Sitting of 23 July 1901

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  GREAT SOUTHERN AND WESTERN RAILWAY BILL [Lords]. (BY ORDER.)
  Order for consideration, as amended, read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now considered."
  MR. T. M. HEALY, in moving the Amendment standing in his name, said that throughout the history

  1297
  of private Bill legislation there had been no more flagrant case of Parliamentary perfidy than was to be found in connection with the construction of the Cork to Fermoy line. At first he had been inclined to lay the blame at the door of the Great Southern and Western Company, but, having read the correspondence that had taken place on the subject with the Treasury, he concluded that the Great Western of England were mainly responsible. Bearing in mind that the company had stated before one of the Committees that they would never venture to come to Parliament on any other matter before this pledge was carried out, it would be for the House, when their Bills come up next session, to treat them accordingly. The right hon. Member for the Clitheroe Division of Lancashire was chairman of the Committee which considered a Bill to create a new route from Rosslare to Cork. All the Irish Members joined in acknowledging that that right hon. Member had given to the Report and the examination of witnesses a painstaking research and acumen which had seldom distinguished the chairmen of Private Bill Committees of that House. The new line was to be an alternative to the existing route, and the people in that district were to have a Competitive route, instead of being tied to the Great Southern and Western Railway Company, as in the past. The chairman of the Committee said that, instead of leaving them at the mercy of the Great Southern and Western Railway Company, he would bring in a great English company whose word was their bond. In paragraph 14 of the Report of the Committee—which was a Hybrid Committee—it was stated that the Rosslare and Fishguard Railway system, so far as Cork, would be under the joint control of the Great Southern and Western Railway Company and the Limerick and South Western Company, the latter having a preponderating influence. But a more direct route from Cork to Fermoy was to be the subject of another Bill which the promoters were pledged to pass the following year. Three years after that pledge was given the Great Southern and Western Railway Company opened up communications with the Treasury, and said they could not make the line at all, as they did not
  1298
  think it was of any use. Their next excuse for the breach of faith was that if they were let off making the line from Cork and Fermoy they would build a bridge across the Lee, giving communication with Berehaven, although they had been pledged before to build that bridge within a reasonable time. The railway companies now said they could not build the Lee bridge because they could not get the promised "co-operation" of the Cork Corporation and the Cork Harbour Commissioners. It was true that the word "co-operation" was used in the Report of the Committee, but it was absurd to suppose that this meant, as the companies now contended, financial co-operation. All that the Cork Harbour Commissioners had promised was their goodwill—not monetary or other assistance. As a fact, the Treasury had, behind the backs of the Irish Members and in the dark, given away the power which had been specially granted by Parliament for the making of a through route from Dublin to Cork. This was a matter which affected the whole of the south of England, quite as much as the south and west of Ireland, because it affected the prosperity of the trade between the two districts. A more misleading memorandum than that which had been sent to the Treasury signed by Lord Cawdor, the chairman of the Great Western, he had never seen. It began by stating that in the original Bill, as sent to the Committee in 1898, there was no proposal whatever to make the Cork and Fermoy line. That statement was false and pernicious. The Committee insisted, being convinced of the necessity of some such line as the Cork and Fermoy line, sanctioned it, and at the same time inserted a clause binding the Great Southern and Western Company to come in the following session for power to make a line from Fermoy, with a slight deviation. In other words, they passed what was virtually an Abandonment Act, and at the same time an Act authorising the construction of a line to replace the abandoned portion. It seemed to him, from the action of the Treasury, that the Admiralty and the War Office must have stepped in and taken the matter out of the hands of the Government, with a view to the strategetic importance which they attached to keeping the

  1299
  French out of Bantry Bay, or from some such consideration as that. The company now proposed to build a bridge in lieu of the railway, but what security had the House that they would build the bridge any more than the line? The House had only the word of the company for it. On the 3rd April last, nearly three years after they had pledged themselves to construct this line, they wrote to the Cork Harbour Commissioners, saying—
  "Of course such a line could only be commercially constructed with the assent of the Cork Harbour Commissioners and the Corporation of Cork, but my directors are advised, and they themselves fully believe that, under present circumstances, no useful purpose would be served by the construction of the proposed line from Fermoy to Dunkettle, and if with the approval of the Cork authorities my directors were relieved of the obligation to construct this line, they would, notwithstanding that Parliament contemplated that the connecting lines through Cork should be constructed only at the joint expense of the Harbour Commissioners, the Corporation, the Cork and Bandon, and the Cork and Macroom Railway Companies, and of this company, be themselves prepared to bear the whole cost of the construction of the connecting lines through Cork, without asking for any contribution on the part of the Cork authorities or railway companies."
  The Cork Commissioners replied at once that—
  "Without expressing any opinion at present on the subject of a connecting bridge, the commissioners desire to make it clear that they never gave, or implied, any undertaking whatever to contribute towards the cost of connecting the railways."
  The suggestion that the assent and co-operation of the local bodies had been refused was absolutely false. The Treasury bound themselves by a parliamentary pledge to insist that within the year ending on the 31st of this month the contracts for the construction of the Cork and Fermoy line would be let and the lands taken and the work commenced. That pledge was given through the mouth of the Financial Secretary, who was now the Secretary to the Board of Agriculture, but where was the continuity between the right hon. Gentleman and the present Financial Secretary? In July of last year Mr. Hanbury stated in the House that no portion whatever of the proposed Treasury grant of £93,000 would be paid until at least one-half of the work was completed,
  1300
  and the grant as a whole was dependent on the whole work being completed before 1904, and the right hon. Gentleman added that, in view of the apparent reluctance of the company to begin the Fermoy portion of the undertaking, he proposed to require the immediate payment of this sum unless a satisfactory assurance was at once given that the Fermoy and Cork branch would be undertaken and completed before August, 1904. The Treasury released the company from the immediate payment of £93,000 in consequence of the pledge then given, and this pledge was embodied in a written undertaking, and yet the whole of that written pledge had been broken. We were now within ten days of the expiring of the time and not a single thing had been done, except that the company had written a lying letter bamboozling the successor of the right hon. Gentleman. The Treasury and Parliament had been diddled and humbugged. What was Parliament to do to compel these companies to keep faith? Was it to tolerate this kind of thing? The net result was, that in spite of the pledges and the written assurances given to the House, they were now told that the company had got the House to give them all these amalgamation schemes, and that they had got out of the payment of £93,000, but that they now hoped that the House would forgive and forget. He had no desire to prevent the making of the line to Cashel, but he would like to know what Parliament could do to compel this company to carry out its undertakings, and to keep public faith. He was quite content to withdraw his motion if the right hon. Gentleman could give him some assurance that this matter would not be allowed to proceed. The right hon. Gentleman was the protection of minorities, and it was for him to see not only that the rules of Parliament were carried out, but also that parliamentary bargains made in good faith should be kept by those who made them for their own benefit. He regretted to learn of the death of Mr. Pope, who had represented the Great Southern and Western Railway Company in these transactions. That great lawyer said in the committee-room, "This project of giving Ireland a new through route has for me an extraordinary attraction."

  1301
  He never left the Committee room while the question was under consideration, and it was certain he would be the first man to condemn this attempt of his former clients to evade their solemn undertaking. In conclusion, the hon. Member said that he had no prejudice in this matter, and he approached the consideration of the question with an open mind. He merely stated that if Parliament was prepared to allow great railway companies to override Acts of Parliament, the functions of Parliament would be at an end, and no Committee would ever again be able to trust the word of a railway company.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out from the word 'That' to the end of the Question, and add the words 'this House is not prepared to consider any Bill relating to the Great Southern and Western Company's system, until that company has given effect to the parliamentary undertakings for which it is responsible respecting the construction of the Cork and Fermoy line under the Acts of 1898 and 1899.'"—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTHsaid that, as the chairman of the Committee which had considered the original Bill, he trusted that the strongest view would be taken both by the Government and the House of the attempt to evade their obligations on the part of these two great railway companies, who were united under the concession granted to them three years ago by a very strong Committee specially appointed by this House, and that they should not be released from the solemn obligations they had then entered into. The concession which was then granted to them was a very large and a very exceptional one. In some respects it was a great monopoly, and the Committee had taken great care in granting that concession to consider all the obligations which they were bound to lay on the company in order that the public interests might be properly secured. The obligations placed upon the company were so numerous that he would not attempt to state them to the House, but among them were two. One was this:
  1302
  When the Bill came before the House there was a disposition on the part of the company to try and withdraw that portion of it which provided for a short route from Fermoy to Cork. If that portion of the scheme had been dropped, as the company desired, all the traffic would have had to go several miles round by Mallow. There were other objections to the company being allowed to drop that part of the Bill. One of the obligations to which the company solemnly pledged themselves was that they would, in deference to the unanimous view of the Committee, make this line from Fermoy to Cork. It was in order that they might wriggle out of that solemn pledge given to the Committee, and embodied in two Acts of Parliament—the Act passed in 1898 and another Act passed by a Committee of which he had also been chairman in 1899—that the company had approached the Treasury, who had a voice in the matter. Not only had Parliament the usual power owing to those Acts which had been passed of keeping the company to its obligations—as he hoped Parliament would do—but owing to a grant of public money advanced by the Treasury being involved, and owing to the Committee having insisted on the agreement with the Treasury being scheduled to the Act, the Treasury also had a great power, by insisting on payment of a certain sum of money to keep the company to its obligations. He hoped the Treasury would stand absolutely firm upon that. He was under the disadvantage, and so was the House, of not having had an opportunity of seeing the correspondence alluded to by the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. That some hocus-pocus had been attempted was pretty plain, but he was bound to tell the House that the Committee had considered they ought to take exceptional precautions with one of those companies on account of what he would characterise as the short-sighted, selfish policy that had been pursued for years past with respect to the city of Cork. That opened the Committee's eyes to the importance of binding down the two companies in a way which, perhaps, exceeded the ordinary practice of Parliamentary Committees. The Committee tied down the two companies most specially in the clauses that had been

  1303
  read. But when he spoke of the treatment of the city of Cork by the Great Southern and Western Company which made a profound impression on the Committee, and led them to take the steps they did in the course of their inquiry, he would also say that the policy pursued by that company was in the opinion of the Committee not only hostile to the public interests, but hostile to their own interests, and was a policy of what he would call penny-wisdom and pound-folly. He most thoroughly believed that in this attempt now to evade the obligations laid by Parliament on the company a similar policy of penny-wisdom and pound-folly was being pursued. If this connecting link was not made, the route from Cork to the west of England would not be that desired by the Committee, who had only granted that great concession to those companies in the belief that there would be constructed a railway giving first-rate through communication from London, Wales, and the west of England to Cork, and to that important district of the west of Ireland lying beyond Cork. Before he sat down he would refer to the idea mooted by the company that they would offer an alternative to the construction of this railway. But what did they offer? They offered as an alternative to carry out a second obligation—one of many, but a second obligation which they equally solemnly undertook, namely, with the co-operation of the city of Cork, to connect this new system with that particular district for the benefit of the fishing and agricultural industries. He hoped the House of Commons and the Government would not for a moment entertain the idea that, because the company offered to carry out one of their obligations, they, therefore, should be let off carrying out the other, The hon. Gentleman had read a paragraph of the Report containing the word "co-operation," and it was perfectly true that that word as used there could not have been intended to mean financial co-operation. If they had had financial assistance in view, the Committee would have taken care to have put that in the Report. What was meant was that the company should be given power to make this line, and that the Commissioners should co-operate with them in the construction of a bridge
  1304
  across the river Lee, which would be greatly to the advantage of the southwest of Ireland, namely, of all parts of the country beyond Cork.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,said there were several questions which had been mixed up in the course of the debate, but it seemed to him that the first question before the House was what was best for the district which was, or might be, served by those two lines of communication. He thought everybody would admit, probably even the hon. and learned Gentleman who initiated the debate, that the most important thing in connection with that route was the joining up of the west of Ireland with the west of England by direct communication. That, broadly speaking, and putting aside all other points, was the real question before the House—What was the best thing to be done from the point of view of Ireland? The right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken had told the House that the railway company was bound to make that through communication quite irrespective of all consequences about the line from Cork to Fermoy. He confessed he did not quite understand what the rights of that question were. It was not quite so clear as it would appear from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, who ought, as chairman of the Committee, to know. If he were rightly informed, the Committee had made it a condition that that through line should be made with the co-operation of the Cork authorities. That co-operation had not been granted.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: It has. It has never been refused. The only thing they have refused is to allow the abandonment of the Cork and Fermoy line.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he had there a volume of correspondence on the subject which he quite admitted he had not had an opportunity of reading—
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: No one else has. No one in the House has seen this correspondence.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Quite so. He had not read the correspondence, but he

  1305
  had seen one or two of the letters, and it was quite evident that, if the co-operation of the Cork authorities had not been refused, at all events it had not been given. Difficulties had been raised by the local authorities as to the building of the bridge over the river. It was not plain on the face of the correspondence that the Cork authorities had co-operated with the railway company in the manner which might have been anticipated.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid the right hon. Gentleman was quite mistaken, The Cork Harbour Board and the Corporation were willing that the company should make the bridge, but they were not willing to allow them to get out of their obligation to make the Cork to Fermoy line.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: He would come to the Cork and Fermoy line directly, but he could assure the hon. and learned Gentleman, who probably had facilities which he had not, that certainly, so far as he could gather from a glance at the correspondence, the railway company seemed to have been writing week after week and month after month in connection with the bridge over the Lee. Whether it was now settled, and the authorities of Cork were prepared to co-operate, he had no notion. So much for that branch of the question, upon which he did not feel he had the information at his disposal to enable him to give an opinion to the House. But there was something in a sense more important than the commercial and financial interests of the South and West of Ireland at the bottom of the matter. There was what the right hon. Gentleman opposite had told the House, which appeared, so far as he could gather, to be absolutely the fact. The Great Southern and Western of Ireland had been given, in a Bill which was bitterly opposed, a privilege which they asked on certain specific conditions. If there was any doubt as to the conditions, there was no doubt that one of them was the building of this line from Cork to Fermoy. His opinion was that once a railway company came before a Committee of that House and got a Bill for value received, it ought to carry out its obligations. It might be that the obligation ought not, in the interests of Ireland,
  1306
  to have been entered into. It might be that the money to be spent on this line had much better be spent in carrying out other railway works in the south and west of Ireland. Upon that point he did not offer an opinion, though he inclined to the opinion that the money probably might be better spent. But that did not alter the fact that a bargain had been made in the most solemn manner before two Committees—the Committee of that House and the Committee of the House of Lords—and that it was in consequence of that bargain that the railway company obtained from the House the privileges it now enjoyed. He thought they must distinguish that question from the question of expediency, and he did think the railway company were bound to carry out the bargain into which they had entered. However, the Treasury had nothing to do with the matter, except so far as regarded the calling up of the £93,000, which, as his right hon. friend the President of the Board of Agriculture had told the company, they would have to pay unless they built the line. He confessed he did not see any alternative in the matter. When that money was called up it appeared that the Treasury would have done all they could be ex-expected to do in connection with this question. For the rest, it would be for the House to decide whether the bargain made with one of its Committees was not to be fulfilled by the railway company. One word before he sat down in regard to the Bill before the House. It had no connection with the Cork and Fermoy line or with the construction of the bridge over the river Lee, but it was a Bill, the object of which was to improve the conduct of traffic between the south of Ireland and England. It was an omnibus Bill, and in his judgment the House would act very foolishly if it attempted to penalise a railway company by refusing to pass an omnibus Bill simply because the company had incurred, and perhaps justly incurred, suspicion in relation to certain matters. Let the House refuse in the future to remit to another Committee what one Committee had already decided; let the House refuse to allow a company to go back upon a parliamentary bargain; but it would be unwise in the interests

  1307
  of the travelling public, leaving out of consideration the shareholders, to penalise this or any other company because they had incurred the displeasure of the House in connection with an entirely different matter. Therefore he would suggest that this Bill, having been duly before a Committee, ought to be read a third time; but hereafter if either the Treasury or the House was asked to release the companies from a bargain into which they had solemnly entered for value received, then an entirely different set of considerations came in, and probably a different course ought to be taken.
  MR. FLYNNsaid he was sure the Irish Members had listened with satisfaction to the concluding words of the First Lord of the Treasury. The point was that in this matter of £93,000 it was only by means of debates of this kind that Parliament could put pressure on the company to discharge its obligations. The communities in the south of Ireland heard with amazement and Indignation the statement which was recently made by the Secretary to the Treasury. He had, week after week, put questions on this point to the Secretary to the Treasury, and information had been refused, and at the last moment they found out in a very unsatisfactory manner that a long correspondence bad been going on between the railway company and the Treasury. It seemed very strange that, without consulting the public opinion of the districts concerned, this company should have been able to carry on this correspondence behind their backs—and that with a great public Department like the Treasury. He complained that this correspondence had not been given to them in time to be used in this debate.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,said he could not possibly have the correspondence printed and circulated in the usual way, because it was only on the previous day a question was asked about it.
  MR. FLYNNsaid there appeared to be too much of a suspicion of backstairs negotiations in the matter. Something
  1308
  subterranean had evidently been going on, and this was not creditable to a great public Department like the Treasury.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid he desired to point the moral of what had occurred. This was a matter in which the great body of the Irish Members were interested, and no communication, good, bad, or indifferent, had been made, from any English source to any of the Irish Members. By mere chance rumours reached some of them, and a question was put. Then they were informed by the Secretary to the Treasury for the first time that the Treasury had had this matter before them, that this railway company had asked permission to evade their obligations, that the Treasury had referred the matter to the Irish Office, that the Irish Office had approved of the proposal of the company, and that on this approval being given the Treasury had given their sanction. Irish Members had heard with great pleasure the speech of the First Lord of the Treasury. On being called in, the right hon. Gentleman had taken an entirely different view, and reversed the decision of the Irish Office and the Treasury. The moral he wanted to point was that it was an inconvenient method of transacting Irish business for the Irish Office and the Treasury to attempt to come to decisions on purely Irish affairs without in any way consulting the representatives of Irish public opinion. The humiliating position in which the Treasury and the Irish Office now stood was one they never would have got into if they had taken the ordinary precaution of consulting the representatives of Irish public opinion. He was glad that the hon. and learned Member who had initiated the discussion had stated that he would not divide the House. If he divided, he (Mr. Redmond), for one, should have voted against him, because, although he entertained strong views on the action of the company, his views were so strongly in favour of this Bill that he would not vote against it. The Bill would be of great benefit to guarantors of the counties of Kerry and Limerick, and it proposed to construct a line to Cashel, and therefore he could not have supported the hon. and learned Gentleman if he had pushed his motion to a division. He (Mr. Redmond) was

  1309
  exceedingly glad to hear the First Lord announce that the Treasury would at once call up the £93,000. That was a sum which had been originally lent by the Treasury for the construction of railways in Co. Waterford, and he had always felt that it should be spent for the benefit of the county. As a member of the Committee presided over by Sir U. K. Shuttleworth he had agreed to this money being devoted for the purposes of the whole line, but only with very great hesitation, and only when he had evidence of the enormous good which this great through line would bring to the whole of the south of Ireland. Now that this money was to be called in, he agreed with the First Lord that it might be more usefully, or at any rate more fairly, expended in the future than it would have been under that scheme. He did not wish to discuss the matter further, as he had merely risen to point the moral that the First Lord had to throw over the Treasury and the Irish Office, because neither the one nor the other had taken the trouble to consult Irish opinion.
  MR. GILHOOLYurged that the construction of a bridge to connect the Cork and Bantry Railway with the Great Southern and Western Railway would assist the congested districts, develop the fishing industry, and assist the transit of agricultural produce. As to the "co-operation" of the Cork local bodies, if they acted towards this scheme in a selfish and niggardly spirit, he trusted that that would be remembered by the House when the Cork authorities came for further powers.
  MR. BARRY (Cork Co., S.),as a Member for the western portion of the county of Cork, wished to emphasise the importance of through communication for the purpose of the transit of fish, butter, and cattle. At the present time fish and butter and other produce which came up to Cork from the West Riding were placed at the great disadvantage of having to be unloaded at the terminus and transported across the city. He had no intention of taking isolated action in this matter, but he thought that these facilities ought to be given to the company and this link line completed.
  MR. FIELDsaid that as the chairman of the Irish Railway Reform Association he took a much larger and more comprehensive view of this matter than had been taken by previous speakers. The real question at issue was whether railway companies were to govern the House of Commons or the House of Commons were to govern railway companies. The Great Southern and Western Railway, instead of improving facilities, lowering the rates, and helping their customers, had simply put on the screw. They had come down to the House and said—We will not build this Cork and Fermoy line, and not build this bridge across the Lee. Railway companies had now become legislative rather than commercial bodies; they governed the House of Commons and the House of Lords. There were in the House of Commons seventy-eight and in the House of Lords forty-eight railway representatives. If the House of Commons allowed these two great companies to override it in this way there was an end of railway legislation.
  MR. SHEEHANjoined his colleagues in urging that, in the interests of the agricultural and fishing industries, this link line should be constructed, and that the companies should not be allowed to go back upon their solemn pledges to Parliament.
  MR. LUNDONsaid the House of Commons was over-ridden by railway directors and railway managers, and the Irish Office also had been over-ridden in a similar manner. He believed that the people of the south of Ireland lost their trump card the day they assented to the amalgamation. That was the time when the Cork and Limerick and Cashel should have stood out against the amalgamation and insisted on their rights. Instead of that they consigned their interests to this merciful House of Commons, which was largely composed of railway men. There seemed at the present time to be no remedy for these matters, because the House was in the hands of the railway interest.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid that, after the statement made by the First Lord

  1311
  of the Treasury, he would ask leave to withdraw his Amendment, but at the same time he must express some surprise that no one on behalf of the company had thought it worth while out of the respect due to the House to explain the position of the companies, but that they had allowed this debate to pass against them practically in silence. The present position of the Great Western and the Great Southern and Western was that they had been convicted in the face of Parliament of a shameless breach of faith.
  MR. DAVID M'IVERsaid that, as a director not only of the Great Western Railway but also of the Fishguard and Rosslare Railway which was practically in partnership with the Great Southern and Western, he was in a position to say that they had never for one moment denied or sought to deny the Parliamentary obligation that was cast upon them to make this Cork to Fermoy line. What they did say was that it was not in the interests of the district that that particular line should be made.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: What is your title to say that now?
  MR. DAVID M'IVER: What possible object can the Great Western have except to do that which is best for the south of Ireland?
  MR. T. M. HEALY: In whose opinion?
  MR. DAVID M'IVERrepeated that in doing what was in the interests of the public they were doing that which was best for their own interests as a great railway company. What they wanted to do was this. He was speaking both for the Great Western and for the Fishguard Railway. They wanted to make a thorough good route to the south of Ireland. They wanted to benefit Ireland. In so doing they would benefit themselves. They had no possible object in desiring to avoid making any railway which could possibly pay its expenses. With regard to this particular line he admitted that they did not think it was in the interests of the company that it should be made, but the obligation was upon them, and, if it was insisted upon, the
  1312
  line would be made. What was the position of the railway company as a commercial undertaking? If this railway was made, a railway that could not pay, and one that was not necessary to the scheme, in some way or other its expenses would have to be met. It must be more or less a burden upon the trade of the district. It was not in the interests of the south of Ireland that the line should be made. If they thought differently, the Fishguard Railway Company in no way wished to avoid doing what they had pledged themselves to do. They had never for one moment desired to evade their obligations. He did not think it worth his while to reply in any way to the perfectly uncalled for statements as to their chairman Lord Cawdor, whom they loved and respected, and who was well known to many Members of this House. None who knew him could doubt for a moment that he would be the last man to wish to evade any obligation that he had undertaken. But for the hon. and learned Member's concluding remarks he should not have troubled the House at all. He thanked the House for kindly allowing him to say those few words.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question again proposed.
  MR. MURPHYproposed to move to recommit the Bill in order that he might move—
  "That it be an Instruction to the Committee on Great Southern and Western Railway (recommitted) Bill [Lords] to insert provisions that no preferential railway rates shall be allowed to passengers staying at any hotels at present owned or in future to be acquired by the Great Southern and Western Railway Company, and also to prevent in future unequal charges for the carriage and delivery of goods being fixed by the said railway company."
  MR. SPEAKERintimated that if the Bill were recommitted, he would have to rule the Instruction out of order. The charges to be made by the company to customers travelling on their lines and using their hotels was a general matter of railway law; so was the question of unequal charges; neither question could be discussed on this Bill.
  MR. T. M. HEALYpointed out that the Bill authorised the company to

  1313
  raise additional capital, to be applied to the hotels already in existence; and he contended that the House ought not to give them that privilege except upon a pledge that the hotels would be conducted in a fair and reasonable way.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for East Kerry is, I understand, seeking to raise the general question of the company making a charge to their customers which shall include travelling and maintenance at their hotels. That is a general question of railway law, which cannot be dealt with on a particular Bill.
  MR. MURPHY: Am I entitled to move to omit the clause dealing with hotels?
  MR. SPEAKER: Yes, but first of all the question must be disposed of, "That the Bill be now considered."
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill considered.
  MR. MURPHYsaid that a few facts which he would place before the House of Commons would, he thought, say a good deal more in favour of the motion which he proposed to move than any words which he could utter. One of the hotel keepers in Kerry had given him the figures in reference to this matter. The cost of a first class return ticket to Killarney was 45s., but the cost with three days board and lodging at the Great Southern Hotel was only 55s.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid the hon. Member was now attempting to do a thing which he had already ruled was not in order.
  MR. MURPHYsaid that that being so, he would move to omit Clause 34, which was the clause dealing with the subject of hotels. He moved its omission as a protest against the rates which the company would charge if it was allowed to acquire hotels in Killarney and Kerry generally.
  Amendment proposed to be made to the Bill, by leaving out Clause 34.—(Mr. Murphy.)
  Question proposed, "That Clause 34 stand part of the Bill."
  MR. GOULDINGsaid, on behalf of the promoters of the Bill, he could not accept the Amendment. The clause was vital, and if it was struck out the responsibility for the loss of the Bill would rest on the Members from Ireland.
  MR. FIELDasked whether the House was to understand that the hon. Member as representing the railway company came to the House and insisted upon their accepting every clause in the Bill.
  MR. GOULDINGsaid he did not say so, but that the clause dealing with the hotels was vital. The Bill had been before two Committees, and this objection had not been taken before.
  MR. FIELDsaid the remarks of the hon. Member were in the recollection of the House. He had stated distinctly that they must accept the Bill as it stood. That brought the House to the condition of things which he had foretold only a few minutes before. This railway company now came to the House and said they must take the Bill as it stood or leave it. This was a condition of things which should not be allowed. He knew something about this railway company: they wanted to best everybody in Ireland, and he was sorry to say more often than not they did it.
  MR. CONDONsaid he had been placed in a most embarrassing position by the remarks of the hon. Gentleman opposite. He himself was in favour of the passing of the Bill, but if the hon. Gentleman was speaking on behalf of the Great Southern and Western Company he certainly thought he should explain the clause to the House, and give some reason why they would not accept the Amendment. That was the least the hon. Gentleman could do, remembering all that had taken place in the Committee. The Great Southern and Western Company's behaviour was not inviting; they simply held a pistol to one's head and said if they did not take the whole Bill they would have none.

  1315
  Hon. Members were entitled to better treatment at the hands of this railway company, and the least thing that its representatives in the House could do was to adopt a conciliatory attitude. Why was this particular part of the Bill so desirable? It would take a great deal to make him adopt any action which would jeopardise the passage of the Bill, because the interests of Cashel were vitally interested, and therefore before proceeding further he invited some explanation from the hon. Gentleman.
  SIR JOHN COLOMBdisclaimed having a brief to speak upon this motion. He only wished to point out that one of the greatest draw backs in Ireland up to a recent period was the absence of good hotel accommodation. Such a thing was against the best interests of Ireland, and a company was formed to deal particularly with Kerry, and establish certain hotels. They built some magnificent hotels, but in consequence of their not being able to manage them the railway company proposed to take them over. He thought it would be disastrous to the development of the tourist traffic of Kerry if the Great Southern and Western Railway were not to be allowed to run hotels, and he therefore hoped that every hon. Member who wished to see justice done to such a beautiful county as Kerry would support the clause.
  MR. T. O'DONNELLsaid he did not intend to oppose the Bill, but this was the only occasion on which they could protest against the anomalies which they complained of. He did not wish in any way to hamper the Great Southern and Western Railway in establishing convenient and suitable hotels. The object of himself and his friends was to create fair and open competition between all hotels, but they did not desire to establish a monopoly. He would quote one illustration to show that the Bill proposed to hand over the hotel trade of Killarney exclusively to the railway company. A traveller could obtain a ticket from Dublin to Killarney, with three days at the company's hotel in Killarney—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That is a question which cannot be discussed.
  1316
  It is the common practice for railway companies to own hotels.
  MR. FIELDasked when the question could be raised, if not on this occasion.
  MR. SPEAKER: This question can be raised on a Bill or motion expressly directed to that question.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELLsaid that nature had blessed his county with many advantages, and he desired that the hotel traffic should circulate among others than railway directors. That was his only object, and he would like to obtain from the promoters of the Bill some guarantee that at least equal facilities would be given to the other hotels as were given to the company's hotels. He suggested the postponement of the Bill until Thursday, in order to permit of an arrangement being arrived at.
  MR. CULLINANsaid he, too, should very much regret anything happening which would interfere with the passing of the Bill. He and his hon. friends were very anxious to have the Cashel line built, but after the threat used by the hon. Member opposite he thought it was time that steps were taken to prevent a series of proposals, some of a popular character and others of an objectionable character, being included in one measure. The hon. Member opposite was not, as far as he knew, a railway director, but he was sorry to add that he was an Irishman who had run away from his own country to find a seat in England in order to be able to support his brother and the other directors of the Great Southern and Western Railway.
  MR. SPEAKER: That has nothing to do with the Bill before the House.
  MR. CULLINANsaid with reference to the clause, the amalgamation Bill was opposed by the south of Ireland on the ground that it would give a monopoly to the Great Southern and Western Railway, and on the same ground he would oppose a hotel monopoly also. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Yarmouth had referred to the benefit which would be

  1317
  conferred on Kerry by the tourist traffic. As far as he was concerned personally, he should be delighted so see the beautiful scenery of Ireland appreciated, but the tourist traffic as at present managed was no advantage to the country. The railway and hotel companies would not purchase supplies in the localities concerned, but in their own centres, and to talk of the advantages of tourist development in such circumstances was the merest sham. He thought an explanation was required from the promoters.
  MR. MURPHY, in asking leave to withdraw his motion, said that unless a satisfactory arrangement were arrived at further action would be taken on the Third Reading, but in consequence of the strong interest taken in the Bill by his hon. friends he would not proceeed to a division.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Bill to be read the third time.

  PRIVATE BILLS [Lords] (STANDING ORDERS NOT PREVIOUSLY INQUIRED INTO COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referted on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, viz.:—

  Watford and District Tramways Bill [Lords].

  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.

  BLACKPOOL IMPROVEMENT BILL.
    BURTON-UPON-TRENT CORPORATION BILL.

      LANCASHIRE AND YORKSHIRE RAILWAY (DEARNE VALLEY JUNCTION RAILWAYS BILL.
      METROPOLITAN RAILWAY BILL.
      METROPOLITAN WATER COMPANIES (AMENDMENT OF ACTS) BILL.
      Lords' Amendments considered, and agreed to.

      BOLTON CORPORATION BILL [Lords].
      Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
      DOVER GAS BILL [Lords].
      Read the third time, and passed, without amendment.
  ALBION STEAM COAL COMPANY BILL [Lords].
    STOCKPORT CORPORATION WATER BILL [Lords].
    As amended, considered; to be read the third time.

    LOCH LEVEN WATER POWER BILL.
    Ordered, That in the case of the Loch Leven Water Power Bill, Standing Orders 84, 214, and 239 be suspended, and that the Bill be now taken into consideration provided amended prints shall have been previously deposited.—(Mr. Caldwell.)
    Bill accordingly considered, as amended.
    Ordered, That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time.—(Mr. Caldwell.)
    Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed.

  EDINBURGH CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
    STIRLING CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.

      CLYDEBANK BURGH TRAMWAYS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL [Lords].
      EDINBURGH AND DISTRICT WATER ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL [Lords].
      UNDER SECTION 7, SUB-SECTION 2, OF THE PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1899.
      Considered; to be read the third time to-morrow.

  TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 1) BILL [Lords].
    TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 3) BILL [Lords].
      TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 4) BILL [Lords].
      Read a second time, and committed.

      KILMARNOCK CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION.
      Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Kilmarnock Corporation (to be proceeded with under Section 7 of the Act), ordered

      1319
      to be brought in by the Lord Advocate and Mr. Solicitor General for Scotland.

      KILMARNOCK CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
      "To confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Kilmarnock Corporation," presented accordingly; and, under 62 and 63 Vie., c. 47, s. 7 (2), ordered to be considered upon Thursday.
  RIPON CORPORATION BILL [Lords].
    SALFORD CORPORATION BILL [Lords].
    Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

    BRIDEWELL HOSPITAL BILL [Lords].
    Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
    Bill to be read the third time.

    BETHLEM HOSPITAL BILL [Lords].
    Reported, with an Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
    DOVER CORPORATION BILL [Lords].
    Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

    MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
    That they have agreed to:—Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill, Dundee Corporation Order Confirmation Bill, Invergarry and Fort Augustus Railway Order Confirmation Bill, Dublin, Wicklow, and Wexford Railway (New Ross and Waterford Extension) Bill, without Amendment.
    That they have agreed to:—Wells Corporation Water Bill, Stalybridge, Hyde, Mossley, and Dukinfield Tramways and Electricity Board Bill, with Amendments.
    That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Kirkcaldy and Dysart Water." [Kirkcaldy and Dysart Water Order Confirmation Bill [Lords.]

