Sitting of 5 March 1901

Preamble
Several other Members took and subscribed the Oath.

KING'S SPEECH (ANSWER TO ADDRESS).
The COMPTROLLER OF THE HOUSEHOLD reported His Majesty's Answer to the Address, as followeth:—
"I have received with great satisfaction the loyal and dutiful expression of your thanks for the Speech with which I opened the present Session of Parliament."

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  LONDON WATER (PURCHASE) BILL.
  Order for Second Heading read.
  MR. CALDWELLproposed to take the Second Reading on the 25th instant.
  SIR F. DIXON-HARTLANDprotested against a date being thus fixed upon without first extending to him, as an opponent, the courtesy of consulting him. He had not been approached in any way.
  *MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. Baronet objects, the matter stands over until tomorrow, and then he will have an opportunity of consulting the promoters.
  MR. JOHN BURNSsaid the Local Government Board, the London water companies, and other interests concerned were all agreed that 25th March would be the most convenient day,
  MR. CALDWELLsaid it was impossible for the promoters to know every opponent.
  SIR F. DIXON-HARTLAND: But I have given written notice of opposition.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: The hon. Member for West Marylebone agreed with the members of the London County Council that 25th March would be a suitable day.
  SIR F. DIXON-HARTLAND: Very well; I will offer no objection then.
  Debate adjourned accordingly.

  PRIVATE BILLS (STANDING ORDER 62 COMPLIED WITH).
  MR. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, Standing Order No. 62 has been complied with, viz.:—
  Burgess Hill Water Bill.
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.

FAIRFORD AND CIRENCESTER RAILWAY BILL.
  MOND GAS BILL.
  Read a second time, and committed.
PETITIONS.
  CHURCH DISCIPLINE.
  Petition from East Dulwich, for alteration of Law; to lie upon the Table.
  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (HIGHER GRADE AND EVENING CONTINUATION SCHOOLS).
  Petitions for alteration of Law, from Derby; New Mills; Blackburn; Fenny Stratford; Shepley; Thornton in Craven; Steeton with Eastburn; Sutton in Keighley; Walmersley and Ramsbot-tom; Acton; and Dewsbury; to lie upon the Table.
  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (SCOTCH CODE).
  Petition from Leith, for alteration; to lie upon the Table,
  OFFICERS OF THE INDIAN STAFF CORPS.
  Six hundred and fourteen Petitions from Officers of the Indian Staff Corps, for redress of grievances; to lie upon the Table.
  POOR LAW OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION ACT, 1896.
  Petitions for alteration of Law, from Epsom; Ashton-in-Makerfield; and Acton; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  Petition from Little Heath, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Govan; Aberdeen; Windermere; Glasgow; Newcastle on-Tyne; and Kilmalcolm; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Three Petitions from Gourock, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC
  BANKRUPTCY (IRELAND).
  Return [presented 6th December, 1900] to be printed. [No. 75.]
  POST OFFICE (TELEGRAPH MONEY ORDERS).
  Copy presented, of Additional Articles to the Convention of the 7th, 12th September, 1881, relative to the exchange of Money Orders between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and the Kingdom of Sweden, dated 1st to 8th September, 1900 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  SUPERANNUATION ACT, 1887.
  Copy presented, of Treasury Minute, dated 21st February, 1901, granting a retired allowance to Mr. W. H. F. Crock-shank, a Second Division Clerk, Money Order Office, General Post Office, under the Act [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  NAVY (DOCKYARD EXPENSE ACCOUNTS, 1899–1900).
  Annual Accounts presented, for 1899–1900, of Shipbuilding and Dockyard Transactions, etc., with Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General thereon [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 76.]
  ROYAL UNIVERSITY OF IRELAND.
  Copy presented, of Nineteenth Report of the Royal University of Ireland, being for the year 1900 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  PAPERS LAID UPON THE TABLE BY THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE.
  1. Controverted Elections, Further Return.—Copyof Minutes of Evidence and Judgment in the Borough of Islington (West Division) Election Trial [ordered 22nd February; MR. Attorney General].
  2. Bridlington Piers and Harbour.— Copy of Abstract of the General Annual Account for the year ending 26th July, 1900 [by Act].

  UNFUNDED DEBT.
  Return ordered, "of the amount of the Unfunded Debt on the 27th day of February, 1901, showing upon what terms and for what period it has been raised."—(Sir Edgar Vincent.)
CONTROVERTED ELECTIONS.

  WEST ISLINGTON ELECTION PETITION.
  MR. SPEAKER informed the House that he had received from the Judges appointed to try the several Election Petitions the following Certificate and Report relating to the West Division of the Borough of Islington: —
  The Election Petition for the West Division of the Borough of Islington, 1900.
  The Parliamentary Elections Act, 1868.
  The Corrupt and Illegal Practices Acts, 1854–189,).
  To the Right Honourable the Speaker of the House of Commons.
  We, Sir William Rann Kennedy, Knight, and Sir Charles John Darling, Knight, Judges of His Majesty's High Court of Justice, and two of the judges on the rota for the time being for the trial of Election Petitions in England and Wales, Do hereby, in pursuance of the above written Acts, Certify that we duly held a Court at the Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London, on the 14th, 15th, Kith, 17th, 18th, 2lst, and 30th days of January, 1901 (the last day the Court was occupied with the question of costs only), for the trial of the Election Petition for the West Division of the Borough of Islington, between Francis Hastings Medhurst, Petitioner, and Thomas Lough, M.P., and Charles Gasquet, Returning Officer, Respondents. And, in further pursuance of the said Acts,
  we report that at the conclusion of the said trial we determined that the said Thomas Lough, the Member whose election was complained of, was duly elected and returned, and We Do Hereby Certify in writing such our determination to you. And we report that no charges wore made in the said petition of any corrupt or illegal practices within the meaning of the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Acts.
  Dated this 4th day of March, 1901.
  W. R. Kennedy.
  Charles Darling.

QUESTIONS.

  SOUTH AFRICA—JAMESON RAID— LIABILITY OF THE BRITISH SOUTH AFRICA COMPANY.
  SIR JOHN BRUNNER: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether ho will undertake that the Government shall not formally give up the claim of the late South African Republic against the British South Africa Company in case of a proposal being made for the purchase by the Government of the undertaking of the Company.
  The CHANCELLOR of THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. Hicks Beach,): I can only refer the hon. Member to my answer of yesterday—that this claim has been submitted to the law officers and that until we have received their opinion we can say nothing more.
  SIR JOHN BRUNNER: I asked the light lion. Gentleman whether he would, on behalf of the Government, give an undertaking that this claim should not be formally abandoned. I have not understood that he has given mo an answer to that question.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I am not bound to answer the question as to what the Government might or might not do in a hypothetical case.

  EXPENDITURE OF THE COLONIES FOR THEIR CONTINGENTS.
  MR. CAUSTON: On behalf of the hon. Member for Dundee, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state approximately the expenditure incurred by the various colonies for pay of troops, equipment, or otherwise, in connection with the South African war.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): I am not in a position to make such a statement at present. I could only obtain it by application to all the colonies, and as the accounts are not yet closed I think the hon. Member will agree with me that it would be premature to make the inquiry.

  PRESS PROSECUTIONS IN CAPE COLONY.
  MR. PIRIE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will inform himself and state to the House by whom proceedings have been taken against Mr. Albert Cartwright, editor of the South African News, and what these proceedings ate; whether he is charged with reprinting in his paper treatment a, letter alleging that on a, particular February occasion Lord Kitchener had given instructions that General De Wet's force when surrounded should not be allowed to surrender; and, if so, whether he is aware that the letter making this charge had already appeared in the Freeman's Journal of 15th January, and the part of
  556
  it conveying this charge in the London Times of 10th January.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I received a despatch yesterday from the Governor of the Cape Colony, from which it appears that proceedings were taken by the Attorney General of the Cape Colony on the charge of publishing a defamatory and seditious libel. The answer to the second and third questions is in the affirmative.
  MR. H J. WILSON: Is it proposed to take similar proceedings against the London Times and the Freeman's Journal?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: That is not a question which should be addressed to me.

  PRECAUTIONS AGAINST PLAGUE AT CAPE TOWN.
  *SIR WALTER FOSTER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can state the number of cases of plague that have occurred at Cape Town, according to his latest advices, distinguishing the number of Europeans and the number of natives attacked; whether at the time of the outbreak of the malady the authorities at Cape Town had an adequate supply of Haffkinine (prophylactu vaccine) and of Yersius curative serum for dealing with an outbreak; whether a supply of these materials has since been sent out; and whether he will lay upon the Table any reports received from Dr. Edington or Professor Simpson on the relation of the disease in rats to that in human beings.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: My information is not complete, but, as stated in the telegraphic bulletins which have been supplied by the Cape Government and published, there was a total of twenty cases for the week ending 16th February and twenty-nine cases remaining under at that date; on 23rd there were twenty-one remaining under treatment. So far as I am aware there has been one European case. As to the second question, I have no information; the matter is one for the responsible Government of the Cape Colony. In reply to the third question, I have not seen these reports, which I

  557
  understand are being prepared for the information of the Cape Government, and I am not aware that they have been published by that Government.
  *SIR WALTER FOSTER: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiry as to the second paragraph?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: It is beyond my province to inquire into a matter for which the Cape Government is solely responsible, but if the hon. Gentleman will speak to me privately I will try to get the information he wants.

  CONCENTRATION CAMPS—TREATMENT OF BOER WOMEN.
  MR. C.P. SCOTT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can now state whether the wives and children of Boers in the field are placed on precisely the same rations in the concentration camps as the other women and children, or whether a distinction is still maintained; and, in the latter case, whether he will give instructions that all shall be treated alike.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,): I have nothing to add to the reply I gave on Friday, the 1st instant, to the hon. Member for the Rushcliffe division of Nottinghamshire.* Lord Kitchener is taking all possible steps to secure the humane treatment of refugees.
  MR. C. P. SCOTT: Will the right hon. Gentleman obtain the information?
  MR. BRODRICK: I do not think any more information can be obtained. I leave Lord Kitchener a free hand in the matter.

  MTLITARY COURTS OF INQUIRY.
  MR. LAMBERT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the cases of the officers who have been removed from the Army, or their resignations enforced, for failure in South Africa, have been the subject of courts of inquiry; if so, have all such officers been accorded the opportunity of attending and defending themselves.
  MR. BRODRICK: Officers who have failed in the field, or otherwise, in South
  * See page 180.
  558
  Africa have been removed either on evidence given before courts of inquiry or on the recommendation of their superior officers. In such eases the general officer commanding satisfies himself that the officer's case is fully before him before he makes any recommendation to the War Office.
  MR. LAMBERT: May I ask whether, when cases have been under consideration by courts of inquiry, the officer o concerned have been allowed to attend.
  MR. BRODRICK: As I told the House the other day, when an officer is summoned before a court of inquiry the court is bound to hear him if he desires to be heard. Of course cases might come before courts of inquiry in which are mentioned the names of officers whose attendance may not always be available.
  *SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Is it possible for an officer to be condemned and removed as the result of a court of inquiry without having an opportunity of being heard?
  MR. BRODRICK: An officer cannot be condemned by a court of inquiry, but circumstances might come before the authorities consequent upon an inquiry on which they might require to be satisfied. An officer's case is fully gone into before a decision is come to.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Has he an opportunity of defending himself?
  MR. COURTENAY WARNER: Has it ever happened that an officer has been condemned without going before the court of inquiry?
  MR. BRODRICK: There may be cases in which an officer's name is mentioned whose attendance it is not possible to ensure.
  MR. COURTENAY WARNER: What hon. Members desire to be assured upon is whether an officer can suffer by the finding of a court of inquiry without he himself having been heard.
  [No answer was given.]

  NEGOTIATIONS WITH GENERAL BOTHA.
  MR. DALZIEL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he has any information to the

  559
  effect that General Botha has intimated to Lord Kitchener his readiness to surrender on certain specified terms; and, if so, whether there is any prospect of a successful issue of the negotiations.
  MR. BRODRICK: I have no statement to make on this subject.

  BRITISH SURRENDERS—COURTS-MARTIAL.
  MR. LAMBERT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if ho can state what cases of surrender of troops in South Africa have been tried by courts-martial, and when he proposes to make the findings and sentences public.
  MR. BRODRICK: The question of the time and manner of the publication of the courts-martial referred to is under consideration.

  CIVIL LAWS IN THE TRANSVAAL.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state what body of laws is being enforced in the civil affairs of the Transvaal.
  MR. BRODRICK: The laws now being enforced in the Transvaal are the statute laws of the Transvaal, subject to such alterations as the present abnormal state of the country renders necessary,

  TREATMENT OF COLOURED PERSONS IN THE TRANSVAAL.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, by the Transvaal Pass Law, the rigid enforcement of which was asked for by the Rand Chamber of Mines, lashes at discretion may be inflicted for every second violation of its minute regulations, and whether by a clause introduced into the latest Transvaal Gold Law by the second Volksraad, every coloured workman who is found to be negligent may be punished by lashes not exceeding twenty-five; while coloured includes every Indian or African British subject; and if the attention of the Governor of the Transvaal will be called to such provisions, with a view to the better treatment of coloured persons.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The penalties referred to in the question are prescribed by the Pass Laws of 1895 and
  560
  1890, and by the Gold Laws for many years past. The definition of "coloured" undoubtedly includes British Indian and African coloured subjects. Sir Alfred Milner is already alive to the need for considering the revision of such legislation, and I will call his attention to the special points referred to in the right hon. Member's question.

  COMFORTS FOR TROOPS AT THE FRONT.
  MR. RENSHAW: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the approach of colder weather in South Africa, the Government will give the same facilities as they did last year for the transmission of extra comforts for men on service; and whether any information is available at the War Office which would indicate the sort of extras which would be most acceptable, and the localities in which they are most needed.
  MR. BRODRICK: The same facilities for the transmission of extra comforts will be granted as last year. I will give my hon. friend a copy of the Departmental Memorandum detailing suitable articles for the troops in South Africa. Lord Kitchener, in reply to a telegram which I addressed to him on the subject, says that such extra comforts will be much appreciated, but I have no guidance as to localities.
  MR. FLYNN: Is it not the fact that many cases of comforts sent last Christmas never reached the unfortunate soldiers?
  MR. BRODRICK: Yes; there was a great congestion of traffic on the railway.

  RETURN OF TROOPS.
  MR. PIRIE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, with reference to the Return of Military Forces in South Africa 1899–1901, where it appears that the number of officers who left South Africa for England, not invalids, was 1,214, and the number of men and noncommissioned officers and men was 11,109, a proportion of 1 to 9, whereas the proportion to the strength of the Regular forces in South Africa on 1st February, 1901, under the heads of the Return, is about 1 to 32, whether he will state

  561
  the reason of this disproportion of officers returning, not invalids, allowance being made for the staff officers who have returned with their generals; and whether he could state the number of this latter and of the staffs accompanying them.
  MR. BRODRICK: The preparation of this Return would entail very considerable labour, which I am not prepared to throw upon the department concerned.

  INDIAN RELIEFS.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state what steps, if any, are being taken with reference to the reliefs for India upon the close of the war in South Africa, and also whether anything will lie done to compensate the 15,000 men now serving in India beyond the term of their engagement.
  MR. BRODRICK: Men serving in India who are due for transfer to the Reserve will be replaced by men having four years unexpired colour service from South Africa and home. It is not proposed to compensate soldiers retained with the colours under the Royal Proclamation of 7th October, such retention being part of the liability which they accepted in their engagement.

  COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF IN IRELAND—H.R.H. THE DUKE OF CONNAUGHT.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can give the date of the appointment of H.R.H. the Duke of Connaught to the position of Commander-in-Chief of the Army in Ireland, and how many days since his appointment has His Royal Highness been at his post.
  MR BRODRICK: His Royal Highness was appointed to the command in Ireland on the 9th January, 1900, and has exercised the command since that date. I am not aware on how many days His Royal Highness has been at his office in Dublin, but in this, as in the commands he has previously held, His Royal Highness has discharged his duties to the complete satisfaction of the Commander-in-Chief.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman give the House the information I asked for as to the number of days he has been at his post in Ireland?
  MR. BRODRICK: I cannot give the number of days, nor do I intend to ask for it.
  MR. FLYNN: Ts the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Commander-in-Chief in question is never in Ireland?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  SOLDIERS' WIDOWS' PENSIONS.
  MR. BARTLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the sum of £56,000, taken on the War Office Estimates and stated in the memorandum of the Secretary of State for War to be to cover the grant of pensions from 1st April next to the widows and children of non-commissioned officers and men who have died as the result of active operations, is the whole sum contemplated to be granted for that purpose: and whether as stated in Return [Cd. 462] 1901, up to 1st February, 1901, 12,354 have actually been killed or died, and that 28,630 others have been wounded or are still in hospital, and if this sum of £56,000 is to provide for all the widows and orphans thus created as well as any additions that may yet be made to the list before the war is over.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (LORD STANLEY,): The sum referred to was taken as the charge likely to accrue during the year for pensions to widows and children of non-commissioned officers and men who have died. My hon. friend will realise that only a proportion of the army is married and the number of those wounded docs not affect the charge, as they are otherwise provided for.

  BIRMINGHAM POLICEMEN SERVING IN SOUTH AFRICA RATE OF PAY.
  MR. MANSFIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the fact that members of the Birmingham Police Force were engaged to go to the front in Africa at 3s. per day, that when they got to the front they were paid 5s. per day, that the Treasury on finding this out ordered the men home, but on their return to this country engaged them to return at 3s. 6d. per day; and whether the cost of transport per man is about £40; and, if so, can he say what was saved by bringing

  563
  the men home in order to secure a reduction in their pay.
  LORD STANLEY: Nothing-whatever is known at the War Office or the Treasury of the circumstances named by the hon. Member.

  ARMY MEAT AND FORAGE CONTRACTS—PROPOSED IRISH DEPOT.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he has received resolutions direct, and copies of resolutions passed by local authorities in various parts of Ireland, complaining of the importation of foreign meat and forage into a meat-producing and agricultural country; whether the War Office has been asked to provide a depot for the reception of tenders from Irish manufacturers; and whether it is intended to inquire into those matters, and provide a remedy.
  LORD STANLEY: Various resolutions from Ireland in connection with the supply of foreign meat and forage to the troops there have been received at the War Office. As I have already explained to the House, the whole question of the supply of meat to the troops in the United Kingdom is being thoroughly considered.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: Will the War Office consider the advisability of inserting a clause in future tender forms prohibiting contractors from supplying foreign meat?
  [No answer was given.]

  YEOMANRY EXERCISE AT HERTFORD.
  MR. M'LAREN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the field exercises on Saturday of the Yeomanry and Volunteers near Hertford; whether such exercises are intended as instructional manœuvres, and as such are in any way supervised by the War Office, or any regular military authority; and, whether any reports are made to the War Office on the tactics adopted by the Volunteer commanding officers; and, if so, whether he will communicate such reports to Parliament.
  MR. BRODRICK: Exorcises such as those referred to by the hon. Member are not supervised by the War Office and
  564
  reports concerning them are not received at headquarters. Nor do I think that such centralisation would be desirable, but the whole question of Volunteer and Yeomanry field training is under the Commander-in-Chief's consideration.

  SHROPSHIRE LIGHT INFANTRY— TIPPERARY RIOTS.
  MR. CULLINAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can give an undertaking that the persons suffering losses from the house wreckings and burglaries committed by privates of the Shropshire Light Infantry, in Tipperary, will be compensated by the Army Department and thus save the local ratepayers from being mulcted for those acts.
  LORD STANLEY: Any offences by soldiers against life or property are dealt with by the civil power, and it is not proposed to alter the usual procedure.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Will the Government consider the advisability of sending this regiment out to South Africa, where looting is allowed?
  MR. CULLINAN: Are Militiamen sent to Ireland to be allowed the same latitude as their fellows in South Africa?

  COMMITTEE ON WATER-TUBE BOILERS.
  MR. E. J. C. MORTON: I bug to ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty whether the Committee on Water-tube Boilers is about to issue an interim Report; and, if so, when it will be presented to Parliament.
  THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (MR. PRETYMAN,): The Committee have made an interim Report which it is proposed to present to Parliament shortly.

  H.M.S. "BRITANNIA"—OUTBREAK OF PNEUMONIA.
  MR. NORMAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether a second term cadet died at one of the shore establishments of the "Britannia" on the 26th ultimo from complications following upon pneumonia; whether this is the second cadet who has died within eight days from the same cause; whether others are ill; and, if so,

  565
  how many; whether the hospital is full whether one of the instructors has died from a similar complaint; and whether he can say what is the cause of so much pulmonary disease upon the "Britannia."
  MR. LAMBERT: May I also ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether one of the naval instructors on board the "Britannia" has recently died, and two cadets are seriously ill; whether the remainder of the cadets have been granted three weeks leave; and, what steps the Admiralty are taking to secure for the future the health of officers and cadets.
  MR. PRETYMAN: It is true that two cadets and one of the instructors of the "Britannia" have recently died from complications following upon pneumonia, and on Sunday last there were sixteen cadets ill, two seriously. The cause of the large amount of pulmonary disease is the prevailing epidemic of influenza of a severe type. The hospital is by no means full. The cadets have been granted three weeks leave, and the ship will be thoroughly purified and disinfected while the cadets are away.
  MR. LAMBERT: Has the hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to a statement in the press that the "Britannia" is thoroughly rotten and unfit for the cadets?
  MR. PRETYMAN: We are building an establishment on shore to replace the "Britannia" as quickly as possible.

  DEPTFORD VICTUALLING YARD.
  MR. ARTHUR MORTON: I beg to ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty if he will state the number of labourers employed in the Deptford Victualling Yard, and the rates of wages paid, distinguishing the number of men employed at each separate rate.
  MR. PRETYMAN: The total number of labourers employed in the Deptford Victualling Yard is 307, with rates of pay ranging from 19s. to 30s. a week. I shall be happy to hand the detailed particulars to the hon. Member if he will speak to mo after Questions.
  *SIR. CHARLES DILKE: How many are still employed at 19s.?
  MR. PRETYMAN: Nine.

  THE INQUIRY AS TO NAVAL WORKS AT GIBRALTAR.
  MR. CAUSTON: On behalf of the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Edmund Robertson), I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if it is intended to communicate to the House the results, whether separate or collective, of the proposed inquiries into questions connected with the naval works at Gibraltar.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I understand that no Report is to be presented, but if any changes are decided on they will be explained on the Estimate.

  INDIAN STAFF CORPS.
  SIR SEYMOUR KING: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, whether any provision has been made for assisting officers of the Indian Staff Corps who are engaged in the operations in China to meet the extra expenses entailed upon them by having to organise messes at Tientsin and elsewhere, and provide warm clothing for themselves and their servants, and by the higher price of all stores as compared with India; and whether he will represent to the War Office the similarity of the case of these officers with that of their comrades who were engaged in the Chitral and Tirah campaigns and received a special field allowance of 5s. per diem.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (LORD G. HAMILTON,): There was no special field allowance of 5s. a day to Staff Corps officers engaged in the Tirah and Chitral campaigns. As regards China, Staff Corps officers receive Indian rates of pay and allowances in that country, which compare favourably with the English rates paid to British units in the expedition. But General Gaselee was informed on the 10th of January in reply to a question received from him a few days earlier, that if he would submit proposals for reasonable lodging, fuel, and lighting allowances, they would be transmitted to the War Office for consideration.

  COOPER'S HILL COLLEGE.
  MR. O'MARA: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he can say how long the Board of Visitors took to consider and adopt Colonel

  567
  Ottley's suggestions to remodel the studies and dismiss the professors of Cooper's Hill College; and what expert advice did they receive and consider before reporting.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: Colonel Ottley's suggestions for the rearrangement of the course of study at Cooper's Hill are dated 13th June, 1900, and the Report of the Board upon them is dated the 24th of the same month. The Visitors who signed the Report are, with scarcely an exception, experts of the highest authority upon the technical questions submitted to them, and they are selected in order that they may advise as experts.
  MR. O'MARA: Were the conclusions come to by the Committee at a single sitting?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: The Committee had the memoranda some time before them. The Report was a long and exhaustive one, but I cannot say whether its consideration only occupied one sitting.
  MR. O'MARA: Was not the meeting to consider the Report called for the 24th, and did not the Committee report the same day?
  [No reply was given.]
  MR. O'MARA: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he can state how many visits the Board of Visitors made to Cooper's Hill College during 1900.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: Several visits were paid to Cooper's Hill in 1900 by members of the Board, but I cannot give the exact number.
  MR. BARTLEY: Is not a visitors' book kept?
  LORD. HAMILTON: I cannot say.
  MR. O'MARA: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he can inform the House who requested Colonel Ottley to prepare a new curriculum of studies and a new time-table for Cooper's Hill College; and what special qualifications did he have for this work.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: Colonel Ottley was informed when he became President that the existing system of instruction was not considered to be satisfactory and
  568
  required remodelling. Colonel Ottley has an unbroken experience of twenty-five years service in India in almost every department of civil engineering, and the special knowledge he thus obtained of the training and capacity of the young engineers working under him from Cooper's Hill pre-eminently qualified him to advise as to the special technical training required for the Public Works Department in India.
  MR. O'MARA: Am I to understand that the code of regulations, which provides that the President shall be assisted by the teachers in regulating the course of studies, is not carried out by the present President?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: I understand that Colonel Ottley has been in frequent communication with the teachers.

  INTERNATIONAL FISHERIES CONFERENCE.
  MR. NORMAN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether His Majesty's Government has the intention of taking any steps towards the reconvention of the International Fisheries j Conference of Stockholm.
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AEEAIRS (Viscount CRANBORNE,): It is not at present proposed that the conference should reassemble. As the House was informed on the 22nd ultimo in reply to the hon. Member for South Islington, His Majesty's Government had inquired when the Provisional Committee consisting of experts, the meeting of whom had been postponed, would be called together. His Majesty's Government have since been informed that the Provisional Committee will meet at some date in May not yet fixed.

  CHINESE TARIFFS.
  EARL PERCY: I beg-to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any Report was drawn up by the Commission appointed in 1899 by the Chinese Government to consider the question of the abolition of likin and the substitution of a revised tariff; and whether His Majesty's Government have been furnished with a copy of such Report; and, if so, whether they intend to publish its contents.
  *Viscount CRANBORNE: In December, 1899, Her Majesty's Minister reported that an Imperial Decree had been issued appointing two Chinese Commissioners to consider the question of tariff revision in consultation with Sir R. Hart. The decree, however, contained no reference to the abolition of likin. We have not heard that the Commission have made any report.

  IRISH TAXATION.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can state the ratio of direct and indirect taxation in Great Britain and Ireland respectively.
  SIR; M. HICKS BEACH: I would refer the hon. Member to House of Commons Paper 336 of 1900 (Revenue and Expenditure — England, Scotland, and Ire land), which contains full particulars of the amounts and proportions of the various heads of revenue. I should not like to bind myself to any statement of the precise ratio between direct and indirect taxation in the two countries respectively, because, as I have often explained, the division between them of the proceeds of indirect taxation cannot be considered statistically accurate.
  MR. FIELD: But is it not the fact that the ratio of indirect taxation in Ireland is much higher than it is in Great Britain?
  SIR. M. HICKS BEACH: That I have no doubt of.
  MR. FLYNN: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear that fact in mind in preparing his Budget?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I think hon. Members take very good care that we shall not forget it.

  POLICE PENSION STATISTICS.
  MR. PARKER SMITH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can state (1) the total amount of the income of the police pension funds in England and Wales (excluding the metropolis) for the financial year] 1898–9; (2) how much of this was derived from stoppages of pay; (3) how much from Exchequer contribution; (4) and how much from other sources; and (5) what was
  570
  the total expenditure for the same year; and (6) what was the deficiency.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. RITCHIE,): The figures respectively: -'(1) £363,602 Is. 4d. £59,777 18s. 3d.; (3) £160,944 14s. £141,279 9s. Id.; (5) £370,217 12s. (6) £7,615 l1s. 3d.

  HOUSE PAINTERS AND LEAD POISONING.
  MR. COGHILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the death of Richard Edwards, a house painter, of 33, Pinnox Street, Tunstall, caused, as a coroner's jury found, by lead poisoning: and whether he proposes to introduce any legislation for the protection of house painters from lead poisoning.
  *MR. RITCHIE: I have inquired into the case and find that it does not come within any Acts which I have to administer; and I do not see my way to proposing any such legislation as is suggested.

  LONDON SCHOOL BOARD— REHOUSING POLICY.
  MR. HAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the fact that the London School Board has acquired houses occupied by persons of the working class in Gopsall Street, New North Road, and has thereby displaced 350 persons of the poorer labouring class; and whether any provision has been made, or is proposed to lie made, for the rehousing of the persons displaced.
  *MR. RITCHIE: The displacement to which I understand my hon. friend refers took place several years ago. It is included amongst the displacements in respect of winch my predecessor placed upon the School Board an obligation to rehouse by a special clause which he secured in a Provisional Order Confirmation Bill in 1899. The question of the amount of accommodation to be provided is the subject of correspondence between my Department and the School Board. I may add that the number of persons mentioned by my hon. friend does not

  571
  tally with the best estimates at my disposal.

  RAILWAY RATES FOR AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that one ton of potatoes delivered in London (Borough) Market from Germany costs 6s., whilst one ton of potatoes from Bexley, Kent, costs from 9s. to 10s.; whether he will inquire into this preferential treatment to foreign importers; and whether the same ratio is preserved in through rates for foreign goods imported into Ireland.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD of TRADE (MR. GERALD BALFOUR,): No, Sir; I doubt much the accuracy of the figures quoted by the hon. Member. I should be surprised if the cost of a ton of potatoes were lower than 70s. a ton in the London market whatever their origin. As regards railway rates I have intimated before that the Board of Trade would be happy to deal with any specific complaint if it were laid before them in accordance with Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888, but it is not the business of the Department to make any general inquiry.

  CARRIAGE OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE TO LONDON BY ROAD.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that a movement is being promoted to have agricultural produce carried by road to London on account of the railway rates now imposed; and whether he will inquire into this matter.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have not heard of any new proposal of this kind. I should have thought it was common knowledge that large quantities of agricultural produce are daily brought into London by road. The practice appears to me to involve a healthy form of competition with railways and no inquiry is necessary.

  BREACHES OF THE COMPANY LAW
  SIR SEYMOUR KING: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the cases in which directors of public companies have failed to hold an annual meeting as provided by the articles of
  572
  association of their companies; whether he is aware that apparently no penalty attaches to the omission, and the only method left to an aggrieved shareholder is an action at law; and whether he will take some action to prevent these breaches of the law.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I think my hon. friend correctly states the position of the law and I am not at present prepared to amend it. I should like to say, however, that the Board of Trade put some indirect pressure upon companies by proceeding under Section 27 of the Companies Act, 1862, to enforce compliance with the law as to filing Returns.

  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL WATER BILL.
  MR. M'LAREN: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether the Government intend to persist in their opposition to the Water Bill of the London County Council.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (MR. WALTER LONG,): I see no reason to alter the views which I have already expressed with regard to this matter.

  MILK INSPECTION.
  MR. BRIGG: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board that, as there is a want of uniformity in the existing regulations now in force respecting the sale of milk, he will, on behalf of the Government, bring in as soon as possible a general Bill giving equal powers to all local authorities, obliging them to examine the milk sold within their respective areas, and to take uniform measures to ensure its purity.
  MR, WALTER LONG: I cannot give any pledge on this subject at the present time, but the matter is receiving my consideration.

  SECONDARY EDUCATION.
  MR. PYM: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education if he will state what practical steps have been taken since August, 1899, under the Board of Education Act, to organise the inspection of secondary schools or to set on foot a

  573
  register of teachers under Section I (a): and has the recent decision in Regina Cockerton had any effect on the action of the Board of Education in respect of re straining the teaching of science in higher grade schools; and, if so, of what kind.
  THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Sir J. GORST,): The inspection of secondary schools can only take place under the Act on their application: seven have been inspected, eighteen others have been arranged for, and thirty-eight applications are still under consideration. The duty of framing regulations for registration of teachers is entrusted by the Vet to the Consultative Committee, who, I understand, have been continuously engaged since their appointment in the performance of this task. The answer to the third question is in the negative.
  MR. PYM: How often does the Consultative Committee meet?
  SIR J. GORST: Pretty frequently; sometimes twice a week. I cannot say definitely without notice.

  IRISH GEOLOGICAL SURVEY.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether, in view of the fact that £9,000 per annum is granted for the support of the geological survey of England and Wales, and that the respective areas are England and Wales thirty-seven million acres, and Ireland twenty million acres, and seeing that instead of the £5,000 which Ireland should receive every year the average allowance for the past ten years has been under £2,500, this sum will be at once increased and supplemented by the balance due.
  SIR J. GORST: No; as the Government survey in Ireland has in the main been completed, whereas in England and Wales it has not, the sum required for England and Wales is necessarily larger than that required for Ireland.

  PALACE YARD—LIGHTING ARRANGE MENTS.
  SIR HENRY FOWLER: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he can improve the system of lighting the inside of Palace Yard in the same manner as that adopted on the, frontages to Parliament Square
  574
  and Bridge Street — namely, incandescent lamps.
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. AKERS DOUGLAS,): I should be glad to improve the lighting of Palace Yard, but the introduction of the incandescent system would involve certain alterations, for the cost of which there is no provision in the Estimates. I regret, therefore, that the matter must be postponed.

  VENTILATION OF THE DIVISION LOBBIES.
  COLONEL WELBY: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether lie can see his way to placing fan ventilators driven by electricity in the Division lobbies, especially in the portions of them between the Division Clerks' desks and the exits.
  MR. AKERS DOUGLAS: I propose to fix two fans as suggested in the Division lobbies, and, if possible, I will carry out the work during the Easter recess.

  MEMBERS' ACCOMMODATION.
  MR. HARWOOD: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works what increased accommodation has been given to the general body of the Members of this House out of the additional premises made over to the use of this House, and whether some improvement can be made in the Leading, Tea, and Smoking Rooms.
  MR. AKERS DOUGLAS: As I stated in answer to a similar inquiry during the discussion on the Supplementary Estimates on Thursday last, the allocation of the vacant rooms on the Terrace front will be referred to a Select Committee, and I will place the reference on the Paper to-night.

  POSTAL GOOD CONDUCT STRIPES— CLAIM OF LINESMEN.
  MR. PLATT-HIGGINS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, will lie explain on what grounds un established postmen with good characters receive a merit stripe carrying with it an increase of pay, whereas unestablished linesmen and mechanics are refused a similar privilege.
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN, Worcestershire, E.): The award of good conduct stripes to un established postmen who do a full day's work was made on the recommendation of the Tweedmouth Committee. The Committee made no such recommendation in regard to un established linesmen and mechanics; but the Postmaster General has directed an inquiry to be made into the question.

  WELSH TELEGRAPHIC ADDRESSES.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether there are any Post Office Regulations forbidding the use of a Welsh word as a registered telegraphic address; and, if so, will he state the reasons for such rules.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: There is no regulation directed specially against the Welsh language; but in view of certain practical difficulties the Department follows the regulations of the International Convention relating to code which prescribe words of ten letters drawn from certain languages; and these languages do not include Welsh. As there is no context in abbreviated addresses to help the telegraphists in their transmission it is extremely desirable that the words selected for such addresses should be words which can be telegraphed everywhere without difficulty; but, if the hon. Member knows of any case where inconvenience has been caused by the rejection of a Welsh word, the Postmaster General will be glad to consider whether the word can be accepted for registration without undue risk of error or difficulty in the transmission of the telegrams.

