Sitting of 15 July 1901

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  LOWESTOFT CORPORATION BILL [Lords]. [BY ORDER.]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  SIR LEWIS M'IVERsaid he was loth at any time to inflict his voice upon the House, chiefly because on any given subject there were always several members on either side of the House more competent, and certainly more willing, to talk than he was. And he was especially reluctant at that point, in a not too fruitful session, to divert precious public time to the consideration of a relatively minor matter. More than that, he was that day departing from a practically invariable rule which he had imposed upon himself—namely, never to oppose the Second Reading of a private Bill. He held,
  398
  in common with most members of the House, that unless the central principle of a private Bill was something flagrant or monstrous, that Bill should be sent upstairs for examination by a competent tribunal and for investigation by competent methods. But, despite his general unwillingness and despite the usual practice, he had found the course that he was taking on the present occasion absolutely irresistible, because the Bill which he was opposing afforded so striking an illustration of a growing national danger, to which he had long desired to draw attention, that he was impressed with the feeling that such an opportunity might not soon recur; and, furthermore, he was opposing the Second Reading because in all parliamentary probability there would be no Committee stage to this Bill. He was opposing this Bill, not by reason of any special interest in Lowestoft, any personal connection with it, or any previous knowledge of Lowestoft or its neighbourhood, but because he thought it was a Bill proposing a reckless and excessive municipal expenditure, out of all reasonable proportion to the resources of the borough, and without reasonable prospect of either profit or return; because it was proposed that that expenditure should be made under grossly improvident conditions; thirdly, because it had been attempted to secure parliamentary sanction for these proposals by the invasion of those safeguards which Parliament had provided, and in defiance of the recorded wisdom of Parliament. And lastly, because such proposals as these were calculated to bring wise and legitimate municipal enterprise into dis-

  399
  credit and disrepute, and to confirm and strengthen existing prejudice against legitimate municipal expansion. Before briefly placing before the House the facts upon which he based these contentions, he would like to submit at once one of the strongest arguments in favour of the rejection of the Bill at that stage—and that was, that it would not have the advantage of investigation by a Committee upstairs. He understood that all proposed opposition to this Bill in the Upper House was ruled out on the question of locus. As that was a technical matter, he had no reason to doubt that any similar opposition in that House would share the same fate. And so there was no tribunal that would be in a position thoroughly to examine the facts and test the relative value of contending statements of fact. It was wide of the point to suggest, as might be done, that the promoters would not oppose locus in this House. They did so in the other House, anyway; and the suggestion, if it be made, came a little too late, when their tactics in the Upper House had compelled an opposition on Second Reading there. And, besides, the matter was not wholly in their hands, for although the question of locus was dealt with by differently constituted bodies in the two Houses, there was no reason to believe that those bodies were guided by different principles. He proposed to state the local facts as he had acquired them. He had done his best to satisfy himself that they were correct. Hon. Members in the House who represented the promoters' case might question one or more of his facts. They might be right, or he might be; but was the House a competent tribunal to decide between them? There was no evidence on oath, there was no cross-examination by competent counsel, there was no production of official statistics. These and similar reasons formed the stock argument for sending the Bill upstairs; but in this case there was no upstairs, and there would be no investigation. They could not say whether the finance of the proposal was sound or unsound. They could not form an opinion whether the scheme could possibly ever pay. They could not test the solvency of the contracting companies. They could not test the
  400
  solvency of the guarantors. And consequently, since the House could have no authoritative information, and no tested evidence on either the details or the essential points involved, the House must come to a decision upon general principles and upon the undisputed facts.
  The following were the facts, none of which could, he thought, be substantially questioned. The Corporation of Lowestoft had brought in a Bill, which in its essence and central purpose was a Tramway Construction Bill. For this purpose it sought power to borrow £185,000. The population of Lowestoft was 29,000—let him say, 30,000—and its rateable value £121,000. The existing; debt of the borough was £106,000. For shore defences against the inroads of the sea an expenditure was contemplated of at least £37,000. £23,000 was to be spent immediately upon electric lighting, and for further electric power an expenditure was contemplated of from £20,000 to £30,000. When to that was added the sum asked for in this Bill, the indebtedness of Lowestoft a year hence would amount roughly to about £375,000—with a rateable value of £121,000. That was to say, some £12 10s. per head of the entire population and over three years of the gross rateable value of the borough. It was estimated that this debt would bring up the rates—exclusive of water rate—to 11s. in the pound. And for what direct purpose was this huge sum to be raised? For an experiment in municipal trading? Nothing of the sort. It was in order to allow some unknown and irresponsible persons to play with municipal money; and he thought when the House heard the terms of the agreement which was scheduled' in this Bill, hon. Members would admit that that was not an unfair description of the contemplated proceeding. With this £185,000 the Corporation was to construct the tramways, and to lease them to a company called the National Electric Traction Company, whose capital was not stated, and which at present had not got beyond registration, and consisted of the seven original signatories with a capital holding of £1 per head. The agreement further arranged that this company, which practically did not

  401
  yet exist, was to hand over the business to another company which was not yet registered, and whose proposed capital was not even suggested, but which was described as "expressed to be incorporated." When that process was completed, it proposed to take the name of the East Anglian Light Railways Company; and the whole transaction was to be guaranteed by a third company, which had the splendid title of the Drake and Gorham Electric Power and Traction Pioneer Syndicate, Limited. And this loud-sounding syndicate had a nominal capital of £25,000. £17,500 paid up. £17,500 to guarantee £185,000 of the ratepayers' money!
  He might safely stop there and leave it to the House to say whether it was going to give its sanction to a proposal of this sort, which savoured more of comic opera than of practical business. The central proposition was so astounding that it seemed hardly worth while to go into minor criticism, and to discuss in this chamber those details proper to a committee room, as to the chances of the traffic in Lowestoft ever possibly paying interest and sinking fund on so huge a capital expenditure. But at that point he would draw the attention of the House to the fact that there was absolutely no evidence as to whether the estimate for the construction of the proposed tramways was a reasonable estimate, and whether it was in accordance with recent prices, with experience elsewhere. The House would be told, he understood, that it was now proposed at the eleventh hour, and only after notice of opposition on the Second Reading had been published, to reduce that estimate by a very large amount; and, in order thereto, to limit and curtail the length of the tramways. He had nothing to do with that, and he submitted that the House had nothing to do with that. He was opposing the Bill, and the House was considering the Bill, and not the deathbed repentance of its promoters; and, if those who supported the Bill ventured to adumbrate the suggestion, would not that very fact be a confession of the original iniquity? They might possibly be told that this tramway proposal was only part of a larger scheme, affecting the surrounding neighbourhood, and linking up existing and contemplated
  402
  systems. If they were so told, would not that be a further confession of the inherent weakness of these proposals? The proposal was a Lowestoft proposal; the risks were the risks of the ratepayers of Lowestoft; there was not a word about contributions from the surrounding neighbourhood which was to be benefited. The adjoining local bodies took no part in it, but the Lowestoft ratepayer was to pull the chestnuts out of the fire to accommodate existing and proposed systems. The Bill which was proposed, the Bill which had passed through all its stages, sub silentio, in the Upper House, and the Bill which it was sought to rush in the same way through its stages in this House, was the matter they were dealing with; and it must be obvious to hon. Members that this Bill ought never to have been a Bill at all. Parliament in its wisdom had provided for municipal proposals of that sort the relatively cheap and expeditious process of the Provisional Order. If this had been a sane and reasonable scheme, one characterised by legitimate finance, one calculated to redound to the profit of the ratepayers, who doubted but that that method would have been adopted? But the promoters knew very well that the proposals would not stand the test of a local inquiry and departmental criticism. And so they adopted the more expensive method of proceeding by Bill; and in order to give some colour to their unusual course, they wrapped up their central scheme in a collection of minor proposals, and tried to run it as an "Omnibus Bill." The great majority of these minor proposals could have been dealt with by Provisional Orders. But, apart from that fact, could any reasonable man question that the essence of this Bill was this extravagant and untested tramway proposal with its topsy-turvy finance? He could not withhold a recognition of the cleverness with which the promoters of the scheme had evaded the Committees upstairs and had dodged the supervision of the Local Government Board. It rested with the House to say whether that cleverness was to succeed. He put it to the House that the old theory, confirmed by more than one statute, that the ordinary indebtedness of any local body should never exceed twice the amount of its rateable value, was in danger in this case, because the

  403
  proposals of this Bill and the other contemplated expenditure would at one leap raise the indebtedness of Lowestoft to between three and four times its rate able value. He held that the intention of Parliament that such a scheme should have the benefit of local and departmental inquiry had in this case been evaded, and he submitted that the ratepayers had been deprived of the safeguards which Parliament had deliberately provided for them. On the matter of ratepayers, he would ask the House what sort of a man was the ratepayer, especially in small English provincial communities? His experience of him was that he was a very indifferent, happy-go-lucky person, who accepted the formula, "pay, pay, pay" as expressing one of the immutable laws of Nature. He was a ratepayer himself, and a very bad and careless one at that. But, in the larger communities there was always, happily, a number of public-spirited men who devoted themselves to the interests of their brother ratepayers. There was around them a larger democratic atmosphere; there were upon them the pressure and the expression of a larger public opinion. Few would claim that that was always so in the smaller provincial communities. He doubted not that they would be told that Lowestoft was unanimously in favour of the scheme.
  Probably the House would be told that the regulation statutory meeting was held, and that the scheme was warmly and cordially approved. He would give the facts as they had been given to him by an eye-witness, premising that in Lowestoft there were some 4,000 ratepayers. At the statutory meeting 108 persons were present. No steps were taken to see that they were all ratepayers. Fifty-one voted for the resolution, ten voted against it, forty-seven took no part, and that represented the enthusiastic local unanimity in favour of the Bill. And he might mention, with regard to that meeting, that the agreement, which was of the essence of the Bill, was not then in existence, its actual date being nearly two months later; so that the enthusiastic meeting, where 1·2 per cent. of the ratepayers cordially supported the Bill, had not the most important and essential point before it. In that relation
  404
  there was a point which was not in itself of very great importance, and which he felt bound to make. He had a petition against the Bill, given to him for presentation to the House, signed by householders of Lowestoft. It was not a great matter—in the House they knew how petitions were got up. But they also had some knowledge of how such statutory meetings as the one he described were got up; and whether it was a packed meeting or an engineered petition, to neither of which did he personally attach the least importance, but he might reasonably trump fifty-one votes at the meeting with the 458 signatures of the petition. With regard to the local facts and the Bill itself, there was only one other point he would make, and that was that, so far as the Local Government Board—whose hands were very closely tied in such matters—could interfere, its report on the Bill objected to several of its important provisions. As he submitted to the House, the Bill, if passed, would impose an intolerable and irretrievable burden upon the ratepayers of Lowestoft—the ratepayers of to-day and the ratepayers of to-morrow, and it would do so, not by expenditure upon schemes of assured or even probable profits, but on schemes without any guarantee that any rational man of business would accept, and it would do so not even professedly in the interests of the ratepayer, but in the possible interests of a private company, which did not even yet exist, and which was pledged to part with its rights to a second company, which was not even yet registered, and one or both of which was guaranteed by a third company with a paid-up capital of less than 10 per cent. of the municipal expenditure proposed. No business man would contemplate such an arrangement, and he might safely add that, were it submitted to the officials of any department concerned, or to a Committee of either of the Houses, it would be rejected with contumely.
  The main object he had in view, however, in bringing this matter before the House was to draw attention once again to the appalling rapidity with which the indebtedness of our local and provincial bodies was growing, and to ask the House, by its action that day, to mark the distinction which should exist

  405
  between the treatment of proposals for municipal expenditure which could be shown to be profitable and those proposals which could not be so shown. He hoped that some hon. Members, more versed than he was in that question, would contribute to the debate that afternoon. For himself, he would be content with reminding the House that the local debt of this country was to-day £270,000,000 of money, and that every penny of that sum which was wasted was a dead loss of national wealth. Here was a proposal to waste a very considerable sum. The national total from year to year was going up by leaps and bounds, largely, he was glad to think, on account of expenditure on remunerative undertakings. But expenditure which was remunerative in one place was not always remunerative in another. Schemes which were propounded upon a sound financial basis were too frequently initiated elsewhere on wild cat principles, like those he had just described. Conceive an analogous scheme like this proposed for London. In the first place, it would be examined by competent engineers, actuaries, and lawyers; it would be ground in the mill of a works committee; it would be passed through the fine mash of a finance committee; it would probably come under the consideration of a general purposes committee; it would be debated in the full County Council. The experts of the Local Government Board would have something to say; or, possibly, Committees upstairs would have a voice. Ventilation in the press, discussion in the electorate, would contribute, and the ratepayers might sleep well o' nights. And he asked those who took a sympathetic interest in sound municipal expansion, was there any conceivable analogy between the two cases? Or rather was it not the fact that proposals such as those before them that day did more to retard that expansion than any avowed and direct opposition? He hoped that those who favoured municipal trading would not make the mistake of identifying the two things.
  If he might be an egotist for a moment, he would like to be permitted to say that he was no opponent of what was disparagingly and often unfairly called municipal trading. On the contrary, a quarter of a century ago, as the presi-
  406
  dent of an important municipal council, he was conducting a series of large and novel ventures in municipal trading. For a dozen years he had been intimate with, and for half that time he had represented in that House, a municipality which conducted several large and very profitable concerns coming under this head. But he had never had occasion to oppose or criticise these, or indeed do anything but assist them to the best of his power. And he would like to hear his colleague the Member for East Edinburgh, whose acknowledged skill in municipal finance was acquired and ripened in dealing with these very concerns, give his frank opinion of this agreement. He ventured to say that, as treasurer of Edinburgh, the hon. Gentleman would not have touched it with the end of a very long pole. Imagine, if they could, the London County Council proposing in one year to nearly treble its debt—and mainly for the purpose of benefiting a company which had no existence. That was the proposition before this House. That was the scheme which, unless this House interfered, would be sanctioned by Parliament practically sub silentio; and that was a scheme which would have been brought to this triumphant conclusion by defying the pronounced wisdom of Parliament; by technically evading safeguards which Parliament has provided for the protection of ratepayers, and it was to prevent this that he appealed to the House. In the first place, to protect the ratepayers of Lowestoft from the bankruptcy into which, all unconsciously, they were being recklessly whirled; in the second place, to assert the authority of Parliament, and to vindicate the soundness of its own recorded judgment; and, in the third place, to stamp its disapproval of, and alarm at, the accelerated growth of municipal indebtedness for the sake of unfructuous schemes. Lastly, he appealed to those Members of the House who took a genuine and far-seeing interest in the due expansion of municipal enterprise, who were justly jealous for municipal fair fame, to oppose the scheme as a typical case of the methods which did so much to bring worthy and wise proposals for municipal undertakings into discredit and disrepute. Those Members that he was appealing to had

  407
  realised, to their sorrow, that there was enough and to spare of obstinate and even stupid prejudice against legitimate municipal expansion. He asked them, by their vote, not to encourage schemes like that, and so give colour and new strength to those prejudices. He asked them to have some regard to the growing conviction of the more recent converts to the hosts of the "municipallers"—and not, by lumping together the wisdom of the county council with the folly of Lowestoft, to give a fresh leverage to the party of reaction.
  MR. LONSDALEformally seconded the motion.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out the word 'now,' and at he end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day three months.'"—(Sir Lewis M'Iver.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  COLONEL LUCASsaid he desired first of all to call attention to the curious way in which the opposition to the Bill had changed. Originally the hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire gave notice that he would oppose the Second Reading of the Bill, and shortly afterwards a similar notice was given by the hon. Member for West Edinburgh, when the opposition on the part of the hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire disappeared. This was no doubt due to the fact that the hon. Member was personally interested in the matter; but, however that might be, it was a somewhat unusual course to adopt. He did not intend to occupy the time of the House at any length, because he strongly objected to public business of great importance being delayed by small provincial Bills; therefore he proposed to deal with the matter in the shortest possible way. This Bill was not, as suggested by the hon. Member for West Edinburgh, a mere tramways Bill; it was an omnibus Bill of the usual character, containing clauses giving many important powers to this borough, and if the House rejected this measure simply because they objected to the tramway, the whole of those useful provisions would be lost and the borough put to great expense for no purpose.
  408
  The tramway was necessary to Lowestoft, which had a coast line of three miles, and was without means of getting from one end to the other, and therefore hon. Gentlemen would see that a tramway would be of the greatest utility to the town. It was of the greatest importance that Lowestoft should be placed in communication with the neighbouring villages, and he thought the evils upon which such stress had been laid by the hon. Member for West Edinburgh would be guarded against by the clause "that unless within six months of the granting of the order all the capital is subscribed, and half paid up, the Corporation will not grant the lease to the company." That seemed to be an absolute safeguard. Skeleton companies were often formed, and only extended when the Bill passed, and the Corporation itself would be to blame if it granted the lease on any other terms. The lease was to be for twenty-eight years, and if the Corporation looked after their affairs in a businesslike manner they would carry out this matter, not at the fearful loss that was prophesied by the hon. Baronet, but at a considerable profit. With regard to the financial side of the question, he might say that the debt authorised up to now was £160,000; the amount asked by the Bill was £185,000, of which £45,000 was for street improvements and £140,000 for the tramway. The promoters of the Bill, however, were prepared to drop a certain portion of their outlying tramways, which were of not so much importance, which would make a reduction in the expense of some £50,000, which altered the figures considerably. And later on, if the trunk line shows a profit, if the Bill passed, they would go to the proper authority and ask leave to extend their system. The total amount required was £290,000, of which £145,000 was to be spent upon remunerative works, which left a debt to the borough of £153,000. With regard to the question of locus standi of opposition, he pointed out that although the hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire took, according to the newspaper reports, a very active part at the town meeting which was called for the purpose of expressing approval of the Bill, he had never demanded a poll, which he had a perfect right to do. He did not lay any

  409
  stress upon that fact, because he was not well versed in these matters, but he thought if it had been desirable to demand a poll the hon. Gentleman would have done so, though if he had he did not think it would have gone in the hon. Gentleman's favour. The hon. Baronet had said there was no opposition to this Bill in another place; that was slightly inaccurate, there was opposition.
  SIR LEWIS M'IVER: I said there was opposition, but it was ruled out of order.
  COLONEL LUCASsaid that in the Committee in another place the Chairman did give locus to the hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire, and when this Bill was passed, as he hoped it would be very shortly, the promoters were quite prepared to give the hon. Gentleman a locus standi in any Committee formed to consider the matter, though that locus standi had never been asked for. The broad position was this, that the Corporation had approved the Bill unanimously; the ratepayers' meeting had approved it almost unanimously, no poll being demanded; the Bill had passed its stages in another place, the only objection made having been swept away almost contemptuously, and he thought it was an abuse of the forms of the House that precious time should be wasted by continuing now to debate comparatively small details. He asked the House to follow the usual practice, to agree to the Second Reading, so that all the details could be threshed out before a Committee upstairs. If any private or public grievance was proved, it could then be remedied, and, as no adequate reason had been given for departing from the almost invariable practice, he hoped the Second Reading would be carried by a large majority.
  MR. GODDARDcontended that many of the objections raised by the hon. Baronet the Member for West Edinburgh were purely speculative. Local authorities should as far as possible be allowed to manage their own affairs. Certain salutary and proper checks were already placed on the action of local authorities. In order to ascertain the public opinion, a statutory meeting had to be held before any Bill could be promoted
  410
  in Parliament. The hon. Baronet had stated that there was only a very small attendance at the statutory meeting in this case, but as a rule, when a Bill met with public approval, such meetings were very thinly attended. A large meeting could be got only when a Bill was strongly opposed. Moreover, any one person at a statutory meeting could demand a poll, and if there had been any real opposition to the Bill before the House, it was perfectly certain that somebody would have taken that course. It was true that a requisition was said to be signed by 400 persons, but he strongly suspected that the signatories were people interested in property rather than ordinary ratepayers, and such people invariably endeavoured to prevent the progressive acts of progressive towns in the way of providing tramways, and so on. Great stress had been laid on the fact that municipal debt in this country had increased by leaps and bounds, but it was apparently forgotten that that increase had taken place with the consent of the ratepayers and the approval of the Local Government Board. Not only would the Local Government Board very quickly stop any excessive expenditure, but the Chairman of the unopposed Bills Committee also was very strict on that point. The House should bear in mind the fact that Lowestoft was a very progressive town. During the last thirty years the number of houses had increased from 3,000 to 7,000; in the last twenty-five years the rateable value had gone up from £48,000 to £121,000—or £130,000 if the figures of the local Member were correct; and the population, which in 1871 was 15,000, had risen until at the last census it stood at 30,000. A town could not increase in that way without it being necessary to provide greater facilities for the people, and one of the principal facilities required was that afforded by tramways. As to the allegation that a company was to take up the work, he thought a corporation should be allowed a certain amount of liberty as to the manner in which they would work these undertakings. Many people were not willing to take the risk involved in the starting of such schemes, preferring to entrust their powers for a time to a company experienced in such work. He therefore trusted that no obstacle would be

  411
  placed in the way of Lowestoft achieving its object.
  MR. MACONOCHIEsaid he understood the neighbourhood concerned in this Bill, and anything which benefited Lowestoft, would be a pleasure and a pecuniary interest to him. He therefore would not oppose anything which would benefit that town, but he happened to know how these things were worked. This Bill had been promoted in the interests, not of the town of Lowestoft, but of people other than the ratepayers. After careful study of the cost involved in similar schemes in towns of equal size, he could not understand how this immense sum of £185,000 could be spent. The tramway, if built, would, he was convinced, be worked at a loss. During a period of seven and a half hours, at the busiest part of the day, only 290 vehicles and 1,072 passengers passed the post office, in the centre of the town, on an occasion when he had them counted, and taking those figures as a basis, he calculated that there would be a loss of thirty-three per cent. on the cost of working, without taking into account the capital outlay. The ratepayers did not really understand the question. At the town meeting only 103 persons were present, of whom no more than fifty voted in favour of the Bill, while the opposition on the council was crushed out by having an afternoon meeting. The petition against the Bill was signed by 450 persons, mostly ratepayers, a number many times greater than the number who voted for the measure. The Bill was not one that should receive the support of the House, and he trusted it would be thrown out.
  MR. BROADHURSTsupposed the hon. Member who had just spoken would not take part in the division, as he had stated that he had great material interest in the success of the Bill.
  MR. MACONOCHIE: No; I stated that I had great pecuniary interest in the prosperity of the town of Lowestoft.
  MR. BROADHURST(continuing) said that if the petition against the Bill had been pushed as persistently as had the canvassing in the lobby against the
  412
  Bill, he could quite understand the signatures being so numerous. As a protest against the systematic canvassing and lobbying which went on against this Bill, he trusted that the House would pass the Second Reading. He was not interested in some large undeveloped property which was likely to come into the market, like the hon. Member opposite. He had known Lowestoft for forty years, and he knew that the promoters of this Bill were amongst the most capable municipal men in this country. They were men who had served the corporation and the ratepayers all their lives, and it had been owing to their efforts that the success of the town had been built up and developed. Surely that was some guarantee that by this Bill they would be able to develop the town still further in the future. They all knew how desirable it was to have a tramway in the town, from north to south. The Lowestoft Corporation were also asking for power in this Bill to protect the town from the inroads of the sea. Lowestoft was subject to the encroaches of the sea at every high tide, and almost every winter the ratepayers were put to enormous cost baling out the incoming sea. The corporation wanted power to build up walls to fence off the sea and reclaim the land. Those who knew the requirements of the town, and the class of men who were at the head of affairs there, would not allow themselves to be cajoled by those who had organised this opposition to the Bill. The best evidence of the weakness of the opposition to this Bill was to be found in the fact that they had had to go to Scotland to obtain a Member to oppose the Second Reading. The hon. Member for West Edinburgh had been led into a trap, and he was sure he could not have seen where he was going when he consented to oppose a Bill the merits of which he could not have any personal knowledge of. He trusted the House would give this measure a Second Reading, and not refuse an inquiry by the Committee into this question. Parliamentary powers were necessary to prevent the town being annually injured by the high tides. Whatever there was wrong or amiss in the Bill they could rely upon the Committee rectifying it.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. GRANT LAWSON, Yorkshire, N.R.,): I have not risen to continue the discussion upon the merits of the Bill. I think the debate which has already taken place must have proved that this is not the tribunal where these matters ought to be settled. I can assure the hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire, and other hon. Members who have opposed this Bill, that they will have a chance of being heard before the Committee. Even if their right to be heard was contested, there was such a thing as a motion in this House to the effect that hon. Members should be heard before the Committee. Therefore hon. Members who are opposing this Bill may rest assured that they will have an opportunity of being heard before the Committee. I do not blame them for bringing this matter forward, because the question of the continually increasing local indebtedness is a very serious matter. I make an appeal to my hon. friend the Member for West Edinburgh not to put the House to the trouble of a division upon this motion. I think we are all agreed that these matters should be inquired into, and the best tribunal to decide them is the Committee upstairs.
  SIR LEWIS M'IVER: After the assurance which has just been given I beg leave to withdraw my motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed.

  PRIVATE BILLS.
  Ordered, That the Chairman of Ways and Means be discharged from attendance on the Committees on the Dover Corporation Bill [Lords]; the Portmadoc, Beddgelert, and South Snowdon Railway Bill [Lords]; the Albion Steam Coal Company Bill [Lords]; the Worcester Tramways Bill [Lords]; the Elland Gas Bill [Lords]; the Freshwater, Yarmouth, and Newport Railway Bill [Lords]; and the Leeds Churches Bill [Lords]; and that Mr. Arthur Frederick Jeffreys be appointed Chairman of the Committees on the said Bills.—(Mr. Caldwell.)
BEXLEY TRAMWAYS BILL.
  CLEVELAND AND DURHAM COUNTY ELECTRIC POWER BILL.

    DUBLIN CORPORATION (MARKETS, ETC.) BILL.
    GREAT CENTRAL RAILWAY BILL
    LANCASHIRE AND YORKSHIRE RAILWAY (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL.
    Lords' Amendments considered, and agreed to.

    HANDSWORTH URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL [Lords].
    Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
    SHEFFIELD CORPORATION BILL [Lords]. (BY ORDER.)
    Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
    WISBECH WATER BILL [Lords].
    As amended, considered; to be read the third time.

    GLASGOW CORPORATION (POLICE) PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL [Lords].
    [UNDER THE PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1899.]
    Read a second time; to be considered to-morrow.

    MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
    That they have agreed to:—

    Tottenham and Hampstead Junction Railway Bill;

    Yorkshire Electric Power Bill;

    Caledonian Railway Bill: with Amendments.

    That they have agreed to Amendments to:—

    Aire and Calder Navigation Bill [Lords];

    South Western and Isle of Wight Junction Railway Bill [Lords]:

    without amendment.
    That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act for conferring further powers on the City and Brixton Railway Company." City and Brixton Railway Bill [Lords].

    CITY AND BRIXTON RAILWAY BILL [Lords].
    Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
PETITIONS.
  AGRICULTURAL RATES CONGESTED DISTRICTS AND BURGH LAND TAX RELIEF (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1896.
  Petition from Stormont and Strathmore, in favour of re-enactment; to lie upon the Table.
  ALKALI, ETC., WORKS REGULATION BILL.
  Petition from Leith, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (CONTINUATION SCHOOLS) BILL.
  Petition from Blackpool, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Foveran, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  FACTORY AND WORKSHOP (LEAD COMPOUNDS IN POTTERY).
  Copy presented, of Report to the Secretary of State for the Home Department on the Work of the Government Laboratory on the Question of the Employment of Lead Compounds in Pottery, by Professor D. E. Thorpe, C.B., LL.D., F.R.S., Principal of the Government Laboratory [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  GREENWICH OBSERVATORY.
  Copy presented, of Report of the Astronomer Royal to the Board of Visitors of the Royal Observatory, Greenwich; [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  NAVY (VICE ADMIRALTY COURTS).
  Copy presented, of Order in Council of 15th June, 1901, authorising certain Amendments in the Table of Fees established for the Vice Admiralty Court of New South Wales [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  CONGESTED DISTRICTS BOARD (IRELAND).
  Copy presented, of Tenth Report of the Board, being for the period from 1st April, 1899 to 31st March, 1901 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  CRIMINAL AND JUDICIAL STATISTICS (IRELAND).
  Copy presented, of Criminal and Judicial Statistics of Ireland for the year 1900. Part II. Civil Statistics [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  PROSECUTIONS (FISHERY LAWS) (IRELAND).
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 20th June; Mr. O'Mara]; to lie upon the Table.
  GROCERS AND OFF-LICENCES, ETC. (BELFAST).
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 20th June; Mr. Field]; to lie upon the Table.
  EAST INDIA (ACCOUNTS AND ESTIMATES 1901–2).
  Copy presented, of Explanatory Memorandum by the Secretary of State for India [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 2656 to 2658 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  NEW MEMBER SWORN.
  Ernest Gardner, esquire, for the County of Berks (Eastern or Wokingham Division).
QUESTIONS.

  SOUTH AFRICAN WAR—VLAKFONTEIN —MURDER OF BRITISH WOUNDED.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether Lord Kitchener has addressed any communication to the general in command of the Boer forces at Vlakfontein, or to Generals De Wet or Louis Botha, in reference to the alleged killing of British wounded at the battle of Vlakfontein, and, if he has, on what date that communication was made; whether Lord Kitchener has received any reply; and whether any correspondence which has passed between Lord Kitchener and the Boer generals on this subject will be laid upon the Table.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,): Lord Kitchener telegraphs as follows—
  "I have made no communication with Boer leaders on shooting at Vlakfontein, as it is very unlikely to have any effect; even if Boer leaders disapprove of atrocities, they have no control over their men."
  Since the receipt of the above telegram, I have received to-day the following telegram—
  "I am sending sworn depositions of Boers shooting our wounded to Delarey."
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will extend his inquiry as to the alleged shooting of British wounded by the Boers at Vlakfontein by taking the evidence of officers and men who were present, and are not amongst those who have already made statements in confirmation of the allegation.
  MR. BRODRICK: The matter rests with Lord Kitchener, who may be relied upon to take all evidence that may be necessary and proper.

  GENERAL DIXON'S DESPATCH.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will inquire by telegram from Lord Kitchener as to the truth of the statement that on the night after the battle of Vlakfontein the British troops retired, leaving their hospital and all their wounded in the hands of the Boers.
  MR. BRODRICK: In reply to a telegram requesting Lord Kitchener to forward a full report of this action, and referring to the statement made in the question, Lord Kitchener telegraphs as follows—
  "Copy of General Dixon's despatch on action at Vlakfontein has been forwarded to the War Office. The rear guard was surprised under cover of veldt fire, and vigorously attacked. When it was reinforced from main body enemy were driven off, and our troops remained on ground. No doubt for a short time, when rear guard were being attacked and driven back on main body, wounded men were on ground occupied by enemy, but the hospital is not usually with rear guard, and I have never heard that it was in enemy's hands."

  ALLEGED SUPPRESSION OF WAR NEWS.
  MAJOR RASCH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can inform the House why information of the murder of British wounded at Vlakfontein was withheld by the War Office from 11th June to 11th July.
  MR. BRODRICK: The very brief telegram in regard to Lieutenant Hern's statement was advisedly withheld until further testimony in support was received from Lord Kitchener and the inquiry asked for had been made.
  MAJOR RASCH: Could not the right hon. Gentleman have obtained the information by cable?
  MR. BRODRICK: Yes, Sir; but the inquiry could not be held by cable. As soon as the results were cabled to us by Lord Kitchener we made them public.

  CENSORSHIP RULES.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, in view of the fact that military censors are not in any way responsible for the accuracy of the facts alleged in telegrams passed by them, their duty being limited to the prevention of the publication of statements or intelligence which may assist the enemy, whether their duties will be subject to modification in the light of recent occurrences. I beg also to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state what, if any, are the rules regulating the exercise of the military press censorship in South Africa.
  MR. BRODRICK: The duties of censors are regulated by the general officers commanding in the field, and the instructions issued to them are necessarily varied in accordance with the military exigencies of the moment. I am not aware of the instructions now in force in South Africa.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the censorship regulations referred to by General Maxwell in his proclamation of

  419
  14th March, 1901, have been published in the Pretoria Government Gazette, and whether he will lay them upon the Table.
  MR. BRODRICK: These regulations have not been published in the Pretoria Gazette. I will ask for them.

  EXECUTION OF BOER PRISONERS.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the leading residents at Dordrecht, in the Middelburg district, were ordered to attend the execution of a prisoner in that place on Tuesday; and, if so, whether he can state the reason for this proceeding.
  MR. BRODRICK: I have no information on the matter alluded to. I will, however, address an inquiry to Lord Kitchener on it.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I will repeat the question this day week.

  ALLEGED MURDERS BY KAFFIRS ON THE ZULU FRONTIER.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can give the House any information as to the alleged murder of Jacobus More, his wife, and five children, by Kaffirs, near Magator, on the borders of Zululand.
  MR. BRODRICK: I telegraphed to Lord Kitchener for information, who replies that he has made inquiries, but that nothing is known of the alleged murder.

  RETURNS OF BOER LOSSES.
  SIR EDGAR VINCENT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can furnish the House every Tuesday with a list of the enemy in South Africa captured, wounded, or killed during the preceding week, and whether such a Return can be published regularly and systematically.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Lord STANLEY,): A return is telegraphed weekly by Lord Kitchener, is at once published, and copies are always sent to the House of Commons.

  PRETORIA FATALITY—PRIVATE C. M'GILL, 2ND COLDSTREAM GUARDS.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can explain why the death of Private C. M'Gill, 2nd Coldstream Guards, who was stated in a British casualty list published last September to have been accidentally shot at Pretoria on 5th May, was not reported till four months after the occurrence; were the circumstances of M'Gill's death investigated by court-martial; and can he state by whose hand M'Gill met his death.
  LORD STANLEYrose to reply.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Perhaps the Secretary of State will reply himself.
  LORD STANLEY: No, Sir; I will reply.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: No, Sir; I will not have it. I rise to order, Sir. In a matter affecting the policy of the Government, I submit with great respect that the Cabinet Minister responsible should answer. The Financial Secretary to the War Office is not responsible; he is merely a pendant of the office.
  MR. SPEAKER: There is no compulsion in the matter. It is a very common practice for one Minister to request another to answer for him, either because he has more cognisance of the facts, or for some other reason. If the hon. Member objects to the practice, he can protest on the Vote for the salary of the Minister.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I shall do that in great form.
  LORD STANLEY: I am very glad the hon. Member has given me an opportunity of stating the true facts of this case. Private M'Gill died on the 5th June, and on the 6th June the officer commanding his company communicated the occurrence to Mrs. M'Gill. Further, when the confirmation of the death reached the War Office by post, it was at once notified to Mrs. M'Gill on the 27th July. No court-martial was held, as it was unnecessary, but from the usual court of inquiry it was elicited that M'Gill accidentally shot himself with a revolver which he found when searching

  421
  for arms in a house in Pretoria; the only witness who saw the act was a private soldier.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: If the man accidentally shot himself—if he committed suicide—why was it reported that he was accidentally shot?
  [No answer was returned.]