PETITIONS.
  AGRICULTURAL RATES ACT (1896), ETC., CONTINUANCE BILL.
  Petition from Kilmarnock, against; to lie upon the Table.
  ALKALI, ETC., WORKS REGULATION BILL.
  Petition from Manchester, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  BURGH, POLICE, AND PUBLIC HEALTH (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Renfrew, against; to lie upon the Table.
  CHURCH DISCIPLINE.
  Petitions for alteration of law, from Tipton, and West Ham; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (No. 2) BILL.
  Petition from Oxford, against; to lie upon the Table.
  FACTORY AND WORKSHOP ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  Petition from Renfrew, against; to lie upon the Table.
  PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION (No. 2) BILL.
  Petition from Birmingham, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Edmonton; Shere; Bromley-by-Bow; Huddersfield; East Dulwich; Wigton; Alfreton; and Malvern; to lie upon the Table.
  SOVEREIGN'S OATH ON ACCESSION BILL.
  Petition from South Molton, against; to lie upon the Table.
  VACCINATION PROSECUTIONS BILL.
  Petitions from St. Giles, Camberwell, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

  JUDICIAL STATISTICS (ENGLAND AND WALES).
  Copy presented, of Judicial Statistics for England and Wales, 1899, Part II.

  1321
  (Civil Judicial Statistics), edited by John Macdonell, esquire, C.B., LL.D., Master of the Supreme Court [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) (GENERAL REPORTS).
  Copy presented, of General Report by the Chief Inspector of the Western Division of Scotland for the year 1900 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  PENAL SERVITUDE ACTS (CONDITIONAL LICENCE).
  Copy presented, of a Licence to be at large granted to Arthur Sturrock to which are annexed conditions other than those contained in Schedule A of the Penal Servitude Act, 1867 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  PRISONS (IRELAND).
  Copy presented, of Twenty-third Report of the General Prisons Board (Ireland) for 1900–1901, with an Appendix [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1901–2).
  Estimate presented, of the further sums required to be voted for the Service of the year ending 31st March, 1902 [by Command]; referred to the Committee of Supply, and to printed. [No. 277.]
  PAPER LAID ON THE TABLE BY THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE.
  Lunacy.—Copy of Return to the Lord Chancellor of the number of visits made and the number of patients seen by the several Commissioners in Lunacy during the six months ending on the 30th June, 1901 [by Act].
  EAST INDIA (PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT).
  Address for "Copy of a Despatch from the Government of India, dated the 17th day of January, 1901, and of the reply thereto of the Secretary of State for India in Council, dated the 7th day of June, 1901, on the subject of Memorials from the Officers of the Public Works Department appointed from the Royal Indian Engineering College in the years 1873–1878."—(Sir Seymour King.)

  STEAM ENGINES AND BOILERS (PERSONS IN CHARGE) BILL.
  Reported, without Amendment, from the Select Committee, with Minutes of Evidence.
  Special Report from the Select Committee, brought up, and read.
  Report and Special Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 278.]

  LONDON UNDERGROUND RAILWAYS.
  Report, with Minutes of Evidence, from the Joint Committee, brought up, and read.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 279.]

QUESTIONS.

  SOUTH AFRICA—SUFFERINGS OF LOYAL REFUGEES.
  MR. BARTLEY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Committee appointed to inquire into the Boer refugee camps will be authorised also to inquire into the conditions of the loyal refugees and to report on the sufferings and privations and condition of their wives and children who, on account of their loyalty, were driven from their homes and compelled to live in camps and elsewhere during the war.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,: It is not proposed to hold such an inquiry, but no doubt in reporting on the refugee camps the Committee will have in their mind the discomforts and privations to which British refugees have unfortunately and, I fear, unavoidably been exposed, in spite of the special efforts made for their relief and the generous help provided by the Mansion House Fund.
  MR. BARTLEY: Is the inquiry not to be extended to the condition of our own loyal subjects who have suffered similar hardships and privations? Is there to be no special inquiry into their case?
  MR. BRODRICK: The question of the hon. Member is a very different one.

  1323
  Our loyal subjects are not in refugee camps; they are in Cape Colony, where they have resided for some time. The Boer women and children are in refugee camps, where they have been brought together in a short time, and what we desire to know is whether the conditions under which they are being detained are sanitary.
  MR. BARTLEY: But is the case of our own loyal subjects who have been subjected to as great privations not to be inquired into simply because they are loyalists?
  MR. BRODRICK: This is not a question of loyalists, as to whose condition no question has arisen, but an inquiry into the condition of the refugee camps.
  SIR JOHN COLOMB: Is there any precedent for sending out women to make such an inquiry?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That does not arise out of the question.

  PRECAUTIONS AGAINST BOER RAIDS— FARM BURNINGS.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the military authorities in South Africa have issued orders for the clearing of all farms situated within a certain area between the Tugela River and Sundays River; and, if so, does this order involve the burning of houses and farm buildings, or merely the destruction of barns and of farm produce generally.
  MR. BRODRICK: Instructions have been issued to the farmers in the district of the Upper Tugela to remove their stock in the event of marauding parties of the enemy crossing the frontier. There is no question of burning farm buildings or destruction.

  COMMISSION ON DYSENTERY.
  SIR WALTER FOSTER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the Report of the Commission or Committee appointed, last August, to inquire into the nature,
  1324
  causation, pathology, and modes of prevention (more particularly as affecting armies in the field) of dysentery, and its connection, if any, with enteric fever, has been received, and whether it will be laid upon the Table of the House before the discussion of the Army Medical Vote.
  MR. BRODRICK: No Report has as yet been received from the Dysentery Commission.

  SEAFORTH HIGHLANDERS.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will have some inquiry made by General Sir Archibald Hunter in regard to the death of Private Macaulay, who died shortly after his arrival home at Brager Lewis, his death being attributable to the exposure to which he and other members of the 3rd Seaforth Highlanders were subjected on the passage to Stornoway in McBrayne's steamer from Kyle of Lochalsh.
  LORD STANLEY: The proper course in cases of this kind is for inquiries to be addressed through the commanding officer to the general officer commanding the Scottish District. I must ask the hon. Member to take this course.

  MILITARY MANŒUVRES.
  MR. BATTY LANGLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can now state whether any steps are being taken for obtaining facilities for the carrying on of autumn manœuvres, more especially for the training of officers.
  MR. BRODRICK: No further steps are being taken at present. It is not, indeed, proposed to take any, having regard to the large number of troops now in South Africa.

  DERBYSHIRE REGIMENT.
  SIR WALTER FOSTER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that some of the men of the Derbyshire Regiment, which distinguished itself at Vlakfontein, have been in South Africa since 1899, and had

  1325
  previously served in the Tireh Campaign in 1897–8; and whether, taking into account their prolonged period of service in the field, he will consider whether these men can be relieved and sent home.
  MR. BRODRICK: I am fully aware that there may be some men who have served so long in the field as the hon. Member suggests, but I am afraid that it will not be possible for Lord Kitchener to treat them differently to other soldiers of Line regiments.

  DISTRIBUTION OF WAR MEDALS.
  MR. WILLIAM JOHNSTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will state what facilities will be afforded to members of the House of Commons who desire to attend the distribution of war medals by His Majesty the King at the Horse Guards on Friday, the 25th instant, at 11.30 a.m.
  MR. BRODRICK: Members should apply to the general officer commanding the Home District for tickets of admission within the line of sentries. There are no stands.
  CAPTAIN SINCLAIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that disappointment is felt by the Fife and Forfar Yeomanry, recently returned from South Africa, respecting the arrangements for the presentation of medals by His Majesty the King on Friday at the Horse Guards Parade, because only forty officers and men are to be allowed to attend the ceremony, and because only those who were invalided home are to have their expenses to, in, and from London refunded; and whether he will explain why it is that the men who have served a full term in South Africa have to pay their own expenses on this occasion, while comrades who may not have seen half so much active service will have their outlay refunded; and whether, subject to the arrangements of His Majesty, such presentation of war medals to Scottish Regiments might in future take place in Scotland.
  MR. BRODRICK: The number was confined to forty, as His Majesty was
  1326
  forced to limit the presentation to 3,000, and there were seventy-five companies concerned. As regards the travelling expenses, it is not possible to provide for the travelling of discharged soldiers out of Army funds, and therefore the invalids only could be included. The undistributed medals will be forwarded to the respective general officers commanding districts for presentation. It must be understood that attendance one such an occasion is entirely voluntary.
  CAPTAIN SINCLAIR: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of the question?
  MR. BRODRICK: His Majesty cannot undertake to attend in all parts of the Kingdom, and consequently such presentations will be made by either the Lord Lieutenant or the general officer commanding the district when they cannot be made by His Majesty.

  MR. STANHOPE'S STATEMENT (1891) OF THE GENERAL OBJECTS OF THE ARMY ESTABLISHMENT.
  MR. ARTHUR LEE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the Parliamentary Paper on the requirements of the Army, which has just been issued,* foreshadows any
  *The document referred to is Command Paper (1901) No. 607, and is as follows:—
  "PAPER BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE, LAYING DOWN THE REQUIREMENTS FROM OUR ARMY, DATED 1ST JUNE, 1891.
  "Her Majesty's Government have carefully considered the question of the general objects for which our Army is maintained. It has been considered in connection with the programme of the Admiralty, and with knowledge of the assistance which the Navy is capable of rendering in the various contingencies which appear to be reasonably probable, and they decide that the general basis of the requirements from our Army may be correctly laid down by stating that the objects of our military organisation are—
  "(a) The effective support of the civil power in all parts of the United Kingdom.
  "(b) To find the number of men for India which has been fixed by arrangement with the Government of India.
  "(c) To find garrisons for all our fortresses and coaling stations at home and abroad, according to a scale now laid down, and to maintain the garrisons at all times at the strength fixed for a peace or war footing.
  "(d) After providing for these requirements, to be able to mobilise rapidly for home defence two army corps of Regular troops and one

  1327
  modification in the details of the new Army scheme; and, if so, in what respects.
  MR. BRODRICK: No, Sir. The Paper was laid on the Table because it was referred to in debate, and its publication was promised in another place.
  MR. ARTHUR LEE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in view of the fact that this Paper is apparently ten years old, he will consider the advisability of publishing a similar Paper in which the objects of the Army shall be brought up to date?
  MR. BRODRICK: If my hon. friend will do me the honour to read my speech on introducing the Estimates, he will find the fullest information there.
  MR. ARTHUR LEE: I do not think that in that speech the right hon. Gentleman dealt with the question of the garrisons of fortresses at home and abroad.

  COALING STATIONS—MILITARY OR NAVAL CONTROL.
  MR. LAMBERT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if the proposal to transfer the defence of certain coaling stations from the military to the naval authorities is to be persevered in.
  MR. BRODRICK: No decision has yet been come to in this matter.

  DUKE OF YORK'S SCHOOL, CHELSEA.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Secre-
  partly composed of Regulars and partly of Militia, and to organise the Auxiliary forces, not allotted to army corps or garrisons, for the defence of London and for the defensible positions in advance, and for the defence of mercantile ports.
  "(e) Subject to the foregoing considerations, and to their financial obligations, to aim at being able, in case of necessity, to send abroad two complete army corps, with cavalry division and line of communication. But it will be distinctly understood that the probability of the employment of an army corps in the field in any European war is sufficiently improbable to make it the primary duty of the military authorities to organise our forces efficiently for the defence of this country.
  "1st June, 1891. E. S."
  1328
  tary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the fact that there is no dental surgeon appointed to look after the teeth of the boys, orphans of British soldiers, at the Duke of York's School, Chelsea, or at the corresponding school for girls; and, having regard to the importance of a sound mouth to the children, and to the fact that many of the boys join the Army, whether such appointment will be made without further delay.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Lord STANLEY,: Simple cases are dealt with by the medical officer. Occasionally when special treatment has been required the boys have been sent to a dental surgeon or to the dental hospital. This would appear sufficient.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: Will the noble Lord allow an independent examination to be made of the boys—at the expense of private individuals—in order to show the necessity for a dental surgeon?
  LORD STANLEY: No, Sir; I cannot give any such undertaking.

  INDIAN ARMY PENSION REGULATIONS.
  MAJOR RASCH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he can explain why the widows and families of officers of Indian Army Departments (1,341, 1,344 Army List, 1 7 91), all of whom served with the British Army, on promotion to warrant officers should not be treated as regards pensions and allowances similarly to those of officers entering the Staff Corps from the British Army; and, if not, will he have paragraph 1,541 Army Regulations, vol. 1, Pay Code, amended to include them.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord G. HAMILTON,: An Indian Army circular was issued by the Government of India on the 1st April, 1900, revising the rates of pension for the widows and children of officers and warrant officers of Indian Army Departments. The rates now in force are equivalent to those enjoyed by the widows and children of corresponding ranks in the British Army.

  INDIAN TELEGRAPHIC TARIFFS.
  SIR EDWARD SASSOON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is able to hold out any expectation of the arrangement for the reduction in the telegraphic tariff to and from India coming into force within a measurable distance of time, which the present President of the Board of Agriculture declared fifteen months ago to be all but signed; also, whether the various pooling arrangements to which the Indian Government committed themselves are to continue for an indefinite term of years.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: The subjects to which my hon. friend's question refers are under the consideration of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Cable Communications. Pending the receipt of their Report I am not in a position to make any announcement on these subjects.
  SIR EDWARD SASSOON: Will the right hon. Gentleman use his influence to facilitate the decision of the matter.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: I agree that the matter is urgent. I understand that the report will be shortly completed.

  INDIAN FRONTIER DISTURBANCES— ATTACK ON JANDOLA POST.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he will state how far the outpost of Jandola (the scene of the attack made upon a detachment of the 45th Sikhs on the 10th instant) is from Kohat or other nearest position on the administrative frontier of India; whether this locality is included in the trans-frontier portion of the proposed new province; and whether, seeing that the presence of Sikh troops is obnoxious to the Moslem tribesmen in those regions, the Government of India will consider the desirability of employing native troops of a different race as garrisons of such outposts.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: The nearest important position in British India is Tank, headquarters of a sub-division of Dera Ismail Khan, which is about fifteen miles from Jandola. The answer to the
  1330
  second question is in the affirmative. The choice of troops must be left to the discretion of the Government of India and the military authorities on the spot, who are fully acquainted with the racial likes and dislikes of the tribes with whom they have to deal.

  CHINA—FOREIGN TROOPS AT SHANGHAI—BRITISH INTERESTS IN THE YANG-TSYE VALLEY.
  MR. LAMBERT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the presence of French, German, and Japanese troops at Shanghai is in accordance with the Anglo-Chinese agreement that the valley of the Yang-tsze should be alienated to no foreign Power; can he state the cause of the presence of these troops at Shanghai; and whether any representations have been made to the Governments concerned that the British Government objects to the presence of these troops; if so, what replies have been returned; if no representations have been made, will the Government make them.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Viscount CRANBORNE,: The temporary presence of foreign troops at Shanghai in connection with the recent disturbances does not constitute any alienation of Chinese territory, or any infringement of the assurances given to this country by China in regard to the Yang-tsye region.

  FOKIEN DISTURBANCES.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government have received any information as to secret society disturbances in the Hsing-hwa district of Fokien.
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: No, Sir.

  COMMITTEE ON MERCHANT SEAMEN.
  MR. JOYCE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is now in a position to state when he will appoint the Committee to inquire into questions affecting merchant seamen, whether in appointing the Committee he will make provision for direct

  1331
  representation of seamen as well as shipowners, whether he can state the number he intends to appoint, and whether the Committee will be appointed before the House rises at the end of the session.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,: I am not yet prepared to make any further announcement with regard to the appointment of the Committee to which the hon. Member refers, beyond stating that I shall certainly endeavour to secure the adequate representation of seamen as well as shipowners upon it.
  MR. JOYCE: Will the Committee be appointed before the end of the session, so that the House may know of whom it consists?
  [No answer was returned.]

  REMOVAL OF BRITISH FACTORIES TO AMERICA.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that several manufacturing firms whose manufactures found a market mainly in America have emigrated to the United States to start their business in that country; and whether he will cause inquiries to be made upon this subject.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have no official information to the effect stated in the question, but it is not unusual for factories or branches to be established abroad by British enterprise, and I see no reason for a special inquiry into the matter.

  MAIDEN ROCKS.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has seen the report of the Belfast Harbour Commissioners' meeting on 16th instant, giving the statement of the chairman, Sir James Musgrave, that he, as a member of the Irish Lights Board, had brought outside opinions before that board urging that a lightship should be placed at the Maiden Rocks; whether, as this would entail delay and cost in construction and up-keep above the already arranged and promised improvements, he will direct the improvements
  1332
  now decided upon to be carried out without further loss of time, in view of the fact that, owing to the speed and size of steamers passing these rocks, a loss may happen at any time during a fog.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Yes, Sir; I have seen a report of the meeting of the Belfast Harbour Commissioners referred to in the hon. Member's question. The Board of Trade have given their sanction to the improvement of the Maiden Lights, and I have no doubt that the work will be proceeded with without any unnecessary delay.

  LIGHTHOUSE LIGHTS—MR. WIGHAM'S APPARATUS.
  MR. M'CANN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to Mr. Wigham's new lighthouse light exhibited continuously on the top of a high building in Sackville Street, Dublin, from the time of the visit of her late Majesty in April of last year till the beginning of the present summer; whether he has received any reports respecting it; and whether any steps are being taken to secure the lights for the public service.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Yes, Sir, my attention has been called by Mr. Wigham to his new lighthouse light, and I have suggested to him that he should communicate with the general lighthouse authorities directly if he wishes to introduce his apparatus to their notice, as it is not within the province of the Board of Trade to recommend inventions to the lighthouse authorities. I have not received any report on the subject, nor has any application been received from any of the lighthouse authorities for Board of Trade sanctions to the adoption of the light.

  STORNOWAY MAIL STEAMER.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, seeing that M'Brayne's thirty-nine-year-old mail steamer "Clydesdale," which conveys His Majesty's mails to and from Stornoway, is continually late in her arrival at Stornoway, and that she was more

  1333
  than half an hour late on no less than twenty-nine occasions out of the sixty-three passages which she made from Mallaig and Kyle of Lochalsh to Stornoway between the 1st April and 22nd June, will he explain why the penalty clauses have not been enforced.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,: The Postmaster General does not consider that the penalty clauses in the Stornoway mail contract apply to the delays to which the hon. Member refers, which were satisfactorily explained by the contractor.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will state how many men are engaged in working M'Brayne's thirty-nine-year-old mail steamer "Clydesdale," which conveys His Majesty's mails between Mallaig, Kyle of Lochalsh, and Stornoway; and the number of hours out of the twenty-four each man has for rest.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The Board of Trade are not in a position to interfere with the internal arrangement or methods of working the steamer to which the hon. Member refers, but, through the courtesy of the owner, and by the inquiries of my local officers, I have been furnished with information which satisfies me that the "Clydesdale" (which holds a Board of Trade passenger certificate) is not only adequately but liberally manned.

  TELEGRAPH CLERKS' GRIEVANCES.
  MR. GODDARD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether his attention has been called to a petition, submitted in June, 1900, from the Postal Telegraph Clerks' Association, alleging that telegraphists with five years service are underpaid; and whether an answer can now be given to the petition.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir. The attention of the Postmaster General was called to the petition referred to, and he subsequently consented to receive a deputation from the memo-
  1334
  rialists in order that they might make further representations, and be furnished with his reply upon certain questions raised in their memorial. The question respecting memorialists with five years service, which had already been settled in accordance with the recommendations of Lord Tweedmouth's Committee, was not regarded as open to discussion; indeed, the Postmaster General informed the deputation to that effect.

  FEMALE TELEPHONE EMPLOYEES AT LIVERPOOL.
  MR. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the Treasury and the Post Office have at length decided upon putting the female employees, who were compulsorily taken over by the Post Office from the National Telephone Company in Liverpool and elsewhere, on the establishment of the Post Office, seeing that they have been prejudiced as regards wages by the compulsory transfer, and that this matter has been awaiting settlement for about five years.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Yes. The Postmaster General, with the concurrence of the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury, has sanctioned a scheme for placing on the establishment of the Post Office efficient telephone operators employed by the Department; and steps are being taken to carry out the scheme at an early date in the Liverpool post office and elsewhere. There is, however, no foundation for the statement that any female operators were taken over compulsorily from the National Telephone Company.

  SUB-POST OFFICES WORKING BALANCES.
  MR. KENNEDY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether his attention has been called to the fact that £10 is the maximum credit balance maintained at sub-post offices transacting money order business in Ireland; whether he is aware that on the presentation of more than one money order a sub-postmaster is sometimes obliged to defer payment for

  1335
  several days, having first to apply to Dublin for the necessary funds; and seeing that, according to the regulations printed on the back thereof, those orders are payable on the day following the date of issue, whether the Postmaster General will protect the public from default, either by increasing the maximum credit allowed to sub-postmasters, or by forwarding to the latter with the advice note the necessary cash to cover same.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: It is only at the smallest post offices transacting money order business that the cash reserve is as low as £10; but it is possible that when several money orders for large amounts are presented for payment in one day, there may sometimes not be sufficient funds in hand to cash them in full. The Postmaster General believes such cases to be very rare, and lack of funds should never in ordinary circumstances lead to a delay of several days in payment. There is no rule under which the Post Office undertakes to pay money orders on the day following the date of issue. Arrangements are already made for supplying sufficient cash to offices on which an exceptional number of money orders have been drawn. Is the hon. Member referring to foreign money orders?
  MR. KENNEDY: No; I am referring to my own experience of the past fortnight. Why cannot the money be sent along with the advice?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: If the hon. Member will give me specific instances I will inquire.

  NEW GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS.
  MR. WHITMORE: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether any definite decision has now been come to with regard to the carrying out of the designs of the late Mr. Brydon for the new Government offices in Parliament Street.
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. AKERS DOUGLAS, Kent,: It has been definitely decided that Mr. Brydon's building, all the plans for which are in my pos-
  1336
  session, shall be carried out by the officers of my Department; and the contracts will be entered into under the supervision of the principal architect and of Sir John Taylor.
  LORD BALCARRES: I beg to ask my right hon. friend what will be done with the balance of the £26,000 allotted for the architect's fees?
  MR. AKERS DOUGLAS: I hope thereby to effect a considerable saving.

  TELEPHONE FACILITIES AT THE HOUSE.
  SIR CHARLES CAYZER: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether his attention has been called to the inconvenience caused to Members by the inadequacy of the telephone facilities and the location of the telephone room; and whether, during the forthcoming recess, he will arrange to have a telephone room in closer proximity to the House, and, if possible, on the level of the floor of the House.
  MR. AKERS DOUGLAS: I do not remember that this matter has been brought to my notice, nor was it represented to the recent Committee on the Accommodation of the House. I will consider whether anything can be done; but having regard to the pressure on the space within the near precincts of the House, I regret that I see little hope of it.
  SIR CHARLES CAYZER: But are there not rooms in close proximity to the House which could be utilised as telephone rooms?
  MR. AKERS DOUGLAS: I should be glad if my hon. friend could tell me where they are. I do not know.

  GRANTS TO VOLUNTARY NIGHT SCHOOLS.
  DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether it is intended to offer Whitehall grants to night schools conducted by

  1337
  other bodies than school boards without the securities of the Elementary Education Acts of 1870 and of 1876, and of the Regulations of the Education Department in the past as to the observance of a Conscience Clause, the audit of expenditures, the publication of accounts, and the operation of the seventeen and six-penny limit.
  THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Sir J. GORST,: Grants will be paid by the Board of Education to all evening schools which fulfil the conditions of the minute of July 3rd.
  DR. MACNAMARA: Does the right hon. Gentleman hold that the seventeen-and-sixpenny limit can be repealed without legislation?
  SIR J. GORST: I must ask for notice of that.

  SCHOOL SHELTER SHEDS IN SCOTLAND.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the attention of the Secretary for Scotland has been called to a statement contained on page 5 of the General Report of the Northern Division (Education, Scotland) for the year 1900, in which the inspector points out that there are many schools in the north where the children's playground is not provided with a shelter shed; and will he say what action it is proposed to take in the matter.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY,: Where any deficiency such as the hon. Member refers to is pointed out in the inspector's report, the attention of the school board is called to the matter, and due consideration is given to the circumstances of each case.
  MR. WEIR: May I ask whether, in case of the failure of school boards to provide these shelters, the Scottish Board of Education will take any action?
  MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: I do not suppose they could do more than call the attention of the boards to the matter, and in very bad cases suspend the grant.

  LAND ADMINISTRATION IN GALWAY.
  MR. BIGNOLD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the fact that in 1897 Judge Ross granted a lease of the demesne of Woodstock, three and a half miles from Galway, to Thomas N. Redington, farmer, thus described, but really a lawyer's clerk in the office of his father, Mr. John Redington, receiver over the estate, whereby the receiver, John Redington, and not his son, really became tenant of these lands, 133 acres, 3 roods, 7 perches; and, having regard to the landless condition of the people in the neighbourhood of Galway, will he inquire into the matter, and can he take steps with the view of having the lease cancelled, which has been granted to a person incorrectly described.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,: The validity of the lease in question was recently challenged in the proceedings before Mr. Justice Ross. The judge then sent an independent official to the locality to report on all the circumstances, including the adequacy of the rent reserved in the lease. The official reported in favour of the bona fides of the letting and that the land had been let at its full value. Accordingly the judge refused to set aside the lease. The official, however, reported that the sum of £100 should be added to the price offered by the lessee for timber. This sum the lessee refused to give and the judge has ordered the lands to be sold by public sale in the ordinary way to the highest bidder.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: Is it a fact as stated in the question that the person to whom the lease was granted was a clerk in the office of the receiver, and the receiver's son?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I have no information as to that.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I do not know whether I should be justified in cross-examining the judge on the matter.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: I am not suggesting that the judge should be cross-examined; I am asking if the right hon. Gentleman can get a definite answer to a definite question—was the lease granted to the receiver's own son?
  MR. WYNDHAM: Well, I will ask if that information can be obtained, and if there is any objection to giving it.

  STEAM TRAWLERS IN DINGLE BAY.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the fact that on 6th July three steam trawlers were fishing inside the line in Dingle Bay, and that on Sunday the 7th instant a down were six miles inside the limit; whether, considering the number of fishermen on this coast dependent on fishing, he will take some steps to check the damage done by these steam trawlers.
  MR. WYNDHAM: This portion of the coast has been patrolled on several occasions during the past month by the cruiser "Helga," but no trawlers were detected inside the prescribed limits. The Department is doing its utmost to check the depredations of these trawlers, and the Bill now before Parliament will considerably strengthen its hands in this direction, if passed into law.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: Is there any reasonable expectation of the Bill being passed? I have received numerous letters on this subject from my constituents.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I hope so. But two important Bills before the House must first be disposed of.

  IRISH SCHOOL TEACHERS' SALARIES.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Commissioners of National Education have as yet taken steps to determine the incomes of those teachers whose cases were held to require special consideration; and if not, seeing that some of these teachers are receiving £30 per annum less than they would now receive had the
  1340
  old system of payment continued, whether the Commissioners will take immediate steps to adjust the incomes of such teachers; and whether, in the case of principal teachers who obtained second class with special distinction in 1898, and who secured or would be entitled to promotion to second division of first class under the old regulations, the Commissioners will award incomes to such teachers equal to those they would have had as first class teachers under the results system.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The Commissioners are taking steps to determine the incomes of those teachers whose cases are held to require special consideration under Rule 63. They will proceed with this work as rapidly as possible, considering the number and complexity of the claims submitted.

  BUTTER STANDARD COMMITTEE— IRISH REPRESENTATION.
  MR. SHEEHAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received a copy of a resolution adopted at a recent meeting of the Cork Butter Exporters' Association, setting forth that the Departmental Committee appointed to inquire into and report on the fixing of a standard of water in butter is not fairly representative of the interests of producers or traders; that no representation has been given to the factory owners of the south of Ireland and the Irish salt butter industry, while the creamery interest is strongly represented; and, having regard to the representations which have been made from many quarters on this subject, will he accede to the demand of the Cork Butter Exporters' Association that addition should be made to this Departmental Committee of one or two men who have had practical experience of the working of the butter trade, especially of the salt butter industry and the factory system.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I am afraid I cannot usefully add to my reply to the similar question addressed to me yesterday by the hon. Member for East Clare. †
  † See page 1125.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the President of the Board of Agriculture gave the appointment of the Irish representatives to Mr. Horace Plunkett, who selected—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member is proceeding to argue the question.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of having a representative of the Irish salt butter industry on the Committee?
  MR. WYNDHAM: The matter was placed in the hands of my right hon. friend Mr. Plunkett, who is far more competent to deal with it than I am. Any representation I could make to him would be of an unofficial character. I can carry the matter no further across the floor of the House.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: Well, I think he has acted in very bad taste.

  CORK ASSIZES—JURY CHALLENGING.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland whether his attention has been called to the proceedings at the present Cork Assizes on 18th and 19th instant; whether he is aware that at the trial of Richard Moynihan charged with stealing two sums of 10s. each, forty-five jurors were ordered by the Crown Counsel to stand by; and that on the trial of Denis Crowley and Daniel Crowley, on a charge of manslaughter, fifty-two jurors were ordered to stand by; and will he state whether the action adopted by the Crown Counsel in these cases was taken with the knowledge and sanction of the Law Officers of the Crown in Ireland.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,: My attention has been called to the matter referred to, and I have called for a report, but have not yet received it, so that I am unable to reply as to the particulars. It is the duty of the Crown Solicitor, not the Crown Counsel, to set aside jurors. In the discharge of that duty he is guided by the
  1342
  directions contained in the Circular of February, 1896. No special directions were given, but, of course, I am responsible.
  MR. FLYNN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that out of the ninety-seven jurors ordered to stand aside, ninety-four were Roman Catholics?
  MR. ATKINSON: I can add nothing to the answer I have given.
  MR. FLAVIN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the packing machine in Cork is well oiled, as usual?

  BALLYMOTE DISTURBANCES.
  MR. O'DOWD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a meeting of the people of Ballymote, county Sligo, was attacked and dispersed by a force of policemen armed with batons on the night of the 17th inst., without previous warning; that three respectable men were arrested on the occasion and sentenced to three months' imprisonment each, in default of finding bail, by Mr. Crane, who held a special court in the police station at 11.35 p.m. the same night; and that these prisoners were denied the right to have witnesses examined: will he explain why Mr. Crane has been sent to Ballymote, seeing that there is another resident magistrate in charge of that district; and whether he is at liberty to hold midnight courts whenever he wishes to do so without consulting the other magistrates residing in the town.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Attempts were made to hold meetings at Ballymote on the nights of the 15th, 16th, and 17th inst. in close proximity to the houses of two men who have been held up to public odium. The police had reason to believe that the object of the meetings was to intimidate these men, and on each occasion the police warned the promoters beforehand that any such demonstration would be an unlawful assembly, calculated to lead to a breach of the peace, and that if persisted in the meeting would be dispersed. On each occasion the crowd was dispersed without recourse to the use

  1343
  of batons. Two individuals whose misconduct on the 17th inst. was conspicuous were arrested by the police and taken before the resident magistrate, who required them to give sureties for the peace and good behaviour for six months, or to go to prison, in default, for three months. One entered into sureties forthwith, and the other two days afterwards. In applications for binding to the peace it is competent to the magistrate to refuse to receive evidence to contradict the affidavits of the applicant, and it is also competent to the magistrate, at any time and at any place within his jurisdiction, upon sworn depositions, to determine whether a person brought before him should be required to give sureties for his peace and good behaviour. Mr. Crane has been sent to Ballymote because it was considered desirable to station a resident magistrate there. The resident magistrate of the district who is stationed at Sligo is absent on leave.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: Are we to understand that what occurred was this: that at half-past eleven or twelve men alleged to have taken part in some disturbance were arrested and taken straight into the police barracks, that a court was there and then held at night and in private, that the men were tried without any opportunity of obtaining witnesses for the defence, that they were convicted, and that one was sent to prison for three months?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I am not learned in the law, and I do not know whether the word "tried" is a proper one.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: "The Star Chamber."
  MR. WYNDHAM: I always understood that the process of taking a man before a magistrate did not mean that he is tried. It was quite competent for the magistrate to order the accused to find sureties.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: I am asking as to what actually took place. Were the men taken from the streets and sentenced in private without an opportunity of calling evidence for their defence?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I demur to the use of the word "sentenced." The men were
  1344
  arrested and immediately taken before a magistrate.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: At midnight. The Star Chamber is not in it.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The men were arrested, and, instead of being placed under lock and key, they were ordered to give sureties to be of good behaviour.
  MR. O'DOWD: IS the right hon. Gentleman aware that one of the two men was a respectable shop assistant who had nothing to do with the impromptu meeting?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!.
  MR. FLAVIN: Is this Mr. Crane the gentleman who was specially selected—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The question on the Paper has been fully answered.
  MR. FLAVIN: On a point of order—
  MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order. The question has been fully answered. If the hon. Member wants further information about Mr. Crane he must put the question down.
  MR. FLAVIN: You have not heard my point of order.
  MR. SPEAKER: The question has been fully answered.
  MR. FLAVIN: With due respect to you, Sir, the right hon. Gentleman has not answered it.

