a director for higher education. If, therefore, the demarcation has failed in Franco, we may conclude that we should not be more successful in a similar attempt. There are so many openings for English boys that we must necessarily have a great variety of curricula. However limited the time may be at the disposal of those who have to teach the boy, a sound general education must be given as a solid foundation. It is on that point that I wish to enter into some detail, because my impression is that the

    813
    ideas of the Board of Education of what constitutes a general education are not very clear. The longer you can defer the period of specialisation the better. When I received the Minute on Higher Elementary Schools, I thought that these principles were recognised, and that it was intended to give a general education up to the ago of fifteen—the limit of the Free Education Act—to all those who would be qualified and prepared to make good use of it. The Minute contemplated "suitability of instruction to the circumstances of the scholars and the neighbourhood." That was exactly what was wanted, and it could not mean anything but a differentiation of the curricula of higher elementary schools. Under these circumstances the School Board for London asked for the recognition of forty-three separate schools for boys and girls in seventy - nine departments. That sounds a very large figure, but when I tell your Lordships that it only means one higher elementary school per 100,000 inhabitants, and that in the small kingdom of Saxony there are forty-four commercial schools, you will at once see that it was by no means an exaggerated demand. What was the answer of the Department? It was that—
    "The Board of Education will be ready to entertain a proposal for the conversion of the schools of science provided by the school board, into higher elementary schools, and in localities where additional schools of science might, so far as educational reasons are concerned, be recognised, the Board of Education will consider an application for the recognition of a higher elementary school."
    The decision of the Board of Education is in direct contradiction with the words I have quoted from the Minute, for the simple reason that in London the education wanted by far the greater number of boys is not that of a school of science, and that as regards girls it is absolutely unsuitable. We have seventy-nine higher grade departments in connection with the London School Board, and only four schools of science. If the higher elementary school is to be a school for general education, it cannot be a school of science. Science may be one of the subjects taught, but it cannot be the preponderant element. In order to justify what I am saying, I shall appeal from the Board of Education to the late Education Department. On November 3rd, 1898, the Science and Art Department forwarded a
    814
    suggestion by their Inspector that Chelsea "would benefit by the provision of a suitably equipped School of Science." The Education Department, however, sent a Report from their Inspector strongly urging that the school should be designed "also for the teaching of modern languages and commercial training." On March 2nd, 1899, the Education Department forwarded to us a further Memorandum from Her Majesty's Inspector for the Chelsea Division, in which he alludes to "the lack of commercial training and utterly inadequate time given to the only modern language taken "in the higher grade schools in Chelsea. This led to a conference with representatives of the Education Department, Hen Majesty's Chief Inspector in his annual Report for 1899 refers to this conference as follows—
    "There was general agreement that in these [higher grade] schools there is a tendency to neglect what may be called the humanities, and to make practical subjects unduly prominent. That this neglect of literary' subjects is injudicious is shown by the instance of Scotland, where literary subjects have always been considered of first importance, and yet no one can accuse the Scotch of being imperfectly equipped for the practical work of their lives, or can deny their success. in every branch of it—mechanical, commercial, or intellectual."
    It is not a Scotsman who says that, but Her Majesty's Chief Inspector in London. A sub-committee of the Technical Education Board of the London County Council came to the same conclusion, after having instituted an inquiry into the needs of commercial education in London. They reported as follows—
    "We are of opinion that it is a question, which concerns the citizens of. London more than any other British subjects, for London stands alone, as the greatest commercial centre in the world, and as the heart of the British Empire. London has not only a larger proportion of clerks than any other city in the world, it has probably also a larger proportion of clerks to the whole population than most other cities. Everything which affects British trade must affect London in a special degree; and it is only fitting that any measures which are to be taken for the defence of our commercial supremacy should be put forward in the first instance by the merchants and citizens of London."
    Therefore in the case of London there is a perfect agreement as to the necessities of general secondary education between Her Majesty's Inspectors, the Technical. Education Board, and the London School Board. But, though the London School

    815
    Board, complying with the demand of the late Education Department, have established higher elementary schools for instruction in modern languages and commercial subjects, the present Board of Education have limited us to the development of a very scanty number conducted on pure science lines. I cannot understand the educational reason for this action on the part of the Board of Education. What the business houses in London want are clerks who can at least speak fluently one foreign language. If only you begin at an early age this is quite feasible, but this decision of the Board of Education upsets all the measures taken by the London School Board in compliance with the instructions of the Education Department. It does more. It throws the whole burden of our higher grade departments on the rates, in so far as the payment of a block grant constitutes a reduction on the grant we obtained for those schools under the former Code. It virtually cancels the Minute to which I have referred, and instead of giving us higher elementary schools, which we want, forces us to be satisfied with a ridiculously small number of schools, which are only required by a minority of the inhabitants of London. The case of London illustrates that of other centres similarly situated. It discloses, however, a very important misconception, to which the noble Earl behind me has already alluded, which may injuriously affect not only our higher elementary schools, but also our secondary schools. It proceeds from the same mistaken notion which turned technical education committees into secondary education committees under Clause 7 of the Directory of the Science and Art Department. The assumption that the literary side of elementary and of secondary education is less important than its scientific side, and that if you introduce a few literary subjects in a school of science you have satisfied educational demands, is entirely erroneous. It is the result of the neglect of scientific studies in former days and the monopoly enjoyed by classical studies. One side of secondary education is covered by classics. The question at once arises, how much benefit is derived from these studies? If they are pursued with the real aim to master the best thoughts of the Romans and Greeks,as expressed in their language, no
    816
    one will deny their educational value; but in how many instances is this the case? I asked a classical master this question, and he stated that out of every four classical scholars throe derived absolutely no benefit from such training, and he was not prepared to grant that of the remaining fourth more than a small proportion were really the better for the time they had spent on Latin and Greek. What is the alternative? That the time wasted on Latin and Greek should be given to English literature and history. There is not to my mind a finer educational instrument than English literature, and that history should be studied in all its ramifications will, I think, need no argument in this House. The result will be chat you will give a real education to the large majority of boys who at present get a mere superficial knowledge of the classics, and that they will have been taught subjects which they will assimilate, and which will stimulate them to further exertion. In both eases the education will proceed on literary lines, and in both cases you may add other subjects, but you will have brought these young minds in contact with the best thoughts of superior minds. The neglect of English literature and history may lead to this curious result, that an Englishman meeting a German may find that the latter knows more of English literature and of English history than he knows himself. This question of the relative value of a classical and a modern literary education has been most carefully investigated in in France and in Germany. In a recent volume of evidence given before a commission of secondary education, presided over by M. Ribot, a former Premier, in France, such eminent witnesses as M. Poincaré and M. Bourgeois, ex-Ministers of Public Instruction, and M. Gréard and M. Lavirre, stated that modern literature should be placed on the same footing as the classics. The German Emperor put this very forcibly when he said— "I don't want Romans and Greeks; I want Germans." By far the greater number of professions on which young Englishmen enter require a knowledge of modern subjects. You want a general education on modern lines running parallel with a general education on classical lines, and you can include science in either. It would be disastrous to make classics the main feature of a literary education, and science the main