  POSTMEN AND THE CENSUS.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether, seeing that it has been the practice on the occasion of the taking of the census in the past to allow postmen and other postal officials to act as enumerators, on the understanding that their postal duties are not neglected, the same privilege will be accorded at the forthcoming census.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: It is the fact that persons in the employment of the Post Office have in past years been allowed to act as enumerators for the census. Such duties are, however, now considered to be incompatible with the ordinary duties of an established servant of the Post Office, and no such established servant can be allowed to act as an enumerator. Persons not established and not performing a full day's duty for the Post Office may act as enumerators, provided that their ordinary work is not interfered with.

  RELATIVES ON POSTAL STAFFS.
  MR. GODDARD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he will state the practice of the Department in regard to near relatives holding appointments on the same staff; and whether it is customary for exceptions to be made; and, if so, for what reason.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Department regards it as unsatisfactory that an officer should have to supervise members of his family, and although exceptions have sometimes to be permitted it is not customary to make them. When such an exception is made it would be owing to the absence of any other suitable person in the office.

  IRISH WORKHOUSE DIETARY.
  MR. DALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the change made in the diet of the inmates of workhouses in Ireland last year, while imposing 20 to 30 per cent, of an increase in the cost of keeping of each inmate, is not satisfactory to boards of guardians or the inmates; and whether he will leave this question for settlement by the guardians and the medical officer of the workhouse, and not have the fixed rule laid down by the Local Government Board some time since, and which medical officers were directed privately by the Board to have carried out.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,): Recent changes in the diet of inmates of workhouses, made in accordance with the suggestions of the Local Government Board, have not imposed an increase of 30 per cent, in the cost of maintenance. Since

  577
  the issue of the Board's circular, the cost of maintenance in Irish workhouses has increased from 3s. 2d. per head to 3s. 2¾d. The Board has not laid down any fixed rule to govern the dietary of workhouse inmates beyond the minimum scale prescribed by the Workhouse Rules of 1849. Less than this scale could not lie allowed, because it would be insufficient to maintain life. The circular of the 13th November, 1899, to which presumably the hon. Member refers, suggested a revision of the existing dietaries on more varied lines, so far as children are concerned. The workhouse medical officers were not directed privately to have the suggestions carried out. The guardians of many unions have shown unwillingness to incur increased expenditure in this matter, but if the improved dietary has not been satisfactory to the inmates in any instances, the Board believes it must be upon the ground that the improvement has not been sufficient.
  MR. DALY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Visiting Committee of the Carrickmacross Workhouse has intimated that it is not satisfied with the new dietary, which is costing the rates of the union several hundred pounds additional?

  ENNISCORTHY ASYLUM LOAN.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can say what is the reason for the delay of the Treasury in advancing the money for the loan to the County Wexford County Council in respect of the works the council had to carry out at Enniscorthy Asylum, and how soon will the balance of the loan be paid to the council, so as to enable them to pay their contractor the sum of money due to him.
  MR. WYNDHAM: On the 14th December last the Wexford County Council applied to the Board of Works for a loan of £1,500 in respect of works at the District Asylum, and on the 20th December the Board asked the Secretary to the Council to furnish certain information on a printed form, a copy of which was enclosed. This information, without which a loan cannot be made, has not yet been supplied to the Board; any delay, therefore, cannot, be fairly attributed either to the Hoard of Works or to the Treasury.

  SALARIES OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the criticisms passed by the Court of Appeal in Ireland on the action of the Local Government Board towards the County Council of Wexford in fixing the salaries of certain existing local officers transferred to the new local authorities created by the Local Government (Ireland) Act, he will, as President of the Local Government Board for Ireland, consider the expediency, before any fixing of salaries by the Local Government Board takes place in future, of holding-local inquiries at which the officers and the councils concerned may be heard in open court.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The Board will be happy to hold inquiries in such cases if the councils so desire it; but it is obligatory on the Board under the Local Government Act to charge the entire cost of these inquiries to the county councils. The Board propose before making fresh orders to invite the councils and officers to give their views in writing upon each case, but they will at the same time intimate to the councils that if they would prefer to submit their views at a local inquiry, an inquiry will accordingly be held.
  MR. CULLINAN: It having been decided that the Local Government Board was wrong in this matter, will the authorities not enable the local boards to have inquiries without expense?
  MR. WVNDHAM: I have explained what the law is.

  LAND LOANS IN COUNTY WEXFORD.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that advances under the Land Purchase Acts, 1891–6, in the county of Wexford are suspended owing to the number of holdings purchased in that county; whether this suspension applies to agreements already sanctioned; to cases where the agreements have been lodged but have not yet been sanctioned; and to eases where two or three holdings on estates, where the remainder of the holdings have been sold, remaid unsold; and can he state what steps the Government

  579
  intend to take to enable the occupiers in county Wexford to purchase their holdings.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Advances under the Land Purchase Acts have been suspended in county Wexford pending the result of inquiries now being made to ascertain whether the limit of advances of guaranteed land stock fixed by the Act of 1891 has been reached in that county. The suspension applies to each class of the cases mentioned in the second paragraph. Pending the result of these inquiries, I am not in a position to make, any statement of policy.

  IRISH NATIONAL EDUCATION BOARD.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if He can furnish a Return showing how the members of the present National Education Hoard in Ireland are appointed, and the age, profession, and date of appointment of the different members.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The Commissioners of National Education are appointed by the Lord Lieutenant pursuant to the Royal Charter of incorporation. A list of the names of the Commissioners with the dates of their appointments will be found in the last Annual Report of the Board. Their professions and attainments are well known. There are no further materials which could be included in a. Return, and I am unable therefore to consent it.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: Cannot the wishes of the Irish people be consulted in making appointments to this important post?
  [No answer was returned.]

  IRISH SEALED LOCAL GOVERNMENT ORDERS.
  MR. M'GOVERN: I beg-to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state what steps the Local Government Board are going to take to rectify the errors they have made in issuing sealed orders and circulars in excess of their authority: and will they allow the county councils which they illegally compelled to increase the salaries of their officials to reconsider these salaries.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The Local Government Board has not issued orders in excess of its authority. Its authority is very clearly defined in Section 115 (Subsection 18) of the Local Government Act. The Court of Appeal decided that the preliminary steps taken by the Board to determine the amount in each case were informal, and quashed the orders on that ground. The authority of the Board to determine the increases was not mentioned by the Court. The Board, need I say, is prepared to acquiesce in the decision of the Court of Appeal in respect of every other case in which the orders are brought up on a writ of certiorari. It will make new orders in all such cases, and base its decision in each case upon the lines indicated by the Court of Appeal.
  MR. FLAVIN: Will the county councils have liberty to reconsider?
  MR. WYNDHAM: It is not possible to begin de novo in cases where an agreement has been arrived at.
  MR. FLAVIN: May I point out—
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member must not comment on the answer.
  MR. FLAVIN: I beg to give notice that I will put another question down; yes, and I will ask it, too.

  IRISH LOCAL GOVERNMENT AUDITORS.
  *MR. JOHN O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the auditors appointed by the Local Government Board for Ireland are in receipt of an annual salary or other remuneration apart from what they receive from the District Asylum Committees; and, if so, what is the average amount paid to each per year.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The auditors are not in receipt of any salary or remuneration from the District Asylum Committees, or from any other local bodies. Their salaries are paid direct from the Local Government Board Vote, and the Board is required to assess such fees for the audit of the accounts of local bodies as will partly recoup the Treasury for the amount of their salaries, expenses, and

  581
  superammuations. The present scale of salary is from £400 to £700 per annum by quinquennial increments of £100, An additional annual allowance of £100 is granted to auditors engaged on county audits.

  ASYLUM COMMITTEES' ACCOUNTS AUDITS.
  MR. JOHN O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Asylum Committees throughout Ireland have been compelled by sealed order of t lie Local Government Board within the past year to pay a sum of £30 for the auditing of the accounts of these bodies, instead of £24 10s, paid annually up to that time; and whether he will take any steps to free the taxpayers from t his charge.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Ii is not a fact that the charge for auditing asylum accounts is now, in every case, £30, or that such charge was formerly £24 10s. in every case. The Board is now obliged to audit these accounts half yearly instead of yearly as formerly, and is under a statutory obligation to recover the cost of such audit. The fees assessed are such as will enable the Hoard to recoup the Treasury for the additional expense involved by two audits in each year.

  LAND PURCHASE IN COUNTY GALWAY.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the owner of the town-land of Madusflynn, parish of Cahirlustraun, barony of Clare, Galway, has entered into negotiations with some of his tenants! to sell them their holdings; that these small tenants are willing to buy provided the owner also sells them a grass farm now held by a non resident grazier who takes in grazing stock, and that they are willing to pay as much as the grazier; whether, in these circumstances, the Land Commission will insist, before advancing money for the purchase of the grass farm, that the whole or part of the grass farm should be divided among the small tenants; and whether, in the many similar cases which exist in Galway and Mayo, some effort will be made in this direction.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Agreements between the Rev. Mr. Gabbett and his tenants for the purchase by them of their holdings, which comprise the entire town-land mentioned, have been received in the Irish Land Commission, and advances have been provisionally sanctioned in all the eases. The Commissioners have no knowledge of the matters referred to in the first part of the question. In answer to the second and third paragraphs, the Commissioners can only consider applications for advances under the Land Purchase Acts on the joint application of landlords and tenants.

  IRISH TEACHERS' RESULT FEES.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland will he explain why Irish teachers, whose schools were examined in October last, have not yet been paid the equivalent for results fees.
  MR. WYNDHAM: If the names are supplied of the schools examined in October to which the equivalent for results fees has not yet been paid, inquiry will be made and an explanation given.

  SHEEP WORRYING BY DOGS IN IRELAND.
  MR. DELANEY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether there has come under notice of the Irish Executive the widespread losses sustained by sheep owners from the ravages of dogs; and whether the Government will consider the advisability of introducing legislation enabling owners of sheep in Ireland lo receive compensation for such losses out of the Irish dog tax fund.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The attention of Government has been directed to the losses sustained by sheep owners in consequence of the worrying of their stock by dogs. The police have instructions to render every assistance in tracing the owners of dogs causing such injuries. With regard to the suggestion in the last paragraph, the hon. Member does not appear to be aware that the proceeds of the dog licence duty in Ireland, after the deduction of expenses, are paid over to the local authorities in counties and boroughs in aid of local rates. I do not think these authorities would be willing to apply the money so received by them

  583
  to the payment of compensation to sheep owners. The manner in which the dog licence duty is distributed in Ireland will be found set forth in Parliamentary Paper No. 212 of last year.
  MR. FIELD: Will the right hon. Gentleman instruct the police to look after this matter, in view of the enormous loss sustained by sheep owners?
  MR. WYNDHAM: The Royal Irish Constabulary have been instructed to give every assistance in tracing the owners of dogs.
  MR. DELANEY: Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer increase the dog licence duty?
  [No answer was given.]

  ULSTER WINTER ASSIZES.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland if he can explain why the original promise to hold the Ulster winter assizes every fourth year has not been fulfilled; and whether he can now undertake that the winter assizes will be held in Armagh every fourth year.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (MR. ATKINSON, Londonderry, N.): I am not aware that the promise mentioned was ever made. Having regard to the fact that the selection of the venue for the winter | assizes must depend each year on a number of changing circumstances, I do not think it should be made, and I am, therefore, unable to make it on this occasion.

  IRISH LAND FINANCE.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I beg to ask MR. Attorney General for Ireland whether, in the 123rd Table of the Appendices to the Report of the Irish Land Commission, the following figures are correct, namely: Amount of Guaranteed Land Stock issued, £269,334; price fixed by Land Judge £285,322; amount paid in cash by the tenant, £15,995; and, if correct, what is the explanation as to the amount paid in cash by the purchasing tenants over and above the amount certified by the Land Commission.
  MR. ATKINSON: The explanation asked for is as follows: In sonic instances
  584
  the Land Commission is unable to advance the entire price fixed by thorn because it would exceed the limit of £3,000; or because there is timber or bog on the holding which, though valuable, might be removed by the purchaser and would not therefore remain as a security to the State; or because the buildings, though valuable, are unsuitable to the holding as an agricultural holding: or because, in order to prevent the hearing by the Land Judge on the report being adjourned till the receiver had collected all arrears for rents due, a sum is added to the price in respect of those arrears.

  IRISH FRANCISCAN MSS.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he can state when the manuscripts of the Irish Franciscans, now being published by the Historical Manuscripts Commission, will be printed and circulated.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The greater and most important part of the Report on the Franciscan Manuscripts is now completed, and the printing of it will be proceeded with at once. Owing to various causes, the completion of the concluding part has been much delayed, but this also is expected to be in the printer's hands within a few weeks. The Report, therefore, will in all probability be ready for presentation during the present Parliamentary session.

  CASHEL POSTAL MESSENGER.
  MR. CULLINAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether his attention has been directed to the dismissal of a postal messenger, named John O'Brien, in Golden sub-district, Cashel district, in the county Tipperary, on a report furnished by the sub-office official without any inquiry; whether he is aware that O'Brien had, a short time before the date of the report, received a good conduct badge and increased pay after twenty years service; whether any part of his duty was neglected on the occasion of the report; and, whether, in compliance with the wishes of the people of the entire district, as expressed in petition, he can see his way to order the reinstatement of O'Brien, or grant an open inquiry into the circumstances of his dismissal.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The case of John O'Brien, late a rural

  585
  postman between Thomastown and Golden, Cashel, who was dismissed in December last after being for the fourth time reported for intoxication, was the subject of full inquiry and consideration by the Postmaster General before his dismissal was decided upon. It is the fact that in October last his good conduct stripe, of which he had been deprived in l893 (when he was for the third time reported for intoxication), was restored to him. While he was not absolutely incapable of performing his work on the last occasion on which he was under the influence of drink whilst on duty, the Postmaster General is of opinion that, having regard to his previous record, he could not be allowed to remain in the service. It is not desirable to reinstate him, and it is not proposed to reopen the case.

  ROYAL DECLARATION AGAINST ROMAN CATHOLICISM—CORONATION OATH.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to the resolution of the Canadian House of Commons praying for a modification of the Royal Declaration; and whether before he returns any answer other than an unqualified adhesion to the resolution, he will afford the House of Commons an opportunity of considering the Canadian demand.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I have seer, press telegrams reporting the passing of the resolution to which the lion. Member refers, but I have received no communication from the Dominion Government on the subject. The latter part of the question should be addressed to the First Lord of the Treasury.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if his attention has been drawn to a resolution of the Tuam Board of Guardians condemnatory of the Oath taken by the Sovereign on the accession; and whether the request of this Board and similar public bodies in Ireland for the modification of the Royal Declaration will be acceded to.
  The following questions on the same subject also appeared on the Paper;—
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been
  586
  called to the resolution against the present form of the King's Accession Oath, passed by an overwhelming majority in the Dominion Parliament at Ottawa; and whether an opportunity will be given the House of Commons of debating and voting upon the same subject.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury if his attention has been called to a resolution passed by the Clare Grand Jury calling on Parliament to abolish the present King's Accession Oath as far as it deals with the Roman Catholic religion; whether, on receiving this resolution, the Irish Lord Chief Justice said he was glad it had been passed; and whether the Government will take any steps in the matter.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, having regard to the resolution passed by the Parliament of Canada in deprecation of that part of the Coronation Oath which is offensive to the religious feelings of the Catholics of the Empire, he will introduce a Bill to excise from the Oath that part of it which is an insult to His Majesty's Catholic subjects.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: These questions relate to a matter on which I have already given several answers. I have really nothing to add to what I have already stated. My view, as I have already intimated to the House, is that the language in which the Oath referred to is couched is very unfortunate. I am not surprised that the form of the Oath as distinguished from the substance should have given pain to the Roman Catholic subjects of His Majesty; but what I want to point out to the House is, that the Oath will not have to be taken again during the present reign, and I do not think it is the habit of any Government to give pledges as to legislation beyond the session in which they are engaged.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he could not undertake to devote the small space of time necessary to amend the statute this session?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: What evidence has the hon. Gentleman to support his statement that the time would be small? If the proportion of time taken by his

  587
  friends in discussing the Supplementary Estimates is any indication, I do not think it would be small.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: The right hon. Gentleman has addressed a question to me, hut I presume it would he out of order to answer him and continue tin discussion.

  CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
  MR. LODER: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether any objection exists to varying the order in which the items of the Civil Service Supplementary Estimates are put down in different years, so that some of the more important Supplementary Votes may be taken first; and, if not, whether he will arrange for some change to be made in this respect next year.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have to say there is no objection, so far as I know, to the suggestion contained in the question, which is in entire accordance with the policy we have followed the last two years back, with regard to the order in which the Estimates are taken. As my hon. friend is aware, we have initiated the practice of putting down on the Vote on Account the Estimates which are most likely to attract the interest and attention of the House. We have, in regard to the ordinary Estimates of the year, taken care so to arrange them as to meet the general convenience of the House, and I see no reason why the same policy should not be extended to the Civil Service Supplementary Estimates.
  MR. DILLON: Will the right hon. Gentleman give a pledge to adhere to the practice of not altering the order of tin Votes without a general consultation with the different sections of the House?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: T do not know what the hon. Member means by "general consultation." I have endeavoured always to meet the views of the House at large, and especially of the opponents of the Government.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
MR. COURTENAY WARNER: Are we to understand that the business on Monday next will be the continuation of the debate on the Army Estimates?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes. I should imagine that the debate initiated on
588
Friday night will not be concluded on that day, and, if so, we propose to continue it on Monday, unless unforeseen circumstances should arise which necessitate the taking of other business.
MR. LOUGH: When is it proposed to renew the debate on the Civil Service Supplementary Estimates?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: On Thursday, after the motion relating to the Civil List.
MR. COURTENAY WARNER: I should like to point out that it has usually been the practice to allow a day or two to elapse between the making of the War Secretary's statement and the further consideration of the Estimate. That was my reason for asking.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES) (CHAIRMEN'S PANEL).
Mr. HALSEYreported from the Committee of Selection that they had selected the following six Members to he the Chairmen's Panel and to serve as Chairmen of the two Standing Committees to be appointed under Standing Order No. 47;—Mr. John Ellis, Sir James Fergusson, Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice, Mr. Laurence Hardy, Colonel Nolan, and Mr. Stuart-Wortley.
Report to lie upon the Table.

MESSAGE FROM HIS MAJESTY (HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN AND MEMBERS OE HIS MAJESTY'S FAMILY).
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: (at the Bar) acquainted the House that he had a Message from the King to this House signed by His Majesty's own hand.
And he presented the same to the House, and it was read by Mr. SPEAKER (all the Members being uncovered), and is as followeth:—

EDWARD R.
"His Majesty being desirous of making competent provision for the honourable support and maintenance of His Son, the Duke of Cornwall and York, His Daughter-in-law, the Duchess of Cornwall and York, and his Daughters, the Princess Louise, Duchess of Fife, the Princess Victoria, and Princess Charles of Denmark, and being further desirous

589
that similar provision should be made for Her Majesty the Queen in the, event of Her surviving Him, and for the Duchess of Cornwall and York in tin event of Her surviving the Duke of Cornwall and York, recommends the consideration thereof to His Majesty's faithful Commons, and relies on their attachment to adopt such measures as may be suitable to the occasion."

LONDON UNDERGROUND RAILWAYS.
That they have come to the following resolution, viz.:—
"That it is desirable that a Select Committee be appointed to join with Committee of the House of Commons to consider and report:—

1. Whether the lines of route for underground railways in and near London, proposed by Bills which have been or may be introduced during the present Session, are best calculated to afford facilities for present and probable return traffic; and, if not, what modifications of those lines of route are desirable;

2.What special provision, if any, should be made for the protection of the owners, lessees, and occupiers of properties adjacent to underground railways from possible damage and annoyance;

3. What special terms and conditions, if any, as to the construction and working should be imposed upon the promoters;

4. Whether any, and which, of the schemes proposed by the said Rills should not be proceeded with during the present Session."

NEW BILLS.
  WATER COMPANIES (LIABILITY FOR STORAGE OF WATER).
  Bill to amend the Law relating to the liability of Water Companies for the Storage of Water, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Sinclair, Major Rasch, Mr. Rentoul, Mr. Flynn, and Mr. A. Thomas.
  WATER COMPANIES (LIABILITY FOR STORAGE OF WATER) BILL.
  "To amend the Law relating to the liability of Water Companies for the Storage of Water," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Tuesday, 19th March, and to be printed. [Bill 81.]
  EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY EXTENSION.
  Bill to amend the Acts relating to Employers' Liability, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Sinclair, Major Rasch, Mr. Rentoul, Mr. Boulnois, Mr. Flynn, and Mr. A. Thomas.
  EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY EXTENSION BILL.
  "To amend the Acts relating to Employers' Liability," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Tuesday, 19th March, and to be printed. [Bill 82.]
  LIGHTS ON VEHICLES.
  Bill to require Vehicles on highways to carry lamps at night, ordered to be brought in by Sir Robert Mowbray, Mr. Bryce, Mr. Grenfell, Sir John Leng, Mr. Scott Montagu, Mr. Wanklyn, and Sir Albert Rollit.
  LIGHTS ON VEHICLES BILL.
  To require Vehicles on highways to carry lamps at night," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second lime upon Thursday next, and to be printed. [Bill 83]
  FACTORY AND WORKSHOP ACT (1871) AMENDMENT.
  Bill to amend the Factory and Workshop Act, IS78, by reducing the period of employment on Saturday, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Harwood and Mr. Kenyon.
  FACTORY AND WORKSHOP ACT (1878) AMENDMENT BILL.
  "To amend the Factory and Workshop Act, 1878, by reducing the period of employment on Saturday," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Thursday, 21st March, and to be printed. [Bill 84.]

  RIVERS POLLUTION PREVENTION.
  Bill to make more effectual provision for the prevention of the Pollution of Rivers and Streams, ordered to be brought

  591
  In by Sir Francis Powell, Mr. Wilson-Todd, Mr. Henry Hobhouse, Sir John Dorington, Dr. Farquharson, Mr. Brigg, Sir John Brunner, and Sir Walter Foster.

  RIVERS POLLUTION PREVENTION BILL.
  "To make more effectual provision for the prevention of the Pollution of Rivers and Streams," presented, and read the first time to be read a second time upon Wednesday, [Bill 85.] 8th May, and to be printed.
  SUNDAY CLOSING (WALES) ACT (1881) AMENDMENT.
  Bill to amend the Sunday Closing (Wales) Act, 1881, and to make further provision respecting the sale of intoxicating liquors in Wales and Monmouthshire, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Herbert Roberts, Mr. Alfred Thomas, Mr. Lloyd-George, Mr. William Jones, and Mr. Herbert Lewis.
  SUNDAY CLOSING (WALES) ACT (1881) AMENDMENT BILL.
  "To amend the Sunday Closing (Wales) Act, 1881, and to make further provision respecting the sale of Intoxicating Liquors in Wales and Monmouthshire," presented, and read the first time to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 20th March, and to be printed. [Bill 86.]
  PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (MARINERS' VOTES).
  Bill to enable Officers and Seamen of the Royal Navy and Mercantile Marine and Fishermen to record their votes when by reason of their calling they will be at sea on the day of the poll, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Macdona, Sir John Colomb, Mr. Cust, Mr. David Morgan, Sir Seymour King, Mr. Firbank, and Sir Christopher Furness.
  PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (MARINERS' VOTES) BILL.
  "To enable Officers and Seamen of the Royal Navy and Mercantile Marine and Fishermen to record their votes when by reason of their calling they will be at sea on the day of the poll," presented, and read the first time to be read a second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 87.]

  SUPPLY.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]

  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMENTS, 1901–2 (VOTE ON ACCOUNT).
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "a sum, not exceeding £17,304,000, be granted to His Majesty, on account, for or towards defraying the Charges for the following Civil Services and Revenue Departments for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1902, namely:

  CIVIL SERVICES.

  Class IV.

  £

  Board of Education

  4,100,000

  Class II.

  Board of Trade

  60,000

  Class I.

  Royal Palaces and Marlborough House

  20,000

  Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens

  40,000

  Houses of Parliament Biddings

  16,000

  Gladstone Monument

  1,000

  Miscellaneous Legal Buildings, Great Britain

  18,000

  Art and Science Buildings, Great Britain

  12,000

  Diplomatic and Consular Buildings

  12,000

  Revenue Buildings

  140,000

  Public Buildings, Great Britain

  145,000

  Surveys of the United Kingdom

  80,000

  Harbours under the Board of Trade

  2,000

  Peterhead Harbour

  6,000

  Rates on Government Property

  250,000

  Public Works and Buildings, Ireland

  70,000

  Railways, Ireland

  70,000

  Class II.

  United Kingdom and England—

  House of Lords, Offices

  3,000

  House of Commons, Offices

  12,000

  Treasury and Subordinate Departments

  39,000

  Home Office

  50,000

  Foreign Office

  30,000

  Colonial Office

  23,000

  Privy Council Office, etc.

  5,000

  Privy Seal Office

  1,000

  Mercantile Marine Services

  30,000

  Bankruptcy Department of the Board of Trade

  3

  Board of Agriculture

  75,000

  Charity Commission

  15,000

  Civil Service Commission

  18,000

  Exchequer and Audit Department

  24,000

  Friendly Societies Registry

  2,200

  Local Government Board

  85,000

  593

  Lunacy Commission

  5,000

  Mint (including Coinage)

  10

  National Debt Office

  6,000

  Public Record Office

  11,000

  Public Works Loan Commission

  5

  Registrar General's Office

  130,000

  Stationery and Printing

  280,000

  Woods, Forests, etc., Office of

  8,000

  Works and Public Buildings, Office of

  23,000

  Secret Service

  40,000

  Scotland:—

  Secretary for Scotland

  25,500

  Fishery Board

  8,000

  Lunacy Commission

  2,500

  Registrar General's Office

  28,000

  Local Government Board

  5,00O

  Ireland: —

  Lord Lieutenant's Household

  2,000

  Chief Secretary and Subordinate Departments

  16,000

  Departments of Agriculture

  70,000

  Charitable Donations and Bequests Office

  1,000

  Local Government Board

  20,000

  Public Record Office

  2,000

  Public Works Office

  16,000

  Registrar General's Office

  20,000

  Valuation and Boundary Survey

  6,000

  Class III.

  Tinted Kingdom and England:—

  Law Charges

  40,000

  Miscellaneous Legal Expenses

  27,000

  Supreme Court of Judicature

  140,000

  Land Registry

  14,000

  County Courts

  14,000

  Police, England and Wales

  22,000

  Prisons, England and the Colonies

  260,000

  Reformatory and Industrial Schools, Great Britain

  140,000

  Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum

  18,000

  Scotland —

  Law Charges and Courts of Law

  30,000

  Register House, Edinburgh

  15,000

  Crofters Commission

  2,000

  Prisons, Scotland

  30,000

  Ireland:—

  Law Charges and Criminal Prosecutions

  35,000

  Supreme Court of Judicature, and other Legal Departments

  45,000

  Land Commission

  50,000

  County Court Officers, etc.

  46,000

  Dublin Metropolitan Police

  40,000

  Loyal Irish Constabulary

  600,000

  Prisons, Ireland

  45,000

  Reformatory and Industrial Schools

  55,500

  Dundrum Criminal Lunatic Asylum

  3,500

  Class IV.

  United Kingdom and England:—

  British Museum

  80,000

  National Gallery

  9,000

  National Portrait Gallery

  3,000

  Wallace Collection

  4,000

  594

  Scientific Investigation, etc., United Kingdom

  25,000

  Universities and Colleges, Great Britain, and Intermediate Education, Wales

  41,000

  Scotland:—

  Public Education

  650,000

  National Gallery

  1,400

  Ireland:—

  Public Education

  600,000

  Endowed Schools Commissioners

  400

  National Gallery

  1,400

  Queen's Colleges

  2,500

  Class V.

  Diplomatic and Consular Services

  225,000

  Uganda, Central and East Africa Protectorates and Uganda Railway

  320,000

  Colonial Services

  230,000

  Cyprus, Grant in Aid

  15,000

  Subsidies to Telegraph Companies

  50,000

  Class VI

  Superannuation and Retired Allowances

  280,000

  Merchant Seamen's Fund Pensions, etc

  3,000

  Miscellaneous Charitable and other Allowances

  1,000

  Hospitals and Charities, Ireland

  17,000

  Class VII.

  Temporary Commissions

  10,082

  Miscellaneous Expenses

  8,000

  £10,434,000

  Revenue Departments.

  Customs

  350,000

  Inland Revenue

  830,000

  Post Office

  3,800,000

  Post Office Packet Service

  210,000

  Post Office Telegraphs

  1,680,000

  Total for Revenue Departments

  £ 6,870,000

  Grand Total

  £17,304,000

  *MR. YOXALLSaid that during the last twelve mouths they had had in the administration of the Board of Education a very serious departure from those principles which had been laid down in the past in this House and a very serious blow had been struck at the integrity and efficiency of the higher elementary school work of this realm. He found that, in January, 1899. Little more than two years ago, the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education made a statement which was then, and was now, he believed, in consonance with the wishes of the

  595
  House and the desires of the country. He would quote that statement and then proceed to show the Committee to what extent and in what manner the administration of the Board of Education had departed from the sound principles laid down by the Minister in charge himself. Speaking at Bradford, the right hon. Gentleman said that "he thought that it would be a most unfortunate thing if the hoard schools, the higher elementary schools, and the schools of science in the large cities were in any way interfered with." He had to submit to the Committee that the operations of the school boards in the great cities of the country in their higher grade schools and schools of science had been very seriously interfered with by the Board of Education under the administration of the right lion, Gentleman himself.
  The Committee would remember that little more than twelve months ago a great amount of feeling was manifested in the House upon the question of higher elementary school work. A new principle of allocating the Parliamentary grant to elementary schools had been brought in. And one consequential feature of it was, that the schools which bad previously received the highest grants were by the levelling system cut down in tin amount which they drew from the grant. A formidable agitation grew up in the country that the higher grade schools were being unjustly treated, and in March, 1900, the Government, through the mouthpiece of the right hon. Gentleman, announced a compromise and promised to put organised schools and higher grade schools on a legal and legitimate footing. That promise had not been carried out, and the Higher Elementary School Minute, adopted in April last with general approval of the House, at a time when the feeling of hon. Members of all sections was so strong, had not been adhered to, and in spirit, if not in letter, that Minute had become something like an administrative fraud. He must go back further than twelve months ago in order to deal with the whole question of the attack on higher grade schools, which, if not initiated and not favoured, bad at least been not repudiated by the Board of Education, and by the right hon. Gentleman himself. This attack had grown and grown
  596
  Until the higher grade schools and the organised science schools were in great peril. The evening continuation schools were in greater peril, and the machinery set up in April last had been nullified and stultified by the Board of Education itself. Four years ago, by the enter prise of many school boards, schools had been set up something after the pattern of Les Ecoles Primaires Superieures in France, and the higher grade schools in Germany. These schools were fostered and encouraged by the Board of Education, grants were given to them, and expression of satisfaction were made regarding the work done by them. The Vice-President of the Council went down to the country to open these schools sometimes all official from the Board of Education itself performed that duly, and, generally speaking, the policy of the Department was to foster and encourage, approve and improve these schools. But a change came over that policy. Schools which had been built by school boards, some of them on the invitation even of the Board of Education, for the express purpose of giving this higher grade education, were refused grants when application was made for them by the school hoards. Money laid out in furnishing physical and chemical laboratories, and in the preparation of rooms for drawing and other higher elementary work, became of non-effect and all this was done by the order of the Board of Education under the right hon. Gentleman.
  Now, the Board of Education existed by the will of the people of this country. And the right hon. Gentleman himself, as its head, existed to promote and not to retard education and it there were any gentlemen on the Board of Education who were of opinion that education was to be kept at a standstill, marking time, so to speak, and that what was regarded as a satisfactory amount of education twenty-five years ago was sufficient now, then they entirely misinterpreted the feeling of the House and the country. Those higher grade schools were fulfilling an admirable function. They were not very numerous, only some sixty in all, but, such as they were, they were preparing lads of from thirteen to sixteen years of age to enter the technical

  597
  Schools and colleges of the country with that preliminary knowledge which the director's of these schools and colleges found to be non-existent formerly. They were preparing these lads to become captains of industry, managers, foremen, draftsmen, chemists, and leaders of the industrial classes. If one lesson was to be gained from the Reports of Royal Commissions and private investigators as to the condition of things in France, Germany, Belgium, Holland, and America, it was that the cause that the success of the manufacturing processes in these countries, compared with our own, consisted in the higher education of foremen, managers, leaders, etc. The higher education of the great mass of the operatives was comparatively unimportant to that. The higher grade schools and the schools of science existed for providing an education of that kind, which was vitally necessary to the continued existence of the manufacturing industries of this country. The change had begun through the action of an institution that had been condemned both in the House and in the country— the old Science and Art Department at South Kensington. When the Board of Education issued a Day School Code, it had to lie on the Table of the House for a certain number of days, and could be upset by the vote of the House: but this Science and Art Department had had the extraordinary power of being able to issue their own rules and regulations without consulting the House or laying them on the Table at all.
  The reactionary, foolish, almost criminal policy of hampering the schools appeared to have found a ready supporter in the right hon. The Vice-President of the Council. The first step taken was to disable school boards from receiving Science and Art grants for science and art classes and organised science schools. But grants were given to all sorts of unimportant and unrepresentative bodies in fact, to any committee of two or three gentlemen, if only they could get sonic little local support in the way of fees or subscriptions. Ordinary grammar schools maintained very largely by endowments, and proprietary schools run as a commercial concern for profit, might apply for these science grants and
  598
  Get them but by a ukase of this self-constituted and independent section of the Board of Education, issued last year, school boards might not make application for grants to their schools except Upon conditions. They must find local support in the shape of fees, which was opposed entirely to the policy of tree education, or they must obtain support from a rate levied under the Technical Instruction Act. Now the Department knew that very few local authorities rated themselves under the Technical Instruction Act. They did not sec the use of doing that when there was a school rate already drawn by the same authority from the same ratepayer.
  The policy was first of all to disable the school boards from obtaining Science and Art grants for their schools. That being done by the autocratic procedure of the Board of Education, the next step was to disable the school boards from making up this loss by preventing them from using the school board rate for the purposes of higher education.
  Having succeeded in disabling the school boards from participating in Science and Art grants, except on condition of charging fees, the next step was to prevent the boards from using the school board rate. The result was that a School of Art in North London, a relic of the era of philanthropic enterprise, drew the attention of the Local Government Board to the expenditure of the London School Board in science and art classes and evening continuation schools. The auditor, under the circumstances, was obliged to test the question raised, and it was desirable to know whether the Board of Education was represented at the audit, and whether the attention of the auditor was drawn to the past administration of the Board in that matter, and whether any care was taken by the Board to see that the auditor was fully informed upon the question from the point of view of public policy, and of law, and of the minutes having the force of law. The Committee would also wish to know whether the Board of Education made any representations. Or whether it did anything more than sit quiet and wait the decision of the law courts upon what had taken place. The case stood for appeal to a higher court, and meanwhile there was