  AUDIT OF MILITARY ACCOUNTS.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether any part of the audit of accounts of the military expenditure in South Africa is done locally; and, if so, can he say to what accounts this local audit extends.
  LORD STANLEY: Yes, Sir. The Pay Department in South Africa, as elsewhere, is responsible for the audit of all cash accounts, a certain proportion being subject to a test audit at the War Office with a view of securing that the local audit has been properly performed.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: Is it the intention of the Government—or rather is it its practice at the present moment—to decentralise the audit, and not to bring the accounts home from Natal to the War Office for audit?
  LORD STANLEY: That question is under consideration. I must ask for notice.

  OFFICERS OF MILITIA BATTALIONS.
  MR. BILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that some of the Militia battalions which have now been serving for nearly eighteen months in South Africa are now under-officered, owing chiefly to transfers to the Line, and what steps he proposes to take to bring these regiments up to a full state of efficiency.
  LORD STANLEY: I am not aware that these battalions are short of officers, but I will inquire.

  MILITARY MANœUVRES—EXTRAORDINARY TRAFFIC ON MAIN ROADS.
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I beg to ask the
  422
  Secretary of State for War if he can state how soon any communication will reach the county councils of Wiltshire and Hampshire as to compensation which will be paid for damage caused by extraordinary traffic to the main roads of those counties by the military traffic consequent on the purchase of parts of Salisbury Plain.
  LORD STANLEY: The matter is being dealt with by the Treasury, who addressed communications to each of the county councils on the 11th instant.

  TREATMENT OF INSANE SOLDIERS AT ALDERSHOT.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been directed to the inquiry last September concerning the death of a soldier at Aldershot, who, when insane, was treated as an ordinary prisoner, and to the remarks of the coroner that he had not received assistance from the military authorities in his investigation; that difficulties had been thrown in the way of obtaining the necessary documentary evidence, and that the accounts of the occurrence given to the police of the man's death had been misleading; and whether the War Office authorities have any explanation to make, or have made any effort to discover the persons responsible for this occurrence.
  LORD STANLEY: My attention has been directed to this matter. The lunatic was treated in the prisoners' ward of the hospital; this ward, as perhaps the hon. Member is unaware, differs only from an ordinary ward in that it has bars on the windows and a guard-room close by. The other statements appear to be unfounded, and no complaints have been received from the coroner.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: But did not the corner state that the military authorities had obstructed him in his inquiry?
  [No answer was returned.]

  ARMY PENSIONS—CASE OF STEPHEN CRONDRON.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether

  423
  his attention has been directed to the case of Stephen Crondron, who served in the Crimea, North America, and India, and was after a service of thirteen years and five months invalided on a pension of 9d. per day, having received an excellent character and three conduct badges; whether he is aware that Crondron, being unable since 1887 from ill-health to follow his trade as a baker, has for the last fourteen years subsisted on this allowance, and that repeated applications on his behalf, with certificates of his suffering from heart disease and paralysis, for relief from military funds, have been unsuccessfully made on his behalf; and whether, under the circumstances, an increase of pension will be granted to this man.
  LORD STANLEY: This man was discharged for disability not clearly attributable to military service, and was awarded a pension of 9d. a day, the highest amount admissible for him under the regulations. His case has been carefully considered on several occasions by the Chelsea Commissioners, who are unable to increase the grant.

  TRANSVAAL REVENUES.
  MR. ALFRED DAVIES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, having regard to the fact that Mr. Charles Leonard, before the Select Committee on British South Africa, stated that the Transvaal annual revenue was £150,000 before the gold discoveries and between £4,000,000 and £5,000,000 in 1896, nearly the whole of the burden of such taxation falling upon the gold industry, whereas Sir David Barbour in his Report suggested the levying of an annual taxation of about £500,000 on the gold mining companies, and the release of these companies to an amount of £600,000 per annum through the cancelling of the dynamite monopoly, whether he can state how it is proposed to raise the £2,832,000, the total yearly cost of the Transvaal Administration, as estimated by Sir David Barbour.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): I am not prepared to
  424
  state in detail at present how the cost of the Transvaal Administration will be met, but I would point out to the hon. Member that Sir David Barbour estimates the revenue at £3,467,000, independently of the produce of the proposed tax on the net profits of the gold mines.
  MR. ALFRED DAVIES: On what page? I cannot find it.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The Report is a very short one, and the hon. Member will have no difficulty in finding it; but I will show it to him after questions are over if he wishes it.

  JAMESON RAID—POSITION OF CHARTERED COMPANY.
  MR. ALFRED DAVIES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Chartered Company have given notice of, and are pressing for, or have renounced a claim against the British Government, in view of the statement of Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer in the House on 13th December, 1900, that for every pound fairly due in consequence of the Jameson raid from the Chartered Company to the late Transvaal Government, at least £5 is probably due to the company from the late Transvaal Government in consequence of the war entered into by that Government against this country.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: No claim has been presented.
  MR. ALFRED DAVIES: Is there a prospect of any claim?
  [No answer was returned.]

  BRITISH SOUTH AFRICA COMPANY'S ACCOUNTS.
  MR. ALFRED DAVIES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, in view of the fact that the British South Africa Company has delayed in forwarding to the Colonial Office their yearly accounts and estimates, and in presenting their annual accounts at their annual meeting of shareholders, will he state what is the penalty for such delay, and what action, if any, he purposes taking; and whether he has received

  425
  any communication to the effect that the remainder of the financial statement of revenue and expenditure to 31st March, 1899, and the whole statement to the 31st March, 1900, will be in the hands of Members previous to the 10th August.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: (1) The Charter does not provide a specific penalty for failure to comply with Clause 17, under which accounts and estimates are required to be furnished. (2) The financial statement of revenue and expenditure in Southern Rhodesia for the year ending 31st March, 1900, should, I am informed, be received in the course of the next two weeks, having already appeared in the Southern Rhodesia Gazette. I am in communication with the company with regard to the remaining accounts of administrative revenue and expenditure.
  MR. ALFRED DAVIES: What was the result of the inquiries made in March last in regard to these accounts?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: That the financial statement will be received in the course of the next two weeks.

  LABOUR IN THE JOHANNESBURG GOLD MINES.
  SIR EDGAR VINCENT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can furnish the House every week with a return showing the amount of white and black labour employed in the gold mines of Johannesburg during the preceding week, the number of stamps dropped, and the amount of gold won, and whether such a return can be published regularly and systematically.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think it is desirable for the Government to make itself responsible for publishing such a weekly return. It may, I think, be left to the mining companies to make public their returns in what may seem to them the best way.

  NAVAL PROMOTIONS FOR SERVICE IN CHINA.
  SIR JOHN COLOMB: I beg to ask the Secretary to
  426
  the Admiralty whether he is aware that on the 9th November last a list of promotions for services in China was published by the Admiralty, and that while all the naval officers on that list were thereupon immediately promoted, the Marine officers on that list remain now in precisely the same position as if no such announcement had ever been made; and will he state how, or what department, is responsible for delaying for seven months rewards conferred by the Admiralty on these Marine officers for distinguished service in the field.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER,): I am informed that the War Office, with whom the decision in this matter lies, has decided that these officers will receive their brevet promotion dated 29th November last.

  ROMAN CATHOLIC CHAPLAINS ON HOSPITAL SHIPS.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if a Roman Catholic chaplain will be on board the hospital ship to be attached to the Mediterranean Fleet.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: It is not proposed at present to appoint any chaplains to the "Maine," which will be used principally for the purpose of taking convalescent fever and other patients to sea for change of air. A Roman Catholic chaplain has, however, been appointed for service afloat in the Mediterranean Fleet, and is at present with the admiral at Rapallo. It is intended to make a permanent appointment of this nature, and the services of a chaplain will therefore be available and will be utilised on board the "Maine" or other hospital ship in the event of war.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that the late First Lord of the Admiralty (Lord Goschen), replying to a deputation of Irish Members on this subject, said there should be a Catholic chaplain on every hospital ship?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: My recollection is that his words were that the matter should receive favourable

  427
  consideration. We have come to the conclusion that the most favourable way of dealing with the question is that indicated in my answer, and that the services of a Catholic chaplain would be of greater value if attached to the Fleet at the discretion of the Commander-in-Chief than if merely appointed to a special ship.

  AMMUNITION FOR THE NAVY.
  MR. HARMSWORTH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the deficiency in ammunition affecting the Army affected the store of ammunition manufactured for the Navy, and whether such manufacture at any period during the Boer war has actually ceased.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: There has at no time been any deficiency in the ammunition for the Navy. For a short period during the war the ordinary naval orders were suspended in order to give the full benefit of the output to the Army, but the shortage was promptly made up, and at no time were the stocks allowed to become depleted.

  MEDITERRANEAN FLEET—DESTROYERS.
  MR. HARMSWORTH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can state when the destroyers required for the reinforcement of the Mediterranean Fleet will leave England.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: It is not proposed to despatch any additional destroyers to the Mediterranean until after the manœuvres which have now commenced.

  ELECTRICAL MACHINERY ON H.M. SHIPS.
  MR. HARMSWORTH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the gun turrets of His Majesty's battleships are worked by electricity; and, if not, whether His Majesty's Government will consider the advisability of installing the necessary electric machinery for this purpose as speedily as possible.
  MR. ARNOLD - FORSTER: The turrets and barbettes of the heavy guns
  428
  in the Navy are not worked by electricity' but by hydraulic power. The question of substituting electrical machinery for the purpose has been carefully considered, but up to the present time the hydraulic machinery has been preferred and has given excellent results. Electricity is in use for working portions of the gun machinery on board the "Renown," "Barfleur," and "Centurion," and will be largely applied for similar purposes in ships now under construction. It is also proposed to furnish electrical machinery to the turrets, turn tables, and shields of a number of cruisers now under construction or approaching completion. The experience gained from these installations will furnish a valuable guide as to whether the use of electricity can be with advantage extended in the future.

  SCINDE, PUNJAB, AND DELHI RAILWAY.
  MR, CAINE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he is aware that there has been a sum of nearly £10,000 lying without interest at, the Bank of England to the credit of the Scinde, Punjab, and Delhi Railway for nearly twenty years; that in 1886 this undertaking was vested in the Government of India; and that Section 54 of the Act provided for the eventual dissolution of the company; is he aware that this clause has been virtually inoperative, the company, though still in existence, being without direction, the last surviving director having died last year; and seeing that this deposit represents various sums distributable, under Section 53 of the Act, between the stockholders of the company, to parties who cannot be traced, will he introduce a Bill providing for the final dissolution of the railway company, and authorising the bank to pay the money to the Secretary of State, subject, within a clearly defined period, to the presentation of any cheques now in existence signed by the late directors of the company.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord G. HAMILTON,): The Scinde, Punjab, and Delhi Railway was purchased at the beginning

  429
  of 1886. In March, 1889, the amounts outstanding on account of surplus profits, unclaimed dividends, etc., were £133,596, which by December, 1894, had been reduced to £9,741. The sum now outstanding is stated to be £9,728. The company was an English one, and the assets have always been in England. It would be apparently for the Treasury, as guardian of the Imperial revenues, not for the Secretary of State in Council, to consider the question of transferring the money to the Crown, and I will communicate with them on the matter.

  INDIAN UNIVERSITY GRADUATES.
  SIR MANCHERJEE BHOWNAGGREE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he can state how many Government scholarships are awarded annually to graduates of Indian universities for the purpose of pursuing their studies in Great Britain; whether it is an indispensable condition of these scholarships that those holding them should join the universities of Oxford or Cambridge; and, considering the need of technical education in India and the absence of adequate means for such instruction there, he will consider the advisability of founding additional scholarships for the special purpose of enabling selected candidates to pursue technical studies in Great Britain or other countries of Europe.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: Two Government scholarships are awarded annually to graduates of Indian universities. The scholars are required to join the university of Oxford or that of Cambridge. The provision of technical instruction in India is a matter of great importance, and the Government of India have done and are doing much to develop and improve it. I will call their attention to the suggestion of my hon. friend with regard to the foundation of additional scholarships for enabling the selected candidates to pursue technical studies in Europe; but I cannot at present promise anything more than this.
  SIR MANCHERJEE BHOWNAGGREE: May I ask whether, pending the foundation of additional scholarships, the
  430
  noble Lord will instruct the Government of India to remove the restriction as regards joining the universities of Oxford or Cambridge in the case of candidates desiring to pursue technical studies?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: I must ask for notice.

  POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANK.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer can he now state whether the balance sheet of the Post Office Savings Bank made up to 31st December, 1900, showed an access of assets over liabilities or an excess of liabilities over assets, and what such excess was; can he further state at what date in each year the making up of the balance sheet up to the end of the preceding year is usually completed, and whether there is any objection to laying it upon the Table of the House immediately after its completion; and can he state when this balance sheet made up to 31st December, 1900, will be presented to the House.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): The balance sheet of the Post Office Savings Bank made up to 31st December, 1900, shows an excess of liabilities over assets amounting to £2,040,594 on the price of the securities at the market value of the day. The yearly balance sheet is usually completed during the month of July in the following year; and is published as an appendix to the Report of His Majesty's Postmaster General which is presented to both Houses of Parliament. The Postmaster General's Report now in course of preparation, which will contain the balance sheet for the year ended 31st December, 1900, will be presented during the present session of Parliament.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he will state the entire amount paid over to the Exchequer as profit on the working of the Post Office Savings Bank since the establishment of that institution in 1861, and also the amounts voted by Parliament to meet

  431
  any deficiency in the working; will he give the amount charged against the cost of management for the purchase of land, for cost of new buildings, and for postage respectively; and can he state approximately the present value of the land and buildings thus secured to the Government at the cost of the institution.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): The hon. Gentleman will find full information on these matters in the annual report of the Postmaster General, to which I must ask him to refer.

  BUDGET SURPLUSES—APPROPRIATION.
  MR. LOUGH: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the extra amount raised by the Loan Bill above the estimated requirements of the Budget can be applied to the war or other services of the year without Supplementary Estimates covering the expenditure being laid before Parliament; and, if not, to what purpose will the money be applied.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The answer to the first question is in the negative. Any surplus not required for expenditure would be devoted to paying off debt.

  SUGAR DUTY ON CHUTNEY.
  SIR MANCHERJEE BHOWNAGGREE: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that by Order No. 57, 1901, of the Board of Customs, it is proposed to impose a duty of 2s. per cwt. on imported chutnies by reason of their containing a certain percentage of sugar. and that this rate of duty is equal to almost double the rate payable on the average proportion of sugar found on analysis to be contained in the different varieties of chutnies; and whether, under these circumstances, he will take steps to rectify the said order and prevent the overcharge of duty.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The rate of 2s. per cwt. on chutney is certainly not correctly described as almost double the rate payable on the average proportion of sugar in the article. It has been
  432
  fixed on the results of the analysis of a large number of samples, as being no more than sufficient for the due protection of the Revenue. It is not necessarily final; but, pending further experience, I am not prepared to reduce it.
  SIR MANCHERJEE BHOWNAGGREE: Is it not the case that one of the greatest importing firms of Indian condiments had an analysis made and furnished to the Board of Customs which bore out the figures stated in the question?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: It may be they do import an article containing very little sugar, but we are bound to take the average for the whole trade.

  GREENWICH UNION BURIAL SCANDALS.
  MR. MURPHY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the cases of burial which recently occurred in the Greenwich Union, by reason of which several people have been interred under incorrect names; whether he is aware that Roman Catholic inmates have been buried in the Protestant cemetery and vice versa, and can he say what steps have been taken to prevent similar irregularities in future; and what is the reason of the delay in complying with the application for leave to exhume the bodies already interred in this manner.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. RITCHIE,): The grave irregularities which have occurred recently in connection with the burial of inmates of the Greenwich workhouse and infirmary have been brought under my notice by the guardians, who have adopted the report of a special committee recommending the punishment of the officials mainly responsible, and the adoption of regulations designed to prevent any recurrence of such scandals in the future. In only one case has application been made to me for a licence to remove remains—by a husband who desired that they should be re-interred in a private grave—and the licence was granted without undue delay.

  RATIONS IN THE MERCANTILE MARINE.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to a case at South Shields where three seamen of the steamship "Mayfield" were awarded compensation by the bench of magistrates for receiving insufficient food on board ship, and, seeing that the meat on the "Mayfield" was unfit for use, and the biscuits in such small quantities that each sailor received but one a day, whether the Board of Trade will take steps against the owner of this vessel for not having made proper provision for the feeding of the crew.
  I beg also to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been directed to the case of the crew of the British steamship "Mayfield," whether he is aware that the superintendent of the mercantile marine at the port of North Shields has reported to the Board that this crew upon being discharged from this vessel complained of having been kept on short provisions for forty days, and that they claimed compensation for this treatment at the time of their discharge; whether he is aware that the superintendent adjudicated in the case of certain of the crew and awarded them only 5s. each as compensation, and, seeing that four other members of the same crew objected to such adjudication and instituted proceedings before the South Shields magistrates, who awarded the men £2 1s. each and 18s. each for loss of time, whether he will cause inquiries to be made as to the reasons of the North Shields superintendent for making the award mentioned.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): My attention was first called to the case referred to by the hon. Member by notices of his questions, which I will answer together. I have communicated with the superintendent at North Shields and with the owner of the "Mayfield." There can be no doubt, I think, that the food supplied during part of the voyage was bad. The superintendent did not adjudicate in any way, but three of the men took the case into court and obtained compensation, the rest accepting their wages without
  434
  demanding any addition by way of compensation. The owner assures me that it was his wish that proper and sufficient food should be provided. He is making further inquiries, and I shall doubtless hear the result, when I will further consider the case.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: May I ask if the Board of Trade authorities make any provision for the inspecting of the provisions put on board ships of this kind, and, if so, was it done in this case?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Certainly they make provision. I am inquiring into the present case.
  MR. NANNETTI: What progress has been made with the inquiry which has been promised into these matters?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: That does not arise out of the question.

  NORFOLK SEA-COAST DEFENCES.
  MR. SOAMES: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he can state when the Commission of Sewers for the county of Norfolk, which has the main control over the sea-coast defences, was formed; whether the lands rated for the purposes of the commission have ever been reassessed since then; whether he is aware that the commission publishes no accounts, and whether he will order an inquiry to be made into the matter.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. WALTER LONG,): I understand that the question relates to the Commissioners of Sewers for the Eastern Hundreds of Norfolk. I have no authority to direct an inquiry with regard to the matters to which the hon. Member refers, but I am informed that the first commission held by the commissioners was issued in 1806, and the last in 1900, and that the latest assessment of lands for the purposes of the commission was made in 1813. The commissioners are of opinion that the large expense which would be involved in the re-assessment of the lands, consisting of upwards of 50,000 acres, would be useless, as the levels of the lands upon

  435
  which the assessment is based remain unchanged in almost all cases. I understand that the accounts are laid before the commissioners at their annual meeting in November, and are open to the inspection of any ratepayer. An abstract of them is published in the Local Taxation Returns.

  NEW EVENING CONTINUATION SCHOOL CODE.
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education if he will consent to fix a later date than August 1st, under the new Evening Continuation School Code, for sending in applications for evening schools, so as to give more time to managers and others to consider their proposals.
  THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Sir J. GORST,): It is intended to give a liberal extension of the time for sending in applications, but it is desirable that managers should obtain the sanction of the Board of Education as early as possible.

  NEW EDUCATION MINUTE.
  LIEUT.-COLONEL TUFNELL: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether his attention has been directed to the fact that the Minute of the Board of Education just issued omits from the new code the subjects of instruction in home nursing and ambulance work, and will he consider the advisability of restoring these subjects by a fresh minute of the Board.
  SIR J. GORST: No fresh minute is necessary. Both subjects can receive grants under the fifth section of the eighth group of subjects.

  TRIAL OF LORD RUSSELL.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he can state on what Vote the expenditure entailed by the trial of a peer in the House of Lords will be borne.
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. AKERS DOUGLAS,): The expense, so far as my Department is concerned, is borne on the Vote for Houses of Parliament Buildings, Class 1, Vote 3.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLrose to put a further question.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The question has been fully answered. The hon. Member asked for and has been told the Vote, and he cannot now discuss the matter.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: But I want to put a supplementary question. I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman, seeing that he as First Commissioner of Works is responsible, whether the estimates for the expense now being incurred have been laid before him.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member had better put that question down.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Certainly. Sir.

  LONDON TELEPHONE SERVICE.
  MR. BARTLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he can now name an approximate date when the Post Office telephone service in London will commence business.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Postmaster General hopes to be able to begin the connection of subscribers with the Central Exchange and some others at the beginning of October.

  CANADIAN PACIFIC CABLE.
  SIR EDWARD SASSOON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will state to the House, in connection with the Canadian Pacific Cable, how much of the material has already been manufactured and delivered, what instalments have been paid, and whether, in view of the provision for the completion of the work by the end of 1902, satisfactory progress has been made towards the fulfilment of the contract.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: None of the cable has yet been manu-

  437
  factured or delivered, but several cable houses have been sent out, and are being erected at the several landing places selected. The surveying ship has already sounded the route over a distance of 1,500 miles, and is now engaged on the same work between Norfolk Island and Fiji. The landing places of the cable in Queensland, New Zealand, Norfolk Island, and Vancouver have been decided upon, and preliminary arrangements made for the construction of staff quarters and station buildings. I am informed that the manufacture of the cable begins this week. One instalment of £287,463, due under the contract on the 31st March last, has been paid to the contractors. I am informed that the engineers of the Pacific Cable Board are satisfied with the progress made, and with the ability of the contractors to complete the work by the end of 1902.
  [A supplementary question and answer were both inaudible.]

  PRIVATE WIRES FOR PRESS MESSAGES.
  MR. STUART WORTLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the Postmaster General has powers not possessed by private individuals of obtaining way-leaves for telegraphic wires over railway companies' property; and whether, before refusing the recent request of a Sheffield newspaper proprietor for a twenty-four hours private wire between Sheffield and London, the Postmaster General made inquiry whether on any of the three railway lines connecting Sheffield with London the necessary way leaves could be obtained; and, if so, what was the result of such inquiry, and whether the provision of private wire accommodation for mercantile and other firms has been a very remunerative part of the business of the Post Office.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: It is no doubt the fact that the Postmaster General has wayleave facilities not possessed by private individuals in regard to the use of the principal railway lines for the erection of telegraphic wires. The Postmaster General is fully aware of the existence of the three railway lines
  438
  connecting Sheffield and London as routes for telegraphic purposes, and no special inquiry on the subject was needed. But he thinks it desirable that those overhead routes should, under present circumstances, be reserved for the necessary extension of the public service. The charges for private wires are, of course, fixed on the basis of securing a profit.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: Do I understand that no inquiry is to be made as to whether the railway companies can give facilities?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: No inquiry is needed, because the Postmaster General is in possession of full information.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I shall call attention to this on the Post Office Estimates.
  MR. STUART WORTLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether a private wire to a Leeds newspaper passes through Sheffield.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir; no private wire to a Leeds newspaper passes through Sheffield.

  CHEAPER TELEGRAMS.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he will consider the expediency of accepting telegrams for abbreviated addresses registered in London at a minimum charge of 3d. for six words, provided that the telegrams are handed in at telegraph offices in the Metropolitan area.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Postmaster General is not prepared to consider the expediency of accepting at a minimum charge of 3d. telegrams of the kind suggested by the hon. Member.

  REGISTERED TELEGRAPHIC ADDRESSES—SELL'S LIST.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether any of the information contained in "Sell's List of

  439
  Registered Abbreviated Telegraph Addresses" has been or is now supplied by officers of the Post Office either with or without the sanction of the Postmaster General; and, seeing that the accuracy of a work of this description, which purports to be a list of telegraph abbreviated addresses registered at the Post Office, cannot be ensured except through the assistance of the Department, will he state why a pecuniary payment has not been secured in return for such information; will he state the present cost of Sell's List; and, seeing that the custody of a list of abbreviated telegraph addresses rests primarily with the Postmaster General, will he state why a list is not published by command of the Postmaster General at a reasonable price to the public.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The abbreviated telegraph addresses contained in Sell's List are furnished by the Post Office in pursuance of an agreement between the Postmaster General and Mr. Sell, and a suitable payment is made by Mr. Sell for the information. The cost of the List is understood to be 18s. to subscribers and 21s. to non-subscribers. The question of the publication of an official list was carefully considered when the present arrangement with Mr. Sell, was made, but it was thought best to continue to leave the publication to Mr. Sell who was the originator of a list of this kind. The Post Office does not recommend the system of abbreviated addresses; and would much prefer that in all cases full addresses should be given in telegrams.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, in view of the difficulty experienced by the public in securing a registered abbreviated telegraphic address in London, in consequence of most suitable words having already been appropriated, will the Postmaster General state the number of addresses registered in London; and will he consider the expediency of making the charge for a telegraphic address registered in London two guineas instead of one guinea as hitherto.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The number of telegraphic addresses regis-
  440
  tered in London by the Post Office is 24,318. The question raised by the hon. Member has been under consideration from time to time, and, while the Postmaster General is reluctant to propose a higher charge, he fears that if the difficulty of finding suitable words for registration increases some such measure may have to be taken.

  SCOTLAND AND THE KING'S TITLE.
  MR. BLACK: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, in view of the fact that it has been found necessary to revise the Royal Title to meet the claims of the colonies, whether the Government will in this connection give due weight to the claims of Scotland in such manner as to bring His Most Gracious Majesty's Title into due conformity with the history of the United Kingdom.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY,): I cannot admit that there is any disconformity in His Most Gracious Majesty's title with the history of the United Kingdom. I have already explained to the hon. Member as to the precedent in the case of His Majesty King William IV. But, apart from precedent, the argument of the hon. Member that the title of Edward VII. is tantamount to an admission by His Majesty's Scottish subjects that the claims of Edward I. of England over the Kingdom of Scotland were well founded, seems to me to be an assumption that is alike at variance with fact, with grammar, and with the battle of Bannockburn.

  MINERAL RESOURCES OF IRELAND.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Department of Agriculture will devote any, and, if so, what, portion of the funds at its disposal to the discovery and development of the mineral resources of Ireland, and whether, with a view to obtaining accurate information on this subject, the necessary survey will be proceeded with.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,): The Department appreciates the importance

  441
  of obtaining accurate information on the subject, and will confer with the authorities of the Geological Survey in the matter.

  SLIGO POLICE HUTS.
  MR. O'DOWD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether five iron police huts are being erected in Sligo county; and, if so, will he name the localities where it is proposed to erect these huts, and those for whom protection is intended.
  MR. WYNDHAM: One such hut is being erected on the Leitrim farm, near Achonry, and three other huts will be put up in the same district. Protection will be given from these stations to any individual who may be threatened or molested in the pursuit of his legitimate occupation.
  MR. O'DOWD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a police station there already?
  MR. WYNDHAM: Yes, but it is necessary to add to the existing accommodation.

  SHILLELAGH UNION INQUIRY—CASE OF DR. FLINN.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Local Government Board have considered the report of the sworn inquiry held by Dr. Flinn into the charges made by the Shillelagh guardians against Dr. Bolster, and can he state when may the decision of the Local Government Board be expected.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The Board hopes to be in a position to address the guardians on the subject in the course of the present week.

  CASTLEMAGNER (CORK) FARM SALE.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that at an auction of meadowing on an evicted farm in Castlemagner, county Cork, held on 10th instant, a constabulary
  442
  force consisting of a county inspector, three district inspectors, and over 100 men was present, and can he state what reason is given by the constabulary authorities for the presence of this force, and on what fund the expense will fall of bringing together this force of constabulary.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The number of men present was sixty-one. The force was assembled on the occasion for the preservation of the peace, and the expense will be borne by the Constabulary Vote.
  MR. FLYNN: Seeing that there were only fifty people present, was it requisite to have so large a force on the occasion of the sale of a few tons of hay?
  MR. WYNDHAM: Yes, in my opinion it was.

  SCARIFF (CLARE) WATER WORKS.
  MR. DUFFY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a water-works scheme is being promoted for the town of Scariff, county Clare; and that the district council made the cost of construction a dispensary district charge on the Scariff electoral division; and, seeing that under this arrangement the ratepayers of Islandmor, in Lough Derg, nearly twenty miles distant from Scariff, and the ratepayers of Dromane, surrounded by a congested district in the South Galway parliamentary division, and lying in the most distant part of the Scariff rural district, are made liable for the repayments of the loan, while the electoral divisions of Feakle and Annacarraga, lying within one mile of Scariff, are exempted from all liability, whether he will take steps to have the chargeability of this loan more equally distributed.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The cost of this scheme if levied off the town of Scariff would entail a tax of 5s. 8d. in the pound, whereas if it be made a dispensary district charge the tax will amount to less than 3d. If put on the rural district the rate would be less than a 1d. With these facts before them, the council

  443
  has resolved to charge the expenses to the dispensary district, and the Local Government Board proposes to act in accordance with its wishes in the matter.

  BRUSNA (KING'S CO.) DRAINAGE BOARD.
  MR. DELANY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state when the Brusna Drainage Board, King's County, last met, and whether complaints have been made by taxpayers of the manner in which this board has discharged its duties recently, and what amount of money is at its disposal annually; can a statement of expenditure for last year be obtained; and will he state for what period the Ballykenehan tenants have been paying drainage tax to this board, and whether the charge is a permanent one.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The Drainage Board held a statutory meeting on the 1st February last for the election of trustees. No complaints have recently been made to the Commissioners of Public Works, but they are always prepared to inquire into any such complaints and to take steps, if necessary, to ensure the maintenance of the works as provided by statute. The proprietor, not the tenants of the lands referred to in the third paragraph, is liable for the payment of maintenance rates, and has presumably paid them since the date of the award in 1860. The Commissioners will ascertain the amount raised over the district for the purposes of maintenance, and the expenditure, in the past year, and I will communicate the figures to the hon. Member when I receive them.

  IRISH LAND COURTS—FAIR RENT CASES.
  MR. CULLINAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, notwithstanding Clause 7 of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1896, 59 and 60 Vic, a number of farmers are debarred from entering the Land Courts either to get fair rents fixed or to purchase their holdings because of having sub-tenants; and, in view of the fact that the said sub-tenants may enter the Land Courts and gain the benefit
  444
  of the Land Acts, while the direct tenants are compelled to pay the full amount of their old rents, not only for the portions of the holdings retained by themselves but also for those of the sub-tenants, though the rents of the latter have been reduced by 20 to 30 per cent., whether he can say that steps will be taken to remedy the grievance complained of.
  MR. WYNDHAM: There are no official records showing the number of farmers who are debarred from entering the Land Courts for the reasons stated. I cannot give any undertaking to introduce further legislation in the direction suggested in the question.
  MR. CULLINAN: But is it not a fact that under this Clause 7 many of these farmers are debarred from entering the Land Courts?
  MR. WYNDHAM: That may be, but I cannot possibly undertake to bring in a new Land Act, with reference to fair rents, to amend the Act passed in 1896.

  CONVEYANCE OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE ON IRISH RAILWAYS.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has seen the statement of Mr. Herbert Sullivan, a butter exporter, to the effect that before the amalgamation of the Great Southern and Western and the Waterford and Limerick Railways, his consignments of butter were taken from Newcastle, county Limerick, to London within eighteen hours, and that between the dates 18th April and 26th June of this year twelve similar consignments of his from Newcastle to London on twelve different dates were not delivered until four or five days after shipment; and whether he will take any and what steps to test the truth of Mr. Sullivan's charges; and, if they are found to be correct, will he take any, and, if so, what action to induce or compel the Great Southern and Western Company to give a better service to the public, so that Irish farm and other products may be expedited to English markets.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The statement in question has been received. The Depart-

  445
  merit of Agriculture and Technical Instruction is inquiring into the matter.

  IRISH NATIONAL SCHOOL TEACHERS.
  MR. JOHN GORDON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that some manager of national schools in Ireland prohibit the teachers under their control from attending or becoming members of national teachers' associations, or insist as a condition of their appointment to schools that teachers should perform without remuneration duties other than those of teachers of such schools; whether the Board of National Education in Ireland has sanctioned this or has issued any circular or instructions in reference thereto; and whether steps will be taken to remedy the alleged evil.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The Commissioners have no official knowledge of the attitude adopted towards teachers' associations by managers of national schools. It appears, however, from a newspaper report of a conference of managers held at Armagh on the 13th April, 1899, that a resolution was adopted pledging them not to appoint as principal or assistant teacher a person who was a member of the Irish National Teachers' Organisation as then constituted. Appointments of teachers (except in the case of model schools) are made by local managers under forms of agreement sanctioned by the Commissioners, which require that the duties of the teacher shall be such as are in accordance with the rules of the Commissioners.

  RELEASE OF AN EMERGENCY MAN FROM GAOL.
  MR. CONDON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that an emergency man named Noonan was sentenced to two months imprisonment with hard labour for a dangerous assault on Mr. James Shee, Mullinahone, such assault being described by the resident magistrate who presided at the trial as cruel and cowardly; and seeing that Noonan was discharged on the 30th June, after completing one month only of his sentence, can he state
  446
  whether the petition on which this man was discharged was sent to the justices before whom he was tried for their opinion.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The facts are correctly stated in the first paragraph. The magistrates who convicted in the case were the resident magistrate and a local justice. The memorial was sent to the magistrates in the usual way, but I am not aware whether the resident magistrate, who reported upon it, consulted his colleague in the case. I should add that he expressed no opinion in favour of a mitigation of the sentence, and insisted on the brutal character of the assault. The decision to remit the remainder of the sentence was arrived at by the Lords Justices upon a consideration of all the facts.
  MR. CULLINAN: What was the reason for the release of this man?
  MR. WYNDHAM: His previous good character.
  MR. CONDON: Is it not a fact that the only point in his character was that he had been an emergency man?
  [No answer was returned.]

  CASTLETOWN BEREHAVEN NATIONAL SCHOOL.
  MR. GILHOOLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the principal teacher of the Castletown Berehaven male national school (Roll No. 4,843) has been denied his share of equivalent results fees to the extent of £8, in consequence of equivalent fees not being based on the results fees received by the said teacher for the periods ending 1898, 1899, and 1900; and whether he will see that this teacher's case is reconsidered.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I am informed that the equivalent fees were based upon the results fees for the years mentioned, but that an error occurred in the calculation, which has been rectified. The balance of £8 2s. 5d. has been remitted to the teacher.