    817
    feature of a modern education. Although I have laid great stress on the necessity for a general education because I consider that it is in danger of being overlooked, I am quite aware of the legitimate demand for special instruction, and of the wise impulse given to technical instruction by the noble Duke. We cannot sufficiently develop the higher branches of technical education. The country is, I believe, thoroughly alive to the fact that it has to meet the rivalry of other nations who are constantly adapting their education to ever-varying needs. It is a vital question for our industries and our trade, which depend upon the excellence of our secondary education. It is an Imperial question. What is wanted at the Education Office above.all is "the open window," in order to see what is going on elsewhere. In Germany the Emperor is giving to the development of secondary education his constant attention. The expansion of German trade, of Gorman industries, is directly due to the unremitting efforts of the German Government to improve their secondary education. And it is to the general, not to the special education, that their success is mainly due. In France we have the interesting Report of the Commission to which I have alluded. The Report and the evidence show a clear appreciation of all the difficulties of the problem and of the urgent need for reform. Your Lordships are aware of the results of American technological institutes, and how they affect the competition we have to meet. The battle of our trade, of our industries, has to be fought in our schools, in our workshops, and in our scientific laboratories. Will this Bill give us the institutions for general and special secondary education, and for the highest developments of technology? I doubt it. I trust that the Bill will be reintroduced on broader lines, and that it will secure to every part of the country, after a careful survey of the needs of every district —an omission in this Bill which seems to me inexplicable—at least as many opportunities for secondary education as Scotland, Wales, and some of our Colonies enjoy. Indeed, I cannot make out why the Board of Education is not more alive to the necessity of levelling up the English system of education towards that of Scotland. In the next edition of this
    818
    Bill I hope to find the grants made dependent on approved schemes of general or special instruction; the formation of secondary education committees on lines thoroughly representative of all the educational interests concerned in the various localities; representation secured on the governing bodies of schools which receive public aid; provision for the better use of our educational endowments; the absorption of the educational duties exercised by the Charity Commissioners; the application of the science and art grants to the purposes of the Bill; provision for the training of secondary education teachers, especially in regard to foreign languages; and effect given —which, for some reason or other I cannot fathom, the Bill does not do—to the admirable recommendations of the Royal Commission on Secondary Education. I am deeply convinced that this question of secondary education is one of Imperial importance, a question which bears very closely on our position in the world, and I do not think that in this Bill, which merely touches the fringe of a great question, the Government give satisfaction to what the country asks for and to what the country needs in order to cope with the over-increasing competition of foreign countries and their increasing efforts to satisfy the demand for improved education.
    THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORD: My Lords, after the various interesting speeches to which we have listened I am afraid the House may feel that the subject has been almost sufficiently discussed, and yet, having devoted a large portion of my life to secondary education, I desire to ask the indulgence of the House for a few minutes while I venture to make two or three observations upon the Bill. In the first place, like some of the speakers who have preceded mo, I am bound to confess that I feel the Bill to be a somewhat disappointing one, because it is such a very little measure when the urgency of the occasion and the greatness of the subject and of our national needs are considered. Those of us who have occupied ourselves with secondary education have felt for the last thirty years or more how some of the Continental nations were forging ahead of us, and this fact has been brought home more forcibly by reason of the reports which have recently been presented. Whatever this Bill is

    819
    called, we have to take it as all that Her Majesty's Government have to offer for the reorganisation of our secondary education system, and, like the noble Lord who has just sat down, I am bound to acknowledge that I cannot understand why the excellent Report of the Royal Commission has been to such a large extent ignored. Before I had the privilege of listening to the debates in this House I was under the impression that it was the habit to take account of the Reports of Royal Commissions, but in the few brief weeks during which I have been a Member of the House I think this is the third Commission's Report which I have seen almost entirely disregarded. When I look at this Bill I am disappointed, in the first place, by the omission of many things which all of us who have been working in secondary education had hoped to boo included. Most of those omissions have been already alluded to, but I could not but feel, with the noble Lord, some surprise that nothing is said in this Bill of the use, or the better use, of our educational endowments, and that no sort of power is given to deal with these endowments. From my own practical observation I do not know how any educational committee is to deal thoroughly with this matter in rural or other districts without some such powers. Then again, I must confess a feeling of disappointment that nothing has been done to settle the relations between our elementary and secondary education. I do not mean that I should be prepared to delimit either one or the other, but it is impossible to deal with the practical work of education without feeling that one of the burning questions which must be settled before we can get rid of friction and make real progress is the relation of the higher grade schools to secondary education. But the great omission is the one which was referred to by the noble Lord who Las just sat down—namely, that there seems to be no obligation laid on either the local authority or the Central Board even to inquire into the needs of any district. Surely the very first step to be taken, if we are to do any real service in this matter, is to find out the actual needs of this and that comity throughout the country. Turning to the provisions of the Bill, I will confine my criticisms to two fundamental clauses. The first of these is Clause 1, the third sec-
    820
    tion of which constitutes the county council the local authority. Here we have one element in the Bill which seems to me, so far as I can judge from my experience, to deserve our unqualified approval, inasmuch as it makes the county the administrative unit. I cannot, however, go along with the clause in handing over the whole of the administration of secondary education to the county councils themselves, subject only to the check of the Central Board. County councils are excellent bodies for many purposes, but I do not suppose they themselves would claim to be educational bodies. If the local authorities are the county councils pure and simple there will be all sorts of variations between one county and another, and I fear there may be some counties in which there will be very little educational work done. I cannot say from my experience, my Lords, that there is a great deal of zeal in the cause of education up and down our rural districts. A good many of our county councils are by no means anxious to spend public money to a large extent on educational work, and so far I cannot feel that they are the proper authorities to be left absolutely paramount and independent in the matter. Something like ten counties which have the administration of what is called the whisky money have not spent by any means the whole of that money on education; and I believe there are about half as many councils of county boroughs which have only spent part of the money on education. I am not blaming those bodies for exorcising their legitimate rights, but I cannot but feel that this fact shows that county councils need leavening if we are to form the best sort of education committee for the purpose of this Bill. Therefore I must express my regret that in framing the clause the noble Duke did not take the recommendation of the Royal Commission and say that while the county council should have a bare majority on the education committee the rest should be so elected as to represent the various educational interests and to secure that there should be on every educational Committee men who are really in earnest about the progress of education and who have some real knowledge of the matter. At present, as I understand this clause, there is no sort of guarantee that the education committee of any particular county will have either any interest in