  599
  the unseemly spectacle of the authority charged with the duty of providing higher elementary education compelled to go into the law courts and spend the money of the ratepayers in defending the right of the authority to give higher education. Last April the policy of the Government was to favour and encourage and to reward the higher elementary schools' efforts. What had the Board of Education done since last April to make the actions of the board schools legal by minutes or otherwise to make such administration applicable. Nothing had been done by the Board of Education, and, so long as the present policy existed, nothing would be done. It was significant that a committee had been formed to fight school boards on this question, and had for its chairman the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich, while another prominent member of the committee and associated with him was long the leader of the Moderate party on the London School Board, and now, he believed, Member for Aston. The result had been that the work of the school boards in regard to science classes had been paralysed. The work of evening continuation schools had been damaged irretrievably or retarded for years to come. The condition had been imposed that education should be confined to persons under sixteen, and as a consequence 150,000 persons in those schools last year would, if the decision were upheld, be ousted from that means of education.
  They had been told that the Higher Elementary School Minute would place science schools on a legal and legitimate footing, but he complained that out of 190 applications the Department had sanctioned only two in eleven months. The London School Board made application for the recognition of seventy-nine schools, in various localities of London, to which the most promising children of the elementary schools were to be drafted. All the principal school boards of the country, too, made application for recognition of higher elementary schools, and again and again they had failed. All sorts of pretexts had been made for the refusal of recognition. It had been impossible for the local authorities to please the Board of Education, and no school board in the country was
  600
  Satisfied with the way in which the Minute had been administered and hardly one but was disgusted with the administration of the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman, no doubt, would say he expected when this Minute was put forward that the ordinary science schools would be transformed into higher elementary schools, and would probably say that he was not to blame but that was not the opinion generally held. In an organised science school a boy might remain until the age of eighteen, but according to the Higher Elementary School Minute the moment he arrived at fifteen he had to leave. Other conditions laid down in the Minute made it impracticable, and the right hon. Gentle-man was warned at the time it was put forward that it would be so.
  All this indicated, he submitted, something like a deliberate policy, engineered by whom, and arising from what sources, he would not attempt to discuss. It was something like a deliberate policy to check the higher elementary education, nullify the efforts of the school boards, and change the whole policy of the country in respect to these schools, and the Committee ought to consider that such a policy was not the kind of work they expected the Board of Education to do, and not the kind of work for which money was voted in Committee for the Board of Education. Having disabled the school boards, having refused to recognise the higher elementary schools, having destroyed one useful set of machinery which had existed for twenty-four years, having refused to set up a new set of machinery, he could find no excuse for the course which the Board had pursued. From what quarter and from what machinery they were to get the higher primary school at all? There was no secondary education department set up by statute. The school boards had been refused power to set up these schools, and there was no authority capable of supplying them. Higher elementary education was to go by the board. They had to wait, he supposed, for higher primary schools to be built and managed by an authority not yet created. In the meantime the excellent work done up to now was hampered and arrested, and if the appeal in another place went against them it was to come entirely to

  601
  an end. The right hon. Gentleman the Vice-President of the Council would quibble, if he might use the term, between higher elementary schools and secondary schools, and distinguish between one authority and another, and east himself on the protection of the law. No doubt he would give a very plausible explanation of the whole circumstances, but the hon. Member would ask the Committee to remember that the net result of all these proceedings was bad. The right hon. Gentleman would tell them that the Government were limited at present by legal considerations. They had heard a good deal of that kind of thing from the right hon. Gentleman. There was nobody more eloquent and less operative than the right hon. Gentleman, but eloquent platitudes and amusing epigrams were poor food for the educational needs of the country.
  In moving that the Vote he reduced by £ 100 he asked the Committee to declare that the time had come when they wished the Education Board to make a serious attempt to provide for the people of the country that higher elementary education which they stood in need of, and which it was in the interests of the country they should have.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Item, Vote 1, Class 4 (Board of Education), be reduced by £ 100."— (Mr. Yoxall)
  THE VICE-PRESIDENT of the BOARD OF EDUCATION (Sir J. GORST,): The hon. Member who has just sat down complained of two things. First, he complained that school boards had not power to spend the school board rate upon, instruction outside the subjects of the Elementary Education Code in day schools and night schools; and, secondly, he complained that under the Higher Elementary School Minute of last year the school boards did not get large enough Exchequer grants for their higher elementary schools.
  Now it is quite true that these higher elementary schools sprang up almost immediately after the passing of the Elementary Education Act of 1870. They were not invented by either Governments or societies; they really sprang up by themselves. I do not think any
  602
  the worse of them for that, for such schools are better suited to meet the wants of the people than those invented for them by politicians. I want to ask the Committee to remember what the hon. Member has not explained as yet, that there are two absolutely different kinds of higher grade schools. In the first place, there are a number of higher grade schools which teach each of the subjects of the Elementary Day School Code. They were formerly under the Education Department. They were inspected by the officers of the Education Department, and they were subject to all the rules of the Education Department. I have very often been asked how many of this sort of schools there are. I am sorry to say that I have never been able to answer the question, because there is every kind of school in the shading off from the most elementary school in the country up to the very best of these higher grade schools, and every possible variation of schools between one extreme and the other which keep within the limits of the Elementary Day School Code. It is impossible to say where to draw the line and to say of the schools above. "These are higher grade schools." and of the schools below, "These are only ordinary elementary schools." But there is no doubt there are a very great number of them. The legality of these schools has never been called in question, nor has the right of the school board to spend the rates in building and maintaining such schools ever been called in question. The right to spend the rates on schools of this kind is not in any way affected or called in question by the recent judgment. But, besides these higher grade schools, of the legality of which there has never been any question, there is another kind of higher grade school which I will describe. It is a school which consists of two divisions— an upper division and a lower division. The lower division is a public elementary school it very generally takes the older children in the higher standards, it takes specific subjects, and it obtains its grants from the Education Department, and is conducted as an elementary school. The upper division is not a public elementary school at all it is, frankly, an organised school of science. It has no chil-

  603
  dren In the standards. It takes not the subjects of the Elementary Day School Code, but the science and art subjects of the Directory. It is inspected by the inspectors of the Science and Art Department, and it receives its grant from that Department. It is an organised science and not a public elementary school. Schools of this kind, of which there are about sixty or seventy in the country, are inspected by two distinct sets of inspectors. The Education Department inspector inspects the lower division and shuts his eyes to the existence of the higher division, of which he is not officially cognisant. The Science and Art Department inspector comes in his turn and inspects the other division. And closes his eyes to the existence of the lower division, with which he has officially nothing whatever to do. There is no inspection of these schools as a whole. There are no proper accounts kept of these schools as a whole, and they are kept as a sort of double institutions such as I have described. Schools of this kind have never been declared to be illegal either by the Education Department or by the judgment in the recent ease. There is no illegality in the establishment of such schools. The illegality is in the application of the school rate to the building or maintenance of the upper division of that school. That is not a new discovery of mine or of the Science and Art Department. It has been known ever since schools of this kind were conducted.
  I will just give the Committee an example or two of what was said in past times. I have here an official letter from the Education Department to the Barrow-in-Furness School Board, written in 1884, which says—
  "I am to point out that the provision of a separate school for science and art classes does not appear to come within the province of a school board."
  Then there is a letter from the Local Government Board to the London School Board, in November, 1885, when an auditor had disallowed an expenditure of the Board exactly analogous to that which was disallowed the other day. The Local Government Board says—
  "The School Board have no authority in law to establish or maintain a science and art school at the expense of the school fund,
  604
  Because that school is not an elementary school within the meaning of the Education Acts."
  Then there is a letter written to the London School Board in 1888, which says—
  "An organised science and art school is quite distinct from a public elementary school. In such a school the money paid by the Science and Art Department to the managers forms no part of the receipts or expenditure of the school as a public elementary school… The rates cannot legally be applied to supply instruction in any subject which is not recognised by the Code and taught to the children in the standards."
  I have another letter written, in 1888, by the Local Government Board to the Brighton School Board, who had also had their expenditure disallowed by their auditor upon similar grounds. It says—
  "The school board had no legal authority to pay out of the funds of the school board any part of the costs of establishing and maintaining an organised school of science, the school not being an elementary one within the meaning of the Education Acts."
  I find again, in 1892, a letter to the Hanley School Board, which says—
  "The higher section of the [higher grade] school organised as proposed and receiving grants from the Science and Art Department as an organised science school would not be a public elementary school, nor could the cost of the erection of the premises in which it was to be conducted be included in a loan sanctioned by this Department."
  I think that that will show that the expenditure of the school rate on the maintenance of schools like the upper department of this kind of upper grade school has all along been declared by the Education Department to be illegal, and the judgment given the other day only confirmed the statements of the. Department under every kind of Minister, from the time these schools were, established down to the present day. There was no difficulty about the buildings, because the schools were established in buildings which were already in existence, or which, in some cases, were given for the purpose.
  As regards maintenance, the schools were at the outset maintained not out of the school rate, but by fees and the Science and Art grants. Some of the school boards boasted not only that the schools were not a burden on the rates,

  605
  but that the ratepayers made a profit from the fact that the school board managed a school of this kind. I should like to establish what I have said by a quotation or two. The Brighton School Board writes, in lc887—
  "If the amount of the fees received is taken into account, it will he seen that a profit to the ratepayers has resulted."
  Before the Education Commission in 1884, Mr. Scotson, the headmaster of the Central Higher Grade School, Manchester, said, in answer to a question on this point, "It is practically more than self-supporting." He very frequently had more than £150 to distribute amongst the teachers, of which £50 used to go to himself. A great deal has been said in these controversies about the late Mr. Mundella's Circular in 1882, which undoubtedly encouraged the establishment of these schools. What did he say? I have never seen it quoted—
  "Under a well-organised system of graded schools the cost to the ratepayers need not be greater than it is now."
  MR. YOXALL: With the Science and Art grants.
  Sir J. GORST: Then Mr. Macarthy, the chairman of the Birmingham School Board, gave evidence before the Secondary Education Commission in 1895, and this is what he said—
  "I should like to say that the present Board secondary school can only rightly exist if, so far as its most ordinary work is concerned— namely, the real secondary work—it costs the local rates nothing. Practically, such schools are dependent on grants from the Science and Art Department."
  To show my bona fides in the matter, I may mention that in 1890, when I was comparatively new to this office, I wrote an article, on education, which appeared in the Nineteenth Century. That article was very much complained of on some accounts, but this particular passage was criticised by no one—
  "The Boards, as purveyors of higher educacation, allege that they make a profit which inures to the benefit of the ratepayers."
  That shows my bona fide belief of a few years ago, that the school rate was not spent on the maintenance of these schools, and that they were really not
  606
  Only self-supporting, but, in some cases, even a source of profit to the ratepayers.
  Then there is the question of buildings. That, of course, is the difficulty. A school board cannot raise a loan to build a school without obtaining the sanction of the Education Department to the loan. School boards from time to time applied for loans to build schools of this kind, but they were always told that it would not be legal to charge such loans upon the school rates. Yet, in spite of that, it is quite true that such schools have been built and the expenditure met out of loans charged on the school rate. I will illustrate what the modus operandi, generally, was. An application was made by the Brighton School Board for sanction to a loan for building a higher grade school, in which the upper portion should be a school of science. They were informed that such a use of the school board funds was illegal. That application was then withdrawn, and an application was made for a public elementary school giving science instruction under the Code, and having laboratories for that purpose. Sanction to that was given, the school was built, and was at once used not as a public elementary school, but as a school of science.
  MR. YOXALLwas understood to say that in the case of Hanley the building built with the loan referred to was a public elementary school and an organised school of science as well, but the main part of it was used for the purposes of the latter.
  SIR J. GORST: I will give the facts of that case. The Hanley School Board, in 1892, asked for sanction to a school which was to begin at Standard VII., and have a higher department as an organised science school. The Education Department replied that such a department would not be a public, elementary school, nor could the cost of the erection of the premises in which it was conducted be included in the loan sanctioned by the Department under the Elementary Education Acts. The school board replied withdrawing that part of the scheme, and saying that the chemical laboratory, art room, etc., would now be used for the instruction of children

  607
  In the standards of the Education Code. The loan was thereupon sanctioned. The school was opened on 24th May, 1804, and a school of science started in the building. Three years after there were 191 pupils in the organised science school, no science at all being taught to the children in the standards.
  MR. YOXALL: Will the right hon. Gentleman quote the figures for the school as a whole, or allow me to do so?
  Sir J. GORST: The hon. Member will have an opportunity afterwards; it is not germane to my argument. I am illustrating how it came about that although the Education Department said it was illegal, yet these schools were built. I will give another very recent ease which shows exactly how the thing is done. In February, 1899, when attention had been called to this illegality and everybody was aware of it, the Leeds School Board wrote for sanction to a building they required for science accommodation and intended for the use of scholars in the primary elementary schools taking the scientific subjects in accordance with the scheme of science laid down in the Code. The reply of the Education Department was this—
  "We understand the premises to he required for the purposes of a primary elementary school in which science is to he taught in accordance with the scheme laid down in the Code; that the science rooms are not more than sufficient for these purposes; that they will be used for these purposes; and upon that understanding we sanction the loan."
  That is clear enough. But this is what the school board say in their report eighteen months later—
  "The fine structure now in course of erection in Burton Street is to be the future home of the present Southern Higher Grade School',
  —which is a school of science. I thereupon directed a letter to the school board to ask how they reconciled the condition on which they accepted the sanction to the loan with this statement in their report, but I am sorry to say, although that letter was sent some time ago, they have not yet offered an explanation.
  The hon. Member in his speech said that if this judgment is affirmed on appeal it will not touch the buildings, because they are built and done with. But the judgment will, as the hon. Member
  608
  Pointed out, strike at the revenue of the schools. It will prevent the rates being any longer spent in the maintenance of these schools, which, I may say, nobody wishes to see injured or destroyed. The school boards will have three courses open to them. First of all they can return to the condition of things, if it is possible to return to it, which obtained in the early days of these schools; they can charge fees and make the schools self-supporting, as Mr. Mundella said they ought to be, with the provision of free places for children whose parents are unable to pay the fees, but who deserve to be educated in a school of this kind. The second possibility is, to come to terms with the local authority which has power to rate for this purpose. The hon. Member was very scornful about that. The real point is that the borough or urban council has power to lay a rate to be applied to this purpose.
  Mr. YOXALL: Up to a penny.
  Sir J. GORST: Yes, and a penny would in most cases be sufficient. That arrangement is actually in operation at Jarrow-on-Tyne and New Mills, Derbyshire.
  Mr. YOXALL: In two cases!
  Sir J. GORST: Those are two cases I know of and can verify, but I have every reason to believe that there are many other cases, and if there were time I have no doubt I could find them. There is the case of Ulverston. Ulverston was one of the school boards that applied to have an elementary school, and correspondence took place. Undoubtedly they did not want a higher elementary school at all; they wanted a school of science. Negotiations are now going on which, I believe, will be brought to a satisfactory conclusion, by which the county of Lancaster will lay a penny rate in the town of Ulverston and apply that rate to the maintenance of this school.
  Sir JOHN BRUNNER: Do I understand that the county can levy a rate in Ulverston?
  Sir J. GORST: It is rather a curious state of the law at present. Ulverston can lay a penny rate itself, and the

  609
  County of Lancaster also can lay a penny rate.
  Sir JOHN BRUNNER: In Ulverston?
  Sir J. GORST: In Ulverston. The Ulverston penny rate is unfortunately already appropriated to some other purpose, and in order to make the thing legal the Ulverston people have requested the county of Lancaster to lay a penny rate upon them, and I have every reason to believe that in the course of a few weeks that will be done, and the rate applied, with the consent of all parties, to enable the school to be established in a legal manner.
  Sir JOHN BRUNNER: Will Ulverston then be able to spend twopence in the pound?
  Sir J. GORST: Yes. I do not think there is any danger of any one of these schools, if it is a good school, being injured, even assuming the judgment is confimed. The final course open is the Higher Elementary School Minute. I stated last year that the Higher Elementary School Minute was invented on purpose for these schools; it was intended, in the event of the judgment being in acordance with the legal opinion of the Board of Education, to legalise their position.
  I must now say a few words about the evening schools. Evening schools are the most chaotic part of the whole of our chaotic system. Evening school instruction ranges from the three R's —which generally have been previously taught to the scholars at the public expense and are being taught again at the public expense—up to such subjects as drawing from the life, differential and integral calculus, spherical trigonometry, and advanced processes of metallurgy. These evening continuation schools draw their revenue from public as well as from private sources. They get their revenue firstly from the rates, which is perfectly legal so long as they keep within the very wide range of the Evening Continuation School Code. Then they draw revenue from the county council for technical instruction, and they also have local taxation money, which comes from the Chancellor of the
  610
  Exchequer, and which is distributed through the county council. They also have a grant from the Science and Art Department and the grant for elementary education. These schools are inspected by four different sets of inspectors, and they are established by one set of managers who compete with those schools set up by another set of managers, and thus pupils are drawn from schools supported by public money. In the case of London the London School Board took upon itself some three years ago, without any definite Parliamentary authority, to make all the evening schools free, and the effect of making these evening schools free has been not to draw students out of the streets, but to draw students from other schools and institutions. There is no doubt that in the case of a great many of the polytechnics receiving public money the students are drawn away into the schools because they have to pay either smaller fees or no fees at all. It is quite true that if the judgment is confirmed on appeal, these evening schools, maintained by the rates, will not be able to teach subjects outside the Evening School Continuation Code, and they will not be able to teach science.
  The Lord President of the Council was asked in the House of Lords the other day * whether he would bring in a Bill to cure this difficulty, and from the answer my noble friend gave in another place. I cannot promise, and hon. Members must not expect, that the Government will bring in any Bill which will deal with this specific complaint of school boards. But the Government will bring in a Bill, as my noble friend said in the House of Lords, upon which all these points can be raised, and upon which a Parliamentary decision can be taken. The Government will bring in a Bill for the creation of secondary education authorities having power to provide public instruction in those subjects which are not contained in the Elementary and Evening Continuation Schools Codes. Parliament will then decide whether there is to be one authority for dealing with education. If it decides that there should be only one, it will
  * See preceding volume of Debates, page 978.

  611
  then have to say who that authority shall be. If Parliament decides to have two authorities, the House will then have to decide what definition of higher education shall be adopted, and where the limit of one authority ceases and that of the other begins.
  Parliament will also have to decide another matter which has never yet been brought to a decision. That is, whether it is for the interest of the country that adults shall receive this higher education or any education at the expense, of the country. I do not wish to prejudice this question at all. There is, of course, a great deal to be said on both sides. But take a case of this kind: A person of mature life wishes to amuse himself, to provide himself with recreation by drawing. Has he any right to ask the ratepayers or the taxpayers to pay not only the cost of his being taught, but also of the materials which he uses?—because, I am told, anybody who wishes to learn drawing has nothing to do but to walk into one of the London evening continuation schools, and he can there get most excellent instruction and have all his materials found for him. It may be right that that should be done, but I think Parliament ought to decide it. I do not think it is right that even such an august body as the London School Board should decide that question without the authority of Parliament, and certainly upon the Bill to be brought in the House will have an opportunity of deciding this question.
  I have already detained the House rather a long time, but I must briefly refer to the Higher Elementary School Minute. The, Higher Elementary School Minute does no doubt diminish the Exchequer grants received by the higher grade schools of the type to which I have been referring, and that I say is perfectly legal and perfectly light. That question was discussed last session. It is inseparable from the system of the block grant that those schools that are earning most from the Government should suffer; hut, on looking through the figures, I find that the School Board of London all through London has lost only £4,000 by the operation of the block grant system, representing a one-thirty-seventh of a penny rate.
  612
  Cardiff lost one-sixth of a penny, Liverpool one-fifteenth of a penny, Manchester one-eighth of a penny, and so on. I do not think the higher grade schools are in any danger, because a slightly greater proportion of their cost will be defrayed by rates and a slightly less proportion will be paid out of the Consolidated Fund. It does not seem to me to be reasonable that rich schools should come to this House and cry out that we are destroying the higher grade schools by putting on them a charge of one-thirty-seventh of a penny.
  I do not think that I need say much more. The agitation that is going on in regard to this matter is really an attempt on the part of the school boards of the country to get themselves made secondary education authorities as the school boards are in Scotland. We can discuss that when the Bill to which I have already referred comes on. I will only just say briefly what are my objections to the school board as the education authority. My first objection is its inapplicability to the rural districts, which require higher education quite as much as, if not more than, the great towns. My second objection is that the methods of the school boards have the effect of destroying excellent institutions which already exist and which are doing really good work. I am sorry to say that the figures show that there is not the slightest doubt that the secondary schools of London, which have been aided by the Technical Instruction Committee of the London County Council, and which are very efficient schools, have been injured by the higher grade schools of the London School Board; for whereas formerly a great number of children from the elementary schools found their way into these secondary schools, they are now kept out of these schools because the School Board keep them in the inferior schools, and they are not allowed to enter the higher schools. It will be seen that, so far from giving the children of working men a better education, you are actually preventing them getting the better education which they would otherwise get. My third objection is that the type of school established by the school board is not the type you would like to see all over this country.

  613
  It is tainted by the defects of our elementary school system—defects which lead to too much of an attempt to drill and too much training of the children, and too little attempt is made to develop their character and give them any originality of their own. You cannot help this if you have hundreds of children under one management, for it is impossible for the head of the school to superintend such a large number and to know enough of the children to enable him to develop their character at the same time. These are the reasons why we think the school boards should not be made the authority for these higher grade schools. One thing I quite admit, and that is, that we shall never have anything like a proper system of education in this country until we make up our mind what is to be the authority, until we have one authority, and until schools of every kind and every grade are placed under that authority. Then there will be no more overlapping, no more trouble about the particular kind of school, or the particular course of education to be given in it; because if you have one authority in a district you can lay out a plan of education suited to the wants of the people of that district, and you can build such schools as are necessary for the peculiar wants and idiosyncrasies of the people of the district. You would have education carried on in a sensible and business kind of manner, and you would get rid of the chaos which exists at present.
  *MR. J. H. WHITLEYsaid he wished to draw the attention of the right lion, the Vice-President to the special difficulties under which evening continuation schools at present laboured. He could speak with some little authority on this question, from the fact that for the last fifteen years he had been engaged in Halifax in the management of some of the most successful continuation schools in the country. The first thing he wanted was the abolition of the 17s. 6d. Limit. He did not know whether it had been an oversight on the part of the right hon. Gentleman, but when the Day School Code abolished the 17s. 6d. Limit, it was left in existence in regard to evening schools, which was an extreme hardship. For fifteen years those with
  614
  Whom he had been working had been labouring to raise the standard of education in those evening schools, and when, at the end of fourteen years, they were able to earn grants exceeding the 17s. 6d., they found that the money could not be paid because this iniquitous regulation still remained on the Evening School Code.
  The second matter which he wished to press on the right hon. Gentleman was the connection between the evening and the day schools. Three years ago the right hon. Gentleman introduced into the Evening School Code a regulation forbidding children who were attending a day school to attend, at the same time, an evening school. With the spirit of the regulation he agreed, but in actual practice it had resulted in considerable harm to the children they wished to benefit. His most important point was to get the children to pass from the day to the evening school without the break. His experience showed that unless they did that, the chances were doubled or tripled that they would never get them into the evening schools. He would ask whether the right hon. Gentleman would not consider a system whereby a child, within six months of leaving a day school, could enter an evening school. The two systems would overlap in the least degree, but they could be so arranged as to take away the probability of break. What happened was this. Unless a child became a "full timer" during the six months of the summer, he was inable to begin the evening school session at the proper time. All the classes had been arranged, and the children had fixed on their companions. The child did not like to go into the school halfway through the winter session, and therefore in many cases he said he would not go to the evening school until next year. When the break was once made in this way the chances were that they never got such children into evening schools at all. It a reasonable modification of the regulation made eight years ago were introduced, it would not be a hardship on the children in the day schools, and would be a very great advantage to the country.
  The third matter he wished to press on the attention of the right hon. Gentleman was physical education in the evening schools. In the evening schools

  615
  with which he was connected, he had insisted, in spite of the Evening School Code, on a large proportion of physical education. Hon. Members must remember that they were dealing with children who had spent ten hours already at work; and he had always held that it was not advisable that such children should have their education based entirely on book work. Therefore, in his evening schools, it had always been essential that physical drill and gymnastics should be carried on alongside and with mental instruction. He attributed to that fact a large part of the success of these schools, and the high percentage of the regular attendance at them. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, when he was arranging his next Code, he would not put in a specific grant for physical culture under proper precautions. In the present condition of the Army and Navy there was nothing more important than that our youths should get more regular and systematic physical education in the evening schools. He had heard with gratification the concluding words of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, when he asserted that the Bill he was going to introduce into the House would not be like some other Bills, or like the laws of the Medes and Persians, which could not be altered, but that it would be a Bill which the House could discuss in a businesslike manner, not a cast-iron Bill which they must accept or reject. He trusted that the promise would be fulfilled, and that the Bill would be brought in and discussed in a broad spirit.
  MR. FLOWERsaid there were two or three matters to which he wished to draw the attention of the Committee and the right hon. Gentleman. First of all, however, he joined cordially in the concluding remarks of the hon. Gentleman opposite. He thought the time had now come when, in discussing matters affecting education, they might well eliminate party elements and think solely in a practical and business-like way of the very difficult and intricate problems with which they had to deal. The speech of the right hon. The Vice-President was an evidence of that fact.
  Passing from that, what was it that evening continuation schools were trying to do? They were trying three things—
  616
  to combine what he would call a system of night schools with that of continuing the education of children from the elementary day schools, and with a soupçon of technical education—and they were failing in the combination. At least, his experience on the London School Board was that the effort to combine the three systems in one was not a success. They had heard accounts brought before the London School Board of such evening continuation schools being opened free, but at a very large cost to the ratepayers, and of the classes being very largely attended. But the Committee would have smiled if they had heard the report as to the actual attendance at some of these classes. Nevertheless, the evening continuation schools of the London School Board were doing a great and useful work, and in these days when public attention was being directed to the large number of young people who were loafing about the streets, one would be sorry to do anything to curtail that useful work, although it needed to be systematised. He sincerely hoped from the speech of the Vice-President that it was the intention of the Government to steadily and persistently persevere in that course. The task was really not so very difficult. They had not to contend against any antagonism, or any public feeling, but only against the smaller petty jealousies between local bodies. Of course the ideal which the right hon. Gentleman had sketched of one central authority would be the true solution of the problem—one local authority responsible for all education throughout well-defined areas.
  There was another matter to which he would like to draw attention, and again he did so in no party spirit. From time to time they heard of the educational progress in other countries. That had become almost a commonplace, and in metaphorical language it was urged that England was lagging behind other nations in this respect. Unhappily it was the truth. No matter what codes they might invent, or what authorities they might establish, they had got to I come back at last to the quality of the teachers who were going to impart the instruction. [An HON. MEMBER: And the number of them.] Those who were responsible for the education of this country might make every attempt in

  617
  other directions, but these would of necessity fail. The scarcity of places in the training colleges was now nothing less than a scandal. Representative after representative of the Education Department had, from the Treasury Bench, deplored the scarcity of places in the training colleges, even after the Chancellor of the Exchequer had met the request of the Education Department with a rebuke. The accommodation in the training colleges was wholly and utterly inadequate to meet the demand, and the result was that young teachers, with every hope that they might make themselves useful public servants, found themselves unable to complete their career or to obtain admission to the training colleges. Consequently they resorted to other professions, and the years of work they had given was lost, besides a considerable amount of public money expended on them. He hoped the Government would consider the question of increasing the number of training colleges. The ideal would be to link the training colleges to the universities, and give the young teachers a taste of that wider life which was obtained in a public university. But if that could not be done, they ought not to see the teachers of the future dropping out of the ranks—hundreds, almost thousands, of capable young people who might be efficient and brilliant teachers, denied admission to the training colleges. He hoped and believed that the religious difficulty was not going any more to hinder them from working for the progress of education. He believed that all the religious difficulties could be settled by a five minutes conference round a common table, on the broad principle of "give and take."
  That brought him to another point which he wished to bring before the attention of the Committee—namely, the securing of a reasonable fixity of tenure for the teachers. This equally applied to teachers in voluntary as in board schools. How could they hope to induce the young people of the country to become teachers unless there was some reasonable prospect of fixity of tenure, and some provision made against the arbitrary and capricious dismissal of teachers? He believed himself that that could be secured by a Minute of the
  618
  Education Department; but if not, it might be done by a Bill of an entirely non-contentious character. But until it was done there would from time to time arise cases of harsh, capricious, and cruel dismissal of teachers. And these would disgust a large number of young people who would otherwise enter the teaching profession.
  He would most respectfully and earnestly press on the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the matters which he had brought before the Committee; and he hoped that he would be permitted to express the anticipation that the Bill promised by the right hon. Gentleman would be introduced ere long in the House. At the present moment, all who engaged in the work of education were doing so under difficult conditions. There had been a legal decision of the King's Bench Division pronouncing that much of the education given by the school boards of recent years had been illegal. That decision had been appealed against, although the Education Department had very properly decided to continue paying the grants pending the appeal. This condition of chaos could not, however, and ought not to, go on much longer. It ought to be the serious work of the Government this session to simplify and regulate the education of the country as it ought to be, and to create an authority which would once for all put an end to the disastrous and extravagant system of overlapping, and place the public education of the country on a real businesslike footing.
  *DR. MACNAMARAsaid they must all agree with the right hon. Gentleman that every grade of school and each kind of education should be in each district under the same local authority responsible to the people. The right hon. The Vice-President had told them that the right of any school board to use the rates for advanced instruction had been challenged in the courts of law. Now, the very fact of that challenge was, in his opinion, a very serious commentary on the capacity of the officials of the Education Department to interpret the Parliamentary statutes for the last thirty years. The late Mr. Mundella, a pre-

  619
  decessor of the right hon. Gentleman, had gone out of his way to invite the Welsh school boards to establish higher grade schools, although no doubt he had added that they ought to be self-supporting. But, apart from Mr. Mundella, the present Vice-President and other members of the Board of Education had gone down to the country and in various cities and towns made flamboyant speeches congratulating the people of these towns on founding higher grade schools. No opposition had ever been raised by the Department until the other day as to the propriety of using the school rates for the support of these schools. He did not propose to deal further with this part of the question, seeing that the decision of the courts had been challenged, and that the point must hereafter be decided by the final court of appeal.
  But what he wanted to come to was a matter which was not sub judice, and which had not been challenged in a court of law—namely, the administration of the Higher Elementary Schools Minute. He hoped the House would excuse him if he went into this matter in some detail. Hon. Members would remember that the Education Code last year initiated a very salutary reform — a reform due to the right hon. Gentleman, and which provided for the "block" grant instead of special grants. Under that system a large number of schools which had been devoting attention to a large number of specific subjects lost a great deal of money, and in response to the pressure from both sides of the House—[An HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh.] —well, or as a result of the spontaneous goodwill towards education which the right hon. Gentleman had always evinced in everything he had said—
  SIR J. GORSTsaid that he might explain that the grants to the higher grade schools and the schools of science would be continued until the legal issue of the appeal which had been made to the House of Lords on the point.
  *DR. MACNAMARAsaid he would confine his remarks to the Elementary School Minute of April last, which provided for special instruction and special grants. That Minute seemed to be a
  620
  genuine endeavour on the part of the right hon. Gentleman to provide facilities for the continuous education of the children of the working classes whose parents were willing to keep them at school up to fifteen years of age. It was on that statement that the hon. Member for Cambridge University based his suggestion for a Higher Elementary Education Minute. It was on the strength of this statement that it was a genuine endeavour to make provision for the further education of the working-class children—rendered necessary by the cutting down of the grants under the Block grant system — that the House has agreed that the Code and the Minute were conducive to the best interests of education. He did not want to put it offensively, but directly the matter had passed away from the House the scope of the Minute began to be dwarfed to a very alarming degree. The local authorities who applied for recognition of their schools under the Minute were promptly told that such schools to be recognised must have a curriculum bearing a close resemblance to the curriculum of a school of science. Schools of science were higher grade schools organised under rules of the now happily defunct Science and Art Department, and which had a curriculum mainly scientific. He complained of that administration; there was nothing in the Minute about conforming to a scientific course. The Minute was one merely establishing higher elementary schools, not higher elementary schools of science; and if that had been the intention of the Minute it would have been better for the House to have been told of it before it passed away from them. The Minute laid down that the Board should decide which grant should be paid in the case of each year's course after consulting the report and recommendation on four points—the suitability of the instruction to the circumstances of the scholars and the neighbourhood; the thoroughness and the intelligence with which the instruction was given; the sufficiency and suitability of the staff; and the discipline and organisation. Of these four points the pregnant phrase was the first. Would the right hon. Gentleman argue that a course of instruction, mainly scientific, would be universally suitable to the use of all

  621
  schools in all neighbourhoods? If he did not argue in that way then there was nothing in the Minute which would justify the ruling which the Board of Education was now giving right and left, that the provisions of the Higher Elementary School Minute were not applicable to schools of a commercial type. He considered it was a most fatuous ruling. The one thing needed at the present time was opportunity for commercial training. It was always his impression that the Government believed that the one particular need of the moment was commercial education. At a conference held at the Guildhall on the question of commercial education, and which was convened by the London Chamber of Commerce, the Vice-President of the Council agreed that commercial education was in the opinion of the Government essential. That was also shown by the remarks made by the Home Secretary on the previous day when distributing prizes in connection with the London Chamber of Commerce scheme. The right hon. Gentleman said on that occasion, that in being present he was only performing his duty. "It would be a strange thing," he added, "if the Government of a great commercial country like this did not show an interest in a matter so vitally affecting the interests of the country." The way in which the Government showed that interest consisted in their rigidly declining to recognise schools which proposed to give commercial training. The Government must be very unworthy fiduciaries if they deprived the working classes of this one avenue to success which was now open to them. Everybody was alive to the importance of commercial education except those who ought to be most alive to it—those who controlled education. He protested very strongly against this endeavour to rule out commercial training for the people. Although Lord Rosebery and the Colonial Secretary had recently made strong statements as to the necessity for commercial education, all that was received from the Board of Education was well summed up in a letter written to the London School Board:—
  "Business training cannot be recognised as part of the curriculum of higher elementary schools."
  But the right hon. Gentleman might say that the Government never having
  622
  paid for commercial education could not begin to do so now; but that I would be an extraordinary statement to make, seeing that the country had I paid for commercial instruction and that the Board of Education in its Science and Art Directory made provision for commercial instruction. He hoped the Board of Education would see its way to modify this ruling at once. Let them contrast the system in this country, with that of Scotland. Why should not the one be as good as the other—what was sauce for the Scotch gander surely was sauce for the English goose? In Scotland it was always desired that the local authorities should feel themselves free to vary the curriculum according to local needs, but that was not so in England, and the same remark applied to the age for leaving. In Scotland it could be extended to eighteen years, whilst in England it was ruled down to fifteen; the only complimentary explanation being that an English child could at the age of fifteen attain the same intellectual level as a Scotch child of eighteen. The local authorities of Bradford (the Manchester of the woollen trade) desired to have a higher elementary school organised on commercial lines, with French and German as the leading subjects. That was a suggestion which one would have thought would have been encouraged, but it was not, and Bradford was told that it could not have a school organised on commercial lines, it must be a school of science. There was nothing whatever in the Minute to justify any such ruling.
  The House had been told a short time ago that there had been some 190 applications for recognition under the Higher Elementary Minute. The same information had been given on the 31st of July last. Were they to understand that no applications were made during the seven months which intervene between those two dates? Out of those 190 applications two only had been recognised. That was the information given to the House nearly twelve months after the Minute was passed, that only two had been recognised out of 190. In London there were seventy-nine high grade schools, and the London School Board, disliking the science course, had foregone the preferential grants and took most of the cost out of