  CLAIMS FOR MALICIOUS INJURIES IN IRELAND.
  MR. O'DOWD: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland whether he is aware that, in selecting areas for the applotment of amounts awarded in cases of claims for malicious injuries, the county court judges in parts of Ireland exempted those portions occupied by applicants; whether he is aware that Mr. Justice Gibson, at the Sligo Assizes, recently stated that judges had no jurisdiction to make such exemptions, and whether, under the circumstances, steps will be taken to have these exemption orders cancelled wherever they exist.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,): According to the reports published in the newspapers, Mr. Justice Gibson has decided as mentioned. The question, however, is, I think, based on a misconception of the relation between the Executive and the Judiciary. These determinations of the judges are judicial decisions, over which the Executive have no control whatever. I believe Mr. Justice Gibson did decide the point mentioned in the manner stated.
  MR. O'DOWD: Was it not a unanimous decision of the Irish judges?
  MR. ATKINSON: No, Sir.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) ACT AMENDING BILL.
  MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that prior to the passage of the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898, the constabulary were accustomed to give to all parties interested a full report of the result of their investigations into alleged malicious injuries, and can he explain why this practice has been discontinued; and will instructions be issued to the constabulary to furnish the result of their inquiries into malicious injury claims to interested applicants and the county and district councils concerned.
  MR. WYNDHAM: It has never been the practice of the constabulary to supply parties interested with reports of
  448
  the result of their investigations in alleged malicious injury cases.
  MR. CULLINAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state when it is contemplated to introduce the Local Government Amendment Act, to remedy, amongst other matters, the grievances complained of in malicious injury claims.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The amending Bill has been drafted, and I hope to introduce it at an early date.

  WATERFORD ASSIZES.
  MR. O'SHEE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Mr. Justice Johnson, at the assizes for the county of Waterford just concluded, congratulated the grand jury on the crimeless condition of the county, and whether this fact was considered by the law officers of the Crown when it was decided to apply for a change of venue from the county in the case of the Tallow prosecution; and whether, having regard to the character of the Tallow case in the view of the law officers, he can explain why they advised an application for a change of venue.
  MR. ATKINSON: At my right hon. friend's request I will reply to this question. Mr. Justice Johnson is reported to have congratulated the county on the smallness in number of the crimes committed in it since last assizes. The advice to apply for a change of venue was given by me. The evidence and reasons on which that advice were based are stated fully in the affidavits grounding the motion and in the judgment of the court, to which I beg to refer the hon. Member. I must respectfully decline to answer more fully this question, referring, as it does, to a pending prosecution, inasmuch as a full reply would involve an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
  MR. REDDY: What is the object of the change of venue? Is it to bring the case before Peter the Packer?
  MR. O'SHEE: Is not the case deemed of insufficient importance to require the

  449
  attendance of either the Attorney General or Solicitor General?
  MR. POWER: Will any portion of the large costs entailed by the change of venue be borne by the Crown?
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: Is the object to obtain a conviction by fair means or foul?
  [No answer was returned.]

  LIMERICK POSTAL ARRANGEMENTS.
  MR. JOYCE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he has received an application from the inhabitants of the parish of St. John's, in the city of Limerick, which is a thickly populated portion of the city, asking him if he would establish a branch post office in the parish, at Broad Street, as they complain of the danger of posting letters in the pillar box, as lighted matches have from time to time been thrown into it; and, seeing that there is also a demand for stamps and postal orders, which cannot be got nearer than half a mile, whether he will accede to the application.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Postmaster General has to-day received the application to which the hon. Member refers. From the preliminary inquiries that have been made it does not appear that there is any case for establishing a post office in Broad Street, Limerick; but the inquiries will be pursued, and the Postmaster General's decision shall be conveyed to the hon. Member.

  BALTINGLASS POSTAL ARRANGEMENTS.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the memorial signed by a number of people in Baltinglass, county Wicklow, requesting the local sub-office to be changed to a chief office, has been considered, and, if so, with what result.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The memorial referred to has been very carefully considered, but it is found that the
  450
  circumstances are not such as to admit of Baltinglass being made a head office. A full reply will very shortly be sent to the memorialists.

  BALLYSHANNON POST OFFICE.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that the building at present used as a post office at Ballyshannon, county Donegal, is inadequate for the purpose, the space allotted to the public being only four feet by nine; and whether, having regard to the fact that of late years the postal traffic at Ballyshannon has increased, the Postmaster General will consider the desirability of acquiring a more commodious building or site for a post office in a central part of the town.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The sub-post office at Ballyshannon is provided by the sub-postmaster, and the space allotted to the public is about as stated; but it appears that there is rarely more than one person at the counter at a time, and no case of overcrowding has been observed. The situation is fairly central In connection with a revision of the sub-postmaster's salary and allowances, which is now under consideration, the question of requiring him to improve the office accommodation will be considered; but the amount of the business is too small to warrant the Department in entertaining any question of providing a separate building for the purpose.

  IRISH LIGHT RAILWAY SUBSIDIES
  MR. O'MARA: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will state the names of persons to whom free grants were granted under the Light Railways Act, 1896.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I shall be happy to supply the hon. Member with a list of the various companies to which grants have been promised.

  NATIONAL FOOD SUPPLY.
  MR. JOHN HUTTON: I beg to ask the First Lord

  451
  of the Treasury whether the Government have further considered the question of the food supply of this country in case of war with a naval Power; whether it has been reported upon by the Joint Naval and Military Committee on Defence; and, if not, whether he will undertake that the matter shall be referred to them, or to a Select Committee of this House.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,E.): This subject is one which, of course, engages the constant attention of the Admiralty. They are of opinion that it turns mainly upon the strength of the Fleet; and therefore I do not know that anything would be gained by the inquiry which my hon. friend desires.

  WRONGFUL DISMISSAL OF TEACHERS.
  SIR JOSEPH LEESE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury when the Government proposes to introduce the Bill to afford means of appeal to teachers in cases of alleged wrongful dismissal.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I can give no indication at present.

  SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE.
  COLONEL WYNDHAM MURRAY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, at this period of the year, in order to expedite business and enable the session to close within a reasonable time, he will consider the advisability of proposing, instead of the suspension of the twelve o'clock rule, that the daily sittings of the House should commence earlier than at present.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: There is a great deal in the suggestion of my hon. friend, but it will, of course, require a debate in this House before we could make any such change as he desires. I am afraid, moreover, that the mere fact that there was a twelve o'clock rule, and therefore a fixed limit to the debate, would towards the end of the session seriously impede the progress of public business.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: With regard to the
452
business of this week, can the right hon. Gentleman give us complete information? As among the most important Votes still outstanding there are the Foreign Office and Colonial Office Votes, will the right hon. Gentleman contemplate with favour the suggestion that those two Votes should be put down for the two Fridays following this week—that is, for the 26th instant and 2nd August?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes, Sir; if the right hon. Gentleman expresses that wish, he has a perfect right to be considered in the matter; and I shall be glad to fix these two important Votes for the days which he desires. I shall be equally glad to fall in with the suggestion that the Foreign Office Vote be taken first and the Colonial Office Vote on the subsequent Friday. As regards next Friday, it will be in the recollection of the House that I stated a few days ago that I proposed to take the Home Office Vote, and some observations were made on the fact that the Report was not in the hands of Members. I had hoped that it would be printed in time for the discussion, but I find that under our existing printing arrangements that cannot be carried out; and in those circumstances it will be convenient to take the Consular and Diplomatic Vote on Friday and other votes in Class V.
MR. GEORGE WHITELEY: When does the right hon. Gentleman propose to take the Agricultural Rating Bill?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I hope to introduce the Bill this week; certainly it will not be long delayed.

NEW BILLS.
  JUSTICES' JURISDICTION (LONDON) BILL [Lords].
  Read the first time; to be read a second time upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 263.]
  POLLING ARRANGEMENTS (PARLIAMENTARY BOROUGHS) BILL [Lords].
  Read the first time; to be read a second time upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 264.]
  POLLING DISTRICTS (COUNTY COUNCILS) BILL [Lords].
  Read the first time; to be read a second time upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 265.]

  EDUCATION (No. 2) BILL.
  Order for Committee read.
  MR. SPEAKER: There are three Instructions on the Paper referring to this Bill. The first Instruction is in the name of the hon. Member for the Morley Division of Yorkshire, who proposes to instruct the Committee to divide the Bill into two portions. The Bill empowers school boards to maintain certain schools out of the school fund, subject to the sanction of the local authorities and the conditions they impose. What the hon. Member proposes is that the permission to school boards to maintain the schools shall be put into one Bill, and the sanctions and conditions of the local authorities into another. In order that an Instruction of this kind should be permitted, the Bill must be one which lends itself naturally to the division. It appears to me obvious that this Bill does not lend itself to the proposed division. On the contrary, the two objects of the Bill are made dependent one on another. The Instruction is, therefore, out of order. The next Instruction, standing in the name of the hon. Member for Brecknock, is out of order for the same reason. It is moreover too indefinite, and does not state what is to be included in each separate Bill. The next Instruction, standing in the name of the hon. Member for the Rugby Division of Warwickshire, is out of order because it is a mandatory Instruction to a Committee of the Whole House. It would be out of order also if it were not mandatory.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. STUART WORTLEY (Sheffield, Hallam) in the Chair.]
  Clause 1:—
  THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The first Amendment is out of order. It is not
  454
  possible to postpone part of the clause. I therefore call on the hon. Member for East Northamptonshire to move the second Amendment.
  MR. CHANNINGsaid he wished to move the omission of Sub-section 1. The Bill, with the exception of the small portion which dealt with the indemnity of school boards in respect of surcharges under the Cockerton judgment, raised the whole question which was discussed on the motion for Second Reading, and he would, therefore, have to deal with it on somewhat the same general grounds, although he might not perhaps advance exactly the same arguments. His objection to the central proposal of the Bill was that it really avoided the essential issue which was before the country, namely, the maintenance of a certain class of schools, irrespective of party or creed, in the form in which they now existed. Many of those who were prepared to consider favourably changes in their educational system, even those who were ready to consider such changes as might result eventually in the transfer of the powers of school boards to other local authorities, took the view of those who were challenging the policy of this Bill. There were several courses open to the Government in dealing with the issue raised by the Cockerton judgment. They might have made some attempt to dovetail the existing system of continuation schools into a system of intermediate schools, and thus to make a beginning with a true system of secondary education, and had they taken that course they might have gradually weeded out any imperfections and defects in the machinery and character of the existing schools. That was a solution the Government had entirely rejected. Next, they might have made the measure a real suspensory Bill, tiding over till next year or the year after the difficulty created by the Cockerton judgment, and giving the country and all who had the interest of education at heart an opportunity of considering some thoroughly adequate solution of the problem, and of arriving at a comprehensive scheme for the improvement of our educational system. The Government, however, had preferred to take

  455
  instead of either of these alternatives their present course—far and away the worst which it could possibly have taken. It was granted by all sane men that there was a serious risk to the continued existence and usefulness of these schools if the present system were rendered more complicated and more chaotic, as it would certainly be by this Bill. No one would deny that if they were to keep the schools on they should keep them in the most efficient form that they could. To run the risk of tearing the schools to pieces, and of having perhaps the best portion knocked out of them by the decision of another authority, without even the power of the Education Department to check mis-management—an authority not understanding the educational machinery—an authority which was, in fact, an inexpert authority, was to take the worst possible course. But the Government had adopted that policy in order, he supposed, to settle a question of principle and achieve what after all would be merely a forensic victory. This question was not to be settled by the forces which met together for drafting this little Bill. Bigger forces outside the walls of Parliament would eventually decide the question, and those who assumed that the Bill in its present form would ever achieve the object which it had in view, namely, the destruction of the school board system and the transfer of the control of our educational system from a directly-elected authority to an indirectly-elected and co-optative authority were reckoning without their hosts. Surely the natural course would have been to have had a simple suspensory Bill, and to have adjourned the main question to a subsequent session. The people of this country thoroughly understood a proposal to maintain the existing facilities until the wider aspect of the educational system could be fully considered, but they naturally viewed with profound suspicion and distrust what was obviously an attempt to carry out an educational revolution by stealth.
  They could not discuss that Bill without having some regard to the whole policy of the Government, the successive steps they had taken, and especially the minutes and codes of
  456
  last year and this. He did not, of course, intend to put himself out of order by dealing with these wider questions, but his point was simply that the sub-section which they were now discussing made it incumbent on an authority which was inexpert and which had not been elected to deal with that educational problem to determine difficult and delicate problems. It was not even proposed to wait until they had another election of county councils or other authorities with the knowledge in the minds of the electors that they were asked to choose an authority to deal with the question. The county councils were asked to deal with the matter on the spur of the moment, and he ventured to suggest that it was a serious thing to attempt to transfer a complicated series of issues to the discretion of an authority not elected to decide these questions, and not having the necessary experience to enable them to arrive at a proper decision in regard to them. He would not deal in detail with the Minute recently issued, but he would point out what was perfectly within the knowledge of everyone who had even the most elementary experience of educational machinery—namely, that that Minute was full of pitfalls; that it was exceedingly difficult to judge at once all the results of it in various schools; and that the issue of this Minute must add enormously to the grave difficulty for an absolutely inexpert authority, without technical knowledge, to carry out a complicated series of decisions requiring full appreciation of all the facts. The County Council would be called upon to decide a question of the greatest possible difficulty—whether there was to be any demarcation between primary and secondary education at all, and if, so, where it was to be drawn. Here they were faced with a problem upon which even the greatest experts in the country had the most serious difficulty in arriving at a decision. Was it prudent to throw a question of that kind upon the county councils, which were elected to deal with questions of roads, sewage, sanitation, and lighting? It would be reckless mismanagement and misgovernment to do anything of the kind. There was also the question of overlapping. Was

  457
  that a question these bodies were able to deal with in a rational way? It was perfectly clear that it presented as grave difficulties as the question of the distinction between primary and secondary education. Did they expect that the county councils through committees would be able to deal instantly with the relative importance of the schemes and curricula of the different schools, and decide how much they would allow or would not allow? They were throwing a problem on the county councils upon which it was practically impossible for them to arrive at a decision. They would have to deal with questions of staff and expenditure, which involved considerations of every possible kind; and while he did not in the slightest degree underrate the value of their work in connection with the technical classes under their control, he said that to ask them on the spur of the moment to settle those questions on a week or two's notice was the culmination of insanity in a legislative proposal. It seemed to be supposed by some who had argued in favour of the Bill that the county councils in the exercise of their discretionary powers with regard to this new educational machinery would have the power of spending money in connection with those matters. He did not think they would have the power of spending any money except under the Technical Instruction Act. That money was practically forestalled.
  He had read very carefully the educational press, not only from the point of view which he took, and with which he found himself logically identified in the course he had taken with regard to education, but also with regard to the contentions advanced on the other side, and he ventured to say they would not find, except in one or two extremely opinionated men, and those somewhat youthful and enthusiastic, anything like an attempt to deal with the difficulties which they had to face at the present time. They had heard a great deal of the character of the schools. The Vice-President had tried, unworthily and unjustly, to create a violent prejudice against the evening schools carried on by the London School Board and other school boards, because, for sooth, one of the attractions of the
  458
  schools was that they included dancing in the curricula as one of the recognised exercises. If it was bad advice that any attraction of this kind should be included in the evening schools, what would the House think of the position of Scotland in the matter? On 27th December last year Sir Henry Craik wrote to the school board of Dunfermline that the Board of Education saw no reason to object to the inclusion of dancing, that the extent to which it was carried was a matter primarily for the school board to decide, and that the Board of Education had no doubt the school board would pay careful attention to that. Mr. Sidney Webb, the greatest champion in London of the municipalisation of education, had, in a recent paper, justified the "organisation of pleasure in the polytechnics, with the object of attracting young people to technical education." He was not himself specially in favour of introducing attractions of that kind into education of any sort; he thought it would be better outside. But surely the argument of the right hon. Gentleman the other night was absolutely beside the point, because the real answer was that England had been backward in this question of evening continuation schools on account of our not having the compulsory system which prevailed in many parts of Germany and other continental countries, and which we ought to have if we were to attain anything like a level with Germany in these matters. What was the attitude of the county councils themselves? Did they welcome the responsibilities? He did not know whether the First Lord of the Treasury was aware that the county council of Northampton had rejected this Bill by a vote of two to one in a full meeting last Thursday. He believed that only two members of the county council spoke in favour of the Bill. Everybody else opposed it as an inadequate and unsatisfactory measure. That was a county council in which, assuming that the Liberal Unionists were in ordinary politics supporters of the Government, he should think that certainly two to one were against the party to which he had the honour to belong.
  The policy of this Bill was against the instincts and wishes of the largest and

  459
  most representative working men bodies in this country. He was present that afternoon at a gathering of representatives of co-operators who waited on some Members of the House. That body, representing 1,750,000 of persons, declared emphatically against the whole of that legislation. They declared in the most emphatic way in favour of direct control of education and against the suppression of or injury to the higher grade and evening schools. He was informed that in many evening schools, even without compulsion, the attendance was not at all what the Vice-President tried to make out. The evening school statistics taken from the return for 1900 showed that the number of pupils of all ages in both voluntary and board schools was 509,251, of whom 348,668 were above the age of fifteen. The average attendance was 206,335. That showed an average attendance even without compulsion of 40 per cent., and his information was that the percentage of attendance was nearly as good as in some of the day schools in many parts of the country. Another charge brought against these schools was that they were undermining and destroying the secondary schools. He had in his hand the figures with regard to the evening schools in the town of Birmingham. The attendance there was 2,281 under fifteen years of age, and 6,930 over fifteen, and he was informed that it would be impossible under this Bill, and under the minute, to carry on the evening schools for the 2,281 who were under fifteen, these being public elementary schools. He had another piece of information from Birmingham bearing on the fact that these schools did not undermine and cut away ground of the higher and secondary education which it was so important to develop. In Birmingham there was one of the best secondary schools in the country—King Edward's School. When the first of the higher grade schools was started there were 2,000 pupils in King Edward's School. There were now several of these higher grade schools. There had been an increase of 900 pupils in the higher grade schools, and so far from this increase having been drawn from King Edward's School there had been in the same time an increase of over 700 pupils in King Edward's School. The policy
  460
  which underlay the Bill was the stamping out of the higher grade-schools. The Bill was really an appeal to the prejudices and narrow-mindedness of some of the county councils in the country to cut down education. That was the sort of nonsense which was talked about overlapping. Instead of undercutting the secondary schools, these higher grade schools supplied a large number of the pupils of the very best material for the higher secondary schools. He was told that in the technical schools, in Birmingham there was the constant difficulty that pupils came there who were absolutely unfitted for and incapable of carrying out the calculations-necessary for laboratory work. And. what happened? The managers of the technical schools had to send them back to the higher grade schools which the right hon. Gentleman was treating with contempt. The right hon. Gentleman was trying to oust the youths from these schools where alone they could sharpen their wits and obtain the knowledge absolutely necessary for them to enable them to make proper use of the secondary schools. He had attempted to lay before the Committee some of the grave difficulties raised by the Bill and to answer the right hon. Gentleman's flimsy, unsubstantial, and not specially creditable case against the school boards. He had also brought before the Committee the very grave difficulties which would be created by giving a discretionary power—even if they wished to exercise it in a broad and. generous spirit—to the county councils which were not elected for the purpose, and which had no experience of the educational problems which had puzzled those who had given their whole lives to them. He wished he could say that he hoped his motion had been accepted, but he trusted the debate which he had tried to open in as conciliatory spirit as he could, dealing with such a question, might lead to some speeches which would throw greater light on the main issue and might also lead to some concession or compromise, and so save those schools which were of such vital importance to the country, and enable them without party feeling, or controversial bitterness to enter next year on the discussion of the reform of our educational system

  461
  fully, logically, and radically from end to end.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 5, to leave out Sub-clause (1)."—(Mr. Charming.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'Where a school board' stand part of the Clause."
  THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Sir J. GORST,): The Amendment moved by the hon. Member who has just sat down is not really an Amendment on the Bill, but means an invitation to the Committee to reject the Bill altogether.
  MR. CHANNING: I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. The rejection of this sub-section will leave it perfectly possible for the Government to pass an indemnity Bill in the second sub-section with slight verbal amendments.
  SIR J. GORST: If the Amendment were carried the whole substance of the Bill would be rejected and only a small fraction of it would be left. The hon. Gentleman has only entered on a renewal of the discussion which was conducted by the House for two nights last week, and he has not produced any argument which was not then fully considered. I am sure the Committee do not wish me to follow him in his speech and to review over and over again all those propositions which were discussed and decided upon by the House. I most certainly hope that the Committee will not dwell very long upon these sort of preliminary objections to the Bill, but let us get on to consider the Amendments on the Paper and see what alterations, if any, may be made upon it.
  MR. ROBERT SPENCERsaid that the right hon. Gentleman the Vice-President of the Council had referred to the speech of his hon. friend the Member for East Northampton as a rehash of his former speeches and a rechauffe of the debate of last week. But the right hon. Gentleman must be absolutely unaware, in
  462
  saying so, that the great county of Northampton had given a decision on these points. So far as he knew the Northampton County Council was the first which had discussed the effect of this Bill. He had the honour of a seat on the Northampton County Council and he had been very glad indeed to listen to the debate which had been initiated by the hon. Gentleman, whom he could not say was of the same political complexion as himself, but who had made an admirable speech strongly objecting to the power which this Bill proposed to give to county councils. He might lay himself open to the acidulated criticism of the right hon. Gentleman if he ventured to quote what the Northampton County Council had done. All the same he would state it. Many of the members of the county council were entirely opposed to each other in politics, but the result of their debate last week was that the whole council, or, at least, the large majority, were strongly in favour of efficient education, which would not be promoted if this Bill were passed into law. He would point out to the right hon. Gentleman—though, of course, that might be a matter too trivial for his interest, still it was a matter of importance to the county of Northampton—that the great majority which supported the resolution asked that the powers proposed in the Bill should not be given to the county councils and that majority was made up not of one but of all political parties. Apparently the real reason for the fear of the Northampton County Council on this subject was that a new duty and new labour would be thrown upon the council which they did not wish, and that at the back of it all there would be brought in a new question which in the past, and undoubtedly in the future, would raise considerable feeling and possibly religious animosity, which, of all the feelings in the world, this House ought to do its utmost to prevent. Of course this whole thing came from some unfortunate person of the name of Cockerton, and they quite understood that the county councils of England heartily detested the name of Cockerton. At the same time it was far too important a matter to decide against the wishes of the localities, and he hoped his hon.

  463
  friend would go to a division, and that the House would do its utmost to support the local authorities in rejecting the Bill.
  MR. TREVELYAN (Yorkshire, W.R., Elland)said that the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill had complained that this was not an Amendment, but that this was a motion destructive of the substance of the Bill. The substance of what they wanted to do by this Bill was to enable the school boards to continue to do the work which they had been doing for many years past; and they wanted to find the simplest and most satisfactory way of doing it. By cutting out the first sub-section they left in the last sub-section to which some such proposition might be added as that suggested by the hon. Member for North Worcestershire, by which exception might be applied to expenses incurred before 31st July, 1902. In that event the second sub-section would meet the whole difficulty without any application whatever to the local authority, to which the Government wished the school boards to apply. The First Lord of the Treasury said the other night that the Government could not consent to that because it would be a triumph for the school boards. Of course, as things stood now, it would undoubtedly cause the friends of the school boards to chuckle if the Government were to throw over the proposition of putting the consent into the hands of the county councils. But putting aside the fact that possibly they might for a moment gloat over it, the proposal of leaving it entirely in the hands of the Government to consent to the school boards continuing their work, would not extend the field of the work of the school boards at all, it would not commit Parliament to saying that in future they would not restrict the field of the school boards, and it would, in no sense whatever, recognise the ad hoc principle for the future. He wished to make it perfectly clear that a very large number of Members even on that side of the House were not, and would not be, committed to the ad hoc principle. Personally he did not look forward to directly-elected authorities in all the counties controlling our education for the future. He very much doubted if the Government had introduced a
  464
  Bill dealing with the whole question of education and placing it into the hands of the county authorities whether he would have voted against it. What they objected to was a sort of municipalisation which this Bill proposed. It was a victory against the school boards of the worst sort because they were not substituting the municipal authority for an ad hoc authority; they were simply saying that if the county councils pleased they might veto the work of the school boards.
  There were two possibilities resulting from the first sub-section. First, that the county councils might universally continue these schools. If so, the harm done by the Bill would be comparatively small. But even there this sub-section was objectionable, because the extension of the work of the school boards would be prevented, and because there would be a very large amount of friction between the two authorities. But the other proposition, important for the Committee to consider, was that the county councils might impede the continuance of this work of the school boards. It was, after all, not so very unreasonable to suppose that that was what many of them would do. This Bill had been brought into existence by a speech from the Vice-President of the Council in which he made a direct attack upon these higher grade and evening continuation classes as worthless; and what was that but an invitation to the county councils to suppress these classes? What was that but an intimation that, in the opinion of the Government, it would be well if they did so? Then a minute had been issued which, apart from the Bill altogether, would destroy a great deal of the work which was being carried on. As an indication of the tendency of the Government in the Bill, there was the fact that the county councils were to be prevented from setting up a greater number of classes than existed at present. Municipalities would be perfectly justified in regarding the action of the Government as an invitation to them to use the power which was to be given to them to suppress these classes. Was that a prospect of which the Committee would approve? Was it worth while for the sake of laying down a principle to run

  465
  the risk of destroying the work which was now being done? Further, no opportunity was to be given to the local authorities to set up anything in the place of these classes. Surely if these classes were not being carried out in a manner that was satisfactory to the Education Department and to the Conservative party, an endeavour should be made to improve and not to destroy them. Therefore he said the Government were beginning at the wrong end in attacking the great school boards. Many hon. Members would admit that elementary education was unsatisfactory as far as the small school boards and the necessarily unprogressive voluntary schools were concerned, and every hon. Member would admit that secondary education could be improved; but was that any reason for attacking that part of the education system, the large school boards, which were the only part of the education system which had been working excellently in the past? The school boards were attempting to fulfil a duty which no other body had attempted; and the Government were now endeavouring to cut off their power to carry out the small amount of secondary and advanced education which was given before there was anything to replace it. He, and hon. Members who thought with him, would take every opportunity of protesting against that, and would fight the Bill line by line.
  SIR ALBERT ROLLIT (Islington, N.)said that a remark or two of the two preceding speakers who had speculated as to what action the county councils and the municipalities would be likely to take led him to desire to make a few remarks. The hon. Member for East Northamptonshire, in protesting against the present proposed legislation, was attacking the wrong point altogether with reference to the matter. The difficulties which existed in giving Technical Instruction were due largely, in Yorkshire at any rate, to want of both secondary and elementary education, and though he admired in a very high degree the work of the school boards, it seemed to him that the reflection of the hon. Member was a reflection on the elementary schools conducted,
  466
  among others, by the school boards. The hon. Member for the Elland division spoke of the probable attitude of the county councils and the municipalities with reference to the Bill. He could not speak for the county councils as he knew very little about their work, but he was authorised to say on behalf of the Council of the Municipal Corporations' Association that they desired that the late Bill should be passed and that they thoroughly approved of its municipal principle; and it had better be understood, once for all, that whatever the boroughs could do to further the main municipal principle of the Bill would be done. The hon. Member for the Elland division apprehended that there would be friction and hostility, and he had said that the Bill was an invitation to the municipalities to suppress certain schools the classes which were now being held. First of all, he did not think that the municipalities would for a moment consent to entertain any such invitation. They would, he was firmly convinced, form an opinion on their own judgment, always considering that among the highest of all their interests was the improvement of the public education of the country. They had not worked in the direction imputed to them under the Act of 1889, one of the provisions of which was almost identical with the provisions in the Bill before the Committee, as it stated that the municipalities might, on the application of the school boards, aid certain secondary forms of education; and sums had already been voted for that purpose to the school boards, and to these very schools and classes, though apparently without any general knowledge of the fact. He could give numerous instances, and was it not a fair inference that the municipalities, animated with the highest desire for better education, would pursue the same course of action as regarded the present Bill. But to put the matter beyond doubt as far as the municipalities were concerned, he would read a resolution which had been unanimously passed by the Education Committee of the Municipal Corporations Association since the first Reading of the Bill; a resolution which, he would add, would be

  467
  accepted, he had every reason to believe, by the Association. It was as follows—
  "That in the opinion of the Committee a liberal interpretation should, when the Bill becomes law, be placed upon its provisions, and all municipal authorities should be urged to maintain the present status and efficiency of the schools within the scope of the Act."
  the municipalities valued these schools and classes too much to take, in his opinion, any part in the suppression of work which they must know to be vitally necessary both to the individual and also from the commercial point of view. Therefore it was idle merely to speculate on the subject as far as the municipalities were concerned. On the one side he heard fears openly expressed as to the action of the municipalities. On the other hand it was suggested that there was hope that the municipalities might be the means of limiting education. All he could say was that, in his view, the fear was misplaced and that the hope, if it existed, would, he trusted, be disappointed by the action of the municipalities. What the municipalities had done for public libraries, schools of art and museums, and gymnasia, and the like, and also under the Technical Education Act, gave the lie to any such suggestion. The local patriotism of the municipalities would prevail in the matter. They might be depended on to know what was best for their people, and to apply broadly and strongly the principles which animated hon. Gentlemen opposite, but which they must not arrogate to themselves alone. The resolution he had read showed what the representative educational body of the municipalities meant, and if any one imagined that they would limit education he would venture to reply that in their opinion nothing would be too costly for education, on which depended the power and the welfare of the people of the country. As a proof of the principles for which he was contending he would state that in the former Bill the municipalities considered that the limitation of the rate to a 1d. or 2d. was not proper in dealing with the corporations. Huddersfield, for instance, could do nothing with its technical schools on such a limited basis, and at the instance of that corporation, an amendment to
  468
  the late Bill had been unanimously carried by the council of the Municipal Coporations' Association and communicated to the Government, condemning such a limitation of the rate, and advocating a power to very largely increase educational expenditure. The hopes and fears which were being entertained with regard to the action of the municipalities might, therefore, be alike disappointed, and he both hoped and believed their truly patriotic action would be directed to doing the best they could for the education of the people.
  MR. ALFRED HUTTON (Yorkshire, W.R., Morley)said the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had attempted to reassure the Committee as to the future of the schools affected by the Bill, and had tried to remove their fears as to the continued existence of such schools; but the Vice-President of the Council had already stated that the schools which the hon. Gentleman stated were of the utmost value to the country were only teaching "cheap, shoddy, education."
  SIR J. GORST: I never said anything of the kind. What I said was that there were certain schools which gave shoddy education; but I never attributed that to all the schools.
  MR. ALFRED HUTTONsaid that the right hon. Gentleman stated that the education given by certain schools was cheap and shoddy.
  THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: I must remind the hon. Member that it is customary to accept the interpretation by a Minister of his own words.
  MR. ALFRED HUTTONsaid that he was not going to dispute that; but the speech which culminated in that expression began with a reference to science and art classes which would be affected by the Bill, and regarding which the right hon. Gentleman used the expression "cheap and shoddy."
  SIR J. GORST: The hon. Member is entirely mistaken.
  MR. ALFRED HUTTONsaid he was very sorry if he had misinterpreted the expression of the right hon. Gentleman,

  469
  but he used the expression with reference to some classes in London, and he also referred to certain classes in the higher grade schools in the country. The noble Lord the Member for Greenwich supported the other day a resolution in favour of the proposal of the sub-section. He should be the last to dispute the noble Lord's right to speak with authority on any subject he wished; but he questioned his authority to speak as to the value of that proposal. The classes which would be affected by the subsection were the classes which could alone make possible technical colleges and schools in the great towns in the North. They had been told that if they rejected the sub-section they would be rejecting the substance of the Bill; but they had also been told that the Bill was merely a temporary expedient to get out of the difficulty occasioned by the Cockerton judgment. If that were so, the second sub-section would suffice admirably. He believed that the First Lord of the Treasury had stated that the Bill was to be a temporary measure; but the right hon. Gentleman also said that it was a great step onwards. But when they were told that the sub-section contained the real substance of the Bill, they were inclined to fear that it was not merely a temporary expedient to get rid of the Cockerton judgment, and he thought, therefore, they were right in asking whether it was to be merely temporary, or whether it was to be regarded as a great step towards the future system of education of the country. The real substance of the sub-section was a declaration of war on the school boards. There was no doubt about that whatever. If the right hon. Gentleman merely wished to give power to continue the classes affected by the Cockerton judgment, he could do that by the second sub-section perfectly well. Anyone who had witnessed the splendid work accomplished by these classes during the last two years must support the motion of his hon. friend. He thought the right hon. Gentleman was mistaken in trying by that sub-section to stereotype the work of the school boards to reading and writing. He was led to be rather more fearful now than he was during the discus ion on the Second Reading. He would particularly direct the attention
  470
  of the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken to the possibility mentioned in a letter from the secretary of the Vice-President with reference to some of the classes affected by the Bill. That letter stated "Sir John Gorst does not anticipate that there will be many such schools hereafter."
  SIR J. GORST: What schools?
  MR. ALFRED HUTTON: The schools affected by the Cockerton judgment.
  SIR J. GORST: The schools referred to were public elementary schools under the public Elementary Evening Schools Code, which by the Cockerton judgment are restricted to giving elementary education to children under fifteen.
  MR. ALFRED HUTTONsaid he had never heard before that the Cockerton judgment limited elementary education to children under fifteen. One of the judges stated that the age might be sixteen or seventeen, and he did not think that the right hon. Gentleman would find in any judgment that the school boards were limited to teaching children under fifteen.
  SIR J. GORST: We are advised that the judgment would not safely allow any school board to expend school rates in teaching children over fifteen. It will be within the knowledge of many hon. Members opposite that the learned counsel who appeared for the London School Board in the case has also advised them to exactly the same effect.
  MR. ALFRED HUTTONsaid the right hon. Gentleman had no need to bring in a Bill and pass an Act of Parliament to try and make those things safe. It was not the duty of the right hon. Gentleman to take an interpretation of the Cockerton judgment as to what would be safe, and incorporate it in an Act of Parliament. It was his duty to come to Parliament with a policy, and introduce a Bill which would not only secure, but also permit of the full development of, these classes and schools. He was exceedingly sorry to see in the first sub-section an unneces-