  COUNTY COURTS (IRELAND) BILL.
  MR. WILLIAM JOHNSTON: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland whether his attention has been directed to a resolution from the Belfast Chamber of Commerce entirely approving of the County Courts (Ireland) Bill as introduced; and whether, as the Belfast Chamber of Commerce has passed this resolution against the omission of the clauses relating to the issue of decrees by default in undefended cases, he will give due weight to this representation before proceeding further with the Bill.
  MR. ATKINSON: My hon. friend knows the fate of the Bill, but of course any representation coming from the Belfast Chamber of Commerce will be duly considered.

  DUBLIN REVISION COURTS.
  MR. MOONEY: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether he is aware that resolutions have been unanimously passed by the Dalkey and Killiney urban district councils and by the South Dublin National Registration Association, asking that a revision court should be established in Dalkey; and whether the Lord Lieutenant will be advised by the authorities to provide this convenience for the voters resident in the locality, in view of the fact that suitable premises can be obtained, as Dalkey town hall is used as a polling place at Parliamentary elections.
  MR. ATKINSON: The reply to the first paragraph is in the affirmative. The Lord Lieutenant has recently caused careful inquiry to be made as to the working of the present arrangement, and finds that upon the whole there are not sufficient grounds for the change proposed.
  MR. FIELD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the District Council is composed of different sections of politicians who have unanimously asked for this. From whom did the Lord Lieutenant get his information?
  MR. ATKINSON: I must ask for notice of that question.

  BALLINAKILL ELECTORAL DIVISION.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been drawn to the resolution of the Mount Bellew District Council, pointing out that the Ballinakill Electoral Division has sixty-two landholders living on land valued at £227, but that this congested area cannot be scheduled under the present law owing to the proximity of grazing farms; and will he take powers under the new amending Congested Act to schedule this and similar districts.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Assuming the facts to be as stated legislation would be necessary of a more ambitious and, therefore, of a more contentious character than the provisions in the Bill before Parliament. I cannot undertake to deal with the question of "scheduling" by amending that Bill.

  PEERS' PRIVILEGES.
  MR. BUTCHER: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the attention of His Majesty's Government has been called to the nature of the privilege by which on a charge of felony a peer is tried before the House of Lords, while on a charge of misdemeanour he is tried before the ordinary tribunals of the country; whether the Government have received any representations showing that any desire exists amongst any class in the community to maintain this privilege; and whether, in view of the expenditure of judicial time and public money which is involved in a trial of a peer before the House of Lords, the Government will on an early opportunity introduce a Bill to abolish this privilege.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,: It is undoubtedly the fact that the trial of peers for felony is an expensive and cumbrous process, but it is also a process of great historic antiquity, and one which takes its origin from a principle on which, at all events, it is commonly believed the liberties of Englishmen primarily depend, namely, the right of being tried by your peers. No doubt, if these occurrences were likely to be frequent in the future, it would be necessary for some steps to be taken in order to make the proceedings less cumbrous; but as they only take place about once in two generations, I do not know that it is necessary for the House to take any immediate action in the matter.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: When a peer is tried in this way, has he any right to challenge Catholics?

  ROYAL CANAL, IRELAND.
  MR. KENNEDY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether

  1347
  the attention of the Irish Board of Works has been called to the present condition of the Royal Canal, and whether they will cause an immediate inspection of the canal to be made and exercise their statutory powers in the interests of the traders on the said canal.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: An inspection has just been made, and the Board of Works will proceed without delay to call the attention of the Midland Great Western Railway to defects which have been found to exist, and to cause the defects in question to be remedied.

  CORK TELEGRAPHIC STAFF.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he will explain why arrears of pay from the date of the Treasury letter to the date of the Postmaster General's sanction were not paid to officers of Cork Post Office promoted on 16th February, 1900, as they were to the male superintendent and the female assistant superintendent of telegraphs at Cork and to Dublin officers promoted in May, 1899; and seeing that in offices in Great Britain and Ireland of equal importance to Cork similar promotions have not been dated seven months and twelve days subsequent to the Treasury letter, that the promotions at Cork were made in order of seniority, avoiding delay in selecting, and that the promotions of the Cork officers were delayed through no fault of theirs, he will now direct that the promotions be antedated to the date of the Treasury letter, or to the dates on which these officers undertook the responsibilities of the higher positions.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Postmaster General is not prepared to depart in this case from the usual practice, in accordance with which an officer receives the pay of a higher class from the date on which he is promoted to that class. It has already been explained to the hon. Member that as regards the superintendent the revision merely improved his scale of salary, and as regards the woman supervisor the revision only converted the assistant supervisorship into a supervisorship, and that these
  1348
  two officers were consequently able to receive their improved scale of pay at once.

  PORTADOWN DISTURBANCES.
  MR. CLANCY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether his attention has been called to the action of an Orange mob in Portadown on Sunday in endeavouring to break through a force of police with a view of stoning a body of Catholic processionists; whether his attention has also been directed to the inflammatory addresses delivered, some of them by Protestant clergymen from the pulpit, in Portadown and district for a full week previous to Sunday last in reference to Catholics and the Catholic religion; and whether, in view of that action and of those incitements to disorder, he will favourably consider the suggestion of retaining in Portadown for some days a portion at least of the extra force of police drafted on Saturday last into that town.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I am not in a position to reply at such short notice to the question, but on the point of the Government intentions I may say that the extra force at Portadown was reduced to 200 men yesterday. This force will be still further reduced at the discretion of the constabulary authorities, but not under fifty men without a special report to the Government.
  MR. CLANCY: Is not the telegraph office open to the Government?

  CORK DISTURBANCES.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland a question of which I have given him private notice, namely, whether he has any fresh information as to the proceedings of the police at Cork last night; is he aware that they attacked with batons a crowd of people near the railway terminus, and that a considerable number were seriously injured and taken to hospital.
  MR. WYNDHAM: No, Sir. I have a telegram that an arrest was made last night, and that a full report is on its way. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will repeat the question on Thursday.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: Is it not strange that the representative of the Irish Government who is responsible for law and order should not get the information which private Members receive?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  MR. FLYNN: It was in this morning's papers.

  EDUCATION—MINUTE OF 3RD JULY.
  DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in pursuance of his undertaking, he will put down the Education Estimates before 3rd August, the date on which the Evening Schools Minute of 3rd July passes into law.
  The following Questions also appeared on the Paper—
  MR. CHANNING: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, having regard to the expressions of opinion from educational bodies all over the country as to the changes effected by the Minute of 3rd July and to its connection with the proposals of the Education (No. 2) Bill, he will consent to adjourn the Committee stage of that Bill at 10.30 or 11 p.m. in order to permit a discussion on the Minute.
  MR. WHITLEY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he can now state what opportunity will be given for the discussion of the Minute of the Board of Education concerning evening schools which was laid upon the Table on 3rd July.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: There are three questions on the Paper relating to this matter, and I will answer them together. I can only say that in the present state of public business it is impossible for me to give any pledge to find an opportunity to discuss the Minute of the Board of Education. I am sorry it should be so, not merely because the hon. Gentlemen have made an appeal to me, but because I think there is a very great deal of misconception about the character of this Minute. I think the misconception amounts in some cases
  1350
  almost to mirepresentation, and it is doing a great deal of harm. The Minute does not limit the grants to students in evening schools who are under the age of fifteen, nor does it practically diminish the amount of grants to be given by the Department. Students in evening schools, of whatever age and whatever the grade of instruction, will, as heretofore, be eligible for the grant, and local authorities are in many cases now making their arrangements under the first twenty Articles of the Regulations, which are already operative.
  MR. ASQUITHsaid he should like to point out that the House had not yet had an opportunity of discussing the Education Estimates, and he submitted that it would be for the general convenience of the House that a night should be set apart for that purpose. If the right hon. Gentleman could not give them any other time, surely they might take advantage of the discussion on the Education Estimates to deal with this matter. Could he assure them that on one of the days still remaining for Supply the Education Estimates would be taken, and that an opportunity would be given for the discussion of the Minute?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I will put the Education Vote down on one of the nights, but I cannot promise to put it down as the first Order. We have already had one night's debate on educational matters in Supply during the course of the present session.
  MR. WHITLEY: I beg to ask if the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the night to which he has referred was before the appearance of the Minute, and that therefore it was impossible for us to anticipate what were the intentions of the Government. May I also ask him whether he is aware that the statement in his reply just now that the grants for evening schools had not been reduced is in direct contradiction of information I have received from the Board of Education itself?
  MR. BRYCE: I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman if the Minute will not come into force on 2nd

  1351
  August, and if we are not to have an opportunity of discussing it before that date.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: May I point out that many of the provisions of the Minute are already operative, and so they do not require to be laid on the Table.
  SIR HENRY FOWLER: Is there any precedent for the Education Vote not being taken as first Order on some night during the session?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes, Sir; but one night has already been set apart for education.
  MR. ASQUITH: That was a Supplementary Estimate.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The right hon. Gentleman is mistaken. It was a Vote on Account for the Estimates of the year, and that is not a Supplementary Estimate.
  DR. MACNAMARA: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, on July 5th, he did not say that an opportunity would be given for the discussion of this matter during the debates on the Education Bill? And is it not a fact that when Mr. Speaker ruled out of order my hon. friend the Member for North West Ham, when he proposed to take the discussion on the Education Bill, the right hon. Gentleman said he would put down the Education Vote before August 1st?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes, I intend doing so; but I cannot put it first, as the Leader of the Opposition has asked for a different allocation of the remaining days of Supply.
  MR. WHITLEY: Is it not a fact that the grants under this Minute to evening schools which are not science and art classes are reduced by 28 per cent.?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That is not the case as I understand.

NEW BILLS.

  LONDON WATER.
  Bill to vest the undertakings of the London Water Companies in a single
  1352
  public authority; and for other purposes, ordered to be brought in by Sir John Blundell Maple, Mr. Cust, Mr. Kimber, and Mr. Arthur Morton.

  LONDON WATER BILL.
  "To vest the undertakings of the London Water Companies in a single public authority; and for other purposes," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Tuesday, 6th August, and to be printed. [Bill 271.]
  RIFLE RANGES.
  Bill to promote the acquisition of Rifle Ranges, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Charles Allen, Mr. Rea, Sir John Dorington, Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice, and Sir John Brunner.
  RIFLE RANGES BILL.
  "To promote the acquisition of Rifle Ranges," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 272.]

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND).
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,: I ask leave to bring in a Bill to amend certain sections of the Local Government Act of 1898. The Bill is of a departmental character. The first clause, and indeed all four clauses, have been introduced to meet representations which have reached the Local Government Board from various local bodies in Ireland. Defects have arisen in the deduction of the Consolidated Poor Rate. It is found to involve great difficulties in the case of certain poorer tenants in Ireland, and the simpler plan suggested has been submitted in the first clause of this Bill. It is found that when they fail to make a calculation the result is that they get no deduction at all. The second clause of the Bill provides for considerable defects which have arisen in respect of certain excluded charges, particularly those for malicious injuries. A rate is asked and a sum of money raised often far in excess of the amount needed, and it is found that the balances cannot be applied to any purposes in the localities, and that they remain suspended. The third clause deals with the transitory provisional

  1353
  Order affecting urban and other authorities under the Grand Jury Act; and the fourth clause also deals with another similar imperfection discovered in the Bill called the Town Improvement Act. This Bill is of a strictly departmental character, and all I need ask the House is that they will give leave for the Bill to be read a first time. Hon. Members from Ireland will then have an opportunity of examining it, and discussing it at a subsequent stage.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: I am not going to oppose this Bill, as I do not think it worth while doing so. Ireland, as the House is aware, recently had a system of local government conferred upon it, and in the working of that system naturally a number of defects have been disclosed. We have been unable on the Estimates to discuss the Local Government Board in Ireland, owing to the inadequate arrangements made for the conduct of business. Therefore, we have been unable to call attention to many of those defects, and now the Government propose, not a great comprehensive measure dealing with those defects, but only a comparatively insignificant measure like this, dealing with one or two of the smallest points. No doubt it may be a useful measure as far as it goes. I do not deny it, and therefore I do not desire to stand in the way of its passage; but it is a ridiculous measure, and it is another instance of the way in which serious matters are dealt with by the present Government. Instead of a comprehensive Bill being introduced, and time being given for its discussion, we have introduced under the ten minutes rule, and in the dog days a little insignificant Bill of this character, which will pass through, no doubt, because it will not be worth anybody's while to object. The right hon. Gentleman says that of course time will be given for the discussion of the Bill. Very much time will not be needed for the discussion of the clauses as he has explained them, but if we were to treat this Bill seriously—that is, if we were, as it would be our duty under other circumstances, to deal with this subject in a serious spirit and endeavour to engraft upon this Bill all those changes In the Local Government system which
  1354
  we think are desirable, then a very considerable time would be required for their discussion. If we are to confine our discussion to the points mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman, I admit a considerable time will not be required. But some time will be required, because it is ridiculous to suppose that we must not examine the measure, and I take it the right hon. Gentleman will make arrangements for adequate time being given for the discussion of the Bill in Committee. Therefore all I will say with regard to the introduction of the Bill as explained by the right hon. Gentleman is that, while it will not do any harm, it is in my opinion calculated to do very little good, but under the circumstances I will not stand in the way of its introduction.
  Bill to amend sections fifty-four, fifty-six, fifty-seven, and seventy-one of The Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898, and to make provision with respect to the making of rates in certain urban districts in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Wyndham and Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) BILL.
  "To amend sections fifty-four, fifty-six, fifty-seven, and seventy-one of The Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898, and to make provision with respect to the making of rates in certain urban districts in Ireland," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 273.]

  EDUCATION (No. 2) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]
  Clause 1:—
  Amendment again proposed—
  "In page 1, line 5, to leave out sub-clause (1)."—(Mr. Channing.)
  Question again proposed, "That the words' Where a school board' stand part of the clause."
  SIR W. HART DYKEfirst congratulated the Chairman

  1355
  on his return to the House, and then said that he wished to make an appeal to the Committee and to the Government in the interests of peace and the future of education, and especially in the interests of the voluntary schools. It was perhaps unfortunate for his mission as a peacemaker that he had criticised the proposals of the Government; but he had spoken as an old and irresponsible Member of the House of Commons whose official life was happily closed, and who had always felt an extreme keenness on this question of education. If he had spoken strongly it was because he had felt strongly that no good could come to education out of party strife. He would take back everything he had said in criticism of the Vice-President, and would put on sackcloth— uncomfortable as it was in the dog days— if he could secure thereby a favourable hearing for the appeal which he wished to make. On the essential merits of the question in dispute there was very little difference between the two sides of the House, and he appealed to the Government to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Rossendale standing later on the Paper. That Amendment left all the earlier part of the clause dealing with the local authority untouched; but it would enable the school boards, with the consent of the Board of Education, to carry on the work of the schools and classes to the same extent and on the same conditions as at present. The object of the Bill was to secure for one year certain classes and schools in the position which they now held. Both the Government and their supporters wished those classes to be maintained. In fact, the other night the First Lord of the Treasury admitted that in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred the classes would not be interfered with.
  The Amendment of the hon. Member for Rossendale simply declared that in any case the local authority should allow them to be continued. What, then, was the difference between the two positions? The supporters of the school board system acknowledged that the school beards were not to be the sole authority in the future for secondary education; but they thought it hard that for these few months an authority should be put over them
  1356
  which was not to be the ultimate authority. Was it worth while to provoke all this strife, accompanied by an agitation on every platform in the country, for the sake of allowing this authority to interfere here and there if they wished to do so? The First Lord had given away his case when he admitted that in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred no such interference would take place. What, then, was the difference? He might be very stupid, but he could not see it. Was it on behalf of the principle that the school boards in the future were not to be the body to guide the destinies of secondary education? Well, that principle had been conceded already; it had been conceded for forty years, ever since the Newcastle Commission sat, by every Committee and every Commission which had considered and reported upon the question. Again, he asked, why all this strife? Three or four years ago the Association of School Boards, after a solemn meeting, came unanimously to the opinion that they would be satisfied with a one-third representation on the new authority. The point had even been conceded in 1895 by the right hon. Member for South Aberdeen, the Chairman of the Commission upon Secondary Education. He ventured to say that the subject of contention between both sides of the House was of the most meagre and attenuated description. It might be urged that there was an objection to allowing these schools to be carried on for twelve months where objectionable practices prevailed; but this Amendment destroys that objection altogether; it gives the Education Department absolute power to deal with such evils. The Education Department might object to be brought into the arena of strife; but it was rather hard, considering how many years the Education Department had been condoning this system, and how many Vice-Presidents had made speeches praising the efficiency of the schools and presiding at their opening, that, in this emergency, the Department was willing to run away from its guns, and not pretend to look another way for twelve months. As to how much or how little there was left to struggle for, he asked right hon.

  1357
  and hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House whether there was a man, woman, or child who cared a brass farthing as to which way the House might decide this question? [Cries of "Oh, oh."] He was pressing this question on the attention of the Government and the House in the cause of education alone. The strife in this House in these unpleasant days would not end here. It would be carried into the constituencies, and hon. Members would hear of it again next session when they met to settle the difficulty which had puzzled statesmen for the last thirty years, and had ever created bitter party warfare. It was in the interests of education and of the settlement at which they all wished to arrive that he was pleading for peace. Surely the postponement of the settlement of this great question had been long enough. He knew that some hon. Members might think lightly about it, but many of them took a serious view of the situation, especially as regarded the thorough technical and practical education of our people. It was easy to get thirty millions to prevent another Majuba Hill, but hon. Members must beware lest by neglecting the settlement of the education question they did not bring a Majuba Hill as regards our trading position and commercial prospects which would be as disastrous as any reverse on the field of battle. He also pleaded for peace on behalf of the struggling voluntary schools, not only in the country districts, but in the poorer parts of London and our other large cities. What was going to be their future after all this strife, compared with what it might be if some arrangement were made permitting of an amicable, just, and lasting solution of the difficulty? He further asserted, without fear of contradiction, that when they went cap in hand and begged the local authorities to grant the voluntary schools something from the rates they would get very different treatment indeed compared with what they would have got under a calm, well-considered solution of the problem. He might be wrong, but he had studied this question for many years, and he could not help regretting the action of many of his friends on this matter. The noble Lord the
  1358
  Member for Greenwich was not in his place, or he would have liked to remind him that he had had the honour of canvassing the out-voters in Greenwich four years before the noble Lord was born, and from that day to this he had been in the thick political strife. While he was one of the greatest admirers of the noble Lord's ability, he would take leave to pit his experience against that of the noble Lord in such a matter as education. Again, he would plead for peace on both sides of the House. If hon. Members would make one big effort to drag this question out of the mire of party politics, there was no reason why next session there should not be a real and lasting settlement.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,: If any one but my right hon. friend had made the speech to which we have just listened, I should have thought I had some slight grounds for complaint—not at all in connection with the substance of the speech, but in connection with the occasion on which it has been delivered. The speech was not—at all events, apparently—on the subject of the Amendment now before the House, namely, the leaving out of Sub-section I., or the first few words of Sub-section I., but was in favour of an Amendment standing in the name of another distinguished educationist, the Member for Rossendale, which is far down on the Paper, and is not yet before the Committee in any clear and succinct form. I do not think that that is a very fortunate form of procedure, but my right hon. friend may sin a great deal, and he will always find forgiveness in this House. He has so much enthusiasm for the cause of education, he is so popular on both sides, his character carries such great and deserved weight, that I do not find it in my heart to say a single word more upon the actual form in which he has raised the question before us.
  I turn at once to the substance of my right hon. friend's speech, and I rise immediately after him because I think it is only due to the Committee that I should state perfectly clearly at this early stage of the discussion

  1359
  exactly how the Government view the proposal of my right hon. friend and the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Rossendale. I think we entertain no doubts in our own minds as to the course we ought to pursue, and, entertaining no doubts, we think we ought to make that course perfectly clear to all interested in the further progress of the Bill. My right hon. friend spoke in the interests of peace, and no one who listened to him could doubt that, when he pleaded with the Committee to treat this great question of education in a non-party and a non-controversial spirit, he was pleading sentiments which came from the very depth of his heart, and that he pleaded for a cause in which he most strenuously believes. I should be sorry to think that anything which the Government had done or are doing is raising any unnecessary dust of controversy or introducing bitterness where otherwise peace might be expected to prevail. Let us examine this matter in a perfectly candid spirit. My right hon. friend says that there is hardly any practical distinction between the plan proposed by the Government and the plan which he advocates. He has told us that, so far as he can see, there is not a single-man, woman, or child outside this House to whom it makes the smallest difference whether the plan of the Government or that of the Member for Rossendale be adopted. If that be an accurate statement of the facts, it is indeed an unfortunate thing that we should meet in embattled ranks on this occasion, that party whips should be issued, and that long and better controversies are to be expected. But if it be as my right hon. friend says, and if the practical difference between the plan of the Government and the plan of the hon. Member for Rossendale be as insignificant as my right hon. friend declares it to be, surely the majority of the House and the Government who are responsible for legislation must have their way, and those who differ from them must abandon their opposition. If there is no difference between us let peace be restored. Surely the way to restore peace is for the minority to say—"Well, we prefer our plan; but we agree there is nothing in it, and we are quite ready to
  1360
  admit that under both plans the great stream of education will go on, that there will be no very great deviation of the course, that there will be practically no diminution of it; that under the circumstances had we been in power this is not the course we would pursue; still, as the course the Government suggest makes practically no difference to the schools in which we are interested, we are quite ready to accept their plan." I do not observe that when the proposition is thus stated the love of peace receives the same amount of applause as it did when my right hon. friend was so persuasively developing his views to the House.
  Why is it that there is this apparently inevitable division of opinion? I am certain that, if my right hon. friend thinks the matter over, he will see that hon. Gentlemen, or some of them, may have more to say for the course they are taking than he seems to suppose. If his view of their action was correct I should say that they were wasting the time of the House, and unnecessarily embittering controversy by the course they are pursuing. It may be, though my right hon. friend is not aware of it, that hon. Gentlemen opposite are fighting, as we believe we are fighting, for a great principle which in our respective judgments is to govern the future of secondary education in this country. My right hon. friend said, What are you afraid of in regard to the school boards and secondary education? Everybody has declared against the school boards having anything to do with secondary education. It has been the result of Commission after Commission, declaration of policy after declaration of policy, and the school boards themselves have conceded the principle that, while they are responsible in their various localities for primary education, it is to some other authority that secondary education should be entrusted. I do not at all dispute the historical accuracy of my right hon. friend's retrospect, but is he quite sure that on the opposite side of the House there are not to be found gentlemen much interested in education whose view of the future organisation of education in this country is not a local authority elected ad hoc in the great areas of the country, who shall have

  1361
  control, as the school boards have at present, over the rates to be raised in the locality, and be responsible for the whole of the education? If that ambition— perhaps not loudly expressed at present— does not lie at the root of much of the opposition, then I am wholly unable to explain the vehemence of the opposition. In our view, it is manifest that such an extension of the authority of the school boards, transmuting their powers and constitution, but at the same time leaving them an ad hoc authority, with independent rating powers, to deal with all education—to such a plan we are unalterably opposed. I believe that to be the principle for which many hon. Gentlemen are fighting. My right hon. friend asks gentlemen on this side of the House—For what principle are you fighting? The principle for which we are fighting is plainly stated upon the surface of the Bill. We are fighting for the view that the ultimate authority for secondary education, the authority which is to have control of all local pecuniary aid for secondary education, must be the local authority. A committee of the local authority may be constituted in a future Bill as you please. It may contain, if you will, representatives of the school board, or of this or that great educational interest, but it must be a committee of the local authority. It must be from the local body it must draw its authority, and it is from the local body it must get ultimately the local financial aid by which its work is to be carried on. That is the principle that is embodied in a very rough but sufficient form for the purposes of the year. Does my right hon. friend not think that is a great gain to the cause which he himself has at heart? Does he not think that for the House of Commons to lay down the broad principle I have stated, and which is held not on this side of the House alone, but fey many educationists on the other side also, is a great gain? If he wants to know whether it is a great gain or not let him consider the alternative policy which he is recommending. He practically tries to destroy the Bill altogether, and to turn it into a measure for continuing the status quo for twelve months more. That is putting shortly what the Amendment amounts to.
  SIR W. HART DYKE: Not to shut up the schools.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I agree that as regards the fortunes of the schools there will probably be little or no difference between the two plans. But I am talking of the principles laid down in the Bill, and of the inevitable inferences that will be drawn according as the Bill is shaped one way or the other. From the Bill, as we have presented it, it will be perfectly clear to the House and the country that we consider the proper authority for organising secondary education is the local authority. From the plan recommended by my right hon. friend there is but one inference to be drawn, and that is that he wishes to prolong as long as possible—[An HON. MEMBER: For one year]—a condition of things which is substantially illegal at present, and which in no way conforms to the ultimate lines on which we think education should be organised. I have said that is the only inference to be drawn from the abandonment by the Government of the Bill as it stands and the substitution of the totally new Bill which my right hon. friend suggests. I am wrong. There is another inference to be drawn—namely, that the Government and the party which supports them do not know their own minds in the matter; that they have no policy, or, if they have a policy, that they are not prepared to stick to it in the day of battle. I think such a lesson would be fatal. If the Government were to practically abandon their scheme which appeared in the original Bill, and is repeated in this interim measure, and which is embodied in every speech dealing with the subject on behalf of the Government—embodied in the statement made by the President of the Council, in the speech made the other day by the Vice-President of the Council, in the speech I had the honour to make in behalf of the Government— I say if we were to abandon it for no satisfactory reason that I could discover in the speech of my right hon. friend, then the country would say that the Government—whatever merits they may otherwise possess—were quite unfitted to deal with education, that they were persons who did not know to what goal they were striving, what end they were seeking; who at the first wind of controversy reversed their course and steered for a port which they have never shown any desire to reach before; and, there-

  1363
  fore, that such persons were unfitted, in the matter of education at all events, to have public affairs in their hands. Of course hon. Gentlemen opposite have long taken that view of the Government, not only with regard to education but in all other matters. I suppose that is their one bond of union which brings them together. The total incompetence of the Government, whether in the fields of peace or the fields of war, whether in executive administration or in legislation—it is a commonplace with hon. Gentlemen opposite. But my right hon. friend does not take that view. He pleaded eloquently, not only for the importance of the problem of education, but for its instant and pressing necessity, He said, Avoid any course which may produce delay in the settlement of the question, for delay will have a disastrous effect on the economic future of our rising generation to whom the great commercial interests of Great Britain are to be entrusted. But does my right hon. friend think that if we adopted the course which he presses upon us we could come down to the House next year with a comprehensive Bill—[Cries of "Why not?"]—or, if we did come down with such a Bill, that we should have the smallest chance of passing it into law? [Cries of "Why not?"] I presume we should not have gained the respect of hon. Gentlemen opposite. [Cries of "You are wrong."] I am sure we should have lost the confidence of hon. Gentlemen who sit behind us. They would rightly feel that we are not safe guides in the matter of education; that it is not to hands so feeble and vacillating that the settlement of so vital a problem should be entrusted. And, even if they were converted by the arguments of my right hon. friend, the public outside, upon whom they and we alike depend, would form the judgment which no subsequent action of ours could reverse, I am convinced, that in this matter, if in no other, we had shown ourselves hopelessly incompetent either to make up our minds, or, our minds having been made up, to ask the House to go with us to the end; and if the public came to that judgment, then good-bye to those useful and immediate projects of reform in the field of education which my right hon. friend
  1364
  so urgently desires. My right hon. friend has produced no argument whatever in support of his proposal based on the necessities of the evening continuation or higher grade schools, for, in his view, and in my view, both plans would probably have much the same effect on the future fortunes of these schools. But, while our Bill will be taken by the House and the country as an authoritative declaration of the general line upon which we mean to proceed in our future Bill, if we followed his plan it would be taken with equal certainty and justice as an indication that we had handed our educational policy bodily over to the other side of the House. I cannot ask the Committee to take that step, and I earnestly trust—I know it would be vain to appeal to educationists on the other side of the House—but I ask the Gentlemen on this side of the House that they will support the Government in a policy which I honestly believe is one in which the best interests of our country are intimately involved.
  MR. BRYCE: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that this is an unfortunate occasion on which to discuss the large questions raised by the speech of the right hon. Baronet and by the right hon. Gentleman himself But the language which the right hon. Gentleman has used does not make it necessary that I should endeavour to state what we regard as the real question at issue. I should like to endeavour to recall the House to the question actually before it, which is sometimes forgotten in listening to the eloquent periods of the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman complained of the bitterness imported into this question, but that bitterness is entirely due to the fact that when the original Bill was introduced it was heralded by innumerable declarations that it was intended to commit the House and to establish the principle that the elementary schools as well as secondary education was to be taken out of the hands of the school boards. Having watched the matter for many years, I am convinced that there is no reason why secondary education should be a matter of party or political controversy in the House, if theological questions are kept out of it. If this Bill had

  1365
  been brought forward originally as a purely and simply secondary education measure, if it had not been said that it was to be a Bill for establishing an authority which was to control elementary as well as secondary education, I do not believe that the party feeling which we all regret would have ever arisen. There has been no desire on this side of the House to make party capital out of the question, so far as secondary education is concerned; and if it has become a matter of party, it is because it has been looked upon as the first step in an educational revolution which is to extinguish the school boards, and the provisions attached to the school boards by the Act of 1870, and, therefore, to completely transform our whole educational system. The right hon. Gentleman has carried over to this Bill, although only in a shadowy shape, the large principles which were involved in his first Bill. He has reiterated them to-night; but could any one imagine a worse opportunity for asserting the large principles in this particular Bill? I wondered, in listening to the right hon. Gentleman, whether at all moments of his speech he remembered what this Bill was. It is a Bill for enabling a certain number of schools and classes to be carried on for one year, and one year only. Why should that Bill settle any principle at all? Why should a Bill which is only a temporary expedient to correct an error in the interpretation of the law—[Cries of "No, no."] Surely it could not be denied that the law had been wrongly interpreted by the school boards, and even by the Vice-Presidents of the Council, who had given their blessing to these schools! This is a Bill which is only intended to operate for one year, and the right hon. Gentleman has told us that a complete Bill is to be introduced next year. But when that Bill is introduced we shall have to discuss all these questions over again. The right hon. Gentleman has said that this Bill is not to set up a permanent authority. Of course not. That permanent authority is to be set up next year, and why should we discuss now all these questions on a temporary Bill?
  Let me tell the right hon. Gentleman that we are not moved, in regard to the position we take up, by a blind devotion to school boards. It is nothing
  1366
  of the kind. What we care about is to see this educational work properly done, and efficiently done. We do fear that there will be a general stoppage of these higher grade and evening continuation schools. I believe that perhaps the large majority of the local authorities proposed to be set up by this Bill will allow the school boards to go on with their work. But we do fear that there will be some cases in which there will be a stoppage, and we further fear that in many cases there will be a regrettable delay in the communications between the local authorities and the school boards which will prevent the schools being carried on as soon as desirable. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Dartford laid stress on the fact, due to his own experience, that there will be friction arising from the subjection of one electing body to another. More especially will this be in the case of borough councils, where the two bodies are elected by the same electorate, and in the same areas; and that will prevent, as the right hon. Member for Dartford well knows, the question being approached next session in the pacific and reasonable spirit with which it ought to be approached. The First Lord of the Treasury says that there are only two courses open to the Government. The first is to allow the school boards to go on in the way hitherto followed, and which the courts of law have declared to be illegal. I understand his objection to that course, and that it is quite a tenable position. But then the right hon. Gentleman says that the only alternative is the proposal contained in the Bill, which is to subject the school boards to the control of the county and borough councils. Surely there is a third course—namely, to maintain the status quo for a year only. By maintaining the status quo I do not mean that the school boards are to be allowed to go on doing what they have done at their own free will and pleasure, but that they are to go on doing it under the control of the Education Department, which will show them that they are not entitled to carry out their own free will and pleasure in individual cases, and which will prevent any abuse of their rights. I put it to the Committee that there is no committal on the part of the House to any principle if we allow the

