Sitting of 7 May 1901

Preamble
The House met at Two of the clock.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  OMAGH GAS BILL [Lords]. [BY ORDER.]
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. MURNAGHAN: moved the rejection of the Bill, saying that he did it at the request of 75 per cent. of the ratepayers of the town of Omagh. They regarded it as a highhanded effort to get possession of an asset which properly should belong to the local authority, and the profits of which ought to go in the relief of local rates. On the occasion when the Dungannon Gas Bill came before the House, the Dungannon Urban Council had the assistance of almost every Ulster Member and of hon. Members representing Belfast. He thought Omagh that day was entitled to the same treatment. He did not see that there was a particle of difference between the two cases; if anything, the Dungannon Company had a higher ground for its claims than the Omagh Gas Company had that day. This Bill came before the House of Commons after having passed through the House of Lords; but he failed to see that that put any special halo round the measure. The inhabitants of the town of Omagh had a right to look to the popular Assembly to see that justice was done, and that the privileges which properly belonged to them were not filched from them. If the company succeeded in passing their Bill they would deprive the local authorities of a possession of very great value, and so enhance the price of gas that it would become a serious burden on consumers. Perhaps it would be as well to tell the House something of the origin of the Bill. Half a century ago a few gentlemen of business enterprise entered into a co-partnership for the purpose of establishing a gas company in Omagh, and they subscribed a capital of £2,500 for the purpose. That sum had been found to be sufficient; all improvements since made had been paid for out of profits, and the shareholders had likewise pocketed some very tempting dividends at the expense of gas consumers. In 1856 the company was registered. In 1879 the capital of the company was doubled, each holder, of a pound share receiving £2, and the capital of the company thus became £5,000 without the shareholders having to contribute an extra penny. The Irish Local Government Act came in force in 1898; the local authorities of Omagh at once applied to be created an urban council.
  906
  They thus placed themselves in a position to take over undertakings of the nature of the supply of light, and the first chairman made inquiries as to the possibilities of introducing electricity. That actively stirred up the gas-work proprietors, who had been going on in a humdrum fashion for half a century, and in order to protect their own interests they gave notice of a Bill securing to themselves statutory powers. The local authorities at once took steps to ascertain if it were possible to buy up the undertaking, and suggested an amicable arrangement by which they could take over the works as a going concern on equitable terms. The owners of the company declined to sell, however, although they clothed their refusal in verbiage which lacked the directness and clearness which should be characteristic of business negotiations. They said that the directors were willing to sell the gas works to any person, but they could not entertain any proposal for that purpose until they procured the passing of the Bill giving the company their usual rights and privileges in all respects. He would like to know what were the "usual rights and privileges' of a few moneyed gentlemen in a town to get possession of an article which everybody needed, and for which they were bound to charge exorbitant prices when there was no competition. He was justified in saying that the company had for fifty years been acting illegally, opening up streets and laying down mains without authority. He trusted the House was not going to give sanction to an illegality simply because it was of long continued existence. Then the company came to the House and asked sanction to charge 5s. as the standard price per 1,000 feet, with a right to increase that price if they so desired. In a neighbouring town, twenty miles distant, where the supply of gas was in the hands of the local authority, the price was only 4s. 2d.; while in Derry, where there Was a private company, the price was 3s. fid. There was a long stride between 3s. 6d. and 5s. But in Belfast, owing to the fact that the gas was in the possession of the local authority, consumers got it for 2s. 3d. per 1,000 feet; and he hoped the hon. Members for Belfast would help the inhabitants of Omagh

  907
  in their opposition to this Bill. The Bill also increased the capital of the company from £2,500 to £15,000. What an infliction that would be to the town! The local authority were anxious to come to terms with the company, and to deal with them fairly, and even generously. In Clause 56 the company wanted to get power for a Provisional Order for electric lighting. Every gentleman connected with the concern was highly respected in the ordinary walks of life; but the question was, Was the House going to give these gentlemen a certain monopoly for their own enrichment to the disadvantage of the inhabitants of the town? Were they going to take away from this little town all the elements of nourishment which would help it to grow and expand its resources? Again, this Bill forced the local authority to come to the House to protect its rights, but it also endeavoured to force the local authority to pay to the company the costs of a Bill which they did not want. That was an indication of the conscience of the gentlemen. There was no need for this Bill. Efforts had been made over and over again by the local authority to come to terms with the company, and to give them even a fancy price for their undertaking, but these efforts had all been in vain, and the company would come to no agreement. He was certain that the House would stand between the gas consumers and ratepayers of Omagh and a few gentlemen who were only looking after their own enrichment. He begged to move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.
  *MR. O'DOHERTY: seconded the rejection of the Bill, not so much as an Irish parliamentary representative as a member of the corporation of the neighbouring city of Londonderry; for the fight of Omagh to-day would be the fight of Londonderry tomorrow, and of other towns and urban councils in Ireland. The object of the Bill was to secure to a few monopolists in. Omagh certain rights and privileges which up to the present they had enjoyed owing to the sufferance of the body which had charge of the streets and roads of Omagh. The only reason that could be adduced for passing the Second Reading of the Bill was that it
  908
  had passed through the Committee stage in the House of Lords. But he had yet to learn that there was a chronic determination on the part of the Commons of England to ratify without rhyme or reason everything that came down to them approved of by the House of Lords. Last year a Bill was introduced by a gas company in the town of Dungannon similarly situated to Omagh to secure and maintain the rights and privileges which up to then they had enjoyed on sufferance, and he had had the pleasure of reading that day the report of the speech then made by the hon. Member for South Antrim when he asked the House to flout the gas company of Dungannon, and to leave it to the people to manage their own gas and water. The rejection of that Provisional Order was moved by the hon. Member for East Tyrone, and was ably seconded by the hon. Member for South Belfast. The hon. Member for South Belfast told the House that if they sanctioned the Second Reading of that Order, giving the Dungannon company the right in perpetuity to supply gas to that town, they would be nullifying the Local Government Act of 1898. He would therefore appeal to hon. Members on both sides to vote for the rejection of the Bill. If an urban council in England or in Scotland were concerned would a hundred Members of the House of Commons be found to vote against the principle of municipal trading? In every instance in which municipal or urban authorities sought for powers as against monopolists they were always supported by the House. After the statements which had already been made he did not think it would be fair to the House to repeat again the history of the Omagh Gas Company, but he would remind the House that that company was formed so far hack as 1850, and that its promoters, who were the predecessors in title of the promoters of the Bill before the House, made a promise to the inhabitants of Omagh that they would be satisfied with a five-per cent. dividend on their capital of £2,500, or at most 6 per cent., and that the price of gas would from time to time be reduced, so that the profits would not be in excess of the amount required to pay the dividend. That state of affairs continued till the year

  909
  1878, when the capital of the company was increased to £5,000, not by the addition of fresh capital, but by the over-plus profits over 6 per cent. from 1850 tol878. The promise made by the original promoters was then broken, because, having increased the capital, they still continued to pay 5 per cent. on £5,000, or 10 per cent. on the original capital. That was the state of affairs at present. Now, what was the modest proposal made by the promoters of the Bill? They asked the House to further inflate the capital of the company by making it £15,000, and also to sanction the payment of a dividend on that inflated capital which would amount to 54 per cent. on the original capital. Would such a measure, if it concerned an English or a Scotch urban district, be for one moment entertained by the House of Commons? If they in Ireland were told by a majority of the House that they were not able to manage their own local affairs, at any rate he would ask hon. Members to let urban and municipal councils in Ireland manage their own local gas and water affairs. In 1886 a Bill similar to the present Bill was introduced by the Dundalk Gas Company. It obtained Second Reading, but on the Third Beading it was opposed by the Dundalk Town Commissioners, and as a result the House by a majority of forty-one refused to sanction the handing over of the lighting of Dundalk to the company, as, in the opinion of the House, it was the local authority which should own the gas and water. If there was one clause more than another which should make hon. Members look with suspicion on the Bill before the House, it was Clause 68. The promoters of the Bill asked the House not only to hand over to them the absolute right of supplying gas in Omagh, but by Clause 68 they asked for power to apply, under the provisions of the Electric Lighting Act of 1882, for a licence to produce and supply electrical energy to Omagh. The promoters wanted a monopoly, not only so far as gas was concerned, but they also wanted to shut the door against the urban council of Omagh being ever allowed to supply electric light to the inhabitants of the town. He had not had such a large experience as other hon. Members of bills such as the one under discussion, but he had been assured that it
  910
  was wholly unprecedented for any such clause to be included in an ordinary gas Bill, and he would ask hon. Members to pause before saddling for ever the town of Omagh with a monopoly so far as public lighting was concerned. They all knew that gas and water were articles of the utmost importance in modern civilisation, and it had been held over and over again by the House that the proper authority for supplying those articles to towns and cities was the representative body of the community concerned. Many hon. Members were members of municipalities and urban councils throughout the United Kingdom, and he would ask them to consider the great practical inconvenience of having an authority other than the municipal body interfering with the roads and pulling up the streets. The city of Belfast, of which they were all so proud in Ulster, because of its enterprise and energy, had refused to allow a monopolist company to filch from the citizens full rights over their streets. Hon. Members representing Belfast and other hon. Members would be nullifying their past action by voting for the Bill before the House. He would ask hon. Members to be consistent, and not on the present occasion to depart from the beneficent principle which had been laid down again and again that where a local authority was prepared to supply gas, water, and electricity no power should be given to either a foreign or local company for a similar purpose. He would ask that the same treatment should be given to Omagh as had been given to every other municipality, and as long as he was in the House he himself would always vote for the principle that the local authority should have the absolute right of supplying gas, water, and electricity. He had great pleasure in seconding the proposal.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day six months.'"—(Mr. Murnaghan.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  MR. RENTOUL: said this Bill had passed through various stages in the House of Lords and had been sent

  911
  to the Commons, and they were now asked to reject it without the slightest consideration whatever, and without being made acquainted with the facts of the case. After the Keady Railway Bill had been rejected a short time ago a letter appeared in a Belfast newspaper assuring the public that the reasons why the House had rejected the Bill were incorrect in every detail. That should lead the House to be careful about rejecting a Bill upon ex parte statements made in this House. The hon. Gentleman who moved the rejection was intimately connected with the Omagh district, and was very much respected in the House, but he made a number of statements which, for anything they knew, might or might not be correct, for he did not attempt to give a sentence of proof with regard to the leading statements he made. He said he was commissioned by 75 per cent. of the ratepayers of Omagh to speak on their behalf; he might have been commissioned to speak for 99 per cent. of them, but he adduced no proof of it.
  MR. MURNAGHAN: said he had in his pocket the petition signed by the ratepayers.
  MR. RENTOUL: said the hon. Member did not even make a hint of that in his speech, and therefore he was justified in commenting upon the absence of proof. That petition did not prove that 75 per cent. of the ratepayers were opposed to this Bill.
  MR. MURNAGHAN: said the number who had signed the petition amounted to three-fourths of the inhabitants.
  MR. RENTOUL: said there was no actual proof that 75 per cent. of the ratepayers were behind the hon. Member, and that was a very strong reason why the Bill should be sent to a Committee so that the statement might be proved. This company started gasworks fifty years ago, and at that time they did a good service to the town of Omagh, and now the local authority wished to deprive them of their property. He believed that it was only a question of price. If this Bill was rejected, the company would be left absolutely in the hands of the local authority, who could
  912
  fix what price they liked. As for the price of gas, this company at Omagh had been supplying gas at a lower price than any other town in the whole of Ulster, except Armagh. He had not a particle of interest in this Bill either directly or indirectly, but he should vote for the Second Reading in order to have the matter investigated, and to see whether the company was being properly treated by the local authority, or whether they were being swindled out of their property. The hon. Member opposite had said that the interests of the ratepayers should not be sacrificed to the interests of a few private individuals. He agreed with that, but, on the other hand, the interests of a few private individuals should not be absolutely sacrificed to the interests of the ratepayers. Unless a great deal more information and some very different arguments were brought forward, the House would be bound to give this Bill a Second Reading.
  SIR WALTER FOSTER: The hon. and learned Member opposite has asked us to send this Bill to a Committee upstairs in order to have it investigated. I think we are bound to look at the question from a much broader point of view. We took the trouble not long ago to pass a Bill for the local government of Ireland, and that Bill gave certain powers to popularly elected representative bodies. They were looked forward to as bodies that would have charge of everything that concerns the well-being of the whole community. This Bill deals with one of the most essential things to a community, namely, the lighting of a locality, which has hitherto been in the hands of private persons. This new body which comes into being under the Local Government Act is naturally the one which ought to be in possession of all the powers of lighting the locality which it governs, and I do not want to see any step taken by this House which will prevent that local body acquiring those powers on proper and reasonable terms. As we have heard from the correspondence read, attempts were made by the local authority to come to terms with these private persons in order to acquire possession of the undertaking for the general good of the inhabitants. Those attempts were repudiated

  913
  by the private people, who would not even negotiate. Then they take advantage of their position to come to this House and the other House, not only to obtain powers to continue their monopoly, but to obtain greater powers. This Bill would give them the statutory right to supply not only gas, but also electricity, which would keep from this representative body one of the primary functions for which the local body was created. I hope this House will pause before it initiates such a precedent. It is proposed in this Bill to increase the capital to three times its present value—to increase the capital, which was originally £2,500—which was written up to £5,000—to £15,000. That proceeding might be quite right if the local representative authority was not a possible purchaser. Therefore, when purchase came to be considered by arbitration, the market price would start from £15,000 instead of £5,000. This procedure on the part of the private persons promoting this Bill throws a suspicion upon the whole thing, and we ought to be very careful not to do anything to induce other companies to interfere with the rights of these representative bodies. I want the representative body of Omagh to have fair play, which it will not get if this Bill becomes law.
  SIR JAMES HASLETTsaid the hon. Gentleman had just stated that in case of purchase by the local authority, if this Bill became law, the value of the undertaking would start at a statutory value of £15,000.
  SIR WALTER FOSTER: Hear, hear!
  SIR JAMES HASLETT: said the concluding portion of Clause 70 provided as follows:—
  "But the arbitrator shall not in assessing the sum to be paid by the council to the company have regard to the fact that the company is incorporated by this Act."
  That meant that the arbitrator had not to take into account the statutory value in this Act. They must deal with this question all round, and buy on fair marketable terms. The chairman of the Commission which inquired into the affairs of this company was asked whether they would be allowed
  914
  to open the streets under the Bill, and he replied that that would be a matter for consideration. If the local authority declined to allow them to open the streets and extend their mains, and make other improvements, what was the use of the gas company?
  MR. TULLY: Will the hon. Member tell us where he gets that legal decision?
  SIR JAMES HASLETT: said he was simply quoting the statement of the chairman of the Commission. The local authority might have acquired this property twenty-two years ago. Omagh was then governed by town commissioners, and they could have put the Public Health Act into operation in 1878. It had been said that the company gave a pledge never to exceed more than 5 per cent. interest, but that was one of those dreamy statements for which they had never been able to get black and white. The company doubled its capital without one solitary expression of dissent from the inhabitants of Omagh. The shareholders had accepted a 5 per cent. dividend, and the profits had accumulated, but supposing they had been taking the usual 7 to 10 per cent. upon the original capital, with compound interest, what did it matter what the capital was placed at. It was transfer capital, transferred from shareholder to shareholder. He had read the clause which enabled them to sell the undertaking under the direction of a public arbitrator appointed by the Local Government Board, who was to say what was the value between man and man, and the county council was to have the undertaking at its value to-day. Could there ever be a fairer way of acquiring property? If there was anything that should command the respect of Parliament it was that they should deal out justice to all alike; yet they were going to take away from a poor country like Ireland this undertaking, now that they had obtained the power, and they desired to take it over at an unjust price. The company could not have entered into this undertaking unless they had come to the House and obtained statutory powers. They could not have put up an electric lamp without coming here first. The hon. Member who had moved the motion had told the House that the

  915
  governing power at Omagh was Nationalist. He did not think that was a wise statement to make. This matter could be debated as a matter far removed from any political standpoint; it was not a party question, and could be debated upon the ordinary lines of commercial justice. He had heard a whisper that the Bill passed through the House of Lords Committee as an unopposed Bill. That was not the fact; it was cruelly opposed, and it was only after the most careful scrutiny that the Committee passed the Bill, and that it had come down to this House. It was not the fault of the company that this Bill had gone before a Committee of the House of Lords; that was the fault of the arrangements of the House, which divided these Bills between the two Houses. The House of Lords had given the matter its full consideration and had passed the Bill. Surely under those circumstances the House would allow it to reach the Committee stage. Such a proceeding would be tantamount to saying that it was sufficient for this House to know two things in order to throw it out; first, that the Bill was promoted by a company, and second, that it had been passed by a House of Lords Committee. All that the company, which had been in existence for fifty years, asked was an act of justice. He hoped that the House, by an overwhelming majority, would reject the new idea, and not reject the Bill because it had been passed by the House of Lords, but that it would send the Bill in the ordinary way to a Committee, where evidence could be heard and the Bill dealt with on its merits.
  *MR. TULLY: hoped that the House would be allowed soon to come to a division upon this question, most of the points of which had been thoroughly threshed out. The hon. Gentleman in his defence of this gas company had stated that the town commissioners would practically throttle the company by refusing to allow it to break up the roads, but the local council, of which he was a member, had obtained a legal opinion upon that very point, and the effect of the opinion was that their powers to do so were involved in great obscurity.
  SIR JAMES HASLETT: said he merely gave his opinion upon that point. There
  916
  was a very old saying that counsel's opinion depended upon the case he had placed before him. He might say he had equally strong opinions upon his side.
  *MR. TULLY: said there was a recent decision in an English case. The whole of the case rested upon the point whether they were going to tie up local government by Bills of this kind, which would have the effect of crushing an electric system in Omagh; it would mean that men who desired to start a small industry would be practically prohibited, and all machinery driven by gas would be practically prohibited in Omagh if such a Bill as this were passed. One further point to which he wished to call attention was the way in which the price had risen to £15,000. Why was £15,000 selected as the price? The valuation of Omagh was £12,000, and under their borrowing powers they could only borrow to the extent of twice their valuation, that was to say £24,000, and as the urban council had borrowed for building artizans' houses and for waterworks, the object of inflating the capital was no doubt to prevent Omagh from acquiring the property. The real reason for the Bill was that the company wanted to stay electric progress in Omagh; consequently, when the progressive men of Omagh desired to use the water-power that was running to waste daily through their town, and they wanted to introduce electricity, with all the progress it brought in its train, into the town they were met by this Bill, which in his opinion ought to be rejected.
  MR. FIELD: said he understood that the Omagh Urban Council applied to the Local Government Board in the first instance, and the Local Government Board sanctioned the scheme. It seemed to him, therefore, that if this Bill was passed the House would be proceeding in a retrograde direction. The House of Commons had pointed the way in which they should go in all matters of public utility, and had shown that they should be directed either by county councils or the corporations of the towns. Why should an exception be made in regard to this company? There were clauses in the Bill which gave extensive powers to the company, and if

  917
  these clauses were allowed to pass, this small company would be able to prey to any extent on the ratepayers. It was not for the benefit of the community that a small clique of private interested individuals should have the power of taxing the people of Omagh by charging an
  enormous rate for gas. He hoped the House would reject the Bill by a large majority.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 184; Noes, 170. (Division List No. 172.)

  AYES.

  Acl and-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

  Garfit, William

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

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

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Greene, Sir E. W. (B'rySEdm'nds

  Pemberton, John S. G.

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

  Greene, Hy. D. (Shrewsbury)

  Penn, John

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Pilkington, Lt.-Col. Richard

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Gunter, Sir Robert

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Halsey, Thomas Frederick

  Plummer, Walter R.

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

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

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

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

  Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nd'y)

  Randles, John S.

  Bigwood, James

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robt. W.

  Rankin, Sir James

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford)

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Bond, Edward

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Renshaw, Charles Bine

  Boulnois, Edmund

  Heath, Arthur H. (Hanley)

  Richards, Henry Charles

  Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn

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

  Ridley. Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge

  Brassey, Albert

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green

  Brodrick, Rt. Hn. St. John

  Higginbottom, S. W.

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

  Hobhouse, Hy. (Somerset, E.)

  Ropner, Colonel Robert

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)

  Round, James

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Bull, William James

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Sarckville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Campbell, Rt. Hn J. A. (Glasgow

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse

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

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Kay-Shuttleworth, Rt.HnSirU

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Chamberlain, J.Austen(Worc')

  Law, Andrew Bonor

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Chapman, Edward

  Lawrence, William F.

  Smith, HC. (North'd., Tyneside

  Charrington, Spencer

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

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

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

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

  Coddington, Sir William

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Stanley, Hon Arthur(Ormskirk

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Stanley, Lord(Lancs.)

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Long, Col.Charles W.(Evesham

  Stewart, Sir Mark J.M Taggart

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S

  Stroyan, John

  Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Lowe, Francis William

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Lowther, RtHnJW(Cumb, Pen

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Lucas, Col. Francis(Lowestoft)

  Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Denny, Col.

  Macartney, Rt Hn W. G. Ellison

  Walrond, Rt.Hon. Sir Wm. H.

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

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Dorington, Sir John Edward

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

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Doughty, George

  Maple, Sir John Blundell

  Welby, Lt.-Col. ACE (Taunton)

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Mellor, Rt.Hon. John William

  Wharton, Rt. Hn. J. Lloyd

  Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. H.

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

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

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Williams, Col. R. (Dorset)

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Middlemore, John T.

  Wills, Sir Frederick

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Milton, Viscount

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.

  Milward, Colonel Victor

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh, N.

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

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

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

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

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

  Finch, George H.

  Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Mount, William Arthur

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Murray, Rt. Hon A Graham (Bath

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Flower, Ernest

  Myers, William Henry

  Sir James Haslett and Mr.

  Forster, Henry William

  Newdigate, Francis Alexander

  William Johnson.