  471
  sary exhibition of hatred of the school board system, which was a culmination of the plan of campaign which had been carried on with more or less success since 1896, in order to bring the school boards to their knees, and make it impossible for them to carry out the functions and duties given to them by Act of Parliament
  MR. DUKEsaid that, like many hon. Members on that side of the House, he had a great admiration for the work of the school boards, and very great sympathy with them in their present position. He said candidly that if he thought the Bill pledged the Committee to something in the nature of a deliberate affront to the school boards, and to a policy which would destroy their work, he would not support it. But it was because he did not believe anything of the kind that he intended to vote for the principle of the Bill. Hon. Members spoke of the Bill in its educational aspect as though it were not a step forward. He controverted that proposition altogether. The Bill for the first time authorised the expenditure of money out of the School Fund on schools giving education to some extent, at any rate, of the character of secondary education; and when hon. Members protested that there was no educational benefit in the Bill he thought they overlooked the fact that at the present time the kind of education which the Bill would sanction was declared by the Cockerton judgment to be illegal, so far as it was given out of the School Fund. Therefore, the Bill would make an advance, though perhaps not a very great advance, with regard to the educational policy of the country. It seemed to him that it pledged the House to a permanent support of education of the kind which the Cockerton judgment declared could not be given by the school boards. He submitted that that was a distinct advance in an educational respect; and that the Bill in that particular was a good Bill. If the Bill were good in that particular, what were the reasons which should induce the Committee to reject it? It was said that it was an attack on the school boards. He would ask the Committee to consider the position of the
  472
  school boards. An hon. Member had said that what was really needed was a suspensory Bill, and he had been trying to find out what it was that hon. Members considered that such a Bill was going to suspend. It could not suspend anything unless it suspended the whole machinery by which public bodies were confined within the proper limits of their functions. The High Court, in the exercise of a very well understood jurisdiction, had ascertained that the school boards had been expending money which they were not authorised to expend. If there was any statute or statutory provision or administrative regulation which could be suspended, so as to make this expenditure lawful, he would like to know what it was. He submitted that nothing could be suspended which would make this expenditure lawful. Therefore they had to find some direct means of making it lawful. Accordingly, it was proposed to vest the control in the direct representation of the people who supplied the money which had to be expended, and no more democratic proposal could be made to justify or legalise this expenditure than to place the control in the hands of the people who provided the money.
  DR. MACNAMARA (Camberwell, N.): What about the school board?
  MR. DUKEsaid that hon. Gentlemen seemed to forget that the school board was elected by the cumulative vote; that it was not representative, in the true democratic sense that it represented by direct and equal representation those out of whose pockets the money came. That was a means of preventing excesses. Hon. Members talked lightly of the teaching of dancing to grown people out of the rates, but a good many of the ratepayers considered it a great hardship that the money taken out of their pockets should be used in such a way. He supported the Bill, and intended to vote for it, because he did not know of a more democratic manner of preventing excesses and absurdities than that the expenditure in question should be governed by the people who found the money. He did not think there could be a better provision than this Bill contained for the temporary administration of the

  473
  schools. Two Members for Northamptonshire had said that the county councils did not want to interfere in this matter, and he was quite sure the borough councils did not, but at the same time, if there was any overlapping or excess in the application the School Fund, then the interference of the councils would be less derogatory to the school board than that of a governmental department. In the borough which he represented, he knew that since the county borough council had had the administration of money for technical and secondary education, the school board and the council had gone hand in hand; they had used the same building and had made the most of the money entrusted to them, and he gathered from that that there would be no friction between them. Upon those grounds he supported the Bill.
  DR. MACNAMARAsaid that the Vice-President had complained that if the Amendment was carried it would retard the whole effect of the Bill; that was not so, because if Sub-section 1 disappeared there would still be Sub-section 2 to fall back upon, which permitted the Local Government Auditor to sanction expenditure immediately necessary, and they had only to extend that by "twelve months," and they got exactly what was being asked for. He hoped the principle of verbal inspiration would not be applied to this Bill, because after the debate on the Second Reading many Members on both sides of the House would like to see the details of the Bill altered before it became law. Referring to the statement of the Vice-President that the education given in the London School Board's evening classes was "cheap and shoddy," he pointed out that last year the Board had 395 classes, and in only twenty of these was dancing permitted, and that was with the express sanction of the right hon. Gentleman's own officials. The right hon. Gentleman would probably deny that, but that was the statement made by the Chairman of the School Board Committee on the previous Thursday. The right hon. Gentleman's stricture was applied to the whole of the art classes, and not merely to those in which
  474
  dancing was taught. The right hon. Gentleman's statement was that—
  "How could they compete with the free evening art classes of the School Board, which not only supplied the students with models and drawing materials, but with the canvas and paints and everything they wanted for the purpose? Naturally a poor student who has not got too many half-crowns in his pocket will go to the free places instead of getting the better instruction (Opposition cries of 'Oh')—yes, I venture to say the better instruction he would receive in a proper school of art. It is cheap and bad. The education which you are spreading amongst the people is cheap, shoddy education instead of the better and higher education which we wish to promote."
  He desired to support the Amendment because so far as he could see the purpose of this sub-section was to hamstring the school boards by putting them under the county councils, and he protested emphatically against the establishment of so far-reaching a principle through the medium of a mere temporary measure intended only to meet an unforeseen emergency. In 1895 a deputation from the National Society, headed by the two Archbishops, waited on the Duke of Devonshire to press for a number of changes in the system of elementary education. Practically all those changes had now been made except one—the subordination of the school boards to the municipal authority which should revise its precept. On that point, the Duke of Devonshire said—
  "He understood they proposed a check, not by a public department, but by another local authority, and that, no doubt, was a question well worthy very serious attention; but he was afraid that whatever might happen between the rural school board and the county council they would raise difficulties and a hotly controverted question if they proposed that the accounts of school boards should be subject to control by town councils, which, perhaps, could scarcely be called the superior body in some plaees."
  That was carried out precisely in this Bill. The proposal of the Bill was to subordinate the precepts of the school board to the town council.
  SIR J. GORSTsaid that the sufficient and legitimate expenditure was made under Parliament. What his noble friend objected to was the submission of the legitimate expenditure of school boards to the control of the town coun-

  475
  cils. They were only to subordinate to the town council expenditure that was not legal. In the Bill the control was limited to the expenditure for which the school boards had no sanction.
  DR. MACNAMARAsaid he would like to know what expenditure was legal and what was not. The contention of the right hon. Gentleman could not be maintained, because the right hon. Gentleman had declined to say what was legal and what was illegal expenditure on the part of the school board. The sub-section really repealed the Act of 1870, because the Act gave the school boards absolute right to draw upon local rates. They made up their budget and saw what the deficiency was likely to be, and then sent to the town council to make up the deficiency, and the town council whether it liked it or not had to find the money. They were bound to give the school board what it wanted. This proposal was to put the veto in the hands of the municipal councils, and why? Because the Government knew that the municipal councils were less keen on primary education than great school boards. The Government tried in 1896 to curb the zeal of the school boards. Their proposal was abortive, and now there was an attempt being made by an ingenious flank movement to carry out the same operation, to leave the municipal councils the pleasant task of truncating the school boards, and to tie the school boards down to the absolute rudiments. He was at a loss to understand why the Government desired to tie the school boards down to the absolute rudiments which this sub-section attempted to secure. He had attempted to find out what the object was for so doing, and he thought he had done so in the speech which had been made by the right hon. Gentleman at Bristol, on 23rd December, 1897. On that occasion the Vice-President referred to certain reforms which were urgently necessary for the cause of national education. Those were the days when the right hon. Gentleman made Progressive speeches on education. The reforms included better teachers, longer school life, and better attendance; and in giving an answer to the question why those things
  476
  were not secured the right hon. Gentle man said,—
  "because the members of the Government were selected from a class which was not entirely convinced of the necessity or the desirability of higher education for the people. They held the opinion, which was sometimes expressed by great professors of Universities in their speeches, that there were certain functions which had to be performed in the modern life of civilised communities which were best performed by people ignorant and brutish."
  Here they had the keynote of the Government's policy from the lips of the Education Minister, and it found endorsement in what Lord Salisbury said fn 1895 to the Brighton Conservative Association. Lord Salisbury then said—
  "I confess I should like to see Mr. Forster's statement that the rate would never exceed threepence in the pound written in letters two feet long and placed over every school board school in the country."
  He thought after those statements he could put his finger on the reason why the Government seized on the Cockerton judgment, and out-Cockertonised Cockerton in this matter.
  Coming now to the details of this Sub-section, he pointed out that the Sub-section said, "they may empower the school board." But supposing that a municipal council did not empower a school board, what happened? The work was brought to a standstill and a state of civil war ensued between the local authorities, at the instance of a Minister whose great desire was to secure local harmony. The Government were, indeed, proposing a scheme which was absolutely and grotesquely unworkable. The school boards would have to go to the town councils and submit their balance, sheets for each school, and the result would be haggling over each item, because the councils had no knowledge or experience of the Education Acts. Even if the town council was friendly disposed, nobody knew what was legal or what was not. The school board did not know, the Cockerton judgment did not say, the right hon. Gentleman would not say, and the town council certainly did not know, and there would be a continual squabble between the town councils and the school boards. A crop of perplexities had arisen already in towns like Gateshead and Leeds, where the Circular of the Department had been

  477
  received anticipating the passing of this Bill. The school boards could not see their way to continue their schools, and he thought that if they were to write up over the doors of the schools "school closed by action of the Government," it would very soon bring the Government to its senses. Not only was this attack on the school boards proceeding merrily apace by departmental circular, which he considered was most improper, but, as far as the school board for London was concerned, a strong attempt was being made by a Member of this House to dictate to the Local Government Board auditor before the Second Reading of the Bill how he ought to go to work with regard to the expenditure of the London School Board. He read a letter from the hon. Member for Greenwich, written in his capacity as chairman of "the Cockerton Defence Committee," on the 8th inst. to the Local Government Board drawing attention, on behalf of the Cockerton Defence Committee, to "the misleading manner in which accounts had hitherto been drawn up and presented for audit." The letter urged that the London School Board should be required "to keep separate ledgers and accounts for all work outside the Whitehall Code and for all work relating to pupils over fifteen years of age." He objected to any anticipation of the decision of the House, though this had been the policy of the Government ever since 1895.
  THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN,who was inaudible in the Gallery, was understood to intimate that the hon. Member's remarks were not relevant to the question before the Committee, and that his arguments must be confined to the subject of the Amendment upon the Paper.
  DR. MACNAMARAsaid the question had been raised in the debate as to what the Cockerton judgment decided in the matter of age; that letter of the noble Lord to the Local Government Board said that the age—
  THE DEPUTY CHAIRMANsaid that the hon. Gentleman was now apparently renewing the argument which he had just ruled as out of order.
  DR. MACNAMARAsaid he desired only to make clear what it was that the Cockerton judgment decided. The Vice-President insisted that it laid it down that there should be no payment beyond fifteen, but what Mr. Justice Wills in his judgment said was that it was impossible to lay down any definite boundary separating children from young men and young women, and he added—
  "Practically, I suppose that somewhere between 16 and 17 is the highest an age that has been arrived at which no one would ordinarily call childhood."
  That was where the Government got its fifteen from. He protested against the narrowing down of that judgment, as had been done, for the purposes of this Bill. He objected very strongly to this proposal, because it established a principle of a far-reaching character which ought to be submitted to the House de novo and fought out in a fair and square manner, and not smuggled through in a short and temporary measure, and also because the details were grotesquely unworkable, and were bound to be followed by interminable local perplexity, haggling, and squabbling.
  MR. GEORGE WHITE (Norfolk, N.W.)said he did not know of a single municipality that had had an opportunity of expressing an opinion on the measure before the Committee. Although it might be perfectly true that a body, which, under ordinary circumstances, might be taken as representative of the municipalities, had passed a certain resolution as stated by the hon. Member for South Islington, the principle here involved was such an entirely novel one that it was somewhat dangerous for the hon. Member to speculate as to what the municipalities would or would not do. For the first time in his municipal experience he had recently had an opportunity of attending a meeting of the Municipal Corporations Association, and from the way in which the Education Bill at that time before the House was brought forward and discussed by the body, he did not think they had much interest in the work or any great desire to advance the cause of education. The representatives on that association were largely town clerks of

  479
  different boroughs and municipalities, and in keeping with human nature generally, they probably would not object to increased powers being put into their hands. But such a body was not necessarily representative of the municipalities themselves, and while he did not argue that the municipalities if this duty were cast upon them, would not do the best they could, he was not disposed to accept a resolution of that association as warranting the assurance that the highest interests of education would be considered. As a general rule, in these times of extended municipal work, borough and county councils had quite as much to do as they could deal with, and so far as the present Bill was concerned, they had had no time to consider its scope or the additional burden it would impose upon them. His conviction was that those councils which were not opposed to the spread of education would at once, without any consideration whatever, refer the matter to their technical committees, while those which had opposing views in regard to education would immediately get into friction with the school boards. As he understood, all that they could do was to give permission to the school boards to go on with the work which had been declared to be illegal. But assuming they desired not to give that permission, they had the great power of determining whether or not this work should go on. The hon. Member for Plymouth had said that this was an Education Act, because it pledged the House to that branch of education which had been declared to be illegal. The Bill pledged the House to nothing of the kind. It simply gave town and county councils power to permit the school boards to go on with the work for a year. So far from pledging the House to that work, it seemed rather to put a block in its way; it certainly blocked the way to any extension of the work for the next year. That was a very serious part of the question. If this higher elementary education had been a benefit to the community, why should it be stopped even for twelve months? Five years ago the Vice-President referred to the higher grade schools as "processes of the elementary education system." If that were so, why should those legitimate
  480
  processes be stopped? But the right hon. Gentleman went much further than that, for after stating that in this particular the school boards were exceeding the functions for which they were originally designed, he said—
  "In the absence of any more regular mode of providing the people with the secondary education which the necessity of the time so urgently demands, their proceedings are undoubtedly highly approved by the people for whom they act, and any attempt to curtail by legislation the operation of the school boards in this direction without providing some better alternative method by which the wants of the public would be supplied would be unpopular."
  The right hon. Gentleman was now doing what he then said would be unpopular. No authority was established by this Bill. Much as the Education Bill No. 1 was objected to, he thought in that respect it was better than the present Bill. Here no authority was provided. The position was that the school board had to go to the council; the council would have no time to consider the question; it would either have at once to give carte blanche to the school board to go on—and if it did that where was the value of the application?—or if it declined to do that it would have to go into the details of the work of the school boards, and all the friction to which reference had been made would arise. The borough councils were not sufficiently in touch with the work of school boards to pass an intelligent judgment. He admitted that on the whole the technical education work had been well done, and the money provided largely expended for that purpose. But so recently as the previous week one county council had voted £1,600 from the technical education fund to the reduction of the rates, and that course might be followed still further when these bodies had to deal with the question of higher grade education. Another serious question in connection with this Bill was as to how far it was to be the means of extending the functions of the borough councils in regard to primary education. Whatever county and borough councils might feel with regard to secondary education, he did not believe there were ten municipalities in the kingdom which would be willing to undertake the work of primary education. The House had been told that this measure was simply the embodiment of a principle. Appar-

  481
  ently that principle was that ultimately all education, primary, secondary, and technical, should be dealt with by one authority, and that that authority should be the county and borough councils. He had never heard of a single borough council the members of which would admit that they were competent to deal with such a vast subject as that, and if it was necessary for the advancement of education that there should be one authority, the House should pause before passing this Bill, and thereby laying a foundation upon which it was intended to graft the duties of primary education. By the circumstances under which this Bill had been placed before the House, a great injury was being done to education all round. Antagonistic feelings were being aroused where there ought to be a universal desire to work out some great scheme for the benefit of the country. The only way in which such a scheme could be devised was by all parties working together, and not by attacking the one authority which had accomplished what little had been done for secondary education.
  MR. BRYCE: I understand that the object of this Amendment is simply to maintain the status quo. It differs from other Amendments on the Paper, because those other Amendments propose to bring in other authorities, which are in some way to exercise a control over the action of the school boards. There are Amendments standing in the names of the hon. Members for the Leigh and Rossendale Divisions and others, which do not restore the status quo pure and simple, but which propose that the school boards should be enabled to go on spending the money, subject to the control either of the local authority or the Board of Education, or both. The present Amendment, however, brings in no other authority; it simply allows the school boards to go on as at present, and it is to be supplemented at a later stage by an Amendment providing that the Local Government Board should have the power of sanctioning expenditure illegally incurred for the next year. It may be asked why an Amendment has been brought up simply to maintain the status quo. It is for the reason that since the Second Reading we have had
  482
  some light as to the way in which this Bill is regarded in the country. There have been the opinions of county councils. We have had the remarkable deliverance in which the county council of Northamptonshire express the deliberate opinion that they are entirely unfitted to take up the work it is proposed to cast upon them, and practically requesting us not to pass this Bill or to throw upon them functions which they cannot discharge. I suppose they have come to that conclusion because they feel they have not the proper knowledge. How can they have the knowledge? How can they possibly know what are the conditions under which school boards ought to expend money in keeping up higher grade schools or continuation classes in some parts of their vast area? There may not be any member of the county council from the particular district, and even if there is, is a matter of this magnitude to be left entirely to him to settle? We have also had an expression of opinion, which I am sure the whole House regards with great deference, from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Dartford division. He does not think that this is a good or a workable plan. Then we have the views of the hon. Member for South Islington. The argument put forward on this side of the House against this subsection is that it provides an unworkable plan—that it would involve a great deal of friction and delay in communication, and that the local authority would not be competent to deal with the questions submitted to them. The hon. Member for South Islington meets that argument in this way. He says the difficulties in regard to the unworkability of the plan will not arise because the borough councils are just as keen about education as anyone else, that they are just as eager as the school boards to have education carried on; in other words, that they will go as far as, and perhaps farther than, the school boards. Further they cannot go, because under this sub-section they are not allowed to grant powers to the school boards to carry on anything which has not been carried on during the last twelve months. But, at any rate, the hon. Member says they will go as far. What is the result of that argument? It is that the borough councils will not cut down the work of the school boards;

  483
  in other words, that they will not exert that checking and restraining influence which the Bill seems to contemplate, that they will not subject the proposals of the school boards to that economical scrutiny, and that tendency to pare down and haggle over little items of expenditure, which apparently is expected. In fact, as I gather from the hon. Member, the borough councils will probably take the same view generally as we are assured the London County Council are going to adopt, namely, that they will say to the school boards, "Go on, and our blessing be upon you!" In that case this Bill is not needed. The expenditure will not be cut down. The borough councils and the London County Council will sanction all this expenditure, and the object contemplated by the Bill will not be achieved.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,: Where is that contemplated?
  MR. BRYCE: I understand the whole argument of the right hon. Gentleman to be that school boards were indulging in expenditure which they ought not to indulge in, and that another authority must be set up to check or stop them in their headlong course.
  SIR J. GORST: I entirely repudiate the suggestion.
  MR. BRYCE: I should like to know what else the right hon. Gentleman meant. He is not usually lacking in lucidity. I should say that lucidity and precision are among those qualities with which he fascinates the House, but apparently he has been completely misunderstood in being supposed to have deprecated the work of school boards, and to have declared that this expenditure ought not to be allowed to continue. I have come to the conclusion that this part of the Bill is unnecessary, and that the Government will really lose nothing by dropping this sub-section. But if the Government are unable to go so far as that, if, with their legal scruples, they think the school boards ought not to be allowed to spend this money, and get it sanctioned as a matter of course, I would
  484
  commend to them the Amendments of my hon. friends the Members for the Leigh and the Rossendale Divisions. In those Amendments they will find a compromise which I think they might accept, because, under them, the expenditure incurred by the school boards will be subjected to some external control, and it will be for that external control to say whether or not the expenditure should continue. At the same time a means of enabling the school boards to carry on the work, much simpler and easier than that suggested in the Bill, will be found. If either of those Amendments were accepted it would save us from the necessity of debating this Bill at such great length, and it would deliver both the school boards and the local authorities from a great deal of trouble. If, however the right hon. Gentleman is unable to hold out any hope of acceding to either of those Amendments, we should be obliged to vote for the present proposal, as being a great deal better than the very cumbrous, difficult, and highly controversial course proposed by the Government.
  MR. LAWSON WALTONpointed out that since the Second Reading of the Bill not only had there been expressions of opinion on the part of local bodies to whom this new jurisdiction was to be delegated, but there had also been a pronouncement from an authority even more eminent in relation to this matter—the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dartford, the predecessor of the present Vice-President of the Council. That right hon. Gentleman knew the responsibility of the Department in regard to this question, the extent to which these schools ought to be carried, and the conditions under which they should be conducted, because he and the Department with which he had been associated were responsible for the origin of the present system of education. The right hon. Gentleman had used a very strong argument in favour of the Amendment which, unfortunately, he had not yet used in the House. He had pointed out that the Department which had encouraged the formation of these evening schools and continuation classes, and had allowed the whole of this higher grade education system to grow up,

  485
  should undertake the responsibility of determining the extent to which, and the principle upon which, the work should be allowed to continue for another twelve months. Surely the question of whether or not the education should be sanctioned for twelve months longer ought to be left to an authority which was cognisant of the nature of the education established, and which could regulate it so that it might be carried on in all parts of the country on the some lines and under the same conditions rather than that such a thankless and honourless obligation should be cast on the county councils, leaving education to be strangled, smothered, or allowed to continue as the various local authorities might determine. It was said that this extraordinary machinery, by means of which the right hon. Gentleman washed his hands of all responsibility and cast it on the local authorities, was introduced with a view to establishing a principle. What was that principle? And what was its value as a guide to further legislation? The only principle to be extracted from the Bill was that of the subordination of an authority elected for purely educational purposes to a body not elected for that purpose. This meant that one representative body elected for the purposes of education had to submit itself to the control of another body elected for an entirely different purpose. Did the right hon. Gentleman contend that the establishment of such a principle would assist him in the organisation of the new educational authority which in twelve months time was to take charge of the whole education of the country? They had heard of various authorities which were to regulate primary and secondary education in the future. There was, in the first place, the scheme contained in the abandoned Bill. How did this proposal assist the establishment of that scheme? By arranging that for one year, and one year only, the educational work of the school boards of the country should be subordinated to bodies elected for municipal purposes and for the various forms of local self-government. If the right hon. Gentleman got his principle out of this extraordinary machinery it would be of no value. Reference had been made to the action
  486
  which borough councils might take. The principle which was set up in this Bill might be productive of great danger. Educational authorities were not elected on political lines, whereas borough councils sometimes were, and thus there was the risk of political bias being introduced. No doubt they might look for enlightenment in the great county boroughs, but the smaller boroughs would be merged in the counties and would be controlled by the educational sympathies of the counties. Did the right hon. Gentleman not see great danger in this state of things? He must feel that the apprehension expressed in so many quarters of this House was well founded.
  They had already heard from two hon. and gallant Members who represented two Divisions of Essex what might be looked for in that county. Those speeches indicated the peril the right hon. Gentleman was running without the slightest justification and in the alleged belief that he was establishing some principle of great value. The county councils were to decide upon what term, to what extent, and upon what conditions education was to be carried on for the next twelve months, and if the system proposed did not entirely extinguish the system of education which the board schools had established it might very much cripple that system and place the school boards in a very awkward position. The right hon. Gentleman had now an opportunity to put an end to this controversy. It he would accept the Amendment in principle and undertake that his Department should decide this question, or would allow an appeal to his Department from county councils who might refuse to give a school board power under the Bill, the opposition to the Bill would end.
  SIR W. HART DYKEsaid that, as some remarks of his had been referred to, he desired to say a few words. It was perfectly true that he enjoyed a Saturday half-holiday in opening some new board schools, and in reply to a strong appeal by the chairman that he should state his views he made some remarks. Probably owing to the fact that speeches did not travel well this

  487
  hot weather many of his remarks assumed a shape to which he could not give any correct recognition whatever. He had been in the main correctly quoted by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. He said that this very grave difficulty was essentially a departmental matter. He also said that during the six years he was Vice-President higher grade schools never had a more earnest advocate and supporter than himself, and that he was not singular as a Vice-President in that. He pointed out how it was they found themselves in this great difficulty and how other Vice-Presidents had done as he had and shirked it; how they knew the almost impossible task of framing a good system of higher education, and how, like other Vice-Presidents, he had welcomed an advance from whatever quarter it came. He was merely pleading the cause of education. He did suggest that it was a departmental matter, and that it would have been better if the Department had come to Parliament and asked Parliament to help them out of the difficulty into which they had got. As he understood it, the position in which the Committee found themselves was one of extreme simplicity. The Bill was introduced to meet an emergency, and while he should always vote for the establishment of one local responsible authority in the matter of education, he repudiated altogether the suggestion that in voting for this Bill he voted for any such authority as was embodied in it as it stood. The First Lord of the Treasury was appealed to by the right hon. Member for South Aberdeen as to whether this Bill proposed to establish a new principle, and he understood his right hon. friend to deny this. The county borough councils and the municipalities of which his hon. friend the Member for South Islington had spoken must be the foundation of educational authority to be set up. Those bodies, of course, must be strengthened and supplemented before they would have anything like full confidence in the country. He would discard once and for all the question of establishing any great principle by this Bill, and come to the position in which they found themselves. What he advocated on Saturday last was the notion that the Education Department should be responsible for getting the country
  488
  out of the difficulty. He wished to say why he voted for the Second Reading of this Bill. For many years he had taken a deep interest in this question, and each year he took a keener interest in educational questions, and watched them more closely, and, as far as he understood it, they were really raising a great contention here about a very small matter. This Bill had to deal with a very grave difficulty owing to a legal judgment, and to get them out of that difficulty this statutory enactment was to be made. To his mind, it was an emergency question. In some of these schools it was a matter almost of weeks and days. It was utterly impossible for these authorities in the time given to them to go into the various questions of the maintenance of the schools, the curricula, and staff. Nearly all those authorities had been dealing directly with some kind of secondary education.
  In most of the counties, and in nearly all of them where the Customs and Excise money had been applied, they had been dealing year by year with increased success with technical education. He believed that the decision arrived at in Liverpool and by the London County Council would be followed, andth at all these authorities in turn would say to the school boards, "Go full steam ahead," and would give them full liberty to carry on their work. He could not believe it possible that in a county like Northampton they would practically tell the civilised world that they cared so little about education as to absolutely forbid the school board proceeding in this matter. He did not see why in this midsummer heat they should occupy two or three nights in the discussion of extraordinarily difficult matters, and thought two hours debate would do for the whole question involved. That question lay in a nutshell. As practical men, did they or did they not believe that any of these authorities would refuse to allow a single school to continue its work? He was not a young member of the House, and he refused to allow it to be said that he had been saying things outside the House which he was afraid to repeat inside. It was quite true that he did criticise some what the attitude of some of his hon. friends, and of his right hon. friend the

  489
  Vice-President with regard to the school board. He was no advocate of the school board system as against voluntary schools, or, as regarded education alone, of the voluntary schools as against the school board. He did and always should value as a necessity, from the point of view of the members of the Church of England, the religious education which was obtained in their own schools. But he had felt most strongly that his right hon. friend's speech had been unnecessarily aggressive against the school boards. He may have made a mistake, however, for his right hon. friend had now repudiated the idea. The remarks of his which had been quoted were uttered in reply to an appeal made to him by the chairman of the school board, and that board was only three years old. But whether he looked at this question from the point of view of a political partisan or from a much higher point of view it was a great pity that the school boards of this country should at this moment feel irritation in regard to their treatment. The only possible chance of settling these great questions was for hon. Members on both sides to meet and work together, and endeavour to solve this important problem, the solution of which none of them wished to see injured by any needless irritation. In conclusion he wished to say that he thought it was only right to make these few remarks by way of explanation.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down always attracts the sympathies of the whole House upon the question of education, because he never speaks upon this subject from the point of view of a political partisan. We have listened to his speech upon this question, not only with great interest, but with great deference. The right hon. Gentleman has said that this sub-section might be settled in a two hours debate because in practice the status quo would be maintained. If that is so, why did they not have a simple sub-section to that effect? If that was on the face of the Bill, then there would be comparatively little difference of opinion amongst us. The sub-section, even at the best, will only maintain the status quo, and it must arrest possible development
  490
  on the old lines, and it may curtail some of the educational facilities which now exist. We are told that this Bill has been put in its present form, and not as one simply to maintain the status quo, because it introduces a large principle. If large principles are contained in this Bill, then undoubtedly there must be a certain amount of large discussion. I will come to the question of principle in a minute or two, but I wish to say, first, that whatever differences of opinion we may have about the principle, and however anxious we may be to see a new principle introduced, as has been hinted at in the Bill now before us, I think we should feel that a new departure of this kind should not be introduced and prefaced by an attack upon the school board system. If school boards are to go, let them give place to a big new system, with full, large powers, and let them be worked into such a system, so that full use may be made of their experience. But let it not be done by dragging out everything peculiar or eccentric which may have happened under the school board in certain places, putting that in a prominent light, with a few perfunctory sentences as to their good work; let it be done with an ample recognition of the work they have done.
  The speech of the Vice-President must have had a depressing effect on every school board. We all want to see one authority for education established, but surely we ought to have time allowed us to carefully consider this point. I understand that my hon. friends behind me have a good deal of sympathy with the development of education under county and borough councils, not only from the point of view of education, but from the point of view of what is as urgently needed as anything else in this country, namely, the free development of local government. If you lay upon municipal councils a great charge and obligation to oversee the interests of education in their own areas; to see that the supply is sufficient, and to co-operate with the Education Department in seeing that there is an ample supply from top to bottom in their own area, then I say that we should have some approach to a perfect system, under which, I believe, our county borough and our municipal councils would rise to the occasion and show a spirit which they have not had

  491
  any opportunity of showing up to the present. But that is not what this subsection does. If a great scheme was before us, and it became necessary to subordinate the school boards, and dovetail their work into some great scheme, then there might be more to be said for what this Bill proposes to do. I am not prepared to see any curtailment of the work of the school boards until we have something better to put in their place. This Bill is going to discourage one practical working authority without inspiriting any other authority. We are told that this is the application of a new principle, but it is really a setting back as regards its practical working. It is creating possibilities of friction which must be detrimental to the work of the school boards, and which cannot encourage the county councils. Why, then, should we have the Bill at all? Overlapping is not so serious but that it could be tolerated for another year. If the Bill is only for one year, why is it necessary to pass it at all? We are told that the reason is because the work done by the school boards is now illegal. In that case the choice before the Government is either to bring in a Bill to make the practice of the school boards illegal, or else to bring in a Bill setting up a new practice altogether. When you have a practice well established, which was so much encouraged by the Education Department at one time, and by many people who sympathised with the work which the school boards were doing, surely the simplest way to have dealt with this question would have been to make a law which for one year would have left the old practice alone, rather than establish a new principle which must have a discouraging effect, so far as it has had any effect at all. This new practice must diminish educational facilities as long as the Bill lasts. I do not dispute the good intentions of the Government. If they had brought in a large, comprehensive measure I am sure it would have received fair and considerate treatment from the House, which is anxious to see a departure made in secondary education. If the Bill is passed in its present form, establishing what the Government consider a new and satisfactory principle, then I fear it may become not a temporary, but a permanent measure, or one
  492
  to carry on from year to year, and although I do not accuse the Government of want of honesty of intention, I am afraid from the experience of the past, and knowing how the House is now paved with good intentions, that either I must regard this Bill as not only a step backward in itself, or regard it with apprehension, because it may be putting further off the time when we shall have a really big Bill dealing with the question.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I hope we may be now allowed to divide upon this Amendment. [Opposition cries of "No, no."] I merely make the request; it rests with hon. Gentlemen whether they will grant it. At any rate, as I think the discussion may now terminate, my observations will be exceedingly brief. The hon. Member who has just sat down has made a rosy forecast of the advance of any big measure which may be introduced in a subsequent session. I hope the hon. Gentleman's forecast will prove true of the Bill which the Government hope to introduce next year; but I confess that, from the hostile treatment which the education schemes of the. Government have met with in past times from those who profess to be friends of education, who, so far as I can see, resist every Bill for the reform of education, I do not anticipate a smooth and flowery path for any measure of ours, no matter on what lines it may be drawn. But we have now to deal with the present Bill. The hon. Gentleman puts this question to us:—"You may be right in thinking that this Bill will not stop the work of secondary education; you may be right in thinking that the local authorities will in no case interfere with the work now being carried on by the school boards. Granting that," says the hon. Gentleman, "why do you want the Bill at all? Why cannot you simply legalise the process which has been declared illegal by the court?" That is a very plain and simple question, to which I endeavoured to give an answer in the debate on the Second Reading. All are agreed on both sides of the House that the Cockerton judgment requires legislation of some kind. It is not possible at this time of the session to carry a complete measure dealing with the situation. We are therefore reduced to the only remaining possible course,

  493
  which is to introduce a Bill which shall not be a complete but a tentative measure, and which shall be adequate to deal with the difficulty we have been placed in by the recent decision of the court. Now, we say that under the circumstances it is possible to have a Bill without sanctioning some principle or another. You must do something. No doubt you do not do it completely. No doubt anything done in this Bill cannot lay down the lines upon which a complete measure should proceed. But there are two alternatives. You must either declare that you think the school boards are the proper authorities for dealing with secondary education, or you must lay down the contrary proposition that the local authorities either by itself or by a committee, to which subseqently other members may be added, is the proper authority to discharge that duty. I say that every man who holds—as I believe all must hold—that the local authority is the proper body for dealing with secondary education is bound to vote for this Bill. The argument advanced against us is that the Bill will have the collateral effect of checking education. I do not believe a word of it. I say there is nothing in this Bill which will cause the closing of a single school which is required for carrying on secondary education. It is probable that in certain places the local authority and the school board may decide to close some schools that are overlapping in the interests of the others. That would be an advantage. It is probable that in most cases the local authority will say to the school board "We have not sufficient time to deal with this question, and we authorise you to go on." That, perhaps, would in most cases be a wise course, and I think it is the course they generally will take. But I am absolutely confident that all these predictions about education being stopped will be falsified, and all the political rubbish which masquerades in the guise of educational enthusiasm will be absolutely exposed by the experience of the next few months. The hon. Member for North Camberwell says it will be right, and may perhaps be the duty of the school boards, to chalk up upon the doors of these closed schools, "No school; closed by order of the Government." Was there ever an educationist who so
  494
  successfully disguised himself for the moment as a party politician? No such danger need be apprehended.
  DR. MACNAMARA: The Gateshead School Board declared they could not keep the schools open because of the perplexity of the Government's proposals.
  MR. LAWSON WALTON: The Leeds School Board has come to a similar resolution.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Are we, then, to understand from hon. Gentlemen who have occupied all these hours in praising up the school boards that there are two school boards in the country so absolutely oblivious to the interests of education, so indifferent to the interests of the class which hon. Gentlemen have at heart, that without a moment's consultation with the local authorities they are prepared to shut up their schools?
  DR. MACNAMARA: Their night schools.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Until I see the day schools or the night schools of Gates-head and Leeds shut up I cannot believe the suggestion of hon. Gentlemen. The House in adopting this Bill will take a course in favour of educational reform, and in taking that course I am quite certain they will not in any district of the country check even for a moment the healthy progress of secondary education.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT (Monmouthshire, W.): If the right hon. Gentleman thinks the tone in which he has addressed the House is one likely to lead to the progress of the Bill, he is very much mistaken. I can only conceive that in adopting this tone the right hon. Gentleman puts himself out to rival the methods adopted by the Vice-President. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dartford must be very much dissatisfied with that speech. The Bill raises no principle we are told. It merely allows the county council to continue what the school board has begun, and