    821
    or any real knowledge of education. The only other clause to which I would refer is the one which was alluded to by his grace the Archbishop of Canterbury. Section 2 of Clause 3 is, as your Lordships are aware, an attempt to solve what is known as the religious difficulty, but I am bound to acknowledge that I do not think it is an attempt which is likely to be very successful. I have the deepest desire to see this religious difficulty got out of the arena of public discussion. I have felt for many years that it has been one of the greatest obstacles to our real educational progress, and now I fear that unless some bettor clause can be framed than the present one we may import the same difficulty into secondary education. The clause to which I am referring declares that:
    "A council in the performance of their duties with respect to education shall not give any preference or advantage to any school on the ground that it does or does not belong to, or is or is not in connection with or under the management of any particular church, sect, or denomination, or that religious instruction is or is not given in the school. Provided that aid shall not be given under this Act to any school in respect of religious instruction."
    Now, my Lords, what does that amount to? So far as I can understand the meaning of the clause, it simply amounts to a declaration by which you propose to earmark, so to speak, the aid that is given for this or that school. I am always a little shy of anything in the nature of earmarking in the giving of public grants, and this attempt to earmark aids as only for secular instruction, ignoring the whole question of religious instruction, will be absolutely futile. At any rate, if it is considered sufficient to declare that the public aid given to a public school is given solely for secular instruction, and if that is expected to satisfy public sentiment, I cannot but feel that it should be applied at once to elementary education also. If it is to satisfy public sentiment in regard to secondary education, why should we not be satisfied with it in regard to elementary education, and yet there is no one who will propose it as a settlement of the religious difficulty in our elementary schools. It may be asked, What have I to suggest in place of this? I suggest that the county council, or educational committee of the county council, shall have no power to aid any school on the
    822
    management of which it is not adequately represented. That I hold to be a fundamental principle which we ought to endeavour to establish through the whole system of our education, and I believe it could be established both with regard to secondary and primary schools without any great amount of difficulty. Having granted this principle, that no aid shall be given to any school on which the county council or the local authority is not adequately represented, I would then be content to say that schools in connection with any particular church or sect or denomination shall be held to be suitable for those pupils who are likely to make use of them, provided, first, that due regard is had to the religious belief of the parents; secondly, that the educational needs of the neighbourhood are duly considered; and, thirdly, that due care is taken that the fees are suitable. I believe that then no further difficulty would be found. I wish to say one word with reference to the clause dealing with private schools under private management. Section 3 of Clause 3 provides that public aid may be given to a school conducted for private profit. I cannot but think that that is a proposal which will require to be carefully watched, to secure that public aid shall not; go to increase the dividends of a company. I do not make this criticism as in any way opposed to private schools. My belief is that we should give every encouragement to private enterprise in education as in other matters. My experience has shown that in some cases the very best schools are private schools, and for the reason that a really good private school is generally under the guidance and inspiration of a remarkable man; but my feeling on the whole matter is that, if the private school cannot be so managed as to be on the whole self-supporting, it would be better, in the public interest, that the education should be taken over by the public. In conclusion, I would venture to appeal to the noble Duke to give us a more adequate Bill at the earliest possible opportunity. Having discussed this little Bill, and having decently buried it, I hope that before next session is very old the noble Duke will come forward with such a Bill as he himself would approve. I cannot suppose for a moment that this Bill satisfies the noble Duke. I have had many opportunities of feeling grateful to the noble Duke for the support and assistance he

    823
    has given to educational matters. I cannot but express my profound conviction of the urgency of this question. We have been so busy during the last few years in opening up new markets, expanding our Empire, and taking possession of new territories, some of which, I fear, are likely to be hornets' nests, that we have, I am afraid, somewhat overlooked the plain fact—plain to everyone who studies the question—that prosperity in the future will be with the best educated people, and that, if we do not press the question of education more earnestly and more actively, one of the consequences of our extension of Empire will be that the main benefits will be enjoyed by those who belong to better educated countries. I therefore again express the hope that the noble Duke will bring forward a more adequate Bill on the earliest possible occasion next session.
    THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, after the discussion which has taken place I will not trouble your lordships with many words, but will confine myself to one or two points. In the first place, I must say that I entirely share with the right rev. Prelate who has just sat down, regret that this is so small a measure; it is, in point of fact, very little more than a sketch of a measure which is to be filled in by the Education Department afterwards. I wish to say a word upon the very important question as to the authority which is to administer this Bill. I do not like, as it stands, the clause which deals with the local authorities which are to be set up. While I think it quite right that the county councils should be the bodies to whom this work should be entrusted, yet I agree with the right rev. Prelate that it is essential that there I should be on the committees which are to manage the affairs of secondary education, men who are educational experts as well as common-sense business men. I should deprecate nothing more than that you should have a committee consisting solely of men of business, or solely of educational experts. Both elements are wanted, the one to correct the other, and I do not by any means give more weight to one than the other. You want common-sense business men, but you also want men who have had long experience of educational questions, for I do not know a subject on which it is
    824
    move difficult to come to a perfectly clear and satisfactory conclusion. I feel, also, some jealousy of the very extended powers given to the Education Board. It seems to me that in cases where, after full discussion between the county council and the Education Board, no agreement can be come to, it is rather a doubtful matter —though I do not wish to commit myself absolutely to an opinion—that the Education Board should be able to deal with the question and promulgate a scheme without any power of correction by Parliament. I have watched educational discussions through many years, and I know that it is necessary to be extremely careful not to trust absolutely to the Government of the day the settlement of certain questions beyond appeal. You do want, as it were, some power to finally decide a dispute between the Government and the local authorities. It may be that that would be too cumbrous, but in principle I think it would be found to be sound. I feel very strongly with the right rev. Prelate that before a new educational authority is set up in any locality there should be a thorough examination of what the position in that part of the country is. Many of the grammar schools which have done good work in the past are now completely useless, and have ceased to be of any value, the only thing which perpetuates them being the village jealousy not to part with their grammar school. There should be some power to unite these very small schools with some larger school, and so render them more efficient. The mere fact that means of communication are now so much greater than they were has altered the whole aspect of the question. I deeply regret that after years of discussion we are about to take, as far as I can see, no effectual step to make use of the foundations we have already got. I must say a word upon what seems to me to be the most difficult question in this Bill—the question to which the right rev. Prelate referred at the close of his speech. I see in the provisions of this Bill, with the utmost dissatisfaction and even alarm, the repeal of the clause which was in the Technical Education Act giving complete protection to all those who went to denominational schools where the technical grant was applied to aid such schools. That is a stop directly backward, a step in the teeth of the old policy of what was