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

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

  Allan, William (Gateshead)

  Gordon, Maj. Evans-(TrH'lets)

  O'Dowd, John

  Allen, Charles P. (Glouc., Stroud

  Grant, Corrie

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Ambrose, Robert

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

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

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Hammond, John

  O'Malley, William

  Asher, Alexander

  Hardie, J. K. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Austin, Sir John

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Palmer, Sir C. M. (Durham)

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

  Palmer, George W. (Reading)

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Pease, Herbt. P. (Darlington)

  Bell, Richard

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Black, Alexander William

  Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich)

  Rasch, Maj. Frederic Carne

  Blake, Edward

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

  Rea, Russell

  Boland, John

  Holland, William Henry

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Boyle, James

  Hope, John D. (Fife, West)

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Brigg, John

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Reed, Sir Edw. Jas. (Cardiff)

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Reid, Sir R. T. (Dumfries)

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Renwick, George

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Joicey, Sir James

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Jones, Dav. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Rigg, Richard

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Caine, William Sproston

  Joyce, Michael

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Caldwell, James

  Kennedy, Patrick James

  Roche, John

  Cameron, Robert

  Lambert, George

  Scott, Chas. P. (Leigh)

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Langley, Batty

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Leamy, Edmund

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Carew, James Laurance

  Leith, Sir Joseph

  Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire

  Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

  Leng, Sir John

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Levy, Maurice

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Craig, Robert Hunter

  Lloyd-George, David

  Strachey, Edward

  Crean, Eugene

  Lough, Thomas

  Sullivan, Donal

  Cremer, William Randal

  Lundon, W.

  Taylor, Theodore Cooke

  Crombie, John William

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.

  Cullinan, J.

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merth'r

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings

  Delany, William

  M'Crae, George

  Thompson, Dr EC (M'n'ghan, N.

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

  M'Dermott, Patrick

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

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  M'Fadden, Edward

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Dillon, John

  M'Govern, T.

  Tully, Jasper

  Donelan, Captain A.

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Doogan, P. C.

  M'Laren, Charles Benjamin

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Mather, William

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

  Duffy, William J.

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Weir, James Galloway

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Edwards, Frank

  Morris; Hon. Martin Henry F.

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Elibank, Master of

  Moss, Samuel

  White, Patrick (Meath, North

  Ellis, John Edward

  Murphy, J.

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Emmott, Alfred

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Evans, Sir F. H. (Maidstone)

  Nolan Joseph (Louth, South)

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Norman, Henry

  Wilson, F. W. (Norfolk, Mid)

  Ffrench, Peter

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

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

  Field, William

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Flynn, James Christopher

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary M'd

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Furness, Sir Christopher

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

  Mr. Murnaghan and Mr. O'Doherty.

  Gilhooly, James

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

  Resolutions agreed to.

  Main Question put, and agreed to. Bill read a second time, and committed.

  PRIVATE BILLS (STANDING ORDER 63 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
  920
  First Reading thereof, Standing Order No. 63 has been complied with, viz.:—London United Tramways Bill.
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.

  PRIVATE BILLS [Lords] (STANDING ORDERS NOT PREVIOUSLY INQUIRED INTO COMPLIED WITH).
  MR. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of

  921
  Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, viz.:—
  Albion Steam Coal Company Bill [Lords].
  Chester Gas Bill [Lords].
  Royal Exchange Assurance Bill [Lords].
  Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time.

  PRIVATE BILLS (PETITION FOR ADDITIONAL PROVISION) (STANDING ORDERS NOT 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 Petition for additional Provision in the following Bill, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, viz.:—
  Stalybridge, Hyde, Mossley, and Dukinfield Tramways and Electricity Board Bill.
  Ordered, That the Report be referred to the Select Committeee on Standing Orders.

  DERWENT VALLEY WATER BOARD BILL (KING'S CONSENT SIGNIFIED).
  Read the third time, and passed.
  NEWRY PORT AND HARBOUR TRUST BILL.
  Read the third time, and passed.
  NORTH BRITISH RAILWAY BILL.
    TENDRING HUNDRED WATER BILL.
    As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
    WEST CUMBERLAND ELECTRIC TRAMWAYS BILL. (BY ORDER.)
    Read a second time, and committed.
    PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
    Read a second time, and committed.

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5).
    Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to Halifax and Sowerby Bridge, Lytham, Middleton, Newark, Ripon,
    922
    and Torquay, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Grant Lawson and Mr. Long.

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL.
    "To confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to Halifax and Sowerby Bridge, Lytham, Middleton, Newark, Ripon, and Torquay," presented, and read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 169.]
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 6).
    Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to Bridport, Chepping-Wycombe, Marlborough, Wakefield, and the county of West Sussex, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Grant Lawson and Mr. Long.
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 6) BILL.
    "To confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to Bridport, Chepping-Wycombe, Marlborough, Wakefield, and the county of West Sussex," presented, and read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 170.]
    COMMONS REGULATION AND INCLOSURE (SKIPWITH) PROVISIONAL ORDER.
    Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under the Inclosure Acts, 1845 to 1882, for the regulation of Skipwith Common, in the parish of Skipwith, in the county of York, and a Provisional Order under the said Acts for the inclosure of the Common Fields in the same parish, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Hanbury and Mr. Austen Chamberlain.

    COMMONS REGULATION AND INCLOSURE (SKIPWITH) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
    "To confirm a Provisional Order under the Inclosure Acts, 1845 to 1882, for the regulation of Skipworth Common, in the parish of Skipwith, in the county of York, and a Provisional Order under the said Acts for the inclosure of the Common Fields in the same parish," presented, and read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions

    923
    for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 171.]

    INCLOSURE (SUTTON) PROVISIONAL ORDER.
    Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under the inclosure Acts, 1845 to 1882, for the inclosure of the Open Fields, Heath, and Wastes in the parish of Sutton, in the county of Northampton, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Han bury and Mr. Austen Chamberlain.
    INCLOSURE (SUTTON) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
    "To confirm a Provisional Order under the Inclosure Acts, 1845 to 1882, for the inclosure of the Open Fields, Heath, and Wastes in the parish of Sutton, in the county of Northampton," presented, and read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. Bill [172.]
    FAIRFORD AND CIRENCESTER RAILWAY BILL.
    Ordered, That the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Select Committee on the Swindon and Cheltenham Extension Railway Bill in Session 1881 be referred to the Select Committee on the Fairford and Cirencester Railway Bill.—(Mr. Caldwell.)

    STANDING ORDERS.
    Resolutions reported from the Committee.

    1. "That, in the case of the Winsford Urban District (Gas Transfer, etc.), Petition, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."

    2. "That, in the case of the Brighton Corporation Bill, Petition for dispensing with Standing Order 129 in the case of the Petition of the 'Brighton, Hove, and District Ironmongers' Association and others' against the Bill, the said Standing Order ought to be dispensed with."

    CLEVELAND AND DURHAM COUNTY ELECTRIC POWER BILL
    Reported with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

    MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS
    That they have agreed to Thames and Severn Provisional Order Bill, without Amendment.
    That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confer further powers upon the City and South London Railway Company; for the raising of capital; and for other purposes." City and South London Railway Bill [Lords].
    And also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board to construct an additional branch dock in connection with their Canada Dock; and for other purposes." Mersey Docks and Harbour Board (Canada Dock Works, etc.) Bill [Lords].

  CITY AND SOUTH LONDON RAILWAY BILL [Lords].
    MERSEY DOCKS AND HARBOUR BOARD (CANADA DOCK WORKS, ETC.) BILL [Lords].
    Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  PETITIONS.
    CHURCH DISCIPLINE.
    Petition from Bolton, for alteration of Law; to lie upon the Table.
    CHURCH DISCIPLINE BILL.
    Petition from Salisbury, against; to lie upon the Table.
    COAL MINES (EMPLOYMENT) BILL.
    Petitions in favour, from Norley; Pemberton; Orrell; and Silverdale; to lie upon the Table.
    ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (HIGHER GRADE AND EVENING CONTINUATION SCHOOLS).
    Petitions for alteration of Law, from Reading; Kirkheaton; and Bolton; to lie upon the Table.
    LICENSING (SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS)
    Petition from Orkney, for alteration of Law; to lie upon the Table.
    LOCAL AUTHORITIES OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION BILL.
    Petitions in favour, from London; and Vaynor and Penderyn; to lie upon the Table.
    MINES (EIGHT HOURS) BILL
    Petitions in favour, from Pemberton; Norley; Orrell; Pencoed; Park House; Llwyndu and Craigola; Mynydd Newydd Gwannclawdd; Clydach; Crown Lodge; Abererave; Ystradgunlais (two); and Deep Pit Collieries; to lie upon the Table.
    PUBLIC WORSHIP REGULATION ACT (1874) AMENDMENT BILL.
    Petition from Salisbury, against; to lie upon the Table.
    ROMAN CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY IN IRELAND
    Petitions against establishment, from Hawick; and Glasgow; to lie upon the Table.

    SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
    Petitions in favour, from Ropley; Basingstoke; St. John's Wood; Ashby-do-la-Zouch; Ecclesall; Kingston-upon-Hull; Clapham Park; Newcastle-on-Tyne; Oakenshaw-cum-Woodlands; Liscard; Clevedon; Alresford; Hull; Felixstowo (two); Southport; Balsall Heath; Broughton; East Grinstead; South Molton; Chudleigh; Weardale; Frosterley; Callington; Helstone; Synod of the Presbyterian Church of England; Reigate; Wheatley Hill; Bossinney; Guisborough; St. Helens; Allington; Mablethorpe; Exeter; Burnham; Arthur Galsworthy and others; Chalford; Stonebroom; Harringay; Chaileiy; Thirsk; Bicester; Tynemouth; Allerton; Beswick; Lockington; Hompnall; Midhurst (two); Wineanton; Sheffield (three); Street; Prees; Liversedge; Wick; Hampstead Norris; Kegworth; Wick-ham Heath; Stebb Cross; Langton; R. K. Postlethwaite Clifton (two); Newbury (two); Great Shefford; Crane Moor; Shap; Chichester; Dudley (two); Bampton Grange; Bath: Ambleside; Helton (two); Cliburn; Askham; Newcastle (two); Penruddock; Shildon
    926
    (three); Lightcliffe; Heckmondwike; Driffield; Beeford; Garton-on-the-Wolds; Wetwang; Sunderland (five); Lydney; Bream; South Lyncombe; Dedham; Ilchester; Middlesbrough; Willington Quay; Littlehampton; Ilkeston; Milton; Sittingbourne; Rainham; Barnton; East Dulwich (two): Portsmouth (two); Morland; Gosforth; Newbiggin; Watermillock; New Shildon; Birmingham; Tunstall; Falmouth; Purton (two); Hatherton; Harpurhey; Crewe; New Mills; Woore; Hanley; Ashton; Smethwick (two); Loughborough; Pontefract; Barnoldswick; Farnhill; Sedbergh; Stockton-on-Tees; Watchet; Swanage (two); Pardshaw; Manchester; Hereford; Kington; Llangrove; South Marston; Mytholmroyd; Lydgate; Dethick; Bingley; Patterdale; Kes-wick; Plumpton; Penrith (five); Wigton; Langtree; Rowden; and, Peter's Marland; to lie upon the Table.

    SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN BILL.
    Petition from Haslingden, against; to lie upon the Table.
    Petitions in favour, from Orkney; Clevedon; Deptford; Portsmouth; Stanghow; City Road; Hampstead; Arlesey; Carlisle; Ivybridge; Newtou-in-Makerfield; Hebburn Quay; Sheffield; Larkhall; Huddersfield; Rainham; and Ilkeston; to lie upon the Table.

    SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN (SCOTLAND) BILL.
    Petitions in favour, from Balmaghie; Minnigaff; Leith; Forglen (two); and Portpatrick; to lie upon the Table.
    SOVEREIGN'S OATH ON ACCESSION BILL.
    Petitions against, from Middlesbrough; Hornsey; and South Molton; to lie upon the Table.
    WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT (1897) AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL.
    Petition of the Mining Association of Great Britain, against; to lie upon the Table.
  RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
    INEBRIATE REFORMATORIES (IRELAND) (RULES).
    Return [presented 6th May] to be printed. [No. 158.]
    EDUCATION (SCOTLAND).
    Copy presented, of Report of the Committee of Council on Education in Scotland, with Appendix, 1900–1901 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
    PRISONS (ENGLAND AND WALES).
    Copy presented, of Rules approved by the Secretary of State for the Home Department with respect to the constitution of the Visiting Committee of Hull Prison [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
    EVICTIONS (IRELAND).
    Copy presented, of Return of the number of Evictions in Ireland for the quarter ended 31st March, 1901 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
    TRUSTEE SAVINGS BANKS REGULATIONS.
    Copy presented, of the Savings Banks (Investment) Regulations, 1901, dated 4th April, 1901 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
    SUPERANNUATIONS.
    Copy presented, of Treasury Warrant, dated 1st May, 1901, declaring that for the due and efficient discharge of the duties of the office of Accountant Auditors on the Staff of the Local Government Board professional or other peculiar qualifications not ordinarily to be acquired in the Public Service are requisite [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
    TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
    Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 2588 to 2590 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
QUESTIONS.

  SOUTH AFRICA—JAMESON RAID.
  MR. ALFRED DAVIES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he
  928
  can inform the House in what Parliamentary Papers there is evidence that the British Government accepted responsibility to the late Transvaal Government for damages caused by the Jameson raid.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN, Birmingham, W.): The hon. Member will find a statement of the position of His Majesty's Government on the point in Blue-book C 8063, page 9.

  LINDLEY INQUIRY.
  MR. LAMBERT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if the finding of the Court of Inquiry into the Lindley disaster, that Lieutenant Colonel Spragge took all the necessary military precautions and occupied the best available position, that he held out as long as he possibly could, but could have held out longer if irresponsible persons had not raised white flags, is in accordance with the regulation providing that a Court of Inquiry will give no opinion on the conduct of any officer or soldier.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK, Surrey, Guild-ford): The Court of Inquiry was held on certain released prisoners, and not on the disaster; and the Court, in accordance with paragraph 544, King's Regulations, recorded their opinion as to whether the officers or soldiers were taken prisoners by reason of the chances of war, or through neglect or misconduct on their own part.

  AMERICAN CHARITABLE RELIEF FOR BOER NON-COMBATANTS.
  MR. O'DOWD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the wife of the Military Governor of Pretoria has recently addressed an appeal to the American people on behalf of Boer women and children at present confined in British camps in South Africa, wherein she asks for funds to relieve the destitution existing amongst these people, most of whom are without sufficient food and, clothing; and whether steps will be immediately taken to have better arrangements made for these people.
  MR. BRODRICK: I must refer the hon. Member to a full reply I gave to a similar question put by the hon. Member for the Rushcliffe Division of Nottinghamshire on the 22nd April,†

GENERAL COLVILE.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether General Colvile has demanded a trial by court-martial; and, if so, why has that demand been refused.
MR. BRODRICK: All the facts connected with General Colvile's case were discussed at length in debate in this House.‡ I have nothing whatever to add to the statements I then made.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I must ask the right hon. Gentleman to reply to my question. Was a court-martial asked for and refused?
MR. BRODRICK: If the hon. Member had been in the House he would have heard what took place in a discussion for an hour. I am not prepared to take up the time of the House.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: The question was not answered. I have read the debate.
MR. BRODRICK: I made a full statement of the facts as they were told to me.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Why was the demand refused?
*MR. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman has already stated that he has nothing to add to his answer.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Was it because the inquiry disclosed Lord Kitchener's incompetence?

CAMPS OF CONCENTRATION.
MR. JOHN ELLIS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can how inform the House as to the number and situation
†See preceding volume, page 897.
‡ See Debates, Fourth Series, Vol. xc, pages 1250 and 1357.
930
of the camps of concentration formed by the military in the Orange River Colony, Natal, and Cape Colony respectively; how many men, women, and children are confined in each; and what have been the figures of mortality therein.
MR. BRODRICK: Refugee camps have been established in the Orange River Colony at Brandfort, Vredefort Road, Bloemfontein, Winburg, Spring-fontein, Heilbron, Kroonstad, Eden-burg, and Harrismith. The numbers in these camps are as follows:—Men, 2,814; women, 5,621; children, 11,245. Deaths from February were:—Men, 41; women, 80; children, 261. In Natal there are camps at Maritzburg and Howick, the numbers at which on 21st March were as follows:—Men, 236; women, 826; children, 1,462. I have no statistics as to the mortality in these two camps, nor have I yet received the information the hon. Member desires as to the camps in Cape Colony.
MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the men, women, and children now in refuge or prison camps in South Africa are free to leave when they desire to do so; whether, in any case, permission has been refused to relatives to take charge of women and children who were in the camp; and whether relatives of persons in the camps are allowed free access to the camps.
MR. BRODRICK: In the Transvaal and Orange River Colony and Natal any self-supporting refugees or those who have friends or relatives able and willing to house and support them are accorded permission to live in town; but the difficulties of subsistence in a country in a state of war preclude this permission being largely taken advantage of. Refugees are allowed to visit the town adjacent to the camp in which they reside without a pass, except when for military reasons a pass is considered necessary. On application to the head office or local superintendent, admission to camp has been granted to visitors who desire such privilege. We have not yet got the information from Cape Colony.
MR. DILLON: Why has it taken so long to get this information?
MR. BRODRICK: I cannot say,

SECRET DOCUMENTS AND THE CABINET.
MR. HERBERT LEWIS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the secret memorandum entitled Military Notes on the Dutch Republics of South Africa, revised to June, 1899, containing full information as to the Boer armaments, was supplied to members of the Cabinet in the year 1899; and, if so, on what date.
MR. BRODRICK: Details as to the distribution of secret documents to the Cabinet is a matter which the House will understand cannot be made public.
MR. FLAVIN: Does the right hon. Gentleman deny the substance of the question?
[No answer was returned.]

RETURN OF THE VOLUNTEERS AND YEOMANRY.
SIR SAMUEL SCOTT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can give any information as to what Volunteer companies are on their way home, and how many of the special applications to return from the old Imperial Yeomanry have been acceded to.
MR. BRODRICK: Lord Kitchener informed me a few days ago that all the Volunteer service companies attached to different regiments are now on their way to Cape Town, or embarked for home. He added that some hundreds of the original Imperial Yeomanry had been released, and were on their way to embark. I may say that from the disposition of his troops, of which Lord Kitchener informed me by last mail, I gather that he hopes shortly to dispense with the services of all the remainder of the original body of Yeomanry, as he considers they require rest after their service, but I cannot fix a date.

TAXATION ON TRANSVAAL GOLD MINES.
MR. BLACK: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies in view of the fact that production of
932
gold in the Transvaal has now recommenced, whether any, and, if so, what steps will be taken to levy taxation on the gold thus produced, and what proportion this taxation will bear to the value of the gold produced.
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The mines will, as I understand, be subject to the former taxation of the Transvaal until fresh arrangements are made.

BRABANT'S HORSE AT DORDRECHT.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Brabant's Horse, on their entry into Dordrecht after its first evacuation by the Boers, wrecked a number of the dwellings of the neighbouring farmers, the lowest estimate of the number of houses plundered being put at thirty, and in the absence of their owners broke open the doors, destroyed the furniture, and, having piled up the crockery in the streets, smashed it with boulders; whether this conduct had the sanction of the commanding officer, and whether any inquiry has been instituted into this charge which has been specifically advanced against the corps, or whether any, and, if so, what, punishment has been meted out to the alleged offenders.
MR. BRODRICK: No report has reached the War Office on this subject.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this took place fourteen months ago? Has the War Office heard nothing of it yet?
*MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The right hon. Gentleman has answered that question.

COLOUR-SERGEANT DEE, 1ST VOLUNTEER BATTALION DURHAM LIGHT INFANTRY.
MR. CONOR O'KELLY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he can state the ground on which Colour-Sergeant Patrick Dee, attached as instructor to the headquarters companies of the 1st Volunteer Battalion Durham Light Infantry, was discharged from the Army on 7th March, 1899.
THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Lord STANLEY, Lancashire, Westhoughton): He was discharged at his own request.

TRACTION ENGINES FOR SOUTH AFRICA.
MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state how many traction engines were purchased in Manchester for use in the war in South Africa, what was their total cost, and what reports has he received from the military experts as to their utility in the veldt.
LORD STANLEY: So far as I know, no engines were purchased in Manchester. A Committee, of which I am chairman, is now sitting to consider the various reports received from South Africa on the utility, or the reverse, of mechanical transport. We are also conducting various experiments which, it is hoped, will result in our being able to secure some satisfactory method of employing this kind of transport more extensively in the future.

MILITIA—STATISTICS.
MR. COURTENAY WARNER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state the number of Militia now serving abroad, also the number who have served abroad and have now returned home.
LORD STANLEY: The total number of Militia serving abroad on the 1st April was 24,115. Between 3,500 and 4,000 have returned home.

REGIMENTAL CANTEEN CONTRACTS.
MR. COURTENAY WARNER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will explain why the contracts for supplying the regimental and depot canteen with groceries, potatoes, and such articles have been taken out of the hands of the commanding officers and put all directly under the Deputy Assistant Adjutant General in the North-Western District.
LORD STANLEY: It is left to the discretion of general officers either to make contracts for the entire supply of their
934
districts or to leave it to commanding officers to make their own contracts.
MR. COURTENAY WARNER: Has the rule been altered, or is it the old rule?
LORD STANLEY: I do not know how long the rule has been in force, but it is one of the decentralising rules.

ROYAL ARMY CLOTHING DEPARTMENT—OVERTIME.
CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether, with respect to the memorial of the employees of the Royal Army Clothing Department now under consideration, he will consider the advisability of placing these men in regard to overtime upon the same footing as those employed under the War Office at Woolwich.
LORD STANLEY: It has been decided that from the 1st April last the scale of payment for overtime should be the same as that in the Army Ordnance Department at Woolwich.

ARMY ORGANISATION—BARRACK ACCOMMODATION.
MR. FREEMAN-THOMAS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can give any estimate as to the total cost of the barrack accommodation which will be required for the six Army Corps to be formed under his proposed scheme of Army organisation.
MR. BRODRICK: I am not in a position at present to give a complete estimate, but all barracks previously available will be utilised.

LIQUOR TRAFFIC IN SOUTH AFRICA.
MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether representations have been made to Sir Alfred Milner by a number of the ministers and representative men at Pretoria in favour of a strict regulation or restriction of the liquor traffic in the system of government to be set up in the Transvaal; and whether, having regard to the importance of the licensing question in the future administration of the colony, he

935
is in a position to make any statement on the subject.
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not know whether such representations have been made to Sir A. Milner, and I am not in a position to make any statement on the subject, of the importance of which both Sir A. Milner and myself are fully aware.