  623
  the ratepayers, because they preferred a general commercial curriculum. When the Higher Elementary Minute was introduced they suggested that these seventy-nine schools should be recognised, and the Board of Education magnanimously offered to recognise four, or rather the School Board authorities were told that the Board of Education would consider four out of the seventy-nine. Seventy-nine looked rather a high figure, but that was only one school to every 100,000 of the population. Surely every district with 100,000 population was entitled to one higher grade school. The answer which they obtained was that the Board of Education would consider the advisability of recognising the four schools of science, which would give two higher grade schools in Greenwich and two in Marylebone, those being the places in which these four schools were situated. In nine out of the eleven divisions of the London School Board there were no higher elementary schools under the Minute. In the Division of West Lambeth, which he himself represented, there were seven Parliamentary boroughs with 650,000 population, 130,000 of whom were children attending the elementary schools, and that division did not possess a higher elementary school under the Minute. That was not the spirit in which the Minute was placed before the House of Commons.
  He did not want to labour the point, but he could not help saying that, all the country over, there had been a set determination on the part of the Board of Education to put every conceivable obstacle in the way of establishing higher elementary education and the further development of the working-class children. It was simply marvellous how the rulings under the Minute were developing. In April last the Birmingham teachers applied through the Secretary to the Colonies that elementary and higher elementary schools might be held under one roof, and he received a letter from the Board of Education which contained the following—
  "The new Minute does not state that the new type of school must necessarily be in a totally separate building from an ordinary elementary school."
  Shortly after that the Hebden Bridge School Board wrote to the Board of
  624
  Education on the same subject and received the following reply—
  "The Board of Education do not propose to sanction as higher elementary schools, schools which are in part used as ordinary elementary schools. Higher elementary schools must be separate and complete."
  He submitted that such a ruling as that was in direct conflict with the ruling obtained by the Colonial Secretary on behalf of the Birmingham teachers.
  SIR J. GORSTwas understood to say that the second ruling was a mistake. He would not object to sanction as higher elementary schools, schools which were partly used as ordinary schools, and in many cases he had sanctioned them.
  *DR. MACNAMARA: Had the right hon. Gentleman sanctioned the schools at Hebden Bridge? That was the school to which ho was referring, and he would be very much surprised to hear that the Board of Education had at Hebden Bridge sanctioned a higher elementary school and a primary school under one roof. If Minutes were administered in this manner they would before very long be administered entirely out of existence. It was impossible to fix these people. They dodged about from kopje to kopje in a way that put the activity of Christian De Wet into the shade. When endeavouring to fix the responsibility for the deliberate and reprehensible attempt to whittle down the Higher Elementary Minute, the difficulty with which one was confronted was that it was quite impossible to believe the Vice-President could be responsible, for every public utterance of his proclaimed him to be a generous and enlightened and progressive educationalist. Whoever was responsible, having regard to the manner in which we were plunged into the fiercest of commercial struggles with our foreign rivals, it was lamentable to the last degree. It was Little Englandism of the most pernicious type to put these obstacles in the way of most generous facilities for the intellectual equipment of the children of the people. He pleaded for a touch of Imperialism in this matter, and thought that the greatest possible facilities should be given by the Board of Education.
  SIR W. HART DYKEsaid the debate had been one of extraordinary interest, and if it had shown one thing more than another, it had shown that it was high time that they had something more than these educational speeches from the right hon. Gentleman. It was high time that, after debate upon debate in this House, measures of the kind which had been shown with almost sickening reiteration to be necessary should be produced before them, and that an Act of Parliament should reduce this matter to a practical shape.
  Hon. Gentlemen who had spoken on the subject on this occasion had cast upon the administration of the Education Department the imputation that the treatment of higher grade schools for many years had been a serious reflection on the Education Department. He thought the reflection should rather be cast on the people of this country, who for thirty years past had shown so little interest in education. If they had taken half the interest in this question that they had taken in taxation and other matters a remedy would have been found long ago. All Governments had dreaded and shirked the difficulty of filling up the obvious gap between elementary and higher education. He appealed to the House never to cease to put pressure on the Government until the latter produced a measure and gave earnest of their intention to carry it to a practical conclusion. No Government ever had such an opportunity as the Government had at this moment of dealing with the question. This debate showed what an extraordinary change had come over public opinion in respect to this subject, not only outside but within the walls of that House. This new Parliament was prepared to deal practically with the question. He believed that hon. Members were prepared to make some sacrifices of principle on each side to secure a good measure. They were prepared to approach the matter, not as partisans of either the voluntary or school board system, but as educationists. He believed that before many years had passed, and when the first stress of pressure came as regarded our commercial supremacy, we should find what a bitter penalty we had to pay for
  626
  thirty years of negligence. Facts could be adduced which would show the fruit of the educational efforts in America as regarded the engineering trade. He believed that facts and figures would be brought before the House which would awaken hon. Members and the Government to the urgency of proceeding in this matter. His right hon. Friend had alluded to a Bill which was to come before the House. He believed that that Bill had the germs of success in it. He believed that the whole key of the position was that they must trust the representatives of the people in each locality. The less Parliament interfered with the localities the better. They must have a central authority, but the solution of the difficulty was to place the education of the people in some local authority in each district. He appealed to hon. Members, whatever the promised measure was, to remember the huge issues involved, to sink their political differences, and to endeavour to come to a wise and just conclusion.
  MR. BRYCE (Aberdeen, S.)Said the discussion that day showed that there was a general feeling that the time had come for endeavouring to pass a comprehensive measure which would get rid of the evils and inconveniences which had been so strongly pointed out on the Opposition side of the House. The right hon. Gentleman the Vice-President did not grapple with the difficulty underlying the whole matter—namely, the fact that the higher grade schools, which had been allowed to go on for a good many years, had suddenly found themselves dealt with in an entirely different spirit, and had found themselves in great difficulty in carrying on the work they did.
  The House would allow him to say how these higher grade schools came into existence. A Commission which reported in 18G8 pointed out that the greatest educational need of the country, besides, of course, the establishment of elementary schools, was the establishment of higher grade schools—secondary schools which should give a practical education to children from the age of fourteen or fifteen for a moderate fee not exceeding £4 a year. Nothing had been done to give effect to that recommendation from that time to now, and except by the schemes

  627
  of the Endowed Schools Commissioners nothing was done to create these schools, which were the greatest need of the country then, and were the greatest need of the country still. Then came the Education Act of 1870, and two years after that Act came into operation the school boards, feeling that the benefits obtained in the elementary schools were very largely lost because the children could not carry their education further, started these higher grade schools. He did not think the right hon. Gentleman would dispute the growth of these higher grade schools. From that time to now they had been of the greatest possible benefit. No part of our educational machinery had been better than those sixty or seventy schools which would be hit at by the case now under appeal. Therefore this was a very serious case.
  It was not denied, and it would not be denied by the Education Department itself, that the line they had taken lately had been very different from the line taken at an earlier time. It would have been quite impossible for the school boards to have gone on as they had done continually developing these schools and working them out on larger lines if the Education Department had adopted the kind of policy which had been adopted lately. He did not at all deny that there were some drawbacks. One of them had been mentioned that night. Under the influence of the science and art grants these schools were going too exclusively on the scientific line. He did not deny that there were some places where it might be true that, as the right hon. Gentleman had pointed out, the higher grade schools were to some extent coming into competition with secondary schools in a way that made it difficult for them to carry on, but, on the whole, the balance of advantage was very greatly on the side of the higher grade schools. They had become so indispensable in the educational machinery of the country that any interference with them ought to have been avoided by the Board of Education. Well, under some influence, the origin of which he could not guess, the Board of Education had disregarded the danger, and they had checked the usefulness of these higher grade schools. He believed that at this moment these schools were in serious difficult, because in order
  628
  to satisfy the requirements of the Science and Art Department they had gone on incurring expenses, erecting schools, and purchasing apparatus. Now they found themselves suddenly cut off from the resources on which they had counted, and they were in serous financial difficulties.
  SIR J. GORSTsaid he had distinctly stated that until the final judgment was given in the case the grants would be paid.
  MR. BRYCEremarked that there was a sword hanging over their heads, so to speak, and they were unable to develop their work. The present position of school boards was really an extremely difficult one, and one which made it impossible for them to continue the course by which they had rendered considerable service. Therefore, he could not help wishing that the Board of Education, before they issued their new Minute, before they set the Cockerton case going—
  SIR J. GORSTsaid he absolutely disclaimed all responsibility for the Cocker-ton case; the Board of Education had nothing whatever to do with it.
  MR. BRYCEsaid that in that case the Board of Education ought to have framed their Minute in a different way, and they ought to have administered the Minute in a different spirit from that which they appeared to have pursued. These schools filled gaps, and were doing most useful work. The higher grade schools were doing most useful technical work, and he asked why it should be cut short. There was neither reason, consistency, nor public advantage in the line the Board of Education had taken.
  He agreed with the main conclusion of his right hon. Friend the Member for the Dartford Division that what was wanted was a systematic revision of the whole system. The Vice-President of the Council had said that there was a want of public interest in the question; but why was there a want of public interest? Because it was perfectly impossible for any private individual, unless he gave his mind to the study of the excessively complicated condition into which our

  629
  system of education had got, to understand anything about it. This was not a new matter. It had been admitted for years. It was dealt with in the fullest manner by the Royal Commission that reported in 1895. That Commission was unanimous. The right hon. Gentleman on every occasion he had addressed the House since had admitted that the matter was urgent. The present Government had a large majority. Why did it not deal with the question, and why by the Minute of last session did it actually begin to pull down the old house before erecting a new one? That ought not to have been done until they had established a new authority to carry out a new scheme. The Board of Education had reversed that progress, and they had stopped the authority which was doing useful work before they had started a new authority to take its place. He hoped the Committee might take it that there was no doubt that the Government would introduce a Hill. Perhaps they would say whether the Hill would be introduced in this or in the other House?
  SIR J. GORSTsaid he was afraid he could not tell the light hon. Gentleman yet.
  MR. BRYCEsaid he would conclude with one piece of advice to the Government. If they desired their Bill to succeed, let them frame it with sole reference to educational considerations, and make it a Bill that should be fair as between the different authorities which were more or less seised of this question, and, above all, let them take every taint of sectarianism out of it. Let there be nothing in the Bill which would arouse those sectarian passions which had so much injured the cause of education, which would impede the passage of the measure, and which would make it more difficult to work. If they would introduce a Bill purely educational, he thought they would have no difficulty in passing it through the House.
  EARL PERCYProtested against the imputation that those who supported the Government's action in this matter were reactionary and opposed to commercial education. He thought that commercial, education was
  630
  the thing we most needed, probably more than scientific education, and unless it were provided by the Government, or unless the Government provided the means by which that commercial education could be given, we would not retain for long our commercial supremacy in the competition with foreign countries. It by no means followed that they undervalued commercial education because they refused to allow schools to supply it which, by the very essence of their being, were incapable and unfitted to provide it. The hon. Member opposite said that no one would have dreamt when the Minute was discussed in the House that the Government would have placed a construction on it which would prevent the school boards giving commercial education in the schools. He should say that anyone who considered the subject for a moment would see that the Government had no alternative. The Royal Commission on Secondary Education reported that the school boards had already taken the place of what were called by the Schools Inquiry Commission the third grade, and in some cases the second grade schools. The Minute of last year seemed to him to have begun to carry out the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Secondary Education which investigated the subject of these higher grade schools. It laid down the age limit of these schools—the age limit was fifteen—and by doing so it sharply distinguished these schools from the secondary schools, in which the leaving age was sixteen to nineteen years. The whole object of these higher grade schools was that they should provide scientific training for those who were going into industry or manufacture, while the secondary schools should be open to those who could afford more than one or two years attendance after leaving the ordinary public elementary school, and who could undergo a more general and business training which should fit them to go into a college. The Government had agreed to recognise those schools under the Minute.
  Surely the wisest policy of the Government in regard to their future Education Bill was to encourage school boards to provide all higher grade science schools which were necesssary for that part of the population which was going to enter

  631
  into some industry or manufacture; that they should then erect an authority for secondary education which should provide higher grade schools, in which the children should remain for four years, and in which they should have a proper commercial education; and, lastly, that they should provide a regular system of scholarships which should, on the one hand, take the child of the public elementary school to the higher grade organised science school, and, on the other hand, from the public elementary school to the secondary commercial school. When that had been done we would have a thorough businesslike system.
  *MR. GEORGE WHITEsaid he knew it was a somewhat dangerous thing to make any personal reference in first rising to address the Committee, but he wished to say that he had been connected with a large school board for twenty-seven years, and he had for four terms been chairman of that board; he was also a governor of two endowed schools. Therefore he was sure the Committee would pardon him in giving this educational history, because he felt that he had had some opportunity of informing himself in regard to the various phases of educational work, of knowing how they might overlap each other, and how cooperation might be secured with advantage to all.
  He felt, in rising to support the Amendment, that he was not opposing any grant of public money for the purpose of education. It must be a relief to the Committee, as it was to himself, for a short time at any rate, to get rid of the interminable discussion they bad had upon the war, and the never-ending payments necessary for the cost of the war, and to consider for a few hours matters affecting the condition and the well-being of the people at home. He could not forbear from reminding the Committee that measures of coercion and destruction were far more costly than those of beneficial construction. The prosecution and imprisonment of one Hooligan cost ten times more than an elementary scholar's education. It was a sad and awful thing to feel that when this war should terminate, for the two years it has existed it will have cost
  632
  more than the whole of the money the State has expended on education since the Act of 1870 was passed. He felt that the House ought to know what plans the Government had for the future with regard to the education of this country, and whether they had any remedy for the chaos the right hon. Gentleman had so graphically described; and especially whether they were prepared to put the higher grade schools on a more permanent footing.
  He quite supported the distinct allegation that the Department and its work in recent years, so far as education is concerned, had been of a decidedly reactionary character, not only in regard to legislation, but more especially in regard to the administration of the Acts by the Department. There was the best evidence of this in some portions of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, in which he attempted to show that the work of school boards need not be injured in the least, because they had the technical education grant, or the rate which the technical committees are allowed to raise, to fall back upon to continue their work. Would any hon. Member contend that the technical grant and the technical rate combined were too much for the work which a technical committee had to undertake, whether in cities, boroughs, or rural districts? This was another evidence on the part of the right hon. Gentleman of the way in which the Department attempted to throw the proper work of the school boards on to some other department of educational work. It did not appear to matter to the right hon. Gentleman who took up this work so long as it was taken away from the school boards.
  He would instance two or three cases of the reactionary policy of the Department. The grant-in-aid of three-quarters of a million of money, and the exemptions of denominational schools from rates began a new principle with regard to the administration of grants in connection with education in this country. It seemed to him, and he thought the working out of it would prove, that the grant-in-aid was really intended to assist inefficient schools, which were doing their work very badly, and at the same time to demand no increased efficiency from them. Until this Govern-

  633
  ment came into office it was always thought, and acted upon by educationists in connection with school boards, that the school board was the proper authority to supply any acknowledged deficiency of educational accommodation. It had been for this Government to show that that was not so. He could demonstrate over and over again from examples, from large towns as well as from villages, that obstacles had been put in the way of school boards supplying acknowledged deficiencies, where the accommodation had been insufficient and inefficient, and yet delays, extending to years, had been granted until a denominational effort had been made, rather than permit a school board to be established, or an existing board to supply the deficiency. That was a way of administering the Acts which he did not think was in accordance with the spirit of the Education Act of 1870, and certainly was not in accordance with the action of the Department up to the time this Government came into office.
  It was not only in these ways but in the efforts which were apparently being made to check the character of the education in our midst that the Government had shown their reactionary policy. It was not necessary for him to detain the Committee with the history of the growth of higher grade schools, but he could not follow the right hon. Gentleman opposite in his description of their growth. They were but the natural and simple outgrowth of the Act of 1870. Even that Act gave scope for certain specific subjects, and he believed that before that Act was passed grants were administered from the Education Department for specific subjects, some of which were even in these later days almost dragged into what is called secondary education. It was quite true that school boards and those who were anxious to establish higher grade schools did on many occasions proclaim the hope that these schools would be erected and carried on without expense to the rates. But the right hon. Gentleman argued as though that was a proof that the illegality of these schools was acknowledged. It was nothing of the sort. He himself, as a strong advocate, and perhaps the founder, of the higher grade school in connection with one large school board, when he stood
  634
  before his fellow citizens expressed the hope that in a few years it would not be a burden on the rates. But he did not express the hope because he felt there was any illegality in taking money from the rates in support of such schools. The growth of the interest of the public in education had been slow, and it was necessary, so to speak, to gild the pill a little in order to induce ordinary citizens to give the thing a chance. Mr. Mundella in the same way said the schools should be self-supporting, but by so saying he did not give the slightest intimation that it was illegal to take money from the rates for their support. Surely it was not contended that the education of to-day should be judged upon the same standard as thirty years ago. Was it to be assumed that the progress of the century was to be marked in everything except our educational work? The hon. Member for West Nottingham said that we appeared to be merely marking time in regard to higher education. He thought we were doing worse, and that in the past five years we had gone back.
  After a few years experience of the Education Act, the larger school boards began to establish these higher grade schools. Naturally, they found that it tended to economy, and also to efficiency of teaching, to group higher standards in certain schools, and most large towns established these higher grade schools. They were established in order to deal with those children who were capable of following the instruction given in the higher standards, and also those whose parents were willing they should remain at school for a few years longer. He would take the higher grade school at Norwich as an example, and give the concrete history of that school. In the first instance, only a small modicum of science was taught, such as he supposed higher elementary schools were now intended to teach, but they were almost driven by the South Kensington Department to establish a school of science. Therefore, after a few years they established a science school within the higher grade school. He quite agreed that the science schools as then established were too scientific for the curriculum of a popular day school like a higher grade school, and therefore they got relief. The Committee would notice that within

  635
  two years from that date they had been compelled as a school board to build, in addition to the chemical laboratory which they had in connection with the higher grade school, a physical laboratory, at an expense of £1,000. That had been open only twelve months, and now they were told that all this was illegal, and that they had no right to take any money from the rates for the support of this science school.
  The matter of age was another point upon which the Education Department had shown a very reactionary tendency. A little time ago 65 per cent, of the boys and girls in our schools left at the age of eleven. The efforts of all educationists had been devoted to getting children to stay longer at school, especially in the higher grade schools. Nothing could be more suicidal than in the face of the progress which was being made to put this block upon our higher education. What reason was there for it? The ratepayers who had to pay had made no public protest against the application of rates to higher grade schools. As one who knew something of the educational work in the big towns of the country, he said that so far as his knowledge went there was no rate more popular or more willingly paid than the, portion which goes to the maintenance of these higher grade schools. He ventured to say that the persons at the bottom of this objection were mainly the head masters of our secondary schools, who had been stirring up the opposition to school board work. Many of these secondary schools were private schools run for private profit. He was somewhat surprised at the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman in comparing the teachers of our higher grade schools and their capacity for giving instruction with the teaching capacity of many of the secondary schoolmasters. It was a sorry thing if the efficiency and thorough training which the best masters in our higher grade schools had had would not compare satisfactorily with that of the secondary schoolmasters, many of whom, although extremely able men, had had no training whatever, so far as the art of teaching was concerned.
  A great deal had been said which was not strictly accurate with regard to the influence of higher grade schools upon
  636
  secondary schools. To a very great extent the fears expressed were groundless. If the secondary schools were doing their duty and giving a thoroughly sound education, why should they be afraid of the competition of the higher grade schools? A cry of this kind was raised in his own city some years ago. It was said that one of the schools there was being injured by the influence of the higher grade school. He sifted the facts, and found that not one scholar less attended the school after the higher grade school was opened than attended previously. But he also found that a year and a half before the higher grade school was opened this endowed school had raised its fees, and in consequence the number of boys attending had considerably diminished. That was before the higher grade school was opened, but yet it was popularly supposed in the city that the higher grade school had injured the endowed school to that extent. Grammar schools, many of which confined themselves to a classical education, would always have a separate section of the community supporting them, because class distinction, which, had such influence in the country, would always separate the attendants at the grammar schools from those at the higher grade schools.
  While there were some who protested against the action of higher grade schools, let him draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that there were very loud protests coming from the great bulk of our organised labour men and artisans against the efforts which were being made to injure the higher grade schools. At labour congresses and trade-union meetings great interest had been excited in this movement, and the right hon. Gentleman would hear from these trade councils that they were determined their children should not be robbed of practically their only chance of securing that education which was necessary to fit them to take their fair position in life. These higher grade schools were the best aids to the technical schools which were being established with such great advantage throughout the country. They were really the groundwork upon which the technical schools might and would be able to build, and instead of restricting their influence

  637
  in our large towns he would suggest that it the right hon. Gentleman would devise a scheme to extend their influence and advantages to the rural districts he would be doing a great service to the cause of education and to the country at large. The rural districts stood in need of the instruction which the higher grade schools were giving in the more populous districts, and if the right lion. Gentleman would by some scheme or other provide that it should be given he would confer an inestimable advantage upon those districts.
  The tight hon. Gentleman had laboured a great deal to prove the illegality of the school boards in this matter, but something more would be heard about that when the appeal had been decided. Even if it were demonstrated that their action had all through been illegal, he hoped that the right lion. Gentleman would see tit to provide sonic means by which the higher grade schools might not be injured in the work they were doing. Those behind the scenes did not forget that long before the Cockerton case was before the country there were attacks upon our higher grade schools in one way or another. In 1896 there was an attack in this House, which was afterwards withdrawn, but there had been a sapping and mining going on ever since, which he felt had been a very great injury. First of all, the Science and Art Department, through the Technical Instruction Committee, did their best to limit the work of the present boards and to prevent new boards taking up science teaching. That had been going on for five years, until it has now culminated in an appeal to the law.
  With regard to the Minute of last April a great deal had been said as to the manner in which it had been administered. It restricted the education and the age, and he did not think that the Committee would be satisfied unless the right hon. Gentleman told them what it was that had kept the Department from recognising more of these higher elementary schools, He believed that in December the right hon. Gentleman said there were several more applications that were on the point of being recognised, and yet to-day we stood at the point of having two—
  SIR J. GORST: There are a great, many more than two now. I should think certainly a dozen.
  *MR. GEORGE WHITEsaid we had reached a dozen in twelve months out of 190 applications, and the Committee was absolutely ignorant of the reasons why the remainder had not been recognised. Rumour had it that all the chaotic condition of education in regard to science and art was caused by the ill-assorted union which had taken place between the Education Department and the Science and Art Department of South Kensington. He did not think a single educationist in the country desired to see the Science and Art Department survive one month longer than it did, but since the union the Education Department had gone back. There was formerly not much fault to be found with the administrative work so far as promptness was concerned, but since the union both Departments appeared to be as bad as the Science and Art Department was previously. He thought the Committee ought to know whether there was any unanimity of feeling and action between the two branches, or whether there was likely to be a divorce again. At present it is like a father and mother who are quarrelling, and are yet determined to live together, to the great detriment of the family they are bringing up.
  The Committee would appreciate some of the difficulties with which the right hon. Gentleman had to contend in his present position. The right hon. Gentleman himself had said that we had a territorial aristocracy who were very indifferent to the interests of education, and he (Mr. White) had been struck with the cheers coming from hon. Gentlemen opposite when anything was said against the work of the higher grade schools being supported out of the rates. Probably not a few of the hon. Gentlemen opposite had had a great deal of their education from funds which they had not supplied, and he for one was democratic enough to feel for and to press the interests of the working classes being supplied from the rates in regard to higher education such as was given in the higher grade board schools. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not be

  639
  deterred by such influences, especially as he belonged to a Government which included amongst its members the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary. It was from that right hon. Gentleman and those who sat with him at that time that he got his fullest and best ideals of a national system of education a great many years ago, and, knowing the power he wielded in the, Cabinet, he could not, and the nation would not, exempt him from blame if this state of things continued. He would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to show the same interest in popular education that he had shown in the earlier part of his political career, and not to allow reactionary ecclesiastical individuals to put back the clock of education, to the great detriment of the commercial and moral interests of the country.
  One word with regard to the authority of which the right hon. Gentleman had spoken. To his mind the best and most encouraging words delivered by the right hon. Gentleman to-night were the few words with which he concluded his speech in reference to one authority to deal with elementary, secondary, and technical education. He (Mr. White) was an ardent supporter of the school board system, but he was perfectly content to say—and he was speaking the sentiments of a great many educationists throughout the country—that they were not wedded absolutely to a school board management of these three branches of education. They did not feel that a school board was necessarily the best body that could be elected for the purpose. It was elected for one purpose, and if these additional duties were added it might require reforming in various ways. But he did contend that, whatever the body might be, it should be very largely, if not entirely, an elected body. The people should have a very large voice in its constitution, and then, and only then, would it have the confidence of the people sufficiently to back it in carrying on the great educational work of the country.
  He could have said a word or two with reference to the influence of these Acts upon the evening schools, but he would forbear. The question was now before the Committee, and he hoped the very emphatic words of the right hon. Gentle-
  640
  man the Member for Dartford would influence the Governemnt, so that when their Bill was proposed it might be such as all true educationists could support. He was sure he expressed the sentiments of those who felt strongly upon the question of school board education when he said that they would be willing to sacrifice some of their opinions in this matter if they could but see the three systems of education under one popularly-elected body, and that authority administering the Education Acts in an enlightened spirit to the advantage of the community at large.
  MR. HENRY HOBHOUSE: All who have listened to this debate with the true interests of education at heart must feel grateful at the unanimity on both sides in favour of educational reform, and at the freedom the discussion has displayed from that thin sectarian and party spirit which is apt to disfigure and delay our educational debates. The friends of the school board system have, not unnaturally, taken an early opportunity of directing attention to the condition of the law, but naturally they have found themselves somewhat in a difficulty in discussing a question which is still sub judice. The London School Board, rightly or wrongly, have decided to appeal to Cæsar, to the highest law court of the land, and they have the natural answer of the Government, "Unto Cæsar thou hast appealed, and unto Cæsar thou must go." I somewhat regret that they have thought it necessary to spend the money of the ratepayers in prolonging this litigation, and consequently to cause considerable delay in the deciding of a question which, after all, is not a matter for the law at all. This is a question with which the Government and this House must ultimately deal, whatever the decision is in the law courts. I think we ought to realise that difficulties have arisen in respect of these higher grade schools principally from the fact that for so many years past we have neglected to deal with this very difficult question of the organisation of the higher education of this country. The school boards, which are no doubt most ambitious and aspiring local bodies, have

  641
  done their best, and I think it ought to be recorded to their credit that in many of our thickly populated centres they have filled the gap in the educational system which undoubtedly existed. They have, in some places, it may be, interfered and somewhat injured the schools of other institutions, but I think we must all acknowledge that in some places where educational needs are most pressing they have erected a very useful and necessary class of schools.
  That higher elementary schools, or what some of us regard as secondary schools, are required cannot be denied. Whether it is necessary to make them free or not is another question. I think we must all regret that some of the great school boards should have had recourse to such subterfuges and evasions as the Vice-President of the Council has mentioned just now. But I do not think that any jealousy on the part of local authorities ought to be allowed to retard the completion of our system of education in our huge towns and elsewhere. It has been recognised on the highest authority most emphatically, and with unanimity by the late Commission on Secondary Education, that what was really required was co-ordination between the different local authorities, and this was actually carried out, not by legislation or by the action of the Government—although they have done something by the introduction of Clause 7—but by voluntary co-ordination and a coming together of the local authorities. The city of Manchester is a very striking example of this, for there the Technical Instruction Committee, the School Board, and the University College have conic together, and they have decided what the limit of their respective jurisdictions should be. They have not spent their time considering how they shall cut into each other, but they have made a point of deciding how to arrange their schools so that they shall not overlap but fit in one with the other. Everybody laments this want of organisation and overlapping, and we have had some very remarkable instances this evening. Ulverston could not get a science school until three different local authorities had been brought into co-operation by the action of the central body. Such a thing is a scandal at the present day. Look at the position
  642
  of the evening continuation schools in the rural districts. A great many of them have been started by the action of the county councils, but those council have no statutory power to carry them on, and there is some doubt as to whether they are legal. They have had to give large grants of money for the purpose, because otherwise these schools could not exist. Let us take a broad view of this matter and not impure too closely which local authority ought to be entrusted to carry on these schools. As a nation we ought to make up our minds that in this twentieth century it is necessary to have a complete system of national education, and let us have as e few local authorities as possible, and do everything we can to strengthen the hands of the central department.
  I am asked to vote to-day for a reduction of the salary of the Vice-President of the Council, but as far as I know he is the only gentleman on the front bench who takes any interest at all in this question. There has been a most singular absence to-night of most of the prominent members of the Cabinet. If I had been asked to vote for a reduction of the salary of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I should have been much more ready to have gone into the Opposition lobby, because, after all, many of these educational reforms are believed in and supported by my right hon. friend the Vice-President of the Council; but his difficulty is with the Treasury. The Treasury is not quite as liberal on these educational matters as it is on some matters of reform which are perhaps more popular on this side of the House. I have no doubt that my right hon. friend would have dealt more generously with the Minute if he had had more funds. I cannot think that it is necessary to give these higher grade board schools always a scientific character. We do not want to specialise either as to commercial or scientific education, and I cannot help thinking that in this ease the result of our system of science and art grants is somewhat prejudicial to general education. I hope the Treasury and all other departments of the Government will recognise that in this country education must grow, and the expenses must grow as well. We cannot afford to stand still in this matter. If no other authorities

  643
  are erected to start schools of this character, then these higher grade elementary schools, or whatever they may be called, which exist largely for the benefit of the working classes and which are demanded by them, arid without which our system of education will not he complete—these must be carried on, and, if no I new authority is erected, then the school boards must carry them on. If the Government wish to alter this state of things the sooner they bring in their Education Bill the better. It must take a long time to discuss that measure, and we have already waited too long for it. Every year that passes increases the difficulties rather than diminishes them, and the net result of this debate will be a valuable one if it only convinces this House that legislation is sorely needed in order to bring about the only solution of these difficulties of our educational administration.
  *MR. DUKE: As a Member who has a direct interest in this question, owing to the action of the Education Board in my constituency, I would like to join hon. Members who have spoken in pressing upon the Vice-President of the Council the great urgency there is for the introduction of some measure which will put the practical business of education for promising boys and girls of the poorer classes upon something like a business footing. Hon. Gentlemen on the other side have reproached the right hon. Gentleman and the Government with a want of sympathy with the development of the kind of education to which I have referred, because of what has taken place in the testing of the legality of the attitude of the school boards. I venture to suggest to the House that that is a great mistake, for there could not be a stronger evidence s of the necessity of legislation upon this question than the decision in the Cockerton case, and the state of things which that decision showed to exist. For my part, I think the trial of the question in the Cockerton ease has been a great public benefit. I think those who raised the question and challenged the legality of the proceedings of the London School Board did a public service in that respect, because it is not a satisfactory thing that the commercial and business education
  644
  of a large section of the poorer part of the population should depend upon the tolerant attitude of the Education Department towards that kind of education. I am sure it is not satisfactory to the working classes in the country that that branch of education should depend upon the tolerance of any department of the Government. It must be as a matter of right and as a matter of public administration in the common interest that that branch of education shall be put upon a sound footing. Nobody who knows what has been going on in the higher grade schools will be disposed to say that these schools have not met a public necessity, and that public necessity has been aggravated by the improvement in the provision of elementary education. There was in former years, especially in the towns of the country, a class of schools which the board schools have practically put out of existence, where moderate fees were paid, and where the smaller tradesmen and business men and the better-paid class of artisans sent their children for business education, and got an education of a different kind from that which is now provided in board schools, under the direct personal influence of a class of schoolmasters who practically have now ceased to exist. That class of schools, if not practically driven out of existence, has been diminished very much in number by the severity of the competition which has been produced by the development of the board-school system. Nothing has been provided in its place.
  One of the aggravating circumstances in regard to the provision of satisfactory business training for hoys of the poorer class is that while you have developed the elementary schools you have done nothing to provide a substitute for those schools which the elementary schools have killed. The frightful condition of commercial education in our towns, as compared with the condition of that in Continental towns, is felt by business men everywhere to be a scandal in this country. One only needs to see the proceedings of chambers of commerce or to meet business men in order to find out the difficulties they have in obtaining satisfactory clerks with business training and commercial knowledge, to feel that the Government is not doing its duty

  645
  to a large class of its constituents in this source of great satisfaction to the public respect. We are laying up for ourselves outside as well as to hon. Members in difficulties for the future by provide or to encourage a system of sound commercial education. You have at the present time an excellent system of elementary education for boys who are to be employed in workshops and in industries, and who are not expected to take an active, leading part in those employments; but you are doing nothing for the hoys who are to compete with the hoys of France, Germany, and America in endeavouring to maintain for this country. I will not say a supremacy, but something like an equality in competing for the commerce of the world. It has been shown by the recent decision of the courts that we have done nothing in this country in the way of making proper provision for the aspiring and capable boys of the poorer class, and for this reason one does not need to blame those who have brought forward the question raised in the Cockerton case and brought it to an issue. I regard it as a matter of very little consequence which way the Cockerton decision ultimately goes, provided that this House makes up its mind that the reproach which lies upon our present system of education shall be removed.
  There was one part of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman which I listened to with great satisfaction, and which seemed to indicate that he might be placed in charge of a measure which would be devoted to sweeping away those delects which now exist in our system of education. If the right hon. Gentleman succeeds in passing such a measure into law he will confer not only a service upon this generation but upon future generations, and he will associate his name with the cause of education in a manner which will please those who know how much he has the cause of education at heart. Hut there was an observation which the right hon. Gentleman made, in answer to a question front the other side of the House, which I must confess disappointed me a little. At present it seems not to be known when or where the proposed measure for this improvement of the educational system will be introduced. I hope that that uncertainty will very speedily be dispelled, and I am sure it would be a
  646
  source of great satisfaction to the public outside as well as to hon. Members in this House if the right hon. Gentleman would assure the Committee that we shall have certainly in the course of this session, and at a period when it can be fully discussed and its difficulties fully dealt with, a measure which will do something substantial at any rate to remove the confusion which exists in that branch of education which is proposed to he dealt with, and which will supply the link which is missing in our present educational system. One hon. Member has referred to the great expenditure upon the war, and he seemed to regard it as a matter for regret, in view of our educational necessities, that we had spent such great sums in that direction. For my part I am content that we should do all we can to find the money for all our responsibilities. I do not regret that we have spent that money in that direction, but I should regret it if I thought it was possible that people who know what are the necessities of the country at home in respect of this very urgent and pressing matter would be at all discouraged in dealing with this matter because of the obligations we have had to face abroad. I certainly shall not be disposed to vote for the proposal to reduce the right hon. Gentleman's salary, I wish to give the right hon. Gentleman a free hand in the matter, and I hope that when he introduces this Education Bill he will meet with that success which he deserves.
  MR. LOUGH: There is only one point to which I desire to draw the attention of the House; it is a matter which was referred to by the hon. Member for North Camberwell, and also by the noble Lord who represents South Kensington. We have listened with interest to the short and able speech made by the noble Lord, and we know he has aright to speak on this question, because he is a London Member. The question I refer to is the treatment of the seventy-nine higher grade schools of London. I disagree with the view which the noble Lord has put before the Committee, and I rise, to support my hon. friend, who has brought forward a most pressing grievance, which is great felt by the people of London, which the right

  647
  hon. Gentleman opposite could settle, I believe, in the way we desire, and I hope he will make an announcement on the subject before the debate closes. The noble Lord said that the Board of Education was perfectly right in this matter, because the maintenance of the seventy-nine, higher grade schools would interfere with secondary education as it exists at the present time, and that it would interfere with the schools which are to be created. This is an entire mistake, for these schools are provided only for young people between the ages of twelve and fifteen. When a child passes the fifteenth year he must be taken away from these schools. The second grade schools deal with young people between the ages of sixteen and nineteen years, therefore there is no conflict between the two. We heard with a great deal of pleasure the able speeches delivered from the benches opposite, and we hope to hear many more speeches in the same spirit from the same quarter during this debate. The hon. Member who has just sat down dealt with the question of the necessity of securing a better commercial education for the children. These seventy-nine schools were intended to give a commercial training. In November, 1898, one of the Government inspectors said, in regard to one of these schools which was about to be opened, that it should be designed not only with a view to provide for science and art, but also for the teaching of modern languages and for giving a commercial training. That was in the year 1898, and that is the opinion of one of the inspectors of the Board of Education. On the 2nd of March, 1899, there was a Memorandum sent out, which drew attention to two points—namely, the lack of commercial training, and the inadequate amount of time which was given to the only modern language taken. Those recommendations came from the Education Department itself. At that time the Education Department were urging schools to give a commercial education, and now they were taking away the grant because those schools had done this. The noble Lord who represents South Kensington said that it was more desirable to give a science and art training than to give this commercial training,
  648
  because it would be a much better preparation for an industrial or manufacturing career for boys and girls who Would ultimately assist in those industries. But in London the great industry is commerce. That is our chief industry, and while we agree that in Manchester and other manufacturing cities the schools should provide the special training which the children want in those districts, surely we have a right to claim that in London commercial education is an absolute necessity for the children. I do not see how this could have been made the ground by the Education Department for the withdrawal of these grants. On the 27th of July last, in this House. I put a question to the right hon. Gentleman, and I got a very long answer to that question.* I then put a supplementary question, in which I asked him in how many of these seventy-nine schools he was prepared to pay the higher grants asked for by the London School Board, and the right hon. Gentleman replied, "Not one; the curriculum is of a commercial and not of a scientific nature." Therefore, for giving this commercial education all these schools are to be fined, and all the work of the London School Board in this direction is to be Upset. I will give another illustration. Shorthand, typewriting, and bookkeeping have been taken up, because it was thought that an effort should be made to fit out these young people in these branches, because there was a greater demand for them; but the Education Department has singled out the London School Hoard for persecution, and it has done what it can to destroy these schools.
  SIR J. GORSTdissented.
  MR. LOUGH: I do hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give us a more, intelligent reply than merely shaking his head. I asked the right hon. Gentleman to deal with the Minute, and he said he would deal with it presently, and later on he made a most apologetic, reference to it. The right hon. Gentleman admitted that there is a loss of £4,000 a year in London on the operation of this system, and he
  * See The Parliamentary Debates) [Fourth Series], Vol. Ixxxvi., page 1516.