    825
    called the Cowper-Temple Clause. I feel the deepest distrust of those opposite to whom I sit on this question, and I see in this an attempt to bring again into discussion the point whether the rates of the country are to be applied, directly or indirectly, to the support of denominational schools, a point on which we know that a strong and bitter feeling exists on both sides. I am not one of those who think that, in the present condition of opinion in the country, we could dispense with denominational schools. Personally, I should like to see them all disappear to-morrow; but, looking at it as a practical man, I must say that that would be a measure fully unjustifiable in the present state of opinion in the country. Many of the denominational schools are excellent educational establishments, and we have to take care that we do not interfere with them in such a way as to destroy their efficiency. I admit that they must take a place in our sys tem, and therefore it is our duty to make them efficient. To stir up this controversy in uch a way as to raise a debate on the religious question throughout the country may be useful or not, but it certainly will nottend to the promotion of the object we all have in view—namely, the establishment of an efficient system of secondary education throughout the country. I will put aside the clause which is now about to be repealed, and ask your Lordships whether you have ever considered what the clause is which is in the Welsh Intermediate Education Act. In that Act, which was brought in by the members of the party opposite, what was by no means an unreasonable compromise was adopted. It will be found in the third section of Clause 4 of that Act. It does not interfere with the religious education of boarders in schools, and I do not think you could with propriety interfere in that way with these secondary education schools, many of which are closely connected with some denomination, and whore it would be almost impossible to carry on the education as before if you applied a stringent clause to boarders. What the Welsh Intermediate Education Act did was this. It said that "such scheme shall, in addition to the—"
    THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE; Read the beginning of the section.
    THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I will read the whole of it. The section is as follows:—
    "Where a scheme under this Act does not relate to a school maintained out of the endowment, or forming part of the foundation, of any cathedral or collegiate church, or where a scheme under this Act does not relate to any other educational endowment which by Section 19 of the Endowed Schools Act, 1869, is excepted from the foregoing provisions of that Act therein mentioned"—
    THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: That is, all the denominational schools.
    THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: Not quite, I think.
    THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: Yes.
    THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: Then I will give up that argument, which is merely an argument ad hominem, and apply myself to the remainder of the section, which, to my mind, suggests a very reasonable solution of the difficulty. The section continues—
    "—such scheme shall, in addition to the provisions of Section 15 of the said Act, provide that no religion-; catechism or religious formulary which is distinctive of any particular denomination shall be taught to a scholar attending as a day scholar at the school established or regulated by the scheme, and that the times for prayer or religious worship, or for any lesson or series of lessons on a religious subject, shall be conveniently arranged for the purpose of allowing the withdrawal of a day scholar there from in accordance with the said Section 15."
    do not think that would be by any means an unreasonable provision—namely, to exempt the day scholars from any interference as regards religious instruction, leaving the boarders to be under the provisions of the scheme which was in force for the management of the school before it was taken over under the present Act. I think that would very likely be acceptable; but in any case I am perfectly sure there must be some kind of compromise if you are to go forward at all. I quite admit the strength of the feeling concerning denominational schools, and I take account of it, but I say you are going backward in this Bill, you are striking out provisions of the Technical Education Act of 1899, and I am not the only person who sees beneath the surface of this Bill a deliberate attempt to pave the way for dealing in a similar manner with elementary education, and any such

    827
    attempt will meet with strenuous resistance from the Party to which I belong. Throw down this apple of discord before the country, and you will find there are plenty of people willing to take it up in a manner which would greatly obstruct and hinder the operation of the Bill now before us, which, though a small Bill, may lay the foundation of a larger and wider scheme.
    THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The Duke of DEVONSHIRE): My Lords, I have no right to complain that this discussion has turned upon a very large number of questions, most of which are questions of detail, because I quite admit what has been said by several noble Lords that this Bill is by no means a large one; that it does very little but extend to a certain degree institutions and provisions which already exist, and cannot be regarded as more than a step— an additional step—in the direction of the organisation of secondary education. But the course which the discussion has necessarily taken has had the effect of raising such a very large number of questions of detail, some of them I think rather small details, that I am afraid it will be quite impossible—within any limits which I dare inflict upon your Lordships—to deal with very many of those points which have been raised. My noble friend who began the discussion was very much alarmed that this Bill contemplates the introduction of free secondary as well as elementary education. I do not know where my noble friend finds that in the Bill. He complains that it does not contain any mention of fees to be paid by those who are to receive the education in those schools receiving public aid, but if my noble friend will consider what are the resources at the disposal of the local authorities I think he will see that it is quite impossible that they will be sufficient to meet the cost of any secondary education without considerable assistance in the shape of fees from those who receive it. Those resources are limited to what is sometimes called the drink money, sometimes the whisky money, but what I think I have generally called the local taxation money. That is a considerable but not a very large sum. In addition to that the new authorities will have the disposal of a rate not to exceed 2d. in the pound; and in addition they
    828
    will have the advantage of endowments of such schools as choose voluntarily to come within their educational schemes. Those resources are not so magnificent as to justify my noble friend in being in the least afraid that any proposal is made under this Bill which will be in the nature of free secondary education. Both my noble friend opposite (Earl Spencer) and the most rev. Prelate who spoke lately complained that this was a very small Bill, and the most rev. Prelate complained that the recommendations of the Report of the Commission had been entirely neglected. My Lords, I have admitted that this neither is nor professes to be a large Bill, but I cannot admit that the recommendations of the Royal Commission have been entirely neglected. I do admit that the Bill does not deal with all the matters which the Secondary Education Commission included in its full and exhaustive Report, but the proposals contained in this Bill are the very steps which were recommended by the Royal Commission, and are in my opinion the necessary preliminary steps to going any further in the direction of carrying out the recommendations of the Secondary Education Commission. The most rev. Prelate and Lord Spencer, and just now Lord Kimberley, complained that the Bill contains no power which will enable the new authorities to deal with educational endowments within their areas. I was under the impression that, under first the Secondary Education Commissioners and then under the Charity Commissioners, a very large number of the educational endowments of the country had already been dealt with.
    THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: By new schemes, Yes.
    THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: By new schemes, and I cannot imagine anything which is more likely to stimulate action in the same direction, dealing with remaining endowments which have not yet been dealt with, than the constitution in every locality of an educational authority charged with the duty of providing secondary education within their area. But, my Lords, it seems to me, knowing the extreme jealousy with which any interference with local endowments of this kind is met, that we should not have been justified in attempting in