  495
  that that is the end of it. What, then, has become of your great principle? We are really to determine whether the education of the country is to be entrusted to the county council or not. That may be a good plan or a bad plan, but this harum scarum way of establishing a new principle in the education of the country is unstatesmanlike. This is the sort of scrimble scramble way in which the Government conducts everything. We have had two abortions already. They excuse this on the ground that it is "only a little one"; but a little one may carry very mischievous consequences to its parents. Yet we are asked to go on and dispose of this Bill. Either this involves a great principle or it does not. If it does not involve a great principle it is extremely badly drawn. The right hon. Gentleman said that the county councils will agree to everything that the school boards propose, and that if there are any bodies that will act disgracefully, they will be the school boards of Leeds and Gateshead, and without knowing anything whatever of the circumstances of the cases the right hon. Gentleman stands up and scolds the school boards of Leeds and other places in a tone which I venture to say he is not entitled to use.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The right hon. Gentleman is mistaken. I say that if they acted in the way they are described as having acted they deserved to be scolded. But I learn that the hon. Member for Leeds is wrong.
  MR. LAWSON WALTON: I understand that the Leeds School Board has come to the resolution that it would be impossible for them to continue the responsibility of carrying on their present evening continuation schools.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I believe that is not so.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: It is time the Government knew.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No communication has been made to the Board of Education.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: There are two things that must be known with reference to the Bill before it is disposed of in this haphazard way by the Government—one is what are the opinions of the town councils, and what are the opinions of the school boards. I protest against a measure of the kind including, as the right hon. Gentleman says, a great revolution in the principles of education in this country being passed without full discussion. We had a full discussion some years ago, and we know what was the result. We know what were the opinions of the town councils of that time, and one of the reasons why at that time the Government ignominiously failed was because the Bill was a violent attempt on the part of the Government to impose on the town councils of the country jurisdiction they did not desire to have. What business have we tonight, after two or three hours discussion, to come to such a conclusion as this, without giving time to the town councils of the country to express their views on this subject, so that we may at all events proceed in dealing with this question with some knowledge of it? It is quite clear the Government do not now possess that knowledge. Their domestic strategy is equal to their military strategy. The Leader of the House says you must now, in consequence of the Cockerton judgment, determine whether you will go on with the school boards as the primary educational authority or the county councils. There is no necessity to decide either way. The dilemma is a piece of false logic. Why not wait twelve months and let the country have time to understand what you are about? * I hope the House will absolutely refuse to be hustled. Let great boroughs such as Leeds and Gateshead have time to consider what line their school boards will adopt. That will be dealing with the great question of education as the House of Commons should deal with it. The attempt to rush this Bill through the House of Commons is one which I hope will be vigorously resisted.
  MR. BROADHURSTregretted that on the Second Reading of this Bill the representatives of the constituencies had been denied a full and

  497
  free opportunity of expressing their objections to it.
  Attention called to the fact that forty Members were not present. House counted, and forty Members being found present—
  MR. BROADHURSTsaid he represented a great industrial community of a quarter of a million of people. The industry of that community depended mainly upon the intelligence and skill of its working people. The town of Leicester had prided itself upon the success of its elementary, higher grade, and secondary education; and without advances in the requirements of knowledge of science and art and industry that town would suffer in competition with countries where education was acknowledged to be serviceable to the power and prosperity of these countries. Well, the people of Leicester—all classes of the community, rich and poor, Liberal and Conservative, high and low, employer and workman, school board and trade council—all objected to this educational policy of His Majesty's Government. He had presented petition after petition, he had had to acknowledge the receipt of many resolutions from various public bodies in Leicester condemning the Bill that was now dead, and the policy of the Bill the Committee was now discussing. Therefore his constituents would desire and approve his support of the omission of the first sub-section. If the Government would agree to that, they could undoubtedly, so far as his constituency was concerned, have the remainder of their Bill in five minutes. The hon. Member for South Leeds had made a very useful suggestion to the Government, and that was that permission should be given to the school boards to carry on their work, and if appeal were necessary it should be lodged with the Education Department, and not with the county councils or the borough councils. The school board of Leicester regarded this Bill as a humiliation on their body, and as a trespass on their just and right authority. He did not think he could give a stronger condemnation of the Bill than that. They regarded it as an attempt to destroy and not to build up, and as inevitably leading
  498
  to the lowering of the educational standard of the borough, and not to its advancement in any direction whatever. His constituents would rather that the evening continuation and the higher grade schools should remain absolutely free, as they were before the Cockerton judgment, when they were doing a great and beneficent work, not only for the children themselves, but for the industrial prosperity of the town. Why should the Government interfere with that? It was nothing but a pondering to the jealousy and to the dictation of the Secondary Schools Association—what was called the Incorporated Association of Head Masters. He had in his hand the report of that body for 1896; he had no doubt the right hon. Gentleman had read it over and over again; and it seemed to him that the right hon. Gentleman had taken the suggestions from that report, and based on them the policy of not only the Bill which was dead, but that which they were now discussing. Failing to obtain the consent of the town councils, those schools were to be closed, but the public-houses were to remain open. The policy of the Government was to close the schools, but to keep the public-houses open to the little ones. That was not the policy of Leicester. Leicester had quite a different idea. The people there would close the public-houses to the young, but would give free and full opportunity to every child who had the capacity to acquire all the knowledge and attainments at his disposal in the splendid institutions which had been built up under the fostering care of that great borough. He knew schools in the borough of Leicester that had excited the admiration of foreigners from nearly all parts of the world.
  THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The question before the House is not the excellence of certain schools.
  MR. BROADHURSTsaid he was only just about to point out the value of the schools in Leicester as recognised by all friends of education. If the sub-section were passed, many of these institutions might be closed. The First Lord of the Treasury had interfered in the debate with, as he understood, the benevolent object of calming any excite-

  499
  ment which might have been excited with reference to the sub-section; and the right hon. Gentleman appealed to the Committee to come to a decision on it. But then he immediately proceeded to say that the discussion on that side was merely political rubbish. He had never heard a more insolent remark from the Leader of a great party. They were descending very low in debate when the leader of legions found it necessary to employ such language with reference to hon. Members whose only desire was to increase the intelligence of the people. The right hon. Gentleman charged hon. Members on that side with being opposed to reform. He had always understood reform to mean improvement, but in the Bill of 1896—
  THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member cannot now discuss the merits of a Bill brought in in a previous session. The question before the Committee is to omit Sub-section 1.
  MR. BROADHURSTsaid he did not regard the sub-section as a reform, but as a revolutionary and retrograde step, which had for its object the destruction of the school-board system, secondary and primary, within a very few years. He objected to the sub-section largely for the reason that the bodies with whom secondary education was to rest were not suitable for the purpose. County councils and borough councils were elected for an entirely different purpose, and knew nothing about education; though of course he did not mean to say that there might not be educationalists on them. But education was not in the minds of the electors when they were elected. He also objected on practical grounds. He had a practical knowledge of the work of county councils for many years. He was deeply interested in it, but education had no part in it. Further, county councils had more work now than they had time in which to do it, as the right hon. Gentleman would know if he had had some elementary knowledge of rural life, but his university training and associations and his academic life prevented him acquiring that knowledge. [Sir J. GORST dissented.] He would give a practical illustration of how
  500
  difficult it would be for the county councils to take up the work of secondary education. He held in his hand the agenda of a county council, which included a great variety of subjects, such as the improvement of roads and footpaths, reports of the county surveyor, tenders for snow ploughs, letters from rural district councils, estimates for repairs of main roads, claims for compensation, opinions of counsel, and many other matters. He asked the right hon. Gentleman how could the county councils, which consisted of men from all parts of the county, get through such a long list, then take up the work of secondary education, and still have time to attend to their business in the cattle market or the corn exchange? It was perfectly ridiculous to think that under such circumstances the work could be done efficiently. He hoped that if the Government would not agree to the omission of the subsection they would at least adopt the suggestion of the hon. Member for South Leeds, and let the appeal be to the Education Board in Whitehall, and not to the county councils and borough councils. Their fear was that education would drift into the hands of the parish priest and the squire, who were reactionary in educational affairs in many parts of the country. There might be some hope in the great towns. Hitherto they had regarded education as a sacred question, into which politics should not be introduced. Only recently he devoted a Saturday to canvassing for a leading Conservative in the parish in which he lived, because he was devoted to the cause of education, and he did not care whether a man was a Tory or a Radical if he were that. They were now proposing to associate education with the various questions, political and otherwise, which divided opinion in the counties and boroughs; and by that means they were striking a blow at the foundations of education in the country from which it would not recover for many generations.
  MR. PLUMMER: said that, having some knowledge of the work of education in large cities, he regarded the Bill as a temporary measure, brought forward to meet a special emergency, and that they were not to

  501
  regard it as a precedent when they came to consider the far more important and wider measure which the Government had promised for next session. He had been for many years on the school board of Newcastle, and also for a somewhat less time on the city council, and he was bound to confess from his experience of those two bodies, when it came to the question of undertaking the work of elementary education, he did not see how a county borough council was able to undertake that work in the larger interests of the country; not that he suggested they were not educationally qualified for the work, but solely because he believed their hands were already entirely full of very important work. He therefore thought it would be worth while for the Government to consider before passing the more important measure whether some such suggestion should not be adopted as that foreshadowed by the Royal Commission on Technical Education, namely, the creation of a new body, consisting of one-third of members of the county councils, one-third of the school boards, and the other third, which he was sure Members on both sides of the House would greatly value, by the co-opting of men who were thorough educational experts, and who had experience which would be so valuable to educational bodies, the very class of men who would not submit themselves to popular election. He believed the Government had earned, if not the applause of the House, the good opinion of the country, for by their action they had drawn attention to the existing overburdening of the elementary schools. It might be heresy to say so, but he had long been convinced that they had too much crowded into the curriculum of what were termed elementary schools. They were by no means elementary schools. Like the village blacksmith, there was "something attempted, something done," but too often much was attempted and too little done, and if less were attempted he was convinced more would be done. Children left the schools with a slight knowledge of many things, and an imperfect knowledge of a few things of which they ought to have a well-grounded knowledge. In short, they had quantity at the expense of quality. Only a few days ago he over-
  502
  heard a child tell its neighbour in St. James's Park that Nelson fought the battle of Waterloo in Trafalgar Square, and that was the reason why the monument was erected there.
  THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must confine himself to the question before the Committee, which is the omission of Sub-section 1.
  MR. PLUMMERsaid he was sorry if the anecdote was not in order, but the argument he wanted to press upon the House was that elementary education was too much overburdened with higher subjects. He did not wish it to be thought that he quoted this illustration as an argument against school boards, because he had no reason for knowing whether it was a school board child or not; but he cited it to prove the necessity of the curriculum of elementary schools being relieved of technical subjects. The Government would be doing great service indeed if one result of bringing that measure before the House should be the introduction next session of a measure on a larger and wider scale to relieve the overcrowded curriculum of elementary schools, which would be an advantage not only to the children but to the teachers. He should vote for the present Bill because it dealt with the difficulty which now existed, in the hope that before they were called upon to consider the larger measure there would be some differentiation in the treatment of larger towns where the school board was coterminous with the district of the borough or county council, always remembering that education existed not for the sake of school boards, but that school boards existed for the sake of education.
  MR. CHARLES MORLEYsaid he rose to support the motion for the omission of the sub-section. He did so on many grounds, but particularly on the ground that he was not prepared to hand over to the control of the county councils that education which, for the last thirty years, had been so admirably managed in the best interests of the country by the school boards. The Education Bills of the Government had been so thoroughly opposed to the

  503
  educational instincts of the country that they had to undergo the humiliation of abandoning them. What was the crime of which the school boards were guilty? Nothing worse than placing too liberal an interpretation on their powers for forwarding the intellectual interests of the people; and he should have thought that, instead of endeavouring to cripple the powers of the school boards, the Government would have done what they could to extend them, in order to enable the boards to legally carry on the schools which were now in difficulties. The Government might have adopted the straightforward, simple course of bringing in a small measure, such as that suggested by his hon. friend. They had no desire to see the control of those schools taken out of the hands of the school boards. He should like to remind the Committee of some language which had been used with regard to the school boards. The Vice-President, speaking in the House on July 8th, denounced the work of the school boards and condemned the education given by them as cheap and shoddy.
  SIR J. GORST: I did nothing of the sort. Let the hon. Member quote my words.
  MR. CHARLES MORLEYsaid he would quote the right hon. Gentleman's words. They were—
  "The education which you are spreading amongst the people is cheap, shoddy education instead of the better and higher education which we wish to promote."
  SIR J. GORST: The hon. Member omits the statement that that has reference to art evening schools in London. It has no reference to schools generally, and was restricted to the art schools carried on in the evenings in London.
  MR. CHARLES MORLEYsaid that he was quite prepared to accept the interpretation of the right hon. Gentleman, but his recollection was that the right hon. Gentleman did not strictly confine his remark, as he now stated.
  SIR J. GORST: The hon. Member is very unjust. The whole passage was
  504
  read by an hon. Member opposite, and it entirely bears out what I say. This is the second time that I have had to repudiate this misrepresentation.
  MR. CHARLES MORLEYsaid that at any rate the right hon. Gentleman referred to the evening art schools supported by the School Board of London. He would remind the House of what had been said by Sir Joshua Fitch—
  "Meantime it should not be forgotten that the higher elementary school, whether we regard it as belonging to the reason of primary or secondary education, or to the borderland which lies between them, is at present in the hands of the school boards. They cerated it, they have faith in it, and they have so managed it that it has become one of the most popular institutions in the country, especially in that class of the community which most sorely needed improved opportunities of industrial training and intellectual culture."
  He would leave it to the Committee to judge between the statement of the right hon. Gentleman and the statement he had just read. The sub-section proposed to empower county councils and other local authorities to interfere with the work of the school boards, and to subordinate the school boards to themselves. It proposed that the one local authority which was charged with the administration of education should go cap in hand to another local authority which had received no such mandate for permission to carry on a useful and valuable work. He did not believe that the county councils would desire to be approached in that manner by the school boards. The County Council of Northamptonshire had passed a resolution by which, as he understood it, they expressed their objection to having to decide whether certain schools should be continued or discontinued. The Bill was a deliberate insult on a large and very valuable body of public servants. The second subsection was, however, a different matter, on which all of them would be more or less in accord, and which, with certain Amendments, would cover the whole of the present difficulty. That would pass the House without meeting with any serious opposition. But the first subsection established an altogether new principle, which, in the opinion of many hon. Members, would be highly contentious and very objectionable. Who was

  505
  to decide the schools to which the school fund was to be applicable or not applicable? The right hon. Gentleman did not know.
  SIR J. GORST: Why does the hon. Gentleman say I did not know?
  MR. CHARLES MORLEY: Because on the 5th of March the right hon. Gentleman said it was impossible to say where to draw the line, and to say that the school above was the higher grade school and the school below was only an elementary school.
  SIR J. GORST: Those were remarks which I made before the extremely lucid judgment of the Master of the Rolls. After reading that, no school board could have any hesitation in saying it was impossible to draw a line.
  MR. CHARLES MORLEYcongratulated the right hon. Gentleman upon having learnt his lesson so well, but nevertheless was of opinion that the Bill was unworkable. The county councils did not wish to deal with the schools. The school boards had done well in the past, and would do well in the future, and he thought that as the first subsection was a contentious one, it should be adjourned, in order that the Committee should have an opportunity of considering it.
  MR. HENRY HOBHOUSEsaid he could assure the Committee that so far from its being utterly impossible for the county councils to deal with secondary education, as had been attempted to be demonstrated by the hon. Member for Leicester, many of the county councils were at the present moment dealing with it very successfully. The Vice-President had done his best during the last few years for the needs of rural education, and had satisfied them. There was no doubt hat our county councils were not composed of reactionary squires and farmers, as was suggested, whose desire was to hurry through the county business in order to get to market, but of public-spirited men of all classes, thoroughly representative of the men who sent them to occupy that
  506
  position, and who could deal thoroughly—through their technical education committees—with secondary education. There might be differences of opinion even among county councils as to how far they should undertake these duties, and though many county councils were willing now to undertake the supervision and regulation of these schools, there might be an opinion the other way. But he did not think there was any opinion in the county councils as to their incapacity to conduct higher education. Of course they would have to delegate this work to their technical instruction committees, which met much more frequently than the county councils themselves, and meeting without a quorum, the business was much more thoroughly done. He did not deny that in his opinion the Bill required amendment, but this was not the moment to indicate the direction in which this ought to be done. He did not think it right to continue on a single Amendment a Second Reading debate which had already occupied over two nights. He did not intend to make a Second Reading speech, and should confine himself to trying to improve the Bill.
  MR. LEVYsaid he had not intended to have intervened on the Committee stage of the Bill, and should not have done so but for the variety of opinions which had been expressed by hon. Gentlemen opposite. The Leader of the House had told the Committee that this measure was necessary because they could not legalise without a measure of this sort those schools which had been closed through the Cockerton judgment; they were told that it was a tentative measure only; but anybody reading the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Vice-President would be bound to admit that it was a direct insult to the school board system throughout the country. He thought if he took a few instances he would convince the Committee that in many cases there was a direct conflict. First of all the right hon. Gentleman fixed the age at fifteen years. There was no explanation—
  THE DEPUTY CHAIRMANsaid there was nothing as to the age of fifteen in

  507
  the Amendment, and that the hon. Member must confine his argument to the Amendment.
  MR. LEVYsaid yes, he agreed, but the Minute of July 3 must be read with the Bill. They had been accused of speaking political rubbish, but he thought the political rubbish came from the opposite side. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that at Cardiff, as a result of this Bill passing, 160 children would be turned out into the street.
  SIR J. GORST: I never said anything of the sort.
  MR. LEVYsaid the right hon. Gentleman would probably accept the correctness of The Times report, which stated there were 268 children in the schools, and that the result of the judgment, if carried out rigidly, would be to turn 160 of them out of the schools.
  SIR J. GORST: They would not be turned out into the street, they would find accommodation in the intermediate schools.
  MR. LEVYsaid Members on the opposition side of the House were interested in seeing that the 160 children were kept in the schools. The right hon. Gentleman had suggested that no harm would arise if 328 boys and girls in the schools were—
  THE DEPUTY CHAIRMANdirected the hon. Member's attention to the fact that he had already called him to order for discussing matters which were irrelevant.
  MR. LEVYsaid that in that case he would direct his remarks to the question of the education which had been described as cheap and shoddy and the question of overlapping. The right hon. Gentleman had said the overlapping was the cause of a great deal of the harm, and had brought about this problem in education. There were two systems of secondary education, and the competition had been created by the schools which had not been receiving
  508
  aid from rates, and not by those which were partially supported out of the rates; therefore there was no reason for that competition. The right hon. Gentleman would not, he apprehended, disown The Times.
  THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: I must call the attention of the hon. Member to the Standing Order with reference to repetition in debate. The right hon. Gentleman has explained what he has said, and it is the immemorial usage of this House to accept what is said by hon. Gentlemen and right hon. Gentlemen.
  MR. LEVYsaid he would not trouble the House further than to say that education had been carried on properly by the school board in the past. Women had taken great interest in education and had done good work in the cause, but by the system now proposed their influence would be subject to the veto of county and borough councils. He supported the Amendment because the work of the school boards would be crippled unless this sub-section was deleted.
  MR. SPEARsaid he proposed to support the principle of the Bill because it proposed to establish a central authority in the county. At present there were three systems for providing technical and secondary education in the county. There was the Technical Committee of the County Council, the School Board, and the School of Art. These three agents carried on the same work, and were often brought into opposition, and very frequently overlapped each other's work and area. Therefore he recognised in the establishment of a good central authority a true foundation for the dissemination of secondary education throughout the country. He should not take this position if he thought it was antagonistic to school boards. The school boards had certainly done work in the direction of secondary education, and in many instances very good work, and he should be sorry to see it stopped. Nevertheless they had no legal mandate from the country to do this work, and he therefore failed to see that any

  509
  insult was being put upon them by the Bill. He ventured to hope that none of the good work which some school boards had carried on would be hindered or vetoed by the county councils, but it would be the means of extending to other school boards who had not touched the subject at all the advantage of providing secondary education. They also wanted to see the boy who attended the voluntary school having the same advantage of secondary education as the boy who attended the board school. This they could not have without some central authority. He should, however, object to the extension of any increased powers to voluntary schools without public control. In the establishment of a county authority they provided that control, at least, for secondary education purposes. He supported the principle of the Bill. It was a principle of decentralisation. He believed that the local authority could be better trusted to deal with the matter than the Education Board. The system of our education in rural districts had hitherto been a failure. It tended to denude our rural districts of their population, and he believed that the establishment of a county authority as the fountain head of secondary education in that county would encourage the youths of the rural districts to excel in the principles of agriculture. Hon. Gentlemen opposite, who accused supporters of the Government of being opposed to education, forgot that it was a Unionist Government that provided free education for the masses of the people, and it was the Unionists who first recognised the importance of secondary education. He did not say the Bill was perfect; he looked upon it as a temporary measure, and reserved his right to support any Amendment on it.
  MR. BRIGGsaid the speech of the hon. Gentleman who spoke last was of such a nature that he largely supported his views. At the same time he would like to say a few words. Take the Bill as it stood. It could not be said to be a real Bill, because it was only a temporary measure, and it would not be worth while for any county council to suggest any alterations
  510
  for so short a period. At the same time there was a certain amount of authority delegated to county councils in the way of disposing of the money which came from the Education Department, and they had the power to hand over to the different committees the money paid in to them by the South Kensington Department. But in that case no option was given them as to the payment. He could not see why in this case the same power should not be given by substituting the word "must" for "may."
  The county council with which he was connected had recently called its technical education committee together, and the whole of the provisions of this Bill were explained to them. Upon the proposal that the county council should take up the work allotted to it, twelve voted in favour of the Bill, and nine against, but that was immediately followed by a rider that such an arrangement should be of only a temporary character, until another education authority was formed, and upon that point the voting was absolutely unanimous. It was impossible to consider this Bill without looking beyond it. One had to consider whether the county councils as at present constituted were a suitable authority for taking over the work of elementary education. On that point he was clearly of opinion that they were not properly qualified for such duties. The councils which were at present doing their duty in regard to technical instruction, and looking after the interests of education gererally, had really so much to do that it was impossible for them to take over to any extent the work connected with elementary instruction. It had been said that the work might be delegated by the county councils to the school boards, but his opinion was that the school boards would refuse to act as committees under the direction of the county council. The councils which were not efficient, and which did not know much about the work, were the ones that would be most likely to desire to take an active part in elementary instruction, and this unfortunate clause would give them the power to interfere very seriously with the work of the school boards. Two other objections to the proposal were that it was exceedingly difficult to get good men to do the work,

  511
  and the fact that eventually the religious question would be imported into county council elections. The latter objection could hardly be avoided, and it would seriously interfere with the ordinary work of the county councils. He therefore thought it would be a wise thing to omit this sub-section, and leave the school boards to do the elementary work, as at present.
  MR. HOLLANDsaid he should like in a few words to express his approval of the Amendment which the Committee were now considering, and he did so on the ground which he thought was common to all Members on that side of the House, namely, that he wished the school boards to be allowed to continue without let or hindrance the work in which they were at present engaged. He had received, as he knew many other Members had received, during the last few weeks, many resolutions and petitions from his constituents, the burden of which had been that the school boards should be empowered to maintain, on their own authority and out of the school funds, the higher grade and evening continuation schools, which had been affected by the Cockerton judgment. He thought they were all agreed that since 1870 there had been no time of such severe trial to the school boards as the present. What had school boards done to deserve such treatment at the hands of the Government? Their work during the last thirty years should have entitled them to more consideration and better treatment. He had himself formerly the honour of being a member of a technical instruction committee, which had been repeatedly described in the debate as one of the most competent and best equipped of any technical instruction committee in the country—the technical instruction committee in connection with the Manchester City Council. He was a member of that body for many years, and he doubted whether they would thank the Vice-President for a proposal which would add enormously to their duties. Certainly, judging by the personnel of the committee when he was a member of it, they would have been very averse to having this additional responsibility added to their
  512
  already onerous duties. Many efforts had been made in various speeches from the Government side of the House to minimise the importance of the Bill. It had been described over and over again as an incomplete measure. But a little Bill might do a great wrong, and hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House were agreed that the effect of the Bill would be to switch on to the wrong line the whole educational system of the country. Did anybody think that such a Bill as this would ever have been possible if the Vice-Presidency of the Council had been today occupied by the right hon. Member for Dartford? Still less would such a proposal have had the smallest chance of being brought forward had the Vice-Presidency been filled by the former occupant of that position—the Right Hon. Arthur Acland. It had been mentioned in the course of the debate that the Leeds School Board and the Gates-head School Board had taken some hostile action in consequence of the attitude of the Vice-President. He could add another school board to that list, and he had no doubt very many other hon. Members could also mention instances where school boards had taken action. At the Rotherham School Board meeting last week it was decided to close the continuation school because it declined to go cap in hand to the county council. He noticed that one of the most influential members of the school board on the occasion in question condemned very strongly the attitude of the Vice-President, and used some rather scathing language, for he said he thought that attitude more worthy of a comic opera by Gilbert and Sullivan, and that the Vice-President must have had his tongue in his cheek when he was making some of his recent speeches. But that censure was not more severe than had been meted out to the Vice-President by experts on his own side of the House. If such a Bill had been brought forward with regard to Scotch school boards, what a hub-bub would very quickly have arisen! The wrangle which had recently been going on must have robbed English educational institutions of a great deal of their prestige in the eyes of Scotch Members, who were

  513
  naturally impatient that so much time should be wasted in discussing a question which they had settled in so much more enlightened a manner.
  MR. GODDARDsaid that it had been stated that the school boards had no legal mandate to carry on the work affected by the Cockerton judgment. By what authority, then, had they done this work? Was the Code, issued year by year by the Education Department, not to be considered as a legal mandate? That was the authority under which the schools earned their grants, and it was the legal mandate which told them how far they might go and what they must leave out. It must have been forgotten that for years the Education Department had fostered the very kind of scheme which was now condemned. In future, apparently, the Code of the Education Department was to be considered as having no legal bearing at all. What was the reason for this sub-section? No doubt a difficulty had arisen in regard to these schools, and the purport of the Bill was to tide over the difficulty until a complete measure could be brought in dealing with the whole question of secondary education, and, presumably, elementary education also. That object could easily be accomplished by the second subsection of the Bill, with certain alterations. All that was needed was to allow the school boards to carry on the work which they had hitherto carried on so successfully, for another twelve months there was no occasion for anything further. But this was something more than a continuation Bill; it was nothing less than a complete subversion of the Education Act of 1870. That Act clearly foresaw one great fact of human nature. It foresaw that if the precepts of the school boards had to be submitted to the borough councils there would always be persons on those bodies elected for the simple purpose of keeping down the rates—men who did not care two straws about education, who had no thought for the higher instruction of the people, and who would deal with the precepts of the school boards in such a way as to render the work inefficient. It was the fact that the precepts could not be revised by borough councils that
  514
  had made the work of the school boards so successful all over the country. As soon as the school boards began to grapple with the educational difficulty they saw there must be something to follow the purely elementary teaching, and therefore, in order to save the children from being cast on the streets, and to provide a kind of stepping stone to technical and more thorough secondary education, the higher grade and continuation classes were established. The schools had been marvellously successful, whether considered from the point of view of the number of scholars or the amount of the grants earned. They had not arisen suddenly, and there was nothing underhand in the way in which they had come into existence. They had been approved by successive Governments, Liberal and Tory, and they had the sanction and applause of the Education Department. The Secondary Education Commission had never suggested that these schools should be crippled or extinguished, but that they should be co-ordinated. He was afraid that while the word "co-ordinate" was on the lips of many hon. Members who supported this Bill, the word "subordinate" was in their hearts. It was not the fact that the school boards had done too much that required this subsection. The real fact was that the law had been behind the age, and the duty of the Government was to improve the law and bring it up to the level of our educational needs. If the youths of the country were to be trained to fight and compete in the great industrial struggles of the world, the last thing that should be done was to cripple or in any sense to annihilate these schools. He could not understand why this opposition to the board schools had sprung up, or why it should be considered necessary, after all these years, to place them under the control of another authority. He could only conclude that their very success had drawn this attention upon them. The school boards were now being blamed and punished for "exceeding their proper scope," whereas the real culprits were the Government, who had neglected to improve the law to meet the real necessities of the case. He had not a word to say against the technical schools of this country. He knew the

  515
  good work the school boards were doing for the boys and girls in the elementary schools, and his point was that those boys and girls could not enter technical schools successfully without some preparation. An intermediate step was required, and it was not supplied by the Technical Instruction Committee. That intermediate step was supplied by the higher grade schools and the evening continuation schools, which were the stepping stones to higher education.
  MR. YOXALLsaid that when the Vice-President of the Council attempted to put his scheme into one small sub-section he was bound to meet with difficulties too great for him to cope with successfully, and he felt sure that this Bill would destroy the right hon. Gentleman's position as an educationist and Minister of Education. Before the present Bill became law the price paid for it in the time of the House would be very great indeed. He supported the omission of this sub-section because he thought that this question ought not to be decided by a sidewind in such an indirect, hasty, and cowardly way. Whether the principle was good or bad the remaining portions of the sub-section did not meet the situation in a satisfactory way. He contended that the dates mentioned in the subsection were inadequate for the purpose sought to be attained, and that the period specified was too late to arrange for the coming session of the continuation schools. The subsection did not give time to county councils and school boards to come to an agreement or a far opportunity to decide whether the schools should or should not go on. It was, indeed, useless and improper for its purpose, and although it might be forced through by a party vote and the use of the closure, it would do harm instead of good, because it would cause both sides of the House to discuss next session the larger Bill with anger, exasperation, and prejudice. They had been promised that next session education would have a very prominent place in the programme of the Government, and the President of the Board of Trade has also promised to bring in a great London Water Bill, which
  516
  would, no doubt, take up a good deal of time.
  THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Order, order The hon. Member is not in order in referring to future legislation.
  MR. YOXALLsaid they had listened to a very remarkable speech from the right hon. Member for Dartford, who had stated that this question was really a departmental question. That was how this subject ought to have been treated, and any other Minister would have treated it as such; and had this been done there would have been no need for this Bill at all. If they had had at the Board of Education a Minister of the type of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dartford, this would have been treated as a departmental question, and it would have been settled as such. Perhaps the greatest objection of all to this sub-section was that it limited its operation to the schools in existence last season, and made no provision for the extension of the schools. With regard to evening continuation schools, the limit was absolute, and that was a very strong reason why Sub-section 1 should be withdrawn. If this were done, then the school boards could go on according to the limitation laid down by the Code, and the liabilities they had already incurred could be condoned and approved by the Local Government Board. It was obvious that this sub-section was not wanted at all. Speaking generally, he was not averse to the Bill, because it proposed the setting up of an educational authority other than the school board; he would be content to see the school board cease to exist if satisfied of the advantage of that which would take its place. He would be content to see the school board merged into another authority if a plan were submitted by which the whole system of education would be comprehensively dealt with. But the Bill presented no such plan in the place of a system which had produced excellent work. They did not stand up for the school board system as a system alone, but because that system had produced excellent results, in spite of the sneers and inaccuracies of the right hon. Gentleman. Neither in the

  517
  Bill nor in the speeches in its support did he find encouragement for the belief that an authority would be set up capable of doing the work school boards had done. They had had during the debate several interpolated speeches—
  SIR J. GORST: I beg the hon. Member's pardon. I have never interposed except to explain some misrepresentation.
  MR. YOXALLsaid he was quite sure that it was very necessary that the right hon. Gentleman should explain some of the views he had expressed. The First Lord of the Treasury had launched against the Opposition the accusation that their views were tinted by the party spectacles which they wore, and that they were actuated by party motives, and not by a sincere sympathy with the cause of education. [Ministerial cries of "Hear, hear!"] That imputation he indignantly repudiated. The First Lord of the Treasury had referred to two Bills, and he had stated that the Bill of 1896 was opposed by the Opposition for party reasons.
  THE DEPUTY CHAIRMANOrder, order! The hon. Member must confine himself to the question under discussion.
  MR. YOXALLsaid he regretted that he was not allowed to refer to the speech of the First Lord of the Treasury. [Ministerial cries of "Order, order!" and Opposition cheers.] He regretted that the Deputy Chairman would not allow him to clear certain hon. Members on the Opposition side from the imputation that in opposing the Bill of 1896 they were actuated by party motives. Perhaps he might be permitted to repudiate entirely the suggestion that in dealing with this particular Bill they were actuated by any party feeling at all. His great desire was to set up a new local authority for all forms of education, constituted in such a way as to be enabled to deal with all existing schools, and so that all school boards could come into the system. This section of the Bill, however, dealt with school boards in such a way that it would set up a permanent irritation and put an obstacle in the way
  518
  of a comprehensive system in the future. He wished to point out to the hon. Member for Tavistock that if the school boards possessed no statutory powers for secondary education, none were possessed by the Technical Instruction Committees. He thought that the right hon. Gentleman would find when he came to study his Bill more carefully that part of it referred to certain Committees under what was known as Clause 7, which by the signed manual of the right hon. Gentleman was created into a kind of local authority.
  SIR J. GORST: No, no!
  MR. YOXALLsaid he was strong in his belief that his interpretation was right, and that the right hon. Gentleman was wrong. This sub-section of Clause I was entirely unworkable. It proposed to impose a non-statutory authority upon a statutory authority as far as secondary education was concerned, and to transfer the powers of the one rating authority to another. A simple method of dealing with the difficulty would have been to introduce a Suspensory Bill, until a comprehensive measure could have been dealt with. If the right hon. Gentleman who advised and misadvised the Government, who led and misled them, had done his duty he would have maintained and sustained and continued during his own administration that which former administrators had deliberately done from year to year ever since 1874. They were suffering in the schools because they had not had from the Government a simple and obvious solution of a difficulty which, in other hands, would have been solved in a very brief space of time indeed.
  MR. CORRIE GRANTsaid that the Committee stage of this Bill had been brought on so quickly that there had not been time allowed for the county councils or the school boards to make their voices heard upon this question. The opinion of every authority which could be obtained was certainly valuable in helping them to arrive at a correct decision upon the matter before the House. He wished to call attention to the opinion which