NAVY—WATER—TUBE BOILERS—THE ROYAL YACHT.
MR. WILLIAM ALLAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can state what indicated horse-power is to be taken out of the engines of H.M.S. "Medusa," after being fitted with the eight Dürr water-tube boilers ordered from Germany, and what consumption of fuel is guaranteed per indicated horse-power over a full speed test of time equal to her bunker capacity of coal tons.
I beg also to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if the repairs and alterations to the new Royal Yacht were the subject of a tabulated estimate, or have they been carried out without any estimate of ultimate cost; if the former, what was the amount of the estimate; if the latter, by whose orders was the work entered upon without the cost being known.
THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER, Belfast, W.): May I ask the hon. Member to postpone these questions till Thursday; and, at the same time, may I respectfully point out that it would be convenient if more notice could be given of questions such as these. The questions only appeared on the Paper this morning, and the House having met at two o'clock, the time was too short to give them that careful consideration which the questions of hon. Members so often deserve.
MR. WILLIAM ALLAN: Do not the officials of the Admiralty know well enough what the horse-power is?
*MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

H.M.S. "CÆSAR"
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty under
936
what heading in the Naval Estimates will the expenses of the cruise of H.M.S. "Cæsar" in the Mediterranean in October and November last, for the use of the Colonial Secretary, be placed; under what circumstances was a ship of the Royal Navy made to do service for a Minister of the Crown; and whether there are any, and, if so, what, precedents for the utilising of Government vessels for the service of Ministers of the Crown who are not in the Admiralty Department.
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: No extra cost was involved in the cruise of H.M.S. "Cæsar" in the Mediterranean in October and November last, when the Secretary of State for the Colonies was on board. A ship of the Royal Navy was placed at the disposal of a Minister of the Crown in pursuance of the recognised and reasonable practice of making His Majesty's ships available for officials engaged in the public service. There are precedents for utilising Government vessels for Ministers of the Crown who are not in the Admiralty Department. There is no precedent for a man-of-war being used by a Colonial Secretary when visiting a British colony, and I consider it a most fortunate circumstance that a precedent has now been created.

CHINA—RUSSIA AND MANCHURIA.
MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Chinese Government has addressed a Note to the Powers in reference to Manchuria; and, if so, what is proposed by China in this Note.
*THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS. (Viscount CRANBORNE,): I am not quite sure to what the hon. Member refers, but no such Note has been received recently from the Chinese Government.
MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Have any proposals of any kind been recently made by the Chinese Government to the Powers with reference to the opening up of Manchuria?
*VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: No.

GREAT BRITAIN AND GERMANY IN CHINA.
MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can give any information in reference to the firing by German troops upon a British boat in China; has the noble Lord's attention been directed to a report in the newspapers that such an incident has occurred, and will he make inquiries.
[No answer was returned.]
MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: repeated the question.
*VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: I must ask the hon. Member to put his question on the Paper.
MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to give notice that I will put the question on the Paper. I am sorry the noble Lord wants to waste the time of the House.
*MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: It is a waste of time.

AUSTRALIAN COMMONWEALTH—GOVERNOR'S SALARY.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies what response, if any, has he received to the proposal of the Colonial Office to the Australian Federal Cabinet that the salary of the Governor should be raised from £10,000 to £20,000 per annum.
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: There has been no proposal to increase the salary of the Governor General, but a despatch was addressed to him in November last asking him to bring before his Ministers the question of providing allowances for the Governor General's establishment and for the expenses of entertainment, in addition to the salary of £10,000 fixed by the Commonwealth Act. No definite statement has yet been received as to the amount of the allowances for which the Commonwealth Ministers are prepared to ask Parliament.

INDIAN RAILWAYS—AMERICAN LOCOMOTIVES.
SIR ALFRED HICKMAN: I beg to ask the
938
Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that the Senior Government Inspector of Burma Railways has reported that the American locomotives which are in use there show want of strength, and that parts supposed to be of cast steel proved to be of inferior metal and workmanship; that alterations and repairs have been required much in excess of what is necessary with locomotives received from British makers; that Mr. J. S. Johnson, of the locomotive department, reported that the American locomotives consume upwards of 35 per cent. more fuel per train mile than English locomotives doing the same work; and whether he is aware that the report of the Chief Mechanical Engineer of the Egyptian Railway Administration upon American and Belgian locomotives as compared with those of English make has been published in the Board of Trade Journal for April; and whether, having regard to the fact that orders are being given for American locomotives by other Government departments, he will publish in full the reports of the Burma Railway Inspectors.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord G. HAMILTON, Middlesex, Ealing): The senior Government Inspector of Burma Railways, in his report dated 5th August, 1900, has noticed certain defects in the American locomotives supplied to the Burma Railways Company. The report said to have been made by Mr. Johnson, of the locomotive department of that company, is not in the possession of this office. The information which I have received does not lead me to think that the American locomotives on Indian railways have been found generally unsatisfactory; but I will communicate to the editor of the Board of Trade Journal the report on the Burma railway locomotives and any other reports bearing on the subject which appear to me likely to give useful information.

INDIAN ARMY ESTABLISHMENT.
MR. CREMER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he will state what number of commissioned officers were on the establishment of the Indian Armies

939
on 1st January, 1901, and how many of them were British and how many native.
LORD G. HAMILTON: The number of commissioned officers on the active list of the establishment of the Indian Armies on 1st January, 1901, was 4,679; of these 1,836 were British and 2,843 were native.

AMERICAN LOCOMOTIVES ON EGYPTIAN RAILWAYS.
SIR ALFRED HICKMAN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the chief inspector of the locomotive department of the Burma railways has reported that the American locomotives in use there consumed upwards of 35 per cent. more fuel than English locomotives doing the same work, and whether he will cause trials to be made of the consumption of fuel in the American and Belgian locomotives in use on the Egyptian railways.
*VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: The first paragraph of the question has been answered by my noble friend the Secretary of State for India. Lord Cromer will be asked whether a report can be furnished concerning the consumption of fuel in the American and Belgian locomotives.

COAL MINES AND INCOME TAX, ETC.
SIR JAMES JOICEY: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can state what is the aggregate amount in each year from 1890 to 1900, inclusive, at which the coal mines of the United Kingdom have been assessed for income tax; also what is the aggregate amount during the same years at which Royalty and way-leave rents were assessed for the same purpose.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH, Bristol, W.): I am afraid I cannot give these figures. Coal mines are included, together with Royalties and way-leave rents, under one general head of mines in the Inland Revenue Returns.
SIR JAMES JOICEY: I have looked through those Returns and cannot find the figures.
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I will inquire further.

COAL DUTY—INCIDENCE IN THE THREE KINGDOMS.
MR. HERBERT LEWIS: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can state what proportions of the coal duty will be collected in England, Scotland, and Wales respectively.
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The answer to this question depends on the amount of coal exported from each country respectively.
MR. HERBERT LEWIS: Cannot you gauge it from last year's figures?
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: Taking those figures, the percentage would show England 41, Scotland 16, and Wales 43 per cent.

PATENT FUEL
MR. BRYNMOR JONES: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has now considered the representations made to him by producers and exporters of patent fuel in regard to the proposed duty on that commodity; and whether he is now prepared to exempt that commodity wholly or in part from that duty.
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The only representations on this subject which have reached me personally are with regard to the statement that patent fuel is composed of pitch as well as of coal. I am not in a position to announce any decision on that matter at present, but I certainly see no reason for excepting patent fuel from the duty.

INCOME TAX—DEDUCTIONS.
SIR ALFRED HICKMAN: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether local authorities are justified, under Section 24, Sub-section 3, of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1888, in deducting income tax at 1s. 2d. in the £ on half-yearly payments of interest made after the 5th April, 1901, but covering a period antecedent to that date when the payment is charged solely on, and made out of, funds liable to

941
income tax, such as gas undertakings or waterworks.
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: It is very difficult to answer a question of this kind without knowing the particular case referred to. But, so far as I understand, in the circumstances described the income tax should not be deducted at the rate of 1s. 2d. for the whole of the period covered by the payment of interest, but at the rate of 1s. in the £ in respect of any portion of the payment which accrued in the year ended on the 5th April, 1901, and at the rate of 1s. 2d. in the £ in respect of any portion accruing subsequent to that date.

GLUCOSE AND SUGAR DUTY.
MR. WARR: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, under contracts made before the Budget resolution for the sale of a commodity which by the express terms of the agreement is to contain a definite quantity of glucose, the seller can add to the invoice the amount of the duty which he has incurred in respect of the glucose, and which glucose he has imported for the express purpose of enabling him to fulfil his contract.
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: By Section 20 of the Customs Consolidation Act, 1876, as amplified by Section 8 of the Finance Act, 1900, the seller is empowered to add to the invoice the amount of the duty incurred in respect of any glucose imported for the express purpose of enabling him to fulfil an outstanding contract. A question might arise whether the character of the article might have been so changed by manufacture as to make these provisions inapplicable. This is a legal question on which I can express no opinion, for I think the reply to it would depend on the circumstances of the particular case.

SIGNALLING STATIONS ON TUSKAR AND THE FASTNET.
MR. CHARLES M'ARTHUR: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is in a position to make any definite statement with respect to the establishment
942
of signalling stations on Tuskar and the Fastnet, the system of signalling to be adopted, and the terms upon which messages will be transmitted to those concerned.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR, Leeds, Central): I have now received a letter from the Irish Lights Commissioners stating that they will do all in their power to have the proposal referred to by my hon. friend carried out, but that it will be essential for the telegraphic work to be in the hands of the lighthouse staff, as it will not be possible to allow any other persons to reside on the rock, the space being so limited. There are still many difficulties to be overcome, but the matter is being pushed forward.

RAILWAY RATES FOR CYCLES.
SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that, on 11th May, 1900, his predecessor (the present Home Secretary) received a deputation from the National Cyclists' Union, the Irish Cyclists' Union, and the Cycle Manufacturers' Association, praying him to use the influence of the Board of Trade to secure better accommodation, responsibility for loss or damage, and reduced rates from the railway companies, and that all save the Brighton line remain impassive on the subject, in marked contrast to the railways in France, Germany, Holland, and Belgium; and what steps he proposes to take to obtain greater facilities for cyclists.
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The Board of Trade did attempt to influence the railway companies in the direction desired, but without success. At present I do not see my way to take any further steps.
SIR HOWARD VINCENT: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is possible for those interested to go to the Railway Commissioners, as they can get no redress from the railway companies?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: There is no redress. Legislation would be required.
SIR HOWARD VINCENT: Why will not the right hon. Gentleman introduce legislation?
MR. FLAVIN: Why do you support the Government?

MERCANTILE MARINE—ENGAGEMENTS OF CREWS ON MONTHLY ARTICLES.
MR. JOYCE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he can state how many vessels engaged crews on monthly articles of agreement at the South Shields Mercantile Marine offices during the month of April, 1901; whether he can state if the provision scale embodied in the articles of agreement of the respective vessels is the scale which has been generally in use during the last fifty years; and whether he can state if there has been any decrease in the cost of provisions as compared with the cost of provisions fifty years ago; and, if so, to what extent.
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Forty-nine steamers and four sailing ships signed full crews on monthly articles of agreement at the South Shields Mercantile Marine office during the month of April last. With one exception—in which a special mode was adopted—the usual provision scale was embodied in the articles of agreement in all these cases. With regard to certain small variations the usual scale is the same as that in use fifty years ago. I am not prepared to say to what extent the cost of provisions has decreased during the last fifty years, but I have no hesitation in saying that the decrease has been considerable.
MR. JOYCE: Has the Government any intention of changing the scale which has been in force for fifty years?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The matter is under consideration. It would require legislation.

SEAMEN AND THE WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT.
MR. JOYCE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, having regard to the number of seamen who are killed and injured on British ships, he can state if it is the intention of His Majesty's Government
944
to introduce a Bill having for its object the extension of the Workmen's Compensation Act to seamen.
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: No, Sir.

SHEEP SCAB PREVENTION.
MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he will make an inquiry regarding the centralised and periodical system of sheep dressing, by which sheep scab has been almost entirely prevented; and whether he will consider the advisability of introducing it as a compulsory measure in the three kingdoms.
*THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. HANBURY, Preston): I assume that the hon. Member refers to the Australian Colonies, where of course the conditions are not the same as in this country, the flocks there being very large and in the hands of a comparatively limited number of owners. The system adopted is already well known to us. The Board of Agriculture can only deal with the question in Great Britain, and not in Ireland. In Great Britain the powers of the local authorities are very large, and if properly exercised should be sufficient to keep the disease within narrow limits. I am glad to say that in the twelve months ending March 31st last the number of sheep attacked was about 30 per cent. less than in the previous year and in England was less than 1 per 1,000 of the whole; in Wales 1 in 350; in Buckinghamshire, Northamptonshire, and Nottinghamshire 1 in 200, 560, and 500. The numbers attacked in these counties have fallen from 1,018 to 959, 2,850 to 729, 1,127 to 355.

SWINE FEVER.
MR. LAMBERT: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture if any particulars have reached him of the cause of nearly three times as many outbreaks of swine fever occurring in the week ending 27th April as compared with the corresponding period of last year; if so, will he state them to the House.
*MR. HANBURY: I regret that the increase in the disease during the last

945
three months has been great. The number of outbreaks has of course fluctuated very largely in various years, and last year the number was exceptiontionally small. The disease is very much more difficult to deal with than pleuro-pneumonia, or even foot-and-mouth disease, on account of the fact that so many of the animals affected do not present external evidence of the disease. I am not satisfied that the local veterinary surgeons adequately carry out the instructions of the Board when dealing with swine fever cases in their behalf, and I am applying to the Treasury with a view to increasing the number of veterinary surgeons in the direct employment of the Board; I am at the same time taking steps to ensure on the part of the local veterinary surgeons a fuller compliance with our instructions. The magistrates, I am sorry to say, do not always deal with failure to report the disease in such a manner as to discourage such a mischievous evasion of the law.

FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE IN EAST ANGLIA.
MAJOR RASCH: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to the suggestion that the outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease in East Anglia are caused by the importation of Welsh runts; and if he will take into consideration the possibility of some supervision in connection with this trade.
*MR. HANBURY: The foot-and-mouth outbreak in Essex, in December of last year, was possibly traceable to a fair held in Harlow, on 28th November. At this fair some animals from Denbighshire were exposed for sale. They, as well as all other animals at the fair of which any information could in any way be obtained, were traced back to the place from which they had come. The runts from Denbighshire were not in any case found to be affected with foot-and-mouth; and the places from which they had come in Wales, as well as all animals at those places, were inspected by veterinary surgeons without any foot-and-mouth being discovered. The same course was adopted in the case of all animals from other places so far as any information could be obtained.

CATTLE DISEASE REGULATIONS.
MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that the determination of the existence of tuberculosis, anthrax, glanders, pleuro-pneumonia, and many other infectious diseases of cattle is made by microscopic examination, with or without the addition of biological or bacteriological tests, and is therefore practically the same method of examination as is usually employed by public analysts in detecting adulteration in pepper, mustard and various other articles examined under the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, which are not chemically tested when examined for adulteration; and whether he will issue instructions that in all such cases where microscopic examination is the essential means of detecting disease the meat trader whose meat has been seized as being unfit for food shall be informed of the exact nature of the disease the carcase is alleged to have suffered from, so that he may know definitely the charge against which he has to defend himself.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. WALTER LONG, Bristol, S.): I am not aware that the methods of detection of tuberculosis and other diseases in carcases of cattle are practically the same as those employed for detecting adulteration in articles of the kind referred to in the question. I could not undertake to issue any such instructions as are desired by the hon. Member, even assuming that I have the power to do so.

IRISH ORDNANCE SURVEY.
MR. M'FADDEN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether the proceedings of the Ordnance Survey of Ireland, embracing a large amount of historical geological, botanical, and every species of local information relating to every parish in Ireland, are still in manuscript stowed away in Dublin archives; and whether, having regard to their importance, His Majesty's Government will proceed to their publication, as was originally intended.
*MR. HANBURY: All these papers were handed over to the Irish Academy

947
at various dates between 1860 and 1890, and the Ordnance Survey Department has now no control over them.

AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS ACT—ARBITRATIONS.
MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he can state the number of cases in which the Board of Agriculture has been asked to appoint an arbitrator under Part I. of the Schedule, and the number under Part II. of the Schedule of The Agricultural Holdings Act, 1900, since the passing of the Act.
*MR. HANBURY: There have been five applications to the Board of Agriculture to appoint a single arbitrator under Part I. of the Schedule, of which one has since been withdrawn. There have been two applications for the appointment of umpire under Part II.

CITY OF LONDON MEDICAL OFFICER OF HEALTH.
MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that a medical officer of health has recently been appointed for the City of London; whether part of the salary of the officer elected will be paid out of the money provided by Parliament; and whether he will insist that the said official should undertake to act in accordance with the regulations issued by the Local Government Board for the guidance of sanitary authorities with reference to the seizure of meat from animals which have suffered from tuberculosis.
MR. WALTER LONG: I am aware that a medical officer of health has recently been appointed for the City of London, and I presume that half his salary will be repayable by the County Council out of their Exchequer Contribution Account. As regards the second paragraph of the question, I have stated more than once that the Local Government have not prescribed regulations on the subject to which the hon. Member refers. I am afraid I could not intervene in the manner which he desires.

RURAL DISTRICT BUILDING BYE-LAWS.
MR. HENRY HOBHOUSE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he is going to revise the model bye-laws for buildings in rural districts; if he will lay them in their revised form upon the Table of the House: and if he will take care to distinguish between those applicable to scattered country villages and those applicable to more populous places.
MR. WALTER LONG: I am preparing a series of model bye-laws with respect to new buildings in rural districts, which will deal only with matters most in need of control for purposes of health. The series is intended as a guide to rural district councils wishing to make bye-laws-on the subject, and will be specially applicable to places consisting of scattered dwellings. It will be competent to a district council in any particular case to propose any modifications and additions which appear to them necessary to meet the circumstances of the locality. The model is only intended by way of suggestion to the rural councils with whom rests the initiative as to making bye-laws. In these circumstances it hardly seems to me necessary to lay the model on the Table of the House; but I shall be happy to show a copy to my hon. friend before it is issued.

HOUSING QUESTION—REPAYMENT OF LOANS.
DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the President of the Local Board whether his attention has been called to a conference on the housing problem, held on Monday, 29th April, at the Islington Town Hall, at which delegates, consisting chiefly of the mayors, town clerks, and chairmen of the housing committees from twenty-two of the London borough councils were present; whether he has noted that this conference urged that the period of repayment of loans for housing schemes should be extended to 100 years; and whether, having regard to this request and the repeated pleas of the London County Council in favour of an extension of the period of loan repayment, he can now see his way to agree to this demand.
MR. WALTER LONG: I have seen a report of this conference, and have observed that a resolution was passed in the sense referred to in the second paragraph of the question. I cannot, however, add anything to the answer which I gave to the questions put by the hon. Member on the 28th February last.†

THE CENSUS.
MR. JOHN ELLIS: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is in a position to inform the House of the total figures of population in England and Wales, Scotland, and Ireland, respectively, at the recent Census.
MR. WALTER LONG: The Census for Scotland and Ireland is not under my superintendence. As regards England and Wales, I cannot at present state the total population, but I hope that the information will be published in a very few days.

HOUSE OF COMMONS EMPLOYEES' PENSIONS.
CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether his attention has been called to the case of an employee on the staff of the lighting and ventilating department of the Houses of Parliament, about to be retired through physical unfitness at the age of sixty-seven, and after thirty-four years service; and whether, having regard to the man's long service and good conduct, he will consider the advisability of granting him a small pension instead of a bonus; and whether he will further consider the expediency of placing the staff of the above-mentioned department upon a similar footing to other servants of the House with respect to pensions.
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. AKERS DOUGLAS, Kent, St. Augustine's): Yes, Sir, my attention has been called to the case mentioned by the hon. and gallant Member. I wish it were in my power to award a pension to this deserving public servant, who unfortunately belongs to a class not legally entitled to superannuation
† See Debates [Fourth Series], Vol. xc, page 53.
950
allowances. All that can be done for him is to award him the gratuity provided for by the Superannuation Act of 1887, which in this case is £46 10s. It is not possible for me to carry out the alteration suggested in the second paragraph of the question, though it is one which I would cordially welcome.

EDUCATION—REX V. COCKERTON—LIVERPOOL SCHOOL BOARD.
DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether his attention has been called to the decision arrived at by the Liverpool School Board, to the effect that, in the present state of the law as disclosed by the Cockerton judgment, the board has felt compelled to give notice to drop after 31st July next all its manual instruction for boys, all its cookery and laundry work for girls, all instruction for ex-standard scholars, and the whole of the evening school work the board has hitherto carried on; and to issue provisional notices to terminate the engagements of all its teachers employed in manual instruction, cookery, and laundry work, and to notify the managers of voluntary schools who send scholars to the board's centres in these subjects that they can no longer enjoy this advantage after 31st July next; and whether, in view of this decision, an assurance will at once be sent to the Liverpool School Board which will enable it to carry on the work thus threatened with stoppage until such time as the law may be amended by new legislation.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Sir J. GORST, Cambridge University): replied that such a letter had been received and was under consideration.
*MR. MATHER: Is the opportunity for giving manual instruction in elementary schools longer or shorter under the new Code, and what period of time is devoted to it?
SIR J. GORST: That does not arise out of the question on the Paper. Perhaps the hon. Member will give notice, of the question.

EAST HOLYWELL VOLUNTARY SCHOOLS.
MR. GRAY: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council of Education whether notice was given, in July last, to the Board of Education, that after 31st October, 1900, the Managers of the East Holywell Voluntary schools would be unable to continue their work; whether he is aware that since that date the greatest difficulty has been experienced in finding funds to provide for the education of the 360 children on the registers of this school, and that they are now dependent entirely upon the fee grant; and whether he will expedite the formation of a local authority capable of providing for the education of these children.
SIR J. GORST: Notice was given as stated in the question, but the managers are still for a time carrying on the school. The formation of a united school district, which will comprise Holywell, is under consideration.
MR. GRAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this school was closed last week, and that there is now no accommodation in the district?
SIR J. GORST: I was not aware of that.

EVENING CONTINUATION SCHOOL CODE.
MR. ALFRED HUTTON: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he can state when the Evening Continuation School Code will be introduced, and what is the cause of the unusual delay, and what are the consequences of failure to comply with Article 19 of last year's Code, which specifies 1st May as the last day.
SIR J. GORST: The judgment of the supreme court in the Cockerton case has rendered necessary a complete reconsideration of the work of evening schools. The regulations affecting them are under the consideration of the Board of Education, and will be produced as early as possible.