  1367
  school boards to go on for one year only, in the course they have followed, subject to the control of the Education Department, which will show to everyone concerned that the school boards are not doing the work of their own power. The Amendment which has been suggested by the hon. Member for Rossendale would be a proper compromise, although many of us on this side of the House would have liked to have gone much further. It is, we think, however, a reasonable concession which may be made by the Government. I will not go on to argue the larger question raised by the right hon. Gentleman opposite about the future constitution of the authority for secondary education, for I do not think that ought to arise on this Bill. The reason why I regret the course the Government have taken in objecting to this compromise suggested by my hon. friend is that there will be no saving of time, that it will bring us face to face next session with an irritated state of mind, and that we shall not have the same chance of settling in a reasonable and temperate way a question which might be settled without political controversy such as this Bill will give rise to.
  MR. MATHERsaid that as his proposed Amendment had been mentioned by almost every speaker in the debate he might be permitted to say a few words as to the attitude he had assumed on this very important question. He was sure that many hon. Members on the other side as well as that side of the House would agree with him that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dartford had done himself great honour by the speech which he had delivered, devoid as it was of all party animus, and obviously devoted to the great cause of education. This was an occasion unique in the history of educational legislation, where a fair compromise might be arrived at without any further dicussion of an acrimonious character, without any delay in business procedure—a delay which would be almost calamitous at this period of the session. He thought hon. Gentlemen on the Ministerial side of the House should consider that they had in the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dartford a sort of "Daniel come to judgment."
  1368
  With all due respect to the right hon. the Vice-President of the Board of Education and others sitting on the Government benches, there was no one to compare with his right hon. friend the Member for Dartford, who, in educational legislation, spoke with the authority of successful experience, and not as a scribe. That right hon. Gentleman was the author of the most important Education Bill which had passed this House since 1870—a Bill which had brought to the young people of almost every town, village, and hamlet in this country a certain amount of technical and scientific instruction in relation to their various callings in life which they could not possibly have had but for the compromise which the right hon. Gentleman had made on behalf of the Government of the day in passing the Technical Instruction Act in 1889. They were entitled to regard the appeal which that right hon. Gentleman had made to-night to the Leader of the House and his friends around him as of the greatest possible interest and significance. The First Lord of the Treasury had answered that appeal by suggesting that the Government would lose prestige in the country, and the confidence of his own party, by giving way to the recommendation of the right hon. Member for Dartford, and by adopting the Amendment, or something like it, which he suggested.
  The First Lord of the Treasury had defended his position by a statement which could not be substantiated by the facts of the case. He spoke of what he called the essential principle of the Bill as the new Secondary Education Authority. But the Secondary Education Authority proposed incidentally in the Bill to be constituted of Municipal Councils in the future had no relation whatever to what the Committee were discussing, namely, the means of carrying on for one year higher grade elementary schools and classes. That was the essential principle of the Bill. At this moment the Government had not decided that the education imparted in the higher grade schools was secondary education, in the sense in which all the civilised countries in the world regarded secondary education. The judges in the Cockerton case had declined to define what was

  1369
  secondary education, or to draw the line between secondary and elementary education; they left this to the House to determine. The higher grade elementary schools in England were not to be compared with the secondary schools of Germany and America. The Cockerton judgment had simply proved that in the Act of 1870 there were certain subjects not included, which had been taught in board schools under the term of higher elementary education, and that these were not legal. If the secondary education of which the Government spoke had been defined by Parliament to be the higher elementary education and the higher-grade education which the school boards had given for so many years, there might be some reason for the Government creating a secondary authority to take charge of it. But, since there was no definition of secondary education by statute, why should the Government make another step in the wrong direction, and establish a secondary education authority only for higher elementary education when no such authority was required? The First Lord of the Treasury had laid great stress on the fact that many Members on both sides of the House would probably recognise that in the future educational authority which was to be constituted throughout the country there should be a very large infusion of the local authority of each district. On that point he entirely agreed with the right hon. Gentleman. But while the major portion of the future authority for secondary education might consist of the municipal councils and the local authorities, the House had not yet agreed as to the composition of the other portion. No decision had been come to as to whether that portion of the authority should be elected ad hoc, or be composed of members of certain associations and bodies throughout the country, duly delegated under an Act of Parliament to take part in the educational work of the country. The Vice-President of the Council, in introducing the Education (No. 1) Bill, gave no indication, when pressed, of what the future authority should be. Beyond the fact that the majority of the members of the authority should be drawn from the municipal councils, the matter was left entirely in the air. The Committee,
  1370
  therefore, in considering this short Bill, were still working in the dark. They had not, at present, as he understood the ruling of the Chairman, the right or power to discuss the secondary education authority of the future. The Bill did not propose to create that authority now. In its preamble, and in almost every line except those he proposed to exclude by his Amendment, the Bill simply meant that things should go on exactly as before, that it should be lawful for one year for local authorities to give money for the work of school boards in higher elementary schools and classes; that it should be lawful for school boards to accept money from local authorities to carry on the same education they have hitherto given, and that it should be lawful for the Board of Education to sanction the class of teaching which the school boards had hitherto given under the authority of the Board of Education. He asked the Leader of the House, therefore, whether it was fair to charge those on that side of the House with party spirit because they proposed a simple Amendment such as that he had put down for the consideration of the Committee, which carried out the whole of the essential principles of the Bill—
  MR. A. J. BALFOURdissented.
  MR. MATHERasked in what particulars it failed to carry out the essential principles of the Bill. The Government proposed to give the local authorities power to find the money legally to carry on certain schools and classes for one year, which the Cockerton judgment found at present unlawful. So did the Amendment. The Government proposed that school boards should be able to accept that money legally. The Opposition was entirely with them. The Amendment proposed that it should be spent under the control and direction of the Board of Education, and not under that of a Municipal Council, for one year. The Board of Education was the supreme authority to direct the education of this country. So far as legislation had gone, there was no higher authority. The Board had done its work during many years and under many difficulties with great credit

  1371
  to itself. There appeared to be at present some difficulty on that Board, but he would not enter upon that matter now. At any rate, the supporters of the Amendment were at one with the Government, if they would agree to a simple Bill for carrying on for one year the education to which they had been accustomed for the last twenty years, and for bringing in the local authority only as suggested in his Amendment; but they could not agree that the local authorities should be established as the secondary education authority unless they had an opportunity, with the Speaker in the Chair, of being able to discuss with the Government the question of the best secondary education authority under which these schools should be placed permanently in the future.
  He was of a sanguine disposition, and was not without hope that even yet the First Lord of the Treasury would see his way to modify the somewhat harsh position he had taken up. The Opposition were not moved by party spirit in this matter. They were anxious only for the education of the country. They were desirous of seeing that which had been of such service in the past placed for one year more in the happy position it had occupied for so many years. But in order to meet the cases which had been presented from time to time, in which the Vice-President had shown that some abuse of the liberty enjoyed by school boards had been possible, the Amendment proposed that the Board of Education should take entire control of the matter, and determine the subjects that should or should not be taught. If the matter were treated in a proper spirit, without party strife, it would be possible, without prolonging the debate over that night, to pass the Bill, and get on at once to other matters of great and pressing national importance. He, therefore, begged the right hon. Gentleman to consider the weight of argument on the Opposition side of the House, and, if possible, to modify his position, so that the Bill might be passed with the consent of all educationists on both sides of the House.
  MR. BOUSFIELDfelt sure that at least 80 per cent. of Members of the House would have been glad if, as
  1372
  the result of the discussion, some arrangement could have been arrived at which would secure the object in view, and at the same time not give away the principle. But no one could have been surprised that the Leader of the House did not see in the Amendment of the hon. Member for the Rossendale Division a proper basis of such a compromise. He himself could not assent to the view of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Dartford division that the question between the two parties was a very trivial one, nor, on the other hand, could he see anything in the course of the debate to justify the assertion of Members on the other side that this Bill was the first step in an educational revolution. If the Committee realised that they had a practical question to deal with, it might greatly shorten the discussion, and help them to find a way out of the difficulty. Hon. Members opposite cheered when the Member for the Dartford Division suggested an arrangement. But an arrangement which gave up the whole matter in controversy to the views of one side could hardly be called an arrangement at all. If any arrangement was made it should be one in which each side gave up something, but nothing that was essential, and he believed that such an arrangement was possible. The Amendment which had been suggested as a basis of a compromise, however, would give away that for which the supporters of the Bill were contending, and would not solve the practical difficulties with which the Committee were faced. He did not agree that any great principle was at stake in the sense of endeavouring to establish a new principle. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that the principle he had in view was that of the local authority being the body charged with secondary education. He heartily assented to that principle, and to the view that nothing should be done by the present Bill to interfere with it. But the Committee should remember that that was not a new principle. It was established in 1889, when county councils and certain local authorities were made the authorities for technical education, and empowered to find funds to a certain amount for that purpose. That principle was confirmed in the episode of the whisky money, and the

  1373
  county councils were continued as the authorities to distribute the fund in relation to technical education. But there was a question of difference not touched by the Amendment, and which had not been dealt with in the debate, and that was the practical difficulty created by the Cockerton judgment. There was the question of overlapping. That evil had been absolutely stopped by the Cockerton judgment, and the difficulty created by that judgment had to be met without renewing the difficulty which that judgment removed. The first essential, therefore, was to provide in some way that the two sets of authorities, who were now treading on one another's toes, the one being lawfully charged with secondary education, and the other having unlawfully taken the field, should meet together and find a modus vivendi for the year. That was the main question before the Committtee, and it was not provided for by the Amendment. It was suggested that the matter should be left to the Board of Education. Such a compromise would not work at all. The question was very complicated, by reason not of its wide ramifications, but of the multiplicity of its details. In every district in which this overlapping existed there were two sets of schools, the one run by the school board and the other by the county council, dealing with the same subjects. Nobody knew—except the school boards and the county councils, and they knew very well indeed—what were the difficulties between them; they knew exactly on what subjects the one was emptying the class-rooms of the other; they knew exactly where they had one set of pupils with two schools, each with a half-set of pupils; and if they could just meet together and discuss the matter they could in the simplest way possible solve the difficulty. That was the object of the Bill—to bring the two authorities together to settle the terms on which the matter should proceed during this year. Those who were unlawfully working in the field would have to submit to some sort of terms from those who were lawfully working, so that the schools which were required and were doing good might be carried on. In the cases where they were not doing good no doubt some arrangement would
  1374
  be made for having only one set of schools; in other cases, doubtless, the county council would permit them to go on. The form of the Bill was perhaps a little unfortunate in one or two ways, and had been misunderstood by some authorities in the country. The school boards in some places did not understand why they should go to the county councils, and in some places the county councils did not quite understand what was proposed. He believed that all the Bill intended was that the two authorities should meet together in cases where there was overlapping, and that where overlapping did not obtain the existing system during the year should not be touched at all. If the Committee would get rid of the idea that they were discussing the whole question of secondary education he thought that some arrangement might still be arrived at, but it could not be on the basis of the Amendment under discussion.
  MR. ASQUITH: I should not detain the Committee for more than two or three minutes, but I wish at this early stage of our proceedings to add my voice to those which have already been raised in support of a course which I am certain, if the Government could see their way to adopt it, would lead to a speedy and pacific settlement of the temporary difficulty with which alone we are at present concerned. Let me say at once that I demur entirely—and in this respect I agree with the hon. and learned Member who has just spoken—to the doctrine which appeared to be propounded by the First Lord of the Treasury, that we are by the passing of this Bill settling any principle of education whatsoever. In whatever form this Bill is passed, it will be perfectly open to all of us in the next session of Parliament, when the Government come forward with their settled scheme, to discuss that scheme with free and unfettered hands, and it will not be possible for anybody to say that the House of Commons in this session of Parliament, by its decision in regard to the best method of dealing with a special emergency, has precluded its judgment as to the ultimate educational authority throughout the country. I would say further—and I am not dealing with this

  1375
  matter in any controversial spirit—that even from his own point of view, if the First Lord of the Treasury is anxious to get on the Statute-book in this inchoate and anticipatory form some kind of parliamentary recognition of the fitness of municipal authorities for educational work, he is doing a very ill-service to the cause of education by introducing it in this extremely irritating form. It would be far better that the question of what the ultimate educational authority shall be—a question on which there are wide differences of opinion among educationists not corresponding with the lines of party cleavage—should be decided altogether apart from the temporary and transient embarrassments of the Cockerton judgment.
  That being so, I ask the Committee to consider for a few minutes what is the best way to deal with the difficulty. Two courses of dealing with the emergency have been suggested—one is to give the power of sanctioning the continuance of irregularities for a twelvemonth to the county and borough councils, and the other is to give the power to the Board of Education. That is what the whole thing amounts to. As practical men, who want to deal with this matter in a practical way, we have to decide which of these two courses is the best. I happen to know something about the Cockerton judgment, and I find that the most extraordinary misapprehensions even now prevail as to what was actually decided in that case. May I tell the Committee what was decided? The most extraordinary misapprehensions prevailed as to what was decided by the Cockerton judgment. Two propositions, and two only, were decided. The first is that it is not legal at the expense of the rates to give instruction to persons who are not children. The second is that it is not legal to give instruction in any subject which is not prescribed by the Whitehall Code. These two propositions, and no others, were decided to be the law. I have mentioned this matter for the purpose of clearing up a matter upon which there appears to be a good deal of general misapprehension. The Cockerton judgment says you cannot give education to anybody who is not a child at the expense of the rates, but it leaves entirely unsolved the question—
  1376
  What is a child? It does not decide when a human being ceases to be a child. This is a question upon which the Cockerton judgment says nothing. It I says that you are not to give education in any subject which is prescribed by the Whitehall Code, but it leaves entirely unsolved the question as to what are the limits of the education which the Whitehall Code may prescribe. The Judges were most careful not to define any superior limit to elementary education. The result is that the body, whatever it is, which has to determine whether the school boards shall continue this work will have to answer two questions on which the law as at present decided throws no light, and which, if the decision is left to the local authorities, may be decided in one way in one place and in another way in another place. The local authorities will have to determine most difficult and delicate legal questions, without any canon or guide to secure that their decisions will be uniform. If that is the case, would it not be far better to leave the determination of these questions to an authority like the Board of Education, which, though not judicial, is free from all local prepossessions and prejudices, and which has at its disposal the best expert advice in the country, and which can lay down uniform rules to prevent classes from being capriciously closed in one place and continued in another? It is a mere question of administration to meet a passing emergency; and the most practical and business-like method is to leave it to the Board of Education.
  SIR J. FERGUSSONasked whether this discussion was in order.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The Amendment before the Committee practically raises the whole principle of the Bill. When the Committee comes to a decision on the Amendment—as I suppose it will some time—and if it rejects the Amendment, it will assert that Sub-section 1 stands part of the Bill, and that will exclude all the alternative suggestions which are now being made.
  MR. BRYCE: Upon a point of order I wish to ask a question. The present

  1377
  Amendment is one to exclude local authorities from having anything to do with, the matter at all. Surely that will not exclude an Amendment which recognises the action of the local authority, and which associates something else with the local authority. Surely there is a marked difference between these two propositions
  THE CHAIRMAN: I should not like to express an opinion with regard to the merits of a particular Amendment. All I wish to say is that the general principle of sub-section I will be affirmed by this decision, and if that is so then any proposals for leaving matters as they are or for establishing another authority altogether or for negativing the power of the local authority would naturally fall to the ground.
  SIR RICHARD JEBBsaid that the work contemplated was of a scope which the Board of Education could not possibly perform. The problem was essentially a local one. The Board could only obtain the necessary local knowledge by holding a series of inquiries, which would take time, and if sanction had to be given at all it had to be given within a very limited period. The right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken had protested against the Bill being regarded as settling any principle. He said that next session when the Bill was introduced they must come to the question with an absolutely open mind. But if the Government had simply suspended the Cockerton judgment for a year they would have been endorsing the principle that school boards were the proper authorities to undertake the control of education above the elementary stage. [Opposition cries of "No, no."] He maintained that that was so, because if the Cockerton judgment had had no existence, and if the school boards could have gone on spending the school board rate on any kind of education they pleased, there would have been no limit to the field of secondary education over which they could have spread their operations Was it not certain that in these circumstances the school boards would have strengthened their hold on this field and have been in a much stronger position at the end of the year than at the beginning?
  1378
  Had the Government adopted this course they would have been recognising the principle that the school board was a proper authority not only for primary education, but for higher education also. He thought the course adopted by the Government was the only proper one under the circumstances. They had heard a good deal about the friction which was likely to arise, but everything appeared to indicate that there would be no such friction. He looked with great hopefulness to the future. It had been said that upon the Ministerial benches they had no desire except to disparage the work of school boards and higher elementary schools. He fully recognised the good work which the higher grade schools had done, for they had supplied a great deficiency in education, and all praise to them for having done so. Everyone interested in education was fully aware of the good work which had been done in this way, but because school boards had done some, good work in secondary education during a transitional period, it did not follow that when at last we organised our secondary education we desired to constitute them the permanent authority for that purpose. He thought the circumstances of the case were a sufficient justification for the course which had been adopted by the Government.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House, and especially the First Lord of the Treasury, were responsible for prolonged debate. The right hon. Gentleman would not make a temporary arrangement, but would insist on laying down a principle which should be the permanent principle for secondary education in the future. The First Lord insisted that they should have a Second Reading debate on a Bill which was to be produced next year, and which the House knew nothing about. It was a perfectly novel proceeding, unheard of before, and the First Lord was responsible for the whole thing. He was one of those who believed in having county authorities for secondary education. The principle had been tried in Wales, and had been working for years with absolute success. Indeed,

  1379
  he would be glad to see county authorities have control, so far as Wales was concerned, of elementary education. In no respect had the present principle been a greater success than in the avoidance of sectarian controversy. He did not know any place where such controversy ran keener than in Wales. Yet when they came to Wales now they were clear of it. That showed, therefore, that as far as he was concerned, at any rate, he was not afraid of the establishment of this principle in regard to secondary education.
  The point to which he took objection was this. The First Lord said they were establishing a principle. What principle? They were establishing the principle that county councils were to govern secondary education. But that was not what was proposed by the Bill that was withdrawn. That measure proposed that county governing bodies should be established. He could understand a proposal of that kind, but that was not the principle established by this Bill. Secondary education in Wales was governed by a county governing body. Now the First Lord of the Treasury proposed that the county councils, which were a totally different body, should control secondary education. That was the principle established by this Bill, and it was a totally different thing from what was proposed before. The way in which it was proposed to establish this principle was the very worst in the world. They were now asked not merely to establish a principle, but to give power to the county councils to deal with higher grade education. They were asked to give the county councils this power before they had got any organisation to carry on the work and before they had had any experience. What happened in Yorkshire? There they had a number of higher grade schools and grammar schools, and only three technical schools under the county council. The higher grade schools were under the school board, and the grammar schools were under other authorities. This Bill proposed that the whole of the schools should be placed, not under the authority which managed the majority of them, and which had had the most experience, but under the authority which had had charge of only three of the
  1380
  schools. Surely that was a very serious thing to do. If the county councils were to have any real authority to promote and assist education in any way there might be something to be said for the proposal of the First Lord of the Treasury; but the only thing which the county councils would be able to do was to retard education. They could only exercise their authority in one way, and they had no responsibility.
  The school boards were subject to the Vice-President of the Council, but the county councils would not have any responsibility. The only way in which the county governing bodies could exercise their functions at all was by stopping the work of the school boards, and so saving something to the ratepayers. That showed clearly what were the intentions of the Government. Under no circumstances could education profit. For his own part he did not believe in these small school boards in rural districts; he was in favour of larger areas; he should not mind if they were county areas, and he should be still more pleased if the right hon. Gentleman in his Bill next year proposed to give power to the smaller county councils to federate, and if there was the same authority in regard to elementary education as in regard to secondary education. Under the proposal before the Committee the local authorities would have no pride in their work, and the only way they could exercise their functions would be by stopping the schools, and saying to the electors, "We have stopped these schools, and saved you a rate of 3d. in the pound." That was the only boast they would be able to make. What kind of statesmanship was that? It demonstrated clearly what the object of the Government was, and under no circumstances could education profit, for it lost either way. The real reason for this Bill was not the anxiety of the right hon. Gentleman to establish the principle that the county councils should be the educational authority; it was the knowledge that in some cases the power would be utilised so as to put up elementary education at a sort of Dutch auction between the Church schools and the school boards. The Church schools would say, "We will do this for nothing," and where there were strong Conservative town or county

  1381
  associations the business would be handed over to the church schools. The desire which animated the whole policy of the Government was to promote the interests of the sectarian schools at the expense of the schools which represented the people of the country. That was a great misfortune in view of the keen commercial competition in which we were engaged with other countries. In the United States they had got education up to the age of eighteen practically, and sometimes up to the age of twenty-one. In Germany the age limit was sixteen, and while they were engaged in this life-and-death competition with foreign countries the English Parliament was discussing a Bill, not for setting up an authority to stimulate education, but an authority to cut down educational work which had hitherto been done by the local authorities.
  [Mr. JEFFREYS (Hampshire, N.) in the Chair].
  MR. LAMBERTsaid he regretted the attitude taken up by the Government on this question. He thought the action the Government had taken in this debate showed that they looked more to party advantage than to the interest of education. Most moderate views had been addressed to them from both sides of the House, and there had been absolutely no party passion brought into the matter at all. No one could say that during the debate there had been introduced any party bias or religious antipathies. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dartford Division and the Member for the Rossendale Division had made a moderate appeal to the Government, and no one could say that these authorities were not seriously desirous of aiding the education of the country. When two gentlemen like these had taken the action they had done there could be no doubt that party bias was eliminated from this matter. But there was another authority greater than these hon. Gentlemen, and that was the late Education Minister, who wrote the other day to The Times, suggesting that the Government should legalise the action of the school boards for one year in order that they might carry on the work in which they had been engaged, and that a comprehensive measure should be
  1382
  brought in next session. That would be a statesmanlike course to pursue, and it had the advantage of having all the educational authorities in its favour, but unfortunately the Government had seen fit to reject all these appeals. He could not but think that the reason was, as stated by the First Lord of the Treasury, that the Government felt that if they accepted the Amendment of the hon. Member for the Rossendale Division it would so shake their prestige that they would not be able to pass any Bill at all. He did not agree with the right hon. Gentleman in the pessimistic view he took of the Unionist party. He thought the Government might withdraw the Bill, as had been suggested. They would then show that they placed education before the interests of party. But if it was a fact that the right hon. Gentleman placed party before education, he regretted it very much indeed. He did not think that was the attitude on that side of the House. They had never made education a party question; they had always gone in for educational and not for party advantage; what they had advocated was whatever would better the education of the people of the country, and he know that that was also the position of many hon. Gentlemen on the Ministerial benches. He was perfectly certain that every fair-minded person would say that they on that side of the House had endeavoured to keep out religious bias from their educational discussions; and, if that had been imported, it was because they must repel attacks made upon them in the country and in this House. He regarded education as being one of the most vital subjects in which they could engage. This Bill would not do anything for education. The Government had a great majority, but it could do nothing under the Bill, and the county councils could do nothing, to promote secondary education. He defied the right hon. Gentleman, who was one of the most acute logicians and one of the most subtle reasoners in the House, to show how this Bill could promote education. The Bill did not give to the county councils any power of initiating education, nor to the school boards; it only said that the county councils could put their ban on any educational effort by the school boards in

  1383
  the country. A great deal had been said in the course of the debate as to overlapping. If there was overlapping he regretted it; but he would rather see overlapping on education than anything else. He did not see why there should not be a continuity of policy in education. There was overlapping in armaments, but he would rather see overlapping in education than in armaments. As an agriculturist he maintained that what they required was a real good secondary education on agriculture; but this Bill did nothing to promote agricultural education, and because of that, he strongly opposed it. Then again, what effect would the Bill have on local government? He belonged to the county council in Devonshire, and he knew that friction would be set up if one local authority were to override another. The county councils had done the administrative work entrusted to them most admirably, but they had not been elected for educational purposes. The duty of administering the "whisky money," which had been thrown on their hands without any preparation, and without any help from the Board of Education, had been fairly well done, although at first much money had been wasted, and it became necessary to get order out of chaos. Now, however, they were doing their technical work in nearly all the county councils well. What he feared was that if the county councils had to superintend the multiplicity of details which would be thrown upon them by this Bill, they would not be equal to it. The right hon. Gentleman the Vice-President shook his head, but he could quote against him the right hon. and learned Member for Cambridge University, who had asked how the county councils could have the staffs to see whether the school boards overlapped the other educational bodies, and whether there was unhealthy competition. It was ridiculous to suppose that, if this Bill passed, the county councils would appoint a new staff of inspectors for one year only, to go and see whether the school boards were carrying out their duty in a proper manner. Therefore, he maintained that this Bill was the most irrational ever submitted to the House. One thing was certain, and that was that the county councils, knowing the appointment of several
  1384
  inspectors to find out where there was competition in secondary education would naturally cost money, would let things go on as they were, and that new prejudices would be initiated under the Bill. He thought the right hon. Gentleman the Vice-President ought to have consulted the feelings of the county councils in this matter, and he would have found that in scarcely a single instance would they have agreed to having this duty thrust upon them. He remembered that in 1896, when the first Education Bill was before the House, the Devonshire County Council, which consisted of 75 per cent. of the supporters of the present Government, protested against the technical work being thrown upon them. He had been told that the Devonshire County Council had actually had sent down to them a circular from the Board of Education asking if it was their intention to carry out the provisions of this Bill. Was that not rather presumptuous, when the Bill had not passed into law? If this matter were relegated to the county councils, unwilling as they were to undertake new duties, they would depute the superintendence of school boards to their technical education committees. But the technical education committees could only make recommendations which had to pass through the county councils, and he had often seen more considerable schemes thrown out by the county councils because, forsooth, these were going to cost so much money. He would very much prefer that the Board of Education, instead of throwing this duty upon the county councils, should have taken it upon themselves for this one year. The Board of Education could supervise the school boards, and pare off those excrescences which they said existed. If the Amendment of his hon. friend the Member for Rossendale were carried, the Board of Education could check any extravagance. He hoped the Bill would share the same fate as that which had lately been dropped, and also the Bill of 1896; and he was assured that if the county councils had been consulted a great change would have come over the spirit of the scene.
  MR. SHARPEsaid he did not understand the criticism of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat

  1385
  down. It seemed to him that the Bill provided exactly what the hon. Gentleman wanted, namely, that the county councils or their technical education committee were to be called in to control the school boards in the management of the particular schools referred to in this Bill. He was rejoiced to hear the First Lord of the Treasury say that the Government were determined to take up a firm attitude on this question, which would satisfy the bulk of their supporters and the rank and file on the Government benches. He was not opposed to, but desirous of, extending technical education and higher education; but as a ratepayer he objected to have his rates appropriated to the payment of charges for education which were never intended when free education was granted. He took leave to say that the Cockerton judgment was pronounced by the strongest Court of Appeal of this generation, and that court had declared what the law really is. According to the scope of that judgment the rates could only be devoted to the education of poor children under fourteen years of age who were on the roll of elementary schools, and who were engaged in learning in some one of the standards. He did not object to free education, but the whole discussion had arisen out of the fact that the school boards had gone out of their way for the purpose of giving higher class education free to persons who were not entitled to it. In the evening continuation schools education was given out of the rates to adult operatives who were earning wages, and engaged in business all day, many of whom were foreigners who were being taught English, and all the absurdities happened to which the right hon. Gentleman the Vice-President had referred. He wished to affirm that the free education contemplated by the Act of 1870 was for children, not adults, and to be confined to elementary subjects. It was true that elementary subjects had never been defined; but they ought to have been defined originally by this House, being those for which the school board rate was intended. If that had been done when the additional provision was made for technical education, they would not have been constantly involved in the difficulties which had arisen from the
  1386
  natural desire of various school boards to extend the sphere of their operations.
  MR. OSMOND-WILLIAMSsaid he supported the Amendment of his hon. friend because they were on the threshold of a very grave and great crisis of the nation. If the Government passed this measure into law it would leave an evil mark on the life of the British people for generations to come. The Liberals had done some little good to the life of the nation in the past; and never a greater work for good had been done than in passing the Education Bill of 1870. The school board system in England and Wales, although not so well carried out as in Scotland, was the greatest step ever taken towards the enlightenment of the British people; but Mr. Forster, great statesman as he was, would have done better in passing that Bill had it not been for the influence of the Church of England, which had always been jealous of, and anxious to prevent the State from doing its proper work in regard to education. The school boards had evolved out of their elementary work new grades of higher education, and for years there had been no complaints as to the way that work had been carried out. Indeed, it had been commended and encouraged by the Board of Education in every way. He was not wrong in stating that both the Vice-Presidents of the Council and the Permanent Secretaries of the Department had been at the opening of different buildings for higher-grade schools which had been erected by the money of the ratepayers through the school boards. He considered that in trying to pass this Bill the Government were aiming a murderous blow at the nation, whom it was their duty to serve, because the school boards of England and Wales were practically unanimous in condemning the Bill and in asking for an enabling Bill. The first Bill contained some sound provisions, but this Bill contained none. If hon. Members wished to form some idea of the working of the Bill as regarded London he would ask them to look at the commentaries which the Chairman of the London School Board had given upon it. He said that this Bill empowered the County Council to prohibit the continuance of no fewer than 395 schools that they might forbid the opening of any new schools, and that the

  1387
  County Council, which was elected on quite a different issue, would have the control of part of the rates for which the London School Board was the responsible trustee. Could they imagine a more shattering blow to the education of the youth of London? And that would be the same in many of the large towns in the country. With all the good intentions in the world, the county councils would be working entirely out of their own sphere, and, the consequence would be that the fine educational development of the last twenty years would crumble away and die, that the school boards would have no interest in their work, and that through the influence of clericals and reactionaries there would be stagnation in education. They had heard the opinion of the right hon. Member for Dartford, and he would appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite, who had a genuine interest in education, and who had spoken against this Bill, that they should not be driven like sheep into one lobby, but join with the other friends of education in voting against the Bill.
  MR. WHITLEYsaid the speech of the hon. Member for North Kensington was that of a very worthy follower of the Vice-President of the Council. It expressed the whole spirit of the Department as it was now controlled by the Vice-President, namely, that education was a thing to be haggled about, and to be restricted, and that the people were to have as little as possible of it. That was the real difference between the Government side of the House and their side. They believed that education was not to be measured by so many pennies, and that free education was not to be confined to the very poorest of the poor. They believed that education was of such importance to the nation that it was not a benefit so much to particular children, but to the nation as a whole. That was the reason why he heartily supported the Amendment to leave out the first sub-section of Clause 1, because that clause bore throughout evidence of the restricting hand. It began by saying that only the schools or classes that had been carried on during the last twelve months were to be carried on in the future, and it went on to say that the local authority might empower the school
  1388
  board to carry on for the period of one year the work of the school or class to "such an extent and on such terms" as might be agreed upon between the local authority and the school board—an invitation to the local authorities, elected for other purposes, to keep down the expense of education in their localities. And it wound up by saying that the local authority might apply to the maintenance of a school or class such sum out of the school fund as the council or local authority might sanction. He wanted to know what human authority could tell twelve months beforehand what that sum might be. The result would be that the local authorities in defining the extent to which the school boards might go in carrying on these continuation and higher-grade schools would be liable to a new surcharge. In his own constituency there were eleven continuation schools, educating 2,000 boys and girls. Under the Minute of the right hon. Gentleman, which was the collateral of this Bill, the grants to these schools paid under Mr. Acland's Code would be cut down 28 per cent.
  THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Sir J. GORST,: The hon. Gentleman cannot discuss the Minute under this Amendment.
  THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: It is out of order to discuss the Minute of the Education Department under this Amendment,
  MR. WHITLEYsaid he could illustrate his point perfectly well in this way—that in his own constituency the result of the educational policy of the right hon. Gentleman, as exemplified by the Minute of the Department, would be to reduce the grants to these schools in his constituency from £1,200 to £800, a difference of £400 in the income of the schools. Now, these schools were managed by a voluntary committee, not by the school board, and the result was that they found themselves between the devil and the deep sea. They could turn neither to the school board, because there was the restrictive clause, nor to the technical committee of the county council, and the irony of the situation with regard to these schools, which would be so badly hit by the educational policy

  1389
  of the Government, was that they had escaped the Cockerton judgment. So far as his constituents were concerned, the first sub-section was absolutely unworkable; and the irony of the situation was that the schools which had escaped the Cockerton judgment would be the very first to suffer severely under the combined action of the Act and the Minute. That showed pretty distinctly the objections they held to the first sub-section. It was unworkable, and was restrictive in every way. As to the statement of the Vice-President, and of the First Lord of the Treasury, that no school would be closed under the operation of the present educational policy of the Government, he had ample evidence to disprove that ten times over; but owing to the ruling of the Chair, there would not be an opportunity of bringing it before the Committee. He hoped, however, that the Committee would realise that the assertion that no school would be closed was not justified. A great number of schools would be closed, and children who had a right to attend them would be excluded. For those reasons he would strongly support the Amendment.
  MR. HENRY HOBHOUSEsaid that it was pretty clear that after that Amendment had been disposed of, the possibility of a compromise would no longer be open to the Committee. He desired to say a few words in favour of a middle course. It was a matter of great regret to him that what promised to be a long and bitter controversy upon a national question should have been provoked upon such a small issue as that contained in the Bill. If it were a great constructive measure, laying the foundations of a new system of secondary education, and if it were necessary for that purpose to determine what authority was to administer higher education in the future, then he certainly should not flinch from the struggle. But it seemed to him to be an unnecessary waste of time, and he was afraid of temper also, to try and fight out on that Bill future problems. If his right hon. friend the First Lord of the Treasury had seen his way to accept the olive branch which had been held out to him, he would not have been making a surrender. He would have been merely effecting a compromise, which he ventured to think would be regarded by the
  1390
  majority of hon. Members—there were, of course, irreconcileables on both sides—as an arrangement which would not involve any disgrace on the Government or the Opposition. His right hon. friend was asked to accept the proposal that funds for certain schools during the coming year should be supplied, not out of the school funds at the disposal of the school boards, but out of the funds of the Technical Instruction Department, and that the actual position in which such schools were to be carried on was to be at the discretion of the Government themselves. That was the concession offered by the Opposition. On the other hand, the supporters of the Bill were asked to bind the hands of the municipal authorities to a considerable extent in the matter. But he ventured to think that they would have had a valuable quid pro quo, inasmuch as they would have avoided party strife over a measure which they must assume contained within itself the germs of future legislation, and would have made the path of future legislation smooth and easy. He quite appreciated the difficulties of the Government in changing their position at that stage of the Bill, and probably that was the reason that they declined to give way. He was sure the First Lord of the Treasury would agree when he stated that long before the Bill was introduced he urged on his right hon. friend the advisability of putting it into such a shape as would command general assent. He had always thought that a middle course might have been honourably adopted by both sides. It would be impossible to accept on his own side of the House the proposal to give the school boards power to carry on the schools referred to in the Cockerton judgment, because many hon. Members knew that there were clearly proved cases in which money had been spent unwisely and extravagantly by the school boards. On the other hand, it was not necessary to go so far as the Bill went, and to call in the municipal authorities and give them the power of absolutely overriding the school board, should they choose to exercise it. There was a middle course, but it could not be taken without calling into play the Board of Education itself. He never could see himself that it was right to allow the Board of Education to shirk its responsibility. After all, it