  649
  minimises the seriousness of that loss by saying that it was only one thirty-seventh part of a penny. The Vice-President of the Council appeared to apologise for the treatment London has received in respect of commercial education; but why does lie, pursue that treatment? This is not a question of the amount of money, but it is the spirit of the Board of Education that the people protest against. You may say what you like about the Code, but I think that shorthand, typewriting, and bookkeeping should not be classed as scientific or artistic education. I hardly know where the line can be drawn between these things, and it does seem to me to be straining a point very much, first of all to urge these schools to teach these subjects, and then fine them because they have done so. We have had three elections recently—the General Election, the School Board, and the County Council election—and I noticed that the people were moved as much by the treatment of these seventy-nine schools as by any other question that was presented to them. "We have been reminded that there are already seventy-nine of these schools, but that means only one school for every hundred thousand of the population. These are higher grade schools, and they should not be mixed up with the secondary schools. I want to press this question on behalf of London absolutely home on the right hon. Gentleman. We are, reminded by the First Lord of the Treasury that we have twenty-three days to criticise the Government, but I venture to observe that most of that time is wasted, because our criticism is generally perfectly barren. Perhaps to-day we shall waste from half-past four to twelve o'clock to-night criticising the policy of the Government. This is a matter which is entirely at the disposal of the right hon. Gentleman.
  SIR J. GORST: No, no.
  MR. LOUGH: The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. We all believe and hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be in a position to say after this debate that he was compelled by the House of Commons to yield upon this question. Are our representations to meet with no response whatever upon
  650
  a practical question of this kind when there is an almost unanimous opinion expressed on both sides of the House? I will conclude by simply asking the right hon. Gentleman to consider during the remainder of the debate these points on behalf of London, and one way or another to try to do something to save from extinction these seventy-nine schools, which are doing a most useful work in the Metropolis.
  *MR. TULLYsaid the debate had shown very clearly the great dissatisfaction of the country at the present state of education in this country.
  Attention called to the fact that forty Members were not present. House, counted, and forty Members being found present—
  *MR. TULLY(resuming) said that serious complaints bad been heard from both sides of the House, so that it must be a difficult thing for the right hon. Gentleman the Vice-President to perceive where he, had a friend. But when hon. Gentlemen lodged these complaints ought not they to consider whether they were not equally responsible for what had happened? Much of the trouble arose from the fact that many hon. Gentlemen desired to exclude the religious element from the teaching, whilst others desired to include it. A great deal had been said about the necessity for higher education, but it appeared to him that what was really required was a, good sound commercial education, which according to many of the experts who had spoken upon the question was not given to the people of this country. Typewriting, shorthand, and modern languages were all branches of higher elementary education, and if this country was to attain the educational level of Germany, France, and America, all these subjects would have to be taken up. In Germany particularly most people knew one modern language besides their own, and the neglect to teach modern languages in this country was very disadvantageous to the people. The present state of education was largely due to the persistent endeavour to drive religion out of the schools, and that had militated with special force against the Irish, who by bad

  651
  government had been driven from Ireland to seek their livelihood in England, and who had had to provide voluntary schools for their children. Such schools, supported only by the voluntary subscriptions of an indigent people, could not hope to compete with board schools maintained out of the rates—to which these people also had to pay their share—and consequently the children of these poor people were unable to obtain the advantages to which they were entitled. The religious aspect of the question had been definitely settled in Germany, where there was a large Catholic population living side by side with a Protestant population. The schools in each district taught the religion of the district, and unless a similar system were adopted here, England would never obtain the same educational level as her greatest competitor.
  The complaint which he had to make was the unfair way in which the Irish were treated in this matter, and it was for that reason he protested against the Vote. In any scheme that was put forward he hoped some steps would be taken to put the Irish children in this country on the same level as the English children, and that the attempt which was made in this intolerant manner to keep the Irish children down would cease.
  MR. RICHARDSsaid, speaking from an experience of twenty years on the subject of secondary education, the plan which he wished to see adopted as far as possible in this country was the German, which recognised primary, secondary, and, finally, university education. That was the educational ladder which he wished to see erected by the Government. He protested against handing over to school boards the work of secondary education, for which they were not created and for which they were not fitted. He was satisfied that by pursuing the policy of either taking the town council in county boroughs or the county council in counties, or representatives of those bodies, as the educational authority, the Government were more likely to solve the educational problem than by allowing school boards to include in their curriculum subjects which were essentially within the domain
  652
  of secondary education. The majority of school boards, especially in rural districts, were returned, hot on educational questions, but as the result of battles between Church and the intolerance of dissent. What had been said with regard to Germany was absolutely true. They had satisfactorily solved the religious difficulty in the manner suggested, and no educational difficulty resulted.
  The hon. Member for North-West Norfolk had spoken of the necessity for some authority for evening continuation schools; with that he quite agreed. He remembered once being told that a great deal of money was wasted in evening continuation schools, but the London School Board had shown that that was a fallacy. He, for one, did not grudge the money spent on the education of those who were prepared to give up their time after business to improve their position on the educational ladder. He appealed to the Government not to allow the school boards to run in opposition to the higher educational colleges established in various parts of the country, and to teach in their curriculum subjects of secondary education. He was sure it would be for the benefit of education that the work of primary education should be retained for the school boards only. Of course, he was not for a moment suggesting that the primary schools should direct their attention to primary education only. We were in need of a real system of commercial education, and that could not be obtained by what were called continuation classes. He was quite prepared to admit that they could deal with subjects which would lead to the commercial school, but they could only deal with them as specific subjects, and not on what he called the higher level of commercial education. We ought to follow the German plan, and he would recommend hon. Members to read the report of the Committee of the London County Council on technical education. Anyone who studied that report would master the systems of two or three Conthiental nations, and, he thought, would come to the conclusion that the German system was the best. We should establish in each of our large towns a system of commercial education, taking sixteen as

  653
  the lowest age, and going up to nineteen, or even later—a three years system. He said, unhesitatingly, that was not work for any of the school boards, but for another authority. He knew one parish in Cornwall where it was actually charged against the clergyman of the parish that an effort he made to provide secondary education was only another attempt to win young men for the Church. It only showed the depth to which the sectarian spirit which was abroad in these educational matters would descend. He knew another case where a clergyman established a higher grade school in a cathedral city, and the proposal that the local authority should make a grant to the school for the teaching of technical subjects was opposed on the ground that it might be an injustice to the Nonconformists, as if it could possibly matter in the teaching of chemistry whether the children were taught by a Pagan or a Hottentot. Such was the blindness of the supporters of hon. Members on the other side that they would pursue any policy of opposition to a secondary school which had an ecclesiastical flavour about it. Until we realised that religious matters should be shut outside the educational purview we should never get on with such a system. He knew that the hon. Member for Camberwell had been attacked for his liberal views on education. He hoped the hon. Member would show that he was willing to place those broad views at the disposal of his party, and support any real scheme which the Government might bring forward. He was sure they would carry it if they remembered that in primary education they bad no wish to displace the present authority.
  MR. ALFRED HUTTONsaid the last two speeches must have cheered the spirit of the Vice-President, as they had introduced for the first time the religious and theological difficulty. The hon. Member for East Finsbury told them that Liberals and Nonconformists only sought positions on school boards in order to put an end to voluntary schools. He never knew that before. Supposing that they succeeded in getting on the boards, they were absolutely unable to achieve that object. He had always thought that "the boot was on the other leg," and
  654
  that the object of the supporters of voluntary schools was, as a rule, to try to put a stop to the school boards, in order to put an end to the authority of the people.
  This debate was initiated by the hon. Member for West Nottingham on a different question altogether. The matters they had had under discussion related largely to the higher grade schools. The right hon. Gentleman the Vice-President of the Council was face to face with a strong feeling in the country. It was not a party feeling. On this question there was no party view. They had men of all parties. He thought the conclusion it which they had arrived in regard to the administration of the higher grade schools for the past twelve months was that it had been absurd. The right hon. Gentleman in the early part of his speech dealt with the illegality of the uglier grade schools.
  SIR. J. GORST: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. I did not say that the schools were illegal. What I said was hat the spending of the rates on them vas illegal.
  MR. ALFRED HUTTONsaid he perfectly understood the distinction. Of course, it was the spending of rates upon them that was illegal. The right hon. Gentleman told them two ways to get out of the difficulty.
  SIR. J. GORST: Three ways.
  MR. ALFRED HUTTONsaid he only remembered two at the moment. The first was that the school board could come to an arrangement with the local authority. The local authority had two funds at its disposal. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman, supposing the local authority bad already quite sufficient engagements to meet without increasing its contribution to the school board, what was to be the position of the school board in that case? Every one of the towns instanced by the right hon. Gentleman was comparatively small in area. Take Bradford, Halifax, and Huddersfield—he believed in all these three towns the county council or town council had undertaken the control and management of the technical school. If a school board went to these authorities and told them that they were in duty bound to maintain the higher grade schools, he

  655
  was afraid they would be disposed to reply that they would take their own course and see to the efficiency of their own school. The town councils of Bradford and Leeds had other engagements. They gave large contributions to the Church Institute classes. Would the right hon. Gentleman defend the withdrawing of the grants from those classes in order that the higher education schools might be maintained? It was absolutely hopeless that these schools could be maintained efficiently. These urban authorities had not the resources free and at liberty, and having sufficient engagements at present they could not assist the, school board to maintain the higher grade schools. The only other solution suggested by the right hon. Gentleman which he could recollect was private subscription.
  SIR J. GORST: I said they could charge fees, as they did in the early stages.
  MR. ALFRED HUTTONthought the answer to that was that having once abolished fees it would be exceedingly difficult to put them on again. He did not think it would be possible to reinstate them. The third course was the Minute. When the light hon. Gentleman explained the Minute to the House of Commons a year ago,* they were told, notwithstanding all the criticisms which they ventured to offer, that the Department were making a proposal which they honestly intended should he used in the maintenance of the efficiency of the schools. He should like to read the concluding portion of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, it was so very much to the point.
  "Now I hope that the House will believe that this Code and this Minute, which are so heartily approved by the Opposition, have been conceived with a desire to advance the elementary education of the country; that this scheme is the result of careful consideration and consultation with the best authorities available; and that the Board of Education believes that it can be carried into practical and useful effect. I hope the House will also believe that the Board of Education will watch the operation of this new policy and will be ready at once to make amendments wherever experience proves that amendments are necessary."
  The Department had refused every time to vary the conditions it had laid down.
  *See The Parliamentary Debate [Fourth Series], Vol. lxxxii., page 683.
  SIR J. GORST: They cannot vary the Minute without laying a fresh Minute before the House of Commons.
  MR. ALFRED HUTTONsaid it was rather significant that the Department had always replied in the stereotyped phrase that they could not possibly hold out any hope that any changes would be made in the Minute under which the application had been made. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say—
  "I trust the House will not reject the scheme put forward by Her Majesty's Government because there are two or three provisions in it of a purely detail character which may not in all respects accord with the notions of some hon. Gentlemen opposite."
  There were numerous cases in which amendments had been named, and in every case the Department had replied that they could not possibly consider any alteration in the Minute. He thought they had done worse. They had interpreted the Minute in a way that nobody could possibly have anticipated. He was perfectly aware that for many years in this country we were wofully behind other countries in matters of scientific teaching. Now we were having science run mad. Nothing but science would receive any consideration from the Government. If any other proposal was made they denied any grant or recognition at all. He fully expected when the new Code came up that they would have a regulation that no infant school would be recognised unless it was supplied with proper arrangements for the teaching of elementary science. The school hoards were seeking to have something in addition, or some option, but the right hon. Gentleman was doing his best to deny it. They were not asking the right hon. Gentleman to establish a new type of school; they simply asked for some latitude; and what were the excuses offered for refusing this? In one case the Department replied that they could not recognise the curriculum proposed by the school board, because they found in it book-keeping, shorthand, and business training. But the extraordinary thing was that while the Department refused to recognise in the curriculum of the higher grade school book-keeping and shorthand, those subjects could actually be taught under the Code in the elementary schools. The Department replied that these were to be considered

  657
  outside the scope of the higher grade schools, which were to be confined to the teaching of elementary science, He thought he might say that very few boards would ever consent to bring their schools under the Minute unless some of the conditions were altered. To bring them under the Minute would be to degrade the education given, and if a hoard would consent to do that, he did not think their majority would be the same after the next election. People in the large towns were proud of these schools, and they were not going to have them degraded by having them brought under the grant-earning Minute which the right hon. Gentleman brought before Parliament with the promise that it would be elastic.
  The right hon. Gentleman made one remark which he thought very unfortunate. He said the school boards were trying to make themselves the authority for secondary education. The right hon. Gentleman had no justification whatever for that statement. The hon. Member ventured to state that there was not a school board in the country that had the slightest ambition to make itself the authority for secondary education. Whether that were so or not, he felt hound to say, by way of warning the right hon. Gentleman, that in fixing upon some new authority he would he unwise to select either of the two antagonistic bodies at present in existence—the school boards and the technical instruction committees of the county councils. They were, rather jealous of one another. If the right hon. Gentleman were wise, he would create some authority which would not partake of favouring either of these disputants for the honour of having charge and control of secondary education. That would prevent jealousy, and put an end to the search for some line of demarcation between elementary and secondary education. If the Government were going to pursue that will-o'-the-wisp, they would never settle education. No line of demarcation could be found.
  SIR J. GORST: Hear, hear!
  MR. ALFRED HUTTONsaid he was very glad the right hon. Gentleman cheered that statement, because they had had the Duke of Devonshire repeatedly saying that the Department was seeking
  658
  a line of demarcation. He maintained that it was impossible to find one. The Department, knowing it could not find it in the curriculum, was seeking for it in the age of the students, but that was e equally impossible. The only way to avoid tie difficulty was to establish one authority with which all could fall into line, and which would be acceptable to the friends of the technical instruction committees on the one hand, and to the school boards on the other.
  *MR. GRAY: The general tone of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman filled me with deep regret. There was only one statement with which I found myself in complete agreement, and that was the statement with which he closed his speech in reference to the necessity for having one authority con-rolling all forms of education. Even with regard to that his view is apparently not the view of the Government, as he says the Government is to introduce a Bill upon which the House will have an opportunity of settling this question without the guidance of the Government. The Bill is to be introduced in such a form that the House shall settle for itself—
  SIR J. GORST: I said nothing of the kind. What I said was that on the Bill the Government would introduce Parliament would have an opportunity of raising these questions and getting a Parliamentary decision upon them. I never said the Government would introduce a Bill without guidance.
  *MR. GRAY: If Parliament is to have an opportunity of raising the questions, that generally implies that the questions are not in the Bill when it is introduced.
  SIR J. GORST: Oh, no.
  *MR. GRAY: I am glad my right hon. friend excludes that interpretation. I should be much more satisfied it the Government will screw up its courage at last, and come down with a scheme of one authority for all forms of education. I use the words "screw up its courage" advisedly, because although we were told in 1896 that this thing was essential, and in 1897 that the Bills they introduced were patching measures, designed to prepare the way for a final scheme of reform, yet the years which have since elapsed have witnessed no progress in the move-

  659
  ment inside the House, while the country outside is clamouring for a settlement. Year after year, on the Education Estimates, the Vice-President of the Council declares that this thing is necessary, and I am driven to the conclusion that it is simply on account of lack of courage on the part of the Government that we do not get the measure.
  The speech of the right hon. Gentleman to-night filled me with surprise. I understood that the object of this debate was to obtain from the Vice-President a clear interpretation of the policy of his Department with regard to the Higher Elementary Minute. He failed to give any such interpretation. That policy has been inconsistent from the first day to the last. Will the light hon. Gentleman himself get up and defend it? I think not. Can he explain the principles upon, which the Department is acting now? The explanation he gave at the commencement of this debate is totally different from the explanation, put before the Committee when the Minute was before us. Is he not aware that amongst these school boards, a large number of which are composed of Church people, with majorities of what are called "Moderates," as well as among all people interested in the education of the children, there is a feeling of deep anxiety as to what he would say this evening with regard to higher elementary schools. They started in May last with considerable hope; they saw a prospect of the schools called higher elementary schools being legalised. We were told that the object of this Minute was to legalise these particular schools. To-day we are told that it was in order that the organised science schools might be safeguarded in view of the possible decision of the courts in the Cockerton case.
  SIR J. GORST: That is what I said in May last.
  *MR. GRAY: The right hon. Gentleman says that is what he said in May last. Perhaps I may venture to quote. What was the difficulty in May last? I was present throughout the whole of the debate, and the circumstances are very vividly before my mind. The block grant had been introduced, and that lobby was full of gentlemen who were trying to get the Government to withdraw the block grant on account
  660
  of the mischief it was said it would inflict upon certain of the higher class schools. That block grant was in jeopardy; it was saved by the introduction of the Minute. The hon. Member for Cambridge University coupled the block grant of the Code with the Higher Elementary Minute in one and the same motion, and we went through the lobby in support of the Government on the double question—the Higher Elementary Minute, the natural corollary of the introduction of the block grant. The block grant did not inflict the slightest shadow of loss or injustice upon the higher grade schools. It did not touch the higher grade schools by so much as the, one-thirty-seventh of a penny at which the right hon. Gentleman estimates the injury in certain large towns. That one-thirty-seventh of a penny is not a very great loss to the ratepayers, but it represents a very large loss indeed to the 200 or 300 children who would have taken advantage of it, not only in board schools but in voluntary schools also. What are the facts of the case? The hon. Member for Cambridge University used these words—
  "It is also objected that the 22s. grant—"
  that is, the new block grant—
  "did not adequately reward those schools which have hitherto been teaching some higher subjects over and above the ordinary elementary work."
  That is not, the higher grade schools.
  "Such schools, which may have been earning a 25s. or 27s. grant, will be losers."
  Those are not higher grade schools; they are the higher standard schools, the higher divisions in some of the schools where a grant of 25s. or 27s. had been earned before the introduction of the block grant. He went on to say—
  "These schools may be obliged to give up their higher teaching."
  Now mark the next statement:
  "If the Code stood alone that objection would have force. But the new Code has been supplemented by the Minute of the Board of Education of April last,"
  supplemented, as he went on to explain, to meet the very case of these higher standard schools where a grant of 27s. had been earned in the past, and not to meet the case, of the higher grade schools at all. The right hon. Gentleman may say that he is not responsible in any way for what his colleague in the representa-

  661
  tion of Cambridge University may say. Unfortunately for that line of argument, in his own speech the right hon. Gentleman says—
  "I think the very lucid and clear exposition of the Code and Minute by my hon. friend and colleague the Member for the University of Cambridge would have put Members of the House of Commons in possession of all the views of the Government upon this subject."
  I have always regarded that, as I am sure the great majority of Members on both sides of the House in the last Parliament also regarded it, as fathering the exposition of policy given by the hon. Member for Cambridge University. It was perfectly clear to all of its that this Higher Elementary Minute was to meet the case of the schools which were to be hit by the introduction of the block grant. But what do we hear to-night? That it is not to meet the case of those schools, but the case of the higher grade schools. In the early part of his speech the right hon. Gentleman said there were two or three forms of higher grade schools. He went on to explain that there was the form in which the teaching of the ordinary Code subjects was followed, and that there was a large number of these schools. These were not organised schools of science; they taught the ordinary subjects of the Day School Code; and then he said, "These can go on." He dismissed them in the most airy fashion. I want to know how they are to go on without the money they are expecting to get out of this Higher Elementary Minute. These schools were, from the point of view of the ratepayers, and also from the public point of view, not only necessary but carried on on the most economical lines. What can be more ruinous than to have three or four children in one school, half a dozen in another, and a dozen in another, stopping for two or three years, demanding the attention of special teachers, and being taught special subjects? What can be more expensive than a system of that sort? These higher standard schools took all these children and grouped them together in one school, devoted the whole of their teaching to upper standard work, and relied on getting the higher grant of 27s. per child. These schools could not continue to exist, when the block grant system was introduced, but for the safeguard of the Higher Elementary
  662
  Minute. To-night we learn that these schools are not to look for any hope under the Higher Elementary Minute. They are not to continue the work they have been doing for years their only chance of getting assistance from the central treasury is by becoming organised schools of science. Nothing can be more disastrous than to try to cast the whole of these schools into one mould. I always thought these higher elementary schools were to resemble Les Ecoles Primaires Supérieures in France, with their three years course, and that the children stopping two or three years would take just those subjects which would fit them for the walk they were going to follow in after life. They can specialist at that age to some extent. I have seen the schools in excellent working order—
  SIR J. GORST: In France?
  *MR. GRAY: Yes, in France. I spent several days only a fortnight ago in some of these French schools; they were doing good work, and, as far as one could judge in a rapid glance, producing excellent results. They were not insisting on all the children following a scientific course in the first year. In the first year the children all take the same general line of study; in the second year they are divided into three sections—the literary, the industrial, and the commercial; and in the third year they mark still more emphatically the amount of time they should spend in the year on either industrial, commercial, or literary subjects, according to the walk of life they are going to follow later. It may be said that that is specialising at too early an age. But the great majority of those children will never go a step further; they are going to leave educational work when they have finished their course at the school. If they have no chance of specialising before leaving what are they to do? In Bradford they want the boys in their offices as commercial clerks; where are they to get the early stages of their training? According to the policy of the Board of Education they are to get it in the school of science.—[AN HON. MEMBER: There is an excellent grammar school in Bradford.]—Yes, at which fees must be paid, and in which the greater portion of the study is not commercial

  663
  but literary, from which the children may come out with a good literary education, and yet be only fitted to starve as clerks at £50 a year. I want to see introduced in our English schools a system of training which will induce the children to look upon manual labour as an honourable calling. But you do not get it by making all the schools organised science schools. Why should you not have book-keeping for a lad thirteen or fourteen years old? If you have an advanced course of organic chemistry, why not a course in French or some other modern language? Are all these children going to earn their living in the manufacturing departments of the State? Are they all going to be mechanics? We are training a large number of our children in the primary schools to do the manufacturing of the article, but we are training hardly one for the distribution of the article when made. All over the country merchants are lamenting this defect in our national system of education. It would be all very well to talk about specialising at a later date, that it could be postponed until the children got to the secondary schools, but for the one fact that a very large percentage, of the children can never have an opportunity of going to a secondary school, and unless there is something in the way of specialisation in these schools you have not only done no good to those children, but you have done them a great deal of harm. You ought to be able to judge at fourteen years of age what the parent proposes to do with, the child. In some schools I have visited the head teacher's time is largely occupied in advising parents as to the walk of life a child should follow, having carefully noted the aptitudes of the child in school and the liking it has for special branches of study. I thought we were going to have under the Higher Elementary Minute schools of the description I have mentioned; the very name encouraged that hope. Now we are told it is to safeguard the higher grade schools.
  I should like to go a step further with regard to these higher elementary schools. It has been argued all the evening as if none but school boards were able to establish these schools. What about half the children of the country? What
  664
  about the 2,600,000 children who are still attending voluntary schools? Are these to have no opportunity whatever? Said the Vice-President very airily, "These schools can go on." Yes, legally they can go on, but they cannot go on without the necessary money. If the right hon. Gentleman withdraws the support of this Higher Elementary Minute, these schools must of necessity close their doors. As far as voluntary schools are concerned, there are two courses open: to transfer their children to the board schools and seek the support of the rates, in order to keep the higher elementary school going, or to abandon all hope of a child attending a voluntary school getting this slightly higher form of education. I beseech the Committee not to run away with the idea that this is secondary school training. Go into the schools and see them at work; look at the work in the higher elementary schools across the water; judge for yourselves whether that is secondary school work. Recollect the homes these children come from, their limited vocabulary when they start, the difficulties they have to contend with. It is absurd to suggest, except in a very few cases indeed, that anything in the nature of real secondary education can be given to such children before the ago of fifteen. The Swiss would laugh at the idea of this being secondary education. They look upon it as an essential feature of their primary school life. In many countries they would refuse to let the child leave school earlier, insisting on the whole burden of its education being thrown upon the State, and insisting upon the child staying at school until it had passed through this course in the higher elementary school.
  Now I turn for one moment to the question of the higher grade schools—the organised science schools. I hope the right hon. Gentleman did not intend to leave the impression, but I am bound to say he left it on my mind, that these schools had been established by fraud. We had case after case quoted where school boards had applied for loans to build schools, giving an assurance that they were to be elementary schools and organised science, schools, and then, having obtained the loans on these conditions, they used the school solely as an

  665
  organised science school. It sounded very much like a charge of fraud, of obtaining loans under false pretences. I hope the right hon. Gentleman did not intend to convey that impression; but, if so, if these school boards were fraudulent in their intentions, the Hoard of Education connived at the fraud, aided and abetted it, published documents, quasi-official, encouraging boards to carry on this work, suggesting to them that it was their obvious duty to establish these schools; and I believe I have been out with some of the officials of the Department to the opening of higher grade schools, when no words could be too flattering of the authority for the excellent way in which they were discharging their public duty. I have heard it over and over again, and I agree with the flattery, or rather the praise; I agree that these authorities are doing their duty. If they were not, what would the ratepayers have done with them at the next election? They would have thrown them out of office. These are popularly-elected bodies. One would imagine that they were bodies which held office contrary to the wishes of the local ratepayers. The establishment of the great majority of these higher grade schools has been the subject of keen criticism and contest at school board elections. The people, if any, to condemn are not the members of the school board, but the electors who put them into office. The electors are primarily responsible for every higher grade school in existence.
  When the Vice-President was referring to these schools he gave us one or two instances in which he said these loans had been obtained under false pretences—cases in which, having obtained the loan, they then established a science school. Somebody asked him to give the figures showing the proportion of science and elementary scholars respectively in the school. I will give the figures in one or two instances. I believe one of the schools referred was at Hanley, where under the conditions set forth the school was established, and, said the right lion. Gentleman, "What did they do? There were 309 scholars receiving scientific instruction in that school" Perfectly true; but I think he ought to have added that in the same building there were 279 children receiv-
  666
  ing the ordinary elementary instruction. Therefore it seems to me that they were fairly keeping the conditions. Another case mentioned was that at Leeds, in which the conditions were laid down and said to be violated, and we were told there were no less than 204 scholars taking the scientific course. Yes, but surely we ought to have been told that in addition there were in the same building no less that 737 children taking the ordinary elementary school course. Therefore, I suggest that the conditions under which the loans were obtained were not violated. If I take the total of fifty-nine of these so-called organised science schools, I find 11,800 scholars in the science section, and no less than 26,099 in the elementary section, so that the great majority of the scholars are still doing the ordinary elementary school work, and the remainder are taking the scientific course.
  I do not propose to weary the Committee except with one word more. I am tired of trying to get any progress in the administration of the Department. What do I find? Why, at the General Election a few months ago Member after Member, on this side of the House as well as on that, set forth in paragraph after paragraph their desire to see rapid progress in popular education. Speeches were made by Conservative and Unionist candidates, in favour generally of the Imperialistic policy of the Government; but if the word "education" were ejaculated by some enthusiast in the meeting the reply was—"Yes, I am all in favour of progress in popular education." No sooner do we get in this Chamber than the desire to see progress vanishes. [Ministerial cries of "Oh, oh."] Well, if the desire for progress in this matter has not evaporated, then I hope that hon. Members will soon have an opportunity of showing their zeal. This debate tonight has been worth the having if only for the speech which we have heard from the right hon. Member for Dart-ford. But what he has said in the House to-night on this question has been said here and in the country scores of times, and yet we cannot get this question settled. Public meetings attended by the clergy and the bishops of the Church have all clamoured for this reform, and voluntary school managers declare that in spite of all their endeavours

  667
  in the past few years they cannot keep going much longer. Only yesterday another case came into my hands of a London school which was shut up because it was found impossible to carry it on any longer. The same cry is coming from one end of the country to the other. Owing to the vacillating policy of the Education Department we do not know what next year may bring. It has been said that it is necessary to draw a clear line of demarcation between primary and secondary schools, but you would not need that if you had one local authority. A great waste of money, waste of effort, and waste of time is characterising the existing system. There is needless overlapping, and a struggle is going on between the secondary and technical authorities and the school board and the voluntary schools for the body of the same child, in order to drag that child into this and that school simply to get the grant per head that is paid by the State. If Parliament will but give ns a single educational authority in each county council area, that local authority will take precious good care that there is none of this overlapping. Such a reform would destroy three-fourths of the existing jealousies, for it would then be nobody's interest to keep a child in a particular school, but it would be everybody's interest to put a child in that school in which it would be best taught.
  I am appealing for no one sect, but for the training of these children upon whom the future of this great Empire depends. There is a, great commercial contest going on between the great nations, and you are doing nothing to meet it. We know how much the intelligence of a battalion affects results on the battle field, and we hear that it is necessary that our soldiers should be better trained. Why not give them this chance in the day school? Why should those parents who want to keep their children at school until they are fifteen years of age not have the chance of doing so? At all events, if the locality is prepared to do this, do not let the Government hinder them, and if their action happens to be illegal, then I say that it is the first duty of the Government to come to Parliament for that legislation which will enable a locality to carry out its own desire.
  SIR JOSEPH LEESE: I wish to call the attention
  668
  of the House to the summary dismissal of teachers without them having any opportunities of appeal or any chance of reinstatement. I remember that in the last session of Parliament, in the year 1900, I put a question to the right hon. Gentleman the Vice-President of the Council, asking him if he would bring in a Bill making the Board of Education the final court of appeal in such matters as this. I remember that he promised then to bring in a Bill the following session. Then there came the General Election, and in the short session of December last I put down another question, and he promised me another Bill this session. And I am sorry to say that when a question was put the other night he gave the same rather evasive answer. My reason for rising to-night is simply and solely to ask him to regard this matter as one of pure justice and not as a party question.
  SIR, J. GORST: I cannot allow the hon. Member to say that I gave an evasive answer upon this subject.
  SIR JOSEPH LEESE: I said "a rather evasive answer," but I will withdraw it.
  SIR J. GORST: I said that my noble friend the Lord President of the Council in December last authorised me to say that the matter would be dealt with in the present session. My noble friend is still of the same mind. The matter will be dealt with, but whether it will be dealt with by minute or legislation is still under consideration. My hon. friend the Member for West Ham accused me of saying one thing last year and another thing this year. The only way to defend myself against this charge is to inflict upon the Committee a passage from a speech which I made on. 3rd May, 1890. I then said—
  "You have school boards who have established excellent higher-grade schools, whose work I have always spoken of in terms of the highest eulogy, end school hoards are now supporting those schools in an illegal manner out of the school funds. What, then, is to he done? This Minute affords an opportunity of placing these schools on a legal and legitimate footing, and although there may he some higher-grade schools which will stand out and take the chance of the law courts, yet I believe the great majority of these schools have hailed with satisfaction the publication of this Minute, and that they will convert themselves into higher elementary schools so as to put their proceedings on a proper and legitimate footing."