SCOTTISH CONGESTED DISTRICTS BOARD—OPERATIONS IN LEWIS.
MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, as representing the Secretary for Scotland, if he will state how much of the acreage of the respective farms of Aiguish and Gress, Lewis, was applied for by the Congested Districts Board for the purpose of the settlement on new holdings of fifteen men from Knock and Swordale, who were certified by the landward committee of the Stornaway parish council to be able to stock and comfortably work good sized holdings apart from fishing and other sources of livelihood; and can he say on what ground the proprietor of Lewis declined to accede to the Board's application.
*THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY, Buteshire): The Stornoway landward committee did not mention acreage in their application. Their application was quoted by the Congested Districts Board to the proprietor, who simply regretted his inability to accede to the request, without assigning any reasons.

ROADS IN ROSS-SHIRE.
MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, as representing the Secretary for Scotland, in view of the fact that on page 14 of the Appendix to the Report of the Congested Districts Board it is stated that a road from the terminus of the present road at Applecross, Ross-shire, through the crofting townships along the west and north of the estate and continued to the Lochcarron road at Shieldaig would prove a great boon, will he say whether any application on the subject has been made to the Congested Districts Board by the local authority or through the county council.
*MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: To meet the wishes of the locality a bridle path, 21½ miles long is under construction through the district alluded to by the hon. Member, and it is now nearly completed.

POSTAL FACILITIES IN SKYE.
MR. JOHN DEWAR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster

953
General, seeing that there is a considerable population on the west coast of Skye and on the adjacent islands, at present inadequately provided with postal facilities, several districts having only one delivery a week, will he say whether, in view of the opening of the Mallaig line, application will be made to the Treasury to sanction the expenditure necessary for the establishment of a steamer service between Mallaig and these islands via the west coast of Skye.
THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN, Worcestershire, E.): There is at present no prospect of the establishment of a steamer service from Mallaig to the outlying islands via the west coast of Skye. The present mail service to the southern and western portions of Skye is maintained at a very heavy loss, and from a postal point of view the additional expenditure which it would be necessary to incur for a steamer from Mallaig to serve the districts in question would be altogether out of proportion to the benefits to be dervied.

HIGHLAND RAILWAY VALUATION.
MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, as representing the Secretary for Scotland, whether the executive committee of the Association of County Councils have asked the Secretary for Scotland to bring under the notice of the Royal Commission on Local Taxation a letter from the Railways and Canals (Scotland) Assessor's Office, dated 25th March, 1901, relative to the Highland Railway valuation; and will he state what action has or will be taken in the matter.
*MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: The answer to the first part of the hon. Member's question is in the affirmative, and the whole subject of railway valuation in Scotland, including the points referred to in the letter of the Assessor of Railways and Canals in Scotland is engaging the attention of the Royal Commission on Local Taxation, of which the Secretary for Scotland is the chairman.

FISHERMEN'S HOLDINGS AT STORNOWAY.
MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, as representing the Secretary
954
for Scotland, having regard to the fact that the feuing scheme prepared by the Congested Districts Board for the creation of fishermen's holdings in or near Stornoway, Lewis, was of such a character that only one fisherman made application for a holding under the terms of the scheme, will he state whether any, and, if any, what, efforts have been made to arrange with the proprietor of Lewis for the acquisition of land on feu on such terms as will enable the Congested Districts Board to present to the fishermen a feuing scheme more favourable to them than that originally put forward; and, in view of the fact that the Lewis District Committee represent that the fishermen would be willing to secure holdings on reasonable terms, will the Board reopen negotiations with the proprietor on the subject, if that has not already been done.
*MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: The Congested Districts Board cannot accept the suggestion that the character of the scheme put forward by them was the cause of only one fisherman coming forward, but when they receive definite information from the District Committee as to those who desire such feus, they will be willing to reconsider the matter.
MR. WEIR: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the rental demanded is so high that the Board may have to wait till Doomsday for application?

WESTERN HIGHLANDS FISHERIES
MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, as representing the Secretary for Scotland, whether he is aware that page 17 of the Appendix to the Report of the Congested Districts Board for Scotland shows that a considerable fishing industry is carried on in the Ness district of the parish of Barvas, Lewis, and that, although the fishermen have the reputation of being among the best boatmen in the Western Highlands, there are frequent boating disasters due to the want of harbours where large boats can be anchored, and will he say whether the question of providing this district with suitable harbour accommodation will be considered.
*MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: The question of erecting harbours on the

955
west coast of Lewis was considered some years ago, and it was thought that, as this coast is exposed to the full violence of the Atlantic, and as in the Barvas parish there are no sheltered places, it would be impossible to build a fishing harbour for any reasonable sum. The Ness district also has about eleven miles of coast on the north-east side. A harbour and a boat slip have been recently built in this district with Government assistance, and no applications have been made for further help.

HORSE BREEDING IN THE HIGHLANDS.
MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, as representing the Secretary for Scotland, having regard to the fact that page 15 of the Appendix to the Report of the Congested Districts Board shows that good pony stallions are much required for the improvement of the horses in the townships where the crofters are permitted to keep the same on the estate of Coigach, Lochbroom, Ross-shire, will he say when a pony stallion will be at the disposal of the district.
*MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: I am informed by the Congested Districts Board that they are at this moment in communication with the Coigach district on the subject of the supply of a pony stallion. But, I may add that the Appendix to the Annual Report of the Congested Districts Board shows that they will give their best consideration to all its recommendations, and carry out those which commend themselves to the Board as opportunities afford.

CROIR FARM, LEWIS.
MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, as representing the Secretary for Scotland, in view of the fact that the lease for Croir Farm, Lewis, is not yet formally signed, and that the crofters and cottars in the immediate vicinity have repeatedly made application for the land during the last seven years, will immediate steps be taken by the Congested Districts Board to negotiate with the proprietor for the purpose of acquiring the farm for the settlement of the people.
*MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: The proprietor having agreed to let Croir
956
Farm on lease, which, by the law of Scotland, is equivalent to a lease, the Congested Districts Board cannot under take to reopen negotiations with him as to the acquisition of this particular farm.

SCOTTISH CROFTERS ACT.
MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, seeing that the Government is not prepared to introduce a Bill this session to extend the benefits of the Crofters Act to small tenants holding under lease, will he afford facilities for the consideration of the Bill now before the House, entitled the Crofters' Holdings (Scotland) Act (1886) Amendment Bill.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.): I can give no such pledge.
MR. WEIR: Will the right hon. Gentleman do it next year if he is on that Bench?
[No answer was returned.]

IRISH STATIONERY OFFICE CONTRACTS.
MR. O'DOHERTY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been called to a resolution passed by the Belfast United Trades Council complaining of the present system of tendering for Irish Stationery Office Contracts, whereby contractors are compelled to take all paper, cardboard, vellum, leather, cloth, and other raw and unworked material from the Department, thus putting on unequal conditions employers in the printing business in the provincial cities and towns of Ireland with those of Dublin, owing to the railway charges for freight to and from Dublin; and whether steps will be taken to have such goods, to be where possible of home manufacture, in the future directly supplied by the contractor whose tender may be accepted by the Stationery Office, and thereby place the printers of the provincial cities and towns in Ireland on terms of equality with their Dublin competitors.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: My attention has been called to the resolution

957
referred to in the question. The practice of allowing the printer to supply all materials was abandoned after a trial of some years, owing to the unsatisfactory results which it produced, and I should not feel justified in reverting to it now.
MR. O'DOHERTY: Will the Government supply the raw material to the contractors in Londonderry, Belfast, and Cork, and thus place all on the same footing?
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: No, I cannot undertake that.
MR. O'DOHERTY: Then will the hon. Gentleman give the provincial tenderers a subsidy, so as to equalise matters?
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir.

DUNGIVEN POST OFFICE.—LOSS OF LETTERS.
MR. O'DOHERTY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether complaints have been made as to the loss of letters containing money and other valuables posted at the Dungiven, county Londonderry, post office during the past twelve months; and will he state how many cases have been discovered in which letters posted during the past twelve months at this post office have never reached their destination; whether compensation will be made by the Postmaster General to the parties aggrieved; and what steps have been taken to prevent a recurrence of such losses in the future.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: There have been applications in respect of three unregistered postal packets said to have been posted at Dungiven during the last twelve months—one described as containing socks, one as containing a cheque (which has been stopped and not presented for payment), and one as a postcard. No trace could be found of any of these postal packets. The Postmaster General does not accept any liability for any letter or postal packet, other than a parcel, which has not been registered; but every effort is made to secure due delivery.
MR. O'DOHERTY: Seeing that three postal packets have been lost from this office during the last twelve months, will the hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of changing the postmaster?
*MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

QUIGLEY'S POINT POST OFFICE—LOSS OF LETTER.
MR. O'DOHERTY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether a complaint has been received by the Postmaster General from Mr. Bernard O. D. Browne, Quigley's Point, Londonderry, with reference to the non-delivery of a letter posted by him at the Quigley's Point Post Office containing £8 in banknotes; whether he is aware that other letters containing money and cheques posted at the same post office have been also lost during the past twelve months; whether compensation will be made to Mr. Browne for the loss sustained by him; whether a local inquiry has been held by the head postmaster in charge of the district; and, if so, with what result.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Dublin Office received an application from Mr. Browne through the Postmaster of Londonderry in December last in respect of an unregistered letter described as containing eight one-pound notes of Irish issue, and as having been posted at the Quigley's Point Sub Office on the 19th November. On the 19th March a further application in respect of the same letter was received by the Postmaster General from the hon. Member. No other applications in respect of letters stated to have been posted at Quigley's Point Sub Office and not to have been delivered as addressed have reached the Department during the past twelve months. As Mr. Browne and the hon. Member were informed, no trace can be found of the letter by the Department, although an assistant at Quigley's Point Office remembers that it was handed to her. The Postmaster General does not accept any liability in respect of the loss of a letter which has not been, registered. Careful inquiry was made on the spot, but no clue to the cause of the loss could be discovered.
MR. O'DOHERTY: Seeing it is admitted that the letter was handed in at the post office, will the hon. Gentleman furnish me with a copy of the evidence taken at the inquiry?
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I must ask for notice of that, but I should think the answer will be in the negative.

LOCAL REGISTRATION OF TITLE (IRELAND) ACT.
MR. O'DOHERTY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that in cases of first voluntary registration, cases under the Local Registration of Title (Ireland) Act, in the years 1893 and 1894 the registration authorities insisted on insurance fees being paid by the applicants in all such cases; and, seeing that it was subsequently decided that in such cases insurances were not payable, whether there has been any return made, to the parties entitled, of the fees thus paid by them; and, if not, can he state how much was thus paid, and whether steps will be taken to have such fees returned.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON, Londonderry, N.): The question turns upon the construction of the 29th section of the Act. Formerly, registration under that section was, in certain cases, considered voluntary, and therefore fees were demanded. Latterly the office considered it more in accordance with the spirit of the Act to treat the registration in this matter as compulsory, no fees being demanded, but the point has never been decided. These fees have been paid by 1,608 persons, and amount to £428 14s. They have not been returned.
MR. O'DOHERTY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the average time within which a transfer or charge, registered under the Local Registration of Title (Ireland) Act, can be completed is three weeks; and whether, seeing that Section 40, Subsection 2, of that Act provides that no interest in the lands is conferred until actual registration, hardships are occasioned to the parties interested by reason of this delay, and that a like transfer or
960
charge can be registered in the Registry of Deeds in one day, he will take steps to have the time shortened within which registration can be completed under the said Act.
I beg also to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the fees payable on transfers and charges of land registered under the Local Registration of Title (Ireland) Act as compared with those payable for registration of transfers and charges in the Registry of Deeds Office, Dublin, and seeing that in case of a transfer of land under the said Act, the consideration in the transfer being £1,000, the fees payable in case of a transfer amount to £1 16s., and in case of a charge to £1 11s., whereas in similar transactions in the Deeds Office the fees would only amount to 10s. 6d., whether steps will be taken by the Government to reduce the fees so payable to the same rate as at present paid for registration of deeds in the Deeds Office with the view of cheapening and facilitating transfer of land in Ireland.
MR. ATKINSON: The questions are based upon an entire misconception of the object and provisions of the Registration of Titles Act. In the registry of deeds the registration is merely formal. All that that office is required to do is to ascertain whether the memorial of the deed corresponds with the deed in certain particulars. In the registry of titles the legal effect of the deed, and the nature of the interests it purports to convey must be ascertained and stated. This is often a matter of great difficulty and necessarily requires more time, and a somewhat different procedure. As a consequence the costs must be different, the officers of the Government doing in the latter case much of the work done by the solicitor of the party in the former—and the comparison between the two systems is quite misleading. Sub-section 2, of Section 40, has not the effect mentioned. The registration, when made, relates back to the date of lodgment in the Registry. There is no inconvenience such as suggested. The minimum cost of registering any deed in the Registry of Deeds is £2, made up of fees, 13s. and £1 7s. to solicitor for drafting memorial and registering deed. In the registry of titles the minimum fee, where the consideration

961
(as in the majority of cases) is less than £100, is 8s., made up of registration fee 5s., insurance fee 2s., and notice 1s.
MR. O'DOHERTY: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that solicitor's fees have also to be paid?
*MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member is not entitled to argue as to the meaning of the provisions of an Act of Parliament.
MR. O'DOHERTY: I will put another question to morrow.

CAVAN AND LEITRIM RAILWAY—MAIL CONTRACTS.
MR. M'GOVERN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that the Post Office authorities in the year 1892 offered to pay the Cavan and Leitrim Railway Company parcel rates for conveying the day mails over its line, and seeing that the Post Office is at present paying this company for carrying the mails a distance of 96 miles each day the sum of £30 a year, while this company would be entitled to a sum of £71 17s. 3d. for conveying the mails during the year 1900 if it were allowed parcel rates, whether he can state what objection the Post Office has to carry out the offer made in 1892 to give parcel rates for the conveyance of these mails.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: With the view of arriving at a settlement of an outstanding question it was suggested to the Cavan and Leitrim Railway Company in 1891 that payment should be made to them for the conveyance of four mail bags at ordinary parcel rates, but that offer was refused. The Postmaster General does not now consider that he would be justified in paying at those rates for the conveyance of mail bags, having regard to the fact that the work performed by the company in respect of the conveyance of mail bags is very much less than in respect of parcels. Although the Postmaster General does not quite accept the company's estimate as to the extent of the service now performed by them, he has offered to increase the present payment
962
of £30 a year to £40 a year. He does not consider that any higher payment would be warranted.

ANTRIM MAGISTRACY.
MR. M'FADDEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will give the number of Roman Catholic and the number of Protestant magistrates in the county of Antrim, and if he will advise the Lord Chancellor of Ireland to appoint such a number of Roman Catholic magistrates for the said county as will give Roman Catholics a fuller representation on the magisterial bench than at present.
THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM, Dover): The numbers are 32 and 180 respectively. Applications and recommendations for the Commission of the Peace are made to the lieutenant of the county, who transmits them, if he thinks them suitable, for the consideration of the Lord Chancellor.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the late Administration the Lord Chancellor made appointments over the heads of the Lord Lieutenants?
MR. O'DOHERTY: And has not a magistrate been appointed in like manner in the county of Derry during the existence of the present Administration?
*MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! Hon. Members are not entitled to debate the question.

LABOURERS' COTTAGES AT THURLES.
MR. KENDAL O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the inspector of the Local Government Board, in reference to the recent inquiry under the Labourers Acts in Thurles rural district, recommended only thirty-five cottages out of ninety-three applied for; and that, in twenty-seven cases, he rejected the applications because the applicants did not appear, though there was other evidence given in support of them, and

963
in the majority of the twenty-seven cases there was no evidence in opposition; whether there is any obligation on applicants requiring their personal attendance at such an inquiry, and whether the Local Government Board will request the inspector to reconsider these cases.
MR. WYNDHAM: The evidence was not considered sufficient in the twenty-seven cases referred to. The answer to the second paragraph is in the negative. The cases may be brought forward again by the district council as a separate scheme. To reopen the inquiry now would delay the issue of the Provisional Order in respect of the thirty-five cottages sanctioned.

CAVAN AND BELTURBET MAILS.
MR. M'GOVERN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that the Great Northern Railway of Ireland conveys the night mails for Cavan and Belturbet to Clones, and that the mails are taken off the train at Clones and conveyed to Cavan and Belturbet by cars, although the Great Northern Railway have lines to both these towns, and can he say what reason exists why the night mails should not be conveyed by train instead of by cars to both these towns.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Postmaster General will have inquiry made, and he will communicate the result to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

CASE OF WILLIAM GUBBINS OF CLONMANY.
MR. O'DOHERTY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the house of William Gubbins, situate in the parish of Clonmany, was searched by the police at eleven o'clock at night for the purpose of discovering whether a stolen barrow was in his possession, although at that time a warrant had not been sworn by any authorised person upon which the search warrant was granted; that Gubbins was an evicted tenant, and that the search warrant was issued by the landlord who had evicted him, Mr. John Loughrey; is he aware that the information upon which the search
964
warrant was granted was not signed before the said magistrate, Mr. Loughrey, but was signed some days afterwards at Buncrana, some ten miles distant, by the constable who made the information, and signed not before a magistrate; also that at the trial of the said Gubbins the resident magistrate stated in open court that the case should not only be scouted out of court, but those who brought it should be punished, and whether, considering all these facts, some compensation will be awarded by the authorities to the said William Gubbins; is he also aware that when the complaint was first made as to the barrow alleged to be stolen Sergeant Ballintine, Clonmany, told the party making the complaint that he would get a constable to swear an information regarding same, and that the information was made by a constable who knew nothing whatever of the facts of the case; and, considering all these facts, what steps do the authorities propose taking in the matter.
MR. ATKINSON: The facts are that Mr. Pauling, a railway contractor and owner of a number of barrows used upon his works, gave information that one of them had been stolen by Gubbins, and was in his house. Mr. Pauling was unable to go before a justice, and the constable to whom the statement was made, and who believed it to be true, made the required information to obtain a search warrant, as he was entitled to do under the 24 and 25 Vict., c. 96, sec. L03. Upon that information the justice, Mr. Loughrey, issued a search warrant to the constable, who made a search, and found the barrow in Gubbins's house—the name of the owner having been erased. At the trial Gubbins set up the defence that he had borrowed the barrow. The resident magistrate, who appears to lave been dissatisfied with the evidence of identification, did, I believe, make the observation that the case should be dismissed on these grounds, but, so far as I an ascertain, did not say that those who brought it should be punished. There is 10 power to grant compensation, and no further steps are being taken in the matter.
MR. O'DOHERTY: Will the right ton. Gentleman answer my question whether the search warrant, when

965
issued, was not signed by a magistrate but was signed ten days after before the district inspector?
MR. ATKINSON: I have answered that. The information was laid by the police before a magistrate.
MR. O'DOHERTY: I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that it was not so.
*MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member is not entitled to contradict a Minister.

IRISH RAILWAY SYSTEM.
MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Irish Railway Reform Association held a public meeting at which a resolution was unanimously passed criticising the existing Irish railway system, and asking for the appointment of a Viceregal Commission to inquire and report thereon; and what steps he proposes to take in this matter.
MR. WYNDHAM: I am prepared to consider the advisability of instituting some further inquiry into the Irish railway system. But I cannot undertake to deal with the matter during this session.
MR. JOHN REDMOND: Are not the Government prepared to do anything in the matter?
MR. WYNDHAM: I am not prepared to say that. One has to be very careful in making any statement lest it should at once be construed into a pledge to take immediate action.
MR. JOHN REDMOND: But surely it is a perfectly proper thing to ask the intentions of the Government?
MR. WYNDHAM: I do not think it is a proper thing to cross-examine a Minister as to his intentions across the floor of the House. All I have said is that I am not prepared to say that a Viceregal Commission would be the best body to inquire into the matter. I have intimated my willingness to consider the question of further inquiry, and, having done so, there is nothing more to be said.

ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY INQUIRY
MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, having regard to the fact that the Committee of Inquiry into the pay
966
and allowances of the Royal Irish Constabulary consists of a majority of Government officials, whether he will consider the advisability of having the Committee composed of independent Members of this House before the Committee takes any evidence.
MR. WYNDHAM: The Committee has been appointed and has begun its labours. I cannot now alter its composition, which is, I submit, well adapted to the exigencies of such an inquiry.
*MR. TULLY: Seeing that there are 12,000 policemen in Ireland and 7,000 police pensions, will the right hon. Gentleman take any steps to reduce the latter number?
*MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
MR. FLYNN: By whom was the Committee appointed?
MR. WYNDHAM: By myself. I thought the matter was one requiring investigation.
MR. FIELD: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider a Committee consisting of only one Member of Parliament and two officials a satisfactory one?
MR. WYNDHAM: The composition of the Committee is precisely similar to that of a Committee appointed on a previous occasion.
MR. O'DOHERTY: Will the evidence and Report be published?
*MR. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the question on the Paper.

IRISH EMIGRATION.
DR. AMBROSE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the large number of emigrants from Ireland during the last fifteen years, namely, a yearly average of 52,670, he will appoint a Committee to inquire into he cause of such emigration.
MR. WYNDHAM: No, Sir.

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES ACT IN IRELAND.
MR. CONOR O'KELLY: I beg to ask be Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state he amount paid in fines in Ireland under the Weights and Measures Act or the twelve months up to the date of

967
the last Return, and the purposes to which it has been devoted.
MR. WYNDHAM: For the year ended the 31st March last the total amount of fines imposed in Ireland under this Act was £191 14s. 3d. These fines are paid to the Crown for credit to the Department of Petty Sessions Clerks.

PRIVATE BUSINESS—PROPOSED COMMITTEE.
COLONEL LUCAS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, seeing the limited time that exists during which it is possible to discuss the public business of the country, he will give facilities for the appointment of a Committee to consider the question of making an alteration in the method of conducting the private business initiated in the House of Commons.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: By anticipation I answered this question yesterday, and then stated that I recognised there was a difficulty, and could see no objection to the appointment of a Select Committee.