  1391
  was the authority which superintended education. He did not want to blame the Department for any action in the past, but he thought it should assume more responsibility. His right hon. friend stated that it was impossible for the Board of Education to take any action, because it had no knowledge. Who had knowledge, if the inspectors of the Board of Education had none? The county councils had no knowledge; and the only authority which was in a position to deal with the classes in question was the central authority through its inspectors. He quite admitted that it was extremely difficult for the Board of Education to deal with the matter, but it was equally difficult for the local authorities. Many of the county councils would not meet until next October, and it would be extremely difficult for them to deal effectively with the duties which it was proposed to give them. There was a middle course possible, and it might still be taken by a modification of the Bill. If the local authorities could not come to terms, the Department of Education might be brought in as arbitrator. That would save a good deal of friction, and the local authorities would have the assistance of the only authority which up to the present had had any experience of dealing with education. Then it was admitted that the practical outcome of the Bill with reference to stopping the classes objected to would be little or nothing. It was astonishing that hon. Members on his own side who objected to some of those classes should view with equanimity the position in which, as far as he could see, the Bill would land them. Speaking specially of London, the result would be that the London County Council would continue all those classes en masse. His hon. friends were perfectly content with the shadow rather than the substance, as long as they could determine a great principle. But the result of the great principle they were contending for was that the classes which, in their opinion, were not only illegal, but wasteful and injurious, would be continued en masse with the consent of the local authorities, regarding whom his hon. friends had not, up to the present, expressed very great confidence. He was sorry that no compromise had been arrived at. It would
  1392
  not only have saved their time and trouble during the few remaining weeks of the session, but it would also have prevented the beneficent legislation of next session being seriously and materially prejudiced.
  MR. FULLERsaid he had no desire to debate the educational policy of the Government as defined in the Bill before the Committee. He merely wished to bring to the notice of the Vice-President a humble case, not unlike the aristocratic cases of the school boards in Leeds or Gateshead. It was, however, a case which he thought deserved the consideration of the Government. The most important commercial and industrial centre of Wiltshire was the town of Swindon. It was asserted by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House that no schools would be closed as the result of the present educational policy of the Government. In Swindon there was a bye-law, and a very proper bye-law, that no child should be allowed to leave an elementary school until it had passed the seventh standard or had attained the age of fourteen years. As the result of the policy of the Government, the evening continuation school and the adult elementary school in Swindon were to be closed in six months' time. The adult elementary school at present educated between forty and sixty men, and the evening continuation school, which, under the bye-law to which he referred, contained scholars mostly over fourteen years of age, was also to be closed by the School Board of Swindon, in deference to the educational policy of the Government.
  [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER resumed the Chair.]
  Another anomaly was that the evening elementary schools, which up to the present contained scholars mostly over fifteen years of age, would after the Act came into force be nobody's children at all. The technical education authorities were expressly precluded from giving them elementary instruction, and the elementary education authorities were precluded from helping to instruct any scholar over fifteen years. That was a result of the educational policy of the Government. In conclusion, he would only say that if they were to discuss a great principle, as was suggested by the

  1393
  Leader of the House, it ought to have been by a frontal attack and not on a side issue, as it had been brought before the Committee.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLsaid he rose principally for the purpose of congratulating the Government on their refusal to entertain any notion of compromise with reference to that Bill. He ventured to think that if the Leader of the House had yielded to the blandishments of the right hon. Gentleman, or the very polite but somewhat insidious arguments of the Opposition, very general and widespread disgust would be caused throughout the Unionist party not only in the House but in the country. He did not profess to be an expert on that subject Some people were experts on all subjects, but he was quite ready to admit that education was not his strong point. But the question before the Committee was so simple that he really thought that a person who was not an expert was perfectly entitled to apply his mother wit to its solution. What was the case before the Committee? The Government had introduced a Bill, as he understood it, to tide over the period between the pronouncement of the Cockerton judgment and such time as they would be properly able to deal with the question in a permanent and general form. Very naturally, and he ventured to think very legitimately, the Bill foreshadowed in its general scope and outline the legislation which they wished to introduce next year. The main idea of the Government's scheme of education was that the educational authorities should be a committee of a municipal council, or a committee formed partly by members of a municipal council and partly from the association of independent elements. Therefore he held the Bill quite properly developed that main idea in a tentative and temporary form, that which was to be the characteristic of legislation next session He could quite understand hon. Members on his own side, and also on the opposite side, who had given long years of their lives to the consideration of the question of education, naturally and in proportion to the length of time they had studied the question, having strong views regarding it, and wishing to know whether in voting for the principle of the Bill before the Committee they
  1394
  would be committing themselves to the principle of a great measure not disclosed either to the House or to the country. But the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife should reassure hon. Members, for he said most clearly and distinctly that the present Bill would not commit anyone, and he himself did not see that by voting for it anyone would be committed to a definite principle. As a matter of fact, by voting for the Bill hon. Members would actually secure to themselves an advantage. What would happen? A similar method or idea, not necessarily the same, would be embodied in the Bill of next year, when they would be able to judge whether the experiment contained in the present Bill would be a success or failure. One of two things would happen. Either the measure now proposed by the Government would have succeeded or to some extent have failed. If it succeeded, the Government would be able to say, with undeniable force, "We have tried our plan on a rough and ready scale; it has succeeded; let us make it permanent." But assuming the present Bill did not succeed—although such things should be judged with tolerance, as they were oftentimes failures in the beginning, what an opportunity would be provided for the Opposition. They would have the result of the practical experiment of the Government—it would form a basis for their criticism, and they would be able to say, "You have tried your plan; it has failed; sweep it away." He did not see how any hon. Member in voting for the Bill would be committing himself to any definite principle. The hon. Gentleman the Member for the Westbury Division asked why they had not had a frontal attack. It was not even a pitched battle. It was only a reconnoitring patrol sent up along the line to obtain information and cover the front of the advancing army. It was not for him to dictate the tactics of the Opposition, but he thought they were very unwise in unmasking their batteries, wasting their ammunition, and dissipating their energy on what was, after all, only a minor operation of war. It was very easy to understand honest doubt being entertained on that particular question, but he did not think the Opposition were actuated with honest doubt. Their motive was more insidious.

  1395
  It was dictated by a mischievous and factious proposal to discredit the third Education Bill of the Government. If any such compromise as had been proposed were accepted by the Government, and endorsed by the Committee, it would be a very heavy blow to education—and the very worst kind of blow, for, apart from quality, it would reduce the quantity of education throughout the country. He was credibly informed that the Education Department could never hope to deal in the same tolerant and sympathetic spirit with schools throughout the country as would the local authorities, who knew local needs and sympathised with them. That was the third Bill introduced on the subject, and though it might not be of very much consequence to hon. Gentlemen opposite, it was of some consequence to hon. friends and himself to have it passed. It would, if defeated, deprive the country of the inestimable advantage of being able to look before it leaped, and, before embarking on serious permanent legislation, to have the result secured by practical experiment before it. He rejoiced that the Government had stood firm in the matter. Had they accepted a compromise it would have caused discontent in the House and in the country. He himself received yesterday a letter from the chairman of his association, which was as follows:—
  "Dear Sir,—Without going into the details of the Education Bill of the Government, I hope they will insist upon passing it. It will indeed be a weak Government if it repeatedly permits its measures to be broken, The Conservative party ought not to be made ashamed of its leader."
  That was his whole point. They were not ashamed of their leader, and were only too glad to support the position he had taken up. Every concession which the Government had made, whether on the subject of the coal tax or the conduct of public business, or with reference to education, had been received thanklessly and gracelessly by the Opposition, and made the basis of every kind of taunt conceived in ill-nature, and very often expressed in vulgarity. Since that was a financial measure to tide over a temporary difficulty, it should be administered by the authorities representing the ratepayers. Although the Bill was a small one, it involved great issues quite
  1396
  unconnected with education. It involved the credit of the present Government, and therefore the Government could not accept the compromise. He rejoiced that the Government had stood firm upon this point, and, so far as he and a great many of his hon. friends were concerned, he could say that as they had unfurled the flag and called upon their supporters to stand by them, they need have no fear as to the result of the division.
  MR. LAWSON WALTONthought that the Committee was greatly indebted to the hon. Member for Oldham, whose candour had enabled them at last to discover some of the arguments with which the Government supported this Bill. Members opposite, when all their arguments had been demolished, would cheerfully walk into the lobby in support of the Government. The hon. Member's speech might be described as the military view of the situation. True there was nothing to be said for the Bill—
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL: I never said so.
  MR. LAWSON WALTON: The hon. Member did not tell the Committee what was to be said for it, but he said that, inasmuch as it involved the credit of the Government, and this was the third educational experiment which they had made, they must stand to their guns, hold to their position, and, right or wrong, there must be no surrender.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL: I never said "right or wrong," and the hon. and learned Member is, I am sure, too great a master of words to take refuge in misrepresenting what I said. The argument I used was that the Government were right, and therefore there should be no surrender.
  MR. LAWSON WALTONsaid if the Government were right he failed to appreciate the force of the appeal made by the hon. Gentleman. The First Lord of the Treasury had said that the principle involved in the Bill was of immense value; the right hon. Member for Dartford that the principle was of no value; another hon. Member had said it was of little value because it was established already; and the hon. Member for Oldham had said that the immense value of the principle was that it was purely experi-

  1397
  mental in its character, and that in the course of twelve months the Government would be able to determine whether or nor it should be permanently enshrined in the legislation of the country. His admirable command of military phraseology had enabled the hon. Member for Oldham to describe this measure in two words. He said it was a reconnoitring patrol. And while that military movement was going on in the various county councils of the country, some of them allowing continuation schools to go on, some stopping their continuance, some imposing onerous conditions, and some rendering slight assistance, the Government would be completing their information upon this subject, and next year they would have the immense advantage of this great military manœuvre.
  But when he came to look at the matter a little seriously he was at a loss to understand what plausible answer could be made to the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Dartford, which had been reiterated by other hon. Members. Every argument the right hon. Gentleman suggested in answer to the right hon. Member for Dartford entirely failed. The right hon. Gentleman had said he was struggling not for the form of, but the principle involved in, the measure; but the Amendment embodied that principle quite as effectively as the Bill. The Amendment of the hon. Member for Rossendale, which was the golden bridge by which they would reach common ground, constituted the authority to which the right hon. Gentleman said he was most anxious to entrust the education of the country. He appealed to the Vice-President and the hon. and learned Gentleman beside him to say whether there was any difference in the meaning of the words "may" and "shall" in that connection. If his views were right, and there was no difference, then there was no reason for any longer keeping up an idle controversy as to the exact form the Bill was to assume. The schools were in serious case, and in some of the larger county boroughs there was a serious danger attending the condition of the schools. The statement which he made upon previous occasions, that the school boards had come to the conclusion to continue no longer the responsibility of carrying on without Parliamentary assistance the
  1398
  continuation schools which they had established, had been challenged by the Vice-President, who said his Department had no information with regard to the action of the school boards in relation to this matter. As the Bill was founded on the assumption that school boards were in cordial co-operation with the county councils for the carrying on of education, it was all important to examine the information at the service of the Board of Education. He had in his hand the resolution which the Leeds School Board had passed, and the letter addressed by them on the 18th of June to the right hon. Gentleman's Department, enclosing a copy of the resolution. The hon. Member read the documents referred to, and, continuing, said that they certainly ought to have been brought to the attention of the right hon. Gentleman. The Bill, innocent as it seemed, let loose all the elements of sectarian discord, and carried into great centres the very evil which an Education Bill ought to avoid. The precious principle which it was endeavoured to introduce into this Bill would of itself raise great controversies, but, when coupled with a denominational struggle for supremacy, it would seem that the right hon. Gentlemon had surrounded the question with unnecessary difficulties, which might have been disposed of if he had treated the matter in a business way. Nobody would be influenced by these proceedings when the Education Bill was introduced next year, and not a single hour would be saved in discussing that matter. He thought the Amendment of the hon. Member for Rossendale was reasonable from all points of view, and for that reason he had taken part in the debate in the hope that, even at the last moment, the Government might be disposed to accept this suggestion.
  MR. WALLACEsaid he felt he was in some difficulty with regard to the interpretation of the Bill. The hon. Member for Oldham said there was no principle to be found in the Bill, but the First Lord of the Treasury had stated that the reason he was unable to accept a compromise was because he wished to lay down a great principle for the guidance of public officials. This was a most extraordinary time to attempt to do any such thing, when they only had

  1399
  three weeks to carry through the business of the Government. Was that the time to affirm a great principle with regard to the future? The reason why there was such strong feeling upon this matter was that, first, hon. Members were told that the Bill was to be framed so that the local authority was to be made the authority for secondary education, and not the school board; and, second, that in order to get rid of the present chaotic condition of education in this country the same authority should control both elementary and secondary education. So that the Government were really going to affirm the further principle that the county councils were to be the governing authorities for elementary education. If that was really the true interpretation many would feel bound to oppose the Bill. He objected to the attacks which had been made upon the school boards of the country. He had heard a good deal from hon. Members opposite about education in Scotland, to which they ascribed the positions occupied by Scotsmen in all parts of the Empire, but why did not
  they take advantage of it? In Scotland they had a school board in every parish, which governed not merely elementary but secondary education also. If the right hon. Gentleman wished to see a similar state of things in England let him follow the Scotch example; he believed that in that direction lay the true solution of the question. He was not at all an opponent of the principle which the Government had suggested. If he thought the county council itself, and not a committee of it, were going to be in the future the authority in regard to both elementary and secondary education, he did not know that he should offer very much objection to it. But he did object to the suggestion that they were going to, as it were, pack a committee of the county council for this purpose, and he objected also to the time which the Government had chosen for asserting the root principle of their Bill.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 239; Noes, 159. (Division List No. 349.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex F.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Finch, George H.

  Allhusen, Augustus Henry E.

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Chamberlain. J. Austen) Wor'cr

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Charrington, Spencer

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Fletcher, Sir Henry

  Arrol, Sir William

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Flower, Ernest

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon John

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

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

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Garfit, William

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Gibbs, Hn A. G. H. (City of Lond.

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

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

  Balcarres, Lord

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Gordon, Maj, Evans (T'rH'mlets

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-(Linc.)

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

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Balfour, Rt, Hn. Gerald W (Leeds

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Greene, Sir EW (B'ry S. Edm'nds

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

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)

  Beach, Rt. Hon. W.W. B. (Hants.

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Beckett, Ernest William

  Davenport, William Bromley-

  Gretton, John

  Bignold, Arthur

  Denny, Colonel

  Groves, James Grimble

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Dewar, T. R. (T'rH'mlets, S. Geo.

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex)

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent Ashford

  Brassey, Albert

  Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cockfield

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Bull, William James

  Dorington, Sir John Edward

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Heath, Jas. (Staffords., N. W.)

  Butcher, John George

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Glasgow

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Helder, Augustus

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart

  Hermon-Hodge, Robert T.

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph D.

  Hoare, Edw. Brodie (Hampstead

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich)

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightsd.)

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Houldsworth, Sir William H.

  More, R. Jasper (Shropshire)

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Hoult, Joseph

  Morgan, DavidJ.(Walthamst'w

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham)

  Morgan, Hn. Fred. (Monm'thsh.

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham

  Morrell, George Herbert

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

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Morris, Hn. Martin Henry F.

  Spear, John Ward

  Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset)

  Jackson, Rt. Hon. Wm. Lawies

  Morton, Arthur H. A) Deptford)

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Mount, William Arthur

  Stroyan, John

  Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

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

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

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

  Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Kenyon, James (Lancs, Bury)

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Thornton, Percy M.

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

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Knowles, Lees

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Law, Andrew Bonar

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Rbt. Wellesley

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Lawson, John Grant

  Penn, John

  Valentia, Viscount

  Lecky, Rt. Hn. Wm. Edw. H.

  Percy, Earl

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Pilkington, Lieut.-Col. Richard

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

  Purvis, Robert

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

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

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton und Lyne

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Randles, John S.

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Lowe, Francis William

  Rankin, Sir James

  Williams, Rt. Hn. J. Powell-(Birm.

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Wills, Sir Frederick

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

  Rentoul, James Alexander

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

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Renwick, George

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green)

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

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Ritchie,Rt.Hon.ChasThomson

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

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Robinson, Brooke

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  M'Calmont, Col. H. L. B. (Cambs

  Ropner, Colonel Robert

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

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Maple, Sir John Blundell

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Wylie, Alexander

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Maxwell, W.J.H.(Dumfriessh.)

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

  Younger, William

  Milner, Rt.Hn.Sir Frederick G.

  Seton-Karr, Henry

  Milton, Viscount

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

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

  Moleswo th, Sir Lewis

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork,N. E.)

  Craig, Robert Hunter

  Hayter, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur D.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Cullinan, J.

  Hemphill, Rt. Hn. Charles H.

  Allen, Charles P. (Glouc., Stroud

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.)

  Ambrose, Robert

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)

  Holland, William Henry

  Asher, Alexander

  Delany, William

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Doogan, P. C.

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Evans, Sir Francis H (Maidstone

  Joicy, Sir James

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan

  Jones, David Brynmor(Sw'nsea

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Jones, W'lliam (Carnarvonshire

  Bell, Richard

  Fenwick, Charles

  Joyce, Michael

  Boland, John

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Kay Shuttleworth, Rt HnSir U.

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Ffrench, Peter

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Brigg, John

  Field, William

  Kennedy, Patrick James

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Fdmond

  Kinloch, Sir John George Smyth

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Lambert, George

  Burns, John

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Langley, Batty

  Burt, Thomas

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Fowler, St. Hon. Sir Henry

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Caine, William Sproston

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Levy, Maurice

  Caldwell, James

  Gilhooly, James

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Cameron, Robert

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Lloyd-George, David

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Grant, Corrie

  Lundon, W.

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Cawley, Frederick

  Harwood, George

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Hayden, John Patrick

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale-

  McDermott, Patrick

  1402

  1403

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Sullivan, Donal

  Mather, William

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Taylor, Theodore Cooke

  Mellor, Rt. Hon John William

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Tennant, Harold John

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Priestley, Arthur

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

  Rea, Russell

  Thomas, Alfd. (Glamorgan, E.

  Morton, Edw. J. C. (Devonport)

  Reckitt, Harold James

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Reddy, M.

  Thomas, J. A. (Glamorgan, Gower

  Murphy, John

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Trevelyan, Charles Phillips

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Wallace, Robert

  Newnes, Sir George

  Reed, Sir Edw. James (Cardiff)

  Walton, John Lawson (Leeds, S.)

  Nolan, Col.John P. (Galway, N.)

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Rigg, Richard

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Norton, Captain Cecil W.

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifiion)

  Weir, James Galloway

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  White, George (Norfolk)

  O Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

  Robson, William Snowdon

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

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

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Whittakar, Thomas Palmer

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth

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

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Wilson, Chas. Henry (Hull, W.

  O'Dowd, John

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Woodhouse, Sir J. T. Huddersf'd

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Young, Samuel

  O'Malley, William

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Yoxall, James Henry

  O'Mara, James

  Soares, Ernest J.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Herbert Gladstone and Mr. M'Arthur,

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Spencer, Rt. Hn C R (Northants

  Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

  Strachey, Edward

  MR. CHANNINGsaid that he based his Amendment for a slight extension of the powers to be given under the Bill on the ground that the growth of higher grade schools and evening schools had been natural and almost automatic. It had not been artificially forced by the school boards, but had been developed in proportion to the wants and desires of the community. He contended that the growth and development of such instruments of education had been proved by experience to be desired by the people and to be essential to the education of the children; that that growth should not be artificially arrested within the narrow limits of the Bill; and that existing classes and schools should not only be allowed to continue, but that the local authorities should be enabled to empower school boards to create schools and classes of the kind contemplated by the Bill. Everyone who had followed the question knew that the growth of higher grade and evening schools in London was of the most marked character. During the last two years the increase in the number of evening schools was 13 per cent., and in the number of pupils 15 per cent. throughout the country. Taking London alone, the increase in evening schools was 24 per cent., and the increase in the number of pupils was over 100 per cent. Those figures furnished a tremendous argument in favour of giving some further lati-
  1404
  tude than that proposed in the Bill. With regard to the higher grade schools, the increase in the number of children per annum was between 300 and 400, which almost represented an additional school every year.
  MR. FLAVINasked on a point of order whether hon. Gentlemen were entitled to hear an hon. Member who was addressing the Chair.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I think it would be very desirable that the hon. Member should be heard, especially as I fail at present to see what relation his speech bears to the Amendment.
  MR. CHANNINGsaid that with all due respect to the Chairman's opinion, it was probably owing to his not being able to make himself heard that his argument did not make itself plain to the Chair. His argument was that the growth of higher grade and evening schools was natural and continuous, and a growth which every rational educationist ought to take into, account in making provision even for the coming year alone. The result of passing the Bill without his Amendment would be that that growth would be arrested. As it was, the natural expansion of these schools had been enormously restricted in London by the administration of the Minute of April, 1900. He might mention also the case of Burnley, from which there was an appeal to allow the higher elementary school

  1405
  to be recognised. That was refused by the Department, and the parents were told that the children might go to the grammar schools. There were many similar cases throughout the country.
  THE CHAIRMAN: As far as I am able to gather the hon. Member is now taking exception to the past administration of the Board of Education. I do not see how that can be in order on this Bill, or how it is covered by the Amendment. The only difference I can discover between the Amendment and the wording of the Bill is that while the wording of the Bill describes the period during which particular schools or classes have been illegally conducted as one year, the Amendment of the hon. Member extends that period further back. The hon. Member must confine himself strictly to the words of his Amendment.
  MR. CHANNINGsaid he was extremely sorry that he had not succeeded in making his argument clear. His reference to the past administration of the Board of Education was by way of illustration to show that great arrears had to be made up, as well as the prospective demands for similar provision by the school boards, and this made a still stronger argument for this Amendment. The whole of his case was that there was a continually increasing demand for that kind of educational facilities, and that the school boards of London, Liverpool, Burnley, and other large towns had already taken steps to supply them, to which effect should be given. On those grounds he would move his Amendment, which he hoped would receive some consideration from the Government.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 5, after the word 'board,' to insert the words 'is at the time of the passing of this Act maintaining or has in order to meet the educational wants of the district taken steps to provide or extend or.'"—(Mr. Channing.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR J. GORST: The Bill of the Government is confined to existing schools, and the definition of existing schools is very wide and liberal. As I understand, the hon. Member desires to enable local authorities to empower school boards to
  1406
  maintain existing schools, and also some other schools which may in some way or other come into existence after the passing of the Act. That is an extension of the Act which the Government cannot accept. The local secondary school authorities which it is hoped the Bill of next year will create are the proper bodies to manage any new schools, and in that I agree with the Report of the Secondary Education Commission. The only ground on which a provision of this kind could be inserted is that of urgent and pressing necessity, I can assure the Committee that no such urgent necessity will arise. We have the technical instruction committees, which can establish technical schools, and which, for the most part, have not at all exhausted their powers. Only in a few places have they spent all of their funds. In places where there are no schools the local authorities have power to spend technical instruction money, and now that they will be released from the competition of the school boards it is very probable that the effect of this Bill will be to stimulate the local authorities to establish new schools. Besides that, the school boards have got very large powers of extension as far as day schools are concerned under the higher elementary Minute of last session which is now embodied in the Code. I can assure hon. Members that as far as day higher elementary schools are concerned there is no urgency at all. As regards evening schools, what is wanted is not extension but concentration. In the opinion of the inspectors of the Board of Education the schools will be very much improved if they are concentrated instead of being extended. There is abundant room in the schools for many times the number of students, and anyone who wishes to attend an evening school in any of the great towns will not be prevented by want of school accommodation. As regards the country districts, I think there will be a very large extension and increase in the number of evening schools during the present winter, in consequence of the Bill with which we are now dealing.
  MR. YOXALLsaid he had listened with amazement to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that, as regarded evening schools, what was wanted was concentration and

  1407
  not multiplication. If the Government thought it desirable that evening education should spread among the people the way to secure it was to employ evening schools near their doors. That was the only business way of extending education, and it was necessary for success that the nation should open as many educational emporiums as possible. He did not know whether he should be in order in discussing the question of the Evening School Minute.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I should think that is rather a subject by itself. I do not quite follow how it would come in here.
  MR. YOXALLsaid that under the Evening School Minute, evening schools might be provided by other authorities than the school board.
  THE CHAIRMAN: But this clause applies only to school boards.
  MR. YOXALLsaid that at the present moment many school boards were considering the desirability of opening new schools which the experience of last winter had convinced them ought to be established. The Amendment moved by his hon. friend would enable those schools to be opened provided that the consideration and the planning of them had taken place before the date of this Act. That was an argument for allowing an extension of this Act, and it would enable school boards to start a few more schools. He hoped the Committee would accept this Amendment.
  MR. ERNEST GRAYsaid the Amendment was one to which he attached great importance, and he thought that the substance, if not the actual wording of the Amendment, ought to have been accepted. The Amendment was in no way antagonistic to the principle of the Bill, which had been settled by the House. It was all very well to say that there was room for more pupils in the buildings where classes were held now. That was perfectly true, because the evening school pupils were drawn from a much more limited class than the day school. But what was the use of having empty buildings at one end of the town when the need for educational facilities existed at the other end? In Leeds they could draw a straight line nine miles long, and what was the use of having a large school at one end
  1408
  of that line when the pupils who wished to attend lived at the other end. He did not see what objection the Government could have to this Amendment. According to what had already been stated the Education Department had no objection to doubling the number of pupils in an evening school which had already been established, but they objected to the same number of pupils being accommodated in two schools one at each end of the town. In districts where only one school could be maintained, and where that school had not yet been opened, why should the local authority be prevented during the coming winter from opening it? He was not asking that the school board should have a free hand, for this was all subject to the sanction of the county council. The danger was that if they did not get the pupils in the schools at a certain age, they lost them for all time. The Amendment brought forward was a reasonable proposal to give these young people an opportunity of getting this education during the forthcoming winter. Many hon. Members appeared to assume that the county councils had already had some experience in primary education, but they were altogether unacquainted with the work of the evening schools. The county councils had not the legal power to teach reading, writing, and arithmetic under the Technical Education Acts to young persons of any age in evening schools. If the Government could see their way to accept the substance of the Amendment it would remove very much of the opposition which existed, whether well founded or ill founded. Many educational authorities had declared that this proposal would prevent the development of their work, and he asked the Government to free themselves from that attack by accepting this Amendment If the county council and the school board thought it was desirable that a new school should be opened, why should they not have power to do this. He did not know whether the Government desired to avoid a report stage upon this Bill, but if they did there were other means of introducing Amendments of this kind. Entirely apart from any partisan feeling and purely upon educational grounds he urged the Government to reconsider their decision upon this point.
  DR. MACNAMARAsaid the Amendment touched with a generous hand the scheme of the Bill. All work was sanctioned which was in existence up to July 31 of this year. All he asked was that where it was desired to extend any necessary work during the coming year opportunity for extending it should be given. The Amendment was dictated by every consideration of educational expediency and wisdom, and he hoped the First Lord of the Treasury would agree to it. In reply to a question put by him the First Lord of the Treasury stated definitely that there would be no opportunity given of opening new schools. Under the Higher Elementary Minute, a very small number of schools had been established, and it stood to reason that there must be a large number of instances where they desired to extend their work. In reply to the hon. Member for West Nottingham the Vice-President of the Council said that, under the present law, the county councils could spend money upon teaching, reading, writing, and arithmetic, but the right hon. Gentleman appeared to have overlooked the Minute of the Education Department issued on the 8th of December, 1893, which laid down a rule to the contrary. It was impossible for the night schools to use their money for those subjects, although they could do so for technical instruction. It was futile for a Minister of the Crown to stand up in this House in the face of that Minute and say that they could get money for this purpose from the county councils. This Bill would sterilise all the work which was in being on the 31st of July in public elementary schools. Last year 183 new night schools were open, and 34,000 new pupils were enrolled. It was quite fair to assume that a similar number of new schools would be required next year, and that a similar number of new pupils would have to be provided for. Last year in London they opened 27 new schools and enrolled 27,000 new pupils. According to this Bill, they could not open a single new school or enroll a single new pupil. He had received many communications from all parts of the country upon this subject. The clerk of the Birmingham School Board had written a letter to him to the effect that the Birmingham School Board would be very glad if the necessary
  1410
  authority was given to them to extend their evening school work. In Birmingham the school board had recommended the discontinuance of two of these schools, and they wished to open two other schools in more suitable districts. This Bill did not provide for that emergency.
  SIR J. GORST: They can transfer one of the old schools to a new district.
  DR. MACNAMARAsaid that that was an advance upon the Bill before the Committee which would absolutely sterilise the work of the school board. In this case they wanted to shut up two old schools in districts where they had not succeeded, and they wished to open new ones in growing parts of the city of Birmingham, but, according to the statement of the First Lord of the Treasury, they could not do that. Birmingham desired to open new in place of old schools. The clerk of the Manchester School Board had written to him stating that there, with the rapidly increasing suburbs, it was found necessary to open new night schools to supply the needs of new and growing districts. That board had had applications from several voluntary managers to open night schools next winter in premises where there were no night schools last year. This Bill did not provide for that, and, so far as he could gather, hon. Members opposite did not desire that it should do so. He had hoped to make a speech in no party sense whatever. He thought provision should have been made that, with the sanction of the Education Department, where there was a real demand for the extension of the work in regard to the higher elementary schools and the night schools, the work should not be shut down, and that there should have been permission to meet the reasonable demands of the locality by opening night schools beyond those which were in being during the past year. He did not know whether hon. Members realised the fact that every year at least 400,000 boys and girls left the elementary day schools. That meant that there were 2,500,000 young people in their teens. He dared say that many of them were under beneficent influences in polytechnics and other places, but it was clear that there must be a large extension of the night-school system to meet the requirements of that class. He was sorry that it was not possible to provide for this perfectly

  1411
  natural extension which did not involve overlapping, and he hoped that even now he might appeal to the First Lord of the Treasury to agree to some provision whereby the school boards would be able to open hew schools during the coming year on receiving the sanction of the local authority for the purpose of so doing.
  MR. ALFRED HUTTONsaid that the right hon. Gentleman's interpretation of the position was this—the county council could give money out of the rates to the maintenance and extension of these schools if they were not public elementary schools carried on by the school board, but evening schools carried on by a diocesan association.
  SIR J. GORSTsaid that the hon. Member was mistaken. What he said was that in future none of these school could be elementary schools, because in such schools it was only legal to have children and to teach elementary subjects.
  MR. ALFRED HUTTONsaid that the distinction was rather one of definition. Elementary subjects did not become secondary because they were taught to persons over fifteen. These subjects remained elementary although the children had grown to be adults in the estimation of the Department. Could a school board carry on an evening school which was not a public elementary school, and could it start a new one under this Bill? He very much misunderstood the Cockerton judgment and this Bill if a board could start a new school which was not a public elementary school, and therefore they could not have money from the county council for this purpose. If they had evening schools teaching elementary subjects, either to adults or to young children, and they did not call them public elementary schools, but called them by some other name, and if they were carried on by a diocesan association, they could come and claim the grants according to the right hon. Gentleman's interpretation of the circular which his hon. friend had just read out. Surely the work carried on by the school boards was so good that, at any rate, without any contravention of the splendid principle recognised by the Bill, such schools as were in contemplation at the present time might be allowed to be established.
  MR. WHITLEYsaid he would venture
  1412
  to add an appeal to the First Lord of the Treasury on this subject. He instanced the case of a borough which had recently extended its municipal area under a Bill passed by this House. In that area there were two particular places where evening schools were required, and in one case there was an evening school which ought to be taken over by the town authority. On the other side of the town there was a district entirely without an evening school, and which was extremely anxious to have that accommodation provided. There they had a case which under this Bill was completely cut out. Why, in Heaven's name, should the Government insist on this cramping provision of the Bill? Why could they not allow schools already in contemplation, and in many cases arranged for, and approved of by inspectors, to go on during the next winter?
  MR. GEORGE WHITEsaid the question under consideration was even more complicated now than it was at the beginning of the evening. It seemed to him that the Vice-President made it worse as he went along. There were plenty of Members opposite who had connection with the technical instruction committees, and he ventured to say that no one had acted on the principle laid down by the right hon. Gentleman that night. He was quite sure when they came to deal with the matter through the technical instruction committees that the way the Vice-President said would be so easy would be found not only difficult, but absolutely illegal. If it was a good work which was being carried on in the evening schools, why should the Government arrest its natural development for even twelve months? Surely the right hon. Gentleman might trust the new authority to provide what was necessary in the way of increased accommodation and facilities for the work. The right hon. Gentleman said there was no urgent necessity for this extension, because the technical committees had not exhausted their powers. If they had not exhausted their powers, they had in most cases exhausted their funds. They could not, in his judgment, under the Technical Acts, as at present administered, provide for the elementary instruction which was carried on in the evening schools specially. The Amendment destroyed no principle which hon. Members opposite were contending for, and he hoped

  1413
  the Government would meet them in this matter.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 165; Noes, 242. (Division List No. 350.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.)

  Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda

  Hobhouse, H. (Somerset, E.)

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Allen, Chas. P. (Glouc., Stroud)

  Holland, William Henry

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Ambrose, Robert

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Asher, Alexander

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Priestley, Arthur

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herb. Henry

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Rea, Russell

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea

  Reckitt, Harold James

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Reddy, M.

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Joyce, Michael

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Bell, Richard

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Boland, John

  Kennedy, Patrick James

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Kinloch, Sir John G. Smyth

  Rigg, Richard

  Brigg, John

  Labouchere, Henry

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Lambert, George

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh

  Langley, Batty

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Burns, John

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Levy, Maurice

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Caldwell, James

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Scott, Charles Prestwich (Leigh

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Lloyd-George, David

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford

  Cawley, Frederick

  Lough, Thomas

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Lundon, W.

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Craig, Robert Hunter

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Crombie, John William

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire

  Cullinan, J.

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Soarcs, Ernest J.

  Delany, William

  M'Arthur, W. (Cornwall)

  Spencer, Rt. HnC.R. (Northants

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

  M'Dermott, Patrick

  Strachey, Edward

  Doogan, P. C.

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Sullivan, Donal

  Duffy, William J.

  Mather, William

  Taylor, Theodore Cooke

  Duncan, J. Hastings.

  Mellor, Rt. Hn. John William

  Tennant, Harold John

  Dunn, Sir William

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Elibank, Master of

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

  Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan. E.)

  Emmott, Alfred

  Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport)

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Evans, Sir Francis H. (Maidsto'e

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Thomas, F. Freeman (Hastings)

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  Murphy, John

  Thomas, J. A. (Glamorgan, G'wer

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Tomkinson, James

  Fenwick, Charles

  Newnes, Sir George

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Nolan, Col. J. P. (Galway, N.)

  Tully, Jasper

  Ffrench, Peter

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Wallace, Robert

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Walton, John Lawson (Leeds, S.)

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Gilhooly, James

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  White, Luke (Yorks., E. R.)

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herb. John

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

  Whiteley, George (Yorks., W. R.)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Gordon, Maj. Evans-(T'r H'm'ts

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Grant, Corrie

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

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

  O'Dowd, John

  Wilson, Chas. Henry (Hull, W.)

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Haldane, Richard Burdon

  O'Kelly, J. (Roscommon, N.)

  Woodhouse, Sir JT (Huddersf'd)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Malley, William

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. C. Seale-

  O'Mara, James

  Hayter, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur D

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Channing and Mr. Ernest Gray.

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  Partington, Oswald

  Hemphill, Rt. Hn. Charles H.

  Paulton, James Mellor

  NOES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

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

  Brassey, Albert

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Allhusen, Augustus Henry E.

  Ralfour, Rt. Hn. Gerald W. (Leeds

  Bull, William James

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Bathurst, Hn. Allen Benjamin

  Butcher, John George

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

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

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Arrol, Sir William

  Beach, Rt. Hn. W. W. B. (Hants.)

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Beckett, Ernest William

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

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Bignold, Arthur

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Bond, Edward

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex)

  Charrington, Spencer

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Hoult, Joseph

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

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

  Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham)

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham

  Purvis, Robert

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Randies, John S.

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Hutton, John (Yorks. N. R.)

  Rankin, Sir James

  Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Renshaw, Charles Bine

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Rentoul, James Alexander

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Kenyon, Hon. G. T. (Denbigh)

  Renwick, George

  Cripps, Charles Aifred

  Kenyon, James (Lancs., Bury

  Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green)

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas Thomson

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Keswick, William

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Knowles, Lees

  Robinson, Brooke

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Law, Andrew Bonar

  Ropner, Colonel Robert

  Davenport, William Bromley-

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Round, James

  Dewar, T. R. (T'r Haml'ts, S Geo.

  Lawson, John Grant

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Legge, Col. Hn. Heneage

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cockfield

  Leveson-Gower, Fred. N. S.

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Dorington, Sir John Edward

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

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

  Doughty, George

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)

  Seton-Karr, Henry

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Bristol, S.)

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Lowe, Francis William

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.

  Lucas, Col- Francis (Lowestoft)

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r

  Lucas, Reg. J. (Portsmouth)

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)

  Finch, George H.

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

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

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Spear, John Ward

  Fisher, William Hayes

  M'Calmont, Col H. L. B. (Cambs

  Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset)

  Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Fletcher, Sir Henry

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Stroyan, John

  Flower, Ernest

  Malcolm, Ian

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Foster, PhilipS. (Warwick, S. W.

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Gardner, Ernest

  Maple, Sir John Blundell

  Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'dUniv

  Garfit, William

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H (City of Lond.

  Maxwell, W. J. H (Dumfriesshire

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fred.

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Tollemache, Henry James

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

  Milner. Rt-Hon. Sir Frederick G.

  Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

  Gore, Hn. G. R. C. Ormsby-(Salop

  Milton, Viscount

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-(Linc)

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Valentia, Viscount

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.)

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Green, Walford D. (Wednesbury

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Greene, Sir E. W (BrySEdmnds)

  Morgan, David J. (Walthamst'w

  Webb, Col. William George

  Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)

  Morgan, Hn. Fred. (Monm'thsh.

  Welby, Sir CharlesG. E. (Notts.)

  Gretton, John

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Morriss, Hon. Martin Henry F.

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne

  Groves, James Grimble

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  Mount, William Arthur

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

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham (Bute

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

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

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

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Wylie, Alexander

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Heath, James (Staffords, N. W.

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Helder, Augustus

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Younger, William

  Hermon-Hodge, R. Trotter

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Hoare, Edw. Brodie (Hampstead

  Parkes, Ebcnezer

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

  Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich)

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Penn, John

  MR. GEORGE WHITEsaid he had placed this Amendment on the Paper because it had been pointed out to him that there would be some difficulty in
  1416
  regard to the payments to the teachers unless the date was extended to the 1st of August.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 6, to leave out 'thirty-first day of July,' and insert 'first day of August'"—(Mr. George White.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  SIR J. GORST: This has been inserted in order to widen the limitation, but I will undertake to inquire into the matter, and if it does not achieve this object I will see that it is set right.
  MR. GEORGE WHITEsaid he would withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 6, to leave out 'July,' and insert 'December.'"—(Mr. Herbert Roberts.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'July' stand part of the Bill."
  SIR J. GORST: I cannot accept this Amendment, because it might cut out altogether a number of schools. I do not think there will be any difficulty in the working of the schools, and I can assure the hon. Member that there will be no difficulty whatever in getting everything ready by the time provided.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 213; Noes, 130. (Division List No. 351.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Hoult, Joseph

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham)

  Allhusen, Augustus Henry E.

  Cust, Henry John C.

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Anson, Sir Wm. Reynell

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Jebb, Sir Rich. Claverhouse

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Davenport, Wm. Bromley-

  Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

  Arrol, Sir William

  Dewar, T. R. (T'rH'mlets, S. Geo.

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Bagot, Capt Josceline FitzRoy

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Dimsdale, Sir John Cockfield

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop)

  Bain, Col. James Robert

  Doughty, George

  Keswick, William

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Knowles, Lees

  Balcarres, Lord

  Doxford, Sir Wm. Theodore

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

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

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Lawson, John Grant

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

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

  Fergusson, RtHnSirJ.(Manc'r.

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Fielden, Edw. Brocklehurst

  Leveson-Gower, Fred. N. S.

  Bathurst, Hn. Allen B.

  Finch, George H.

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Beach, Rt.Hn.SirM.H.(Bristol

  Finlay, Sir Robt. Bannatyne

  Long, Col. Charles W (Evesham

  Beach, Rt. Hn. W. W. B. (Hants

  Fisher, William Hayes

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

  Beckett, Ernest William

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edw. Algernon

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Fletcher, Sir Henry

  Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

  Bignold, Arthur

  Flower, Ernest

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

  Blundell, Col. Henry

  Foster, PhilipS. (Warwickm, SW

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

  Bond, Edward

  Gardner, Ernest

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Garfit, William

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middls'x

  Gibbs, HnA.G.H(CityofLond.

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Brassey, Albert

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

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

  M'Calmont, Col. H. L. B. (Cam.

  Bull, William James

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

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Gore, HnG.R. C. Ormsby-(Sal'p

  Malcolm, Ian

  Butcher, John George

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh

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

  Green, WalfordD(Wednesb'ry

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

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

  Greene, Sir EW (B'ryS Edm'nds

  Milner, Rt.Hn.Sir FrederickG.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Gretton, John

  Montagu, Hon. J. S. (Hants.)

  Chamberlain,Rt.Hn. J. (Birm.

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Chamberlain, J Austen (Worc'r

  Groves, James Grimble

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Charrington, Spencer

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  More, R. Jasper (Shropshire)

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Morrell, George Herbert

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

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

  Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F.

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Heath, Jas. (Stafferds. N. W.)

  Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

  Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

  Helder, Augustus

  Mount, William Arthur

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Hoare, Edw. Brodie (Hampst'd)

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

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow

  Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich)

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Hobhouse, H. (Somerset, E.)

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Hope, J.F. (Sheffield, Brightsi'e

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Saunderson, Rt. Hon. Col. E. J.

  Valentia, Viscount

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Robt. Wellesley

  Seton-Karr, Henry

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Penn, John

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton-u.-Lyne)

  Purvis, Robert

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.)

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Randles, John S.

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Rankin, Sir James

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

  Wilson, A Stanley (Yorks, E. R.

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Spear, John Ward

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

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

  Renshaw, Charles Bine

  Stroyan, John

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Rentoul, James Alexander

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Wylie, Alexander

  Ridley, S. F. (Bethnal Green)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. Thomson

  Talbot, RtHnJ. G. (OxfdUniv.

  Younger, William

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Thornton, Percy M.

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

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

  Partington, Oswald

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir A. D.

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Allen, CharlesP (Glouc., Stroud

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

  Asher, Alexander

  Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.)

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Holland, Wm. Henry

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Hutton, Alfred L. (Morley)

  Priestley, Arthur

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)

  Rea, Russell

  Bell, Richard

  Joyce, Michael

  Reokitt, Harold James

  Boland, John

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Reddy, M.

  Brigg, John

  Kennedy, Patrick James

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Langley, Batty

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Rigg, Richard

  Burns, John

  Levy, Maurice

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Caldwell, James

  Lloyd-George, David

  Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Lough, Thomas

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Lundon, W.

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Cawley, Frederick

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Crombie, John William

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R. (Northants

  Cullinan, J.

  M'Dermott, Patrick

  Sullivan, Donal

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Taylor, Theodore Cooke

  Delany, William

  Mather, William

  Tennant, Harold John

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Doogan, P. C.

  Morton, Edw. J. C. (Devonport)

  Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

  Duffy, William J.

  Murphy, John

  Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Tomkinson, James

  Dunn, Sir William

  Newnes, Sir George

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Elibank, Master of

  Nolan, Col JohnP. (Galway, N.)

  Tully, Jasper

  Emmott, Alfred

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Warner, Thos. Courtenay T.

  Evans, S. T. (Glamorgan)

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Farrell, James Patrick

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipp'r'y, Mid.

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Ffrench, Peter

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

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

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Flynn, James Christopher

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

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Gilhooly, James

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbt. J.

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

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  O'Dowd, John

  Grant, Corrie

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Herbert Roberts and Mr. Yoxall.

  Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

  O'Kelly, Jas. (Roscommon, N.)

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  O'Malley, William

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Mara, James

  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 7, after 'maintained,' insert 'according to the regulations of the Board of Education in force at the time the school board began to provide the school or class.'"—(Mr. Yoxall.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. YOXALLsaid the object of the Amendment he now moved was to secure that evening schools and classes

  1421
  and higher grade schools might proceed upon the lines of the plan laid down with the consent of the Board of Education when they were first instituted. He desired to prevent new disabilities being imposed by the administration of the Board on the schools which the Bill relieved from the effects of the Cockerton judgment.
  SIR J. GORST: I do not think the words the hon. Member proposes would at all have the effect which he intends. We are at present engaged describing the schools to which the Act is to apply. If there is a school for which the school board began to provide, say, six years ago, and which was then in accordance with the regulation of the Department, and if the regulations have been altered since, it would be excluded altogether from the operation of the Bill. The words of the hon. Member would really limit the number of schools.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTSsuggested that the words "in force at the time the school board began to provide the school or class" should be left out of the Amendment.
  SIR J. GORST: My objection to that form is that it is wholly unnecessary.
  MR. YOXALLsaid his desire was that these schools should not be submitted to the condition laid down by the right hon. Gentleman in his night school minute.
  MR. ASQUITHsaid he might be content with an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that the new evening schools Minute or any new regulations issued by the Science and Art Department would not be imposed on these particular schools during the next twelve months.
  SIR J. GORST: The regulations and the minute must apply to all the schools.
  MR. ASQUITHsaid it would be open for the right hon. Gentleman by a stroke of the pen to say that the Science and Art Department regulations withdrew the grants from the schools in question, and in that way render nugatory the purport and intention of the Bill.
  SIR J. GORST: I am afraid it is quite impossible to enter into any private arrangement by which the grants will be given perfectly fairly and honestly
  1422
  according to the regulations. If they are not properly dealt with, any hon. Gentleman will have the power of arraigning the action of the Department next session. If the school boards wish to have grants from the Board of Education they will have to conform to the regulations of the Board of Education as in the past.
  Question put, and negatived.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I do not quite understand the next Amendment on the Paper, standing in the name of the hon. Member for the Morley Division.
  MR. ALFRED HUTTONsaid he understood that the practice had been to disallow the expenditure of the local rate by the school board upon certain classes of higher grade schools and evening continuation schools. The words used in this Bill were "school fund." That included more than the local rate, for it comprised every other source of supply which a school might receive. It included the endowments and the Government grants, the income from fees and local subscriptions. The Act of 1873 distinctly laid down that any school board might accept any gift or endowment, and use it for any educational purpose whatever. He thought it was a little hard for the right hon. Gentleman to extend the Cockerton judgment in the way he had done. It was never intended that the provision in the Act of 1873 was to be annulled in this way. The right hon. Gentleman told them that he had made inquiries from his legal advisers in order to get to know how much it would be safe to allow the school boards to give.
  SIR J. GORST: I never said anything of the sort.
  MR. ALFRED HUTTONsaid he understood the right hon. Gentleman to state that he had consulted his legal advisers as to what it would be safe for them to give.
  SIR J. GORST: What I said was that the London School Board had consulted their counsel, and he had advised them what it would be safe for them to do.
  MR. ALFRED HUTTONasked if the advice given to the London School Board was going to be the basis of the proposal which the Government were going to carry through.
  SIR J. GORST: The hon. Member is so fond of misrepresenting what I said. I never said that I consulted my legal advisers upon the matter.
  MR. ALFRED HUTTONsaid he would withdraw that statement, although the right hon. Gentleman did introduce that argument in his speech. He thought the Vice-President of the Council might have consulted his own advisers instead of resting content with the advice of the London School Board upon the matter. The Government should try to make everything safe as far as possible. The right hon. Gentleman was using the words "school fund" in such a way that the school boards would be prevented from using their Government grants, fees, and endowments in any way they chose, and by doing this the Vice-President of the Council was going far beyond what were the intentions of the judges in the Cockerton judgment, and in what had been understood to be the intention of this Bill. He did not think the County Council ought to have the power to veto the expenditure of the money received from other sources than the local rate, and he begged to move his amendment.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, lines 7 and 8, to leave out 'school fund,' and insert 'local rate.'"—(Mr. Alfred Hutton.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'school fund' stand part of the clause."
  SIR J. GORST: This is a purely legal question, and I am advised that the language is properly used by the draftsman and adopted from the language in the statute, and also used by the Court in the Cockerton judgment. The words in the Bill are:—
  "Where a school board has maintained any school or class to the maintenance of which the school fund is not lawfully applicable."
  Of course, if the fund was lawfully applicable, it would not come under the Act"
  MR. ASQUITH: I cannot agree with the right hon. Gentleman. The school fund was a technical term, but the fund may be constituted from a number of sources—from fees (now abolished), from Parliamentary grants, from the rates, and, in some cases, from endowments. The effect of the Cockerton judgment is that that part of the fund derived from the
  1424
  rates is not legally applicable to these classes, but that does not include endowments. It would be better for clearness to adopt the Amendment of my hon. friend, which will make it perfectly clear that what is meant is only that part of the school fund contributed by the local rates.
  MR. ERNEST GRAYwas afraid that to do so would injure schools now conducted by small school boards, where not infrequently evening schools had been carried on by contributions and on condition that no expense should fall on the rates. In future there would be two classes of evening schools under the control of the school boards—one, the elementary evening schools with the restrictions of Paragraph 21 of the Minute; and the other, the schools under dual control which had been hit by the Cockerton judgment, and which would receive relief by this Bill. If the words "local rate" were used instead of "school fund" some of these schools would be prevented by the Minute from giving instruction to children over fifteen, and the effect would be to restrict a number of schools which could be continued under the provisions of the Bill.
  MR. ASQUITHsaid the hon. Gentleman was importing new matter in connection with restrictions which might be imposed by a Minnte hereafter to come in force. He was extending the scope of the Bill.
  MR. ERNEST GRAYsaid that within the next few days the Minute would be in operation, and then there could be but two classes of schools carried on by the school boards. If what he had said now was not strictly correct it would be correct next week.
  SIR J. GORST: May I read to the Committee a few of the last words of the Master of the Rolls in the Cockerton judgment?
  "I say it is not within the powers of a board as a statutory corporation to provide science and art schools or classes of the kind referred to in this case, either in the day schools or in evening continuation schools, out of the School Hoard rate or school fund."
  MR. BOUSFIELDsaid this was a restricting Amendment, that was to say it narrowed the class of cases to which the remedy provided by the Bill might be applied.
  SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid that the Cockerton judgment in the Divisional Court was limited to the application of the local rate, but the judgment of the Court of Appeal extended to the application of the entirety of the school fund, and therefore to limit the Bill to the local rate fund would be to limit the relief afforded by the Bill.
  MR. BRYCEthought that in one form or another they ought to provide that where continuation schools had been supported otherwise than out of the rates they should not fall within the provisions of the Bill. If the money did not come out of the rate, but from an endowment, the school board ought not to be obliged as a matter of principle to go and ask
  leave from the local authority to continue the work. A school so supported would not come within the purview of the Bill at all.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: In the Bill we have followed accurately the words of the Cockerton judgment, and in following those words we have surely taken the safest course. The Cockerton judgment has distinctly laid down that the school fund is applicable only to elementary education, and I think that it would be most dangerous to vary our Bill from the words of that judgment.
  [The LORD ADVOCATE took the Chair at 1 a.m.]
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 185; Noes, 112. (Division List No. 352.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Allhusen, Augustus Hy. Eden

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Hoult, Joseph

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Cust, Henry John C.

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Arrol, Sir William

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Kenyon, Hon. G. T. (Denbigh

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Dewar, T.R.(T'rH'mlets, S. Geo.

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop)

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Keswick, William

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Knowles, Lees

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cockfield

  Lawson, John Grant

  Balcarres, Lord

  Doughty, George

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

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

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Leveson-Gower, Fred. N. S.

  Balfour, RtHnGerald W. (Leeds

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Fellowes, Hn. Ailwyn Edward

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

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

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

  Finch, George H.

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Beach, Rt. Hon. W. W. B. (Hants.

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

  Beckett, Ernest William

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth)

  Bignold, Arthur

  Fletcher, Sir Henry

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

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

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Bond, Edward

  Gardner, Ernest

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Garfit, William

  M'Calmont, Col. H. L. B. (Cambs

  Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

  M'Killop, Jas. (Stirlingshire)

  Brassey, Albert

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

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rH'mlets

  Malcolm, Ian

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Gore, Hn. G. R. C. Ormsby-(Salop

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Butcher, John George

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Goschen, Hn. George Joachim

  Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.

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

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)

  Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Greene, Sir E. W. (B'ryS. Edm'nds

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.

  Gretton, John

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

  Charrington, Spencer

  Groves, James Grimble

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F.

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

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Hamilton, Rt. HnLordG.(Mid'x

  Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Heath, James(Staffords., N. W.)

  Mount, William Arthur

  Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

  Helder, Augustus

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich)

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  O'Neill, Hon. Robt. Torrens

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Valentia, Viscount

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Peel, Rt. Hn. Wm. Rbt. Wellesley

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Webb, Colonel Wm. George

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Welby, Sir CharlesG.E.(Notts.)

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.)

  Whiteley, H (Ashton und. Lyne

  Purvis, Robert

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Randles, John S.

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

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

  Rankin, Sir James

  Spear, John Ward.

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Stroyan, John

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Rentoul, James Alexander

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Younger, William

  Ridley, S. Forde (BethnalGreen)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Talbot, Rt. Hn.J.G.(Oxf'dUniv.

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

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Thorton, Percy M.

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Tomlinson, Wm, Edw. Murray

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E)

  Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.)

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Holland, Wm. Henry

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Allen, CharlesP. (Glouc., Stroud

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

  Priestley, Arthur

  Asher, Alexander

  Joyce, Michael

  Rea, Russell

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

  Kennedy, Patrick James

  Reddy, M.

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Langley, Batty

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Boland, John

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Brigg, John

  Levy, Maurice

  Rigg, Richard

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Lloyd-George, David

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Burns, John

  Lough, Thomas

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Caldwell, James

  Lundon, W.

  Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Cawley, Frederick

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Channing, Francis Allston

  M'Dermott, Patrick

  Sinclair, Capt. John (Forfarsh.)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Cullinan, J.

  Mather, William

  Spencer, Rt.Hn.CR (Northants

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

  Morley, Chas. (Breconshire)

  Sullivan, Donal

  Delany, William

  Morton, Edw. J. C. (Devonport)

  Taylor, Theodore Cooke

  Dewar, John A (Inverness-sh.

  Murphy, John

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Doogan, P. C.

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Duffy, William J.

  Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway N.

  Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings)

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Tomkinson, James

  Dunn, Sir William

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Elibank, Master of

  O'Brien Kendal (Tipperary Mid.

  Tully, Jasper

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Farrell, James Patrick

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

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Ffrench, Peter

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

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

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Flynn, James Christopher

  O'Dowd, John

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Gilhooly, James

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J.

  O'Kelly, Jas. (Roscommon, N.)

  Y'oxall, James Henry

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  O'Malley, William

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  O'Mara, James

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Alfred Hutton and Mr. Corrie Grant.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Partington, Oswald

  Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

  Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress; and ask leave to sit again"—(Mr. A. J. Balfour)—put, and agreed to.

  Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow.

  JUSTICES JURISDICTION (LONDON) BILL [Lords].
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.

  PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION (No. 2) BILL [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.
  In pursuance of the Order of the House of the 22nd day of this instant July, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put.
  Adjourned accordingly at ten minutes after One of the clock.

The Lord Northington (L. Henley) 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 Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with—

Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 7).

The same was ordered to lie on the Table.

RHYL IMPROVEMENT BILL.
The King's consent signified; and Bill reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
METROPOLITAN ELECTRIC SUPPLY BILL.
  SHIREOAKS, LAUGHTON, AND MALTBY RAILWAY BILL.
  Reported with Amendments.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 11) BILL.
  Reported from the Select Committee without amendment, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.
HUMBER COMMERCIAL RAILWAY AND DOCK BILL.
  BRADFORD CORPORATION BILL.
  Read 3a, with the Amendments; further Amendments made; Bills passed, and returned to the Commons.
LONDON, TILBURY, AND SOUTHEND RAILWAY BILL.
  PAISLEY POLICE AND PUBLIC HEALTH BILL.
  Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
  LOCH LEVEN WATER POWER BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
GLASGOW CORPORATION (POLICE) PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL [H.L.]
  WATER ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 1) BILL [H.L.]
    WATER ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 2) BILL [H.L.]
    Returned from the Commons agreed to.
    ST. BARTHOLOMEW'S HOSPITAL BILL [H.L.]
    Returned from the Commons agreed to, with an Amendment; the said Amendment considered, and agreed to.
BOURNEMOUTH CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
  CHESTER CORPORATION TRAMWAYS BILL [H.L.]

    MANCHESTER CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
    WIGAN CORPORATION TRAMWAYS, ETC., BILL [H.L.].
    Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 9) BILL.
  TORRINGTON AND OKEHAMPTON RAILWAY BILL.
  Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.

  GLASGOW CORPORATION (TRAMWAYS AND GENERAL) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL [H.L.]
  Bill read 3a (according to Order).
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Lord BALFOUR of BURLEIGH): My Lords, it is necessary for me to ask your Lordships to allow some Amendments to be inserted in this Bill, Amendments which, after consultation with the Chairman of Committees, it was not thought expedient I should make upon my own authority, inasmuch as they contravene the Standing Orders of this House. The circumstances are these: When a local authority is given power to make and work a tramway in the district of another local authority, that is only done subject to the restriction that the second local authority, after a certain period of years, usually fixed at twenty-one or forty-two years, may purchase and work the tramway for itself. Variations of this order are not altogether unknown, although,

  1251
  perhaps, there is no such conspicuous instance of the order having been varied as in the case of Glasgow. In 1875, Glasgow was given in perpetuity the power to make and work tramways in a district subject to another local authority, but immediately contiguous to its borders. This policy has been continued, and power was given to extend them in 1879, 1885, 1893, and 1899. The present order is promoted largely in the interests of districts outside the city of Glasgow, and the extensions which it proposes to make are undertaken at the instance of the inhabitants of those districts and with the concurrence of the various local authorities interested. All these local authorities are willing that the extensions should be made on the same terms as those agreed to in previous extensions of the Corporation tramways into their territory, and I think it would be a serious matter if Parliament were now to withdraw from the policy it has pursued for so many years in regard to the Glasgow tramways. I do not anticipate any opposition from my noble friend the Chairman of Committees to the insertion of these Amendments, but we thought this course should be taken in the House and not simply on the authority of the Secretary for Scotland.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of MORLEY): My Lords, my noble friend is quite right in thinking that I do not propose to offer any opposition to the Amendments. I would remind the House that the case of Glasgow is absolutely unique. Ever since 1870, five years before the date my noble friend mentioned, Glasgow have obtained powers to extend their tramways beyond the district over which they have municipal control, without being confined by the action of the Standing Order or of the clause of the Bill of 1870, which gave the local authorities through whose district the tramways were constructed power of purchase. Under these circumstances I have had communications with my noble friend on the subject, and I have had an opportunity of hearing what the Corporation of Glasgow think with regard to it. It appears that the extensions of tramways proposed this year are not very large, and, to a considerable extent, though perhaps not absolutely, they take in a given area. It would be extremely inconvenient if this particular
  1252
  system of tramways were constructed on different terms and on different conditions from the tramways already in existence, and I think the House would do well to allow the concession asked for to the Corporation of Glasgow. But I do not think it is a concession that ought to be allowed in every future extension of tramways. I put that in a sort of caveat. I think future cases must be considered carefully on their merits, but in this particular case I cannot advise your Lordships to oppose the Amendments.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, I do not differ in any way from what the two noble Lords have said in regard to these Amendments, but I rise to make a protest against Glasgow claiming to have a right to purchase tramways out and out. I was in Scotland this year upon a Commission which had to inquire into one or two cases similar to this, and the Corporation of Glasgow appeared. They mentioned that in several cases Parliament had allowed them to purchase their tramways absolutely, and they founded on that a claim that they must be allowed to purchase outright any tramways they were allowed to make. If you give to any corporation an absolute right to purchase tramways, you extend their fingers into the districts of other local authorities, and give them a sort of prima facie claim towards at some time absorbing those local authorities. I merely say this for the purpose of expressing a hope that no Committees or Commissions will ever treat this claim on the part of Glasgow as anything in the nature of a right. So far as I know, it has been done in no other case except that of Glasgow, and why the Corporation of Glasgow, excellent as their management is, should be given by Parliament, or should claim to have from Parliament, a right of purchase which is not conceded to any other local authority, I do not know.
  Amendments agreed to.
  Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (PORT) BILL.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (HOUSING OF WORKING CLASSES) (No. 2) BILL.

    BELFAST AND NORTHERN COUNTIES RAILWAY BILL.
    DERBY CORPORATION BILL.
    Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Lord Ludlow be proposed to the House as a member of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Earl Waldegrave; read, and agreed to.

LONDON UNITED TRAMWAYS BILL.
  STRATFORD-UPON-AVON, TOWCESTER, AND MIDLAND JUNCTION, EAST AND WEST JUNCTION, AND EVESHAM, REDDITCH, AND STRATFORD-UPON- AVON JUNCTION RAILWAY COMPANIES BILL.
  Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Lord Wrottesley be proposed to the House as a member of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Lord Tredegar; read, and agreed to.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  LONDON UNDERGROUND RAILWAYS.
  Report from the Joint Committee (with the proceedings of the Committee) made, and to be printed: Minutes of evidence, together with appendices, laid upon the Table, and to be delivered out. (No, 177.)
  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND).
  General Report from the Chief Inspector of the Western Division of Scotland, for the year 1900.
  NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND).
  Annual Report of the Commissioners, for the year 1900.
  JUDICIAL STATISTICS (ENGLAND AND WALES), 1899.
  Part II. Civil Judicial Statistics: Statistics relating to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, the House of Lords, the Supreme Court of Judicature, County Courts, and other Civil Courts; edited by John Macdonell, Esq., C.B., LL.D.

  PRISONS (IRELAND).
  Twenty-third Report of the General Prisons Board (Ireland), 1900–1901.
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  LUNACY.
  Return to the Lord Chancellor of the number of visits made and the number of patients seen by the several Commissioners in Lunacy during the six months ending on the 30th June, 1901.

  PENAL SERVITUDE ACTS, 1853 TO 1891 (CONDITIONAL LICENCE).
  Licence to be at large granted to Arthur Sturrock, to which are annexed conditions other than those contained in Schedule A of the Penal Servitude Act, 1867.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

PETITIONS.
  TEMPERANCE.
  Petition for legislation to promote, of inhabitants of the Diocese of Carlisle; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
  ROYAL DECLARATION BILL [H.L.]
  Petition against, of the Scottish Women's Protestant Union; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
  DAY INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS (IRELAND) BILL [H.L.]
  Reported from the Standing Committee without amendment, and to be read 3a on Thursday next.
  FINANCE BILL.

    SECOND READING.
    Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
    Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.
    LORD WELBY: My Lords, I know well the limit which constitutional usage puts upon your Lordships in dealing with financial questions, but I believe this House has always reserved to itself the right to offer comments and criticisms upon these matters, and I trust your Lordships will bear with me while I make a few observations with regard to this Bill. One often notices, on the top of a steep hill, that a friendly warning tells that it is dangerous to cyclists. It appears to me that we have been for forty years bowling along a level and

    1255
    easy road in finance, until at last we have become somewhat careless and over-confident, and I think the time has come when some friendly hand should be held up to warn taxpayers against the steep and, I am afraid, long descent in finance upon which we have entered. I observe that the Chancellor of the Exchequer did give a warning to the House of Commons on the subject, but I did not notice that he was abating his pace, or that he gave us any promise of precaution against those dangers of which he warned us. I would ask your Lordships whether the time has not come to consider the direction in and the pace at which we are travelling. I know it is often supposed that the Treasury is able to enforce economy. Some mystical notions are held of the power of the Treasury, but the fact is, the Treasury is a department, organised like any other department, with a Minister, generally a powerful Minister, at its head. But that Minister is subject to the Cabinet, and the Cabinet is influenced by public opinion, and I think the experience of your Lordships will teach you that if public opinion is in favour of economy the Finance Minister is all-powerful. If public opinion is careless about economy, then the Finance Minister is absolutely powerless.
    For the purpose of explaining my views I would ask your Lordships to let me divide recent financial history into three periods. The first will be from the beginning of the reign of the late Queen up to 1887, the second period from 1887 to 1897, and the third period the current year. A great part of the first period, from 1837 to 1887, was a period of pressure. We all know that at the close of the great war the resources of this nation were entirely overstrained. We know that people at that time talked seriously as to whether it would not be necessary to apply the sponge with regard to the National Debt, that pauperism was rampant, and that the working classes were discontented and overtaxed. It may be within the memory of your Lordships that at that time Sydney Smith gave a celebrated description of our taxation as a warning to our American cousins against embarking on a course of glory. That condition of things continued for a good many years. Very little change in the condition of the working classes had taken place when her late Majesty ascended the Throne. It is not
    1256
    surprising, therefore, that at that time every statesman and all parties were in favour of economy, and amongst the most earnest advocates of economy was the great party led by the Duke of Wellington and Sir Robert Peel. This country has been fertile in a succession of able Chancellors of the Exchequer, but in 200 years since the Revolution there have been, I think, five pre-eminent, and I think your Lordships will admit that amongst these five Sir Robert Peel was not the least eminent. He was the very incarnation of economy. I have often heard Mr. Gladstone give instances of the sternness with which, when Sir Robert was Prime Minister, he enforced economy on his Ministers. Powerful heads leave influence on their department. The traditions of the department are formed by and learned from their chiefs, and I can remember how completely the Treasury, when I first entered it, was imbued with the lessons which had been learned from Sir Robert Peel. But we must remember that during that time Sir Robert Peel was acting in accordance with, and not in opposition to, public opinion. As far as my reading carries me, I think that the time of pressure lasted until about the year 1845. In that year the tide appears to have turned, and during the period 1845–87 a steady run of prosperity, with occasional sets back, took place, and the condition of the United Kingdom on the whole improved immensely. In fact, there can be little doubt that the desire for economy which prevailed in the earlier years had very much modified in the later years of that period, and, indeed, I think the idea of economy by that time would have died away entirely had it not been for two great reasons which had weight in the public mind. The first of those reasons was the absolute necessity to reduce and readjust taxation. The second was the laudable desire to reduce the weight of the public debt. During the last thirty years a considerable result has been obtained on the second of those heads, but I will confine myself at present to the first. I will take for my purpose the sixty years that passed after the accession of the late Queen. In 1837 our system of taxation was extremely onerous and unequal. One must always remember that the taxation on articles of consumption falls practically upon the working classes.