    829
    this Bill, the main object of which is to create a new educational authority, to enlarge and make of a far more drastic character those powers which the Charity Commissioners have already felt considerable difficulty in exercising with success. It was suggested that these authorities would have no power even to make inquiry as to the educational provision within their areas. That is entirely a misconception, because these authorities will have power to make all the enquiries which they may think necessary in order to enable them to carry out their duties. Then, my Lords, exception has been taken to the vague manner in which the constitution of the educational authority is provided for, and to the large powers which are reserved to the Board of Education. After a great deal of consideration we came to the conclusion that the difficulties of dealing with the constitution of those authorities in any other manner were almost insuperable. In introducing this Bill I called attention to the fact, that the circumstances of different parts of this country differ so much that it is almost impossible to lay down within the limits of a clause the principle upon which these committees should be constituted. It has been admitted, I think, in the discussion to-night that the constitution of a committee must differ in a county from the constitution of that which will be formed in a county borough—that there is an enormous difference between the circumstances of one county and another. One county is mainly agricultural, with one or two large towns in its centre. Other counties are almost entirely consisting of large towns. I only wish that in the interval between this and the next session my noble friends opposite and the most rev. Primate who took exception to the vagueness of this clause will exercise their ingenuity and see whether it is possible for them to draft a clause providing for the constitution of an authority which will not be vehemently resisted by some interest which may consider itself to be ignored or neglected or badly treated. The initiative in framing those schemes will proceed from the county council or the county borough council, but on the Board of Education the responsibility will rest to see that those schemes make proper provision for the adequate representation of interests, educational or otherwise, which, in our judg-
    830
    ment, ought to be represented on such a body. Lord Spencer, I think, used the word co-optation. It would be entirely a mistake to suppose that we intended to rely upon co-optation only for the proper constitution of these bodies. The scheme will have to provide, in addition to the appointment of a certain proportion of councillors, for the nomination upon the body of such educational institutions or such non-county boroughs or such districts as upon inquiry we think ought to be represented, and while I am extremely sorry that it should have been found necessary to cast so heavy a responsibility upon the Board of Education, I do not believe that there is any other way in which it would be possible to arrive at a satisfactory mode of their appointment. It was suggested by the most rev. Prelate that there was no power of interference by Parliament with these schemes. Well, I do not see that it would be impossible to provide that these schemes should be laid before both Houses of Parliament, but I admit that I think such a course would probably be attended with very great practical inconvenience. Imagine schemes laid upon the Tables of both Houses providing for the constitution of educational committees for all the counties in England, for all the county boroughs in England, and conceive the opportunities which would be given to every county, every borough, every urban district, every educational authority, which did not consider that it had received sufficient recognition, to bring through their representatives their grievances before one or the other House of Parliament. I am afraid that if this course were adopted the time of both Houses of Parliament would for some time after the passing of this Act be chiefly occupied in the discussion of these questions.
    THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: If the noble Duke will pardon my interrupting him for one moment, I should like to hear his answer to a question which I am afraid I did not express very clearly. I only suggested that where the Education Department and the County Council could not agree, then perhaps there might be an appeal; which, of course, would not involve all the cases.
    THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I was not dealing with that. I was answering the most rev. Prelate the Archbishop of

    831
    Canterbury, who suggested that the whole of the schemes ought to be laid before Parliament. It seems to me that the suggestion of the noble Earl opposite in those cases, which no doubt will be extremely exceptional, is one which will be well worthy of consideration.
    THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I go no further than that.
    THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: Now, my Lords, I feel a great deal of difficulty in addressing a very few words to your Lordships upon a subject which unfortunately is almost always introduced into these education discussions, namely, the denominational question. The noble Earl who spoke last said that this was distinctly a retrograde proposal. I think if he will examine the facts he will see that in one sense at all events his own proposal is a retrograde one. He recommended the adoption for day scholars of a universal Cowper-Temple clause. Well, such a provision would exclude the receipt of aid from the county authorities by institutions which are receiving it at present. The noble Earl regrets the disappearance of a certain section of the Technical Instruction Act, but if the noble Earl will refer to a Return which has recently been laid on the Table of the House showing the manner in which local authorities are applying their funds to the purpose of technical education, that Return shows that institutions of a most strictly denominational character are in fact aided out of the rates. Among the institutions so aided are, at Liverpool the St. Francis Xaviers' College, the Catholic Institute, the Convent of Notre Dame at Everton, the Convent of Notre Dame at Mount Pleasant, and the Catholic Male Pupil Teachers' Class.
    THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: That is what we object to.
    THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: Is it supposed that institutions of that character would accept a universally applied Cowper-Temple Clause?
    THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: Do they receive it from the rates, or only from the whisky money?
    THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: This is a Return showing the application of the
    832
    funds at their disposal by the county council.
    THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: Including the penny rate?
    THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: Yes. Therefore the principle of my noble friend may be a very right and very excellent one, but certainly in regard to liberality of treatment in denominational schools it is a retrograde one. On the other hand, I understand the most rev. Prelate to object to the provision of a conscience clause in the case of boarding schools Well, I cannot help thinking that the most rev. Prelate is rather unreasonable in making this demand. He refers to the case of a training college which was recently sanctioned by the Board of Education where, although they were permitted to be without a conscience clause as regards boarders, they were recognised on the condition of making certain provision for day scholars under a conscience clause. In my opinion the case of a trail ing college is altogether distinct from that of such secondary schools as would be aided under this Bill. A denominational training college is maintained by the denomination to which it belongs for the education of the teachers who are to be employed in their own schools. They do-not wish—naturally they do not wish—to admit to the college any others but teachers of their own denomination. That is the object for which the training college is established. But no such exclusion prevails in the case of our great secondary schools. I believe that in the case of Eton and Harrow and our other great public schools Roman Catholics, Nonconformists, and Jews are admitted to those schools, and no difficulty is found in the management of Eton and Harrow and other public schools in making provision for absolutely respecting the consciences of those boys of other denominations, while not interfering in the least degree with their own freedom in religious instruction as regards those of their own denomination. And I do not see why it should be considered any hardship in the case of schools desiring to come under educational schemes supported and aided by the county councils, to impose upon them conditions which in practice are not found difficult of observance in such schools as Eton and Harrow. My Lords, no doubt this question will be debated at very great