LIVERPOOL SCHOOL BOARD AND THE COCKERTON JUDGMENT.
MR. WARR: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been directed to the fact that the Liverpool School Board have given public notice that, having regard to the judgment in the Cockerton case, they intend in July next, in the absence of legislation in the meantime, to discontinue all their evening schools, to request all the day scholars now in standard VII. and upwards to withdraw, to discontinue manual instruction classes for boys and cookery and laundry classes for girls; whether he is aware that the discontinuance of the evening classes will affect 8,500 students; that 2,000 advanced scholars will be compelled to withdraw; that the discontinuance of cookery and laundry instruction will affect 8,526 girls, and the discontinuance of manual instruction 8,332 boys; and that, in all, 27,000 pupils and their teachers will be affected; and whether, under these circumstances, His Majesty's Government will find a solution of the difficulties which have arisen by immediately proposing legislation giving school boards or some other
968
local educational authorities those powers which school boards have hitherto supposed that they possessed, so that the educational opportunities which have hitherto been enjoyed by the people may be restored.
MR. HERBERT LEWIS: I beg also to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is aware that, in consequence of the Cockerton judgment, thirty instructors in manual work, cookery, and laundry work have received notices to terminate their engagements with the Liverpool School Board on 31st July, and will thereby be deprived of their means of living, while many thousands of children in board and voluntary schools in Liverpool will be deprived of instruction in these subjects; and whether the Government will take early steps to legalise the continuance of such instruction.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: As far as I understand the matter, the Liverpool School Board have not correctly interpreted the results of the Cockerton judgment. In respect to the other parts of the question, I think my hon. friends had better wait until my right hon. friend has introduced the Education Bill. From that statement they will derive, I think, all the information they desire.

ARMY RE-ORGANISATION DEBATE.
CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, in view of the pledge to the House that a resolution would be placed upon the Paper by the Secretary of State for War which would enable a Member to raise any question which it would have been in order for him to raise upon Vote A or Vote 1 in criticising the statement made to the House by the Secretary of State for War, with reference to Army reform, whether, in spite of the wording of the resolution in question, the spirit of the pledge will be adhered to.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I believe the form of the resolution which will be submitted to the House next week does carry out, both in the letter and the spirit, the undertaking I gave.
CAPTAIN NORTON: Am I, then, to clearly understand that all questions which could have been raised on either

969
Vote 1 or Vote A may be raised on this resolution?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman must understand that the outline of the scheme is contained in the resolution which will be submitted to the House, and can be discussed on it.
CAPTAIN NORTON: That does not quite fall in with what the right hon. Gentleman stated, or with what I understood—namely, that we should be able to raise any question we liked upon the resolution. I will repeat my question. Can any question which could have been raised on Vote 1 or Vote A be discussed on this resolution?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have given a full statement of my views. I cannot interfere with the discretion of the Chair.
CAPTAIN NORTON: Then am I to understand—
*MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! After the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the matter cannot be argued further now.

BOARD OF TRADE VOTE.
MR. JOYCE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he can say when the Vote for the Department of the Board of Trade is likely to be taken.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is impossible for me to say when this Vote will be taken.

ORDERS OF THE DAY—REPORTS OF SUPPLY.
MR. HERBERT LEWIS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, when the Report of Supply appears on the Notice Paper, the particular Votes to be reported will be stated.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not think any serious inconvenience arises from the present practice, which is based on an immemorial custom of the House. I am not, therefore, disposed at the present time to make any change.
MR. HERBERT LEWIS: But what objection can there be to letting hon. Members know what Report of Supply is to be taken in the course of a particular evening?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That information is given on the Orders of the Day.
MR. HERBERT LEWIS: We can only find it out at very considerable inconvenience. We cannot be expected to carry in our heads all the resolutions passed on a particular day, and we can only refresh our memories by looking up the Vote and Proceedings.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I admit it is not reasonable that hon. Members should carry all this information in their heads. I thought the information was, however, easily available to them. I will inquire further into the matter.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
Mr. HALSEY reported from the Committee of Selection, That they had added to the Standing Committee on Law and Courts of Justice and Legal Procedure the following Fifteen Members in respect of the Education (Young Children School Attendance) (Scotland) Bill:—Mr. Baird, Mr. Cochrane, Colonel Denny, Mr. John Dewar, Sir William Houlds-worth, Sir John Leng, Sir Lewis M'Iver, Sir John Stirling-Maxwell, Mr. Orr-Ewing, Mr. Renshaw, Mr. Robson, Captain Sinclair, Mr. Pirie, Mr. Thomas Shaw, and Mr. Tennant.
Report to lie upon the Table.

NEW BILLS.

  EDUCATION.
  THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Sir J. GORST, Cambridge University): Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask leave of the House to introduce a Bill which is to establish in every part of England and Wales a local educational authority, which is intended to supervise education of every kind, and which may ultimately have the control and supervision of all schools, whether elementary, secondary, or technical. The chaos which has existed in our English school system has frequently been described by speakers in this House and out of doors, by writers in public magazines, and by the press; and I think I should be wasting the time of the House if I were to attempt to describe it over again. Anyone who wishes to have an authoritative view of the chaos which exists in our education cannot do better than read the Report of the Commission

  971
  on Secondary Education, which was presided over by my right hon. friend the Member for South Aberdeen. The reform of this confusion has been repeatedly urged on the Government both in Parliament and elsewhere. The mischief which existed at the time when the present Government took office has grown greatly since, and it is high time now to do something to reduce our confused educational system to something like harmony. In 1896 the Government proposed, as a means of introducing harmony into our system, the creation of a local educational authority. Since that time the subject has been greatly discussed in the country, and public opinion has grown; and, though it is extremely dangerous to predicate agreement on any single point in connection with education, I think it may be said that on this one point there is now practical unanimity—that the solution of our difficulty is not to be sought in any attempt to draw a line between primary and secondary education, but must be sought in the establishment of one local authority which shall be able to form a plan for the general public education of its district suitable to the circumstances of its population, and which shall exercise such jurisdiction over all the schools within its area as will enable it to prevent over-lapping, to prevent mischievous competition between one public school and another, and to secure a supply of all kinds of public instruction which the wants of the people require. I am afraid that when we have arrived at a unanimous agreement upon that point, unanimity exists no further; because when you come to discuss what particular body that authority is to be, we find a very great variety of opinion and a very great amount of controversy.
  Practically the choice lies between the school boards, modified and altered in certain directions, and county and county-borough councils and urban district councils, of which I shall have more to say hereafter. Now, the choice between the school board and the county council is one not to be determined by sentiment. You cannot erect school boards into educational authorities merely to reward them for the excellent work they have been doing for the last thirty years. You must consider
  972
  which body can be most easily erected into an authority and which body will best serve the purpose when it is so established. I will just recall the objections there are to the choice of the school board. In the first place, it does not cover the whole area. It covers only about two-thirds of the population of England and Wales, and the other third is without a school board. Therefore, the first thing you would have to do would be to make school boards universal. The House may see, perhaps, from past controversies, what a very arduous undertaking it would be to make school boards universal. Besides that, the areas would have to be altered. That is admitted by the strongest partisans of the school board system. A small parish area is not suited to anything but elementary education, even if it is suited to that; and nobody is quite agreed as to what other area should be taken. I believe the commonest suggestion is that the area should be made conterminous with the area of rural district councils; but anybody who has had experience of the sort of way in which boards of guardians exercise the powers of attendance committees, which is the only power connected with education they have, can conceive what an extremely bad educational authority the rural district council would be. The third objection, and a very practical one, is that you would have to take away from the county council, who are a most popular body, elected by the same kind of suffrage which elects Members of Parliament, the powers and funds which they have been administering during the last ten years. It is not as though you were going to absorb county councils altogether; and, as a matter of practical politics, I think it is impossible to take away from a popular body, unless you absorb and suppress it altogether, powers and funds which it possesses and which it has for some time administered. In all these points, though there is difficulty, there is less difficulty in the case of county councils. In the first place, they are universal. They cover the whole country. Then, their areas, though perhaps not ideally the best educational areas that could be chosen, are fair areas, and there is no reason to fear

  973
  from our experience of the working of the Technical Instruction Acts, that all education could not be reasonably worked in the area of the county council. If they are to absorb all educational powers, it is quite true that existing school boards would lose the powers and funds which they have for the last thirty years administered so well. But there it is a case of absorption; you transfer its powers and its duties to another authority, and the old authority is absorbed.
  I think, therefore, the House will see that as a practical measure it will be very much easier to erect the county council into the universal and general educational authority than the school board. But I do not think we should wish necessarily to do that if when the operation was completed we found that we had got the wrong and less advantageous body. Now, is that so? Those bodies which are elected for special purposes, bodies elected ad hoc, are really a survival of an ancient form of local government which has been generally discredited and abandoned. They were very common in former days, but they have very great defects. The first defect is that the existence of such a body, with separate functions and separate rating powers, is an absolute obstacle to anything like proper local self-government. Local self-government must rest upon the entire control of local finance, and when you have bodies with independent rating powers, carrying on independent functions, it is quite impossible for your popular local body, like the council of the borough or the council of the county, to have that control over local finance which is absolutely necessary to make a strong and successful instrument of local self-government. There is another objection which I have not seen mentioned, but which I think is worth consideration, to bodies which are elected for a special purpose—and that is that being elected by the ratepayers for a special duty they consider it naturally incumbent upon them to keep the whole of the powers which are entrusted to them entirely in their own hands. They are generally opposed to the principle of delegation. They think that, being elected to do a certain work for the
  974
  public, they must do it themselves and cannot do it through the instrumentality of somebody else. The body elected for the express purpose of education is not contented with controlling the schools, but it generally refuses to delegate and tries to manage everything in its own hands. I am told that the London School Board is a remarkable instance of the extent to which a great central body, controlling a population nearly as great as that of Switzerland, exercises every particular of administration itself, I believe even down to the appointment of housemaids to clean the schools.
  *DR. MACNAMARA: No, no. We have as many as 2,000 local managers.
  SIR J. GORST: I did not say it was so; I said I was told so. They have local managers, but even those local managers are practically deprived of all power and discretion of their own, and the whole machine, admirably conducted as it is, is conducted entirely from one office. And so it comes about that these ad hoc bodies come at last to care a great deal more for the machinery, and the machine which they direct than they do for the purpose for which it has been created. [HON. MEMBERS on the Opposition Benches: No.] I must say that I have seen on many recent occasions that there is a great deal more zeal in certain quarters for the maintenance of the school board system than there is for the education of the children for which that system was brought into existence. [Cries of "No, no!" from the Opposition Benches.] I have known many cases where improvements conceived in the interests of the children, and designed for improving their education, have been opposed and thwarted because they were supposed to be damaging to the system, which at all hazards must be maintained. No doubt this is a matter which will be discussed very much. I have stated the reasons which have induced the Government to select the county council as the basis of the educational authority of the country rather than a modified and altered school board. But that is no doubt a subject which can be discussed when the time comes.

  975
  Now it is proposed to make every council of every county and of every county borough, acting by means of a statutory committee chosen under the provisions of this Bill, the education authority, with certain reservations relating to non-county boroughs and councils of urban districts, which I will explain later on. It is proposed that the constitution of this committee shall be appointed by scheme and not in the Bill. In selecting a scheme as the mode of appointment, the object of the Government and of the Board of Education is elasticity. We do not propose a scheme with a view of imposing on every part of the country a scheme which is to be prepared at Whitehall and issued from there; but we really wish the county councils themselves to take the initiative and propose schemes for the appointment of their Education Committee which may be suitable to the particular circumstances of the county. We are of opinion that no one scheme could be invented, either by the Board of Education or by that much wiser body the Parliament of the country, which would fit every place, and therefore it is much better to let places propose their own committees; and, though these proposals are to be referred to and approved by the Board of Education, that is not with the idea of altering them or imposing the ideas of the Board of Education on the locality, but in order that the Board may act as a kind of conciliator, to see that all interests are consulted, that all the people of the place have their views considered, and that a final scheme is arrived at so as at all events to please, as many of the inhabitants of the county or county borough as possible. The schemes are to be published before they are approved by the Board of Education, and there is power, if necessary, to hold a local inquiry, so that every opportunity will be given for publicity before the scheme is adopted. Every opportunity is also given for interests which may have their views upon the kind of committee that ought to be appointed to make their representations and to have their representations properly considered. In an extreme case, which I hope may never arise, the Board of Education is entrusted with the duty of itself making a scheme—that is, if it prove quite hopeless to bring the parties to agreement. Then
  976
  the Board of Education may make the scheme; but that scheme is to be laid before Parliament, and not to take effect until Parliament has approved of it. Therefore Parliament will be the ultimate decider, the ultimate arbitrator, in all cases, if such cases should arise, where the county or county borough cannot themselves deal with the matter harmoniously.
  MR. ASQUITH: Does the scheme relate only to the composition of the committee?
  SIR J. GORST: The scheme only relates to the constitution of the committee.
  MR. ASQUITH: Not to its powers?
  SIR J. GORST: Not to its powers.
  MR. BRYCE: Are all schemes to be laid before Parliament?
  SIR J. GORST: No, only those which the Board of Education itself frames, because we think that, if all the people of a county or county borough are agreed upon the kind of committee they ought to have, Parliament need not trouble itself with their local affairs. In extreme cases Parliament is to be the arbitrator. In the Bill there are given to county councils the largest possible powers of combination, and these powers of combination, I earnestly hope, will be very freely used. It is not only small counties which may combine together and form one education area, which will be very much better, very much more effective, than a number of separate counties, but we hope to see some of the county boroughs throwing in their lot with the county. Such a thing would be advantageous, not only to the county, the natural centre of which is the county borough, but also the borough itself, because, instead of having its own small area in which to act, it would probably have a large district of the county for which it would be the natural metropolis, and the children of which would frequent its higher and secondary schools. We also give the most absolute power of separation, and I hope this power of separation will be sparingly used. But it would be quite possible for a county to excise any of the non-county boroughs

  977
  which, from their geographical position or from their character, ought to be separate educational areas of their own. I hope that that power will be very sparingly used, because such an isolation of a population of 40,000 or 50,000 is, as I said before, bad for the county; it takes away from the county the place in which its schools would be naturally placed, and it is bad for the borough, because it shuts it up in its own small isolation instead of making it what it ought to be—the centre for the surrounding districts. This education committee will have no power of rating. It will merely spend the sums which are placed at its disposal by the county council. The whole financial control is left with the county council.
  *MR. MATHER: Before the right hon. Gentleman proceeds further with this part of the subject, will he kindly say whether the education committee to be constituted will be composed solely of members of the county council, or will there be delegated members from educational institutions and other bodies?
  SIR J. GORST: I am very much obliged to the hon. Member for reminding me. There are only two things in the Bill which are prescribed by Parliament. The first is that the majority of the education committee should consist of members of the council, or, in the case of a non-county borough, if the non-county borough was excised from the county, the majority of the committee would be members either of the council of the county or the council of the excised borough. The other provision is that in every case there shall be—it is not left to option—other members on the education committee not members of the county council. The number of these and the mode in which they are to be appointed will all be matters for the scheme, and they are not in any way included in this Bill.
  SIR JOHN BEUNNER: Is there any other form of ex officio representation?
  SIR J. GORST: These will be all matters of scheme. Take Manchester. Probably the scheme for Manchester would involve the appointment of a
  978
  member on the nomination of Owens College.
  *MR. CORRIE GRANT: Will the Bill deal with the question of whether women are to be entitled to sit on these bodies? Also, will the teachers' organisations have representation?
  SIR J. GORST: The last will be entirely a matter of scheme. But with regard to women, with great reluctance I have put into the Bill "male or female." It was with great reluctance, for if it were not put into the Bill women would be eligible. By putting it in in one place one runs terrible risks—though I do not know that there is any such place in this Bill—of specifying women in one place and excluding them in some other where you do not intend to do so. As the Bill stands it is "male or female."
  Now I come to the funds. The first money which the county council will place at the disposal of this committee will be the local taxation money. The local taxation money will be applicable to purposes of education of every kind, subject to certain reservations, which I will mention in a moment. The appropriation is extended; it is not technical education alone, but it is education generally to which the technical instruction money may be applied; and the county may allocate to the committee such part as it thinks fit of the local, taxation money for the committee to spend; and in that way this new education committee will become the successor of the existing Technical Instruction Committee, and will no doubt carry oh their work. The county council will apply this money or not as it wishes, and we do not propose to alter the existing law in that respect. The county council will also have the power of levying a rate which is at present restricted in the Bill to the amount of 2d. They will levy this rate either on the whole county or upon any part of the county for which, it may be desirable to make the provision and these sums—the local taxation money and the produce of the rate which the county may think fit to levy—will be the funds at the disposal of this education committee.
  An HON. MEMBER: What about the school board rate?
  SIR J. GORST: The school board rate is not in any way touched by this Bill.
  An HON. MEMBER: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain that?
  SIR J. GORST: If the hon. Member will wait until I have finished, he will see that I do not propose to intefere in any way with the present position, the present rating powers of school boards. The Bill gives no directions whatever as to the objects upon which the education committee is to spend the money provided by this Act. It is for education generally, for the promotion of education in the most general manner possible, more general even than under the Technical Instruction Act. The country has now had a great deal of experience in the best modes of spending this money; at first there may have been waste, but now the money is so extremely well spent in most of the counties that it is thought better to leave it entirely to the discretion of the local authority to spend the money in the way it thinks fit than to attempt to prescribe how and on what particular objects it is to be spent.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The right hon. Gentleman has excited a little confusion in the minds of some of us. I think a simple question would clear it. Can this money be applied to elementary education?
  SIR J. GORST: If the right hon. Gentleman had waited two minutes, I was just going to say that although the Bill contains no provision as to the objects for which this money is to be spent, it does contain provisions as to the objects for which it is not to be spent. The first is that it is not to be spent in making grants towards establishing or maintaining public elementary schools. It will be quite wrong to say that none of it can be spent in reference to elementary education, because a great deal of the technical instruction money is now so spent. For example, the Technical Instruction Committee of the county of London—one of the best technical instruction bodies we have—have spent a great deal of their money in giving scholarships at schools conducted by the London School Board,
  980
  and there will be no restraint in future upon county councils spending their money in that way. There is another way in which money is spent, and that is in getting the children to school. School boards have no power to do that. But there are many country places where the best way of getting the children to school is to send a wagon round, and money is actually so spent at the present moment—technical instruction money. There is no objection, I never heard of any auditor objecting, and I should be very sorry if this Bill should in any way interfere with so laudable an expenditure. Not only are they not to maintain public elementary schools, but they are not to maintain poor law schools, or reformatory or industrial schools; and they are not to make more grants to, or to maintain or establish, schools which are conducted for private profit. That will not prevent scholarships being given to schools conducted for private profit; it only forbids any of this money being given to such schools in the shape of grants in aid or establishment expenses.
  Now I come to a rather vexed question in these education Bills, that is the question of a conscience clause. I have always said in this House and outside that there is very little importance in the conscience clause in the case of secondary schools, because the real control over the kind of religious instruction given in schools higher than elementary schools is with the parent; it is the wishes of the parents that are carried out, and the school authorities are bound to, and do, comply with them. Every hon. Member will probably recollect in his younger days a school where there have been boys of different religious creeds to his own, and he will remember how very tenderly the rights of conscience were always regarded at such schools. But, really more to satisfy Parliament, perhaps, than to satisfy any necessity of the case, it is proposed that the following conditions should be imposed upon all schools which are aided, established, or maintained out of this money. First of all, there is to be no condition made, as a condition of making a grant, that any particular kind of religion is or is not taught in a school; and, secondly, the parents of every scholar are to have the power to withdraw him or her from any religious

  981
  observance or religious instruction, and the hours of religious teaching and religious observance are to be so arranged as to make that withdrawal as convenient as possible. It is a very simple conscience clause, and I hope it will satisfy the House of Commons. I am sure it will be quite enough to secure perfect religious liberty in all these schools.
  I pass now to a very difficult question, to which I ask the attention of the House, that is the position of non-county borough and urban district councils. Now these are already education authorities for the purpose of technical instruction. It is rather a curious provision which was made in the original Technical Instruction Act, that in every non-county borough and urban district there are practically two education authorities—there is the county at large, which has jurisdiction over the non-county borough or urban district, and there is besides that the council of the non-county borough and the council of the urban district, and there is nothing in the Act to prevent rival schools being set up in every non-county borough and every urban district, one run by the county and the other by the borough, which might compete with one another in the same manner in which we see schools competing in some of the larger boroughs. These councils have already got rating powers, and can levy a 1d. rate on the top of the county rate quite independently of the county, and they can spend that 1d. rate in technical instruction, which, as the House knows, has a very wide and loose definition. As long as they confine themselves to technical instruction they can establish practically what schools they like within the borough or urban district entirely independent of the county.
  SIR JOHN BRUNNER: Does that make a total of 3d.?
  SIR J. GORST: It has not made anything yet, but it did make a total of 2d. There is this curious anomaly as the law is at present, that whereas in the county you can only have a penny rate, and in the county borough only a penny, in all these non-county boroughs and urban districts you can have a 2d. instruction rate, 1d. levied by the county and 1d. by the urban district.
  SIR JOHN BRUNNER: This is a very important matter. The right hon. Gentleman has already mentioned a 2d. rate; is this in addition; will there be a total of 3d.?
  SIR J. GORST: The hon. Gentleman is very anxious to get that cat out of the bag. I am going to propose that they are still to have the power of laying a 1d. rate, but I have not come to that yet. I was going first of all to tell the House to what extent this power has been used. Taking England alone, none of the counties have ever exercised this power of laying a general county rate under the Technical Instruction Act. But in the case of the county boroughs, twenty out of sixty-one have levied some portion of this possible rate—not the whole of it. Out of 217 non-county boroughs, as many as eighty-five have laid a rate under the Act, and of the urban districts 181 out of 768 have laid a rate under the Act. These rates have been applied to the establishment of technical schools in some of the urban districts in Lancashire; they are very excellent technical schools, and it is quite impossible now to take the power of laying the rate out of the hands of these authorities. You cannot help allowing these bodies still to continue to levy a penny rate which they have had the power to levy, and which so many have been actually levying under the Technical Instruction Act. But besides the impossibility of doing away with this anomaly, I do not think it is very desirable that it should be done away with, because it gives the opportunity to the county council of bringing into force an expedient which must be very largely used if ever a really thorough educational system is to be established under the county council, and that is a great deal of delegation of management. It would be quite impossible for the counties to manage every school which they establish and aid themselves; they must delegate their authority to the local managers. You want a unity of control in order to prevent waste and overlapping, and it is unity of control in the county body which we wish sedulously to maintain. But at the same time we want a diffusion of management in order to secure variety, and to prevent that hideous uniformity which is a great drawback to a State-supported system.