  669
  The majority of the great school boards boycotted the Higher Education Minute and resolved, particularly as the Science and Art Department were continuing to pay the grants, to wait for the final judgment. A few of the boards have come in, and Sheffield and Salford and some others have converted their schools into higher elementary schools; but the majority of the boards are holding out until the final judgment, and then I have no doubt that a very large number of them will come in.
  The hon. Member for Halifax asked me three questions. The first was why 17s. 6d. was still imposed upon evening continuation schools. That is a question for the Treasury, and not for the Board of Education. With regard to the question of the attendance of children at evening continuation schools, I will do everything in my power to make regulations by which the evening continuation schools shall be real continuation schools, but I am most reluctant to allow even for six months a wretched child to attend all the day at the day school and all the evening at the evening school. I think that if a child of tender years has attended properly to school in the day-time it is almost cruel to expect that child to attend at an evening school as well. As to the question of physical instruction in evening schools, I can assure the House that I am as eager as any hon. Member to see that the children, both boys and girls, have proper physical instruction.
  The hon. Member for West Islington, the hon. Member for North Camberwell, and my hon. friend the Member for West Ham have all been extremely zealous in regard to the case of commercial education generally. My idea of a commercial education differs somewhat from theirs, but I do not doubt that they are genuine in their zeal, and I hope that they will be equally generous to me and believe me when I say that I am not trying to destroy our education or the commercial schools by the policy we have adopted. My idea of a commercial education is not satisfied by merely teaching typewriting and shorthand to boys of ten to fourteen years of age. That is not my notion of a commercial education. Book-keeping as a branch of arithmetic is a very proper subject, and there is no obstacle to its being taught; but typewriting of course
  670
  is a more technical accomplishment, and so is shorthand, and I do not think, considering the short time there is for general education, that the time of the children should be devoted to teaching them a merely technical art.
  The hon. Member for North Camber-well was good enough to weary the House by quoting a number of passages from the speech which I made some years ago at the Mansion House, but his quotations do not fairly represent my views. What I said was that the only way by which you can have a good commercial education is by establishing it upon a sound general elementary education, and between the ages of ten and fourteen years the children ought to be undergoing their general education; and to attempt to specialise and teach them what is called a commercial education is merely a waste of time, and will produce results which will be of no value whatever. I should like to be allowed to say on this subject that this question of specialisation in education is one which has exercised very much the attention of those who look upon education from a philosophical point of view. If anybody takes the time and trouble to do what I have had to do as part of ray duties, that is to visit the educational exhibits at the late Paris Exhibition, he will have been struck by a very remarkable divergence between the northern Teutonic and Anglo-Saxon races and the Southern races, like the French and the Italians. The universal principle of the Northern races is general education and the general development of intelligence up to a comparatively late age, and no specialisation before sixteen or seventeen. That principle is carried out, too, in a most remarkable way in America. America is a practical country, a commercial country, a manufacturing country, where everybody is looking to "the main chance," and yet these unphilosophical and practical Americans do not attempt to specialise in any way whatever until a comparatively late age. They do not prepare the child for a particular walk in life, but they give it a general education which is calculated to develop all the faculties of mind and body, and then for the first time they begin to specialise. But that is not so in France, and my hon. friend has been speaking about the French schools. In France, as in Italy and the Southern

  671
  countries generally, they attempt very early to teach the children what we call something useful. That is to say, at a very early age they begin to give one kind of instruction to a child who is going to be an agricultural labourer, another kind to a child who is going to be a clerk, and so forth. In this way the children are prepared for the course in life which the are expected to follow. It is a very remarkable thing, but I was told by the people with whom I conversed at Paris that the result of the Exhibition had been to very much shake the faith of the French educationists in their own system, and they were very much more inclined to adopt the American system of general education, which was, in the main, the English system of not specialising. That is the policy which the Board of Education have been pursuing in tins country in relation to these higher elementary schools for which we have been so severely handled. The idea of the higher elementary school is that it should be a school giving a general education calculated to develop the faculties of the boys and girls between ten and fourteen. I think that is a very early age to specialise.
  Then some hon. Member has talked about these schools being pure schools of science. The amount of science which is required in the higher elementary school is four hours per week for the first two years, and six hours per week for the last two years, half of which is to be practical work. That is not more science than can be reasonably acquired in an ordinary general education. There are twenty-five hours in the school week, and, therefore, twenty-one or nineteen available for other than scientific, subjects. It should be remembered that it is not the same science in every school, for there is a great variety which can be taught. The teaching of science is a matter in which there can be an enormous amount of variety. Therefore you have twenty-one hours at the disposal of the school managers for other subjects in the first two years, and you can devote it to your own English language, or even to shorthand and bookkeeping, though I regret enormously the time which school boards I when those children arrive at the age devote to those subjects. Then why, it is asked, are not these large grants given to the ordinary higher grade schools?
  672
  The Department is tied by its duty to Parliament. There is no power to give these large grants in the Higher Elementary School Minute to any school which does not teach subjects outside of the Elementary School Code, and there is no Parliamentary authority to give grants for anything outside the Code but scientific subjects. The general idea of Parliament is that literary education is provided for by very large endowments, that technical education is provided for by the whiskey money which comes out of the Consolidated Fund, and that science and art and elementary education are provided for by the annual grants of the House of Commons.
  MR. ASQUITH: You can modify the Code.
  SIR J. GORST: Yes, we can modify the Code, but until it is modified it must be observed. Suppose that a higher elementary school is started for teaching boys between twelve and fourteen some special commercial subject such as the Spanish language, for instance. Let me point out this fact. There is another authority in the district which is empowered by Parliament to teach modern languages, and which has Exchequer money given to it by this House for the purpose of enabling it to teach them. What is really proposed is, that having set up a technical instruction committee, say, in the borough of Bradford, for the purpose of teaching Spanish and having the power to teach the Spanish language, we are to set up another authority to teach Spanish which is to receive a large Exchequer grant. Therefore, we should have two schools at Bradford drawing pupils from one another and competing for the same students. It is the most monstrous confusion that you can possibly conceive. I do not think that the is a matter in which there can be an hon. Members who are so zealous for a commercial educational have any idea of this. If instead of agitating for these higher grants you will take the children of the higher grade schools and teach them within the four corners of the Code all the subjects which the Code allows you sound general elementary education, when those children arrive at the age of fourteen or fifteen and leave the elementary school, then they are exactly in the condition to receive a special com-

  673
  mercial education. If the school boards would give up the idea of keeping the children out of the secondary schools and instead of this prepare them for the secondary schools, and after they have left this course of study, then send them into secondary schools to receive technical education in one, and commercial education in the other, I think you would have your children very much better educated than you will if you persist in keeping the children out of the secondary schools. In this way you give the children the advantages of a much wider education. It is not the hon. Members opposite alone who are zealous for the poor man's child. We are trying to do what is best for his child, but you want to keep the poor man's child perpetually in a school of his own. We want him to mix with the rest of the population, and we want the cleverer of the children of the working classes of this country to mix with other children and with other boys and girls, so that they can ultimately find their way into the universities. Everybody knows how many of the distinguished men in the universities of the land and in our scientific societies have sprung from the ranks of the people. You can never promote the real higher education of the people by shutting them up in a separate school of their own. You want to mix all classes together, and give scholarships and exhibitions by which the best and cleverest children of the working classes can find their way to the universities, and it is in that way only that you will perpetuate that system which has made this country as great as it is.
  *MR. MATHER: Any hon. Member who has looked at the crowded Strangers' Gallery to-night must have noticed the intense interest which is taken in this subject by the country as a whole. The old lassitude and lethargy connected with this great subject seem to have passed away. It has passed away not on purely academic grounds, but owing to a fear, which is becoming intensified as the years roll on, that Great Britain stands in danger among the great nations of the world as regards her future during the next twenty-live years. The right hon. Gentleman opposite has used arguments and littered sentiments which do not appear to me to be quite consistent
  674
  the one with the other. None of us, I think, on this side of the House, or on the other side of the House, will dispute the fact that the, American system of general education for all classes of the community, from the bottom to the top, is the most perfect and symmetrical plan by which the human mind can be trained intelligently for the purposes of life. All classes join together in this system of education. They meet at the primary school, they meet at the grammar school, and pursue their way to the higher schools, and many of them find their way to the colleges eventually. Yon find under the American system all classes of the community mingling together, and nothing in my opinion, is better calculated to make a nation truly great in all its aims and objects than that the children should be educated on the American plan. That is precisely the plan that we advocate on this side of the House, and which many hon. Members on the opposite side desire to see carried out and adopted in England. But to do this you must adopt the American authority, and the American authority is a universal school board in every city of the country. There is scarcely a single exception in all the areas of city life in America where the school board is not elected to take charge of education from the bottom to the top, and it takes entire control. Education is afforded without money and without price to all ranks and classes of the community through public taxation. If that were the system established in this country, none of us would object, but we have cause to complain now of the way in which our children are trained under dual authorities. Under the American system the children pass from the primary school upwards, and if that system was adopted in England, we should have an educated people in a comparatively short space of time. The interest taken in this discussion this evening will make itself felt not only with the Committee, but certainly throughout the entire country, as marking a new departure in the great question of education.
  I understand that we are about to have introduced during this year many new things. At any rate the Government of the day have promised certain reforms in

  675
  several directions. But of all the reforms which appear to be most necessary for the salvation of the country, in my opinion and in the opinion of many others who have studied this question for many years, a reform in our national education stands the first; and it also stands the first in the estimation of the country. In the discussion of this great national question we have had an empty Front Ministerial Bench, and rather a small attendance in Committee, but the interest outside in this question has been manifested to-night by the very large number of the public present here. I believe that next Friday we are to have another reform introduced into this House in connection with the Army. Upon that occasion the Front Bench opposite and all the benches in the House will be crowded, and it will be difficult to get a seat in the House. But I maintain that this question of national education should precede all other reforms, because even Army reform depends for its efficiency upon educational reform. I do ask the right hon. Gentleman to take it most seriously into his consideration, because it must be evident from what he has heard during the debate to-day and from his own experience outside, that at least the people of this country have come to the conclusion that we can no longer face the future upon the basis of that want of intelligence and that inadequate provision for general education which we have been passing through during the last twenty-five years. We are thankful for the small progress achieved, but that has only made us feel more acutely than ever what a vast difference there is between the advantages of the working classes in this country and those enjoyed by America and Germany when they come face to face with the real purposes of life. I am a large manufacturer, and we engineers of England are in a position to compare our industry with those large industries carried on on the other side of the Atlantic and in Germany. It must be within the knowledge of every Member of the Committee that during the last ten years there has been a gradual encroachment upon all the industries for which this country was distinguished in former years. Our supremacy has been challenged and undermined. This has not
  676
  happened for want of natural resources, or for want of coal, iron, copper or other raw materials which we obtain from all parts of the earth by a splendid development of the shipping interest. The difficulty is that the human material is not as competent now to deal with the scientific and industrial problems of the day as it was twenty-five years ago. The rest of the world has gone ahead, and has got into line with us, and even passed us in many industries. Those engaged in scientific industries naturally ask why it is that we cannot maintain this supremacy in the future; why we fear the competition of to-day. There is only one palpable reason, which stares us in the face all the time, and that is the lack of that cultivated intelligence amongst the industrial classes which is necessary to enable us to carry on our industries in the scientific manner which the world demands in all directions. Only the other day I came across a remarkable illustration of this point. I was asked to obtain an English chemical analyst for a large manufacturing firm abroad, and after looking round for weeks, I could only find four who were in any sense competent to come up to the necessary requirements. On the other side of the water I could have found scores where I could only find one here. That kind of thing disheartens industry when looking to the future. I will ask the right hon. Gentleman, if he doubts my experience, or the results of it, to consult any large employer of labour, engaged in any scientific industry in this country, and he will find that one and all of them experience the greatest difficulty in getting proper human material to face the great problems which have to be met. I think that is the greatest obstacle to our maintaining the supremacy which we formerly held amongst the nations of the world.
  For these reasons, is it not the duty of the Government to throw aside all other considerations, and give all that we require for the reform of our national system of education? The right hon. Gentleman stated in regard to the 17s. 6d. limit that the matter depended upon the Treasury. Any Government worthy of the name that wishes to meet our enemies not only in the field but also those in our own household—any Government capable of recognising the signs of

  677
  the times and which desires to meet these enemies, surely ought to regard national education as one of the most important questions to which it could devote the money of the people. The Treasury should be made to feel tins, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Prime Minister, the Leader of the House, and the gentlemen who rule the destinies of the nation, should recognise the fact that we at least on this side of the House are willing to bury the hatchet of discord so far as all the minor differences of a national system of education are concerned, and are willing to support the Government as we did in the passing of the Technical Instruction Bill of 1889— which would never have passed but for our action on this side of the House. We are willing to go with them and justify their action in our constituencies, if they will only give us the chance by establishing once and for all a system under one large authority, without making any lines of demarcation to differentiate between the education necessary for the working classes and for the middle classes of the country, and all classes up to that stage of culture to which some of them may aspire later on. I have done what I could in my business to encourage the spirit of education among parents, for I have stipulated that in my works no apprentice shall be taken under sixteen years of age who has not undergone a regular course of higher instruction. Age alone cannot be the test. You cannot differentiate between the ages of fifteen and sixteen. Elementary science should be a subject of common and general education in our primary schools, and to teach something of the laws of nature is to make a child understand the A B C of science. There is no difficult about explaining to a child the nature of the atmosphere he breathes, or the manner in which we obtain water by means of a pump, or the difference between a vacuum and air pressure, or the forces of nature. All these things meet him through the ordinary course of his life, and they can be brought before him in the schoolroom at the age of fourteen or fifteen just as well as they can be at the age of eighteen.
  I earnestly press upon the right lion. Gentleman to take it from the Committee's attitude to-night that we are
  678
  really in earnest. I have never heard the House of Commons so much in earnest as it has been to-night on this great question of national education. Outside the House the right hon. Gentleman needs no proof that the country is aroused upon this important matter. We have the example of other nations before us. It is a matter for irony for us to be now discussing what the English nation requires in education for her future destiny. We are the oldest nation of the world in the modern sense of the word, and should be the most advanced. The right hon. Gentleman has now a splendid opportunity, for the House is ready and more than eager to support him in every way it can, and if he will only make the Cabinet understand how much in earnest the House is, and still more the country, then I think we shall have reached a very happy period in our history. A new reign has just dawned upon us. We have a now monarch and a new Parliament, and we have entered on a new century. Let it be recorded in our history that this was a time when a new national system of education was established throughout the length and breadth of the land, and then I believe the country will once more rise to great achievements.
  *Mr. BONDsaid that in the earlier part of the debate his right hon. friend the Member for South Aberdeen gave an account of the way in which the higher grade schools came into existence. Those who were acquainted with the history of this educational movement knew that here and there up and down the country it began by pressing education beyond the standards of the Code, which it was perceived could be got through by children of average ability long before the time at which it was desirable that they should leave school. The consequence was that schools began to be established which had since been known as higher grade schools. It was recognised that when they got beyond the standards of the Code they could no longer use the rates for the support of those schools, and the result was that though the children were still kept in the buildings the education was supposed to be paid for partly by fees, partly by the grants from the Science and Art

  679
  Department. Subsequently, however, the fees were diminished, and in some cases entirely abolished. The grants of the Science and Art Department were diminished or were less easily obtained, and the consequence was that schools of this kind, established to meet a real want, found themselves obliged to carry on in a manner which in the earlier stage of their existence they would have considered to be illegal. Then there came a still further development in the schools of the great northern towns. In London, where the higher grade schools had only lately been developed, the object of establishing them was not so much to fill an ascertained gap in education as to increase the prestige of the School Board, and really enter into competition with existing secondary schools. That had happened to his knowledge to a very large extent, and the difficulty in the matter was that the masters conducting the higher grade schools were naturally desirous of keeping the children in the schools instead of willingly relinquishing them to the secondary schools, to the detriment not only of the education of the children, but to the great detriment of the secondary schools. Children were now kept at the higher grade schools until they were about fifteen, and then because it was found that they would have a better chance of obtaining certain kinds of employment if they came from a secondary school they were sent to such a school for what was thought to be a finishing year. That was bad for the education of the children and disadvantageous to the secondary schools.
  There were two great things to be considered in connection with the matter. One was that the Act of 1870 was intended to provide for the elementary education of the great mass of the people —labourers, artisans, soldiers, policemen, and the men filling the lower ranks of the Civil Service. At what age would such people begin to earn their livelihood? Was it possible in the conditions of our social system—even though he thought it desirable—that such children as those for whom the elementary system of education was devised could remain at school beyond the age of fourteen? He heard with great interest the statement of the hon. Gentleman opposite about not taking apprentices into his works until they
  680
  were sixteen. But from the way in which the hon. Gentleman announced the fact he evidently regarded it as exceptional. Elementary education was now free, or practically free, and question was whether the Committee was prepared to go any further in the direction of making education, to a higher degree, gratuitous? The higher grade schools had one great attraction in the eyes of parents, and that was that no fees were payable at them—at least in London. Another difficulty was the comparative lateness of the age at which scholars now entered the secondary schools. That was a real danger to education. They were not at liberty to treat education as consisting of a number of different stages, like a house of cards*. Education properly understood was a much more serious matter than that. It was a matter of organic growth, so far as it could be secured, of drawing on the child stage by stage, from subject to subject, and in the end turning him out as complete a social instrument as he could be turned out having regard to the time ho remained at school. He confessed that the situation presented very great difficulties. School boards and schoolmasters and mistresses in elementary schools, actuated no doubt by very laudable motives and desirous of doing their very best for the education I of the children confided to their care, had departed from the plain course prescribed for them by the Elementary Education Act, and had unquestionably encroached on the field of secondary education. They did it in many cases with the assent, approval, and recognition of the inhabitants of the districts in which the development had taken place, and with the left-handed recognition of the Education Department. Now that the illegality of such action was being discussed, they were confronted with what was certainly a difficult, delicate, and awkward question. The schools which had been established were doing good work, and work which met with the approval of the bulk of the inhabitants I of the districts where it was being carried on. It would be extremely difficult to shut them up altogether, and he himself thought that the conclusion which had been arrived at by some 6i the speakers in the debate was a right

  681
  conclusion, and that the only way of getting a really satisfactory system of education, which would provide necessary instruction up to the age of about sixteen, was to establish either one central authority or several local authorities to deal with the whole subject. There were however immense perils and difficulties in that plan. They could not remodel their education system in that way without a very large increase of expenditure. Hon. Members on both sides seemed prepared for that, but no hon. Member had given any figures to indicate what the cost would lie. At present education was practically free up to the age of fifteen or thereabouts.
  If they wished to go further, and provide State education for children remaining at school until the age of seventeen or thereabouts, and to eliminate the unhappy jealousies which had prevailed for a long time between the elementary and secondary schools, the only way to proceed, so far as he could see, was to fall back on some such plan as had been suggested. He hoped that when the Bill which had been promised was introduced it would be found to contain provisions for the consolidation of education authorities in different districts, so that the entire system from beginning to end might be worked harmoniously on a definite plan.
  Mr. ASQUITH: I shall not detain the Committee for more than two or three minutes. As this has been such a remarkable debate, it may lie desirable before we proceed to a division for one to endeavour to summarise its main features. It is certainly the first time in my experience of the House of Commons in which practically a whole evening, nominally devoted to a Vote on Account embracing all the branches of the Civil Service, has been entirely occupied by the one topic we are engaged on. We hear a great deal, rightly and justly, about the necessity of reforming some of our public Departments, the War Office, and so on; but I think the manner in which the House has occupied its time to-night is the most significant proof the country could have that we look on the reform of our educational system as coming first and foremost. I think, without any distinction of party, we may recognise that as a hopeful
  682
  sign, because it shows that not merely has the debate been contributed to almost equally by both sides of the House; not merely that we are full of hope and desire for the future, bin that we are animated by what I conceive to be a just and legitimate apprehension as to our existing educational position.
  My hon. friend the Member for Rossendale, in his speech a few minutes ago, and speaking with his long experience as a large employer of labour, emphasised in. I think, not at all accentuated or exaggerated terms, the enormous danger to which the industries of this country are exposed, not from any falling off in the energy or even in the intelligence of either our capitalists or labourers, but from the superiority in methods of training which have been adopted by our leading competitors in the industrial world. For the first time in the history of this country,-indeed in the history of the world, the exports of a foreign country during the last twelve months have exceeded, our own and if ever there were an occasion when it was time for us to look round and put our educational house in order that occasion has now arrived. There is also another point which has found ample expression during the course of this debate, and that is that whatever differences we may have had in the past or may have in the future—and J do not in the least disguise or minimise their importance—as to the position of denominational schools on the one side and board schools on the other, there is a certain neutral ground in the direction of educational improvement on which all parties in this House may meet. The greatest educational reform which has taken place in our time was carried out under the conduct of my right hon. friend—I mean the providing of free education in our primary schools. That was a matter on which there was no division of party opinion, and the measure was carried into law practically with the consent of all parties. There is another illustration, not perhaps so wide-reaching in its effects, but not to be ignored—I refer to the Technical Instruction Act of 1899. That Act, I am sorry to say, was circumscribed in its extent, but it has already produced, and will, if largely extended, continue to produce, the foundations of a system of technical

  683
  education throughout the length and breadth of the country. Having regard to the manifest indications of a universally dominating interest in this matter, and to the willingness of all parties in the State to co-operate in the solution of it, cannot the Government give us this year—they have an unexampled opportunity—a chance of making a really large step forward?
  There are two measures to which I desire particularly to refer. The first is what may he done by legislation, and the other is what may be done by administration. As regards legislation, I think it is universally acknowledged that the time has come when we may really take a practical step towards the attainment of what has long been an educational ideal—namely, the co-ordination of our various systems of primary, secondary and more developed education into something like a harmonious and logical system. Speaker after speaker has pointed out to-night that a clever child, the child with brains, who has passed through a primary school, finds himself in the next stage very much handicapped by want of adequate provision for his more developed education, and very often cut short at a time when, if he had proper facilities and opportunities, he might be able to develop his education to a degree which would make him a really efficient worker in the development of the industries and science of the country.
  That is a matter of course as to which we must suspend our judgment until we see the scheme of the Government, but I want to lay even still greater stress on the necessity and urgency of a reform which does not depend upon legislation at all, but which could be carried out to-morrow by a stroke of the Vice-President's pen. There are a number of children who have reached the age of twelve or thirteen, and who from the necessities of the case—the circumstances of their parents and so forth—can probably never hope to mount up the higher rungs of the educational ladder, or obtain the advantages which a secondary and more developed system of education would provide. If the law is to be interpreted in the sense in which it has been interpreted by the Courts, these children
  684
  will be left absolutely stranded during two of the most important and critical years of their lives. Having passed the sixth or even the seventh standard, and being still at a school age, and in the elementary schools, they will be left absolutely stranded and compelled to go without any further education. Well, I say to the Vice-President and to His Majesty's Government, if they will modify and mould the Code issued from Whitehall so as to continue the facilities which are now provided in the higher branches of elementary schools, but of which they are threatened to be deprived, they will provide for this class of children, who really may not have another chance in their lives, the only possible means of developing their minds and faculties and making them capable and efficient citizens. That is absolutely within the power of the right hon, Gentleman to-morrow, if he wishes to exercise his statutory rights to bring it into effect. I earnestly hope and believe that the debate to-night will supply an impulse and incentive to the Government to carry out these two steps, and I hope that such a favourable opportunity will not be lost.
  MAJOR RASCHsaid he did not pretend to be an expert in educational matters. In the agricultural districts education was sometimes regarded as a great advantage and at other times as an unmitigated nuisance, but he did not propose to express his own views on the subject. He only wished to say that he desired to support the view put forward by the hon. Member for Accrington with reference to the security of the tenure of teachers in elementary schools. The teachers were subject to irresponsible Boards, and if they went to church or to chapel, if they played the organ or refused to play the organ, or accepted the eastern position, they were liable to dismissal and had no appeal. All they asked was that there should be an appeal to the county councils or to the Vice-President himself. For the last year and a half he and other hon. Members had been pressing the matter on the Vice-President of the Council without the slightest effect; they only received the usual official answer that the matter was being considered. When the right

  685
  hon. Gentleman was asked a supplementary question, lie only said his answer was veracious. It was, however, un-commonly unsatisfactory. The right hon. Gentleman said just now that the question was under consideration, but if the Duke of Devonshire could not make up his
  mind in a year and a half with reference to such a simple question—well, he did not deserve to be where he was.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 130; Noes, 225. (Division List No. 38.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William(Cork, N.E.

  Gilhooly, James

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

  Allan, William (Gateshead)

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J.

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Allen, Chas. P. (Glouc., Stroud

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  O'Malley, William

  Ambrose, Robert

  Grant, Corrie

  O'Mara, James

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Hy.

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Partington, Oswald

  Bell, Richard

  Guidon, Sir W. Brampton

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Roland, John

  Haldane, Richard Burdon

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Boyle, James

  Hammond, John

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Brand, Hon. Arthur G.

  Hardie, J. K.(Merthyr Tydvil)

  Price, Robert John

  Brigg, John

  Harms worth. R. Leicester

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carrie

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H.

  Reddy, M.

  Brown, George M.(Edinburgh)

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

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Holland, William Henry

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Joicey, Sir James

  Roche, John

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Caine, William Sproston

  Joyce, Michael

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Caldwell, James

  Kearley, Hudson, E.

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Sinclair, Capt. John (Forfarsh.)

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)

  Smith, HC (North'mb. Tyneside

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Cawley, Frederick

  Levy, Maurice

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Lough, Thomas

  Spencer. Rt Hn C. R (Northants.

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Lundon, W.

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Sullivan, Donal

  Craig, Robert Hunter

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Tennant, Harold John

  Crean, Eugene

  M'Crae, George

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Cullinan, J.

  M'Dermott, Patrick

  Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  M'Govern, T.

  Thomson, F. W. (York, W.R.)

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Tomkinson, James

  Delany, William

  M'Laren, Charles Benjamin

  Trevelyan Charles Philips

  Donelan, Capt. A.

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Tully, Jasper

  Doogan, P. C.

  Mather, William

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Duffy, William J.

  Morton, Edw. J.C.(Devonport)

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Duncan, James H.

  Murphy, J.

  White, Patrick (Meath, North

  Elibank, Master of

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Emmott, Alfred

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

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

  Evans, Sir F. H. (Maidstone)

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipp'ry, Mid.)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Flynn, James Christopher

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Mr. Yoxall and Mr. Alfred Hutton.

  Foster, Sir W. (Derby Co.)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  NOES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

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

  Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds

  Bull, William James

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Balfour, Maj. K. R. (Christch.)

  Butcher, John George

  Allhusen, Augustus Hy. Eden.

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Carlile, William Walter

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benj.

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

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

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

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

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Arrol, Sir William

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Ashmead Bartlett, Sir Ellis

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

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

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Bond, Edward

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc.

  Bagot. Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Brassey, Albert

  Chapman, Edward

  Balcarres, Lord

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

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

  Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Collings, Right Hon. Jesse

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Kennedy, Patrick James

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Cook, Frederick Lucas

  Kenyon, Hon. G. T. (Denbigh)

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Corbett, A. Cameron(Glasgow

  Kenyon, James (Lancs., Bury)

  Purvis, Robert

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop)

  Pym, C. Guy

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd(Bolton)

  Keswick, William

  Randles, John S.

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Ratcliffe, R. F.

  Cust, Henry John C.

  Knowles, Lees

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chath'm

  Law, Andrew Bonar

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Lawrence, William F.

  Renshaw, Charles Bine

  Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

  Lawson, John Grant

  Rentoul, James Alexander

  Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cockfield

  Lee, Capt A.H (Hants, Fareh'm.

  Ridley, Hn. M. W. (St'ly bridge)

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Dorington, Sir John Edward

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Leveson-Gower, Fred. N. S.

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Doxford, Sir Wm. Theodore

  Long, Col. Chas. W.(Evesham)

  Ropner, Col. Robert

  Duke, Henry Edward

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

  Russell, T. W.

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Rutherford, John

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

  Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

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

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Lucas, R. J. (Portsmouth)

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Finch, George H.

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Seely, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Fisher, William Hayes

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  FitzGerald, Sir R. Penrose-

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.)

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Smith, James P. (Lanarks.)

  Forster, Henry William

  M'Calmont. Col. J. (Antrim, E.)

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

  Gibbs, Hon. V. (St. Albans)

  M'Killop, James(Stirlingshire)

  Spear, John Ward

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

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Stanley, Hon. A. (Ormskirk)

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  Malcolm, Ian

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

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

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Gore, Hon. F. S. Ormsby-

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Stock, James Henry

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Maxwell, W. J. H.(Dumfriessh.

  Sturt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Goschen, Hon. Geo. Joachim

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Milward, Colonel Victor

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Moles worth, Sir Lewis

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

  Greene, Sir E.W.(Bury St. Ed.)

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

  Mooney, John J.

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Gretton, John

  Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

  Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

  Groves, James Grimble

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

  Tufnell, Col. Edward

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Morgan, David J (Walthamst'w

  Valentia, Viscount

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F.

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Wason, John C. (Orkney)

  Hamilton, Marq of (L'nd'nderry

  Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptf'rd)

  AVelby, Lt.-Col. A.C.E(Tauntn

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'd)

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

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

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

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

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Williams, Col. R. (Dorset)

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Heath, Arthur H. (Hanley)

  Wills, Sir Frederick

  Heath, Jas. (Stat fords., N.W.

  Newdigate, Francis Alexander

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

  Helder, Augustus

  Nicholson, William Graham

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

  Hermon-Hodge, Robert T.

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Higginbottom, S. W.

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

  Wylie, Alexander

  Hoare, Edw. B. (Hampstead)

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Hobhouse, Hy. (Somerset, E.)

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Young, Commander(Berks, E.)

  Hope,J. F. (Sheff'ld, Brightside

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Hoult, Joseph

  Pease, H. Pike (Darlington)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Robt, Wellesley

  Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

  Hutton, John (Yorks, N.R.)

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Percy, Earl

  Original Question again proposed.
  It being after midnight, and objection being taken to further proceeding, the Chairman proceeded to- interrupt the business.
  Whereupon Mr. A. J. Balfour rose in
  688
  his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put"
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 220; Noes, 117. (Division List No. 39.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Greene, Sir E W (B'ry S Edm'nds

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

  Newdigate, Francis Alexander

  Allhusen, Augustus Hy. Eden

  Cretton, John

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Groves, James Grimble

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Arrol, Sir William

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G. (Mid'x

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlingt'n

  Bagot,Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Hamilton, Marq of (L'nd'nderry

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Rbt. Wellesley

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford)

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

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

  Harris, F. L. (Tynemouth)

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Balfour, Maj. K. R.(Christch.)

  Heath, Arthur H. (Hanley)

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Banbury, Frederick George

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

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Bathurst. Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Helder, Augustus

  Purvis, Robert

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

  Hermon-Hodge, Robert T.

  Pym, C. Guy

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Higginbottom, S. W.

  Randles, John S.

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Hoare, E. Brodie (Hampstead)

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Hobhouse, Hy. (Somerset, E.)

  Ratcliffe, R. F.

  Blundell, Col. Henry

  Hope, J.F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Bond, Edward

  Hoult, Joseph

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Renshaw, Charles Bine

  Brassey, Albert

  Hutton, John (Yorks., N. R.)

  Rentoul, James Alexander

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Ridley, Hn. M.W. (Staly bridge

  Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

  Jessel, Capt. Herbert Morton

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Bull, William James

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Butcher, John George

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Carlile, William Walter

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Ropner, Colonel Robert

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

  Kenyon, Hn. G. T. (Denbigh)

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Cavendish, V.C.W (Derbyshire)

  Kenyon, James (Lancs., Bury)

  Russell, T. W.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop)

  Rutherford, John

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Keswick, William

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J (Birm.

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alex.

  Chamberlain, J Austen(Worc'r

  Knowles, Lees

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse

  Chapman, Edward

  Law, Andrew Bonar

  Scott, Sir S.(Marylebone, W.)

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Lawrence, William F.

  Seely, Chas. Hilton (Lincoln)

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

  Lawson. John Grant

  Sharpe, Willian Edward T.

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Lee,Capt A.H. (Hants, Fareh'm

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Colomb,SirJohnCharles Ready

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Smith, HC (North'mb. Tyn's'de

  Cook, Frederick Lucas

  Leveson-Gower, Fredk. N. S.

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)

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

  Cranborne, Viscount

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

  Spear, John Ward

  Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Stanley, Hn Arthur (Ormskirk)

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

  Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)

  Davies, Sir H. D. (Chatham)

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Stock, James Henry

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Lucas, Col. F. (Lowestoft)

  Sturt, Hon Humphry Napier

  Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

  Lucas. R. J. (Portsmouth)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Dimsdale, Sir J. Cockfield

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

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

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Dorington, Sir John Edward

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Tollemaohe, Henry James

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Maclver, David (Liverpool)

  Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

  Doxford, Sir Wm. Theodore

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Tufnell, Col. Edward

  Duke, Henry Edward

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  M'Calmont,Col. J. (Antrim, E.)

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Fardell, Sir T. Ceorge

  M 'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

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

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Malcolm, Ian

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

  Finch, George H.

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Whiteley,H. (Ashton-U.-Lyne

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Maxwell,W.J.H.(Dumfriessh)

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

  Milward, Colonel Victor

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edw. Algernon

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Wills, Sir Frederick

  Forster, Henry William

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

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

  Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

  Wilson, J.W. (Worcestersh. N.

  Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)

  More, Rbt. Jasper (Shropshire

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

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

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Wylie, Alexander

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

  Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F.

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Gore, Hon. F. S. Ormsby-

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Young, Commander (Berks, E.

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Sir William Walrond and

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

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

  Mr. Anstruther.

  690

  691

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.

  Gilhooly, James

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Allan, William (Gateshead)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

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

  Allen,CharlesP(Glouc.,Stroud

  Grant, Corrie

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Ambrose, Robert

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  O'Malley, William

  Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  O'Mara, James

  Asquith,RtHn. HerbertHenry

  Haldane, Richard Burdon

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Bell, Richard

  Hammond, John

  Partington, Oswald

  Boland, John

  Hardie, J. Keir(MerthyrTydvil

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Boyle, James

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Brigg, John

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

  Price, Robert John

  Brown,George M.(Edinburgh)

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Reddy, M.

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Joyce, Michael

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Kennedy, Patrick James

  Roche, John

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Caldwell, James

  Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Cawley, Frederick

  Levy, Maurice

  Sinclair, Capt. John (Forfarsh.)

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Lough, Thomas

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Lundon, W.

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Spencer,Rt.Hn.C R(Northants

  Craig, Robert Hunter

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Sullivan, Donal

  Crean, Eugene

  M'Crae, George

  Tennant, Harold John

  Cullinan, J.

  M'Govern, T.

  Thomas, DavidAlfred(Merthyr

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Thomas,F.Freeman-(Hastings

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

  M'Laren, Charles Benjamin

  Thomson, F. W.(York, W. R.

  Delany, William

  Mansfield, Horace Kendall

  Tomkinson, James

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Doogan, P. C.

  Mather, William

  Tully, Jasper

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Mooney, John J.

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Duffy, William J.

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Duncan, James H.

  Morton, Edw. J. C. (Devonport)

  White, Luke (York. E. R.)

  Elibank, Master of

  Murphy, J,

  White, Patrick (Meath, North

  Emmott, Alfred

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Whitely, J. H. (Halifax)

  Evans,SirFrancisH (Maidsto'e

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

  Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Flynn, James Christopher

  O'Brien,Kendal(Tipper'ryMid

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Foster, Sir Walter (DerbyCo.)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Mr. Herbert Gladstone and Mr. Causton.