  519
  was expressed by the chairman of the Surrey County Council upon another Bill, which contained the same principle as the Bill before the House. Writing to the Standard on December 9, 1895, he said—
  "I hope that county councils generally will show, with no uncertain voice, their disinclination to have this new duty thrust on them of controlling the expenditure of school boards, which bodies, like themselves, directly represent the ratepayers and whose money they spend. It would indeed be an invidious office."
  That was an opinion from Surrey. Next he would take the great county of Northampton. At the meeting of the Northamptonshire County Council only last week, a resolution was passed as follows:—"That this Council asks His Majesty's Government not to place upon the council the invidious duty of deciding as to the continuance or discontinuance of any kind of education which has hitherto been provided by the school board." Alderman Dulley, who moved that resolution, and who (he was told) was not an opponent of the Government in politics, said that the proper place for the settlement of this question was the school board, and that any appeal they wished to make could be taken, as now, to the Board of Education.
  Hon. Members opposite had given four different reasons for supporting the Bill. The first reason, and it was a most admirable and satisfactory one from the point of view of hon. Members opposite, was that of the hon. Member for Newcastle, who said he supported the Bill because the Government brought it in; but it was not a satisfactory reason to a single Member on the Opposition side of the House, and he doubted if it was satisfactory to some of the educationists on the opposite benches. The second reason, which was given by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dartford, was that this was a mere departmental matter. If it was a departmental matter his argument was in favour of the Amendment, because that proposed to leave the matter to the school boards, who had hitherto carried it out. The third argument was that of the First Lord of the Treasury, and although it was sometimes difficult
  520
  to discover where the fallacy of his argument lay, there was no difficulty at all in this case, for the subject of education was avowedly one to which he had paid very litttle attention. The right hon. Gentleman began by stating certain things that they were agreed upon. There was nothing more delusive than this process of putting propositions to which people were agreed. It was constantly done by the conjuror who played tricks in the exhibition hall. "You see this is an apple," and nobody denied it, and then at the next stage came the deception by which the people were deceived. The right hon. Gentleman said the school boards used to carry on these higher grade classes; next that the courts, by the Cockerton judgment, had decided that they could no longer be permitted to carry them on, and then he went on to say that we were all agreed that it was impossible to deal in this session with the difficulty. That was where the fallacy of the argument lay. There was no difficulty at all in dealing adequately with the situation, the difficulty lay in settling and establishing the principle to be followed. The answer was that the Amendment dealt adequately with the difficulty. The right hon. Gentleman next said there were only two courses open to them—they must either entrust this matter to the school boards or to the county councils. His answer to that was that there was third course. They need not entrust it to the school boards or the county councils, they could entrust it to the Department. That was the course which the Amendment proposed. The next point which the right hon. Gentleman made was that he could not believe the calumny that the school hoards would write over the doors of their schools, "Closed by the action of the Education Department." What was the resolution quoted only a few minutes afterwards by the hon. Member for the Rotherham Division? Why, that the Rotherham School Board, because of their experience in going to the county council on previous occasions, had now declined to go to the county council under this Bill, and would prefer to shut up their schools. That was the difficulty they were certain to meet with—they were going

  521
  to stir up old animosities. It was not every county council and every school board that worked amicably together, and whenever there had been harsh treatment on one side or the other, they were going to bring these old feelings into action in order to prevent the education of the children. That was not a calumny on the school boards. It was only an acknowledgment that where they had been harshly treated in the past they could not be expected to work smoothly now.
  The hon. Gentleman the Member for South Islington had spoken of the municipal association of which he was the head. That association had by reason of its character drawn to it all the progressive bodies in the country, but it left out of calculation altogether the backward corporations who did not wish to be dictated to by a central body in London and who wished to go on in their own slow, unprogressive way. The fourth argument in favour of the Bill was put forward by the hon. Member for the Tavistock Division—that it established a local central authority. He did not know where the hon. Member found that provided for in the Bill, and he did not think any one would find that it was there. There was one other argument started in favour of the Bill, although he did not think it was a reason at all. The hon. Member for Plymouth had stated that the Bill was a step in advance. If so, what was it an advance from? This Bill only proposed to continue existing schools for a single year, and it invited the county authority to cut down the work if they liked. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Aberdeen was challenged by the First Lord of the Treasury and the Vice-President of the Council to show where the Bill contained an invitation to cut down the work. Anyone who was used to Acts of Parliament had only to look at the Bill to see that it was a direct invitation to cut down and destroy the work of the school boards. The clause with the verbiage taken out would read as follows:—"Where a school board has, during 1901, illegally maintained any school or class the county council or county borough may empower the school board to carry on the work of the school or class."
  522
  Under those words alone the county council or county borough would, therefore, be able to give or refuse consent. The clause then went on that they might empower the school board "to such an extent and on such terms," and both of these were limiting phrases. He did not think the Vice-President would say that this was not a limiting clause. It certainly was not an extending clause. The clause set up several alternatives. The local authorities might empower the school boards to go on as before, and the hon. Member for South Islington had assured the Committee that the bulk of the county councils would generally approve of the school boards going on as before. If they would, it was far better that the work should be in the hands of the Department, which was already conversant with it, than that it should be handed over to new bodies which were inexperienced. The next alternative was that they might refuse permission to go on, and in that case what about the schools which the First Lord said would not be closed? There was no appeal, and the schools must be closed. He supposed if the schools were closed under these conditions, and the school board were to write over the portals "Closed by order of the Government," the First Lord of the Treasury would get up and say it was a calumny, that it was not his work, and that they were closed in the face of what he wanted. The third alternative was that the county councils might give permission to "such extent as might be agreed upon" to carry on the schools. After getting details in the shape of balance-sheets and estimates from the school boards they might, if they chose, refuse permission to carry on some of the schools. A fourth alternative was that they might refuse to deal with the matter altogether, not because they did not wish to see the school board doing its work, but because they thought the right way of doing the work was to keep it in the hands of the school board, and that was the only way in which they could make a really effective protest against any proposals the Government might bring forward next session. Was it satisfactory that there should be the possibility of differences in dealing with a matter of this kind when there was

  523
  a short and simple way out of the difficulty provided by the Amendment? The right hon. Gentleman the Vice-President in the course of his speech last week had said—
  "I particularly looked into the case of Cardiff, because the chairman of the Cardiff School Board came up and had an interview with my noble friend the Lord President of the Council, and said we were going to turn 300 clever children of the working classes into the streets. What were the facts?"
  That was the pleasant way in which the right hon. Gentleman dealt with the chairman of one of the great school boards of the country. Having quoted a statement made by the latter Gentleman when leading the deputation to the Duke of Devonshire, the right hon. Gentleman went on to say, "What are the facts?" He doubted whether he would be in order if he dealt with the speech of the right hon. Gentleman in the same way. He was going to bring before the House what were the actual facts, because, although the right hon. Gentleman said he had got the facts, he did not seem to have made a very careful investigation. He would quote presently from the gentleman whom the right hon. Gentleman had so insidiously attacked, and who had done something to make the facts a little more clear. "What are the facts?" asked the right hon. Gentleman, and then he went on—
  "There are 268 altogether in the School of Science. Of these 160 only are over fifteen years of age, and these forty-five only are in the advanced course, so that the result of the judgment, if carried out most rigidly, would be the exclusion of 160 children only from the school; and exclusion of only forty-five who are taking the advanced course; and the whole of these young people could be provided for in the Welsh intermediate school in the same town."
  Now, what was the reply of the chairman of the Cardiff School Board to the right hon. Gentleman on this matter? He did not suppose the right hon. Gentleman had seen it himself, but he would find it in that day's Daily Chronicle. He was not going to read the whole of the letter, because there were certain passages in it which he was sure would be condemned in this House as too strong language, although after the direct attack the right hon. Gentleman had
  524
  made on the chairman of the school board the right hon. Gentleman need not be surprised that that gentleman should make a retort. He did not wish to associate himself with these passages in the letter, but only with the chairman's contradiction on matters of fact.
  THE DEPUTY CHAIRMANsaid the hon. Member would not be in order in going beyond the scope of the Amendment before the Committee.
  MR. CORRIE GRANTsaid he was only referring to a statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Vice-President of the Council on the First Reading of the Bill, and which had been quoted that evening by the hon. Member for the Loughborough Division, as to the provision for the children in the intermediate school in Cardiff. He wished to show that the right hon. Gentleman had not looked carefully into the facts, or had not brought them forward as they existed.
  THE DEPUTY CHAIRMANsaid that the hon. Member could not proceed in the line he was taking.
  MR. CORRIE GRANTsaid he did not intend to dispute the Chairman's ruling, but might he ask, as a matter of instruction, if figures were quoted on one side of the House, was it not in order to quote figures to prove that the first were wrong?
  THE DEPUTY CHAIRMANsaid he had only to deal with what was in order at the present moment.
  MR. CORRIE GRANTsaid he was not dealing with previous stages of the Bill, but with figures quoted that night when the right hon. Gentleman the Vice-President rose to his feet and insisted on his hon. friend reading on.
  THE DEPUTY CHAIRMANsaid that that referred to another matter.
  MR. CORRIE GRANTsaid he hoped he had sufficient knowledge of the proceedings of the House to obey the

  525
  Chairman's ruling; but he might be permitted to say that he trusted that the right hon. Gentleman the Vice-President would read the letter of the Chairman of the Cardiff School Board for himself, and that he would correct his own figures when he found that these were wrong. The hon. Member for Plymouth objected to the phrase "Suspensory Bill," and said that he did not know what a Suspensory Bill was. He agreed that if the language in this House was to be criticised with the accuracy of an indictment at quarter sessions, "Suspensory" was not sufficiently accurate; but the phrase? expressed what they wanted to be done. They wanted to suspend the Cockerton judgment. Perhaps the correct phrase would be an "overriding" and not a "suspensory" Bill, although the criticism of his hon. friend went a little too far considering the circumstances of the case. But the hon. Gentleman went on to say that they, on that side of the House, objected to a Bill that would continue the present state of things. The hon. Member was speaking in entire ignorance. Why, the hon. Baronet the Member for the Northern Division of Cheshire had before Easter brought in a Bill which proposed to do exactly what the hon. Member had referred to, viz., continue the present state of things, and that Bill had been cordially supported on that side of the House. Therefore, when the hon. Member said that such a Bill would not be supported on that side of the House, he was speaking of what was not the fact. In regard to the franchise, the hon. Member said that the borough council franchise was more directly representative and better than the school board franchise, because the school board franchise had the cumulative vote. That was quite correct, but the hon. member forgot that the register on which the school boards were elected, was usually a twelvemonth fresher than that on which the county councils and the borough councils were elected, and, therefore, they got more closely the opinion of the people. He himself was not in favour of the cumulative vote, but if they were going to argue this question on small points let them have the whole of the small points brought out. There was no hope to be drawn from the
  526
  speech of the right hon. the First Lord of the Treasury as to the future of education in this country. The right hon. Gentleman had evidently in his mind the Bill which had failed, and the measure which was going to fail. The reason that the Bill had failed was because the Government had never taken the advice of educationists, even on their own side of the House; their object was not to advance the broad general interests of education throughout the country, but to help voluntary education and to bring over children to a particular sect. If the First Lord would take his courage in both hands at once, as they had never seen him do in regard to education, and if he would come out from among the little circle of people round him, if he would read the evidence laid before the Royal Commission on Secondary Education, if he would even have a précis of that evidence prepared for him and carefully consider it, or if he would consult the reports which came from the United States and Germany as to the lines on which education ran in these countries, or content himself with scanning the records of the manner in which education was dealt with in any one of our colonies, he would then see whether no lessons were to be learned from them for the benefit of the mother country, and they might then see a Bill which would be of some real benefit to the community.
  The most painful thing about the whole situation was that when they came to deal with education they had, instead of great measures, mere flimsy Bills like this trying to turn the current of education into channels into which it did not want to go, and spectacles like that which they had witnessed in 1896. The Bill of that year was not defeated by the force of the Opposition, but by the failure of the Ministerialists; it was defeated not by the strength of its enemies, but by the feebleness of its friends; it was an Amendment from the Ministerial benches which finally made an end of it. It might be there were men on the Ministerial benches who were more devoted to the cause of education than some of the men on the Opposition benches; but, at any rate, the best educationists on either side of the House were equal in every respect in their earnest

  527
  devotion to the cause of education. And yet when men on both sides of the House were willing to join hands in order to get a really effective measure of education, they had the First Lord of the Treasury throwing across the floor of the House taunts not worthy of the front bench. They were told that they were talking "political rubbish." What did that amount to? Would the right hon. Gentleman, as a controversialist, even in his first year in this House, have paid any attention to a phrase like that? That was the sort of thing one heard in a debating society. They all talked in that way twenty or thirty years ago in the Hardwicke Society and places of that kind, where strong language told more than argument, and where loud denunciatory speeches were what everybody enjoyed. Surely they had not descended to that? Where would language such as that of the First Lord of the Treasury lead them? It helped nothing except to encourage those on that side of the House in their opposition to the Bill. Moreover, it was one of those half truths which were not true. Of course there was a great deal of rubbish—political rubbish—talked on both sides of the House. He ventured to say that the Vice-President must have heard speeches from his own friends which were not quite the thing he would have liked to have heard. Political rubbish, again, depended upon the standpoint of the man who made the observations. No one questioned the capacity of the right hon. Gentleman in some matters; but would any educationist in the country mind a criticism of that kind coming from the First Lord of the Treasury? When had he shown any real knowledge of the needs of the people as regarded education; when had he shown any real sympathy with their wants? When the Vice-President spoke of a police-constable of mature years working away in an evening school in order to perfect himself in handwriting, he should have thought that that was a thing that would have appealed to the heart of any man. But the First Lord cheered and laughed and enjoyed the sneers of the Vice-President and his ridicule of such a moving incident. When hon. Members of the House talked about political rubbish, they would be judged by their
  528
  past in regard to education. He ventured to say that the people would seriously consider who was to blame when they found their schools closed, and when even constables were no longer able to get the education they wanted to qualify themselves for the promotion to which they aspired, they would not take kindly to the sneers of the right hon. Gentleman.
  There was one other phrase of the First Lord of the Treasury to which he wished to refer. The right hon. Gentleman said that he did not believe that this Bill would check education. But when the right hon. Gentleman set a large number of authorities to deal with a single proposition, did he expect the whole of them to deal with it in the same way? Did anybody ever know all local authorities to deal with any question in the same way? He would give an illustration. The right hon. Gentleman knew the importance of main roads. Well, there was a clause in the Local Government Act, 1888, which provided that local authorities might deal with the main roads in several alternative ways, and the local authorities took every possible method of dealing with them; they used every alternative in the Act. They would do exactly the same with this Education Bill. One authority would give the school boards a free hand to do what they liked another authority would ask for accounts and bank books and submit them to rigid examination, and check every expenditure, and arrest progress. Another would say, "We entirely approve of the school board having charge of elementary education, but our technical system is the best for the higher grade schools." And yet the right hon. Gentleman said that this Bill was not going to check education! The right hon. Gentleman said that it would only shut up the bad schools; but that suggested another question to his mind. How was it that there were bad schools? Why had they not been shut up? Where was the control of the Vice President? Did he leave all this to the President of the Council, and did he not attend to it himself? If there were bad schools the Department ought to have found it out long ago, and as to shutting them up, how were the county councils, with a fortnight to obtain information,

  529
  to find, out which were the bad schools when the Vice-President had not discovered them in all these years with all the resources of his Department at his command? The right hon. Gentleman told them that this Bill was intended to help these schools; but, if so, why were two words omitted? When the Bill said that the county councils or the borough councils "may empower the school board to carry on for the period of one year from that day the work of the school or class," they ought to have had after the words "carry on" the words "or extend." He should not argue this point now, because on a later Amendment they would have the opportunity of testing the real value of the statement of the First Lord, of the Treasury, that he was anxious to do all that he could to encourage education, and only to shut up the bad schools. A statement had been made by the hon. Member for Leicester, which had been questioned with a good deal of violence, that they knew no politics in education; but the fact was so, and there was an illustration ready to hand, known to every Member of the House. What were the facts in regard to the London School Board? Who was the leader of the Progressive party on the London School Board? Mr. Lyulph Stanley, a Unionist. Who was the Chairman of the Works Committee? Lord Morpeth, a Unionist, who stood as a Unionist candidate at the last election. Who was the Chairman of the Finance Committee? Sir Charles Elliott, a Conservative.
  THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Order, order.
  It being Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his report to the House.
  Committee report progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

  COURSE OF BUSINESS.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think the House will probably continue the discussion of this Bill under more satisfactory conditions with a Chairman of full
  530
  powers in the Chair, as it is not for our credit that scenes such as we have had to-night should be repeated.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: In the tumult of astonishment which arose from the right hon. Gentleman's statement, we did not hear when this Bill was to be taken or what was to be taken tomorrow.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I did not say what was to be taken to-morrow. If the right hon. Gentleman desires to know what will be taken to-morrow, or rather this day, it will be Supply, class 2, Vote 16, the Local Government Board; then the Board of Agriculture, and then the Houses of Parliament, and the remaining Votes.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I think there is some ground for protest against the proposal to take two important Votes of Supply at a notice of a few hours, when a distinctly different order of business has been announced so recently as the early part of this day Hon. Members deeply interested in the Local Government Board, and not concerning themselves with the Education Bill, may have gone for a holiday. It is usual that Votes of Supply should be put down at reasonable notice, in order to prevent their being smuggled through the House in the absence of those most interested in them. However, I content myself with a protest, but I confess to being astonished at the change of programme, especially on the very flimsy ground, as alleged, of the inefficiency of the Chairman who has presided over the debate to-night [Ministerial cries of "No, no."], because I never heard a Chairman who was more capable of exercising with extreme rigidity the powers he possesses. We are in the hands of the Government, and if they think it desirable in the interests of their Bill to have a week's or a fortnight's delay in the middle of this debate I am astonished at their opinion; but I quite acquiesce.
  MR. SAMUEL EVANS: On the point of order,

  531
  Mr. Speaker, must not the right hon. Gentleman name a day?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have named Monday.

  SUPPLY [JULY 12TH].
  Resolution reported.
CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES, 1901–2.

  Class IV.
  "That a sum, not exceeding £705,771 (including a supplementary sum of £5,000), be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1902, for the Expenses of the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland, including a Grant in Aid of the Teachers' Pension Fund, Ireland."
  Resolution read a second time.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid he desired to ask the Chief Secretary whether certain circumstances had been brought to his notice in connection with the training college in Marlborough Street, Dublin, which was under the National Board of Education. That college had been in existence nearly as long as the Board of Education itself. It was strictly undenominational, and was attended by students who were Roman Catholics, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, and Methodists. The residence for men was in Great George's Street, and consisted of two or three tenement houses which were a perfect disgrace, and to which the attention of the sanitary authorities ought long since to have been called. He had gone over the whole of the houses, and he thought the Chief Secretary would be driven to admit that they were not places where the students ought to be lodged. At the house in Talbot Street for the female students there had been so much illness that it had been found necessary to take a health resort for them at Glasnevin. That was a state of affairs which ought not to continue to exist. So long as the National Board of Education was in
  532
  existence—and he did not care how soon it went out of existence—so long as it pretended to manage a college for the training of teachers, the students were entitled to decent treatment. In 1891 they were promised something like decent treatment, but they had not got what was promised by the First Lord of the Treasury. It was the duty of the board to see that the students were properly taken care of and provided for. He begged formally to move the reduction of the Vote by £100.
  Amendment proposed,—
  "To leave out '£705,771,' and insert '£705,671' instead thereof."—(Mr. T. W. Russell.)
  Question proposed. "That £705,771' stand part of the Resolution.'
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELLsaid that the question raised by the hon. Member for South Tyrone was a very important one, which ought to receive the consideration of the Chief Secretary. He could speak from experience and from intimate acquaintance with the college buildings, that their condition was a disgrace to the Board of Education. He had lived in these houses, and had only been too glad to get out of them with his life. No matter whether these students were Catholics, or Episcopalians, or Presbyterians they were to be the teachers of the youth of Ireland, and the Board of Education ought to take more interest in their training and the conditions under which that training was carried on. But this was only one of the many charges which could be brought against the Board and the officials of the Board. The members of the Board had no interest whatever in the great work with which they were charged. He had heard, a few days ago, of a member of the Board who had never attended a meeting of the Board for fifteen years, but who had been whipped up for some particular occasion in order to give his vote. About twelve months ago this gentleman was waited upon by a deputation of teachers in Belfast who wanted his support for a change in the regulations of the new scheme. The gentleman listened to what the

  533
  deputation had to say, and then he asked, "Has there been any new scheme? I have never heard of it." That was a specimen of the gentlemen who were supposed to direct the educational destinies of their country. His ignorance was on a par with the negligence and incapacity of the permanent officials, who did all in their power to block Irish education. Dr. Walsh had always taken a keen interest in education, and had brought to his work a trained intelligence, as he had been a teacher himself, and, moreover, he had a great love for the people. After working for a number of years as a member of the Board, and effecting a number of reforms, he found his efforts practically useless, because the officials of the Board blocked him on every hand. His grace resigned his position on the Board, but not till he had exhausted all his patience; he said that it was impossible to set matters right from within, and he took the course which it was to be hoped would lead to setting matters right from without. When the new scheme of education was introduced complaints were forwarded to the Board from no fewer than 3,000 teachers who had been injuriously affected, but these were all left in the hands of one official, the Assistant Financial Secretary; and only 300 of these complaints had been attended to, the rest having been thrown into the waste-paper basket. It was the business of the Board to have made careful inquiry into all these complaints, and to have found out whether there was justice in the complaints made. The question of the residual grant had also not received the attention which it deserved from the Chief Secretary. The teachers claimed the balance of that residual grant, amounting to over £18,000, which had been withheld from them. They had been told that all the money that was due had been paid in April, 1901, but such was not the fact, and if the Chief Secretary were to go into that branch of the question, he was sure that the right hon. Gentleman would agree with Dr. Walsh. It was a blunder of an official who now adhered to his statement that the money was not due. Of course, when an official Plundered he was always backed up from the Treasury Bench. Was that the way to set matters right? He trusted that the debate on Friday night last and that
  534
  night would show the House and the people of Ireland that the education of Ireland should not be entrusted to men who had shown themselves so hopelessly incompetent, They had proved their case for an inquiry into the conduct of the Board of Education in Ireland, but their demands for inquiry and reform had been denied by the British House of Commons. The people of Ireland should take the matter into their own hands, and the sooner the Board of Education was swept away and the education of Irish children was placed in the hands of the representatives of the people the better it would be for Ireland and the easier it would be for the House of Commons.
  COLONEL SAUNDERSONsaid he entirely sympathised with the remarks of the hon. Member for South Tyrone with regard to the condition of the residences in connection with Marl-borough Street Training College. He was sure the Chief Secretary would give an assurance to the House that some steps would be taken to prevent the unfortunate persons, who would become school teachers in Ireland, if they survived the sanitary conditions which existed at present, from being obliged to live in such places. He was perfectly certain that in England, Scotland, or Wales these conditions would not be tolerated for a moment, and he did not see why Irish students should be subjected to them. The condition of the tenements was a scandalous grievance which could not be defended by anybody.
  MR. SPEAKER: The question of the buildings comes under the Vote in Class 1, and not Class 4. The present Vote refers to administration and salaries.
  MR. DILLONsaid he would not enter into the question in detail. He would only allude to the question of the buildings as a very striking illustration of the gross neglect of their business by the Board.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is proceeding to discuss the buildings. He should defer his observations on that

  535
  subject to Class 1, as they are not suitable on this Vote.
  MR. DILLON: We are in rather an awkward position as regards the Amendment. I understood that the Amendment was moved for the purpose of calling attention to this matter.
  MR. SPEAKER: On the Report stage there can be but one Amendment.
  MR. DILLONsaid he did not propose to go over the ground which was traversed pretty fully on Friday. He did not think it would be possible now to have a discussion on the general condition of education in Ireland, which, of course, they could not enter upon on Friday last, because the whole of the time was occupied on one matter—the disorganisation of the National Board, and the resignation of the Archbishop of Dublin. He believed he would be permitted, with the indulgence of the Chair, to demur from one observation that fell from his hon. friend the Member for West Kerry, who stated that the students were compelled to live in the lowest part of the city. They lived in the same street as he lived in himself. The houses were more comfortable and well built, and he ventured to say they were as fine and as beautiful as in any city in the world. It was all the more disgraceful, therefore, that the students' residences should be in the condition which had been described.
  MR. TULLYsaid the right hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh had just come back from his 12th of July experiences at meetings, where his friends had been passing votes of censure on His Majesty's Government. When the right hon. and gallant Member got up to support the hon. Member for South Tyrone he thought his remarks were, as Mark Twain said on a similar occasion, a little "surcustic." This Vote had reference to the salaries of the officials who were entrusted with the administration of the scheme of education in Ireland, and if they had allowed the buildings to get into an insanitary condition, the buildings should
  536
  come under the supervision of the sanitary authority of the Dublin Corporation.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member cannot go into that.
  MR. TULLYsaid that on Friday last, when they were discussing the conduct of the Resident Commissioner of Education, that gentleman favoured the House with his presence and occupied a seat under the gallery. He was allowed to make most insulting remarks towards Members who were addressing the House. It was outrageous that a public official connected with one of the boards of Ireland should come over and treat the House in the manner he had done. He had treated the Irish Members in the way he would have done if they had been in Ireland. There was no regard for the Irish Members when in Ireland. The officials seemed to think that any treatment was good enough for them. The Resident Commissioner, when sitting under the gallery, was even sarcastic about the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland. If any one turned to the Daily News he would find the remarks which Dr. Starkie made during his eloquent and graceful speech.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That has nothing to do with the Vote. If there was disorder in the House from underneath the gallery attention should have been called to it at the time.
  MR. TULLYsaid he quite appreciated that by the ruling he could not refer to the conduct of the Resident Commissioner of Education when he came to the House. Probably that did not come within the purview of the Vote, but they were now discussing a Vote which included the Resident Commissioner's salary—a gentleman who had acquired manners in Ireland which he carried even so far as the precincts of this House. The Resident Commissioner was in his opinion imcompetent for the discharge of his duties, and Dr. Walsh was obliged to resign his membership of the National Board on account of the state of chaos, and confusion in the office of the Board.

  537
  Dr. Starkie had written to Dr. Walsh that certain officials in the office were perfectly hopeless, and that he could do nothing with them. If the right hon. Gentleman had sat out the debate on Friday evening, he would have entertained a different view of Dr. Starkie's conduct than he did on the present occasion The Vote included a sum of £18,000 for the National Teachers' Pension Fund and gratuities. He knew that when the pension fund was started they were told that with a contribution of 2½ per cent. from the teachers, the fund would be perfectly solvent for all the demands that could be made upon it. The actuary had humbugged the Government and the public in that respect, and it was perfectly outrageous that Parliament should be asked to correct the figures put before them by this actuary. The Government ought to have looked more carefully into the matter. The result was that the teachers had suffered and Parliament had suffered, because the pensions had been reduced from £80 a year to £62 a year, and now Parliament was called on to vote a sum of £18,000 to save the fund from bankruptcy. They were entitled to some explanation in regard to this pension fund, and in regard to Dr. Starkie, who had shown his bad manners under the gallery on Friday night.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid he had not risen at all to encourage the prolongation of the debate, although he regretted the ruling of the Chairman which prevented him from referring to the subject raised by the hon. Member for South Tyrone. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would be able to give them some assurance in regard to the larger question raised in the debate on Friday night, although that only covered a portion of the subject-matter of this Vote. In the course of the discussion on Friday, certain letters had been read which had been written by Dr. Starkie to Dr. Walsh. When he initiated the discussion he was not in possession of these letters, and he was afraid that sufficient attention had not been called to them; and the Chief Secretary was apparently in a difficulty because he had had only time to glance
  538
  at them. These letters were of the most extraordinary and important character. The charge that they had made was that the whole working of this great public Department had broken down, and it was on that complaint that Archbishop Walsh had resigned his seat on the Board of Education. They had endeavoured to prove their contention by a variety of circumstances, but now they had these letters from the Resident Commissioner to Dr. Walsh, in which that gentleman declared that the Education office was in a state of confusion, that he could not get the work properly done, and that two of the higher officials were absolutely hopeless. Now, the Chief Secretary, taken at a disadvantage, had on Friday night skimmed over these letters as lightly as possible, and did not give anything like a considered answer to them. Some time had elapsed since then, and what he wanted to ask the right hon. Gentleman was whether in view of these statements he proposed to institute an inquiry into these allegations, or whether he intended to take any steps at all. The, matter could not be left untouched in the present position. What he rose for was to put this point to the Chief Secretary—that having now had time to consider these letters since last Friday, did he propose to take any action—did he propose to institute any inquiry, or did he seriously tell the House of Commons that this Department was to be allowed to jog along as before, and that no inquiry whatever was to be made into the allegations with regard to its failure by the head of the Department? This question was one of vital importance, and everyone would admit that he was taking a perfectly reasonable attitude in asking the Chief Secretary to give a clear answer to his request.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,): I am precluded by the forms of the House from dealing with the first matter brought before us, but as the hon. Member asked me to give some assurance that I will look to the matter, I can only say that at the instance of Dr. Starkie, who I think has been somewhat unfairly criticised, I have given my attention to the question of the housing of the un-

  539
  denominational students. I cannot go into a matter involving questions of additional money, and also of a particular site, which are the subject of communications between a public Department and the Treasury, beyond expressing the hope that a solution may be arrived at, and arrived at soon. I think the only other point was that raised by the hon. Member for Waterford. It was a question addressed to myself whether I had, on reflection, come to any conclusion other than that which I gave to the House on Friday last in regard to the demand for an inquiry. He bases that question on the letters addressed by Dr. Starkie to Archbishop Walsh in May last, which were published in the Freeman's Journal of Friday last. I had, as the hon. Member had, only a brief opportunity of studying the letter, but I had the advantage of being aware of Dr. Starkie's own views on that matter, and I expressed those views very frankly to the House. Those were private expressions on his part in regard to the kind of difficulties which present themselves to any man who is engaged energetically in carrying out a complicated and difficult task. I cannot abandon the position I took up on Friday. I must still hold to the opinion I then expressed—namely, that in respect of the letters to the teachers sent out from the Department a sufficient cause for inquiry has not been made out. There were 188 in all, and therefore in regard to the contention urged by the hon. Member for West Kerry it is not the case that so many letters have been dismissed without attention. Only 188 teachers were informed that there was no case for exceptional treatment in respect of the claims they preferred. I cannot make the speech again that I made on Friday, but I must still hold that what took place in that Department would have taken place in any public department under so great a strain, and that brings me back to what the hon. Member for Waterford said with respect to the reflection of Dr. Starkie upon certain officials.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: Reflection? It was more than that. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would not intentionally mislead hon. Members who were
  540
  not present when the letter was read. Dr. Starkie said that two of the highest officials in the office were hopeless, and he was hopeless of being able to do any good.
  MR. WYNDHAM: All I can say is that he is not hopeless now. He is sanguine. I cannot say more than what I have said upon the value of private communications, which contained a hasty judgment by one official on some of his subordinates, when both are engaged in a difficult task. I said on Friday night that this is a question of staff, and that there are men in that office who might be superannuated as soon as they can be. I think the hon. Member will admit that I dealt in a liberal spirit with that side of the question on Friday night. In my opinion, it would be well if some of the officials in that office were not kept so long. I said that on Friday, and I repeat it now; but I say that to institute a public inquiry at the end of July into the work of this office, engaged with a great measure of success in getting through with a difficult task, is not a practical proposal which I could submit to the House. If I did submit it, the House would reject it as being unworkable.
  MR. NANNETTIsaid he had been trying for the last six months to get an answer with regard to a grievance which he had repeatedly brought before the House. He protested against the vote for this Board, because on the Chief Secretary's own showing the office was hopelessly gone. The right hon. Gentleman admitted no later than last Thursday that he was disappointed at not being able to get a reply to a query put to the Board two months ago. A question was put down on 14th May last with reference to the manner in which the city of Dublin was flooded with books from Scotland and elsewhere for the teaching of the children of Ireland. The Chief Secretary told him if he would repeat the question in a fortnight he would be able to give an answer. When the fortnight had elapsed the right hon. Gentleman told him that he had not yet received an answer. He was satisfied that the right hon. Gentleman had done his best. He came again in

  541
  another fortnight and got a similar reply. Last week he was told that the Board of Commissioners had not yet had time to give an answer to this simple question. This Board was either undermanned or incompetent. In view of the way the Chief Secretary's request had been treated they could well imagine the way in which the Archbishop of Dublin had been treated by these people. The point he wished to bring out was that, owing to the want of sympathy between the Board and the people of Ireland, the claims of the workers of Dublin were being neglected. Books which should be printed and bound in the country were imported in cartloads. This was a serious matter to the workmen of Dublin. Two years ago there were thirty-five bookbinders employed on these books in that city, and now there were not two. There were certain members on the Board of Education who were in the pay of Messrs. Blackie, and the binders and others believed that it was owing to the fact that these men were in the employ of that firm that the work was going to Glasgow, with the result that the bookbinders of Dublin were deprived of that to which they were entitled. He was sorry to be compelled to make that statement. He had withheld it as long as he could, and he would ask the attention of the Chief Secretary to the matter.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to interrupt him. He has forgotten the terms of the answer I gave. I said that I am still in
  communication with them. The point is not so simple as the hon. Member supposes. It is a nice legal point, and on that I am endeavouring to get a solution.
  MR. NANNETTIsaid he was quite satisfied that the Chief Secretary had done his best. He did not hold the right hon. Gentleman responsible for the action of the Commissioners. He would remind the Chief Secretary that the answer was that the subject had been put on the agenda, and would be considered at the next meeting. He was determined to have an answer to the question. Some of the gentlemen who were acting as commissioners were also editors for Messrs. Blackie.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLconsidered the reply of the right hon. Gentleman was unsympathetic in the extreme, and did not contain the shadow of a recognition of the gravity of the subject to which he had called attention. He must therefore divide.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLrose to continue the debate, when
  MR. A. J. BALFOURrose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 145; Noes. R. Division List No. 333.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.

  Butcher, John George

  Dorington, Sir John Edward

  Agg-Ggardner, James Tynte

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

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

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Anson, Sir Wm. Reynell

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Aikwright, John Stanhope

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Arrol, Sir William

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.

  Finch, George H.

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Bagot, Capt Josceline FitzRoy

  Chapman, Edward

  Fisher, Wm. Hayes

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Charrington, Spencer

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  Balcarres, Lord

  Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E.

  Forster, Henry William

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

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S. W

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Gardner, Ernest

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

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

  Balfour, Maj. K. R. (Christch'ch

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn)

  Bathurst, Hn. Allen B.

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rH'ml's)

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

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Bignold, Arthur

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Bond, Edward

  Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Brassey, Albert

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord G. (Mid'x)

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Round, James

  Hamilton, Marq. of(L'nd'derry

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinb'rgh W

  Russell, T. W.

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. WF.

  Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col. Edw. J.

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.

  Seely, Charles Hilton(Lincoln)

  Heath, ArthurHoward Hanley

  Milner, Sir Frederick G.

  Seely, Capt. JEB.(Isle of Wight

  Heath, James(Staffords, N. W.)

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Helder, Augustus

  Moon, Edward Robt. Pacy

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

  Henderson, Alexander

  Morgan, David J.(Walthamst.

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Hermon-Hodge, Robert T.

  Morgan, Hn. Fred.(Monm'thsh.

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Higgin bottom, S. W.

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F.

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield Brightside

  Mount, William Arthur

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

  Hoult, Joseph

  Mowbray, Sir Robt. Gray C.

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Howard, John (Kent, Faversh.)

  Murrry, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute

  Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W.(Salop

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Keswick, William

  Pease, Herb. Pike (Darlington)

  Wason, John C. (Orkney)

  Lambton, Hn. Frederick Wm.