  983
  It is therefore proposed that the council of any non-county borough or any urban district which desires to become manager of the schools within its area, and which testifies to the sincerity of its desire by levying a rate, shall be entitled to become of right the sole agent for the county education committee for the control and management of all schools that are aided or established within its limits. So that there will be unity of management; there will be no possibility of the county and the non-county borough or urban district having rival schools in the district. It will be a subject of agreement between the council of the borough or urban district and the county council—they will determine the conditions or terms upon which this money, shall be spent, and in which this management shall be delegated to the borough or urban district. The right of the Board of Education to intervene in the event of a disagreement is specified in the Bill in this case, just as before, to enable the Board to act as intermediary and conciliator. That is not with the idea that the Board of Education will interfere with the wishes of the local authorities. It is hoped that the council of the non-county borough or urban district will become a very important agent of the county in the work of secondary education; that they will have not only their own money to spend, but contributions from the county as well; that they will become not merely the managers of schools for the youth of their district, but also centres for surrounding parts of the county, and that they will carry on on behalf of the county council schools which will serve a very much greater district than their own area. The clause is rather an intricate one, and one which in my opinion will have to be carried a great deal further in the educational system of the country. But the general principle is this—preservation of county control so as to secure unity of purpose, that the schools fit into the general county system, and independence of the borough management so as to give them the right of being managers of all the schools which are planted within their own district. Of course, it would be greatly to the advantage both of the non-county borough or urban district and of the county that such agreement should be
  984
  made, because the urban centre is the natural place in which the county would wish to place the schools, and the urban council would much prefer being managers of large schools serving a large section of the county than of one merely necessary for its own children.
  Now I come to the proposals which we make with regard to the Cockerton judgment. The schools which the Cockerton judgment affects cannot be carried on unless some provision is made for them. The Board of Education, it should be understood, has nothing to do with the expenditure of the school board—that is regulated by law, and the Board of Education has no right to interfere in any way whatever in what the school board pays. The work of the school board is regulated by statute, and the board has to obey the statute, not the Board of Education. The enforcement of the statute does not rest with us in any way whatever; it rests with the public auditor of the Local Government Board, and if the school board differs from his ruling and judgment it can appeal to a court of law. The Board of Education does not interfere, nor has it the power to interfere in any way in the matter. As to the Cockerton judgment, the Board of Education had nothing to do with either the case, the judgment, or the prosecution of the appeal; the only concern we had with the matter was to place the information in our archives at the disposal of all parties, and everybody had the information wanted so far as it was in the office, the Board remaining quite neutral. Now, with regard to the schools affected, I should regret if they were destroyed. Not that I in any way subscribe to the extravagant laudation which some persons have bestowed upon them. As regards the day schools, some are extremely good and others are not so good, and in some places children are kept in attendance at these schools when it would be very much better for them if they were sent to a secondary school, where they would get more instruction. In the evening schools there is a good deal to be desired. Once I went to an evening school and found the young people engaged in a ball, and I am bound to say their behaviour was as decorous as, perhaps more decorous than, I have ever

  985
  found at any ball I ever attended. Now, of course, I have no objection to young people enjoying themselves by dancing, but I could not help feeling that it was not the thing that at the same time they should be actually earning grants from the Exchequer.
  DR. MACNAMARA: I only wish to say that on the occasion to which the right hon. Gentleman refers the attendances were not counted for the grant, and the teachers were not paid for their attendance.
  SIR J. GORST: Oh, I beg pardon. I made very careful inquiry about this occasion. The performance was called "suitable physical exercise," and the grant was earned. If the hon. Member makes inquiries he will find that I am perfectly correct in that statement. Some of these evening schools have been made so recreative that complaint has been made to me by benevolent ladies who have organised girls' clubs, not only that children have gone from polytechnics, drawn by the free education given in the evening schools, but that girls are drawn away from the clubs by the superior attractions of the evening schools. Now, with every desire to promote festivity among our young people, particularly in such a place as London, I do think that these are things that require seeing into; and I do not think that it will be the general opinion that rates or grants from the Consolidated Fund should be used for such purposes. But we do not wish that these schools should be destroyed, or that they should be suddenly taken out of the hands of the people who have hitherto managed them—namely, the school boards. Certainly we do not wish to deprive them of their income, and so to cast them for maintenance upon, other funds; but, at the same time, it would be absurd and foolish to allow such schools to continue to exist and overlap other secondary schools carried on by technical instruction committees and other public authorities. They ought to form part of one harmonious scheme, presided over by the educational authority, and a part of the regular organisation of education in the country. We therefore propose that the new authority may empower the school board to continue to carry on any school in existence
  986
  at the time of the passing of the Act the income of which the Cockerton judgment would destroy, under such conditions as may be agreed upon between the new education authority and the school board, and in the event of disagreement the conditions will be prescribed by the Board of Education. Again the Board of Education comes in as conciliator and to help the parties to come to agreement. The new authority may sanction the appropriation from the school fund of so much of that fund as they consider necessary to carry on the school. As this may have to be done before the new authorities are fully constituted, temporary power is given to county councils themselves to authorise these arrangements. Again I would ask Members to wait until they can see the Bill. I think that arrangement will secure the continuation of every school under such conditions as the local authority and the people of the place think desirable and necessary, and at the same time it will not allow any of these schools to become a thorn in the side of the new educational authority. Now, as the whole of the provisions of the Technical Instruction Act are provided for in the Bill, we propose to repeal that Act altogether, there being no longer any use in its continuance. The authority established by the Bill will have all the powers that Act conferred. I ought to have mentioned that the borrowing powers are practically the same as those under the Technical Instruction Act, and every necessary provision for technical instruction has been included in the Bill.
  This, then, is the Bill which the Government will ask the House to pass. The House will observe that there is no step taken in the way of transferring the, power of the existing elementary education authority—the school boards—to this new authority. That, if it is to be done, must be the subject of future legislation. But the first step towards the unity of authority, which everybody desires, must be the creation of an authority of this kind, to which these powers can hereafter be transferred. I hope, if the House will establish that authority, that it will at once exercise an excellent effect on all the secondary and technical instruction schools in the country, and

  987
  be the authority to which, if Parliament hereafter see fit, all powers of the school boards may be transferred, so that one single authority for educational purposes may be established.
  MR. HUMPHREYS-OWEN: May I ask whether it is proposed to make any alteration in the Welsh intermediate system?
  SIR J. GORST: I would have entered into that, but I felt that I had kept the House an unconscionable time listening to me. In Wales it is intended to make the present authority into the educational authority, subject to the power of the county councils to modify the scheme. That will be the initial scheme, and I believe it will nearly absorb the powers of a certain number of technical instruction committees. That is practically the only effect on Wales. In every other respect, I believe, Wales will go on exactly as now.
  MR. BRYCE: The right hon. Gentleman is invariably lucid, and if I find that there are certain parts of this scheme which are not yet clear to my mind, I am quite sure that it is not due to any deficiency of his powers of expression, but rather to the fact that he has endeavoured to compress within a limited period an exposition of what is nothing less than a gigantic scheme. It is a scheme which is not only gigantic, but also complex, because it is an endeavour to bring order out of what is rightly described as chaos, and it is necessary to understand that chaos, and all the elements of which it is composed, before one can understand what the working of this scheme will be. Bearing in mind the very short time which the House hat in which to discuss this Bill before the arrival of the hour for the suspension of our debate, I shall confine myself to a very few remarks indeed.
  There is one point which has been left comparatively dark to my mind, and that is as to what the relations will be of this scheme to elementary education The right hon. Gentleman has told us that it is not intended to affect the school board, and on following out his points in detail it appears to me that the only place in which it is clear from his statement that elementary education will be affected
  988
  is in regard to the cases covered by the recent Cockerton judgment, which I suppose he will say are not concerned with elementary education, and therefore do not destroy the harmony which he has endeavoured to give to his measure. Here I call up another proposition which the right hon. Gentleman has laid down, namely, that you can draw no sharp line between elementary and secondary education. Therefore, two things follow. In the first place, that the Bill, in so far as it deals with the work done by the school boards, does affect in a most important and material way what has been elementary education—elementary, at any rate, as regards the authorities that have conducted it; and, secondly, that the right hon. Gentleman has not effected or attained by this Bill what he laid down as being one of the things most to be desired, namely, unity of educational control. The Bill does not do that, but the right hon. Gentleman will say that it carries us a certain step towards it. But is it worth while to try to do the thing by two steps, and complicate the question still further, instead of endeavouring, if you are going to bring about unity, to bring it about by one large and comprehensive measure? Of course, we are all agreed that some Bill must be passed this session. It is quite clear, after the pistol which the Liverpool School Board have put to the head of the Education Department, that schools affected by the Cockerton case must be dealt with, and therefore the House is absolutely bound to pass some Bill this session. But will the Government find the time necessary for the enormous scheme which they have sketched out for adjusting the relations of these existing authorities, or of persuading the school boards to submit, if not to extinction, at any rate to subordination, and to having a great deal of the independent power which they have hitherto exercised taken out of their hands? That is a question which, although it is primarily a question for the Government, must, I think, suggest itself to every Member of the House. Is it worth while to attempt a scheme of this kind unless you are sure to be able to carry it out? There is no indisposition on our part to pass a comprehensive measure. I merely throw this out as a matter for the consideration

  989
  of the Government—whether they will find the time necessary for so great a task.
  The right hon. Gentleman seems to think that school boards will be willing to be absorbed, and he held out to them the prospects of a peaceful Nirvana. The Nirvana is a great negative conception, and nobody feels any antagonism to such a negative concession as that. But it is to me a very doubtful question indeed whether the school boards, which are to be kept in existence, and allowed to continue their work, but which are to be subordinated to these new authorities for the purpose of the work on the confines of elementary or secondary education—which, on the whole, despite the criticisms of the right hon. Gentleman, they have discharged with surprising energy, zeal, and success—will readily acquiesce to be "cabined and confined" in that work by the action of another authority which has had no experience in this matter, and has not acquired the knowledge which the school boards have acquired. I should think the school boards would have a great deal to say before they submit either to ultimate extinction or to that subordination which is proposed by the present measure. I feel there are great difficulties in allowing the work which has been done in the continuation schools and in the higher grade elementary schools to be handed over at once to this new and untried body. You want for that work a body which has educational momentum and force behind it—a greater educational momentum and force than I fear will be found in the committee which the right hon. Gentleman proposes. You want also an authority which will see fair play between the different kinds of schools. Here you propose to put over the school boards who are conducting this elementary work—this work of higher grade and continuation schools which they have hitherto done—a new authority which will have schools of its own. This new authority will have its own secondary schools, it will be concerned in the welfare of those secondary schools, and naturally following out that very principle of what may be called the levying power, upon which the right hon. Gentleman dwelt in his speech, it will be disposed to favour those schools at the
  990
  expense of any other. Will this new authority be sure to give fair play to the schools managed by the school boards? The Commission to which the right hon. Gentleman referred saw that difficulty, and proposed to meet it by appointing a secondary education authority upon which the school boards were to be represented. The right hon. Gentleman ignores the school boards altogether, and I feel very doubtful as to whether the new authority which he proposes will not import a new element of friction, which it will take all the good offices of the Board of Education to allay, and which will seriously interfere with the wholesome working of the higher grade and continuation schools.
  Of course, in the time at my disposal I can only glance at a very few of the many points upon which I should like to touch. The right hon. Gentleman laid down many principles with which most of us would be in accord. But the excellence of a principle lies very largely in its application, and until we see how the right hon. Gentleman proposes to apply these admirable principles in detail in the Bill I do not think we ought to commit ourselves to any definite expression of opinion upon the measure. We can say, however, that we desire unity; we can say that we desire the maintenance of the higher grade and continuation schools; we can say that we desire to see no hard-and-fast line drawn between elementary and secondary education; and we can also agree with the right hon. Gentleman in feeling that if you do create the county committees, you cannot have the same scheme for all counties and for all boroughs. I am, therefore, entirely with him in that, but when he proposes to leave that matter entirely to the Board of Education and the localities concerned, he is suggesting a scheme of local option bolder and larger than any that has ever been presented to this House, and I am not sure that Parliament ought so far to abrogate its functions. I think the Bill ought to contain an indication of the lines upon which these committees should be framed, and, as at present advised, I am inclined to think also that every scheme ought to be submitted to Parliament, and submitted in a way and at a time which would give Parliament

  991
  a proper opportunity for forming an opinion upon the scheme—by which I mean that it ought not to be brought forward after midnight. But it does not follow from that that every scheme should be debated here. It is quite clear that two or three discussions upon typical schemes would be enough for the purpose. I am not prepared to assent to the proposition that the matter should be left entirely, as the Government apparently suggest, to be settled by the local authorities and the Board of Education. Among other points upon which we shall desire further information are the proposals which the Government make with regard to religious instruction. In particular I would now ask the right hon. Gentleman whether under tins Bill any money can be given by the proposed new local authority in respect of religious instruction, or will any payments be made to schools which are professedly denominational and under denominational government. I also want some further light in regard to the position in which these proposals would place private and proprietary schools. Will they be susceptible of receiving grants, or will the only advantage be that of allowing pupils to remain at them who are receiving grants? Further, I desire to know whether any money can be applied in any way to voluntary schools. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of their exclusion from the benefits of any fund to be applied under this Act to public elementary schools; did he intend to include voluntary schools under that?
  SIR J. GORST: Yes.
  MR. BRYCE: May we take it then that the only point upon which any question about denominational management can arise is in that part dealt with by the conscience clause? If that is the case, it somewhat narrows the field of discussion, though, of course, when the clause appears it will be our duty to examine it carefully. I have already stated some of the difficulties which occur to me in regard to the case of schools governed by the Cockerton decision. I agree that they ought to be carried on, and that they ought to be carried on by the existing authorities. But I will
  992
  again put to the Government the fact that, unless they extend the period for a long time during which the schools are to be carried on, they will have a breach of continuity, which is almost certain to interfere with the proper working of the schools; they will set up another authority, which is very likely to have schools of its own, and possibly to deal with these existing schools in a way which will not inspire confidence. That appears to me to be a very serious difficulty. Another point which will require careful consideration is the repeal of the Technical Instruction Act. I am not prepared to assent to so large a step as that unless we are sure that all the valuable provisions of that Act, under which good work has been done, will be retained. I assume that the attention of the Government has been carefully given to that matter, but still it is somewhat a large demand to make.
  Upon the general aspect of the whole matter, so far as I may presume to represent what I believe to be the feeling of Members on this side of the House, I will only venture to say two things. We desire to see unity of management and of administration, but we desire to see it effected in such a way as shall not destroy any of the securities for energy in educational administration which we have hitherto had. When I remember how well the school board system has worked in Scotland, the efficient work which has been done there, how little jealousy there has been between the school boards and the local authorities—in fact, the only difficulties which have ever arisen have been over a question of the application of money coming under recent grants—I think the right hon. Gentleman greatly overstated the objections to having an ad hoc authority for the purposes of education, and that if he will extend his investigation to other countries, and scrutinise the experience of a country which has done so much in the way of local government as the United States, he will find that the existence of an ad hoc body has in most cases been found to be a better security for energetic and vigorous administration, for bringing public opinion to bear upon that administration, for procuring men who are especially interested in education to work upon that body, and generally,

  993
  than giving an educational function to a local authority. It the Government will prosecute this or any other measure with a sole regard to educational efficiency, and will carefully abstain from anything which can arouse that poison of sectarian controversy which has done so much to retard the progress of elementary education, I am sure that their proposals will have a perfectly fair, although a careful, consideration on this side of the House, and that we shall all bend our minds to endeavouring to pass a measure which will remove the anomalous absurdities and waste which at present belong to our educational system, and do more than that system, either on its elementary or its secondary side, at present does to fit our people to bear their part in the industrial struggles of the world.
  *DR. MACNAMARA: I confess I am agreeably surprised that the Government have brought in their Bill so promptly, and I am very grateful to them for having done so. In so far as this Bill is directed towards more adequately equipping our people for the struggles which are before them, as far as I am concerned, I shall give it my most cordial support. When the Government came into office in 1895 they had two important educational problems before them—that of unifying and consolidating the Central Executive in the Board of Education, and that of unifying and consolidating the local authorities within suitable areas for educational purposes. I am bound to say with regard to the former task, the Government have performed the work admirably. The Board of Education Act of 1899 did create a central unified executive, with an advisory committee, which is as admirable a body as can be conceived by any House of Parliament. With regard to the local authority, which is the crucial point in this Bill, I understood the right hon. Gentleman to suggest—and I entirely agreed with him—that what we wanted is one authority, directly responsible to the people for all grades of education within its area. That was the statement with which the right hon. Gentleman commenced his speech, and I was hoping we should learn that that had been carried out in the Bill;
  994
  but, so far as I have been able to understand his statement, I doubt very much whether that is the case. It is true we have most bewildering difficulties with the local authorities to-day. We have the great school boards first of all. The great bulk of these are very efficient, whatever the right hon. Gentleman may say to the contrary. Then we have thousands of small village school boards, the great bulk of which, I admit, are highly inefficient. Then we have thousands upon thousands of voluntary school managers, who are struggling to carry on schools in a starved condition, because of the anachronism of endeavouring to maintain education out of charity, with which I entirely disagree; and the nwe have the technical instruction committees of the municipal councils, which for the last ten years have been doing admirable work with the local taxation fund, and in many cases with the rate they have raised under the Technical Instruction Acts. Although I am a member of the London School Board, I should like just to say that I disagree cordially with those people who so gratuitously say that because men are elected to look, as they inelegantly expressed it, after drains and sewers, they are not competent to look after education. It is my experience that the Technical Education Board of the London County Council, and a good many others, have done most admirable work in regard to education.
  If I interpret the right hon. Gentleman correctly, he would sweep all this hotchpotch away, and give us in each county and county borough one paramount local authority directly responsible to the people, controlling all grades of education. But does he do that? I understand that his authority is to deal with technical and secondary education in the first instance. I understand that he does not touch primary schools. The scheme of the right hon. Gentleman breaks down then when you apply to it the touchstone of his ideal in the matter of education. I do suggest that it is fatal to keep primary schools outside this scheme of control, and if we mean, and I really think men of all parties do mean, that for all purposes of education the educational ladder should be a reality, and that there should

  995
  be proper educational facilities, the only way to secure that is by harmoniously developing one grade with another, so that the lad of parts may move along uninterruptedly, picking up the threads of his knowledge in the new school where he dropped them in the old. You cannot get that unless schools of all grades are under one local authority, and, as far as I can see, the present Bill does not give that. I should have been glad if the right hon. Gentleman had taken his courage in both hands and given us a more comprehensive scheme to secure what he desires and has asked for frequently in this House—one authority, comprehensive, and directly responsible to the people, and administering suitable areas over all grades of schools.
  With regard to the finance of the Bill, I understand, first of all, the new authority is to have what is inelegantly called the whisky money; it is to have the same power as the Technical Instruction Committees have with regard to the money. Even if you give them all the whisky money, amounting to £867,000, already £804,000 of that is spent on technical and secondary education, so that there will only be £63,000 available for the other educational purposes prescribed by the Bill. You do not go so far as the Duke of Devonshire's Bill of last year, which did give them the whole of the money for educational purposes. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will realise if he is giving the whole he is giving only £63,000 more than is being secured for education at present. I am sorry that there is no provision for more money from the central Exchequer. You cannot do this thing without money. If this Bill breaks down at all it will break down on the financial side. There is no money in it. You go to the rates and you say you shall have the right to raise, not 1d. as at present, but to raise 2d. Already 284 local authorities in England are raising rates under the Technical Instruction Act, and out of a total of £82,600 the sum of £45,000 is raised in a score of big towns, Birmingham notably raising £9,000 already. Therefore, under the rating side of it you are not getting much more, and are not likely to with the extraordinary new burdens which are laid on the people, perhaps
  996
  necessarily, by the Government at the present juncture. Therefore, I look upon the finance of this Bill as entirely grotesque and ludicrous to carry out the scheme which the right hon. Gentleman foreshadowed in regard to the administrative side of the measure. I suppose the cupboard is now bare for educational purposes. I am sorry for this, because our position depends upon sound finance, and sound finance depends upon good trade, and good trade depends on the equipment of the people, and unless we spend money on that we cannot expect them to be properly equipped.
  I would like to refer to the way in which this Bill affects the Cockerton judgment. The Cockerton judgment says, as I understand it, that we must not spend the school-board rates on higher grade education in the day schools, or upon the instruction of adults in the night schools. Now this Bill, as I gather, simply says to the school boards that the good work shall not be stopped. That work, as I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree with me, is good work. But you say, "Go to the municipal council, the new education authority, and ask them to make you their agents." It is curious to find that at this juncture the right hon. Gentleman proposes in his Bill to send the school boards to the municipal authority, which is practically the Technical Instruction Committee furbished up under another name, to ask them to give the boards the power to do this work, when the Scotch school boards have conferred upon them the right to spend the rates in the day schools for the instruction of children up to the age of eighteen in all sorts of advanced subjects, and to spend the rates in the night schools for pupils, irrespective of age, in such advanced subjects as dynamics, naval architecture, navigation, algebra, mensuration, and so on. It does seem to me strange that this treatment should be meted out to the great schools of England just at the moment when the Scotch school boards are having their powers so widely extended. The right hon. Gentleman says his Bill does not touch the school boards, but as a matter of fact it does touch them. He says that he does not want to draw a line between the various grades of education, but he does propose to switch off all the higher