    833
    length and with some warmth in the country. I cannot help, however, expressing my own belief that any such provision as has been suggested by the noble Earl opposite, that is to say the imposition of a Cowper-Temple Clause upon any school desiring to receive aid from this scheme, would exclude from cooperation a very large number of admirable denominational schools, the services of which the educational authority will probably be most anxious to obtain, and that therefore we should be for perfectly unnecessary reasons excluding ourselves from one of the best and most fruitful sources of educational supply. My noble friend Lord Reay made a speech in which I am afraid it is quite impossible for me on the present occasion to follow him. The substance of that speech was to invite me to give a reply to a very long letter on a very important subject which had been addressed by the London School Board to the Board of Education. That letter I had not seen until by the courtesy of the noble Lord I received notice of the question which he proposed to raise upon this occasion. Of course I have not yet had the opportunity of consulting my advisers in the Education Board, and the subject is one of much too great importance to make it possible for me to give an answer either to the noble Lord's speech or to that letter without a great deal of further consideration. The working, the administration, of the new higher elementary school grant is a matter of very great importance, and probably will be one of very considerable difficulty, and I think it would be extremely undesirable that on an occasion of this kind I should commit myself prematurely either in support or in rejection of the views which have been urged upon us by the London School Board. On the denominational question perhaps I ought to add that while I consider the objection of the most rev. Prelate to the conscience clause to be somewhat unreasonable, and one which I do not think can be entertained, while I believe that the suggestion of the noble Earl opposite would most unfortunately limit the educational resources to which it would be in our power to look, I must leave to both the noble Earl opposite and the most rev. Prelate the duty of determining whether the solution of this difficult question which was proposed by the Bishop of Hereford will meet the views of either
    834
    of them. I am afraid that there are a very largo number of excellent denominational schools which would resent a legislative provision which would compel them, to accept the representation of a public authority upon their governing body, although I have no doubt that it will not be difficulty in the great majority of cases, to make voluntary arrangements with the council by which the educational authority will be represented on such governing-bodies. On the other hand, I doubt very much whether the anti-denominational friends of the noble Earl opposite would be satisfied with merely that provision enabling the county authority to aid; whatever denominational schools it chose, provided they had representation upon, the governing body. I am afraid, my Lords, that this is a subject which is a great deal too difficult, and which has in times past aroused too much controversy, to make it capable of very easy solution in any of the ways which have been suggested to-night. The Government have produced what they thought to be a reasonable solution, and I hope that when it comes to be further considered it will not meet with the embittered opposition of which I have heard for the first time from the noble Earl opposite to-night.
    On Question, agreed to.
    Bill read 2a accordingly.

    INDIAN FAMINE IRRIGATION WORKS.
    LORD KINNAIRD: My Lords, in rising to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether he will give a list of the irrigation and other works for the prevention of famine undertaken since the last famine in 1897, and the cost thereof; also of the largo works approved. as being necessary previous to 1897 which, have not been undertaken owing to want of surplus revenue, notwithstanding the fact that they are expected to be remunerative, and that money can be borrowed at a lower rate than works are expected to yield, I think everyone may feel hopeful that we are now near the time when the pressure of famine will begin to pass, and the Government will, be free to. consider what steps may be taken to prevent future famine in certain districts unprovided with water. I will not enter at this time into the thorny questions on which there is so much difference of opinion with reference to what can be

    835
    done and whether we fail to utilise the water which Providence gives to us, and of which I believe more than three-fourths' if not a great deal more, is not utilised, and whether large works might be carried on with any advantage, as has been done in some districts where certain authorities in old times said it was impossible to take advantage of water not far off by means either of irrigation canals or the storage of water by means of dams. Then the second part of my question raises, I think, an important point, namely, whether it is desirable to stop an important work simply because revenue may fail when it has been agreed by all the authorities that the work is desirable. It seems to some laymen in this master, that when the Government can borrow at a low rate of interest and hope within a short time not only for a return on the work but also increase of revenue, when the next revenue assessment comes to be made the work ought not to be stopped by want of ready money, and I feel confident that there are many in both Houses of Parliament who would be willing, supposing the Indian Government were not able to further their own resources, to find large sums for this purpose to make even a liberal grant from the Imperial Exchequer in the way of a free loan, with proper conditions for repayment when the work became remunerative. I will not further detain your Lordships. I have to ask the noble Lord the question of which I have given notice.
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (The Earl of ONSLOW): I think from the nature of the question which the noble Lord has put to me that he has not quite rightly appreciated the practice of the Government of India in apportioning the money for the purpose of carrying out irrigation. There are three kinds of irrigation works carried out by the Government of India. First of all, there are what are known as the major works. Those are paid for out of borrowed moneys and are expected to be, and as a matter of fact are, remunerative. Then there are what are known as minor works. 'Those as a rule are smaller works which are constructed not out of capital, but out of revenue. In some cases those also are remunerative. Then there are what are known as protective works. These are paid for out of the famine fund, which, as the noble Lord knows, is a fund set apart
    836
    every year by the Government of India for the purpose of protection against famine. They would not be constructed at all were it not for protective purposes, although it occasionally turns out that they also are remunerative. Of all those works, if the noble Lord wishes it, I can give a return, but they can already be found in different papers which have been laid on the table of both Houses of Parliament. As regards the second part of the question the noble Lord seems to think that some of the irrigation works in India are likely to be suspended owing to lack of funds arising from revenue; but, as I have already told him the major works, the more important works, are paid for out of borrowed money and not out of revenue at all, and I am not at all aware that there is any ground for the suggestion which seems to be contained in the question that the expenditure on irrigation works has been cut down during recent years owing to the famine. On the contrary, the provision for irrigation works has been steadily increasing in recent years. In 1898-99, the total expenditure was £453,047, in 1899–1900 it was £622,733, while the Budget estimate for the current year is £708,200. A paper has been laid on the Table of your Lordships' House called "The Explanatory Memorandum of the Secretary of State," explanatory of the Budget statement which he will make in another place in the course of a few days, and the noble Lord will there find a statement of the irrigation works which are about to be carried out. But I think there is a little misapprehension in the minds of many people as to the amount of the irrigation work which is being carried on. Not less than nineteen millions of acres are already under irrigation in India and twenty-five and a half millions of money have been spent, and as a matter of fact there is very little fresh ground in the whole of India where irrigation works could be constructed with any advantage. The Viceroy has been giving great attention to this question and he has come to the conclusion that all that the Government of India could spend, however much money they might have, would be something like ten lakhs a year, and that would probably about double the area of 300,000 acres which is covered by work of a purely protective character at the present time. So the total practicable increase of the irrigable area in India under both heads of irrigation works