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Robt. Wellesley

  Welby, Lt-ColA.C.E. (Taunton

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Lawson, John Grant

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Lee, A. H. (Hants, Fareham)

  Purvis, Robert

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Randles, John S.

  Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Carrie

  Ratcliff, R. F.

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

  Leveson-Gower, Fred. N. S.

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Long, Col. Charles W (Evesham

  Rentoul, James Alexander

  Long, RtHn Walter (Bristol, S.)

  Ridley, Hn M. W. (Stalybridge)

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

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney

  NOES.

  Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N. E.)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  O'Dowd, John

  Asher, Alexander

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale

  O'Malley, William

  Black, Alexander William

  Helme, Norval Watson

  O'Mara, James

  Boland, John

  Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Brigg, John

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Shee, James John

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Kennedy, Patrick James

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Caldwell, James

  Leamy, Edmund

  Reddy, M.

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Levy, Maurice

  Redmond, John E.(Waterford)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Lundon, W.

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Cogan, Denis J.

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Crean, Eugene

  Mooney, John J.

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Cullinan, J.

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

  Sullivan, Donal

  Delany, William

  Murphy, John

  Tully, Jasper

  Dillon, John

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Donelan, Capt. A.

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, S.)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Doogan, P. C.

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Duffy, William J.

  O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

  Wilson, Henry J.(Yorks, W. R.)

  Ffrench, Peter

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Thomas Esmonde and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.

  Flvnn, James Christopher

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Gilhooly, James

  O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

  Question put accordingly, "That, '£705,771' stand part of the Resolution."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 140; Noes, 67. (Division List No. 334.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Butcher, John George

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

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

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. Gerald W. (Leeds

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Balfour, Maj KR. (Christchurch

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Arrol, Sir William

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

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Bignold, Arthur

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worcr'

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Bond, Edward

  Chapman, Edward

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Brassey, Albert

  Charrington, Spencer

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

  Higginbottom, S. W.

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Purvis, Robert

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Hoult, Joseph

  Randles, John S.

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Howard, John (Kent, F'versh'm

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.)

  Rentoul, James Alexander

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Keswick, William

  Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge

  Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green)

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Dorington, Sir John Edward

  Lawson, John Grant

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Lee, Arthur H.(Hants, Fareham

  Round, James

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Leveson, Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Seely, Capt. J. E. B. (Isle of Wight

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Finch, George H.

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol. S.

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

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Forster, Henry William

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W.

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Foster, Philip S.(Warwick, S. W.

  Majendie, James A. H.

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

  Gardner, Ernest

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hon. W. F.

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriesshire

  Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

  Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn

  Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'r H'ml'ts

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Morgan, David J.(Walthamst'w

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

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Morgan, Hn. Fred. (Monm'thsh.

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord G. (Midd'x

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

  Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F.

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Mount, William Arthur

  Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

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

  Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

  Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham (Bute

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Heath, James (Staffords, N. W.)

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Helder, Augustus

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

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

  Henderson, Alexander

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

  Hermon-Hodge, Robert Trotter

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  O'Dowd, John

  Asher, Alexander

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  O Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Malley, William

  Black, Alexander William

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  O'Mara, James

  Boland, John

  Helme, Norval Watson

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Brigg, John

  Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.

  O'Shee, James John

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Joyce, Michael

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Caldwell, James

  Kennedy, Patrick James

  Reddy, M.

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Leamy, Edmund

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Levy, Maurice

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Lundon, W.

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Crean, Eugene

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Cullinan, J.

  Mooney, John J.

  Sullivan, Donal

  Delany, William

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

  Tully, Jasper

  Dillon, John

  Murphy, John

  White, Luke (Yorks, E. R.)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  White, Patrick (Meath, North

  Doogan, P. C.

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Duffy, William J.

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

  Wilson, Henry J. (Yorks, W. R.)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Ffrench, Peter

  O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. T. W. Russell and Mr. Thomas O'Donnell.

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

  Flynn, James Christopher

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Gilhooly, James

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  MR. A. J. BALFOURclaimed, "That the Main Question be now put."
  Main Question put accordingly, "That this House doth agree with the Com-
  546
  mittee in the said Resolution."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 116; Noes, 64. (Division List No. 335.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Cap. Sir Alex. F.

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  Morgan, Hn. Fred. (Monm'thsh.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Forster, Henry William

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S. W.

  Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F.

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Gardner, Ernest

  Mount, William Arthur

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Arrol, Sir William

  Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'r H'mlets

  Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham (Bute

  Asher, Alexander

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Bigot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord G. (Mid'x

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Hamilton, Marq of (L'nd'nderry

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

  Pretyman, Ernest George

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

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Purvis, Robert

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. Gerald W. (Leeds

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Balfour, Maj K. R. (Christchurch

  Helder, Augustus

  Rentoul, James Alexander

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

  Hermon-Hodge, Robert Trotter

  Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge)

  Butcher, John George

  Higginbottom, S. W.

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Round, James

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Hoult, Joseph

  Russell, T. W.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Howard, John (Kent, Faversh.)

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.

  Seely, Capt. J. E. B. (Isle of Wight

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

  Keswick, William

  Smith, Abel H.(Herts., East)

  Chapman, Edward

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

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

  Charrington, Spencer

  Lawson, John Grant

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

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

  Lee, Arthur H.(Hants. Fareham

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S.

  Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

  Dilkeith, Earl of

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Valentia, Viscount

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

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

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Milner, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

  Finch, George H.

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

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

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Morgan, David J. (Walthamst'w

  NOES.

  Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N. E.)

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Malley, William

  Black, Alexander William

  Helme, Norval Watson

  O'Mara, James

  Boland, John

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Brigg, John

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Shee, James John

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Kennedy, Patrick James

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Caldwell, James

  Leamy, Edmund

  Reddy, M.

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Levy, Maurice

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Lundon, W.

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Cogan, Denis J.

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Crean, Eugene

  Mooney, John J.

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Cullinan, J.

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

  Sullivan, Donal

  Delany, William

  Murphy, John

  Tully, Jasper

  Dillon, John

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  White, Luke (Yorks, E. R.)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  White, Patrick (Meath, N.)

  Doogan, P. C.

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Duffy, William J.

  O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

  Wilson, Henry J. (Yorks, W. R.)

  Ffrench, Peter

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

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Thomas Esmonde and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.

  Flynn, James Christopher

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Gilhooly, James

  O Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  O'Dowd, John

  CONGESTED DISTRICTS BOARD (IRELAND) BILL.
  Read a second time, and committed for this day.
  Adjourned at a quarter before Two of the clock.

Several Lords took the Oath.
The Lord Strathspey (E. Seafield) sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:—

Belfast and Northern Counties Railway.

And also the Certificate that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:—

Local Government Provisional Orders (Housing of Working Classes) (No. 2.)

The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

LONDON UNITED TRAMWAYS BILL.
A petition of Messrs. Baker, Lees, and Company, of No. 54, Parliament Street, Westminster, parliamentary agents, praying for leave to present a petition of the Surbiton Urban District Council praying to be heard by counsel against the Bill, although the time limited by Standing Order No. 93 for presenting such petition has expired; read, and ordered to lie on the Table; and Standing Order No. 93 to be considered to-morrow, in order to its being dispensed with in respect of the said petition.

GLASGOW AND SOUTH-WESTERN 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
358
Table. The Orders made on the 24th of June and 4th of July last discharged; and Bill committed for Friday next.

DUBLIN, WICKLOW, AND WEXFORD RAILWAY (NEW ROSS AND WATERFORD EXTENSION) BILL.
Moved that the Order made on the 21st day of March last, "That no Private Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Thursday, the 27th day of June next," be dispensed with, and that the Bill be now read 2a; agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed.
BARRY RAILWAY BILL.
Read 3a, and passed.
SWANAGE GAS AND WATER BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments; a further Amendment made; Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
BINGLEY URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
  DERBYSHIRE AND NOTTINGHAMSHIRE ELECTRIC POWER 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.
KINGSTON-UPON-HULL CORPORATION BILL.
  SHANNON WATER AND ELECTRIC POWER BILL.
  Read 3a with Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
  ECCLES CORPORATION BILL.
  Read 3a, with the Amendments; further amendments made; Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (PORT) BILL.
  Moved, That the Order made on the 21st March last, "That no Provisional Order Confirmation Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after the 27th day of June next," be dispensed with, and that the

  359
  Bill be now read 2a; agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed; the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

  PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL [H.L.]
  Commons Amendments considered (according to Order), and agreed to.
  NAVAL WORKS (PROVISIONAL ORDER) BILL.
  Moved, That the Order made on the 21st March last, "That no Provisional Order Confirmation Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after the 27th day of June next," be dispensed with, and that the Bill be now read 2a; agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 6) BILL.
  House in Committee (according to Order); Bill reported without amendment; Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a to-morrow.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 9) BILL.
  House in Committee (according to Order); Amendments made; Standing Committee negatived; the Report of Amendments to be received to-morrow.
  SOUTHAMPTON AND WINCHESTER GREAT WESTERN JUNCTION RAILWAY BILL.
  Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Lord Langford and the Lord De Mauley be proposed to the House as members of the Select Committee on the said Bill in the place of the Viscount Hutchinson (E. Donoughmore) and the Earl of Eldon: read, and agreed to.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  GREENWICH OBSERVATORY.
  Report of the Astronomer Royal to the Board of Visitors of the Royal Observatory, Greenwich, read at the annual visitation of the Royal Observatory, 1st June, 1901.
  INDIA (ACCOUNTS AND ESTIMATES 1901–1902).
  Explanatory memorandum by the Secretary of State for India.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  No. 2656, Netherlands (Dutch Guiana); No. 2657, Turkey (Erzeroum); No. 2658, China (Wuchow).
  FACTORY AND WORKSHOP (LEAD COMPOUNDS IN POTTERY).
  Report to the Secretary of State for the Home Department on the work of the Government Laboratory on the question of the employment of lead compounds in pottery, by Professor T. E. Thorpe, C.B., LL.D., F.R.S., Principal of the Government Laboratory.
  CONGESTED DISTRICT BOARD (IRELAND).
  Report of the Board, for the year ending 31st March, 1901.

  JUDICIAL STATISTICS (IRELAND), 1900.
  Part II. Civil Statistics.
  Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANKS.
  Accounts presented of all deposits received and paid during the year ended 31st December, 1900, and of the sums received and paid by the National Debt Commission on account of the Fund for the Post Office Savings Banks in the same year.

  CLERGY (WEST INDIES).
  Return of the amount payable on 5th January, 1901, out of the Consolidated Fund for ecclesiastical purposes in the West Indies.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  ARMY ORGANISATION—CAVALRY ESTABLISHMENTS.
  LORD HENEAGE: My Lords, I rise to call attention to the new Army scheme and the omission of all reference to the cavalry, and to ask His Majesty's Government what will be the future establish-

  361
  ments of the cavalry regiments in the three Army corps proposed to be stationed at Aldershot, Colchester, and in Ireland; also whether the warrant which prohibits the seconding of cavalry officers above the rank of captain will be continued, and, if so, what provision will be made in future for an efficient cavalry staff on service. I had intended to raise this question the other day on the motion of my noble friend the Duke of Bedford, who stated in his speech that he only spoke for the Infantry and the Militia, and not for the cavalry, but unfortunately I did not get the opportunity of bringing it forward on that occasion. I have, therefore, put it down in the shape of a question to-day. The Secretary of State for War used the following words in another place, in speaking of the lessons of the war—
  "It has been obvious that our artillery is insufficient, and that our field artillery requires to be supplemented by heavier field artillery. It is also perfectly clear that the exigencies of modern warfare, the greatly extended positions which are held, and the necessity of rapid movements, make it necessary that we should be provided with a much larger body of mounted troops."
  The deficiency of mounted troops was due to neglect of the cavalry before the war, and I wish to know what is going to be done to remedy the defects which then existed. When the war broke out the cavalry regiments, as is proved by the return I moved for last year, were mere skeleton regiments, without sufficient men or horses. Regiments which were ordered to the front had to be filled up with reserve men, men from other regiments, who were worse off than themselves, registered hunters, and omnibus horses. Every squadron had to be reformed and reconstituted. Surely it must be wrong that such disorganisation amongst every squadron, troop, and section should take place just when a regiment goes on service. But when the regiments arrived in South Africa, and got fairly into working order, Lord Roberts requisitioned about five-and-twenty of the most efficient lieutenant-colonels and majors for staff and special service duties. They became brigadiers, colonels, etc., on the staff, with increased rank and pay; whilst regiments were commanded for months by majors, and squadrons by captains, without the rank
  362
  or pay of their positions. This was no fault whatever of the Commander-in-Chief. It was the result of a warrant which, I am told, was forced upon the War Office some years ago by the Treasury—I suppose to save the 2s. a day—that no lieutenant-colonel or major of cavalry or artillery should be seconded. If these twenty-five officers could have been seconded, the officers who took their places would not have been deprived of the rank to which their duties and responsibilities entitled them. The most absurd part of this arrangement is that while these majors in command of regiments and captains in command of squadrons were not given the rank and pay of their positions, the lieutenants who succeeded the captains, and did captains' duties, were made captains, and the sub-lieutenants who did lieutenants' duties were made lieutenants. Therefore, while the senior officers could not obtain the rank to which they were entitled the junior officers did. I think it is highly creditable to all ranks of officers that they were found equal to the duties on the staff, as well as in their regiments. But surely the warrant under which this arrangement exists ought to be abolished, and regimental officers not deprived of the rank to which their duties and responsibilities entitle them. All our cavalry regiments went out to South Africa with three squadrons, the reserve, or fourth, squadron remaining at home. Since then these reserve squadrons have been massed together to form what are called "provisional regiments," but, as a matter of fact, there is not one single officer or man in them who does not belong to the regiments at the front, and who is not liable at any time to be drafted to South Africa.
  With regard to the question as to what in future is to be the establishment of the cavalry, I should like to call your Lordships' attention to a very important Paper which was issued last September or October by the War Office. Under this Cavalry Reorganisation Order there are in future to be six different establishments of cavalry, three in England and three abroad. In the Order officers and their chargers were included in the figures given of men and horses, but I have deducted them in each case in order to get the figures

  363
  correctly, and have assumed that each establishment will include 23 officers and 55 officers' horses, according to the regulations of the Army. After deducting them we get the following curious results:—No. 1 (the higher establishment at home), 678 rank and file and 405 horses—only two full squadrons of service strength; No. 2 (the higher establishment, with an "extra squadron," as it is called, though I am utterly unable to find the extra squadron), 865 rank and file and 538 horses—hardly three squadrons of mounted men; No. 3 (the lower establishment), 615 rank and file and 302 horses, or two men to each horse, and there is no reserve squadron. In these numbers I have included every man and horse, and not deducted any recruits or remounts. Then we come to No. 4 (colonial cavalry establishment), with 570 rank and file and 372 horses, but 110 rank and file and 50 horses are to be at the depât, leaving a regiment of 460 men and 322 horses; No. 5 (in Egypt), 465 rank and file and 300 horses, with the same number of men at the depât as in No. 4; and in No. 6 (India) the establishment would be 603 men and 470 horses. In no case are there three service squadrons, much less any reserve squadron, in any cavalry regiment.
  Now it is perfectly clear that this ever-changing system in no case provides even three squadrons, and two men cannot ride one horse. I am not going into the question whether there ought to be four squadrons or three squadrons; but surely, whatever system is right, the squadrons ought to be complete and ready for service when called upon. It is enough to break the heart of any cavalry officer, after the time he has taken to make his men perfect, that his units should be disorganised the moment they are wanted. Even with three squadrons of 200 rank and file, each cavalry regiment is only 600 strong, and a brigade of three regiments amounts only to 1,800 men, while in Continental armies the regiments consist of four squadrons of 200 sabres each, or 800 men, and the brigades of 2,400 rank and file. This means, on service, that if patrols are to be kept up at equal strength at night English cavalry soldiers and officers have to do four nights duty to their opponents' three nights. With regard
  364
  to the warrant, to which I have referred, and seconding, I contend that if officers are to be taken away from their regiments they ought to be allowed to be seconded as in the infantry. At the present moment there are four commanding officers of regiments on staff or special service duty, and nineteen majors away from their regiments; but under the warrant they are not seconded. In the Navy any officer who is acting in a higher rank has that rank conferred upon him temporarily; and, what is more, his service in that higher rank counts to him for service when he attains that rank in the Navy I do not see why the same should not be done in the Army. At any rate, cavalry and artillery colonels and majors ought not to be treated differently from infantry colonels and majors.
  Now, my Lords, before I conclude I should like to say one word with reference to stoppages in the cavalry. I consider all stoppages a great mistake. They cause irritation and a sense of injustice, and prevent soldiers being "recruiting agents" when on furlough. Lord Haliburton put the stoppages the other day at 1s. 6d. per week, but I think they are a great deal nearer 2s. in the cavalry. I was very glad to see that the Dawkin Commission, in the very able Report they issued, condemned stoppages as neither economic nor wise. To my mind the stoppages in respect to barrack damages are the worst and most unfair—they are almost a swindle. The soldiers of the regiment going out are called upon to pay to the regiment coming in the cost price for repairs. One half of the things paid for are in good tenantable repair, but the men going into the barracks know that if they pass these things they will be charged against them when they go out, and in order to make certain that things shall be replaced they are further damaged. There is another matter which is peculiar to the cavalry, and which prevents a great many non-commissioned officers extending their service—namely, that, except in the higher grade, promotion is too often loss of income. For instance, a corporal cleans his horse, but a lance sergeant, who gets no more pay, is not allowed to do so, as he has other responsibilities, and he has to pay 6s.

  365
  per month for the horse being cleaned. If the lance-sergeant is not allowed to clean his horse, and is not given any more pay on his promotion, then the Government ought to find some way of having his horse cleaned without deducting money from his pay. I will now conclude by asking the two questions which stand in my name on the Paper. I do not desire now to enter into the question of the neglect of the cavalry before the war. I give Mr. Brodrick every credit for the statesmanlike courage he has shown, and I wish his scheme every success; but I do ask for some assurance that the kaleidoscopic changes of establishment in the Order of last year will not be allowed to prevail, and that the whole question of cavalry establishments of the future, including the objectionable and unfair warrant to which I have alluded, shall have the further consideration of Lord Roberts and of those distinguished cavalry officers who are really up-to-date in the matter, which the Adjutant-General's office is certainly not.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Lord RAGLAN): My Lords, I can assure my noble friend that although there was no specific mention made of the cavalry in the speech of the Secretary of State for War to which he has referred, yet there is not the least intention to neglect the mounted branches of the Service. The question of establishments is not a very easy one, because cavalry regiments have so many different duties to perform in different parts of the world. It is quite true that establishments to the number of no less than six were laid down in the Order of 1900, but, as a matter of fact, there always have been the same number of establishments in the British cavalry. There is the Indian establishment, the Colonial establishment—namely, the regiments serving in Natal or Cape Colony—the Egyptian establishment, and the Home establishment. The origin of the extra squadron was as follows:—The cavalry on the lower establishment had the duty of finding drafts for India, and when the revised warrant was issued there were no cavalry regiments in the country on the lower establishment, and an extra
  366
  squadron was therefore added to the regiments on the higher establishments. The total cavalry of all ranks in the Vote for 1901 was 19,586 men for the cavalry, and that included household cavalry, cavalry of the line, and the cavalry depot at Canterbury. This number, as your Lordships are aware, has been very considerably exceeded by the demands of the war in South Africa. At this moment the number of cavalry actually effective and with the colours is something like 13,000 men in excess of the establishment. The number of cavalry estimated for in 1902 was 22,365, but, as will be seen by the figures I have given, the actual number at present is very considerably in excess of that, and the excess over the normal establishment will naturally be paid for out of the War Vote. Your Lordships will see, therefore, that the War Office are quite alive to the necessity of providing for an additional number of mounted men. It is quite possible that still further increases will be necessary, and that question, which is bound up with questions of barrack accommodation, is under the consideration of the Commander-in-Chief.
  I must again remind your Lordships that we are still engaged in a war which demands the presence in South Africa of a very large part of the Army, and that the duty of providing the necessities of the moment is an exceedingly heavy one. In consequence of that, as I have before pointed out to your Lordships, many of the details of the permanent establishment have been left over for future consideration. To the best of my recollection the cavalry details in our army corps are considerably in excess of those in Continental armies. The question as to the seconding of cavalry officers is one that will come under consideration with the question of establishment, not only as affecting the cavalry, but throughout the Army, and I trust the whole subject will be dealt with before long, though at present I cannot give the House any definite information.
  THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: I do not wish to prolong this debate, but there is one point in the answer of the noble and gallant Lord which, to my mind, is not satisfactory. He

  367
  stated that we had a very large number of mounted men, but my idea of a mounted man is a man who has a horse. I gather, from what I have been told, that in most cavalry regiments there are not enough horses for the men. The difficulties we have experienced of obtaining well-trained horses in good condition should have induced serious consideration of this subject at the War Office, and I regret that I did not hear my noble friend allude to that as a matter which was not being lost sight of. At this moment there would be no great difficulty in getting horses, but if we put it off till the last moment we shall naturally have to pay a great deal more for them, and not get such suitable horses. There may be difficulty in some places in finding stabling accommodation, but I think that in many camps the horses might be left in the open air. I hope this matter will receive consideration, and that we shall never again be in the same difficulty as we were eighteen months ago, when regiments of Imperial Yeomanry had to find horses on their arrival in South Africa.
  LORD RAGLAN: I am pleased to be able to inform the noble Earl that a Committee, presided over by Lord Stanley, is now engaged in taking evidence upon and discussing the whole question of remounts.

  LAND PURCHASE IN IRELAND.
  THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORD: My Lords, I beg to ask the Lord Chancellor of Ireland whether he can supply the House with any information as to the working and progress of State-aided land purchase in Ireland during the last five years; and whether he will give any statistics showing the scope of the operations under Section 40 of the Irish Land Act of 1896. I am sure there are many in this House who will listen to the answer of the noble and learned Lord with considerable interest. Although voluntary purchase in Ireland has lately received a check owing to certain drastic and revolutionary measures, at any rate in some parts of Ireland, it will be interesting to learn if, in the opinion of the noble and learned Lord, sales of land in Ireland are going on as satisfactorily as he could wish. The excellent bargains
  368
  which lie within the reach of agricultural tenants in Ireland through this system cannot be too widely known.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND (Lord ASHBOURNE): My Lords, I am very glad to have an opportunity of giving my noble friend the information he asks upon this subject, which in importance is second to none in Ireland. I am happy to say the system of State-aided purchase is proceeding with vigour and success. Your Lordships will not want from me a detailed statement of the long purchase code of Ireland and the numerous attempts that have been made to apply it with success. The Land Commission is the body mainly working the system, although the operations of the Land Court under Mr. Justice Ross are entitled to prominent notice. In 1897 the Fry Commission found the system was not working very vigorously, the Act of 1896 had not come into full operation, and the figures were comparatively low. In 1897 the applications were 2,787, whereas last year they reached the immense figure of 6,157, and they were higher the year before. The Fry Commission applied itself to the subject, and made various recommendations for facilitating and accelerating purchase procedure. Several of those recommendations the Land Commission have adopted. One in working by the simple process of fiat in suitable cases instead of by the more complicated machinery of vesting order; another, dispensing with inspection in proper cases; another, dispensing with statements of facts in certain cases for apportionment of superior interests; then, again, the distribution of purchase money under the simple machinery of the Land Court itself rather than by the more elaborate procedure of the High Court; another, dispensing with extracts from original patents; and, further, the Land Commission have given express notification that those engaged in valuation with a view to purchase should, while taking into account the tenant's interest, bear in mind the security of the landlord's interest.
  THE EARL OF MAYO: With regard to dispensing with extracts from original patents, may I ask for an explanation? Does it mean— —
  LORD ASHBOURNE: I think it would be better that I should give the noble Earl any explanation afterwards in private. I think the adoption of these recommendations shows that the Land Commission is alive to the desirability of doing everything possible to smooth the path of land purchase. Of course a Bill, which I hope may receive the attention of Parliament, will be necessary for further facilities, but meantime it is important to notice the steps that have been taken. The figures with reference to the applications to the Land Commission under the Purchase Acts are: In 1897, 2,787; in 1898, 6,513; in 1899, 6,644; in 1900, 6,911; and in 1901, 6,157. The slight falling in the last year I have heard attributed to the fall in the price of land stock, and I am inclined to think that is the explanation. The amount of advances shows encouraging progress. In 1897 they were £515,252; in 1898 they increased to £869,000 odd, while in the following year, 1899, they increased more than double, to £1,766,000 odd; in 1900 they were £1,454,011; and in 1901, £1,958,357. These figures show steady progress of the operation of State-aided land purchase in Ireland. Between April 1, 1897, and March 31, 1901, loans were also issued under the Act of 1896 to the Congested Districts Board to the amount of £356,726.
  The figures I have given refer to the Land Commission. As to the Land Court, it should be remembered by anyone who wishes to form a just view of its work that it has two sets of operations. It is the successor of the old Encumbered Estates Court, and comprises all the agencies to be found in Ireland for the sale of all classes of encumbered estates, on the application of either the owners or the encumbrancers. The court having to give an indefeasible title to purchasers, supreme care has to be taken to sell the right land to the right man. You cannot unduly hurry such a process as that, and many of the charges made against the methods of the Court are due to the immense care necessary to see that no mistake is made. Mr. Justice Ross is full of vigour and energy, and applies himself to the performance of all his duties with great determination,
  370
  but he naturally has to be fully alive to the responsibilities of his position. Sales under Section 40 of the Act of 1896 are a matter of great importance. The section is now in vigorous operation. The advances made in the court during the last five years, under what I may call the voluntary jurisdiction of the Court, led to sales amounting to £843,310, and under Section 40 of the Act of 1896 the sales reached £540,123; in other words, the Land Court under Mr. Justice Ross has sold, in the period I have referred to, the large aggregate of £1,383,435. These figures show that the land purchase system as at present constituted is working efficiently and vigorously, and that we may expect its continued progress and development. Mr. Justice Ross told me that he understood something had been said to the effect that the receivers were causing delay in his Court, but he assured me that these officers were working extremely well and that he had no cause for complaint.
  THE EARL OF MAYO: My Lords, what the Fry Commission said with regard to the Land Commission was that they were too strict trustees of the Treasury, and that it was very difficult, although the tenant and the landlord had agreed to the price of the land, to get the Land Commission to advance the money. With regard to the Land Court, we know that Mr. Justice Ross is doing his utmost to relieve the congestion in that court, but the difficulty is that proving title is a very lengthy and expensive business. I thank the Lord Chancellor for the statement he has made and the useful figures he has given.

  SOUTH AFRICAN WAR—REFUGEE CAMPS.
  LORD WINDSOR: My Lords, I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to an article on the Boer refugee camp at Howick, Natal, appearing in the July number of the Empire Review, and signed H. S. Caldecott (civil commandant); whether the regulations governing this camp are rightly set out by Mr. Caldecott; whether similar regulations are in force at other refugee camps in South Africa; and whether, in view of the conflicting accounts from

  371
  individual sources, His Majesty's Government will consider the advisability of publishing as a Parliamentary Paper an official statement as to the conditions prevailing at each Boer refugee camp. The object I have in view in asking this question is, if possible, to obtain an authoritative statement of the true facts regarding the condition and administration of the Boer refugee camps in South Africa. The report of Miss Hobhouse, sent to the Committee of the South African Distress Fund, has been published for some weeks, and been very much commented upon. I do not intend to make any attack whatever on Miss Hobhouse. I am sure she has acted from the highest motives in visiting these camps, and it is evident that she was profoundly touched by the sufferings she witnessed. But she does not seem to have considered whether, under the conditions of war, it was not inevitable that much suffering should follow in its train, or whether, under those conditions, the persons in these refugee camps were better or worse off than if left in their homes in a country more or less devastated by military operations.
  It is not of Miss Hobhouse that I complain. But I deplore the use which has been made of Miss Hobhouse's report by certain persons, both in the press and elsewhere, who thought it consistent with patriotism and a sense of justice to their fellow-countrymen who are administering these camps to make extracts from the report setting forth the worst possible view of the conditions of the camps, and carefully excluding certain qualifications which Miss Hobhouse herself mentioned. This is bad enough if it is only for the ears of English people, who can weigh the merits of this particular form of attack against His Majesty's Government in regard to our military operations; but it becomes much worse when such things are read by people in foreign countries, who are very often not friendly disposed towards us, and who certainly, however willing they might be, have not the opportunity of sifting the matter to the bottom. I have in my question drawn attention to some evidence which I think tells on the other side—namely, the article by Mr. Caldecott. But there is other and independent testimony. About ten days ago
  372
  Mr. Rose Innes, whose name, I think, will command respect from all sides, referred, in the course of a speech, to the refugee camps, and with your Lordships' permission I will read a short extract. Mr. Rose Innes said—
  "At the end of last year I approached the general commanding officer at Cape Town and requested him to obtain from the officers in charge of various camps a report upon the state of those camps, because it is just as well when you discuss a question to have both sides before you. Sir Forrestier Walker was good enough to obtain these reports, and I saw them all. I would submit those reports to any unprejudiced or even prejudiced man, and say, 'Have not the men in charge of those camps done their very best to minimise the inevitable hardships which children placed in those camps must undergo?' Not only have we their word, but we have, annexed to these reports, reports from Afrikanders themselves."
  Mr. Rose Innes quoted two letters—one from a Boer commandant (H. Alberts), in which he said, writing to Major Walter, at Boxsburg—
  "I must express to you and other officers of Boxsburg my heartfelt thanks for the great kindness shown towards my wife, and at the same time for the message, and I hope that this kindness may some time be repaid to you. May I and you be spared to have a personal meeting."
  The other was a letter signed by A. P. Vands, the secretary of the Committee of the Dutch Reformed Churches in Johannesburg, and addressed to Captain Snowden, as follows—
  "I am directed by the committee of the Dutch Reformed Churches here to convey to you the appreciation of the committee for the kindly interest and sympathy shown by you to the women and children under your charge; also to thank you for your courtesy to members of the committee, and for your co-operation in the committee's endeavours to lighten their present sad condition."
  There is only one other witness I will quote, and to my mind his is striking testimony. In a letter which appeared in the Cape Times on the 5th of May, Mr. J. F. Siebert, for twelve years a Government officer of the late Orange Free State, said—
  "I recently visited most of the camps, and can only express my deep gratitude to the military authorities for their kind and considerate treatment. If the British have erred at all, they have done so in displaying too much magnanimity and consideration to their enemies; else the war might long have been over."

  373
  We seem to have drifted into this incongruous position—that while, on the one hand, Boers are writing letters thanking us for the treatment their own people have received, there are, on the other hand, certain persons at home who say that these Boers are quite mistaken; that we are really the most inhuman people in the world, and a disgrace to civilization. It is not for me to say what is the right method to adopt to obtain information, but I hope it may be possible for the Government to appoint a commission, including ladies, to visit the camps and report upon their condition. Before we apportion any praise or blame to those responsible we ought to know the full facts, and I believe that if full information is obtained it will be shown that this country has set an example of humanity in conducting war which has not been set by any combatant in any previous war.
  LORD RAGLAN: My Lords, I will answer the questions of my noble friend to the best of my ability, but I am afraid it is not possible for me to give definite information on all the points raised. There is a large number of these concentration camps, separated by large areas—some are in the newly conquered colonies, some in Natal, and one is on the coast-line in Cape Colony—and they are of different sizes, and contain different classes of inhabitants. For these reasons it has been found impossible to frame cut-and-dried regulations which could be applied to all the camps. Rules that would be useful and necessary in one camp would in all probability be unnecessary and possibly harmful in another. This is one of the chief reasons for the discrepancies to which my noble friend has alluded in the accounts of the various people who have seen these different camps; and I have no doubt myself that the discrepancies are still further exaggerated by the personal equation. It is a truism that no two persons see the same thing in the same manner, and therefore we cannot expect a number of people going to different camps to describe them in the same way.
  My difficulty in dealing with this complicated question is increased by the fact that we are not in possession of full
  374
  information. I should like to remind your Lordships that throughout this war it has always been the policy of the Government to give to the local authorities in South Africa, whether military, civil, or quasi-civil, as much freedom as possible, because they alone are in possession of the facts, and can form a sound judgment. It is obvious that it would very considerably hamper them in the discharge of their duties if we continually demanded from them a detailed running commentary on all their actions. The writing of elaborate reports has been strongly protested against by Mr. Dawkins's Committee, and if that practice is unnecessary and harmful in peace time, it must be more unnecessary and harmful in time of war. The Government have no desire to suppress any information in regard to the refugee camps. On the contrary, they are thoroughly in earnest in their desire to have as complete knowledge of this matter as possible. I am able to inform my noble friend that one of his suggestions has been anticipated, and that the Secretary of State for War is now engaged in forming a committee of ladies who will shortly go out and visit the camps and report on their condition. The Secretary of State for War hopes to be in a position to publish the names of these ladies in the course of a few days. The camp at Port Elizabeth is a small one, containing twenty men and 330 women, and I am glad to be able to report that it is very healthy. It is apparently run by military officers, and is in charge of a matron. The camps at Howick and Maritzburg are under civil commandants and those in the Transvaal and Orange River Colony under camp superintendents, with matrons, storekeepers, medical officers, and clerks. The nature of the shelter depends on circumstances. Where no brick buildings are available marquees and bell tents or huts are used. The regulations governing Howick Camp, into which Mr. Caldecott went in some detail, have not yet reached us, and we are not aware whether the same regulations obtain at other camps, but I imagine myself that they would probably differ in different places. Much must be left to the individual discretion of the superintendents and commandants.
  Looking at the regulations as stated

  375
  in Mr. Caldecott's article, they seem to me, from a general point of view, to carry out the principles of organization and discipline which are necessary for such camps. The refugees are not regarded as prisoners of war, but are permitted to frequent the nearest town with passes, which are freely given wherever it is possible. Whenever the authorities have proof that the refugee is a reliable person, who can either support himself or can go to friends who are in a position to support him, he is permitted to leave the camp and reside with them, or by himself in the town, but he is not allowed to leave the camp in order to starve on the veldt. With regard to rations, no distinction is drawn between those whose husbands are still out on commando and the rest. They receive the same rations as the British soldiers, and we are assured by Lord Kitchener that the refugees, from a material point of view, are satisfied and comfortable. There were complaints at first in various quarters as to the quality of the rations. In some cases it is possible, even probable; they were not all that could be desired. The difficulties of transport, as your Lordships are aware, were great, but these have now been overcome. The presence of a large number of children in the camps rendered the question of rations a very difficult one. Milk was a great difficulty, but condensed milk is now being supplied. Medical attention is provided by the attendance of a doctor, matron, and certified nurse, and ministers of religion are allowed to have access to the camps. In the Orange River Colony the ministers receive pay for their ministrations. There were certain of these ministers who preached politics under the guise of religion, and these men have had, Naturally, to be excluded. Relations are allowed to visit the camps, though, of course, wherever possible, families are accommodated in the same camp. Schools have been established wherever possible for the education of the children.
  With regard to the mortality in the camps, of which we have heard so much, the death-rate for the month ended 30th June was as follows:—In Natal, with 901 men, 1,902 women, and 5,037 children, the deaths were 5 men, 15 women, and 84 children; in Cape Colony, with 31 men, 85 women, and 274 chil-
  376
  dren, there were no deaths; in the Orange River Colony, with 5,116 men, 9,646 women, and 17,953 children, the deaths were 32 men, 75 women, and 182 children; and in the Transvaal, with 8,576 men, 16,078 women, and 19,811 children, the deaths were 26 men, 48 women, and 310 children. So that, with a total of 14,624 men, 27,711 women, and 43,075 children, the deaths were 63 men, 138 women, and 576 children. With regard to the colored inmates, in Natal, with 7 men, 2 women, and 11 children, there were no deaths; in the Orange River Colony, with 2,076 men, 7,313 women, and 11,201 children, there were no deaths, and in the Transvaal, with 244 men, 800 women, and 1,835 children, there were 5 deaths. The mortality at one time was very great in some of these camps, especially in the Transvaal, though I am glad to say it is steadily decreasing. However much we regret it, I think your Lordships will see that, in the circumstances, it was inevitable that the death rate at first should be considerable. A large number of these refugees were in bad health when they arrived at the camps, and were suffering from diseases, brought on chiefly by hard fare and want of luxuries. Large numbers of them have the most elementary ideas of sanitation, and it was with great difficulty that they could be induced to ventilate their tents and huts, and give up a great many in sanitary practices to which they had been addicted. Again, some of them, I am informed, from a morbid dread of illness, constantly took medicine which laid them open to disease. Much as we regret—and we do most deeply regret—the mortality which ensued on this state of things, yet we think, having regard to the only alternative which faced these people, concentration was the most charitable course to adopt, and the one most desirable from the point of view of military operations.
  EARL SPENCER: My Lords, I do not rise to say more than a few words on this exceedingly painful subject. There can be no question that the information which came to England in one form or another with regard to these concentration camps excited very keen feeling. Profound compassion has been felt for the unfortunate women and children

  377
  There, who have no doubt suffered very largely. I do not, therefore, share the view which I understood the noble Lord to take, that attention should not have been called to this very serious subject. I quite understand that in war military necessities must arise, but I sometimes wonder whether a general, when the military necessity faces him, always looks sufficiently forward—whether he balances the immediate advantage which he may gain by a particular course of action, and its results in a more distant future. No doubt the results may at first be good, though we have not as yet heard whether any very good results have followed from the policy in this case; but whatever else may have happened, a terrible amount of ill-feeling and suffering must have arisen. This undertaking was on an enormous scale. I think that at first the Government and those who had charge of the work hardly realized the enormous extent to which this necessity would develop; and I rather doubt whether sufficient arrangements were at first made to meet the necessities which must arise from bringing together this great number of women and children in concentration camps. I am glad to learn that material improvements and changes have taken place in the condition of the people in the camps. For instance, it has been stated that some of the families were put on a different footing from others as regards rations because their husbands and brothers were engaged in warfare. That I think has now been remedied, and everybody must rejoice that that has been done. I am glad to hear that doctors and nurses have been sent out to mitigate the difficulties which have to be faced in these vast camps. I rejoice to hear what the noble and gallant Lord said as to sending out a Committee to visit all these camps. I share what has been said in regard to exaggerated statements. There may have been exaggerated statements on this subject, and I deprecate such statements. I feel sure that nearly everybody in this country attributes the utmost humanity and kindness to those who have charge of these camps. I certainly do, and I should be very sorry if any words in the press and elsewhere led to a contrary opinion. I sincerely trust that the Government will watch most carefully this
  378
  policy of concentrating the people in camps, and will diminish it as fast as they can. I am not going to argue that it was not necessary, but the ill-feeling arising from the suffering entailed may do a great deal of harm and retard a possible settlement in the future.