    1257
    Competent authorities have held, and I think it is a conclusion which is generally accepted, that four-fifths of the taxation on articles of consumption is paid by the working classes. If that is the case, we can judge what the weight of the taxation was when I say that in 1837, 71 per cent. of the revenue was levied on articles of consumption, and 23 per cent. only in taxes which fall especially on the wealthy. Successive Governments addressed themselves during the ensuing sixty years to the great work of readjusting and reducing taxation, and at the close of that time the taxes on articles of consumption had fallen to 44 per cent., and those on the wealthier classes had risen to 40 per cent.
    I will give another illustration. During that time the prosperity of the working classes had enabled them to consume double and treble the amount consumed at the outset of the period, yet the actual taxation paid per head on articles of consumption, instead of increasing, had actually fallen, and by no less an amount than 15 per cent. Let us consider for a moment what the figures mean. The working classes pay 85 pence in taxes where in 1837 they paid 100 pence, yet they consume far more of the articles which are or were taxable than in 1837. In the meantime they have been admitted to the franchise, and have become a dominant factor in the State. Yet in 1895 they returned and have maintained a Conservative majority in the House of Commons, and a Conservative Government in power. This may not seem so unmixed a good to us on this side as to noble Lords opposite, but on one point we shall all rejoice. Whereas in 1837 there was a people discontented and in a dangerous mood, fifty years of good legislation, in which reduction of taxation is an important factor, has converted them into a loyal, united, and contented people. The great object of Government is so far attained, and there can be no difference of opinion among us as to the result.
    I want now, my Lords, to draw your attention to the increase in expenditure. I confine myself to military and naval expenditure, in order not to weary your Lordships with figures, but what I say of military expenditure applies with equal force to civil expenditure. In 1837 the naval and military expenditure was rather under £12,000,000 sterling. That was the nadir of military expenditure.
    1258
    In 1887 it had risen to £30,500,000, an increase of very nearly 150 per cent. At the same time it must be borne in mind that during the same period the income of the country was increasing at the same, if not at a greater, rate. In fact, I may say that it would have required a greater income tax in 1837 to meet the charge of twelve millions than it required in 1887 to meet the charge of £30,500,000. Our wealth was increasing faster than our expenditure. Otherwise we could not have remitted in that time twenty-two millions of taxation. In the second period of ten years, from 1887 to 1897, the naval and military expenditure rose to a little over forty millions, and I have to add to that certain expenditure on military and naval works which I very much regret to say are now made the subject of loan. That carries the military expenditure at the end of the second period to forty-two millions, an increase in the ten years of £11,500,000. Taxes during this period were no longer in course of reduction; on the contrary, an increase of taxation marked it. I now come to the third period, the current year, and I exclude of course all the war expenditure. The military and naval expenditure, which was in 1897 forty-two millions, has risen to sixty-three millions, including an allowance for those works which are really part of the military expenditure. That is an increase of twenty millions in four years, and in the fourteen years from 1887 the ordinary military and naval expenditure has doubled. I ask your Lordships whether, if this be so, I have not made out my case, that it is time to consider the pace at which we are travelling. Let me point out two or three circumstances connected with our present position. Only ten years ago the revenue derived from taxation was seventy-five millions a year; in the current year it is 122 millions. Therefore, in ten years the revenue from taxation has risen forty-seven millions, and out of that forty-seven millions nearly thirty-three millions is additional taxation. Though this large amount of taxation has been put on, it really, as I shall show, does very little more than cover the ordinary expenditure of the country, apart from the war expenditure; and with the prospect which is now before us it seems almost inevitable that in a very short time the whole of that large amount of extra taxation will be

    1259
    required for the ordinary expenses of the country.
    The ordinary expenses of the country now amount to 129 millions. At the end of the war, which, let us hope, will be brought to a speedy and successful conclusion, what will be our position? To these 129 millions we shall have to add, on a very moderate computation, a permanent charge of six millions caused by the war. That carries us up to 135 millions, but is there any sign anywhere that Parliament or the public is alive to the situation? Do you see anywhere that there is the slightest desire for economy? On the contrary, whether one looks to the press or to Parliament, one finds a tendency to favour further expenditure. I think His Majesty's Government must be somewhat dismayed at the prospect of the demands which are now likely to be made, if one may believe the statements of experts. I have carried the ordinary expenditure of the country up to 135 millions, and, considering the rate at which our expenditure has been increasing, must we not expect that the new demands for the Army and the Navy, let alone civil expenditure, will surely carry our ordinary expenditure to close on 144 millions? What will be your position then? You will have added thirty-three millions in the space of something like eleven or twelve years to the taxation of the country, simply to meet the ordinary demands of the public service. But, my Lords, if we approve of such a course as that, are we not running a very great danger? It must be evident that unless some check is placed on expenditure we shall have still further to increase taxation. Within these ten or twelve years we have added £17,000,000 to the income tax, £5,000,000 to the death duties, £1,700,000 to the tea duty; we are now imposing £5,000,000 on sugar; we have added something like £2,800,000 to the beer duty, and between one and two millions to the duty on spirits, and we are levying £2,000,000 on coal. The question is whether, with the large increase of taxation during the last ten years, we have not got very near to the limits of what the country can bear, and whether there will not inevitably come a cold fit which will leave the country with its defensive preparations in a worse condition than they would have been had expenditure gone on at a more moderate rate. Indeed, I can hardly think to what
    1260
    side we could turn for further taxation without running the risk of incurring dangerous discontent. I know it has been said of late that it is time to broaden the basis of taxation, but this is only a euphemistic term for transferring taxes from the rich on to the poor. Directly you put taxation on articles of consumption, on the best evidence that we have, it means that you are putting four-fifths of that taxation on the working classes. But before we accept this as inevitable, ought we not seriously to consider our position? Ought we not to a certain extent to cut our coat according to our cloth? Is it desirable, in dealing with these demands, that we should throw ourselves entirely into the hands of experts? Of course, in dealing with defensive expenditure we must be guided by experts, but we ought to exercise a certain amount of prudence as to the extent to which we are so guided, and, at all events, some proportion should be kept between the rate at which the expenditure is progressing and the rate at which the revenue progresses. Surely it is possible to lay down some rule for the future by which, at all events, the enormous bounds in expenditure can be regulated, and by which, if absolutely necessary, expenditure may be spread over a certain time, so that it shall not be necessary to forestall the natural increase of the Revenue. We have had a period of such prosperity as I suppose has been unheard of in England before. There are not wanting the signs that that prosperity may be approaching a check. When that check comes we must expect a fall in the revenue, and if expenditure increases at the same rate the problem that will be before Parliament and the country is one which I look forward to with the gravest apprehension.
    THE PRIME MINISTER AND LORD PRIVY SEAL (The Marquess of SALISBURY): My Lords, I have only a lay and uninstructed intelligence to bring to bear with reference to the accumulated learning which many distinguished years of public life have enabled the noble Lord to gather. I cannot compete with him in the arguments he has brought forward, and I do not know that your Lordships would very much desire that I should attempt to. I can only express our sense of indebtedness to him for the very valuable contribution to our national

    1261
    counsels and the wish that he had addressed a more powerful Assembly than this. I feel that to much of what he has said no answer can possibly be given. The only consideration that could be offered, to some extent in defence or palliation of that grave imprudence which the noble Lord brings to our charge, is that in the opinion at all events of many competent men that spirit of economy which marked some sixty or seventy years of our financial history is really guilty of a large part of the extravagance to which we have since been forced to yield. It is undoubtedly believed by many that the extreme economy of the year 1837, and all the years which followed it, which reduced this country to a disarmed condition, though it produced no immediate results, and we were able to enjoy the money that we saved, still left our financial conditions and the condition of our armaments in that position that when with the progress of the world danger came nearer and Great Powers multiplied there was reason to apprehend that matters would not remain as peaceful as they had been. Then we found that we had to pay for the economy we had practised, and for the advantages we had derived from it, by entering upon a course of expenditure that may have been thought excessive, but which at all events was the natural effect of the dangers in which we found ourselves. I think that is the real answer, or palliation, or excuse for the very formidable tendency to extreme expenditure which has marked the finance of the last thirty or forty years. I regret to say it is an increasing tendency. Then we must also ask the noble Lord to consider that our political life, like our ordinary social and physical life, is exposed to various incidents of change that we have no power to banish. We are liable to difficulties and dangers which nothing we can do can prevent, and as to which we must make necessary sacrifices and take necessary precautions. At all events the excellent language and teaching which the noble Lord has given us could not prevent, and did not prevent, Mr. Kruger from seeing that in his political future there were advantages which tempted him and induced him to make an invasion of the Queen's dominions in three places. It is impossible to maintain your financial equilibrium if accidents of that kind occur, and that, I think, in the view
    1262
    of posterity, will be our justification for the very large expenditure upon which we have entered. We have no choice; we have to protect ourselves, and we must incur the expense which that protection costs. Whether we have done it wisely this is not the moment to discuss; I should be prepared to discuss it if the question were raised. But you must not consider that it is possible to maintain expenditure or maxims of economy at an equable level; they must be disturbed by those great storms which sweep across the political horizon, and impose on you measures of precaution and defence which otherwise you would gladly have avoided.
    The noble Lord has given us a treatise which I hope he will print in a separate form, as it is most valuable for us to study. I hope his teaching will be such as future Chancellors of the Exchequer will not only wish to follow but will be able to follow. But he has to deal with a very awkward and difficult element—namely, the element of public opinion. During all the years of our pacific existence there was no doubt that the feeling of the public was steadily in favour of a pacific policy; and the leaders whom the public followed, and who governed the formation and guidance of political parties, were all men who, like Sir Robert Peel, valued the advantages of peace and the economy it brought above everything else. That state of opinion has passed away; as the noble Lord himself says, the tide has turned, and who is he and who are we that we should attempt to stem the tide? If the tide has turned we shall have to go with it. The noble Lord alluded to a celebrated passage, in which Sydney Smith warned the American Republic against the dangers and discomforts which attach to the pursuit of glory. No doubt it was thought at the time to be a very wise lecture, but has it been successful? Has he induced the American people to adopt his views? On the contrary, we know that it is one of the most powerful political engines in the States to appeal to that national and Imperial sentiment to which we have been so much exposed, and to which we have bowed so much in recent times. We feel in regard to the exhortations of the noble Lord, admirable as they are, and though they ought to be studied by all politicians on both sides of the House,

    1263
    that still we are in the presence of forces far larger than any we can wield or influence, and all we can hope is to take advantage of every opportunity which is consistent with the interests and honour of our country in order to resist and arrest the stream of expenditure which, I entirely agree with him, is one of the greatest dangers that threaten this country.
    EARL SPENCER: My Lords, I do not propose to enter at any length into this most interesting and important subject, but I should like to say one or two words in regard to what has fallen from the noble Marquess the Prime Minister. I think my noble friend can have no real complaint against the noble Marquess for the way in which he has taken his remarks. What my noble friend really desired to do, and what has been done in another place by a distinguished member of the Government, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in pointing out the enormous and rapid increase there has been in all public expenditure, was not to refer to the war expenditure—he referred entirely to the peace expenditure. I wish particularly to deal with that, because we all know that when once this war was embarked on it was necessary to engage in heavy expenditure in order to bring it to a speedy and successful conclusion. When we come to look at the gigantic increase of our expenditure in various ways, I think we want to educate public opinion a little on the grievous events that may follow from a continuance of this policy. We therefore are indebted to my noble friend for giving us the benefit of his vast experience. I feel very strongly on the subject when I think what gigantic strides expenditure has taken and the enormous developments of our revenue. I think I am right in saying that in a few years our revenue has increased by sixteen millions sterling and our expenditure by twenty-eight millions. We feel in regard to all this expenditure that a heavy responsibility lies upon Government to see that such enormous expenditure is applied in the most economical manner and for the full advantage of the public services. There is, I am afraid, an idea in the country—and I think there may be considerable truth in it—that a great deal of the expenditure is not well managed, and that sufficient care is not taken to see that
    1264
    the services get full value. I do not wish to exclude the Navy, with which I have been connected—I hope that there the expenditure is well managed; but there is a strong impression that in recent years expenditure on the Army has not always provided us with the efficiency we ought to have. These are the reasons why my noble friend has brought this matter forward, and I rejoice that he has done so, and that the noble Marquess has agreed in much that he has said. I am certain that if we continue in the course we have begun serious effects will result. Increased taxation, of course, increases the prices of commodities, and will put enormous difficulties in the way of our commercial prosperity, the existence of which is always calling for increased expenditure to defend our commerce in every part of the world. If we have continued and heavy taxation of commodities there is a danger of inflicting a wound on some great industry or other that may lead to the loss of that commercial prosperity and supremacy of which we are all so proud.
    On Question, agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly; Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a on Thursday next.

  ROYAL DECLARATION BILL [H.L.]

    (SECOND READING.)
    Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
    The MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I have to move the Second Reading of this Bill, which results from the Report of a Committee your Lordships appointed to consider the subject, and upon which a debate has already taken place in this House. I wish to point out, not all, but some of the leading considerations which have induced us to submit this measure to your Lordships. The fact that such a declaration his required has been brought to public notice by the accession of a new Sovereign, and many persons have turned their attention to it who had not previously done so. In this way it has become matter of public interest. But it is not only the mere accident of a change in the occupancy of the Throne; there is no doubt there has been a great change in public opinion going on for several generations, by which the objections to the declaration

    1265
    have become less and less tolerable, and as time went on and generations succeeded each other it has been brought more prominently into public view, and important considerations have been brought into discussion. Until the question was discussed on the accession I do not think the majority of the people knew the kind of oath or declaration the Sovereign was forced to make. When they did know, it affected them in various ways. In parts where a strong Protestant feeling exists it was not received with reluctance, or, at any rate, did not excite so much hostile feeling, but it was otherwise in those parts of the Empire where the Roman Catholic faith still prevails and commands the allegiance of large numbers of His Majesty's subjects. It was startling to them to know that their Sovereign was forced to make this declaration on his accession to the Throne. When I say he was forced to make it, I mean to say the whole political machine would have come to a deadlock if he had not done so. The statute compelled him to make the declaration before he met his Parliament, and until he met his Parliament it was impossible that there could be any legislation. So until the declaration was made nothing further could be done, for the only machine that would enable you to take a different course—namely, the assent of Parliament to a repealing Act—was in the very nature of the precaution of the statute of Charles II. excluded from political possibility. That being the case, it was found, among other things, that the Sovereign was required to declare—
    "That the invocation or adoration of the Virgin Mary or any other saint and the sacrifice of the mass as now used in the Church of Rome are superstitious and idolatrous."
    It was thus brought home to the consciences of many millions of His Majesty's subjects that the religion to which they were passionately attached was denounced in the most offensive form under statute by the Sovereign on his accession to the Throne. As your Lordships are aware, this knowledge produced a very strong feeling among Roman Catholic bodies, and Roman Catholic bodies are not the same as they were when the statesmen of Charles II. passed this law. I will not enter into the question what the particular view of Irish Roman Catholics was then or is now, it would lead to much difference of opinion; but we have not to
    1266
    deal with Ireland alone, we have Canada, Malta, Mauritius, and many more scattered communities now attached to the Church of Rome and subjects of the Sovereign of England, of whom that could not be said in 1680 when the oath was first enacted. It is not surprising, then, that strong feeling was excited. I have received certain documents from them, but I have some difficulty in now dealing with these. I cannot lay them on the Table; but, if any noble Lord likes to move for copies, the most important of them are addressed to me and I shall offer no opposition. This which I hold in my hand is the most important; it contains an enormous number of Maltese names, "sincere Catholics who have heard of this peculiarity in the English Statute-book with great alarm and religious indignation." I cannot read the precise terms of the petition because it is written in Italian, but your Lordships will see the feeling is keen and strong and distinct; and we have the signatures of British subjects in Malta who are Roman Catholics, and "yield to none in loyalty to the British Throne, but whose loyalty to their Sovereign stands by the side of intense loyalty to their Church." The next is a petition of the Roman Catholic community of Mauritius, and it goes on to represent that the declaration that the Sovereign is by law required to make when he meets Parliament for the first time contains expressions highly offensive to His Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects, and are at the same time unnecessary for the purpose of the declaration. They conclude with a prayer for legislation to amend the declaration. Then I have an address from the hierarchy of Canada to his Eminence Cardinal Vaughan, Archbishop of Westminster. It is perhaps too long to read, but I may say it expresses in the strongest way the feeling that animates other members of the Roman Catholic Church in other parts of the Empire. That document is signed by the Archbishops of Halifax, Ottawa, Quebec, Montreal, Toronto, and a considerable number of bishops.
    What we say is this. One thing perfectly obvious is that it represents a totally different state of things from that which presented itself to the eyes of the statesmen of Charles II. when they passed the celebrated Act with which we are now dealing. These Catholics are no doubt devoted members of our Empire. But

    1267
    our King is their King, and they have as much claim on our King as we have, and it is not only intelligible, but quite natural, that they should look upon it as a real grievance that language of a most violent and objectionable kind should be used against the articles of their faith at the most solemn moment of his reign by the Sovereign when ascending the Throne. It has been brought to their knowledge by the discussions that have taken place, and we can imagine the pain, grief, and indignation which it has aroused in their minds. That being so, I do not think we have any choice but to bring it under the notice of Parliament again. Two hundred and fifty years have passed since it was last under the consideration of Parliament. Many things have happened since that time. The whole character of the Empire has been changed, and there are objections now—it was always open to objections—to the formula put into the mouth of the Sovereign which did not exist 250 years ago. I do not intend to treat this as, in any sense, a party question. It must be determined by Parliament according to its own will in pursuance and exercise of its supreme power. Our duty is fulfilled when we have submitted to Parliament such considerations as we can devise, and when we have called attention to the state of things that now exists and the grounds there are for revising the action imposed upon the Sovereign at so solemn a moment. That being the case, we have proposed a Bill absolutely on those lines. The object of the Committee was that these offensive expressions should be withdrawn, and that so much change as was necessary for the purpose should be made in the new statutory declaration. We never promised to go further than that. We do not desire to enter into the question; though we do not conceal our own opinion that a declaration is necessary or, or at all events, highly expedient for the maintenance of the Protestant succession. But that is not the point which we submit for the consideration of Parliament.
    What we desire Parliament to consider is whether it is not possible to attain this high object of policy without, at the same time, giving statutory sanction, at a solemn moment, to words which in private life you would never dream of using towards the conviction of your friends. There is one other object of the Bill
    1268
    which explains many things which seem to the critics of the measure hard to understand. They say that, after all, in the present day a declaration is not necessary. I do not think we should find unanimous acceptance of that view. But, whatever our views are, that is not the point for us now. We desire to give Parliament an opportunity of revising this language of antique date and of a most objectionable character, and do not desire to make any change beyond that elementary process. In the same way, I do not know that an allusion to certain doctrines is the most desirable way of expressing our separation from the belief of the Roman Catholic Church or the separation of our Sovereign. But we could not remove these words without making a serious breach, a serious alteration in the declaration with which we are dealing; and it seemed to us an essential part of our duty at the time to keep the alterations of the declaration as low as they possibly could be consistent with the chief object of providing that these offensive words should be withdrawn. Therefore, without expressing any abstract opinion with reference to doctrines, we think it highly expedient not to enter upon the discussion of those things, and not to alter the oath save so far as it is absolutely necessary to remove these offensive expressions, which irritate and wound our Roman Catholic fellow-subjects, and especially those whose accession to the Empire is later than the passing of the statute. I will not enter into minute questions of wording. According to our usual practice, they are dealt with in Committee; and, in moving that the Bill be read a second time, we only ask the House to affirm that it is desirable to remove this offensive language from the declaration; and, commending it to the favourable consideration of your Lordships, I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
    Moved, that the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
    LORD KINNAIRD: My Lords, it is somewhat difficult, after the speech we have just listened to, to oppose the Bill, because it would seem that by doing so one did not agree with the principles of toleration proposed by the Bill. Those whom I represent hold that it is quite possible to give absolute

    1269
    justice and freedom and political rights, even more advanced than many noble Lords on the opposite side of the House would consent to, and yet maintain the principle, which we strongly hold, that we are a Christian and a Protestant country. We have fellow subjects in this Empire who hold non-Christian views. The King rules over a larger number of Mohammedan subjects than any other king or ruler in the world, and we give them justice while still maintaining that we are a Christian country, and therefore in creeds and declarations we must say many things which are not acceptable to them. We have a far larger number of Hindoo fellow subjects, and those who have been in India, as I have on two occasions, and witnessed the feelings of reverence for our late beloved Queen, and also for our present Sovereign, do not feel that we are doing anything that is unfair or unjust in maintaining our Christian position. We treat them as fellow subjects without in any way giving up what we believe to be our national inheritance and birthright—namely, the Protestant and Christian religion. The question before us is whether we are called upon to alter our constitution at the beck and request of the Pope of Rome, and those who govern that great and marvellous organisation, the Roman Catholic Church. We know, many of us, what an interest His Eminence the Pope takes in regard to this matter, and that he sends special envoys over in order to keep himself acquainted with the details of the proposed change. I was surprised to hear it contended that the Church of Rome and her leaders had altered so much during the last 200 years. I follow more than many of your Lordships their writings, and what they demand from us and say with reference to us. They speak out their mind pretty clearly, and we have working models in many countries of what happens where they hold supreme power. The question is, whether we are going to give them what they demand, for lately there has been a request, not only that this declaration should be modified, but for further alterations in our constitution and our legislation. In the Tablet, which represents their views in very forcible language, of 30th March last, it is stated—
    "It cannot be denied that the Low-Church section of the Anglican body and the Protestant masses generally have very grave interest
    1270
    in demanding the retention of at least some disavowal of transubstantiation in the oath on accession. It is their flag, so to speak, nailed over the threshold of the Throne, and on the very apex of the British Constitution."
    That shows the importance which they attach to this declaration. The first reason which I give for asking your Lordships to refuse the Bill a Second Reading is that it has been prepared with undue haste. I quite admit that the principle has been before us for some time, but some of us have not been able to get a copy of the Bill until the last moment. Some noble Lords who were interested in it tried to get a copy yesterday, but they were unable to do so. Some friends of my own applied at the printers, and were told they would probably procure a copy on Tuesday evening or on Wednesday morning, after the Second Reading.
    THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Copies of the Bill were produced without delay, and were to be obtained on Monday night.
    LORD KINNAIRD: I believe Lord Braye and Lord Halifax tried to get copies on Monday afternoon, but were unable to do so, but just before the House adjourned I succeeded in getting a few, which I distributed. There are those who are interested in the Bill who are lawyers, and who wanted copies to form an opinion upon it, but they were not able to get them in time. Another reason why I object to the Second Reading is that the Bill satisfies few people. It does not satisfy those who are mostly to be benefited by it—namely, the Roman Catholics, for I believe I am correct in saying that they are not prepared to accept any Bill containing words pronouncing against the doctrines which they hold. What they desire is to try to get rid of the declaration altogether. Then the Bill does not satisfy the High Church party, and certainly it does not satisfy those who belong to the Protestant societies throughout the United Kingdom. Further, there are doubts as to the details, for the Bill, with regard to adoration of the Virgin, has been altered from what the Committee recommended. I have some literature on the subject which I will not refer to, but I hope others may possibly refer to, which makes reference to the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, and shows that adora-

    1271
    tion of the Virgin Mary is taught, and that no one has a right to gainsay it. I beg, therefore, to move the motion standing in my name.
    Amendment moved—
    "To leave out 'now,' and add at the end of the motion 'this day three months.'"—(The Lord Kinnaird.)
    THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER: My Lords, in the peculiar position in which the discussion of this subject has now landed us, and, above all, after the very weighty words which fell to-night from the Prime Minister, I for one feel that we should be acting very wrongly indeed if we declined to give a Second Reading to the Bill which has been brought forward on behalf of the Government. Certainly I propose myself to vote for it, but in doing so I am anxious to dissociate myself from all complicity in, and to disclaim all responsibility for, the precise form of words which is proposed for our acceptance. May I for a moment recall what has been the history of this matter? If one does so, I think it will be obvious how much was to be said, and is still to be said, in favour of the proposal that was made by the most rev. Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury, that the Report should be referred back to the Committee for further consideration. No one, whatever may be his private opinions, can doubt, as the noble Marquess the Prime Minister has pointed out, how difficult was the position in which the Government was placed when called upon to impose on a new Sovereign the making of a declaration which dates back to a totally different condition of things and to times far distant from our own. But I cannot help thinking that, to some extent, the difficulty is exaggerated in the popular mind by forgetfulness of the actual history of the declaration. The declaration is commonly spoken of as though it had been compiled and put together to be taken by the Sovereign alone. That, of course, is a total misapprehension. It was put together to be taken, not by a Sovereign at all, but by members of both Houses of Parliament and certain other official personages. The Sovereign was not then included, but in the reign of William III. it was enacted that the declaration hitherto binding on members of Parliament should be binding also on the Sovereign. When the time
    1272
    came, some seventy years ago, that members of Parliament were relieved from these tests, and were allowed to sit though Roman Catholics, the King was not similarly relieved, and upon him the old test still continued to be obligatory. Such is the plain history. The point is not vital to the controversy, but I cannot help thinking that forgetfulness with respect to this historical fact has confused the issue in the minds of a good many who have discussed it. Be this, however, as it may, the declaration is certainly objected to, and objected to on two distinct and quite different grounds. One objection is that it makes the King solemnly assure us that he is not, under the sanction of a dispensation, telling a deliberate lie. To call for such an assurance is to imply that it may be needed, and to the removal of that part of the declaration I have never heard anybody raise any reasonable objection. The declaration is also objected to on the ground that it is needlessly discourteous or even offensive in the epithets it uses with regard to certain doctrines held by members of the Roman Catholic Church. The weighty documents from the colonies, to which the noble Marquess has referred, called attention to that particular point. I confess myself to be somewhat surprised by the extreme sensitiveness shown with respect to those unhappy epithets, when I recall the phraseology and the terms which, as we are all aware, the high authorities of the Roman Church are in the habit of using with respect to the Church to which most of your Lordships belong. I do not say that two blacks make a white, I only say that their extreme sensitiveness strikes one sometimes as being a little strained.
    But the objection was raised. It had somehow to be met, and the Government had before it several alternatives. They might have let the whole declaration alone, regarding it, say, as corresponding with the archaic phraseology which we heard at the trial the other day, or with the archaic garb worn by noble Lords on that occasion. Again the Government might have taken an extreme step, trusting to the Act of Settlement and the Coronation Oath, and simply have abolished the declaration altogether. The third alternative, which, in my opinion, was the right and statesmanlike one, and was properly adopted, was

    1273
    to endeavour to amend the words so as to make them correspond with the facts of our own day. But, if this course was to be followed, it was necessary to consider in the utmost detail the words which were to be used, because phraseology which might be tolerated if regarded as having come down for two hundred years, would obviously acquire a totally different character when regarded as the phraseology chosen in 1901. It therefore became of the utmost importance that the ipsissima verba should be weighed, formulated, and adapted in the best and most careful way possible. The members of the Committee appointed on the motion of His Majesty's Government to consider the subject were noble Lords who stand in the highest esteem in your Lordships' House, and whom it would be impertinent for me to praise. Some of them were men who must necessarily have formed part of any such Committee. But as respects several of the nine Members, the world has yet to learn that they have given special attention to the subtleties and technicalities of theological terminology. They met, and after one sitting—if report be true, not of a very long or laborious character— presented to the House the Report which was before us a week ago. In that Report very important changes were made in the Declaration. Attention was called in our recent debate to the fact that the Report was unanimous, but the difficulty of the position was surely emphasised by the fact that of the three noble Lords who addressed your Lordships on that occasion as members of the Committee, two suggested changes, and the third thought that such changes, while not necessary, might be adopted. That was the unanimous Report which was presented to us as the outcome of one very brief sitting. The most rev. Primate on that occasion moved that the Report be referred back, and that additional names, not necessarily of bishops, should be added in order that the House might have the help of noble Lords who had given special attention to the subject, and who had special opportunities of knowing the opinions of thoughtful and intelligent scholars and others on the matter. I should have thought it an immense gain if some noble Lords of the Roman Catholic faith had found a place on the Committee, but all that the most rev. Prelate actually proposed was that the Com-
    1274
    mittee should be increased by additional names, and that the Report should be further considered. That was not thought by His Majesty's Government to be desirable, and the motion was not pressed to a division. A few days later the Government introduces the Bill we are now considering, but, to and behold, when the Bill is printed the declaration embodied in it is not the declaration the House approved in the Report of the Committee. Some Amendments have been made which may turn out to be of larger import than at first appears. I do not say that the two changes which have been made in the Bill are not improvements. I will not enter into that question now, but I do say they are matters of very great importance indeed, and that they require to be most carefully considered before the House should be asked to give its assent to the Bill. They are, however, from their very sacredness, matters which it is practically impossible for us to adequately and properly discuss in an assembly such as this, and I feel that by these very changes strength has been given to the argument in favour of a more adequate consideration of words to which so much attention will be directed throughout the world. That consideration should, in my judgment, be given by a Committee somewhat larger than, possibly somewhat differently constituted from, the Committee which has already dealt with the subject—a Committee, too, which should weigh and discuss the matter at somewhat greater length than has been the case at present.
    It is obviously impossible that the introduction of a phrase requiring the Sovereign to declare his assent to what is described as "the Protestant religion" and the removal of the word "adoration" can be adequately discussed in the House itself: both are matters extremely technical and extremely important. With regard to the former phrase, its vagueness is such as might lead to great misapprehension. Personally I was grateful to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack for what he said in debate as to the nonsense (I can use no milder term) of what is frequently urged against the popular use of a word so well understood as the word Protestant. But then, my Lords, we are not dealing now with popular or colloquial phrases. We are called upon to draw up a formal technical

    1275
    document which is to become a part of the British Constitution, and the most minute care is therefore required as to what we say. Then, again, with regard to the word "adoration" in the connection in which it stood in the declaration, I was, I confess, somewhat startled to hear it repudiated as a vulgar misapprehension by noble Lords of the Roman Catholic faith. On returning home I referred to a great standard Roman Catholic authority, and in the very first passage I consulted I found the particular word "adoration" officially used in a way which covers the very phrase of the declaration in substantially the same connection. I mention that fact not because I wish to see the word replaced in the declaration, to which it really adds nothing, but in order to point out the rough-and-ready way in which these solemn and intricate matters appear to have been dealt with. The point I wish to make is not that I am objecting necessarily to the changes which have been made. But what I am objecting to is that there has not (owing to the insistence of the Government that these solemn and difficult subjects shall be considered in the whole House and nowhere else) been any possibility of their receiving appropriate and adequate discussion. The Government say, and I think the Government are right, that some declaration is now required, and for my own part, though I shall vote for the Second Reading of the Bill, I disclaim any complicity in the precise form which the declaration now takes, because I think it has been arrived at without adequate consideration.
    VISCOUNT LLANDAFF: My Lords, I should be extremely glad if I could feel able to support the Second Reading of this Bill. The Committee were, no doubt, animated by kindly intentions to the body to which I belong. I have tried to persuade myself that the principle of the Bill was this, that the declaration framed in the Bill of Rights was undesirable and ought to be altered, if not abolished. But I am bound to confess, after mature consideration, that what seems to be the principle of the Bill is, that it is proper to put into the mouth of the Sovereign at the moment of his accession an anti-Catholic declaration, in order that His Majesty may dissociate himself from and condemn certain tenets
    1276
    of the Roman Catholic faith. The noble Marquess said with great frankness that the desire of the Committee had been simply to eliminate offensive expressions, but to leave the substance of the declaration exactly as it was in the Bill of Rights. If that be the right view to take, I am unable to vote for the Second Reading. I must enter my protest most distinctly against the accession of the Sovereign being made an occasion for putting into his mouth the condemnation of any lawful creed professed by any loyal subject of His Majesty. It seems to me that that is neither just nor rational.
    There were two possible courses the Committee might have taken. In the first place, there was the plain and simple course of abolishing the declaration altogether. I regard this declaration, the history of which has been given with perfect accuracy by the right rev. Prelate, as a relic of barbarism—a memento of one of the most discreditable periods of our history. It could go without the slightest danger to the Protestant succession, or to the Protestant Established Church. The security it affords is not worth the paper it is written on, and its abolition would seem to me to be a most statesmanlike, straightforward, and civilised course to take. The second course which might have been adopted was to have framed a declaration of positive belief, instead of a negative denial of the doctrines of other people. Such a declaration might have been framed which would have satisfied all rational men. As it is, His Majesty's Government have taken a course which has pleased nobody. It has not pleased the noble Lord Kinnaird, and, as far as I could gather from the speech of the right rev. Prelate, it does not please the right rev. Bench. They see all sorts of theological blots and mistakes in the declaration even as it stands now. It certainly does not please the Roman Catholic body, to which I belong. I think it is high time that this sort of controversial attack made upon us in public documents, on solemn occasions, should cease. I regret that, for the reasons I have indicated, I shall feel myself unable to vote for the Second Reading of the Bill; but, on the other hand, I am unwilling to go into the lobby against the noble Marquess who has proposed the Bill, because I am sure his intentions were kindly and full of consideration for

    1277
    us, and that he believed he was removing our grievance. I have stated what our action will be to-night; but when the Bill goes into Committee I shall support any Amendment by which the objectionable features of the declaration can be altered or modified.
    VISCOUNT HALIFAX: My Lords, the object of this declaration is to exclude a Roman Catholic from the throne. It is an object, as Dr. Parker, of the City Temple, in his letter to The Times of yesterday points out, which is inconsistent with the principle of religious equality, with the right of every man, even the King, to liberty of conscience; and with those general principles of civil and religious liberty which no one in England ventures to deny. Passing this by, what I say is (1) that the declaration is not necessary, for the object it has in view is secured without it; and (2) that, if it were necessary, the declaration, as amended, is not the right way to secure the object aimed at. The words of the Act of Settlement, which is part of the statute law, provide—
    "That any person who is reconciled to the See of Rome, or shall profess the Papal religion, or shall marry a Papist, shall be excluded and be for ever incapable to inherit, possess, or enjoy the Crown or Government of this realm."
    Can words be stronger? Can any words be more stringent? In what way could you make them more effective for the object in view? But these words are not all. They do not stand alone. There is, in addition to them, the coronation oath, and there is the fact that the King or Queen receives the Holy Communion at his or her Coronation according to the rites of the Church of England, a thing impossible for a Roman Catholic. I say, then, that the declaration is not necessary, for the object it is supposed to secure is secured already, and next I say that if it were necessary, the declaration in its original and in its amended form is not the proper way to secure that object. In the first place, it raises the whole question of religious tests in the most objectionable way, it is insulting to many millions of the King's subjects, and is keenly resented by them. Canada has protested against the declaration almost unanimously. Similar protests have come from Australasia, India, Ceylon, Malta, and from other parts of the world. No other Sovereign or head of a State takes
    1278
    such a declaration—not the Emperor of Germany, not the President of the United States; not the President of the French Republic—the Emperor of Austria promises to protect all the churches.
    If it is sought to justify such a declaration by a reference to the past, will not a reference to the past equally justify the King being required to abjure the doctrines of the Independents? It was the Independents who, when they had the chance, desecrated the churches, made the use of the Prayer Book penal, and transported the clergy. At this moment who is it who are seeking to disestablish and disendow the Church of England? Is it the Roman Catholics or the Nonconformists? Why pick out particular doctrines dear to many of the King's subjects in order to deny them? Why is the King to be made to do anything so ungracious? In India every respect is paid to the Mohammedan and Hindoo religions by the representatives of the Crown. Are the King's Christian subjects less entitled to consideration at the hands of the King himself? In the next place, consider the declaration, as amended, in itself. It is contrary to the whole sense and feeling of the House to be forced into a theological discussion, but such a discussion is forced upon the House by the action of the Government. Does this House think itself competent to draw up exact theological formulæ? I can conceive no body less fitted for such a task, unless it be the House of Commons. Does this House, as the noble Earl (Lord Rosebery) asked the other day, claim for itself the functions of an ecumenical council? Mr. Gladstone used to say that there were seven doctrines of transubstantiation. Which of these is the King to abjure? The Eastern churches use the phrase, though guarding themselves against being committed to the consequences of the scholastic theology. Is the King to abjure the teaching of the East as well as of the West on the subject? The authorities of the Roman Church have lately been saying that the differences between them and the Russian Church on this point are infinitesimal, yet I never heard anyone say that the Duke of Coburg, when Duke of Edinburgh, had infringed the Act of Settlement or forfeited his right to the Crown by marrying a princess who accepted the word "transubstantiation."