    837
    cannot amount to much more than four million acres. The Viceroy hopes to lay down a permanent scheme and a continuous policy for carrying out irrigation works in India, and so far as the cost and the motley to be raised for carrying them out is concerned, I think the noble Lord need have no apprehension that that amount will fall off in years to come, because, as he is well aware, the major works—most of the irrigation works in India—are extremely remunerative and therefore capital can be advantageously borrowed for the purpose of making them, and it is the intention of the Government of India to continue carrying them on at as rapid a pace as is consistent with the nature of the work, and they believe that in the course really of a comparatively short period all the land in India which is capable of irrigation will be dealt with.

    BEER RETAILERS' AND SPIRIT GROCERS' LICENCES (IRELAND) (No. 2) BILL.
    Amendments reported (according to Order). Further Amendments made; and Bill to be read 3a.

    COPYRIGHT BILL [H.L.]
    Order of the day for the House to be put into Committee read.
    LORD MONKSWELL: In moving that the House do resolve itself into Committee, I am afraid that I shall have to make one or two observations upon the Bill. On the second reading I stated that the Bill in its then condition as drafted by Lord Thring was a tentative measure, and your Lordships will not be surprised to hear that it has undergone considerable modification in Committee. One object of the Committee was to simplify the law by assimilating it in all cases of artistic work. To a great extent this Bill does simplify the law, for as regards various important matters the law is made the same with regard to all artistic work. For instance, every kind of artistic work will have the same term of copyright, that is to say, during the life of the author and thirty years after, and copyright will be attracted to all artistic works, whether made by subjects of the Queen or by anybody else, and wherever they are made. There is no restriction either as to the person who can obtain copyright or where the artistic work is to be made. Again,
    838
    in no case will registration be necessary to attract copyright. Now, my Lords, in all these particulars the Bill has undergone no change in Committee, but a further and very difficult question arose with regard to artistic copyright, and that is as to the respective rights of the author and the owner of artistic works in default of any agreement as to what those rights should be. This was a question very much discussed in 1878 both by and before the Copyright Commission, and by a bare majority of one it was recommended that on sale, in the absence of agreement, copyright should pass to the owner of the work, and not remain in the artist. This recommendation was vigorously assailed by the whole body of artists. It was contended that subject to certain restrictions in favour of the buyer the copyright should remain with the artist. The Select Committee has taken a good deal of fresh evidence on this matter, both oral and written, and they have bestowed much thought and labour on the question, and they have arrived at definite conclusions as to the principles on which the Legislature should proceed. But the drafting details are exceedingly technical. I am not at all sure that everything is covered; in fact, I am quite prepared to hear that the Bill leaves a great deal to be desired in the matter of drafting details; but as the Bill cannot pass this session the Committee do not attach very much importance to this defect in detail. It is submitted not as a measure that has been carefully thought out in every detail, but as containing the main provisions of a just settlement of the respective claims of artists and those who deal with them. The Committee have adjusted the claims on somewhat different lines according to the nature of the artistic work. The Committee place the painter and the draughtsman in one class, the sculptor in another, and the photographer in a third. With regard to painters and draughtsmen, with respect to portraits painted on commission the Committee propose to leave the law as it stands at present; that is to say, the person giving the commission and not the artist will enjoy the copyright, but as to all other pictures painted on commission the artists' contention has been adopted by the Committee in its entirety, and the law has been altered by retaining copyright in the artist, and not transferring it to the person

    839
    giving the commission. Further, where a picture is not sold on commission, but is sold out of a studio, the artist, according to this Bill, is to retain the copyright on a sale in the absence of agreement. The law at present is that the artist loses the copyright on sale, and in the absence of agreement the buyer does not get it, so it becomes lost. We propose that it shall go to the artist. Now, copyright of the artist is in all cases subject to a proviso against making or authorising replicas against the wish of the owner of the painting. Replica is defined to be a copy so like the original as to be calculated to deceive an ordinary observer. So much for the painters and draughtsmen. Now I come to the sculptors. The sculptor hitherto, unlike I the painter, has been the spoilt child of legislation. The sculptor enjoys privileges that artists in their wildest dreams would never think of asking for. Their copyright is absolute, and it is subject to no restriction at all in favour of the purchaser. Busts, statues, ornamental work of every kind, even when executed on commission and only for private use, can be copyrighted by the sculptor without consulting the owner at all. The Committee had before them the celebrated sculptor Mr. Brock, and he told them that no sculptor of repute would think himself justified in making the replicas of sculpture intended only for use in private houses unless the owner gave leave. The Committee have decided to make the law conform to the practice and to prohibit replicas of sculpture made on commission except where the work is intended to be located in some public place. With regard to photographs, what the Committee propose is this: that copyright not only in portraits, but in all photographs made on commission, shall belong to the person giving the commission. I think the only other thing I need say is that provisions have been introduced for the detection and for the punishment of infringement of copyright that are quite sufficiently stringent. T ought to say in conclusion that I do not propose to carry the Bill beyond its present stage. I propose to have it printed and circulated for criticism during the vacation, and I have to ask your Lordships' leave to make one alteration in Committee in this Bill. It is a drafting alteration. By some error two alternative subsections have been put into this Bill
    840
    which are not intended to stand together, and what I hope your Lordships will agree to is to strike out one of those subsections in Committee.
    House in Committee (according to Order). The Amendments proposed by the Select Committee made.
    A further Amendment made; and Bill re-committed to the Standing Committee;. and to be printed as amended. (No. 206.)