  997
  work of the school boards, and refer it to the new municipal authority. He proposes permanently, as I gather, to truncate the school boards. That is the position, as I gather from the Bill. He says we can go and become the agents of the municipal council. That is to say, a thirty-year-old authority, which has done such good work in so many cases, is to go to a not more than ten-year-old authority, which was not elected at all for that purpose. It is now to go to this authority, which is to be furbished up like the Thames steamboats, for the purposes of higher instruction, which, after all, the school boards have been encouraged into by statements of the right hon. Gentleman himself and by his predecessors in office, right away from Mr. Mundella downwards.
  There is only one other point I want to make, and that is in regard to London. I do not know whether London will receive special treatment, because London is, after all, not a great town, but a great province, and in all Acts of Parliament I know of for educational purposes, including the Education Act of 1870, the case of London is treated exceptionally. Is it proposed that you can in any way, either now or at some future time, take educationally the 500,000 children in 1,430 schools, with 10,000 certificated teachers, spending £2,000,000 of rate money and £1,000,000 of Exchequer grants, and hand them over to a statutory committee of the County Council? The thing would break down at once by its own weight. What I think we want for London is just the sort of authority which the right hon. Gentleman started out with—an authority directly responsible to the people, elected for all educational purposes—primary, secondary, technical, and so on. It is quite impossible that you can hand over the work of the London School Board to the Technical Education Committee of the County Council, or whatever name you like to give it. This is a very big Bill, and I am very doubtful, indeed, whether it will be possible to pass it this session. I will give it all the support I can, but supposing it does not pass, we cannot be left in the present position with regard to the Cockerton judgment. I would suggest that, perhaps, after all, it would have been wiser, having regard
  998
  to the exceptional character of this session and the heavy work before the Government at the present time, to give us this session just a short enabling measure to carry us over the next twelve months with regard to those practices which, although now ruled to be illegal, have been encouraged by the right hon. Gentleman and his predecessors in office.
  SIR J. GORST: I think the hon. Gentleman is mistaken. I never encouraged such expenditure.
  *DR. MACNAMARA: I cannot contradict the right hon. Gentleman, but surely he has encouraged the school boards to go on with this higher class work. His speech on the 3rd of May last year on the higher elementary minute was designed to encourage the work of the school boards, and, at any rate we have had from various Vice-Presidents all sorts of circulars to school boards encouraging them to do this, and I think the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dartford, in a speech which he delivered in London recently, confessed that he was one of the villains of the piece, and that he himself had encouraged the school boards to go on with this work for years past. In the event of this great revolutionary Bill not passing—this Bill which has so many good points in it—it might very easily be made more comprehensive, far-reaching, and more fitted to promote the interests of education; if it does not get through in this exceptional year it would be advisable, I repeat, in fact I would say it is essential, to give us a little measure to enable the school boards to go on with the work they are now doing, so that they may have their anxiety relieved as to the legality of the practices which have now been ruled to be illegal. I only hope that in so far as this Bill is directed to improve the education of the people it may in that sense be put on the Statute-book, but if it should fail to reach that stage I shall endeavour to impress on the Government not to leave the school boards without any possibility of securing powers before next September, when they come to the time for re-opening the night schools, which will enable them to go forward with the work, and to carry on practices which have been fraught with so much good to the people of this country during many years in the past.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.): I do not propose to add anything to what has been said by my right hon. friend and the hon. Members who have taken part in the discussion, but I would remind the House that until this Bill is read a first time it cannot be printed, and until it is printed it is really impossible for anybody to form an adequate judgment on it. I hope, therefore, hon. Gentlemen will remember that it is I desirable that the First Reading should be taken before the close of the sitting.
  An HON. MEMBER: When will the Bill be distributed?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: As soon as we can after we get the First Reading.
  *SIR RICHARD JEBB: There are two points in the interesting statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Vice-President on which public attention will especially be fixed. The first is the very emphatic recognition of the fact that our aim should be to have a single local authority for both primary and secondary education. The other point is that nothing in the Bill incapacitates the new authorities about to be set up, though their function is at present confined to secondary education, from afterwards taking over the control of primary education also. I think there are good reasons why the Government should proceed as they have done, and confine the scope of this Bill to the bestowal of functions on local authorities with regard to secondary education. The hon. Member for the Camberwell Division and my right hon. friend the Member for South Aberdeen observed that this is a large and complex Bill, but it would have been much more complex if it had contained provisions for the transference of primary education also, and if difficulties are prognosticated on the ground that the measure is large and complex, how much greater these would have been if it had dealt with primary as well as secondary education. My right hon. friend the Member for South Aberdeen observed that it was proposed to hand over the control of secondary education to what he described as bodies who were untried in that respect, meaning the county councils and the borough councils. If they are untried we are giving them a little time
  1000
  to gather experience. Surely that is a reason for proceeding as the Government have done. I have no doubt that this Bill, judging from the speech of the Vice-President, will receive a cordial welcome from all interested in what concerns national education. I was glad to hear in the statement of the Vice-President that before any scheme to constitute an educational committee is approved by the Board of Education, the scheme will be published, and a local inquiry may be held. That provision affords a guarantee that local criticism from all bodies qualified to give it will receive due attention. It may be assumed that on these educational committees will be found persons of some educational experience, fitted by their special knowledge to take part in the future work of the local authorities. I earnestly hope that on such local authorities women will find a place. It is impossible to overrate the importance of having some women who are conversant with education on the local authorities of the future.
  We must all feel that more detailed criticism should be reserved for the Second Reading. In the meantime, I only wish to congratulate the Government on having, at last, introduced a Bill which will crown the work of the year before last, when a central authority for education was created, by establishing local authorities. I trust that the Bill will receive a dispassionate and benevolent consideration from the House in its future stages.
  MR. YOXALLsaid that there was a rule upstairs in regard to clauses in a Bill not being in accordance with the preamble, which they might apply in their criticisms on this Bill. The clauses were not in accordance with the preamble and the right hon. Gentleman's speech. The Vice-President began by offering the House the happy prospect that in each local area of any considerable size there would be one central authority charged with the administration of all educational funds, and all the schools in the locality. A Bill of that kind would have been welcomed. It would be remembered that in the debate on the Vote in Supply, Member after Member rose and urged the House to make that particular provision. They

  1001
  said that the perennial difficulties of our educational system could not be removed by any measure short of that. He thought at first that the right hon. Gentleman was going to give the country that, for he talked most delightfully of the virtues of unification, and went on to point out how much easier it would be to unify under the county councils than under the school boards. But when the right hon. Gentleman came to speak of the clauses of his Bill he simply proposed to set up an authority which was the old Technical Education Committee with a new name.
  There were two reasons for an Education Bill: one, the judgment of the courts of law in the Cocker-ton case; and the other, that all the Members of this House who cared about education—and he was glad to say that there were many hundreds—were desirous that there should be a new educational local authority with comprehensive powers. What did the Bill do, apart from a petty dealing with the difficult question of the Cockerton judgment? All it did do was to set up again what existed at present under statutory forms in regard to technical education. No more resources were given to the central authority, and nothing more was really done to decentralise than at present. The name alone was changed, and the trouble and bother was taken of re-creating what already existed. Where, then, was the unification and the comprehensiveness? What was the new body to do in regard to the school boards? Were the school boards, which had evening continuation schools and higher grade schools, to go to the county council, or to the education committee of the county council, and say, "Will you give us leave to spend some of our school funds on higher-grade schools, which the school boards created under the sanction of Parliament, and which are responsible to the Board of Education?" A more inept proposal never was made. He knew the aim and object of the proposal. It was to meet a present difficulty. It was because the Government thought that they had no chance this session of carrying a Government Bill, and therefore they had brought in a Bill, five-sixths of which was unnecessary. But there were many ways of dealing with the difficulty of the Cockerton
  1002
  judgment, instead of by this lame method. If the Government had brought in a short Suspensory Bill, affirming that, for a given date, it would be within the power of the school boards to go on maintaining the higher-grade schools and the evening continuation schools, it might have been possible to carry through that Bill, which would have done what this Bill did not do at all. He would examine this lame method of dealing with the Cockerton judgment. The schools were about to close, and the new session would open in September. Was it possible that this Bill would become law before, say, the 12th of August? But, in the meantime, the school boards must be making their arrangements for their continuation schools and their higher-grade schools. How were the school boards to go this year to the county council, or to the committee of the county council, to receive permission to spend money on educational objects, for which they must have incurred financial responsibilities long before that date? There was no guarantee in this Bill from the Government or from the Board of Education that a suspensory measure would be passed relieving the members of the school boards from personal responsibility if they continued to carry on these higher-grade and continuation schools. There was an abnegation, in this respect, all along the line, of the duty of the Government. In his opinion, the Bill was disappointing. It ought never to have been introduced; and even if it were carried as it stood, it would not secure any alteration in the educational machinery of the country. It would afford relief to the higher-grade schools and to the technical schools in a most unsatisfactory way. Apart from the Cockerton judgment, the Bill did no more than had been provided in the Technical Instruction Act, and he should oppose it. In fact, he intended to move, when it came on for Second Beading, that it should be read a second time that day six months. It was a most disappointing Bill, and, if we had educational chaos at present, it would add to that chaos.
  MR. BROADHURST: said he had only a question to ask. In the case of negotiations between the existing school board authorities and the new

  1003
  authorities yet to be created not coming to any friendly conclusion, would the schools affected by the Cockerton judgment be closed? So far as he could understand, the Vice-President was giving equal authority to the new education authority of the county council as was now possessed by the school board, and so far as he could gather from the right hon. Gentleman's speech, the combination might be continued to such a length as to lead to the closing of some of the school-board schools. He represented in the House of Commons a great community which was devoted to the question of education, and what they were concerned about at this moment was, whether some measure was to be immediately passed to prevent the closing of the continuation schools during the present year. If the Bill just introduced was not passed, would the Government pledge it self to pass a short measure enabling the existing continuation schools to be continued? That was a plain, straightforward, businesslike question, and he put it hoping that the Government would give an honest reply before the close of the debate. So far as the Bill itself was concerned, he expressed no opinion at that moment, because he had had experience of plans manufactured by the Vice-President in previous sessions, and he always preferred to scrape the jam off before he expressed his opinion as to the inner nature of a Bill brought forward by the right hon. Gentleman. He should doubt, from the far-reaching effects of the Bill just introduced by the right hon. Gentleman, whether it would get through Parliament this session; and, if not, would the First Lord of the Treasury or the Vice-President, or both combined, give the House the assurance that those schools affected by the Cockerton judgment would not be closed during this year? If that were done it would meet with approval throughout the country, and would relieve the anxiety now pressing on the minds of educational authorities.
  MR. CHANNING: I wish to support the remarks which fell from my hon. friend the Member for West Nottingham. I consider that this Bill is a profound disappointment. What people want is that the education now being given by the school boards to tens of thousands of the children
  1004
  of the poor should be extended, and one of the grandest results of the school-board system has been that not only has it given good education to the children, but it has taught the parents to love education and demand more of it There is no guarantee that they will get that under this Bill. There is no guarantee whatever that the country will get that system of technical and secondary education which every man with brains knows that it needs more than anything else. This Bill will destroy the school boards, without giving any increased educational facilities. If I had time to deal with the confused and ridiculous details of the Bill I could show that it will stimulate controversy rather than tend to that unity for which the right hon. Gentleman pleads. This is a most unsatisfactory proposal, even more unsatisfactory than the Bill of 1896, and will receive most strenuous opposition from many hon. Members on this side of the House.
  MR. WHITLEY: I do not intend to enter into the details of the Bill, but I wish to draw the attention of the Vice-President to one single word in his speech, which, if it appears in the Bill, will, I think, have very serious consequences. In referring to the question of evening continuation schools the right hon. Gentleman referred to "existing" schools, and he said it was proposed that, by the permission of the new authority, school boards could continue to carry on "existing" schools. If there is one part of our educational system which is at present more grossly deficient than another it is our evening continuation schools. In no town are they adequate, and in most towns they require multiplying by four or five in order to meet the needs of the public. I hope that the Vice-President in using that word does not foreshadow a provision in the Bill which would prevent an increase in the number of schools. They are increasing, and ought to increase for many years to come, and I hope that power will be given in the Bill, not merely to maintain the existing schools, but also to increase them.
  Bill to make provision for and confer certain powers on local education authorities in England and Wales, ordered to be brought in by Sir John

  1005
  Gorst, Mr. Balfour, and Mr. Walter Long.

  EDUCATION BILL.
  "To make provision for and confer certain powers on local education authorities in England and Wales," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday, 20th May, and to be printed [Bill 173.]
EVENING SITTING.

  INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS (IRELAND).
  MR. O'MARA: The question to which I propose to draw attention this evening has been before the House on several occasions; it is not for that reason an old grievance, but it is a comparatively new one, for previous to 1898 we had no complaint whatever to make of the way in which the industrial schools of Ireland were conducted by the Government. I hope when he makes his reply this evening the Chief Secretary will not treat this matter in the stereotyped way in which complaints made from these Benches have been treated in the past. In the year 1868 the Industrial Schools Act was passed. It was an Act fraught with great benefit to Ireland, and it was taken up by the people and looked upon by them as of the greatest possible advantage; they subscribed generously to the fund required to build the schools, and a large amount of money is now invested in these schools; the schools were added to year by year, so that in 1898 there were no fewer than 71 schools, accommodating 8,715 children. I claim, therefore, that the Industrial Schools Act for thirty years worked with magnificent success. This success has been acknowledged by every one. The official reports year after year passed very high compliments on the working of the Act in Ireland. Crime among juvenile offenders has decreased to an enormous extent. For thirty years the clause for the non-committal of childrtn to industrial schools has been interpreted by the magistrates in Ireland in a certain way; interpreted from a common-sense point of view, and, as I am informed, from a strictly legal point of view. They have interpreted that clause as meaning
  1006
  that children who are destitute and who have no visible means of support may be legally committed to these schools. And the system by which that committal takes place has worked splendidly. Some time in 1898, a new inspector, probably an English importation into Ireland, who wished, no doubt, to distinguish his career by some striking reform—
  MR. WILLIAM JOHNSTON: May I inform the hon. Gentleman that he was an Irish Roman Catholic.
  MR. O'MARA: At any rate, he was a new broom, and this new broom set about sweeping the industrial schools. He immediately got it into his head that these committals were illegal, and, probably having consulted the right hon. Member for Central Leeds, who, being an Englishman and unacquainted with the working of the industrial schools in Ireland, was made Chief Secretary for Irish Affairs, he got permission to issue a Circular in regard to these schools. This was a circular to the magistrates stating that only destitute children who were charged with an offence against the law could legally be committed to an industrial school. It is this Circular that we have protested against and that we protest against to-night, and I say distinctly that if this Circular is not withdrawn you will destroy the whole system of industrial schools which has been built up at so much expense, and turn out into the streets thousands of children who, but for the issue of this Circular, would have been brought up as honest citizens, but who now will be cast back into the vortex of crime, and will eventually cost the country much more money than if they had been brought up in these schools. There is one point before I pass from the issue of the Circular, and that is whether the Irish Government had any right to issue a Circular interpreting the law to the magistrates of Ireland. I think everyone will agree that for the Executive Government of Ireland to interfere with the law is a gross breach of constitutional usage. If the Executive directed a Circular of this character to the magistrates of England, there would be a protest raised immediately, and I maintain that the Government of Ireland had no right to issue this circular to the magistrates

  1007
  at all. As those acquainted with this subject are aware, inquiries have been made of all the industrial school managers in Ireland, and the industrial school managers all protest against this Circular. They say that the number of children who can now be committed will not enable them to keep open these industrial schools, and they will have to be closed. [The hon. Member read, from the Report issued in 1899, figures proving a considerable decrease in the number of boys and girls committed to industrial schools.] I submit that if you decrease the number of children committed to these schools by a third, and if these schools are maintained, as they are, by a capitation grant upon the number of children with which they deal, then you will have to close a third of the schools; and that one-third of the schools, which all Chief Secretaries of Ireland, and all the officials, admit have done so much good should have to be closed is a sign of gross mismanagement. The number of children committed in Dublin in 1897 was 377; in 1898, 219; and in 1899, 94, only 25 per cent. of the number which were committed in 1897. What has become of the other 200 odd children who have not been committed? Do they still unhappily run wild in the slums, contaminated by the criminal and immoral class which inhabit them, or are they sent to the workhouse? I submit that it is not to the public interest that these children should not be taken care of, and that they should be deprived, by the closing of these schools, of the means of earning an honest livelihood. The Circular says that only children on the verge of criminality are admissible. The Chief Secretary says, "If you break the law I will provide for you, but if you keep the law and are destitute you can do as you like—you can go to the workhouse!"
  Now, before schools such as these, which have been so far reaching in their effects, are done away with, one would have thought that very careful inquiry would have been made, and that very good reason would have been given for their ceasing to exist before they were closed. But when the subject came up in the House one defence was that the O'Connor Don had said that the Act was passed to deal only with children who were
  1008
  in danger of falling into crime. It shows how hard pressed the Executive Government were that they should have had to put forward the opinion of a private member in defence of the Circular, but even that defence has since been contradicted by the O'Connor Don. Another defence was that for thirty years the method adopted by the magistrates in so committing children had been a gross abuse of the law, and that the Circular was intended to ensure that the law should be properly administered in the future. It is very strange that for thirty years the Government did not see that children were being admitted illegally, and still more strange that the Attorney General should have been three years finding it out. Yet another defence was that under the former system there was no room for children who ought properly to be admitted under the Act. That statement has been made over and over again, but no concrete case of children being refused admission has been put forward, and until concrete instances are given, I, for one, shall refuse to believe that such was the case. The real reason for the issue of the Circular was, even at the risk of destroying the industrial school system in Ireland, to save the Chancellor of the Exchequer the expense of contributing 5s. a week towards the maintenance of these unfortunate children. Such a defence would not have the support even of this House, and I submit that no sufficient reason has been given in any of the debates to justify the Circular and the enormous injury it has already done to the industrial schools. We consider that the question urgently requires to be dealt with, and that view is evidently shared by the inspector of the schools, for the Report for 1899 says—
  "It is hoped an effort will be made by those interested in the moral well-being of neglected children, so that those in immediate danger of falling into crime will be brought within the influence of the Industrial Schools Act."
  That quotation shows that even the officials in Ireland are aware of the extreme urgency of the matter; that they are frightened at the fewness of the committals of children under the new regulations, and that they are anxious that more children should be committed, in

  1009
  order to save the Government from shutting up the schools. They even go so far as to suggest that committees of the new county councils should be appointed in order to collect children from anywhere and everywhere to fill up the vacancies. The Chief Secretary, when pressed, would not promise to bring in a Bill dealing with this matter, and I personally do not think there is any real necessity for a Bill. Had the Circular been withdrawn the matter would have ended before, and things have gone as formerly. I recommend the Chief Secretary to adopt a courageous attitude in this matter. He is not in the habit of taking a courageous attitude in this House; he is rather fond of expressing sympathy with us, and doing nothing in the matters of which we complain. He ought to acknowledge that a gross mistake has been made in the issue of this Circular, that it was a needless interference with the magistrates, and that it was against the well-being of these excellent institutions, and then I think he ought honestly and straightforwardly to withdraw the Circular. I beg to move the resolution standing in my name.
  MR. CULLINAN: I beg to second the resolution. I am sorry that in the opening of this important debate there are—as is usual when Irish matters are discussed—empty benches on the other side of the House. If it had been a question affecting the directors of railway companies, or the owners of collieries, or a question of subsidising shipping companies, or any of those matters which would send money into the pockets of the wealthy in England, the opposite benches would have been full. Simply because it is an Irish question, dealing with the poor and the miserable, we find the Chief Secretary alone with the hon. Member for South Belfast. I regret also that the opening of the debate should have been marred by the introduction of sectarian feeling by the venerable and hon. Member for South Belfast, when he reminded the opener of the discussion that the inspector of these schools in Ireland was a Roman Catholic. We speak on this matter, not from the Roman Catholic point of view only, but from that of the general community. Protestants as well as Roman Catholics are affected by it. The hon.
  1010
  Member opposite has done the same to-night as he did two years ago, when a similar debate took place in this House, and I will quote a remark he then made in order to justify the quotation of some figures with which the Chief Secretary supplied me a few days ago. The hon. Member for South Belfast said—
  "While we are perfectly prepared to justify an Imperial grant for the reform of the criminal or semi-criminal class, I, for one, am not prepared to cast upon Imperial resources a charge which should fall upon the Irish poor-rate."
  We are not asking that he should.
  "Unquestionably attempts are made in various parts of Ireland to send out children to beg in order to qualify them to become inmates of industrial schools," he said. "I should like to allude to the fact that in some parts of Ireland the object of sending children to the industrial schools is to bring them under the influence of the Roman Catholic church."
  I certainly think it is rather unpleasant that a gentleman who, one would think from his venerable appearance, ought to have some sense of decency should introduce the sectarian element into such a matter as this. According to the figures supplied by the Chief Secretary, it appears that the Protestants have suffered by the issuing of the Circular almost in the same proportion as Roman Catholics. In 1894 there were 1,093 Roman Catholics and 134 Protestants in the schools; in 1899 there were 839 Roman Catholics and 116 Protestants, and in 1900 there were 901 Roman Catholics and 121 Protestants. That shows that the numbers of Protestant inmates of industrial schools have fallen in almost the same proportion as the numbers of Roman Catholics have. The late Attorney General for Ireland, The MacDermott, stated—
  "The Act indicates an intention to include a large class who have no visible means of subsistence—that is the destitute poor—but in my opinion it does not include them."
  The effect of the Castle Circular has been to deter magistrates from sending children to industrial schools, fearing they would be sent out again, as was done by the Castle twice in succession in the Abbefeale case. Now in my own constituency there is the Tipperary Industrial School. In 1893 the number of children certified was 15 in excess of grant number; in 1895, 10; in 1898, 3; and in 1901 the number had fallen to 4 under the certified number. In Cashel

  1011
  all the vacancies were filled till the issue of the circular in 1898. Last year there were 38 vacancies, only 9 children having been admitted during three years, while 20 were admitted in previous years. I need not go further into detail on this point more than to say that in Clonmel, Thurles, Templemore, and other schools exactly similar effect has been brought about. By a copy of the magistrate's order which has to be sent when children are committed to industrial schools in which the classes of children to which the Act applies are set forth I see that they include children found wandering and not having proper guardianship, and children found wandering and not having visible means of subsistence. Those statements are plain enough, and they surely do not mean that a child must commit a crime before it is entitled to admission? Take the case of a poor widow who does not wish to go into the workhouse, and her friends send the children to an industrial school. Although those children may have no means of subsistence, down comes an order from Dublin Castle ordering them to be sent out from the schools to starve. I say that a Government who lend themselves to treating children in that way are unworthy of the name of humane. This is only one of many similar cases, and if the widow chooses to remain outside to starve she has no alternative but the workhouse for her poor children. Can the right hon. Gentleman opposite defend for one moment this state of things, for if that woman remains moral and religious her children must starve. If she becomes immoral, then she can get her children into the industrial school. I find that in the last debate we had another Chief Secretary for Ireland, and he quoted some statistics to the House. The late Chief Secretary said that in the year 1897—before the issuing of the Circular 924—children were committed for begging. In 1898 the number was reduced to 676, and in 1899 the total was 232. The number of children admitted for other causes were 486 in 1897, 562 in 1898, and 723 in 1899. Those figures, I think, speak for themselves.
  There is one thing which I wish to draw: the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to, and
  1012
  it is in regard to the industrial system generally. When the Local Government Act was passed in 1898, a resolution was adopted by the Board, of which I happen to be a member, asking that a clause might be inserted in the Bill which would give the option of creating industrial and educational schools in each county or group of counties. One of the most important questions concerning the necessities of the children of Ireland would be to take them out of the surroundings of the workhouse altogether. I find that last year there were in the workhouses of Ireland the extraordinary number of 36,000 children. Of course, this number includes tramps and casuals. Here are these children, most of them orphans or deserted, left in these institutions to be contaminated and demoralised by evil associations. No better work could be done than to permit the councils of Ireland to amalgamate unions, so as to have one special workhouse for these deserted and orphan children where they could live together under such conditions as would prevent them being contaminated. I have taken a very great interest in the welfare of these children. The poor orphan and deserted child, as well as the children of the class known as tramps, who are sent to the workhouse sometimes for a month, occasionally for a week, and sometimes only for a night, are housed together. The children of these tramps are brought up in vice from their earliest days, and they are put amongst those poor orphan and deserted children to contaminate and demoralise them. I say that these children should not be left in such a position, and under the system I suggest they would be free from anything like this contamination. At present in these institutions it may be said that the children do get some training. I may point out that only a few of them are employed, and then only for a very limited time. We should have what we have already upon a small scale established from private sources, namely, regular industrial training schools where boys and girls are educated properly and taught trades, and then they are able to sustain themselves in after life and become useful members of society. I will take the case of two of these institutions