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Original Question put accordingly.
  The CHAIRMAN named the Tellers:—Ayes, Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther; Noes, Mr. Yoxall and Mr. Brodhurst.
  MR. BOYLE: As a new Member of the House, I rise to a point of order—
  *The CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The House must clear for the division. I must ask hon. Members to proceed to the division lobbies.
  [A minute later.]
  *The CHAIRMAN: I must ask hon. Members to be kind enough to proceed to the division lobbies.
  Mr. M'HUGH: We will not divide.
  Mr. FLAVIN: May I be permitted to point out that we feel it our
  692
  duty to protest against the manner in which all the Irish Votes have been closured without a single Irish voice having been heard.
  *The CHAIRMAN: Order, order! It is not possible to go back on the decision of the House. The House has already decided that the question should be put, and it is my duty to put it.
  An Hon. Member: And it is our duty not to divide.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: It is impossible to carry on this discussion.
  MR. FLAVIN: The Irish Members have got no chance of speaking.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! If the hon. Members decline to proceed to the division lobbies, I must report the circumstances to the Speaker.
  MR. M'HUGH: Bring in your policemen, but we are not going to divide.
  The CHAIRMAN thereupon directed the doors to be unlocked in order to report the matter to the Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker resumed the Chair.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, I have to report to you. Sir, that during the course of the division on the question which I was ordered to put by the House as a result of the division upon the closure, a certain number of Members of the House declined to leave their seats and to proceed into the division lobbies. I requested them more than once to proceed, but I gathered from the observations which fell from these hon. Members, or some of them, that they declined to proceed. Thereupon I thought it was due to the House, in the position in which we found ourselves, that I should follow the precedent which had been set on a former occasion and ask you, Sir, to return to the Chair. It was impossible for me, Sir, to see all the hon. Members who declined to leave their seats, but I may say that among those whom I was able to observe were the Members for South-East Cork, North Kerry, South Tipperary, North Meath, North Leitrim, East Limerick, North-East Cork, West Cavan, East Tyrone, South Fermanagh, East Cork, and West Cork.
  Mr. JOYCE: And the Member for Limerick City.
  Mr. NANNETTI: And the Member for College Green.
  *Mr. JOHN O'DONNELL: And the Member for South Mayo.
  Mr. KENDAL O'BRIEN: And the Member for Mid Tipperary.
  *MR. SPEAKER: The order having been made for clearing the House, it is the duty of every Member, in accordance with that order, to clear the House for the purpose of a division. I must remind hon. Members that they are breaking the rules of the House in not clearing the House for a division. I
  694
  must ask them whether they still persist in refusing to leave the House? [Severa: Hon. Members: We will not.] I name you, Mr. Crean, Mr. Flavin, Mr. Cullinan, Mr. White, Mr. M'Hugh, Mr. Lundon, Mr. William Abraham, Mr. M'Govern, Mr. Doogan, Mr. Jordan, Captain Donelan, Mr. Gilhooly for wilfully obstructing the business of the House and disregarding the authority of the Chair.
  Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: I move that these Gentlemen be suspended from the service of the House.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the said Members, Mr. Crean, Mr. Flavin, Mr. Cullinan, Mr. Patrick White, Mr. M'Hugh, Mr. Lundon, Mr. William Abraham, Mr. M'Govern, Mr. Doogan, Mr. Jordan, Captain Donelan, and Mr. Gilhooly be suspended from the service of the House."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
  The House proceeded to a division.
  Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther were appointed Tellers for the Ayes, but no Member being willing to act as Teller for the Noes, Mr. Speaker declared that the Ayes had it.
  *Mr. Speakerthen directed the said Members to withdraw.
  Mr. FLAVIN: You have named me, and I refuse to leave the House.
  *Mr. SPEAKER: The Serjeant-at-Arms will see that the orders of the House are obeyed, and that adequate force is used if it becomes necessary to compel the hon. Member. I must call the names of the hon. Members in order, and I must ask the messengers to see that they are removed if they will not withdraw. I call on Mr. Crean to leave the House.
  MR. CREAN: I respectfully decline, Mr. Speaker.
  *Mr. SPEAKER: I must ask the Deputy-Serjeant to see that Mr. Crean leaves the House.
  Mr. CREAN: I will not leave.
  *Mr. SPEAKER: Then the hon. Member must be removed by force out of the House.
  Mr. CREANwas accordingly removed.
  *MR. SPEAKER: I must ask Mr. M'Hugh to leave the House.
  MR. M'HUGH: I refuse to go.
  *MR. SPEAKER: This scene is as distressing to an Englishman as it can be to any Irishman.
  MR. M'HUGH: Why are we gagged?
  *MR. SPEAKER: I appeal to the hon. Members to have some respect for the dignity of the House to which they belong.
  MR. M'HUGH: We are absolutely defiant, and we will defy oven the Chair and the Government.
  MR. FLAVIN: May I point out, Sir, that in your absence a Vote of seventeen millions of money was closured without a single Irish Member having taken part in the discussion?
  Mr. M'HUGHwas removed.
  *MR. SPEAKER: I must ask Mr. Patrick White, who is one of the Members I have named, to leave the House, and I appeal to him to leave it peaceably,
  Mr. PATRICK WHITE: I shall not leave the House.
  *Mr. SPEAKER: Then the hon. Member must be removed.
  Mr. PATRICK WHITEwas removed.
  *MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Before this unpleasantness proceeds any further lam, speaking for myself, very anxious that some way out of the difficulty should be found. I sympathise with the protest of my hon. friends, and if a way out is not found, then the same course as that which we have just witnessed will have to be gone through with every Member on these benches. I would appeal, if I may, through you, Sir, to the Leader of the House, and ask him if he would not let the matter now end. I think that by allowing the House to be now adjourned, we might meet in a better temper all round to-morrow. If that suggestion cannot be adopted, then I see no other alternative to every Member on these benches being forcibly removed.
  696
  I hope you will see your way to offer some suggestion, Sir.
  *MR. SPEAKER: The only suggstion that I can possibly make is that hon. Members, whether they agree with the course that has been taken in the House or not, should respect the order of the House first. An order having been made and a division called, and the hon. Members having been named for refusing to proceed to the lobby, they should retire from the House decently. A protest may be made on a proper occasion, but their duty now is to retire peaceably.
  Mr. CULLINAN (Tipperary, S.), Mr. DOOGAN (Tyrone, E.), CAPTAIN DONELAX (CORK CO., E.). Mr. WILLIAM ABRAHAM (Cork Co., N.E.), Mr. GILHOOLY (Cork Co., W.), Mr. LUNDON (Limerick, E.), Mr. MCGOVERN (Cavan, W.), Mr. JORDAN (Fermanagh, S.), and Mr. FLAVIN, having refused to obey the order of the Speaker to leave the House, were removed.
  *Mr. SPEAKER: The House will now resume its proceedings in Committee, and I hope that, if it is found necessary to take a division, and hon. Members are asked to leave the House, they will do so in accordance with the order of the Chair.
  The House again resolved itself into Committee:—
  (In the Committee.)
  [MR. W. J. LOWTHER in the Chair.]
  Original Question put, "That £17,304,000 be granted on account for the said Services."
  The Committee proceeded to a division.
  Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther were appointed Tellers for the Ayes, but no Member being willing to act as Teller for the Noes, the Chairman declared that the Ayes had it.
  It being after midnight, the Chairman left the chair to make his report to the House.
  Resolution to be reported to-morrow.
  Committee to sit again to-morrow.
  House adjourned at Ten minutes after One of the clock.

Preamble
Several Lords took the Oath.
ADDRESS.
The King's Answer to the Address of the 25th of January last reported, and Address and Answer to be printed and published.
MESSAGE FROM THE KING.
Delivered by the LORD CHANCELLOR, and read as follows:—

EDWARD REX.
"His Majesty, being desirous of making competent provision for the honourable support and maintenance of His son the Duke of Cornwall and York, His daughter-in-law the Duchess of Cornwall and York, and His daughters the Princess Louise Duchess of Fife, the Princess Victoria, and Princess Charles of Denmark, and being further desirous that similar provision should be made for Her Majesty the Queen in the event of her surviving him, and for the Duchess of Cornwall and York in the event of her surviving the Duke of Cornwall and York, relies on the attachment of the House of Lords to concur in the adoption of such measures as may be suitable to the occasion."
Ordered, That the said Message be taken into consideration on Thursday next.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:—
Elland Gas [H.L.].
Albion Steam Coal Company [H.L.].
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

RHYMNEY AND ABER VALLEYS GAS AND WATER BILL [H.L.]
The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES informed the House that the promoters do
510
not intend to proceed further with the Bill. Ordered that the Bill be not further proceeded with.

AIRE AND CALDER NAVIGATION BILL [H.L.]
  BATH GAS LIGHT AND COKE BILL [H.L.]

    CENTRAL LONDON RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
    CHESTER GAS BILL [H.L.].
    CITY AND BRIXTON RAILWAY BILL [H.L.].
    CITY AND SOUTH LONDON RAILWAY BILL [H.L.].
    LLANELLY AND MYNVDD MAWR RAILWAY BILL [H.L.].
    LONDON, BRIGHTON, AND SOUTH COAST RAILWAY BILL [H.L.].
    NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE AND GATESHEAD GAS BILL [H.L.].
    NEWPORT (ISLE OF WIGHT) GAS BILL [H.L.].
    NEW SWINDON GAS BILL [H.L.].
    SHREWSBURY GAS BILL [H.L.].
    SOUTH EASTERN AND LONDON, CHATHAM, AND DOVER RAILWAYS BILL [H.L.].
    SOUTH ESSEX WATER BILL [H.L.].
    Read 2ª.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  TELEGRAPH MONEY ORDERS (SWEDEN).
  Additional Articles to the Convention of the 7th and 12th of September, 1881, relative to the exchange of money orders between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and the Kingdom of Sweden, dated 1st to 8th September, 1900.

  ROYAL UNIVERSITY OF IRELAND.
  Annual Report for the year 1900.
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  SUPERANNUATION.
  Treasury Minute, dated 21st February, 1901, granting a retired allowance to Mr. W. H. F. Crookshenk, Second Division Clerk, Money Order Office, General Post Office, under Section 2 of the Act. Laid

  511
  before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  BRIDLINGTON PIERS AND HARBOUR.
  Abstract of the general annual account for the year ended 26th July, 1900. Delivered (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.
  PRISONS (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend the law relating to Prisons in Scotland and for other purposes connected therewith—was presented by The Lord Balfour; read 1a; and to be printed. (No. 15.)
  COMMITTEE OF SELECTION FOR STANDING COMMITTEES.
  Report from, That the Committee have added The Lord Clifford of Chudleigh to the Standing Committee; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
  STANDING COMMITTEE.
  Report from the Committee of Chairmen of the Standing Committee, that they have appointed the Viscount Cross Chairman of the Standing Committee; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

  WAR OFFICE ADMINISTRATION— DUTIES OF COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF.
  Order of the Day for resuming the debate on the present system of military administration at the War Office, read.
  Debate resumed:—
  *THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK: My Lords, I think your Lordships will agree with me that our thanks are due to the noble Duke for bringing this question before the House. No question can be more important than that of the Regulations under which the Army is administered, and I am sure no one can complain of the manner in which the noble Duke introduced the subject to your Lordships. I congratulate the noble and gallant Lord opposite—the Under Secretary for War—who replied to him, upon the very effective way in which he showed the knowledge which he has obtained of the Department during the very short time he has been at the War Office.
  With regard to the speech of the noble and gallant Viscount the late Comman-
  512
  der-in-Chief, I venture to express the opinion that, holding as Viscount Wolseley does that the Regulations under which the Army is now administered are bad and should be altered, it was the noble and gallant Viscount's duty, as a Member of your Lordships' House, to express that opinion on the termination of his service as Commander-in-Chief of the Army. I do not think it would have been possible for any man to have expressed that opinion in more courteous terms, with more studied moderation, or with more entire absence of any personal allusion to the late Secretary of State for War. Before coming to the question which has been brought forward by the noble and gallant Viscount, I must allude for a few minutes to the latter part of the speech of the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs last night. I am bound to say that the noble Marquess appeared to me to have gone out of his way, without any excuse that I could discover, to make a personal attack upon the noble Viscount. What on earth the noble Viscount's advice to the Secretary of State on the subject of the South African War can have to do with the question whether the Order in Council for the administration of the Army is a right or a wrong one passes my comprehension. I have been some time in politics, but I have no recollection of any instance having occurred where a Minister of the Crown has come down to Parliament, without notice given and without any assignable ground, and related confidential communications which have passed between himself and one of the officers with whom he was associated upon subjects connected with the public service. If this practice is to be continued I entertain grave apprehensions as to its effects. We may have the head of one of these departments coming to Parliament and saying, "My military or my naval adviser said so and so." Or we may have the military or naval adviser saying in Parliament, "I gave such and such advice to the Secretary of State, but he did not take it." And if he is not in Parliament you may have him writing to the newspapers on the subject. I consider that the course taken by the noble Marquess was exceedingly ill-advised. It is impossible for your Lord-

  513
  ships to express an opinion upon the statements of the noble Marquess, because we have not the Papers before us. The noble Marquess read a part of a confidential Memorandum written by the noble Viscount, and, in answer to a question I put to him, promised to produce that document and lay it on the Table of your Lordships' House. I hope that when the noble Marquess does lay that Paper on the Table he will explain all the circumstances under which it was written. The noble Marquess having taken the course of relating his view of certain advice given by Lord Wolseley, it will be perfectly justifiable for Lord Wolseley, if he thinks it desirable to do so, to move for all the Papers connected with that advice, so that the whole of the circumstances shall be before us.
  The attack made by the noble Marquess upon Lord Wolseley has, however, nothing whatever to do with the question before your Lordships. The question is, Is the Order in Council of 1895 a good order or a bad one? Is it one which enables the Commander-in-Chief to occupy his proper position in the War Office? Is it a businesslike and practical Order in Council? Lord Wolseley's opinion, after five years experience of this Order, is that it is not; the noble Marquess thinks it is. For my part, I think it is much more likely that the noble Viscount, with his long experience of the Army and of the War Office, is right than that the noble Marquess is right. However that may be, let us see what this Order really is. A statement is given of the duties of the different departments of the War Office—the department of the Commander-in-Chief, the department of the Adjutant General, the department of the Quartermaster General, the department of the Inspector General of Fortifications, and the department of the Director General of Ordnance. The Order in Council makes the heads of each of these great departments of the War Office responsible to the Secretary of State for the conduct of the business of their respective departments. That is the substance of the Order. But over and above this there is a kind of order that the Commander-in-Chief shall exercise a general supervision, and be the principal adviser of the Secretary of State
  514
  upon all military questions. The question which the noble and gallant Viscount asked was, How can the responsibility of these different officers to the Secretary of State harmonise with the general supervision of the Commander-in-Chief? It seems to me an impossibility. What does general supervision mean? The noble Marquess did not define it. The Under Secretary for War drew a distinction between general supervision and control; but I want to know who is responsible for these different departments. Is the Commander-in-Chief responsible, or are the heads of the respective departments responsible? The noble Marquess stated, in the course of his speech last night, that—
  "If the noble Viscount the late Commander-in-Chief had paid more attention to the duties assigned to him by the Order in Council, he might have enabled us to turn to better account the large number of Auxiliary forces that we have in this country, and which I am constrained to say have been not a little neglected during the last live years."
  Here is a Minister who has just left the Office of Secretary of State for War asserting in this House that he has neglected the Auxiliary forces of the country. He was the responsible Minister. Why has ho neglected them, and why, having done so, does he put the responsibility on the noble and gallant Viscount the late Commander-in-Chief? If you turn to the Order in Council your Lordships will see that the duty of dealing with these forces is not put under the department of the Commander-in-Chief, but under that of the Adjutant Generals who is responsible to the noble Marquess. How the noble Marquess can try to throw a slur on the late Commander-in-Chief for having neglected the Auxiliary forces, when he has put the duty of looking after those forces under a department responsible to the Secretary of State and not to the Commander-in-Chief, passes my comprehension. This shows how impossible it is to put responsibility on anyone in respect of this Order in Council. If the noble Marquess misinterprets his own Older, and says that the Commander-in-Chief is responsible for the Auxiliary forces, then I really do not quite know how we stand.
  The noble and gallant Viscount said he found that this general power of super-

  515
  vision, which he could or could not exercise over the different departments, the heads of which were responsible not to him but to the Secretary of State, rendered his duties almost impossible; and it was only, he said, owing to the ability and public spirit of the officers at the War Office who were responsible for sending out supplies and troops that we had not been placed in a considerably worse position than we have been in regard to the war in South Africa. I well believe that. I have always borne testimony to the way in which those officers have worked, and the noble Marquess himself deserves his share of the credit in the matter. But that does not prove the organisation, of the War Office to be right. The Adjutant General and the Quartermaster General perform functions which are essentially connected with the office of Commander-in-Chief. The duties of looking after discipline, training, instruction, and military education are most important, yet your Lord-ships will see that they are, under the Order in Council, separated from the office of Commander-in-Chief and given to another officer. Is it possible that an Army can be managed in that way? How is it possible for the Commander-in-Chief to exercise his duties properly if this most important work is taken out of his hands and given to another officer whom he may, if he pleases, generally supervise, whatever that means, but who is responsible to the Secretary of State and may communicate with the Secretary of State without the knowledge of the Commander-in-Chief whenever it suits him to do so? I say it is an impossible system. The noble Marquess has filled the same office as I had the honour to occupy in India. Does ho suppose for one moment that you could have such an organisation in connection with the Indian Army, the Commander-in-Chief exercising a general supervision over the Adjutant General and the Quartermaster General, but both of those officers being responsible to the Viceroy for their particular departments? It is a plan which seems to me to carry on the face of it the stamp of failure, and it is to the credit of the officials in the War Office that it has lasted so well up to now.
  The noble Marquess said that this was the recommendation of the Hartington
  516
  Commission, and he paid a very right and proper compliment to the common sense of the noble Duke and his able colleagues; but he did not say that the Commissioners did not agree between themselves. I deny that the Order in Council of 1895, to which the noble and gallant Viscount objects, was recommended by the Hartington Commission. The noble Marquess has no right whatever to bring forward the Report of the Commission in support of his Order. The Report of that Commission, as a matter of fact, recommended the abolition of the office of Commander-in-Chief altogether, and the substitution of a Chief of the Staff with certain other heads of departments responsible to the Secretary of State. I do not say that is a light plan, but it is certainly a workable plan.
  The real point is whether the duties connected with the discipline and training of the Army should or should not be separated from the office of Commander-in-Chief. The Hartington, Commission recommended that the duties of ensuring uniformity in the discipline, training, and education of the Army at home and abroad, promotions, appointments, selections for command, and so on, should be entrusted to one officer and not to two, as has been done by the Order in Council of the noble Marquess. Therefore I think the noble Marquess has no right whatever to fall back upon the Report of the Commission over which the noble Duke presided in support of his Order in Council of 1895. The noble Marquess, again, attacked in an extraordinary way —I do not know why—the Order in Council passed by one of his predecessors —Mr. Stanhope—in 1888; but in doing so ho must have forgotten that he had sitting by his side the noble Marquess the Prime. Minister, who, if I am not mistaken, was Prime Minister when Mr. Stanhope was Secretary of State, and was therefore equally responsible with Mr. Stanhope for the Order which the noble Marquess the Foreign Secretary so violently attacked. I think that Order did place too much work on the Commander-in-Chief, but I am by no means certain that it was as bad as the noble Marquess has described it to be.
  There is no evidence in the Report of the Hartington Commission which gives the noble Marquess the right to say that the system which existed

  517
  from 1888 to 1895 was "discreditable and disastrous." If that is so, why was it allowed to remain unaltered for seven years? It may be said that it was not desirable to make any change until after the retirement of H.R.H. the Duke of Cambridge. I think that would be a mere excuse. I had the honour of being in communication with His Royal Highness on many matters connected with the Army. I was in communication with the illustrious Duke in 1870, when the great alterations were made in the Army; and I am satisfied that His Royal Highness would have been perfectly ready to join in any alteration of the Order in Council and in the duties of the Commander-in-Chief which he thought of advantage to the public service.
  I do not see why certain modifications could not be made in the Order of Council of 1895 which would put the administration of the War Office on a sound footing. If the Government simply put the Adjutant General and Quartermaster General's work under the Commander-in-Chief the thing would be done. The other departments might remain in the hands of their respective heads, who should be responsible to the Secretary of State. But we should see that all matters connected with the discipline and training of the Army are put under the Commander-in-Chief. There should be no longer any question of general supervision, which cannot be defined and which prevents proper responsibility being put upon anyone. These matters are not very abstruse; they really lie almost in a nutshell. Anyone who reads this Order can see its defects, and it seems to me not altogether out of the question that His Majesty's Government may be able to put this matter straight. I trust that the effect of this discussion will be to remove the anomalies which have been clearly pointed out by the noble and gallant Viscount, and which have been most inadequately replied to by the noble Marquess the late Secretary for War.
  *LORD CHELMSFORD: My Lords, the noble Earl has so completely answered all that has been said by the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for
  518
  Foreign Affairs that I have but very little to say. But being one of the oldest military officers in your Lordships' House, I feel that I cannot remain silent when such an important question is being discussed. I confess that I heard with the greatest surprise, and, I may say, with indignation—I am afraid to use a stronger term— the attack which was made yesterday on the noble and gallant Viscount by the noble Marquess. The noble and gallant Viscount began by deprecating the introduction of personalities. He was most impersonal in his speech, and yet the noble Marquess, in spite of that, chose to make charges against him which he knew perfectly well the noble and gallant Viscount could not answer, and in language that certainly does not redound to his credit.
  The noble Marquess made a great point of the important duties which under the Order in Council still devolve upon the Commander-in-Chief, but he did not say that the questions of drill, discipline, and the efficiency of the Army are taken out of his hands, and that he is only allowed to retain a sort of general supervision. I will quote short paragraphs from the duties of the Adjutant General and the Quartermaster General and leave it to your Lordships to consider what there remains to the Commander-in-Chief to do.
  "The Adjutant General shall be charged with the discipline, military education and training of the officers, warrant officers, noncommissioned officers and men of the Regular and Reserve Forces and the Militia of the United Kingdom."
  Other duties are set out, and the concluding words are—
  "He shall advise the Secretary of State on all questions connected with the duties of his department."
  Where, I ask, comes in the Commander-in-Chief to interfere with or supervise or control the Adjutant General? The Adjutant General is absolutely independent of the Commander-in-Chief, and it depends upon his good will whether or not he consults the Commander-in-Chief on questions of discipline and drill.
  Then I come to the Quartermaster General. He also has very important duties to perform, for which the Com-

  519
  mander-in-Chief was always held responsible personally previous to the Order in Council of 1895. The Quartermaster General is charged with supplying the Army with food, forage, and light, with land and water transport, and with remounts, and also with the distribution of the troops. He has also to deal with sanitary questions relating to the Army. All these matters are taken out of the hands of the Commander-in-Chief. The Quartermaster General is absolutely independent of him and need not consult him on any one of those important points. The Order in Council provides that the Quartermaster General shall submit the proposals of the annual estimates for these services, not in consultation with the Commander-in-Chief, but independent of him, to the Secretary of State for War, and shall advise the Secretary of State on all questions connected with the duties of the Department. Of what use, is the word "supervision" if the Adjutant General and the Quartermaster General chose not to be loyal to the Commander-in-Chief? Then I come to the Director General of Ordnance. He also has to advise the Secretary of State upon questions relating to patents, inventions and designs.
  It is a farce, therefore, to say that under an Order in Council of that sort the Commander-in-Chief is left with any power at all. He is, in fact, made absolutely subordinate, in the command of the Army, to the Adjutant General, to the Quartermaster General, and to the Director General of Ordnance, for these officials need not, except at their own free will and by a feeling of loyalty, consult the Commander-in-Chief on matters relating to their departments. I trust that under the change of administration which has taken place in the War Office the whole of the Order in Council will be repealed.
  *THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN: My Lords, I should like to say how much I concur in that which fell from the noble Earl as to the inconvenience likely to arise if attacks such as that made on the noble and gallant Viscount by the noble Marquess the late Secretary of State for War are to become the fashion in Parliament. There can be no question, I think,
  520
  as the noble Earl has observed, that the noble and gallant Viscount would be justified, if he thought it necessary to vindicate his character, in asking for all t the Papers connected with the opinions that he has given to be laid upon the Table of the House. I doubt very much if that would be a convenient precedent to set. But I would like to point out that two very distinct charges were brought by my noble friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs against the noble and gallant Viscount on the cross benches.
  The noble Marquess said that if the noble and gallant Viscount had paid more attention to that part of the Regulations which requires him to prepare schemes for offensive and defensive operations he would, perhaps, have told the Secretary of State before the South African War that Ladysmith was not a suitable station for Her Majesty's forces to occupy. I do not profess to have any particular knowledge of the general strategy pursued in South Africa, but I have always understood that the main principle was a central advance across the Orange River into what was the Orange Free State, and thence into the Transvaal, and the fact that we had a large force shut up in Ladysmith, and the necessity for relieving that force, interfered seriously with the general scheme of campaign; in fact, that the operation which was subsequently so brilliantly and successfully carried out by the present Commander-in-Chief was the original and main principle of the campaign, but had to be deferred on account of the necessity for relieving Ladysmith. If that be so, the noble Marquess has practically told the House that it was owing to some neglect of duty on the part of the noble and gallant Viscount, the then Commander-in-Chief, that the war has been unnecessarily prolonged, and that many of the disasters we have had to deplore occurred.
  The noble Marquess also said that, if the noble and gallant Viscount had paid rather more attention to his duties, he might have warned the Government that it would take more than one army corps to subjugate the two South African Republics. That, again, is a most serious allegation. But, my Lords, I should like to

  521
  know, was the opinion of the Commander-in-Chief the only opinion that was taken at the time? Had the Defence Committee of the Cabinet nothing to say about the matter? Did not the despatches of General Butler make a reference to the need for 100.000 men?
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (the MARQUESS of LANSDOWNE): No, no. No such Paper is in existence.
  *THE EARL OF DUNRAYEN: If no such thing was stated, then the general public have been for a long time under an erroneous impression.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: A very erroneous impression.
  *THE EARL OF DUNRAYEN: I will not pursue that further. But is it to be understood that the opinion of the Commander-in-Chief as to the force required was the only opinion taken at the time, and that, if it had not been for the advice which the noble and gallant Viscount then gave, a larger and more adequate force would have been sent out to South Africa? Those are very serious charges—they amount to charges—to bring against the late Commander-in-Chief. I join sincerely with the noble Earl, Lord Northbrook, in deploring the fact that the debate has not been conducted on the lines which the noble and gallant Viscount laid down, and which he adhered to—namely, that there should be no personalities and that the matter should be dealt with from a purely theoretical point of view.
  The noble Marquess laid great stress upon the Report of the Hartington Commission. The noble Earl has already alluded to that. But I should like to point out that out of nine members of the Commission six of them made separate memoranda or statements, and that they differed from each other on very material points. One member of that Commission—a very eminent member—the late. Lord Randolph Churchill, issued a very long and able Memorandum, and with your Lordships' permission I would make one or two quotations from it, so far as they are absolutely pertinent to the matter before the House. What Lord Randolph Churchill suggested was a Commander-in-Chief or Captain General of the Army, having, subject to the Government, supreme control over
  522
  and responsibility for the administration of the Army; and that military training, military experience, and military eminence should be the qualifications for that office. The very opposite of that is what has taken place. Lord Randolph Churchill, in another paragraph, said—
  "The object aimed at is the maximum of efficiency consistent with the amount of expenditure which the taxpayer or his representatives will tolerate. Can any practical amount of efficiency of administration be attained without professional training or knowledge? Can it be attained without direct personal responsibility? Can direct responsibility be reasonably expected without professional control? The answer to these questions, I submit, is obviously in the negative."
  I think it is impossible in the few words I shall address to the House to make a stronger case against the present system, and when the noble Marquess justifies the present system as being the recommendation of the Hartington Commission. I think it well that your Lordships should bear in mind the fact that, at all events, the opinion of one very prominent and eminent member of that Commission was diametrically opposed to the system now in force.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The DUKE of DEVONSHIRE): He signed the Report.
  *THE EARL OF DUNRAYEN: The question really resolves itself into this: whether professional knowledge is requisite in the person who has supervision and presides over the various departments of the War Office. We heard a great deal last night about the efforts that have been made towards decentralisation; but I do not see that any decentralisation has been obtained. Centralisation remains exactly the same. Everything connected with what I may term the military side of the administration, and everything appertaining to the civilian side, is concentrated in the War Office. It is also centred upon one man. Formerly a great deal of it devolved on the Commander-in-Chief; now the whole of it is centred in the Secretary of State. Where does the decentralisation come in? The only difference is that formerly the work was to a great extent centred on the man having professional knowledge, supposed to be, and probably being, the was a Commander-in-Chief or Captain I first soldier in the Empire; whereas now General of the Army, having, subject to it is centred upon a man who, however the Government, supreme control over capable and able he may be, must of

  523
  necessity be absolutely ignorant of the work which he has to control.
  The departments of the War Office are not watertight compartments independent of each other. Nothing can occur in one of these departments that does not affect the Army as a whole; and surely in such a case there ought to be some co-ordinating brain, somebody whose duty it is to see that what is done in one department does not militate against the Army generally or the other departments. Formerly that duty was exercised by a professional expert, and now it is performed by the Secretary of State, who is not a professional expert. I feel sure that no private business could be conducted for a month successfully on the present system in the War Office. Imagine one of your Lordships being suddenly placed at the head of some great manufacturing undertaking. How would he conduct it? I should say, by acting with the advice of and through the expert general manager; certainly not by independently consulting and giving directions to the foremen of the various departments. Yet that is the system under which the War Office, which deals with such gigantic issues that the largest private undertaking bears no perceptible proportion to it, is managed at the present time. As it is, there is no responsibility whatever.
  Not very long ago in this House the noble Marquess, then Secretary of State for War, cited as an instance of the activity of the War Office the fact that he was collecting large reserves of stores, which in his opinion had not been sufficiently maintained for a long time. Just conceive if the professional head came and stated that he had known for a number of years that our military stores were deficient, and that he was going to set to work to supply the deficiency in the middle of a war, what would be said of him? And what can one say when the civilian Secretary of State makes such a statement? No man can expect that the civilian Secretary of State can be really responsible for technical matters of military detail. I remember some time ago the noble Earl who generally sits on the cross benches (Lord Wemyss), with his usual vivacity, saying somebody was responsible, and that that individual ought to be hung. Quite so; but who
  524
  is the individual? I should be exceedingly sorry if the Foreign Office was to be deprived of the services of the Secretary of State in such a summary manner; while it would be very unfair that the noble and gallant Viscount should meet with such a fate, because, as he has told us, the real responsibility of the Commander-in-Chief practically ceases when he has given his opinion—that is to say, if he is asked for an opinion at all. Lord Randolph Churchill, in his memorandum on the Report of the Hartington Commission, used some very pertinent words on this question of responsibility. Speaking of the military chief, lie said—
  "Professional reputation to a soldier is everything next to life itself."
  And alluding to the Secretary of State, he said that—
  "Administrative incapacity at the War Office brought little evil consequences to the individual nominally responsible. In the majority of cases he was simply transferred to some other office—to a foreign Embassy, to a Colonial Governorship, or, at the very worst, to the House of Lords."
  The noble Duke who introduced this question asked for information. We have not as yet had a great deal of information. After what fell from the Under Secretary of State for War and the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, I suppose we must assume that His Majesty's Government are entirely satisfied with the working of the machinery of the War Office, and that in the main it is as perfect as is humanly possible. That was the gist of the speech of the noble Marquess.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: On the contrary. I said that, after five years experience, I thought it very probable that in some respects the system introduced in 1895 required some modification.
  *THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN: Yes, in unimportant details, but I think, the noble Marquess will agree with me that he said the machinery worked fairly well, and that it would have worked a great deal better if the Commander-in-Chief had not in some respects neglected his duty and had given it a fair test. Under these circumstances we cannot look for any large reforms. I deeply regret that. In my opinion, you cannot have an efficient I army and a good military machine unless it is supervised and superintended

  525
  by a professional soldier. I quite agree that the Secretary of State must be in a sense the head of the War Office. He is responsible to Parliament, and must be the superior; but, as far as possible, if you want full value for the enormous sums the country is spending, you must have a professional man responsible for the training and efficiency of the Army.
  *EARL SPENCER: My Lords, I think I ought to say a few words on the remarkable debate entered upon last night and continued this evening. Your Lordships will all, I am sure, agree with me that we wish, as far as possible, to avoid the personal matters which have been brought into prominence. The noble Marquess went into those at the end of his speech in considerable detail. I quite admit that the noble Marquess was to a certain extent challenged by the noble and gallant Viscount, who, although he did not quote any personal matters, did attack the system, and the system cannot be divorced from the men who originated it and who conduct it. At the same time, I confess I agree with what Lord Northbrook said with regard to the length to which the noble Marquess went in illustrating his views. It seems somewhat a pity and misfortune to actually show the secrets of the War Office during a great crisis in this country. No doubt it is very interesting to the public generally to know these details, but in the interests of administration it is a misfortune that they should be brought forward, for, being brought forward once, they may be demanded another time.
  I noticed with pleasure that the noble and gallant Viscount admitted that there must be official responsibility on the Secretary of State, and I think I shall presently show that if the noble and gallant Viscount's views were carried out it would be extremely difficult that lull responsibility could be had. The noble Earl who has just spoken also said that the Secretary of State must be in some sense responsible, but the stress he laid on the position of the Commander-in-Chief almost obliterated and neutralised the force of his remarks about the responsibility of the Secretary of State. In the Report of Lord Hartington's Commission some remarkable opinions are quoted—the opinion of the Duke of
  526
  Wellington that it was "much better that the Secretary of State for War should be the person to regulate that matter than that it should be in the hands of officials connected with the Army" and the opinion of Lord Hardinge that "in a constitutional point of view the Secretary of State for War is the proper person to draw up a Mutiny Bill and the' Articles of War. He is bound to stand between the civil subjects and the military."
  I should humbly associate myself with the opinions of those distinguished men. But let us see whether the position of the noble and gallant Viscount—for whom I have the highest respect and admiration —is compatible with those views. He instanced a case in which the Commander-in-Chief might differ from the Secretary of State, and he said that such an important fact ought not to be kept in the office, but ought to be made public, so that the country might decide who was right. I have also seen statements that the Commander-in-Chief and the First Naval Lord should publish at the beginning of every year an exact estimate of the number of men and the requirements needed for the Army and Navy. Having had the honour of being First Lord of the Admiralty, I will venture to say that it would be perfectly impossible to carry on the business of the country and to bring forward in a proper way before Parliament the demands of the Services if that principle were allowed. No Cabinet could submit to it, and it would lead to exaggerated demands on the part of the military and naval authorities, put forward in order to get, at all events, some part of them carried out. While saying this, I feel in the strongest possible way the necessity for getting the best expert advice for those civilians who occupy the responsible positions of the Secretary of State for War and the First Lord of the Admiralty. It is essential that they should have at hand the best military and naval opinion. It strikes me, in reading the Order in Council, that it lays this down most decidedly as the duty of the Commander-in-Chief to give advice to the Secretary of State, as the First Naval Lord gives advice to the First Lord of the Admiralty. I do not understand how my noble and gallant friend can go as far as he does

  527
  when he says that the present system has robbed the Commander-in-Chief of his chief usefulness, and has virtually handed the command of the Army to a civilian Secretary of State, assisted by subordinates with whom he deals direct. That is a very strong statement, and I cannot conceive how, under the Order in Council, it can be justified. It is the duty of the Commander-in-Chief to give his knowledge and experience to the Secretary of State, and if the Secretary of State does not ask for it, the Commander-in-Chief is bound, under the Order in Council, to offer it, and to leave the responsibility of refusing it to the Secretary of State.
  I know very well the importance of this subject. When I was at the Admiralty I had some very difficult questions to face: and I had to meet and face what my noble and gallant friend called the Cerberus at the Treasury. But when I was at the Admiralty, and also when I occupied another position, I found that whenever there was a great necessity actually proved, the Cerberus of the Treasury always gave way, and I always got what I wanted for the services of the country. I had the satisfaction, too, of working in harmony with my naval advisers. I mention this, because I know it may be said—as it has been said in the public press—that the power of the First Sea Lord was shown when I was at the Admiralty by a threat of resignation. I absolutely deny that during any time I was at the Admiralty I had a hint of resignation from any of my Naval Lords. It is most important for the Secretary of State or the First Lord of the Admiralty to keep on good terms with his expert advisers, and not to allow this extreme step of resignation to be resorted to. I have often rather smarted under the statement that when a certain statement was made in the House of Commons during my term of office it was withdrawn under a threat of resignation. It is absolutely untrue. I took full responsibility for putting that statement right, and my colleague in the House of Commons most honourably withdrew what I had shown him was wrong. I quite understand that it might he desirable—and the noble Marquess said so last night—to remodel some of these Orders in Council: but I am bound to say that, on the whole, I think the Orders in
  528
  Council could, with proper management by the Secretary of State and the Commander-in-Chief, be worked efficiently for the Army to secure that which is so important—the individual responsibility to Parliament of the Secretary of State without in the slightest degree impairing the authority of the Commander-in-Chief or the efficiency of the Army itself.
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, after what was said by my noble friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs last night in reply to the noble Viscount, it is not necessary that I should enter in detail upon the elaborate indictment which was made against the present system of organisation of the War Office. I do not think that it is necessary for me to do more than to take some notice of the charges which have been brought against my noble friend for making a personal attack in reply to the noble Viscount. The noble Viscount has been applauded for confining himself in the statement which he made last night entirely to generalities, and for giving no instances in support of his criticisms of the Order in Council. That is exactly what I think we have to complain of in his speech. These general a priori criticisms are of very little value unless they are supported by some instances; and it would have been much more useful if the noble and gallant Viscount had told us in what respects the defects in his powers and responsibilities had in actual practice led to any of the failures which have taken place in the administration of the Army and in the conduct of the war.
  My noble friend did not follow the noble and gallant Viscount in this respect. He took a more practical and useful line in pointing out what he considered to be the entire misapprehension under which the noble Viscount suffers as to the powers and duties and functions of the Commander-in-Chief under the present system of organisation. He pointed out not only that that misapprehension appeared in the noble Viscount's speech, but that also in his tenure of office he had to some extent acted upon that misconception. Whether it was that the duties which are still left to the Commander-in-Chief are too onerous to enable him to devote his whole attention

  529
  to some of the most important parts of his duties, or whether lie laboured during his tenure of office under a misapprehension, which we believe was apparent throughout the whole of his speech, as to the scope, importance, and magnitude of these duties, my noble friend was bound to point out that in the conduct of these recent military operations we had not received from the noble Viscount all that assistance which the Order in Council made him, as Commander-in-Chief, responsible for giving to us. I do not see that there was anything in the nature of a personal attack on the noble Viscount. But undoubtedly my noble friend has given to him a challenge which it is perfectly competent for him to take up—not, perhaps, in the course of this debate; but I am sure that the House will readily listen to him whenever he chooses to bring this matter before us again, to reply to that challenge, and to show that my noble friend's criticisms upon his conduct, and upon the advice which he tendered or did not tender to us were unfounded. That is all I need say as to that. The inquiry which has been suggested, which has been promised by the Government, into the conduct of the war and the operations in South Africa, and which I trust will take place when the war is concluded, will meet the case. All these matters must be fully gone into. Then I am sure that my noble and gallant friend the late Commander-in-Chief will enter into it and that he will be indebted to my noble friend rather than the reverse for having given him an opportunity of showing in what way he thinks that my noble friend has misapprehended or misunderstood his duties.
  I should like to say before I sit down a few words on a subject which has naturally been discussed in various quarters in this debate. I refer to the Report of the Commission which sat some few year ago, and over which I had the honour of presiding, and also the action taken on that Report. It certainly cannot be pretended that the recommendations of that Commission have failed. They have not failed, because these recommendations were not accepted in their entirety. There are, no doubt, good reasons why all these recommendations were not accepted in their entirety
  530
  either by the present or the late Government; but so far as they have been acted upon they have operated in the right direction. I think there can be little doubt of that, and so far as there has been any failure in military administration since the date of the Order in Council in 1895 it is due to the fact that those recommendations have not been adopted so completely as they might have been. It is quite true that the Report of that Commission, which, notwithstanding certain dissents upon various minor points, was signed unanimously by the whole of the Commission, did recommend the abolition of the office of Commander-in-Chief; and I may state how that conclusion was arrived at. We recognised that ultimately the supreme authority over the interests of the Army must be the Minister responsible for the Department; and the question was how that Minister could obtain—how that Minister, who must be, as was admitted by everyone, the actually responsible head of the Army, could be supplied with—the necessary expert advice, expert information with which it was necessary he should be furnished. My Lords, we found that this advice and administrative assistance was supplied under the Order in Council of 1888 nominally by the Commander-in-Chief. We came to the conclusion that the duties under that Order were so vast, exacting, extensive, and onerous that it was absolutely impossible that that responsibility, either for the giving advice or for the administrative conduct of the Army, should be a reality. We therefore proposed to divide the functions of the Commander-in-Chief and bring in military experts. We recognised that the duty of advising the Secretary for War upon important questions of military policy was the first and most important of the functions, and that it should be entrusted, as it is entrusted over every country in Europe, to an officer to be called Chief of the Staff. We proposed, further, to entrust recruiting, discipline, and the training of the Army to an officer whom, for want of a better name, we called the Adjutant General, and we proposed that the actual command of the troops in Great Britain should devolve on another officer to be called the General Officer Commanding the Forces in Great Britain.