  EDUCATION—MINUTE OF 3RD JULY.
  LORD REAY: My Lords, in rising to move the resolution standing in my name disapproving of the Minute of the Board of Education, dated 3rd July, 1901, establishing regulations for evening schools and classes, I wish first of all to make a preliminary observation with regard to the judgment which has created such a stir. It is generally thought that that judgment convicted school boards of breaking the law. Now, what really did happen was that the interpretation given to the law by the Local Government Board was set aside by the judges. On two occasions the matter which has now been decided came before the Local Government Board, and on both occasions the Local Government Board reversed the decision of the district auditor, and ordered that the school board should have the money disallowed by the auditor placed to their credit. The first decision in what is known as the Tot-ten ham School Board case was given by Sir Henry Fowler on 2nd February, 1893, and the second by Mr. Chaplin on 6th November, 1895. As long as those decisions were not set aside it was clear that school boards were absolutely warranted in incurring expenditure for the purpose of earning science and art grants. It was only after the judges had set aside those decisions that a new situation arose. With regard to the instruction given to adults in evening continuation schools, it was fully justified by the Code of regulations issued by the Board of Education. No objections were ever raised by the Education Department to this instruction, and in this respect also the judgment was directed not against school boards but against the Government Department which is responsible for the proceedings of school boards. My objections to the Minute are that it introduces alterations in the existing regulations for evening continuation schools,

  379
  which are not required by the Cocker-ton judgment, and that in some respects it runs counter to the expressed opinions of the judges. The Master of the Rolls, in his judgment, says—
  "No objection in this case is taken to the teaching by the school board with ratepayers' money of those things which appear in the Code."
  And further on he says—
  "And for the purposes of this case, but only for this case, it is to be taken by the admission of the Attorney General that the education prescribed by the Whitehall Code is elementary education within the meaning of the Act of 1870."
  Therefore, so long as what is taught in a public elementary school—and an evening continuation school hitherto was a public elementary school—appears in the Code, it is held by the judges to be legal. The Minute shirks the duty of clearly indicating what may be taught in a public elementary school, and simply states in Article 21 that "the instruction given in the school must be in accordance with the provisions of the Elementary Education Acts." And in the memorandum also it is stated that grants will be paid "for such part of the instruction specified in this Minute as may legally be given in such schools." The judgment, on the other hand, states definitely that it is legal to teach whatever is embraced in the Whitehall Code. Whereas the judges draw a clear line of demarcation between the instruction to be given under the Whitehall Code and under the Directory, the Minute perpetuates the confusion and creates a fresh source of complications by mixing up what the judges very clearly indicate should be separated. Then, as regards the limit of age, which in Article 21 (iii.) is taken at fifteen, there is nothing in the judgment to show that the line should be drawn there. Mr. Justice Wills said—
  "Practically, I suppose that, at somewhere between sixteen and seventeen, at the highest, an age has been arrived at which no one would ordinarily call 'childhood.' "
  It is true that the London School Board obtained legal advice in favor of not going beyond the limit of fifteen, but it is quite clear that this does not prevent the Board of Education from accepting the higher limit of Mr. Justice Wills—somewhere between sixteen and seven-
  380
  teen years. The effect of the fifteen years limit will, in London alone, result in the disqualification of 125,000 out of 153,000 scholars in board schools, and in the ultimate extinction of the greater part of the schools.
  Why the subjects mentioned in Articles 2 and 3 of the Code for 1900 have been altered as they have been in this Minute it is not easy to explain. As regards physical exercises, we were told that they were taken out because they might lead to abuses. Surely, such abuses could easily be put down by His Majesty's inspectors. I am all the more surprised at this omission, because in a memorandum recently issued by the Scottish Education Department it is stated that "certain subjects, such as physical exercises, military drill and music, which, taken concurrently with other subjects of this Code, may be expected to enlarge and raise the physical, moral, and mental equipment of those who come within their influence." Why in England this physical, moral, and mental equipment should be withdrawn I cannot conceive. In the Scotch Code these subjects are placed in a separate division. Whereas the Code of regulations for continuation classes in Scotland is a very distinct step in advance, this Minute is a deliberate retrograde step.
  The regulations for evening continuation schools hitherto were the same for all schools; they had all to be public elementary schools in order to obtain the grant. This Minute creates a new category of schools not carried on under the Elementary Education Acts, and at the same time it is proposed to give them a Parliamentary grant under Article 17. There are two grants—the Parliamentary grant and the science and art grant. With the latter I am not concerned. I am dealing with the former only, which is earmarked for elementary education. It is the grant mentioned in Section 2 of the Elementary Education Act of 1870. Mr. Justice Wills stated distinctly that—
  "A Parliamentary grant means (by Section 2) a grant made in aid of an elementary school out of moneys provided by Parliament for the Civil Service, entitled 'for public education in Great Britain,' which, as I have shown, is always a distinct thing from the grant to the Science and Art Department, and is the fund

  381
  which from its establishment has been administered by the Whitehall or Education Department."
  Now, by this Minute, we get a new class of evening continuation schools, which are not carried on under the Elementary Education Acts, but which may give elementary education, and which will get the Parliamentary grant of Article 17 as well as the grant in the Directory of Article 20. To apply the Parliamentary grant for elementary instruction given in a school which is not a public elementary school within the meaning of the Act of 1870, is certainly not in conformity with the judgment and with the Act of 1870. Section 96 of the Elementary Education Act, 1870, distinctly lays down that—
  "After the 31st day of March, 1871, no Parliamentary grant shall be made to any elementary school which is not a public elementary school within the meaning of this Act."
  The Master of the Rolls stated very clearly which voluntary schools could claim the Parliamentary grant. These are his words—
  "The object and meaning of the definition clause 'of an elementary school in Section 3 of the Education Act of 1870,' in my judgment, is that inasmuch as all kinds of education were then being taught in these voluntary schools, those outside schools (I call them), only should come within the Act and derive the benefits, by way of grants and otherwise, conferred by the Act, at which elementary education was the principal part of the education therein given, and, in addition, that only those outside voluntary schools should come within the Act if they were schools at which the ordinary payments therein in respect of the instruction from each scholar did not exceed 9d. a week apiece. That voluntary schools are referred to in the Act of 1870 as elementary schools, in my opinion, is apparent from, amongst others, Section 23, Section 12 (2), Section 9 (2), and Section 7. The object, meaning, and scope of the definition was to select out of these voluntary schools those which had these two attributes—namely, if the principal part of its education was elementary, and also was a school in which the scholars paid no more than 9d. a piece a week. If there was not this definition I do not see why all voluntary schools could not have claimed the benefit of the Act, no matter what was their teaching, if they conformed to the requirements of the Act as regards religious teaching and other wise. This definition, in my judgment, instead of being a statutory enactment that the highest education prescribed by the directory should be taught by a board school at the expense of the ratepayers, is a definition whereby a limit
  382
  is placed as to those voluntary schools which should become public elementary schools within the Act of 1870, and obtain its benefits, and in my opinion this definition has no such effect as that contended for on behalf of the school board."
  According to these words of the judgment of the Master of the Rolls, the Parliamentary grant of the Education Act of 1870 can only be given to voluntary schools which are public elementary schools under that Act, and you cannot create another category of elementary schools, Voluntary or other, and give them the Parliamentary grant. If elementary education can be given in schools which are not under the Act of 1870, and if a Parliamentary grant can be earned by a school which is not a public elementary school, there is nothing to prevent the recognition of day schools on the same footing. The distribution of the grant may then be so manipulated that the Act of 1870 will cease to apply to voluntary schools. There may be doubts as to whether my interpretation of the Minute is the right one; but the interpretation given to it in a communication addressed to Mr. E. Flower, Member for West Bradford, by the private secretary of the Vice-President of the Council on July 8, Seems to me to prove clearly what is intended and to confirm my apprehension. The writer states that—
  "Under the new regulations the Board of Education will give its grants, as specified in the Minute, to all evening schools fulfilling the conditions laid down in the first twenty articles, whether for elementary subjects or for advanced work, without any age limit. Article 21 has no application to them."
  Then occurs this remarkable passage—
  "I may point out that the fact that evening schools may thus in future receive grants without being in the legal sense public elementary schools will bring two additional advantages—namely, (1) It will relieve them from the operation of the 17s. 6d. limit of grant, which, it is believed, has frequently retarded their development in the past; and (2) it will greatly facilitate in counties their organization on comprehensive bases, over a large area, on a properly co-ordinating system."
  It will do more than that, for it will relieve these schools absolutely from all the limits which are placed on the giving of religious instruction, and on the payment of fees, and from the obligation contained in Section 20 of the Elemen-

  383
  tary Education Act of 1876, "that the income of the schools shall be applied only for the purpose of public elementary schools." The letter goes on—
  "It was necessary to add Article 21 to the regulations in order to preserve to school boards the power of carrying on evening schools at the expense of the school fund, so far as the judgment in 'Rex v. Cocker ton' allows, with the aid of grants from the Exchequer"
  Then follow these words—
  "Sir J. Gorst does not anticipate that there will be many such schools hereafter."
  Neither do I, my Lords. The letter concludes—
  "The restrictions of Article 21 are the unavoidable outcome of the recent decision of the courts of law as to the limits necessarily attaching to the functions and powers of school boards in this regard."
  I may remind your Lordships that the only authority for issuing this Minute is Section 97 of the Act of 1870, as is stated at the head of the Minute. That section expressly provides that the conditions laid down in any such Minute—
  "shall not give any preference or advantage to any school on the ground that it is, or is not, provided by a school board."
  This Minute clearly violates this essential principle and ought not, if only for that reason, to be approved. The Minute ignores the Act of 1870 as interpreted quite recently by the courts of law. We on this side of the House can only enter a protest, but we are bound to oppose this Minute because we take our stand on the principles of the Act of 1870, because it creates a privileged position for voluntary schools, and because it deprives a large part of the population of schools which they require.
  Moved, to resolve "That this House disapproves of the Minute of the Board of Education, dated 3rd July, 1901, establishing regulations for evening schools and classes."—(Lord Reay.)
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The Duke of DEVONSHIRE): My Lords, I do not think the House would desire that I should attempt to follow the noble Lord in the discussion of his legal arguments, which were supported by copious extracts from a judgment of the Master of the Rolls, not one word of which reached my ears. I will leave the legal part of the noble Lord's speech, there-
  384
  fore, to be dealt with by some one more competent to undertake the task, and will make, as shortly as I can, a statement, which will not be legal, but which I trust will be clear, of the present position of these evening schools and of the reasons which have made it necessary to issue this Minute. These evening classes were originally conducted under the same managers, by the same teachers, and in the same buildings as elementary schools. The instruction which was given in them was entirely elementary, and the age of the scholars in them was between the years of twelve and twenty-one. In 1893 a very great revolution took place—the Evening School Code was issued, which removed altogether the age limit, and opened schools to all forms of higher education. That Code was taken as an invitation from the Education Department to school boards to enter upon a considerable invasion of the sphere of secondary education. Though they were potentially in all their schools, and actually in a great many of them, secondary schools, they were still called public elementary schools, and this Code was accepted by school boards as an invitation to enter upon the work never contemplated under the Elementary Education Act. The income of a voluntary school consists of grants from the Board of Education, grants from the county council, fees from the scholars, and voluntary contributions. The income of a board school is the same, except that that part of its income which is derived from fees and from county council grants is much smaller, and there are no voluntary contributions, and the deficit is made up from the school rate. In many of our large towns, acting on the invitation in the Code, evening schools managed by school boards and maintained by the rates have come into competition with technical schools conducted by the town council, with polytechnics, schools of art, and other institutions. In some places the evils of overlapping have been mitigated by arrangements made between the local authorities and the school board, but in other places this competition for scholars which has arisen has had the natural consequences of deterioration in the quality of the instruction given, and great waste of funds, central and local.

  385
  This was a state of things with which Parliament would have had to deal under any circumstances, and Parliament no doubt would have been asked to deal with it as soon as a secondary educational authority could be established. But before Parliament arrived at any decision on the point the Cocker ton judgment intervened, and produced a situation which made dealing with it at once absolutely necessary, not waiting for future action by Parliament. That situation, whatever may be the merits or demerits of the evening school Code, made it impossible to continue a great deal of the work that had been carried on. The judgment, of course, did not interfere with that part of the work carried on in voluntary schools, Because the sources of income in their case, in addition to the income derived from fees and voluntary contributions, were either grants from the Board of Education or subventions from county councils from funds legally applicable to secondary education. But in the case of the evening schools carried on by the school boards a great part of the instruction could not have been given but for the rate, which was their principal source of income, and which, according to the legal judgment, cannot be applied to secondary education or the education of adults. Under these circumstances, it was impossible for the Board of Education to reissue the evening school Code. To reissue it would have had the effect of inviting school boards to break the law as decided by the courts. But, although some of these schools may have, as it is thought by some, only a slight educational value, while some of them may be superfluous and others actually mischievous, still the Board of Education had no desire summarily to suppress and put an end to a very large number of schools, many of which undoubtedly do excellent work, which certainly were established with the best intentions, and in accordance with an invitation from the Board of Education, but, unfortunately, Established and conducted under a certain misapprehension as to the state of the existing law. The Board therefore proposes to deal with the difficulty partly by the Minute which is now under consideration and partly by legislation. This Minute divides evening
  386
  schools into proper categories—those which are elementary schools and those which are not elementary but secondary schools. Now, the number of the first is not large, as the noble Lord has said, but such schools of the first class as have existed may exist still, and may be managed by school boards without infringement of the law, and can receive grants under Article 21. But as to the second category, those that are really secondary schools, in this will be included all those under voluntary management, to which I have referred, which are not affected by the Cocker ton judgment, and also all those board schools in which the instruction given has been declared illegal by a court of law; and it was proposed to legalize these by Clause 8 of the Education Bill first introduced, and it is now proposed to legalize these for the present year by the Education (No. 2) Bill. As to both these last-mentioned classes of schools—voluntary schools which are not affected and board schools to be temporarily continued—the Minute greatly simplifies the regulations under which they may be conducted, and, as was stated in the letter of the Vice-President referred to, it will facilitate their organization on a wide basis over a wide area.
  What the future of these schools will be is decided neither by the Minute nor the Bill; it must come under the future consideration of Parliament. The chief objection, so far as I understand, taken by the noble Lord is that in regard to these elementary schools still legally managed by board schools the limit of age is fixed at fifteen years, and the instruction in them must be of a purely elementary character. Of course, the age limit is arguable, but the Department has acted on the advice of experts and have adopted fifteen as the limit. But this limitation will apply only to a small class of schools which will still be conducted under Article 21. In all the remainder—all those to which the authority of the county council is given—the same education can continue to be given. The disability which attaches to a certain class of evening schools now conducted by school boards is not through the action of the Minute; it is due to the Cocker ton judgment; the Minute has done nothing but to bring the regulations of the

  387
  Department into conformity with what has been declared to be the law. I think this statement covers most of the points of the speech of the noble Lord, excepting his legal argument. He has referred to the omission in the Minute of some subjects of instruction which formerly found their place in the Evening School Code. Grants can no longer be earned for physical exercises. This has been very carefully considered, and we are advised that the grant for physical exercises should be omitted because of a certain amount of abuse to which the subject has been considered liable, and in some, Perhaps not in numerous, schools grants are said to have been earned by holding dancing parties. The noble Lord also referred to the omission of the grant for nursing, Ambulance work, and one other, but I would point out that those are not necessarily excluded by the Minute. Those are what are considered to be technological subjects, and he will see under Group A in the appendix of the Minute, that "any other subject approved by the Board of Education as of educational value can be taught and can receive the grant." It will only be necessary for the managers of schools to satisfy the Board of Education that a certain course of instruction which they propose to give is of educational value and it will still be eligible for the grant. I am quite aware that the Minute has not found, and is not likely to find, favor with Lord Reay or the school boards. They would have preferred a Minute which would have perpetuated the fiction that these secondary schools were still public elementary schools. What they would have preferred would have been a Bill which would have given to all these schools a like protection from the existing law. What they would really have desired is that the law should have been altered altogether. We were not prepared to take that course. If we had taken that course, and had proposed, even temporarily, to legalize these schools without the intervention of any other authority, when we came to propose legislation in another year we should have been told that by our legislation we had made the admission that these schools were rightly, if not legally, in possession of the field, and no doubt, during the interval which may have
  388
  elapsed before further legislation was proposed, many, if not all, of the school boards would have taken the opportunity of making still further steps in the direction of secondary education. I do not desire to minimize the importance of the Minute or the Bill. Combined, they, in my opinion, assert, as strongly as the Bill which was first introduced, the negative side of our position. We have not succeeded, Unfortunately, in the present year in constituting a new authority for secondary education. But this Minute and the Bill combined indicate clearly the policy of His Majesty's Government that in the future the secondary authority is not to be the school board.
  I am not sorry that the school boards should have realized, as clearly as they seem to have done, the actual position and importance of the principle to which Parliament is now asked to give its assent. This is not a new controversy. It broke out, certainly in a Jess acute form, not more than twelve years ago. Precisely the same sort of opposition, emanating from the same quarter as this Minute and Bill are opposed by, was offered to the Technical Instruction Bill twelve years ago. That Bill had its origin in a purely educational body with which I was associated—the National Association for the Promotion of Technical and Secondary Education. It was brought in without any political object and taken up by the Government and passed. But it was opposed by some of the school boards and their champions on exactly the same ground as the present Bill and Minute, because it was said that it narrowed the power of the school boards in the future to provide higher education. This controversy has continued from then up to the present time. It is a controversy to which Parliament has not given much attention, but it has fought out in the great towns and centers of population in this country to the great detriment of the real cause of education, and accompanied by a large waste of public funds. The decision which Parliament will have to give on this Bill and this Minute will, I trust, go far to establish a principle on which this controversy may, in a future Parliament, be definitely and finally settled, and I hope your Lordships will not be induced by the motion of the noble Lord to withhold your sanction.
  THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: My Lords, I do not wish to say anything disrespectful of, or derogatory to, Voluntary schools, of which I am a strong supporter; but I think the noble Duke has concealed—I do not say intentionally—the real injustice of this Minute. The Minute proposes one scheme for voluntary schools and another for board schools. If your Lordships will look at the terms of the Minute, you will find that voluntary schools will be under no limits as to the age of their scholars, Whereas in board schools the age is limited to fifteen, and at the same time voluntary schools will be free to give elementary or advanced instruction, according to the needs of the locality or the wants of individual students. The noble Duke said in the course of his remarks that one thing he wished to make clear was the intention of the Government that secondary education should not remain in the hands of school boards. But that does not seem to me to justify the action of this Minute, which says to voluntary schools: "You may either conduct these evening continuation schools for elementary instruction or secondary instruction; you may practically have a free hand in the matter, but the board schools may not." I do not understand precisely what the prejudice in the mind of the Board of Education is to board schools. The noble Duke said the opposition to this Minute was confined to a certain number of Radical educationists.
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I did not say so.
  THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: I think the noble Duke referred to the National Union of Teachers.
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I did not mention them.
  THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: What I wish to remind the noble Duke of is that opposition to the Minute is not confined to the body of men my noble friend Lord Reay represents, but that there is a very large body of opinion on the Conservative side against this treatment of board schools. Sir W. Hart Dyke, neither an extreme nor inexperienced
  390
  Man, said a few days ago that, Although a strong supporter of voluntary schools, he had never failed to recognize the necessity for board schools throughout the country, and he saw no reason to regret his action, for he could not doubt that the system was a good one. And he went on to say that he could not help feeling that the present phase of the question was owing to the want of appreciation of the importance of education on the part of His Majesty's Government, and to deprecate the derogatory statements relating to school boards which were made by the Vice-President of the Council in another place. In this matter it is well to remember that this Minute is intended to commit the country and the public to a policy and a principle hereafter. Therefore the Minute assumes an importance which it would not otherwise have. This is the view taken by another Conservative Member of Parliament, Major Banes, Member for South-West Ham, who made use of this very strong language—
  "I cannot but express my surprise and disgust at the unworthy and undeserved sneers and remarks made by the Vice-President of the Council against the members of school boards and their work. The teachers and even the electors, and I am confident the people, will not forget them, and I regret the Government and the Unionists have in their ignorance been so misled as to support instead of disclaiming any part in these misleading and cowardly attacks made under the shelter of town councils."
  These are not the words of an opponent of His Majesty's Government. They are the outspoken expression of opinion of a Conservative member. I should very much regret if, by such language as the Vice-President of the Council indulged in when he introduced his Bill, any weight should be given to the belief, which I am bound to say does not appear to me to be unfounded, that it is the covert and the real intention of the Government, by means of this legislation, to put an end, as far as possible, to the development of the work of school boards. I say that, not in behalf of the towns, because I believe that, whatever line is taken by the Board of Education as regards the towns, the great towns value the work of the school boards and the spirit in which that work has been done. But why are the country districts, by a Minute of this kind, to be

  391
  prevented from making use of the machinery of the school boards? The Minute starts by throwing cold water upon any evening school. It says—
  "In order to obtain these grants it must be decided by the Board of Education that the school is not unnecessary."
  I do not think, my Lords, there is that great interest in education in the country districts that there is any likelihood that schools that are unnecessary will be started. My experience is that it is extremely difficult in country districts to get any interest taken in secondary education. There is another condition of the grant—that the school must have adequate local support. I should like to know what is the meaning of the words "adequate local support." I shall vote for my noble friend's motion because I do not see why voluntary schools should fee placed in a privileged position in this matter. In doing this the Government are giving credence to the belief that they are striking, not merely at a system of efficient education, but also at the conscience clause, because in this Minute, as it stands, there is nothing to prevent sectarian education from being given in these evening continuation schools.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORD: My Lords, I desire, very briefly, to support the motion of the noble Lord opposite. I had hoped that it would have commended itself to the judgment of the House, and that the Minute would have been referred back to the Board of Education for further consideration. We must all agree with the noble Duke that it is desirable that some Minute should be issued, but, reading it from a strictly educational point of view, I am bound to say that it would be very difficult to frame a Minute less likely to give general satisfaction. Though I was not able entirely to follow the argument of the noble Lord (Lord Reay), he seemed to establish a pretty strong prima facie case that the Board of Education has in this instance assumed powers which it does not possess, and proposes to give grants of public money to a new type of schools to which it has not yet been authorized to give grants. I cannot but feel that the House may very well pause before it sanctions the
  392
  issue of such a Minute. This is an unfortunate Minute, because it tends to discourage, hamper, and thwart the efforts of those who have been really doing the good work of continuation schools hitherto, and I cannot help feeling that those who framed the Minute have not yet risen to a due appreciation of our system of continuation schools. At present our elementary education in many parts of the country ends in an immense amount of cruel waste; for this reason that it stops at such an early age. In a few years those who leave the elementary schools are practically uneducated, and are left outside of nearly all educational influences during the most critical period of their lives. If we are to amend that state of things I do not see how it can be done except by instituting a system of compulsory attendance at continuation schools. That, as your Lordships know, has been done in Germany; and in Saxony a boy from an elementary school has to attend continuation classes twice a week for three years after the age of fourteen. All over the German Empire the municipalities are empowered to make technical education compulsory from, I believe, fourteen to eighteen years of age. I cannot but feel that it is high time we faced the question in a similar fashion. But until that is done I venture to hope the Government will do nothing to discourage those who are doing their best to encourage voluntary attendance at continuation schools. It is absolutely necessary that we should make these schools attractive, and also that we should give as frees a hand as possible to those managers of schools, school boards, and others who have done the work hitherto, and done it well. The noble Lord who introduced this motion reminded the House what the effect of the Minute would probably be upon London. I will quote the case of the city of Manchester, which has a system of evening continuation schools at least as good as that of any other town in the country. In Manchester, under the action of Mr. Acland's Code, and by combination between the school board and the voluntary managers, the school board has built up an admirable system of con-

  393
  tinuation schools. There are something like 9,000 pupils attending them, and I do not suppose anyone knowing the work of these schools would be able to speak of the results in any terms but of praise and respect. There are in Manchester at the present time 118 of these schools, and the advantage of having them in the hands of the school board is that the school board is able so to regulate the work done that it is really continuation work.
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: All these schools will be continued under the Minute.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORD: But the Minute will apparently involve taking them out of the hands of the present managing body. [The Duke of DEVONSHIRE dissented.] At any rate, the present managing bodies have interpreted the Minute in that way. I now understand that the Minute is to be interpreted by a Bill which is still to be passed. The Minute, to begin with, will bind the present managers of schools hand and foot. Again, it introduces the fifteen years limit. I do not know why this limit should be introduced in England, while Scotland is left free in the matter. The advantages given to Scotland are so obvious that we could not do better than imitate a great many of the points in the Scottish Code. Again, we are told that the elementary classes containing pupils up to fifteen years of age must not be conducted in the same building in which the school for senior scholars is conducted. How will that affect country districts where only one building is available? There is also a very ambiguous reference to school fees. Are school fees to be required of all students in these continuation classes in the future, or are the local authorities to be free to demand them or not, according to circumstances? Hitherto the practice has varied in different localities according to the circumstances of the locality. Is that freedom to be taken away?
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: No.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORD: I am glad to hear that, because if it were taken away it would tend to
  394
  lessen the number of pupils. I hope that the centralizing process indicated by the Minute will not go on too much, because I have seen nothing in the action of the Board of Education since it was reconstructed that tends to give me confidence that it is in a position to undertake these additional duties. Therefore, I sincerely trust that this Minute will be referred back to the Department for further consideration.
  EARL SPENCER: My Lords, the noble Duke the Lord President of the Council, in the observations he made, answered a speech which my noble friend behind me did not deliver, and did not answer the speech which he did deliver.
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I did not understand it.
  EARL SPENCER: I estimate that, According to the figures for the year 1899, at least 83,880 children in board schools will be affected by Article 21 of the Minute. The right rev. Prelate alluded just now to the very important continuation schools in Manchester, and the noble Duke said there was no reason why these schools should not go on, but they cannot go on with any children over fifteen years of age.
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: Certainly they can.
  EARL SPENCER: They will not receive the same Parliamentary grants.
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: Certainly they will.
  EARL SPENCER: They will for this year, but after that they will not be able to receive Parliamentary grants if the pupils are over fifteen years of age.
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: After that, I have said, they will have to be dealt with by Parliament.
  EARL SPENCER: That is the only consolatory remark I have heard from the noble Duke, and I sincerely hope that when Parliament comes to deal with the matter it will not adopt the policy laid down by the noble Duke.

  395
  The reason why we feel strongly on this subject is this, that those who have been receiving money, if you may so call it, illegally under the Cockerton judgment, will be allowed to continue receiving that money if they come to terms with the county council. The Bill and this Minute lay down really the policy for the future, and we think it necessary to at once protest against the policy which these measures propound. I should deprecate altogether depriving school boards of the power of dealing with these continuation schools for pupils over fifteen years of age. They are very competent to do it, and they do it better almost than any other body. I cannot agree with what has been said elsewhere, that the education given in board schools has been bad—I think the noble Duke said it was mischievous.
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I said in some cases.
  EARL SPENCER: I think the noble Duke was referring to cases where physical exercises took the form of dancing; but, as I understand, those cases only numbered twenty, and they received the permission and sanction of the inspectors. I will not dwell more on this question, owing to the lateness of the hour, but I should like to press this on my noble friend—that this Minute runs counter to important clauses in the Education Act of 1870. Nothing could be clearer than the clauses which my noble friend behind me quoted, and which provide that the Parliamentary grant distributed by the Education Department must be given to a public elementary school. Further than that, Clause 97 provides that the grants must
  be made without giving any preference to any school on the ground that it is, or is not, provided by a school board. Under this Minute the Education Department can, although refusing to give to school boards power to continue the education beyond the age of fifteen, allow voluntary schools to go on without some of the most binding conditions imposed by the Act of 1870. One of those conditions is the Conscience Clause. We certainly think it is of the utmost importance that that should be maintained, but under the Minute we believe—we may not be interpreting it correctly—that voluntary schools may set up evening continuation schools without any of the conditions laid down in Clauses 96 and 97 of the Act of 1870. That is a very important matter. It is said that the giving of the Parliamentary grant to voluntary schools is justified under the new clauses of the Appropriation Act. I should like some information on that point. This Minute, in our opinion, extends a favouritism' to voluntary schools which is denied to school boards, for the noble Duke cannot deny that, under the Minute, voluntary schools can establish these evening continuation schools without coming under any of the stringent conditions imposed by Clauses 96 and 97 of the Act of 1870. It is because we feel that this is apparently the foundation of a policy which is to deteriorate the position of school boards, to diminish their influence, and in other ways to evade the great Act of 1870 to which the noble Duke was a party, that we strongly oppose the Minute now before the House.
  On Question, their Lordships divided: Contents, 18; Not-Contents, 69.

  CONTENTS.

  Carrington, E.

  Hereford, L. Bp.

  Kinnaird, L.

  Chesterfield, E. [Teller.]

  Leigh, L.

  Portsmouth, E.

  Battersea, L.

  Lingen, L.

  Spencer, E.

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

  Reay, L.

  Burghclere, L.

  Ribblesdale, L. [Teller.]

  Gordon, V. (E. Aberdeen.)

  Davey, L.

  Tweedmouth, L.

  Hobhouse, L.

  Welby, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Halsbury, E. (L. Chancellor.)

  Abercorn, M. (D. Abercorn.)

  Carnwath, E.

  Devonshire, D. (L. President.)

  Bath, M.

  Denbigh, E.

  Salisbury, M. (L. Privy Seal.)

  Bristol, M.

  Derby, E.

  Hardwicke, E.

  Portland, D.

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

  Mar and Kellie, E.

  Wellington, D.

  Mayo, E

  Morley, E.

  Addington, L.

  Macnaghten, L.

  Mount Edgcumbe, E.

  Ashbourne, L.

  Manners, L.

  Onslow, E.

  Belper, L.

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

  Powis, E.

  Carysfort, L. (E. Carysfort.)

  Selborne, E.

  Chelmsford, L.

  Monckton, L. (V. Galway.)

  Shaftesbury, E.

  Churchill, L. [Teller.]

  Monk Bretton, L.

  Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

  Colchester, L.

  Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

  Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]

  De Mauley, L.

  Norton, L.

  Westmeath, E.

  Farquhar, L.

  Pirbright, L.

  Glanusk, L.

  Ponsonby, L.(E. Bessborough.)

  Cross, V.

  Glenesk, L.

  Raglan, L.

  Falkland, V.

  Grey de Ruthyn, L.

  Robertson, L.

  Frankfort Be Montmorency, V.

  Harris, L.

  Rowton, L.

  James, L.

  Saltoun, L.

  Goschen, V.

  Kenyon, L.

  Savile, L.

  Llandaff, V.

  Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

  Sherborne, L.

  Portman, V.

  Langford, L.

  Southampton, L.

  Ridley, V.

  Lawrence, L.

  Tredegar, L.

  Sidmouth, V.

  Ludlow, L.

  Windsor, L.

  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
  House adjourned at twenty minutes before Eight of the clock, till to-morrow, half-past Ten of the clock.