    1279
    But there is more than this. The amended declaration suggests by implication that the terms "transubstantiation," and "the Sacrifice of the Mass" are identical with statements on the same subjects in the formularies of the Church of England, but the Prime Minister, certainly the Bishop of Winchester, knows as well as I do that they are nothing of the kind. "The Sacrifice of the Mass" of the declaration is one thing; "the Sacrifice of Masses in which it was commonly said" of the Articles is another. To deny "Transubstantiation" simpliciter is one thing, to deny the "transubstantiation which overthrows the nature of a Sacrament" in the elements is another. The words of the declaration as they stand would not have been accepted by some of the greatest English divines of the seventeenth century. They would not, I will venture to say without fear of contradiction, have been accepted by such a man as the author of the "Christian Year." Does the Prime Minister, who, as Chancellor of the University of Oxford, opened Keble College with much solemnity, wish to impose a test on the King which would have been rejected by such a man as Mr. Keble? The most rev. Prelates the Archbishops of Canterbury and York not long ago addressed a letter to Leo XIII. and the rest of the bishops of the Catholic Church laying down and vindicating the teaching of the Church of England on these very subjects. In that letter—and no letter could have been more carefully considered or more authoritative—the archbishops lay down that in the Holy Eucharist there is "no bare Commemoration of the Sacrifice of the Cross," that "we pray in regard to the consecration that the bread and wine may become to us the body and blood of Christ"—a phrase in the canon of the Mass—and I would ask the most rev. Prelates how it is possible to reconcile the statements in that letter with the meaning which in popular estimation will be attached to this amended declaration if it passes? The archbishops know that they cannot, consistently with their character of bishops of the Catholic Church—and I suppose, my Lords, that we shall not deny them that title—and consistently with the loyalty they owe to the Church of England, surrender the word "become" in connection with the consecration of the elements, and it is because this is so
    1280
    and because it is impossible for this House to draw up any adequate declaration dealing with such points of theology, that I shall very earnestly ask your Lordships not to agree to the form of words proposed in the Bill if the Bill gets into Committee.
    Then the Bill proposes that the King should be required to say that "he believes in the Protestant religion." Even Mr. Samuel Smith sees the absurdity of such a phrase. What is the Protestant religion? Is it the religion established across the Tweed? Is it German Lutheranism? Is it the religion of the German Evangelical Church? Is it the religion of Geneva? Socinians, Quakers, all the various sects of Nonconformists, call themselves Protestants. In the religion of which of these bodies is the King to profess his belief? May I remind your Lordships what the Lower House of the Convocation of Canterbury replied when they were asked in the year 1689, under William and Mary, to use the phrase "Protestant" religion in reference to the Church of England? They refused to use the phrase on the ground that it was "equivocal." "Socinians," they said, "Anabaptists, Quakers, assumed that title; the Church of England was distinguished by its doctrines as contained in the Articles, Liturgy and Formularies," and in those Formularies the word Protestant is not mentioned at all. I do not think your Lordships will wish, in this respect, to go further than William III., who refrained from using the word in consequence.
    Then, my Lords, consider the history of the declaration. Its germ, and most of its phrases, are first found in the Act or ordinance of the Long Parliament in 1843 requiring suspected Papists to take an oath on pain of seizure or sequestration of two-thirds part of all their goods and estates, real and personal. The oath ran—
    "I do abjure the Pope's supremacy and authority, and I do believe there is not any transubstantiation in the sacrament of the Lord's Supper"—
    and go on in the words of the present amended declaration with other matter added to it. The oath was amplified under Cromwell in 1656, and it was imposed in its present shape in 1679, under Charles II., at the time of the wholly fictitious Popish plot for the express purpose of disabling Roman Catholics from

    1281
    sitting in either House of Parliament. It is inseparably connected with the name of Titus Oates and his perjuries. With such a history, I ask myself what reasons the Committee can have had in recommending, and the Government in accepting, such a declaration as the one proposed? The proposed declaration, except for the omission of two or three offensive words, is as objectionable as the one for which it is substituted. Why have not the Committee, with such an opportunity before them, recommended something which would have commended itself to the common sense of reasonable people throughout the country? I can only conceive one reason for the course they have adopted, and that is the one suggested by the Prime Minister himself a fortnight ago on the presentation of the Committee's Report. The Prime Minister asked what likelihood there was of the original members of the Committee changing their unanimous opinion if "theological experts," as was suggested by the most rev. Prelate and the noble Earl (Lord Rosebery), were added to advise them? The noble Marquess did not, I am sure, intend to say anything uncivil to the most rev. Prelate or to the other members of the Episcopal Bench—it was merely a hint that, though a theological statement was in question, the whole matter lay outside the limits of theology. It was a confession, emphasised by the whole of the noble Marquess's speech, that the Committee aimed at producing no suitable or sensible declaration, but merely one which should satisfy as far as possible a certain bigoted and senseless opposition outside. It was a confession of—what shall I call it?—timidity, the confession of one who was doing what he felt to be inconsistent with justice and common sense for the sake of keeping peace with those who are the very reverse of sensible or just.
    My Lords, I think in this matter the noble Marquess does not altogether understand the country, or do justice to the great mass of his countrymen. There are others besides the extreme Protestant party throughout the country who, though they do not agitate, have a profound dislike to any such declaration as that proposed. But, even were it not so, is it too much to expect that a Prime Minister with such a majority should lead in a matter of this sort rather than be led?
    1282
    The extreme Protestant party has only to be faced to show how little it can do. It can occupy a whole sheet of The Times with a single advertisement; it can convene meetings in the Albert Hall; it can flood the House of Commons with postcards; it can get up letters to Members of Parliament, but the last election, when it tried its best, showed how little it can do in any effectual way. No, my Lords, the great mass of our countrymen are neither so unjust or ungenerous as the Prime Minister supposes. They know that true religion does not consist in abusing the Pope and never going to church. When they see a noble Duke, a member of this House—the Duke of Norfolk—described in the public prints as the King's bitterest enemy; when, another member of your Lordships' House, the Earl of Portsmouth, is lamented over as a lost sheep because he has accepted an invitation to Arundel, they ask themselves whether human folly and bigotry can go any further. When they see what have been proved to be lies as to the bloody and traitorous oath taken by the Jesuits to upset the British Constitution still unblushingly circulated after the fullest exposure and contradiction, they judge those who are responsible for, or who do not disavow, such statements as they deserved to be judged. It is the same party that opposed Catholic emancipation that is now opposing any reasonable alteration of the declaration today. They threatened civil war then—they are now shouting "Protestants to the rescue!" in the same tone. But Catholic emancipation was carried, and there was no civil war. It will be the same with this declaration. It cannot stand; its disappearance is only a question of time.
    Meanwhile, may I remind the House that to vote for the declaration as amended is to attach the present sanction and authority of this House in a most definite way to all that is retained? It is to make ourselves responsible for a declaration which is condemned by the common sense of the country, which is obnoxious to great portions of the Empire, and which, instead of helping to unite and weld the members of the Empire together, must, of necessity, whenever it is remembered—and the matter is not one which will be allowed to drop—beacause of discord and an incentive to bitter feeling. I shall move on going

    1283
    into Committee, if the Bill gets into Committee, the substitution of the following words suggested by the Bill. The declaration would then run—
    "I, A. B., by the Grace of God, King (or Queen) of Great Britain and Ireland, do solemnly and sincerely, in the presence of God, profess, testify, and declare that I am a member of the Church of England as by law established, the doctrines of which Church I unfeignedly believe and confess, and I do solemnly, in the presence of God, profess, testify, and declare that I do make this declaration in every part thereof unreservedly."
    As such it would be perfectly effective if such additional security is required to prevent a member of the Roman Catholic Church from ascending the throne, but it would outrage no one's feelings. It would not touch disputed points of theology; it would prevent the King being made ridiculous in the eyes of Europe; it would assert what the King did believe instead of saying what he did not believe, and it would be some pledge that in the beginning of this new century we are all anxious to be just to one another, to live in peace with one another as far as we may, and to forget those unhappy religious differences which have too often in the past been so marked a feature in our history.
    THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTER-BURY: My Lords, I think the speech we have just listened to is a very good illustration of the mischief that necessarily comes from the course which has been taken in dealing with this matter. We have had a good deal of theological discussion initiated by the noble Viscount; he has thought fit to bring before this House various theological opinions which it is quite clear it is not the business of this House to consider. I do not intend to make any reply to what the noble Viscount has said about statements of my own upon such questions as these. The statements that I have publicly made are sufficiently clear if anybody really desires to ascertain what are my opinions upon such questions as transubstantiation and the like; they have been made in a form very easy for any one to obtain, and they will be in themselves a sufficient reply to the insinuations of the noble Viscount. But this is not the appropriate place for discussions of that kind. I am sure the House will be with me in my unwillingness to prolong such a discussion. But, though I do not like the exact form which
    1284
    this Bill has taken, and though I cannot help agreeing with the Bishop of Winchester in his criticism of the course followed by the Government, yet for all that I think the House will do wisely to pass a Bill of this kind, because, as the question has been raised, it is very important that no mistake shall be made as to the attitude of this country in regard to this matter.
    There are various arguments that have been used on both sides, but the simple question is, How shall you adequately secure the Protestant succession? To have no declaration at all after what has passed would be simply to indicate that you did not hold that there was any longer a need for any such security. Now the security is required, not on religious, but on political grounds only. This country is determined to govern itself, and it will not have any interference from any outside Power; the Roman Catholic body declares its allegiance to a supreme power outside this country altogether, and as long as that body is hampered in that way it is of the greatest importance that the Sovereign, holding such a position as he holds, and having such influence as he must necessarily have, shall make it perfectly clear to all of us that to that body he does not belong. The mode of doing it may vary, and I think it is possible that long and careful consideration might have supplied us with some better declaration than we have got before us. But whenever it is implied that we undervalue in any way whatever the importance of the Protestant succession, or when it is in the slightest degree inferred that this country is doubtful on that point, then we must stand quite firm to this—that a body which owes allegiance to a foreign Power cannot be allowed to exercise its authority, claiming, as it does, to be an infallible authority; it is impossible for this country to allow such an authority to exercise such power as it might exercise through a Sovereign who was under such obligations. For that reason, although I do not like the form of the statement very much, I mean to vote for the Second Reading, and I hope the Bill will be carried and will ultimately become law.
    THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: My Lords, I think the course of this debate has not been on the whole satisfactory to

    1285
    the Government. With the best intentions in the world, they have dipped into troubled waters, and I do not think they are likely to get any very great satisfaction from the result. What has been the course of this debate? The moment the noble Marquess sat down the noble Lord behind me rose and in an uncompromising spirit moved the rejection of the Bill. He was followed by the noble Viscount opposite, who, speaking from an opposite point of view, said that out of personal regard for the noble Marquess, and in view of the good intentions he was prepared to credit Mm with, he should not vote against him; but that it was absolutely and morally impossible for him in any way to vote for the Bill. Then we come to the noble Viscount behind me, whose singularly earnest, eloquent, and interesting speech, though it cannot have convinced many of us, yet must have appealed to the most generous sentiments of the House. Then came the noble Viscount who, with equal emphasis and even more eloquence than previous speakers, repudiated any idea of voting for this Bill. We listened also with very great interest to the speech of the Bishop of Winchester, who, though he is going to vote for the Bill, did not praise it with any great cordiality. While the Bishop of Winchester expressed his intention to vote for the Bill, he did not bless it with any great cordiality. He reverted to the idea expressed on a former occasion, when he supported the most rev. Primate, to refer the declaration back for a more prolonged consideration by the Committee than it appeared to have received. I was one of those who tendered my support to the most rev. Primate on that occasion, but I shall not readily repeat that conduct, because, when he was speaking with legions behind him confident of victory— I think we could have run the noble Marquess hard if we had not defeated him —we were a little disappointed to find the Primate give us all away and withdraw his Amendment just in our keenest anticipation of success. Though the Bishop of Winchester has said he will vote for the Bill, he did so with the extremest qualification, regretting in every sentence of his speech that the Bill had not been prepared by someone who knew something about the subject. Now, if that is to be the only blessing, as it is the only blessing which
    1286
    the proposal of the noble Marquess has received in this House, I confess I feel a very gloomy prognostication as to its fate in another place.
    The most rev. Prelate has dwelt with force and an eloquence we all acknowledge, and which received a rare testimony of applause from your Lordships, on the unwillingness of this realm to submit to any foreign authority in its ecclesiastical or any other matters. The supremacy of the Pope, no doubt, is a doctrine to which any subject of this kingdom would be least likely to yield any sympathy, but that is one of those doctrines which, in the enumeration of doctrines in the declaration, is conspicuously omitted. The right rev. Prelate, with a lingering feeling in favour of a reference back to the Committee, is going to vote for the Bill because he repudiates a doctrine which the declaration does not repudiate. I think, therefore, I am entitled to offer my sympathy to the noble Marquess, for he must feel, from the reception his Bill has met, that it cannot become law this year. This discussion, therefore, can be but purely academic, because if it cannot go from this House with a greater impetus than it seems likely to obtain, it is unlikely to successfully face the waves and rocks it will have to encounter —the extreme Protestant in the House of Commons on the one hand, the Roman Catholic bodies on the other. I would therefore humbly suggest to the noble Marquess whether it is too late to reconsider that proposal for reference to a Select Committee which on a former occasion was abandoned in a manner which so affected our feelings. I do believe that if you could refer it to a Committee of a larger and more representative character, which should include members of the Roman Catholic faith, as well as Prelates from the Episcopal Bench, you might possibly evolve a declaration which might weather this House and possibly meet with acceptance in the other. Unless that course is adopted, I venture to say that neither will be satisfied.
    LORD HERRIES: My Lords, as I was the first to move that there should be a Joint Committee of this House to consider the question, perhaps I may be allowed to say two or three words in explanation of the position I shall take

    1287
    up to-day. I must say that I am not altogether satisfied with the Report of the Committee, and I should like to support what has fallen from my noble friend, Lord Rosebery, on that subject. I hope that the matter will be again referred to a Select Committee, which should include representatives not only of the bishops but also of Roman Catholics. When the question was first brought before us, I remember stating that I thought it was better that there should be no Roman Catholics on the Committee, but I must confess I have since regretted it. In the first place, I am quite sure that if I had been on the Committee the deliberations would have lasted longer than twenty minutes, and, in the second place, I think that the Committee would have become aware, by representations made to them, of what was likely to be the result of their deliberations. When the Report of the Committee was presented to us, if I remember right, the noble Marquess at the head of the Government spoke of the declaration as the "time-honoured" declaration; but I confess that to my mind the declaration is fraught with the history of terrible events, and misery and misfortune to thousands of Catholic Englishmen. It reminds me of the opinions of Lord Shaftesbury and the use he made of Titus Oates to foist this declaration upon Parliament. It was said of Lord Shaftesbury that he, when asked what the best religion was, replied that there was only one religion to which a wise man belonged; and when he was further pressed as to what that religion was, he replied that a wise man never let his religion be known. I presume it was the desire of the Committee that the Sovereign should have that wisdom, for he is required to belong to no religion as long as he condemns the Roman Catholic religion. It was, therefore, with feelings of great dissatisfaction that I read the Report of the Committee, which is now before us in the form of a Bill. The most rev. Primate alluded to the allegiance which Roman Catholics in this country owe to a foreign potentate. If he means the recognition of the supremacy of the Pope in matters of doctrine and in all questions with regard to the spiritual government of his subjects, I think he is right; but if he means that that allegiance goes further and affects the civil duties of Roman Catholic subjects of this realm, I say he is wrong. On this matter I will
    1288
    quote Bishop Doyle, who was one of the most illustrious bishops in Ireland at the time of the emancipation. He said—
    "As the power of the State is derived from God, and totally independent of the Church, we recognise in the Pope no authority whatever to interfere with it."
    He went on to say—
    "He who entrusted the Church to the Pope has entrusted the State to the Sovereign."
    Nothing could more strongly represent the attitude that has been taken by Roman Catholics in this country during the last two hundred years. We hear out of doors accusations of want of loyalty on the part of Catholics. I affirm that there are no more loyal subjects of the King, and none more anxious to do their duty to their country, than the Roman Catholics, and I despise and condemn those people who go about and say there is a divided allegiance on their part. I challenge anyone to deny that the history of the last two centuries shows anything but the most loyal feelings and actions among English Catholics. Catholics came forward at the beginning of the last century, when there was fear of invasion, and raised troops of Yeomanry, and I could name eight or ten of the principal Roman Catholics at that time who raised troops of Yeomanry to defend the shores of England when invasion was threatened by the Emperor of France. And in the present war, have you not to be thankful for the devotion of Roman Catholics? If the declaration were to have a positive character, in terms such as the noble Viscount read out, no objection would be raised on the part of Roman Catholics. It was only the other day that I was reading the Saxon coronation oath, and I could not help thinking how different it was from the oath which it is now recommended should be retained. Would it not be better that the King should say, "I am a member of the Church of England"? Who would object to that? If His Majesty also took the coronation oath, I maintain that no further security would be required to maintain that the King of England should be a Protestant. It was said a week ago that nothing would satisfy Roman Catholics. Such a declaration would satisfy them, but we shall never be entirely satisfied so long as certain Articles of our faith are picked out for condemnation,

    1289
    while other religions are not interfered with.
    LORD TWEEDMOUTH: My Lords, as a member of the Committee who are responsible for the form of words now put before your Lordships, I am anxious to make a few brief remarks with regard to some of the speeches which have been made this evening. My noble friend Lord Rosebery, as is his wont, dealt out Very free criticism, but he has let us know very little of his inner mind on the subject of this declaration. We have not the least idea whether he is in favour of the abolition the Bill altogether, whether he is in favour of this modification, or what he may be in favour of, except that he proposes that the Bill should be referred back to a Select Committee. He complained that there were no Catholic peers on the Committee, but it will be within your Lordships' recollection that it was by the desire of those peers themselves that they were not represented on the Committee.
    THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: I never found fault with the Committee for having no Roman Catholic Peers on it.
    LORD TWEEDMOUTH: My noble friend did, I think, say that it was a pity there were no Roman Catholic peers on the Committee. Other speakers to-night have suggested that this Bill should be referred to another Select Committee, and the argument used in favour of that course has largely been that by that means an ecclesiastical discussion would be avoided within this House. Well, my Lords, I think that if the Bill were referred to another Select Committee the Report of that Committee would lead to quite as long a discussion in this House as has taken place to-night, and, if it were to go into the very technical points suggested, we should very likely get into a still more technical ecclesiastical dispute. I am but an unlearned layman, but I do maintain that this is not an ecclesiastical question at all; it is a purely political question, and one for politicians to deal with, and I am bound to say that, in my judgment, the Committee that was appointed to deal with the subject was, as far as is possible in your Lordships' House, composed of capable politicians. I think the Committee has been somewhat
    1290
    hardly dealt with. It has been accused of being ignorant and hasty, and of not having carried out the work for which it was appointed. It was not appointed to do away with the declaration, but to consider whether its language could be modified without diminishing its efficacy for the security of the maintainance of the Protestant succession. I say that the Committee would have acted altogether ultra vires if it had reported that the declaration should be abolished. That was the view the Committee took. Before we had been in the committee-room five minutes it was evident that that was the view of the whole of the Committee. It then became a mere question of drafting, and I think the method adopted would commend itself to most reasonable men. It was thought that the best plan would be to cut out the objectionable words, leaving the words which were not objectionable and which bore a certain meaning. That course was adopted. I admit that a certain error was committed owing to our not having the benefit of seeing the draft before it was sent up to the House. I believe that if the Committee had seen it would have received that amount of polish which it has since received before incorporation in the Bill. The noble Lord, Viscount Llandaff, who always speaks so eloquently and so moderately, said that the Committee had put into the mouth of the Sovereign a declaration condemning certain Roman Catholic doctrines. After all, this country is a Protestant country, and we have to secure the Protestant succession. Now, what does the word "Protestant" mean, and what is "the Protestant religion"? The Protestant religion protests against certain Roman Catholic doctrines, and what can be a better way of giving voice to that protest than by making the Sovereign, the moment he steps on the Throne, declare that certain Catholic doctrines are not according to his belief, and therefore not suitable for him to hold as Sovereign of this country?
    I assert that it is desirable that we should retain that declaration, in order to secure from the mouth of the Sovereign at the time of his accession a declaration of protestation against certain Roman Catholic doctrines. My noble friend Lord Llandaff suggested another method of dealing with it. He said, "make it a positive declaration —a declaration of belief in the doctrines of

    1291
    the Church of England." That also recommended itself to Viscount Halifax and Lord Herries, but a declaration in the belief of the Church of England will not meet the question at all. England, no doubt, to use the words of my noble friend, is the predominant partner, but there is Scotland, and there are the colonies. There is nothing to prevent the King being a Wesleyan, or a Presbyterian. There are many Nonconformist bodies and various sects in this country which are as Protestant as the Church of England. It is not necessary that the declaration should be all embracing. What we wish to secure is that the Sovereign, on his accession, shall absolutely repudiate certain Roman Catholic doctrines, and, for the purpose required, the doctrines mentioned are as good as any we could secure. I think the declaration recommended is a very satisfactory method of asserting what I believe to be the Protestant feeling of this realm.
    THE LORD BISHOP OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I think I shall be right in following the most rev. Prelate the Archbishop of Canterbury and voting for the Second Reading of this Bill, but I confess I shall do so in very much the same spirit as the Bishop of Winchester, who has shown good reason why the Bill, as it at present stands, does not really carry out what we ought to aim at. What is it we ought to aim at in such a declaration as this? We ought not merely to aim at satisfying obvious and superficial objections, but to make the declaration suitable to its unique position. It is only since 1867 that the declaration has obtained this unique position. It was in that year abolished as a declaration to be taken by other persons than the Sovereign. Surely there has been a great change also in the attitude of the great body of which I wish to speak with all possible respect—the Roman Catholic Church. The noble Lord just now quoted from Bishop Doyle. He must have forgotten Cardinal Newman's famous letter to the Duke of Norfolk in 1874, in which he pointed out all those statements made by Bishop Doyle and others at the time were quite worthless because they had not the adhesion of the Pope. It was pointed out that no compact was of any efficacy unless the Pope was a party to it, and we know that the Pope
    1292
    was not a consenting party to those very solemn and, I think, very noble protestations made by Roman Catholics during the first quarter of the last century, and they were afterwards treated as waste paper. That brings me to this point, why was it that the doctrine of transubstantiation was chosen in the year 1673? The most judicious historian of the period says that it was introduced because it was found that there was no other doctrine which could not be dispensed with. It was introduced into the House of Commons by two members, and accepted on the ground that it was art effective barrier to a Roman Catholic ascending the throne. But since that time the Church of Rome has changed very much, and the supremacy and personal infallibility of the Pope have been introduced into the articles of faith of Roman Catholics. If we are to draw a sharp distinction between ourselves and Roman Catholics, it is far better that we should do so upon the public ground of opposition to the Pope. I am not a believer in transubstantiation. I have been, I believe, misrepresented on that matter in one or two public newspapers. I need not disclaim any sympathy with the doctrine of transubstantiation; but I do think it would be a very great advantage if we could substitute some other test. My objection against the prominence given to the point of transubstantiation is, not that it is no longer a distinctive difference between the two Churches, but that it is no longer the most obvious or appropriate distinction. I would most earnestly ask His Majesty's Government whether they could not agree, after the Second Reading, to refer the matter to a Committee. We should not, in such a critical period in the life of the Sovereign, when he is preparing to undertake the duties of ruling the Empire, call upon him to make a declaration which cannot satisfy in its. Present form any serious-minded man. I would point out a flaw in the wording of the declaration as it at present stands. It states that certain doctrines "are contrary to the Protestant religion, in which I believe." Are those words good English? We practise a religion; we do not believe in a religion. Religion is a matter of worship, and is quite different from faith. There is evidence of great haste in the preparation of this declaration, and it is impossible for these words to stand. I

    1293
    hope, therefore, that it will be referred to a Committee.
    LORD BRAYE: My Lords, I should like to say two words on this question. Those who originally introduced the words into the declaration which are objected to had ample justification, because they were consistent with the doctrines they held. No doubt they believed the faith of the Church of Rome to be iniquitous, and punished those who adhered to it with death. Now, however, the subjects of the realm have full liberty of religious belief, and the words of the old declaration are no longer necessary. Briefly, why should not the declaration merely say, "I renounce the Pope and all his works," which I believe to be the sum total of the Protestant creed?
    THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, the note of this debate has been, as Lord Rosebery stated, that everybody was in the main against the Bill, but there was a much more striking note—namely, that everybody was in favour of
    a totally different alternative. It is true that a coalition of such peers as Lord Kinnaird, Lord Halifax, and Lord Llandaff would be perfectly capable of destroying the Bill. I do not deny that, but I am quite sure they would not be capable of putting anything else in its place. Unless you succeed in putting something else in its place, this declaration will go on and retain its legal power for an indefinite period. It either must remain or you must induce the House to put something else in its place. There is, in substance, no alternative which would command the assent of the very variegated body by whom the declaration is now opposed, and I do not think that that would be satisfactory. Whatever faults you find in the Bill are faults in the enactment which is now law. If you succeed in destroying the Bill you will succeed also in perpetuating the present law.
    On Question, whether "now" shall stand part of the motion, their Lordships divided. Contents, 96; Not-contents, 6.

    CONTENTS.

    Canterbury, L. Abp.

    Stamford, E.

    Hobhouse, L.

    Halsbury, E. (L. Chancellor.)

    Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

    James, L.

    Devonshire, D. (L. President.)

    Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]

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

    Salisbury, M. (L. Privy Seal.)

    Wharncliffe, E.

    Kensington, L.

    Marlborough, D.

    Clancarty, V. (E. Clancarty.)

    Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

    Falkland, V.

    Langford, L.

    Abercorn, M. (D. Abercorn.)

    Gordon, V. (E. Aberdeen.)

    Lawrence, L.

    Bath, M.

    Knutsford, V.

    Leigh, L.

    Lansdowne, M.

    Lindley, L.

    Chester, L. Bp.

    Ludlow, L.

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

    Salisbury, L. Bp.

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

    Winchester, L. Bp.

    Clarendon, E. (L. Chamberlain.)

    Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

    Abinger, L.

    Monckton, L. (V. Galway.)

    Bradford, E.

    Addington, L.

    Monkswell, L.

    Cadogan, E.

    Amherst of Hackney, L.

    Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

    Camperdown, E.

    Ardilaun, L.

    Mostyn, L.

    Carrington, E.

    Balfour, L.

    Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

    Cawdor, E.

    Barnard, L.

    Raglan, L.

    Chesterfield, E.

    Battersea, L.

    Reay, L.

    Dudley, E.

    Belhaven and Stenton, L.

    Rowton, L.

    Feversham, E.

    Belper, L.

    Saltoun, L.

    Hardwicke, E.

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

    Seaton, L.

    Harewood, E.

    Calthorpe, L.

    Sinclair, L.

    Howe, E.

    Churchill, L. [Teller.]

    Southampton, L.

    Mar and Kellie, E.

    Colville of Culross, L.

    Templemore, L.

    Mayo, E.

    Davey, L.

    Tredegar, L.

    Morley, E.

    De Mauley, L.

    Tweedmouth, L.

    Northbrook, E.

    Dinevor, L.

    Ventry, L.

    Onslow, E.

    Glanusk, L.

    Welby, L.

    Portsmouth, E.

    Glenesk, L.

    Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss)

    Powis, E.

    Greville, L.

    Windsor, L.

    Rosse, E.

    Harlech, L.

    Wolverton, L.

    Selborne, E.

    Harris, L.

    Spencer, E.

    Hatherton, L.

    NOT CONTENTS.

    Halifax, V. [Teller.]

    Kinnaird, L. [Teller.]

    Stanmore, L.

    Aldenham, L.

    Norton, L.

    Teynham, L.

    Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.

    TRAWLERS' CERTIFICATES SUSPENSION BILL [H.L.]
    Bead 3a (according to order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
    HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES.
    First Report from the Select Committee considered (according to order) and agreed to.
    LARCENY BILL.
    Brought from the Commons, read 1a; and to be printed. (No. 178).

    COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA— SALARY OF THE GOVERNOR GENERAL.
    EARL CARRINGTON: My Lords, I am sorry that, owing to a printer's error, a portion of the question which I had given notice to put to the noble Earl the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies has been omitted. What I wish to ask the noble Earl is, whether there has been any correspondence between His Majesty's Government and the Australian Federal Government with reference to the salary of the Governor General, and whether there has been any correspondence with the State Governors and the State Legislatures, and, if so, whether he can lay the correspondence on the Table.
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (The Earl of ONSLOW): My Lords, I am sorry that an error has crept into the Paper. The noble Earl did tell me some time ago that he wished to make this inquiry, but when I saw his notice on the Paper I thought, owing to the omission to which he has referred, that it had reference to another matter. I will, however, do my best to answer the question of the noble Earl without making the full inquiries which I should otherwise have made. The Governor General's salary cannot be altered during his tenure of office, but some efforts were made, on behalf of the States, to make a contribution towards the establishment allowances and for the purpose of entertaining, temporarily.
    1296
    A Bill passed through the State Legislature of New South Wales, but did not pass through the Legislatures of the other States. Consequently the idea was abandoned, and the Secretary of State for the Colonies is now informed that the matter will be brought before the Parliament of the Commonwealth with a view of making some further provision for the Governor for the purpose of entertaining and towards establishment allowances. The Papers have not yet been sent to His Majesty's Government, and therefore I am not able to give any information as to their nature. There has been some correspondence with regard to the salaries of the State Governors, and I understand that some Papers have been published in Australia. I do not know what they are, but if they have been laid on the Tables of the Colonial Legislatures there is not likely to be any difficulty in laying them on the Table of your Lordships' House. At the same time, I think it would be convenient to wait until the correspondence and the arrangements are finally completed for making such provision as the several States may make for the salary of the separate Governors.
    House adjourned at a quarter before Eight of the clock, till Thursday next, half-past Ten of the clock.