  531
  The care of transport and fortifications, the charge of artillery, and the manufacture of ordnance we proposed should be placed under other military officers who should be severally responsible to the Secretary of State for War.
  As I have already stated, my Lords, those recommendations were not accepted in their entirety, for reasons some of which were good and others, I think, less sound; but those suggestions did not commend themselves generally to the opinion of the public. Some military men thought they were too revolutionary, and that they tended to impair the prerogative of the Sovereign as head of the Army. We gave reasons in the Report why we thought that was not a well-founded argument, but undoubtedly the officers of the Army had become so accustomed to the institution of Commander-in-Chief that there would probably be great apprehension, a want of confidence, and great dissatisfaction if the office of Commander-in-Chief was nominally abolished. The recommendation to establish a Chief of the Staff did not commend itself to others, on the ground that it was inexpedient to establish such a total separation between the consultative and administrative and executive functions. The late Secretary of State for War, Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, recorded his view in a somewhat remarkable statement. He said—
  "It is true that in Continental countries there exists such a department as is here described. But those countries differ fundamentally from Great Britain in the constitution of their army and of its government, as well as in the purposes for which it is maintained. They are constantly and necessarily concerned in watching the military condition of their neighbours, in detecting points of weakness and strength, and in planning possible operations in possible wars against them. But in this country there is no room for 'general military policy' in this larger and more ambitious sense of the phrase. We have no designs against our European neighbours. Indian 'military policy' will be settled in India itself, and not in Pall Mall. In any of the smaller troubles into which we may be drawn by the interests of some of our dependencies the plan of campaign must be governed by the particular circumstances, and could be left, I presume and hope, to be determined by the officer appointed to direct operations."
  And he added—
  "These difficult questions will be far better dealt with, and sounder advice regarding them
  532
  will be tendered to the Minister, by the experienced soldiers who are engaged day by day in the active administration of the Army than by an officer or body of officers, however able and distinguished, who sit apart and cogitate on the subject."
  In the light of recent events, I think your Lordships will hardly agree that there is no place in our military system for an officer whose duty it shall be to advise upon great military operations. Personally, I have never attached very great importance to the question on whom the duty of advising upon great military questions should be conferred, the Secretary of State or the Commander-in-Chief; but what I do attach very great importance to is that those duties which were described in the Report of the Commission should fall on someone with a due sense of responsibility. The Report stated that the Chief of the Staff should be made responsible for the following duties—
  "To advise the Secretary of State on all matters of general military policy, and all questions as to the strength, distribution, and mobilisation of your Majesty's land forces, and the relative importance of various services put forward by the heads of departments; to collect and co-ordinate all military information; to prepare and revise from time to time a general scheme for the military defence of the Empire, and to examine the Estimates with a view to ensure that they are framed in harmony with that scheme; to prepare plans of action in certain contingencies; to communicate directly with the First Lord of the Admiralty on all matters involving interdepartmental policy; to examine all correspondence with other departments of the State, and to conduct all correspondence with general officers commanding on questions of military policy; to lay before the Secretary of State an annual report stating clearly all the military requirements of the Empire."
  Neither the late Government nor the present Government saw its way to the appointment of an officer with purely consultative duties. Those are the duties which have been assigned in the first place to the Commander-in-Chief; but in the lengthy statement of the noble and gallant Viscount he paid no attention whatever to the instructions charging him with those functions, and it appears to me that the noble and gallant Viscount entirely misapprehended the responsibilities which have been placed on him. We felt that it was absolutely impossible that these duties should be adequately performed by a man who was overburdened and overwhelmed

  533
  by the duty of superintending, and who had the personal responsibility for the charge of the innumerable departments which are concerned in the administration of the Army.
  It was not with the intention of lowering the status or diminishing the authority of the Commander-in-Chief that he was relieved of the responsibility of the direct superintendence of the various departments of the War Office, but mainly with the object of giving him the time and the opportunity to discharge those most important duties to which have referred. The noble and gallant Viscount said yesterday that he might be told that, in spite of the defects of administration which he pointed out, much in connection with the recent campaign had been done with great efficiency. A large force had been mobilised, provided with supplies, and despatched with creditable promptitude to South Africa. But my noble friend said that the result, which he admitted, was not due in any respect to the system under which it had been done, but solely to the individual exertions of the admirable and meritorious officers engaged. Surely that was a statement somewhat begging the question. If the work had been well done, it could not have been well done under a system which was absolutely faulty and defective. No individual exertion on the part of any man—and we most cheerfully acknowledge those exertions were ably and willingly given—could have secured that satisfaction if the system had been so radically wrong as the noble Viscount asks us to believe. The noble Viscount said there was no parallel for such a system as that which has been established by the late Order in Council. I do not know what foundation the noble Viscount has for that statement. I think he said that China was the only country whose military organisation at all resembled ours. I think it would be far more accurate to say that no parallel could be found in any civilised military organisaion for that which he regrets.
  Take the case of France. You will not find in France any official in the position of Commander-in-Chief charged with, responsibility for the whole of the administration of the army which the noble Viscount desires to see established.
  534
  You have in France a War Minister, who no doubt is, generally speaking, a soldier, but who need not be so. But, whether he is a soldier or not, you have under the War Minister no officer who stands in any way approaching the position of the Commander-in-Chief which the noble Viscount desires to re-establish In the military organisation of France, which I suppose the noble Viscount admits to be a great military nation, I defy him to point out any official who occupies the position which he would assign in our Army to the Commander-in-Chief. Take the case of Germany. You have there, no doubt, a Commander-in-Chief. Who is that Commander-in-Chief? He is the Emperor himself; and it cannot be alleged that the German Emperor, having the control and conduct, not of the army alone, but of every other department of the Government, stands in the position which the noble Viscount would desire to be occupied by the Commander-in-Chief. In Germany, under the Emperor, there is not one officer, but three officers of equal status and position, who jointly divide the responsibility for the administration of the army—the War Minister-in-Chief, the General Staff and Military Captain, and the Chief of the General Staff. Those three are co-equal, and receive orders direct from the Emperor. They cannot issue orders to one another, and have no personal command over the troops. In addition to these three, between whom the administrative duties of the department are divided, there are a great number of corps commanders owing allegiance to no one except the Emperor himself. I therefore defy the noble Viscount to point to any system of military administration existing in Europe which in the slightest degree corresponds to that to which the noble Viscount invites this House to return.
  One word more. The noble Viscount used an analogy which is fundamentally at fault. He said this system which we have adopted was not the system adopted in India, in Ireland, or even in the command of a regiment. He said that the general officer commanding in Ireland or a general officer commanding a division or brigade here was given complete control over his own staff. That analogy is, in

  535
  my opinion, totally and fundamentally misleading. The duties of these officers differ not only in their magnitude compared with the administration of the whole Army, but altogether in their character. These officers of whom the noble Viscount was speaking are officers responsible solely for the command given to them; they have nothing to do with their food, their clothing, their equipment, their housing, or their arms. The Commander-in-Chief whom the noble Viscount wishes to see re-established would be responsible not only for the discipline and training of the Army, I but for all those other requisites which I have enumerated. Therefore I say there is no sort of analogy between the control which we rightly give to officers placed in these positions and the control which the noble Viscount desires to assume over every officer of the War Office concerned in the administration of the Army.
  I am far from saying that the present system is the only possible one, or is certainly and absolutely the best. My noble friend behind me (Lord Lansdowne) submitted that the experience of five years will probably show that modifications are required, and that there are different systems to which, if we thought fit, we might revert. It might be possible to divide the administration of the Army between a Commander-in-Chief solely responsible for training and discipline and another officer responsible for the supply and materiel of the Army. That is a system which has been tried in this country, and which, probably for sufficient reasons, has been given up. I do not say that certain modifications of that system might not possibly be found better than the system established mainly on the recommendations of the last Royal Commission. But of one thing I am quite certain: that it would be a fatal mistake to return to the system which was condemned unanimously by the late Royal Commission, and endeavour to overwhelm the unfortunate officer placed in the position of Commander-in-Chief with nominal supervision, control, and responsibility over a vast series of departments with the business of which it is absolutely impossible for him to grapple.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: My Lords, I have listened with the greatest interest
  536
  to this debate, for the inception of which I think we should be sincerely indebted to the noble Duke opposite. For my part, I shall make but few remarks, and endeavour to do what I think has not always been the case with other speakers —confine myself to the point really at issue. We had last night from the noble Viscount on the cross benches what I impartially thought was a public-spirited effort to call attention, in tin-interests of the public, not in his own, to some defects which he had found in the practical working of the present Army system. I hoped that in reply to that we should have heard from the Secretary of State who is responsible for the last five years for the working of that system some arguments which would have countered those adduced by the noble Viscount in his exhaustive speech. In reply, I am sorry to say we had that lamentable and unseemly attack which I think every speaker except the noble Duke on the front bench has qualified with the severest censure—the lamentable and unseemly attack on the personal advice and responsibility of the noble Viscount which, even had it been in place, had no reference whatever to the question at issue.
  What reference has it to the relations of the Commander-in-Chief to the Secretary of State whether the Commander-in-Chief thought Ladysmith a good place of arms or not? It was not a question whether the Commander-in-Chief was a good commander-in-chief or not—that you may argue out at any time you may think convenient. The point was whether under the Order in Council of 1895 the relations of the Commander-in-Chief and the Secretary of State were so adjusted as to be a working arrangement; and to impugn, the judgment, ability, or industry of the Commander-in-Chief individually has nothing whatever to do with that. I regret very much to make that observation. If, however, the case as laid down by the noble Marquess could have been in any way made more disastrous to the interests of the public service at large it would have been by the suggestion of the noble Duke who has just sat down. He invited the noble Viscount to recriminate. He said we should be only too happy to hear what lie has to say in reply, or any charges he has to make.
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: That is not what I said. What I said was that it would be more satisfactory and useful, and that I hoped the late Commander-in-Chief would take the opportunity of giving instances of the actual inconvenience or failures which had been the result of the defective organisation of which he complained.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: I am within the recollection of the House. The noble Duke may be mistaken in what he said, but he certainly invited the noble Viscount to recriminate. I am sorry I cannot accept that contradiction. But even if it be true, what a position would be occupied by this House, and by this Government, so far as it is responsible to this House, if it were to be turned into a cockpit where the ex-Secretary of State for War and the ex-Commander-in-Chief were to exhaust their personal differences in a personal discussion! But, my Lords, I call on the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to testify himself, out of his own mouth, to the validity of the doctrine which I lay down. He spoke, I think, with admirable irony last night in congratulating the noble Viscount on having freed himself from his self-imposed muzzle. Last year we did not understand that the muzzle was entirely self-imposed. We were very anxious last year to obtain some expert opinion as to the proposals and policy of the noble Marquess, and the answer we got was that it would be indecent and improper if the Commander-in-Chief were to appear in this House and to appear in any way in conflict or at variance with the opinion of the civilian Secretary of State.
  My Lords, I think on that painful aspect of the question enough has been said, and I wish, with all my heart, that no cause had been given by the Government for saying anything on the subject. The real point at issue is not whether Lord Wolseley was a good Commander-in-Chief or not, or whether Lord Lansdowne was a good Secretary of State for War or not; it is whether the arrangements under the Order in Council of 1895 have worked well and are calculated to work well. And on that point, I confess I have heard a good many remarks, but very few which seemed to me to touch the point at issue. The only point of the
  538
  speech of the noble Duke the President of the Council for National Defence—that fantastic body which we are always attempting to grasp, but which always evades us—the only point which was really valuable was the light he threw on the evolution of the Commander-in-Chief. What did ho say? He read us out copious passages from his Report. He lingered over them with something of paternal pride; he said—"After all, I got almost everybody to sign it," and he endeavoured to present a picture of concord in connection with that Report which. I am bound to say, is glaringly at variance with the facts, because, when the noble Marquess, in the exercise of his discretion, proposed to abolish the Commander-in-Chief, the other most leading member of the Commission at once responded with a proposal to abolish the Secretary of State for War. But what we really have ascertained from the incidental remarks of my noble friend the noble Duke was this, that he wanted to abolish the Commander-in-Chief. Well, if it be sound and wise, there can be no objection to that course. But he said, "On consideration, it appeared to the late Government and ourselves" —why should he drag in the late Government to shelter behind them in such a matter as this?—" it appeared to the late Government and ourselves that there was some disadvantage in abolishing nominally the office of Commander-in-Chief." And, therefore, what happened was this: the noble Duke, so far as we can gather from his own remarks, with a determination to abolish the office of Commander-in-Chief, kept it nominally in the hierarchical system; and it is from that origin and source, I believe, that all the mistakes and all the friction have arisen.
  We are asked by the official vindicators of the system, "What has the Commander-in-Chief to complain of?" The Under Secretary for War, whose manly and breezy speech we listened to with so much pleasure last night, presented an almost ideal picture—a picture that might have been painted by Theocritus—of the pleasures of the life of a Commander-in-Chief. "What has he to complain of? The communication with the Secretary of State is through my room, and I can testify that there is constant communication—too much for my

  539
  personal comfort. What does he complain of? Every source of information is open to his investigation. Has he any views about discipline? I assure the House that no question affecting discipline is ever settled without consulting the Commander-in-Chief," and so forth. But he did not tell us, and no speaker on the Government side has told us, this: Is there any Commander-in-Chief in Europe, or even in China—to go to the country which appears to fix the attention of the noble and gallant Viscount—is there any Commander-in-Chief in the world to whom the training and the discipline of the army is not entrusted? Is there any independent speaker in this House who will get up and say that there is a Commander-in-Chief in the world to whom the training and discipline of the army is not entrusted? If it be so, I should like to know the character of that army and the quantum of success it has met with in the field.
  I venture to differ from what fell from the noble Earl on the front bench here. He read several citations which, I think, were intended to prove that the position of the Commander-in-Chief was an entirely desirable one, and that the relations of the Commander-in-Chief to the Secretary of State under the present warrant were such as they should be. He quoted one illustrious name, a name that will never be quoted in this country without veneration. He quoted the Duke of Wellington; and he said that the Duke of Wellington had said that these functions—my noble friend forgot to say what the functions were—could only be adequately discharged by the Secretary of State. Does my noble friend believe for one moment that the great Duke of Wellington would have accepted the office of Commander-in-Chief as it was held by the noble and gallant Viscount? If he does, he lives in a fool's paradise. There was no Secretary of State at all in the life of the Duke of Wellington. What he was referring to was the financial system of the War Office, which he said would be more properly dealt with by a Financial Secretary for War than by the Commander-in-Chief, who had no relation to that point. I believe the whole mischief of this business has arisen from one of the qualities of our political intellect—which is, when you
  540
  find that a thing is not working well, to rush at once into the farthest opposite extreme. I do agree with what has fallen from the Minister, that under the scheme of 1888 there was too much centralisation in the position of the Commander-in-Chief. That, at any rate, might have been remedied. What does not seem to me to have been necessary is this: that, starting with that fundamental principle, the reformers, of whom my noble friend the noble Duke was the head, should have rushed to the other extreme and centralised everything in the Secretary of State for War, leaving the Commander-in-Chief as a pale shadow, competent and permitted, if he chose, to give advice on subjects at large.
  We have had one or two illustrations of what the position of the Commander-in-Chief is, and I think we must admit that under the system administered by the noble Marquess, and which, I suppose, was founded on the Commission of my noble friend the noble Duke, there has been an attempt to thrust the Commander-in-Chief altogether into the background and substitute the person of the Secretary of State. We had the incident of all the communications directed to commanding officers being sent not to the Commander-in-Chief, but to the Secretary of State. And I confess I find myself in cordial agreement with what has fallen from the noble Viscount upon that point. How is it possible for regimental officers to hold their Commander-in-Chief in that esteem in which he should be held if he is not allowed to send any communication to them except through the channel and person of the Secretary of State?
  I do not propose to trespass any longer upon your Lordships' time, because I feel that, as a layman having no experience of the War Office, I have no claim to your attention. But I have the deepest and strongest sense of the gravity of the question at issue. It is not a question of Lord Lansdowne or Lord Wolseley, or of this Government or that Government; it is a question of the businesslike working of our Administration. Now, you have centralised in the Secretary of State the administration of Army Estimates, which have mounted to eighty-eight millions sterling, and of an Army that approaches half a million

  541
  of men. You have never had such a situation in the history of Great Britain, and I think that in these changed circumstances it does behove the Government to examine once more the, system which they founded in 1895, and against which so stringent a series of accusations has been brought by the Commander-in-Chief who has had large experience of them. The noble Marquess last year constantly told us that we were to look to him, and that we must not look beyond him. Let me say frankly that I do not think that is possible. I do not think that in the present situation of the world the vital matters of the defence of the country, of its military organisation, of the administration of this enormous Army and this enormous sum, can be left solely to the personal responsibility of the Secretary of State. I fully admit that the proceeding recommended by the noble and gallant Viscount was a great flaw in his speech. It is quite impossible that when the Secretary of State and the Commander-in-Chief diner they should appeal to the public as to which is right. Where is the public? Who are the public? If you ask me to go into the street to-morrow and find the public I should have the greatest difficulty in doing so. I do not believe the noble Viscount himself has the faintest notion of what the public is. Is it the threepenny press, or the, penny press, or the halfpenny press? Is it the press at all? Is it Parliament? Where is it? I think when you come to analyse the word "public" you will see how fruitless is that suggestion. But, on the other hand, I do not believe it is possible to continue the hidebound system of absolute, secrecy and of personal responsibility of one individual as it exists at the present moment. I confess I find it very difficult to suggest a, remedy; and remedies of this kind should not be proposed by unofficial people or in an offhand manner.
  I look with the greatest confidence, honest confidence, from the indications he has given, to the Secretary of State's proposals, which he, is to make in so short a, time; and I would not venture to anticipate what they may be; but I hope they may be, drastic and go to the root of the evil. I believe, however, that in
  542
  the long run Parliament will insist on knowing more than it, knows now. I quite believe that it is impossible that, in the heat of debate and in the publicity of Parliament, there should be elaborate statements made, which would reveal all our strength or all our weakness to the, public eye. Even with regard to that there has been much exaggeration, because I venture to say that there is no intelligence department of any first-rate Power that does not know a hundred times more of our strength and of our weakness than the British Parliament itself. It is only we, Members of the British Parliament, who are compelled, like ostriches, to bury our heads in the sand. But I have never been able to understand, except on account of the extraordinary innate administrative conservatism of Parliament in this country, why it should not be possible for a Committee of Parliament to meet the Secretary of State and the officials of the War Office and of the Admiralty in secret—for I admit, it must be secret—to test to some extent by personal examination what is the real efficiency of our naval and military forces.
  I believe that unless you have some such system as that you will never have a real and a, safe guarantee that our forces are in the condition they should be. I know that it is urged, and I think the noble Viscount hinted at something of the kind—I speak under correction—that, some certificate might be given to the, Commander-in-Chief that all things were as they should be in regard to our forces and our stores. That, I think, would be a difficult matter. It would place the Secretary of State at the mercy of the Commander-in-Chief, and when their relations were of such a, harmonious character as those which appear to have existed dining the past five years I think it would only add to the difficulty of the situation. Moreover, I recollect the ease of a Government that was impugned on the very question of the sufficiency of stores, and which, having a certificate of sufficiency from the Commander-in-Chief, was overthrown that very night. Therefore, I do not think the question of a certificate from the Commander-in-Chief would adequately meet the matter. Whether my suggestion of a Committee such as obtains in other countries would

  543
  meet the point I do not know. I make it in good faith, and I suggest it for the consideration of His Majesty's Government; but I do most strongly feel, and I think the course of the debate has shown, that things at present are not working on a businesslike footing, and that the sooner they are put on such a footing the better it will be for the Government and the country.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND LORD PRIVY SEAL (The Marquess of SALISBURY): My Lords, I am in the same position as the noble Earl who has just sat down in having no right from a professional or administrative experience to take part in this debate. Therefore I will only say a few words to correct a misapprehension into which I think the noble Earl fell with respect to the real character of the controversy between the noble and gallant Viscount and my noble friend. The gist of the noble Viscount's complaint was that his functions, offices, and attributes were insufficient. The answer to him was to read those functions, and at the same time to point out to him that we had always felt that he had shown that he did not fully appreciate the spirit and multiplicity of the duties and responsibilities with which he was entrusted. It was in reference to that circumstance that my noble friend behind me referred to one or two points on which he thought the noble Viscount had thrust aside matters which really belonged to him, and to which if he had given more adequate attention it would have beer better for the public service; but that there was any intention of making an attack on the noble and gallant Viscount I think nobody, except the noble Ear who has just sat down, seriously believes.
  My Lords, the difficulty of being plunged into technical and professional matters of this kind must be very keenly felt by any civilian Member of the Mouse who attempts to take part in the debate. To me it has always seemed very strange that things which appear evidently to the professional Member of very small importance appear to me to be of considerable importance On the other hand, things which they elevate into great magnitude do no strike the civilian mind as being of
  544
  the same importance. What is the dispute which, as far as we can see, is now raging between the régime of 1888 and the régime of 1895? It is admitted on all hands that the Secretary of State must be supreme. On the other hand, it is admitted on all hands that the Commander-in-Chief must know everything, see every Paper, and be consulted in all matters of importance. The only difference is this: that under the regime of 1888 the Adjutant General, if lie has a scheme, takes it direct to the Commander-in-Chief, who sends it on to the Secretary of State; whereas under the regime of 1895 the Adjutant General goes first to the Secretary of State, who sends the proposal on to the Commander-in-Chief. I must say that I think this debate has very much exaggerated the importance of the issue, and that there must be something else, something behind, which can have induced such able and eminent men to devote their minds so exclusively to this one point; and I think we saw it in the conclusion of the speech of the noble and gallant Viscount.
  It is said of a certain class of correspondent that the important observation always comes at the end. I think that applies to the speech of the noble and gallant Viscount. He told us, not as one of the main points on which he was insisting, but as something which occurred to him at the end, and which ought to be mentioned before he sat down, what was his solution of any difficulties that might arise if the Commander-in-Chief and the Secretary of State were not of the same mind. I think he puzzled the House. He said we were to take the people into our confidence, and to tell the press what we thought, and then the question at issue was to be discussed openly. How you were to decide which party was to be victorious I do not know, but the result of the battle-royal was to determine the particular decision on which the Office was divided. I allude to to this because I think it is the matter which is really at the bottom of our difficulty. I do not think the disputants, especially if they are military disputants, have entirely realised that the Army is under Parliament, and that the Minister who controls the Army does it as one

  545
  who is responsible to Parliament and represents all the authority which Parliament possesses. Unless you keep that steadily in mind, no doubt you will see many anomalies in our military system and its relations to the civil power. But it is no use comparing your Army with the army of France or of America, or of Germany or of Russia. They all differ in that one point, that the Parliamentary system of governing the Army does not exist among them.
  We must accommodate ourselves to the present state of things. Everybody knows historically how it has grown up, and everybody knows that it is intertwined too closely with all the fibres of our Constitution to justify anyone who forms his projects and bases his reasoning on the supposition that this relation can be modified. At the end you must have an Army governed by Parliament, governed by a Minister who is responsible to Parliament, and in any difference of opinion, whatever it may be, the Commander-in-Chief must be the subordinate of the Secretary of State. He may not like that; military men may not like it, but there it is. It is one of the bed-rock circumstances of the situation, something from which you cannot depart; and von must devote your minds to making it work, as it has worked, in the main, hitherto very well, and take care that it produces in the future, as it has produced in the past, results which it would have been impossible to produce in any foreign country. I feel that this debate will be lost upon us unless we take care to guide ourselves by that chief and predominant principle. In speech after speech from military men, men who know the language and spirit of the War Office, it is easy to detect a desire that military problems shall only be solved by military men; but any attempt to take the opinion of the, expert above the opinion of the politician must, in view of all the circumstances of our Constitution, inevitably fail. It must not lie supposed that in such contests the expert must win. In all these discussions there is an evident and growing desire to shake free of this necessity. I thought I traced it even in the peroration of the noble Earl, although I am sure he is too good and constitutional a statesman to entertain any idea that the existing
  546
  system can be radically changed. That is where the shoe pinches—that the men who know or who ought to know, namely, the experts, are not the men to decide the dispute in question; but the decision, if it accords with their view at all, must be brought about by the concession of the civilian and the politician.
  There is one point with regard to experts that is not sufficiently borne in mind. If the experts were a concentrated body always giving one opinion, no doubt their authority would be very overwhelming. But experts, as we know, often differ in opinion. I remember Sir George Cornewall Lewis laying it down in Parliament that if you could find a distinguished man, an expert in any field of thought, laying down a definite opinion you would always find another man equally eminent laying down an opinion in exactly the opposite direction, Therefore, to tell us that the expert should rule military controversies when they arise is not entirely to set at rest all the difficulties with which we are confronted; and even if the wish of some Members were gratified by putting the decisions of the Commander-in-Chief above those of the Secretary of State you would really only have removed your difficulty by one stage. Because who is the Commander-in-Chief? He may differ from other military men; he may be in profound sympathy with the Government of the day, or he may be the reverse of being in sympathy with the Government of the day—and, considering the mode of his appointment and the circumstances under which he holds office, that is not an impossible contingency. I do not think, therefore, that the supremacy of the Commander-in-Chief of a military nation, even if it were possible to obtain it, would solve all the difficulties by which we are surrounded, and I feel very strongly that we should only lose our way if we attempted to reach a solution without regarding the traditions which our Constitution has handed down.
  I quite concur in hoping that the military minds which apply themselves to the reconstitution of these mysterious Orders in Council may remove any defects that may be found. Not entertaining myself that belief in the efficacy of the Orders in Council which evidently

  547
  penetrates many minds, I do not regard the result as being of vast importance. And if I may sit down with an observation which is such a platitude and such a truism that everybody will agree with it, but which yet seems to me to be in variably neglected, it is that the success of your military system, the victories you are to win, the results of all your efforts, are not obtained by any machine, however theoretically just, however carefully polished, but will be attained, and have been attained in every ago of history, simply by the strength and brilliancy and vigour of the men you employ.
  VISCOUNT WOLSELEY: Before the debate closes I am sure your Lordships will allow me to say a very few words of personal explanation in reference to the remarks made yesterday by the Foreign Secretary directly reflecting upon my conduct as Commander-in-Chief. I confess that I was surprised, as well as pained, at the personal tone which the Foreign Secretary gave to the debate. I hope that, in your Lordships' opinion at all events, this was not caused by any personal remarks made by me when expressing my disapproval of the Order in Council of 1805. I intended, as I said, to discuss the present Army system as a system, apart altogether from persons. I am not aware that I deviated from that line in any respect whatsoever. With regard to the reflection made upon me, I will only say that no documents or other evidence of any sort or kind, either to prove or disprove them, are at present in the possession of this House. The noble Marquess has promised to lay on the Table a memorandum by me upon which he commented very severely. I trust that, in justice to me, he will also lay on the Table a full statement of the circumstances under which that document was prepared, it will then be apparent that the memorandum was not. a statement voluntarily presented by me to the Prime Minister, as the House may have supposed, but an expression of my opinion drawn up in obedience to directions I received from the Prime, Minister himself, and which, as I considered only straightforward and right, I showed to my chief, the present Foreign Minister, before I forwarded it to the Prime Minister. I do not propose
  548
  now further to enter upon the strictures of the noble Marquess who spoke yester day, and who found fault with me so severely and so unaccountably at tin time. To do so would be foreign to tin subject now before the House. I only ask your Lordships to reserve your opinion and judgment, as it is probable that on a future occasion I may call attention to these allegations.

  THE UNITED IRISH LEAGUE AND CRIME IN IRELAND—MURDER OF HUGH THOMPSON.
  *THE EARL OF DARTREY: My Lords, I rise to call attention to the murder of Hugh Thompson, near Enniskillen, in the month of March, 1900, and to ask His Majesty's Government if any person has been, or is likely to be, brought to trial for this crime. This murder is of a class only too well known in Ireland, hut in order that your Lordships may be acquainted with the facts, I will mention a few of the circumstances which led up to it. In June, 1898, the tenant of a small farm adjoining the village of Belcoo, about a dozen miles from Enniskillen, was evicted. Shortly afterwards a man who desired to take the farm entered into negotiations with the landlord, but when this became known considerable feeling was excited in the neighbourhood. In the beginning of November he received a threatening letter advising him to have nothing to do with the farm, and giving him the significant hint that there was plenty of powder and shot in Ireland. This letter purported to emanate from the Irish National Federation, but was not signed. The man, however, paid no attention to the letter, and took possession of the farm. In the following June a public meeting was held in the village of Belcoo it which he was denounced—not by tame, but quite unmistakably—by a speaker who, I believe, was a Member of Parliament. He was afterwards severely boycotted. Nobody would buy from him and nobody would sell to him, but le eventually succeeded in finding a man who did a few odd jobs for him, sold a few cattle for him, and so on. At the end of October two of his haystacks were found to be on fire. The alarm was given, but nobody from the village would attempt to extinguish the flames. Legal pro-

  549
  ceedings followed, and the county court judge awarded him £6O compensation. The decision was appealed against, and the case went to the Enniskillen assizes. It did not come on during the first sitting of the Court, and the tenant of the farm returned in the evening to Belcoo, accompanied by Hugh Thompson, who was his principal witness. From Belcoo Thompson started to walk home, a distance of three miles but was murdered within a mile or so of the village. The next day, when the case came on, the judge used the following language—
  "The boycotting took place at the instance of a body calling itself the United Irish League. How has it culminated? One of the witnesses in this case has been brutally, atrociously, and cowardly murdered on his way home."
  Four months later, in his address to the grand jury at Cork, where another case of murder was coming before him, the judge alluded to this Enniskillen murder, and said—
  "At the last spring assizes I had a case before me in which a threatening letter to the tenant of an evicted farm was succeeded by a meeting of the United Irish League alongside the farm. Then came the burning of the tenant's hay, and finally, the night before I heard the claim for compensation, the principal witness was brutally murdered on his way home."
  This crime is attributed by the judge to the influence of the United Irish League, which is, I believe, still flourishing amongst us, its usual methods of intimidation being emphasised by occasional outrage. People are asking themselves rather freely in Ireland how many more murders it will take before His Majesty's Government will see fit to suppress the United Irish League in the same way as its predecessors, the Land League and the National League, wore suppressed. I do not know that there is very much difference between them except in name. Unless something is done to put a stop to these outrages there will be an inducement to well-disposed persons to obey the laws of the United Irish League instead of the laws of the land.
  THE EARL OF DENBIGH: My Lords, I regret to say that the account which has been given by the noble Earl of the singularly brutal murder of this unfortunate man Thompson appears to be only too accurate. I also regret to say that
  550
  at the present moment there does not seem to be any further information upon which a charge could be preferred with success. Four men have been arrested and charged with the crime; two of them were shortly afterwards discharged, and the other two were remanded from time to time, but were ultimately discharged by the magistrates owing to the absence of sufficient evidence. I can assure the noble Earl that the police are doing their utmost to discover the perpetrators of this crime. Investigation is still being vigorously pursued, but there have been no recent developments calculated to bring the guilty party to justice.

  EARLY CLOSING OF SHOPS.
  The Lords following were named of the Select Committee:—

  D. Marlborough.

  M. Salisbury.

  E. Stamford.

  E. Hardwicke.

  E. Romney.

  E. Verulam.

  L. Bp. Winchester

  L. Brassey.

  L. Avebury.

  The Committee to meet on Friday next at a quarter before Four o'clock, and to appoint their own chairman.
  House adjourned at live minutes past Seven of the clock to Thursday next, half-past Ten of the clock.