    TITHE KENT-CHARGE (IRELAND) BILL.
    House in Committee (according to Order).
    Clauses 1 to 8 amended, and agreed to.
    THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND (Lord ASHBOURNE): I understand that some of my noble friends from Ireland consider that the new clause I propose to move is open to objection. I have intimated to my noble friends that I propose to take the Report stage on Thursday, and I understand they agree that it will be convenient that I should now just state the object of the new clause, and. that they should reserve their opposition until we get to the Report stage. I can state very briefly the purport of this Amendment. The Bill dealt with a state of facts which had taken away and left non-existing all powers of revision of ecclesiastical tithe. I confine myself to that for the purpose of this sub-section. At the time when that was the state of the law in Ireland, power was given to the Land Commission that they might of themselves permit a redemption of tithe without any authorisation from the Treasury at twenty years purchase instead, of twenty-two and a half. It was suggested in the House of Commons by the Chief Secretary that, the circumstances, changing, and the power of revision being resumed, and a substantial reduction in the tithe being the obvious result, it would be only reasonable from the Treasury standpoint, the Executive standpoint, to restore to the Treasury the power of deciding whether they would adhere to the period of 22½ years or take a lesser number of years purchase. The Amendment which I propose merely seeks to restore that power, under the altered circumstances, to the Treasury. By the Irish Land Act of 1896, there

    841
    being then no power of revising, and therefore no power of reducing tithes, power was given to the Land Commission of themselves to accept twenty years purchase, and no longer was the consent of the Treasury needed for that particular operation of taking less than 22½ years purchase. But now, when tithes are going to be largely and substantially reduced, the Treasury and the Executive think it reasonable that there should not be a reduction on both sides, and that, if there is an absolute power of reduction in the amount of the tithe, it is reasonable to give again to the Treasury the right to be heard on the question whether less than 22½ years shall be taken. I am aware that that does not commend itself to my noble friends, but perhaps they will allow the Amendment to go through now, and raise their objections on the Report stage.
    THE EARL OF MAYOassented to that suggestion, and said he would put down Amendments to this clause for the Report stage.
    Amendment moved—
    "In page 4, after Clause 8, to insert the following new clause: '9. Sub-section 1 of Section 37 of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1896 (which dispenses with the consent of the Treasury to the redemption of tithe rent-charge as therein mentioned) shall not have effect in the case of any tithe rent-charge to which Section 3 of this Act applies.'"— (Lord Ashbourne.)
    Amendment agreed to.
    Remaining clauses amended, and agreed to.
    Bill re-committed to the Standing Committee; and to be printed as amended. (No. 207.)

    IRISH FISHERIES—INSPECTORS' REPORTS.
    THE EARL OF MAYO, who had on the Paper the following question—
    "To ask Her Majesty's Government if the Inspectors of Irish Fisheries held inquiries in Limerick, Killaloe, and Athlone on 30th January, 1st February, and 3rd February, 1900; and if the Limerick Board of Conservators applied on 28th March to the Irish Government for a copy of their Report thereon; and if the Irish Government refused it. That as a Bill is now before the House dealing with the matter, will the Government lay the Report
    842
    upon the Table, or allow those interested in the Bill to see the Report"—
    said: It may be in the recollection of your Lordships' House that I moved the rejection of a Bill called the Shannon Water and Electric Power Bill. That was a Bill affecting very materially the fisheries in the River Shannon. The Inspectors of Irish Fisheries held an inquiry in Limerick, and it was most important that those interested in the Bill should know the result, but for some reason the Report had been held back. There is a strong suspicion that the Inspectors of Fisheries reported that the Bill would be most harmful to the fisheries, and it would be of great advantage if the Report could be laid on the Table.
    THE EARL OF DENBIGH: The Report of the Inspectors of Irish Fisheries on the subject of the works proposed to be carried out by the Shannon Water and Electrical Power Company was prepared for the information of the Government, and it would be contrary to official usage to publish it. For this reason the application made by the Limerick Board of Conservators for a copy of the Report was refused, as was also a similar application made by the promoting company; and a like objection exists to the publishing of the Report as a Parliamentary Paper, or to any other form of publication. The Government therefore regret that they are unable to comply with the request of the noble Earl.

    HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES ACT (1890) AMENDMENT BILL.
    House in Committee (according to Order); Amendments made; Bill recommitted to the Standing Committee; and to be printed as amended. (No. 208.)

    PROHIBITION OF EXPORTATION OF ARMS BILL [H.L.]
    [SECOND READING.]
    Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
    THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBURY): My Lords, I think my best exposition of this Bill will be to read to your Lordships the only operative clause of it, which is—
    "It shall be lawful for Her Majesty by proclamation to prohibit the exportation of arms, ammunition, and military and naval stores to

    843
    any country or place therein named whenever Her Majesty shall judge such prohibition to be expedient in order to prevent such arms, ammunition, military or naval stores being used against Her Majesty's subjects or forces, or against any forces engaged or which may be engaged in military or naval operations in co-operation with Her Majesty's forces."
    I believe the circumstances of the time are such that there is no one who can read those words without seeing what they are pointed at—the absolute necessity of being able by law to prohibit the exportation of arms, ammunition, military or naval stores, which, though exported from this country, may be used in aid of Her Majesty's enemies. That, my Lords, is the whole scope and object of the Bill, and I am quite sure your Lordships will be glad to give it a Second Reading.
    Bill read 2a (according to Order), and committed to a Committee of the whole House to-morrrow.

    SOUTH AFRICA — SETTLEMENT OF SOLDIERS IN THE ORANGE RIVER COLONY AFTER THE WAR.
    LORD WOLVERTON: I beg to ask Her Majesty's Government, whether, in view of the many applications already made, they can give this House an assurance that they are preparing, or have in contemplation, some scheme by which soldiers, either time-expired or otherwise, can settle under advantageous circumstances in the Orange River Colony.
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (The Earl of SELBORNE): My Lords, this question has never been lost sight of for one moment by Her Majesty's Government, who have been, as was stated by Air. Chamberlain in the House of Commons more than a month ago, in constant communication with Sir Alfred Milner on the subject. The matter has been referred to an inter-Departmental Committee, comprising representatives of the War Office, the Treasury, and the Colonial Office, and this Committee has already begun to sit. I hope, therefore, before long to be in a position to lay all the facts of the case before Her Majesty's Government. I cannot say more at the present moment except that the matter is receiving and will receive our most earnest consideration, but it is one in which obviously any steps that may be taken demand the most careful and thorough consideration.
    LORD WOLVERTON: I think it would give confidence in the country it my noble friend would state who is the chairman of the Committee.
    THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I am not in a position to state that.
    House adjourned at a quarter past Eight of the clock, till To-morrow, half - past Ten of the clock.