  1013
  in Ireland, Glin and Trim. Take the Glin Industrial Schools in county Limerick. In this case a number of unions agreed to establish one of those institutions, and each union was to contribute so much in proportion to the number of children sent there. The result is that numbers of these children have turned out to be useful members of society and they are now earning honest and decent livlihoods. I find that in the year 1898–99 the number of children in the Glin Industrial School was 255. The cost of provision for these children was 2s. 3½d. each, and the cost of their clothing 7¾d. each, making a total cost for the maintenance of each child of 2s. 11¼d. per week. In those industrial schools the children could be maintained on far cheaper lines than by keeping them in the workhouse. I certainly think that the industrial school system in Ireland ought to be considerably extended and enlarged. The county councils and district councils of Ireland willingly contribute at the present time to the aid of the industrial schools in their different districts. Not only do the ratepayers of Ireland contribute to the public exchequer, but they contribute privately, and also substantially, out of the rates to these schools. But although I would advocate the extension of the industrial schools system and give the councils the option of establishing industrial schools for the children, I certainly say that I am not prepared to accept any suggestion from the Chief Secretary to give us control of those institutions and at the same time putting extra taxation upon Ireland to maintain them. We are entitled to aid upon a larger scale from the Government for this purpose. It is an extraordinary fact that in reference to the issue of this Circular we have in one paragraph a complete contradiction of the way in which that Circular might have been interpreted. Sir David Harroll says—
  "The Act was devised for the saving of children who, if not rescued from their surroundings; would grow up in vice, and add to the criminality of the country."
  I will ask the right hon. Gentleman if there has ever been a child sent into those industrial schools who does not come under that heading. Here is another statement made in support of the policy
  1014
  which I am advocating. We have the authority of Cardinal Logue, who says:—
  "The only resource now open to children who are not criminals, but who are thrown amongst the criminal classes, would be the workhouse, and I believe that every child who is brought up in an Irish workhouse is a potential criminal; they commenced life in a workhouse and ended it there."
  That is the experience of Cardinal Logue. The McDermott says:—
  "The Act indicates an intention to include a large class who have no visible means of subsistence, and they are the destitute poor. In my opinion it does include them."
  In the face of these opinions it is most extraordinary that the Chief Secretary, who is at the head of the Department, takes the responsibility upon himself of sending out from the industrial schools the children sent there by the local magistrates, who ought to understand the need for sending those children there. What are the facts? The magistrates feel after the issuing of this Circular that if they continued to send those children to the industrial schools they will be immediately pounced upon by the officials at Dublin Castle. After the many months we have been here now, receiving nice civil answers from the Chief Secretary, who gets up in his rollicking, humorous sort of way, and gives us his winning smile and answers in such a sympathetic manner, I have come to the conclusion that he has kissed the Blarney Stone. I think it is full time, in a case of such urgency as this, for the Chief Secretary to free himself from the inertia he seems to be under, and to approach the matter with something like pluck and courage, so that these poor children may be relieved. Children brought up in the workhouse were left with the brand of the union on them. A stigma was placed on them which was objectionable in Ireland. The attitude assumed by Dublin Castle was that they must commit a crime in order to qualify for the reformatory. The reformatory is as objectionable to the Irish people as the poorhouse. This is a non-contentious matter, and notwithstanding what was said by the hon. Member for North Belfast it is a non-sectarian matter. I would certainly ask the Chief Secretary to take the matter seriously in hand, in order to relieve the poor children of the stigma they labour under,

  1015
  and give them the opportunity of earning a livelihood and becoming decent and respectable members of society.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That, in the opinion of this House, the Circular issued by the Lord Lieutenant, in October, 1898, has seriously interfered with the usefulness of the Industrial Schools, and ought to be withdrawn."—(Mr. O'Mara.)
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM, Dover): The mover and seconder of this resolution have twitted me for a certain exuberance of nature, and I will endeavour to curb my propensity in that direction. I can quite understand that even the milk of human kindness is apt to be somewhat insipid if it carries no practical benefit with it, and may seem a kind of sterilised milk from which all the nutritive properties have been extracted. Approaching this question in the spirit hon. Members expect of me, I will try to deal with it in a practical and business-like manner.
  The resolution urges upon the Irish Government the expediency of withdrawing the Circular which was issued many years ago to the magistrates in petty sessions. Before I come to the terms of that resolution and incidentally to the terms of the Circular, I will ask hon. Members to bear with me if I say a few words on the general subject of industrial schools in Ireland. I feel that I must ask the indulgence of the House if I make that proposition, because there are not many British Members in the House, and I dare say I have no news to tell hon. Members from Ireland. Still I think it is my duty and for the convenience of the debate that I should state the view I take on the question of industrial schools in Ireland. It is a question of great and, I would say, peculiar importance to Ireland. I say "peculiar" advisedly, because in this, as in many other material and economic questions, Ireland differs profoundly from Great Britain. It differs, I hold, in respect of the need which has called these industrial schools into being, and it differs also in respect to the conditions which have in Ireland enabled those industrial schools to meet that need and confer great benefit on the country. I have no hesitation in saying that the
  1016
  industrial schools in Ireland have conferred great benefit on that country, with accompanying advantages on the taxpayers. They have conferred on Ireland the benefit of saving many children from a condition which might have precipitated them into crime, and of, I think, in all probability saving the taxpayers large sums, since, if these efforts had not been made by private individuals, they might have had to pay for the melancholy duty of keeping a greater number of criminals within prison walls. Ireland is pre-eminently a poor country. The rateable value of Ireland over wide districts is very much lower, I think, than many people in this country realise. At any rate they do not realise all the indirect consequences of such a low rateable value. For example, the poorhouses, as they are called in Ireland, are not in any case the best ports from which to launch citizens on the voyage of life; but in Ireland, owing to the fact that the rateable value is so low, the poorhouses are often less desirable, more depressing, and more enervating than elsewhere, and certainly they are not the places in which anyone would wish to see a large proportion of children, and yet it is a fact that the percentage of children in Irish workhouses is a very large one. Then again, over the greater part of Ireland there are no industries. There is not in Ireland that opportunity of industrial employment for children which, at any rate, does place around boyhood conditions preferable to the conditions of vagrants. We often hear complaints in this country that children are sweated, and that is very deplorable, and it is the duty of the Legislature so far as it can to strike at this objection; but it is better that children and young persons should be able to earn a livelihood, and that they should be housed and sheltered, and engaged for many hours of the day, than that they should wander about without any visible means of subsistence. Again, if I may point it out, there is another thing we have in this country. We have had compulsory education for more than thirty years. I think everybody must have noticed the disappearance of the ragged school. When I was a small boy one used to see ragged-school boys going about with banners and so forth. They have almost

  1017
  disappeared, because the need for them has ceased to exist, largely on account of compulsory education and the spread of educational institutions in this country. But we have not had compulsory education in Ireland. It only exists there now in a tentative and permissive form and it would have been impossible to introduce it earlier. It is difficult to introduce it now, because in many parts of rural Ireland the population is widely scattered, and it is impossible to enforce or expect regular attendance from all the children.
  Well, all these differences which exist between Ireland and England have, I think, made the need of these institutions and called them into being. Then, again, I was asked a question this afternoon with respect to emigration. In this country it is migration, and there is a migration of able-bodied men from all the purely rural districts; but in Ireland the evil is greater and more deplorable, just because so much of Ireland is purely rural. The result is that in many parts of Ireland which I have visited you only find old people and young children, and you are struck by the absence of able-bodied men in good circumstances, who could give proper guardianship to children. Therefore the natural consequence in Ireland is that you have a greater number of children who have no proper guardianship, in the sense in which we understand it in this country. On the other hand, Ireland is a very charitable country. Private individuals and private communities do come forward in Ireland in a very remarkable degree to supply this public want, and I think I might almost say to avoid what would be a public scandal. Under the Industrial Schools Act of 1868, these institutions grew up in Ireland. They conferred a boon upon Ireland, and they redounded to the credit of the country. I will ask the House to note that that Act was purely preventive in its intention. It was not a disciplinary or correctional measure. I think its preventive character appears from the provisions of the Act. It contains many provisions, and, so far as I am able to discover, it only contains one provision, in Section 13, which authorises the committal of a child who has committed any
  1018
  offence to an industrial school, and that is carefully guarded by the stipulation that the child shall not have committed any serious offence, which means, shall not have committed felony, and only children who have committed minor offences are to be committed to industrial schools. These schools have existed in Ireland for years, and a grant of public money has been made to them in return no doubt for the services they have rendered, and do render, to the State and the community. I have listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. Member for South Tipperary, who suggested, at least in outline, that the county councils might take over the industrial schools, and in a measure substitute them for the poorhouses. I think that was the general outline of his suggestion.
  MR. CULLINAN: I suggested the establishment of industrial training schools under the management of the county councils.
  MR. WYNDHAM: It would be impossible to follow that up in detail this evening, but I think the suggestion is one which deserves consideration if it be practicable. It is clear that a child is better out of the poorhouse than in it. But if I understood the hon. Member, he suggested that no part of the burden should fall on the ratepayers. Evidently, then, any such proposition is one which would have to be carefully gone into, in order that the incidence of the charge might be fairly apportioned. It might be proper to take into account the large private funds given to the industrial schools, as indeed they are taken into account now, because any institution which depends in part on a public grant—as any one who takes an interest in the schools in this country will bear me out—which is earned by capitation has to make up a budget showing how the money has been dealt with. I think we are all agreed that this Industrial Schools Act was passed as a preventative measure. It was not intended as a substitution for, but as an addition to, the Reformatory Schools Act, passed in the same year. In Ireland a child cannot be sent to a reformatory school unless it has been sent to prison for a few days. That is, I think, very regrettable.
  MR. WILLIAM JOHNSTON: That was corrected in 1899.
  MR. WYNDHAM: It is a thousand pities that the stigma of the prison should be given to a child in order to benefit it. It is a most ironic way of benefiting a child. My hon. friend the Member for South Belfast says that was corrected by an Act passed in 1899; but I regret to say that the intentions of that Act could not be carried out owing to some sections in a previous Act not having been repealed. An attempt was made in the Youthful Offenders Bill, introduced last year, which, unfortunately, did not become law, to do away with that deplorable stipulation. The Home Secretary intends to reintroduce that Bill during this session, and I have caused clauses affecting Ireland and embodying suggestions made to my predecessor by the Philanthropic Association to be inserted in it. I hope that that Bill may not be involved in the massacre of the innocents, but if it were I will do my best to get a small measure through embracing these clauses.
  I would like to remove a misconception, as I hold it to be, regarding a speech delivered by my right hon. friend the Attorney General for Ireland two years ago. This Circular, with which the resolution deals, was not intended to affect the responsibility of magistrates to interpret and administer the law of the land. It pointed out that certain abuses had grown up, that children of parents who ought to support them or to make some effort to do so were sent out fictitiously to beg. The Circular only brought this matter of fact to the knowledge of the magistrates. The hon. Gentleman who moved the resolution asked me to withdraw the Circular. But I beg him to consider what interpretation would be given to such an act. The withdrawal of the Circular would be taken as a direction to the magistrates to ignore evidence of these matters of fact. The magistrates have nothing to do but to interpret and administer the Act of 1858, which declares that, if children are found begging or wandering without a settled place of abode or under proper guardianship, or without the means of subsistence, they should be sent to an industrial
  1020
  school. I am not prepared to interfere with the discretion vested in the magistrates, and I do not believe, as a matter of fact, that there has been any error or fault on their part in carrying out the Act. It may be that, owing to the fact that a child cannot be sent to a reformatory school until it has been convicted and sent to prison for a few days, a point has been stretched here and there, and that a child which ought to have gone to a reformatory school has been sent to an industrial school. The temptation to do that is very great, and no great fault can be found with a magistrate for having succumbed to the temptation. But on the evidence which I have examined I cannot come to the conclusion that the Circular obviously led to the results suggested. It is quite true that there was a decrease of 272 in the year 1897–98, and that there was a further decrease in the next year. But in the year 1899–1900 there was an increase of admissions of no less than 167. Therefore, it is quite clear that these fluctuations are due to other causes. I think hon. Members who represent Irish constituencies must allow me for a little longer to cherish the hope that the prosperity of Ireland may increase, and that elementary education in Ireland will increase. If that were so, the time must come when the need for these institutions will not be so great as it now is, and it would not be reasonable to ask any Government to pledge itself to the proposition that under no circumstances should the number of admissions to these institutions be decreased.
  It seems to me that there are only two points which have to be considered. The first is—Does the correct interpretation of the statute imperil these industrial schools? If the law does imperil the existence of these industrial schools, the law must be carried out, no doubt; but as a matter of sound administrative common-sense steps ought to be taken in order to see that these institutions are not imperilled so long as the need for them exists. That is a question of administrative examination to which I shall apply myself. The only other point does not seem to me to have any substance. Of course it is possible that this Circular may have led to misconception—[An HON. MEMBER on the Irish Benches:

  1021
  Mis-administration]—but I do not believe that that is the case. The document may have been misunderstood, but I have no evidence to that effect. I do not believe that that is so. I ask hon. Members to recollect that the duty placed upon magistrates by this Act is not a very easy one. It is not easy to distinguish between the case of a child begging by what I may call force of circumstances and the case of a child who is sent out to beg by its parents. It is quite possible to make a mistake in deciding so nice a point as that. But that is not the end of the difficulty. It would be harder still to decide whether the fact that the parents habitually forced or encouraged the child to beg constituted improper guardianship or not. These are points of law and interpretation which must arise in these cases, but, for my part, I have absolute confidence in the discretion of the magistrates. I do not think it would be wrong, in fact it would be proper for me to discover whether there has been any misconception upon this point. That being so, I am unable to accept the resolution that has been moved. If I accepted the resolution I should countenance a charge for which there is no foundation, namely, that the Executive has sought to influence the administration of justice by that Circular, which was merely intended to bring before the magistrates certain facts. But I am prepared to legislate in order to remove the obligation of sending a child to prison before sending it to a school; and upon looking into this matter, if I find that the law has imperilled an institution so useful as this, then it will be my duty to take whatever administrative measures may e necessary in order that it shall continue so long as it may be necessary.
  MR. DILLON: said he had no hesitation in saying that if the right hon. Gentleman would really act in Dublin Castle in the spirit of the speech which he had just heard there would be no need for legislation to remedy the condition of things of which they complained. But some of them who had watched with interest the development of this case must be pardoned if they said that in their opinion he had not completely mastered the history of the case. Small blame to him, in a sense. He had had many things to face since he
  1022
  went to Ireland, and this was a subject of great complexity. He seemed to be under the impression that whatever mistakes were alleged to have been made by the magistrates before the Circular, they were rather in the direction of giving to poor children the benefit of the doubt and sending them to industrial schools. Well, it was really rather the other way about. The complaint that was made was this—that magistrates had, for thirty years, acted in a broad and liberal spirit, holding that the Act was not a punitive, but a preventive Act, and that destitute children, without proper guardianship, should be, if possible, saved from vice. That was the point, but in order to bring these children within the purview of the Act it was interpreted that they must be guilty of an act against law, and it was alleged that an abuse had arisen by children being sent out to beg. But that was only a technical abuse, because it was to save destitute children that the Act was passed. Yet what had the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor said in February last year? He said, "The real object was to prevent destitution being brought within the purview of the Act." And he also remarked that a number of children had been sent to these schools whose parents were able to support them. As to the latter point, the Irish Members had been willing to meet him by the method of providing that such parents should be compelled to contribute to the support, or rather to pay for the support of their children in these institutions, and would be punished if they did not. In his (Mr. Dillon's) opinion it would be highly injurious to say that there could not be committed the children of drunken parents in order that they might be saved from future ruin. Why was this Circular passed? The Industrial Schools Act was extended to Ireland in the year 1868, when Ireland held a high place as regards immunity from brutal crimes of a more disgusting character, as indeed she still did. But juvenile crime was greater at that period than in England. No wonder. It was due to the fact that after the terrible periods of distress there were tens of thousands of poor children homeless, without parents or anyone to look after them in any way. It was to meet that state of affairs that the Act was passed, and there had never

  1023
  been an Act better justified by its results. Whereas there had been 1,000 children sent to reformatories in some years, last year there were but 500. Half the institutions had been shut up, and he hoped the day was not far distant when one-half of the remainder would also be shut up, as was not unlikely if this Act was only allowed to go on doing its good work. No doubt, of course, reformatory schools were only a degree better than the prisons, but society owed something to these children. What had been the result of the working of these schools? There was very little criticism, it must be admitted—he was speaking of the schools of Ireland—that was not favourable. It was admitted on all hands that they had done wonders. Whereas thirty years ago juvenile vice was so rife, now when in England they were deeply engaged in discussions as to how the growing evil of Hooliganism should be dealt with, in Ireland no such question presents itself for solution. Now, why could not the Government have let the system alone? They could not, however, do that. They had, on the contrary, struck a blow at the very existence of the system. There was no doubt about that, for they had letters placing the facts beyond doubt from nuns and members of various religious bodies who were interested in these questions, and who knew what they were writing about, showing actually how the matter stood in relation to the effect of the Circular upon these institutions. He did not know whether it was known to the House that most of those magnificent buildings, which were splendidly equipped with all the resources for teaching the various branches of industry to the pupils, had been built at enormous expense by private enterprise on the faith that they would be administered in the same spirit that they were for the thirty years past, in which those things had been undertaken. The Circular which was issued in recent years would have the effect of destroying the whole of this great work, and the real object to be achieved by that Circular had been admitted—the saving of a portion of the capitation grant to the Treasury. In view of the uncontroverted and admitted good work which these schools were doing towards the prevention of crime and vice, could anything be imagined
  1024
  more shortsighted and more unwise than this policy of trying to save five or ten thousand a year at the expense of manufacturing criminals for the future? A nun at the head of one of these great institutions in Dublin told him (Mr. Dillon) of the case of two girls whom she was endeavouring to get into her school. They were the children of parents who were confirmed drunkards, and to so terrible a condition were they reduced that frequently at night they had to fly from their home and wander about the streets in order to avoid violence at the hands of their father, and these children were refused committal to the industrial school because they were not associated with criminals. They should be proved by the police to have been associated with criminals, and in horror at the fate that was before these two girls, this lady was obliged to get these two little girls to associate with criminals for a moment, and to get a friendly policeman to swear that he had seen them in the association of criminals, and in this way, by a kind of pious fraud, these poor children were saved from the horrors of the streets and placed in the school. The Chief Secretary stated that the Castle had no power to direct magistrates. That was not the view removable magistrates entertained in Ireland, for one might as well try to move Nelson's Pillar in Dublin as to induce a resident magistrate to go behind a Castle Circular. In many cases, in order to override the decision of magistrates who had independently exercised their rights and sent children to the industrial schools, an order came down from Dublin Castle, and the children were at once driven out of the schools into the workhouses, which, whatever they might be for adults, were the gates of hell for those poor children. For children entering the workhouse what Dante said of hell was really true, "All hope abandon ye who enter here." Was not that nice work for a Government to engage in? He (Mr. Dillon) was glad the Chief Secretary had given a promise to look into this matter, and he felt confident that if the right hon. Gentleman did so he would see that it would be impossible from any point of view to embark on a worse course than to check or mar or limit the work which these industrial schools were doing in the guardianship of destitute children

  1025
  in Ireland. It was the object of the best administration of the industrial school system to catch hold of the children before they were tainted with crime. The object from the beginning of the best and most skilful administrators of the system was to catch the child before it became tainted. He frankly admitted that a large proportion of the children in these schools in Ireland were innocent children—children not tainted with vice. He was speaking to a very enlightened lady recently who was at the head of a great industrial school in his own constituency. Those sympathetic people who worked these industrial schools were very much wiser as regarded the training of children and knew a great deal more about it than any minister. That lady informed him that one really bad child brought into that school of 120 girls would poison them all, and she added that the girls in the school were as innocent of evil as any average collection of girls throughout the land.
  There ought to be classification. One industrial school in Ireland would probably be enough for a certain class of children, but at all events there should be some intelligent classification. In his opinion it would be wrong, and indeed criminal, to force the hand of those intelligent trained and experienced educators and reformers of youth without giving full weight to their views, which were not the views of the people who hesitated to deal with the worst forms of criminality, for those sisters and brothers in Ireland were prepared to undertake the reform of any criminal child with a view to producing the best results, and were also prepared to protect the innocent children entrusted to their care. He was sure the Chief Secretary would approach the subject in a broad spirit. He had always been proud of the industrial schools in Ireland. He took a very great interest in them, and he did not think a more difficult problem could present itself to the mind of man than the best way of dealing with them. He believed there was no country in the world where a wastrel or guardianless child was better cared for than in Ireland. There was an industrial school in Galway managed by that admirable and great body of men, the Christian Brothers, the greatest body of men in their own way in the world. He went into that school
  1026
  very often not long ago, and he ventured to say that in the whole of England a happier, healthier, and more cheerful body of boys could not be seen. One of the saddest things in most of the great schools of England was the listless melancholy of the children. But in that school in Galway the boys had no sense whatever of inferiority or pauperism, and were not in the least ashamed of their position. That was a great triumph for the Brothers. The boys had a beautiful brass band, as good as many military bands, and once a week it played in the square of the school to the delight of the whole town. The boys were proud of their school, and now the people of Galway had invited the band to play twice a week on the promemenade outside the town. These were all small things, but they were most important things. The head of that school informed him, and he was struck with astonishment at it, that he had 150 boys in the school, and had no difficulty in placing them out. There were good carriage builders and excellent tailors among them, and they were engaged in every form of human industry. Attached to the school was a farm for all kinds of farm work, and an excellent football field. The boys were full of the enjoyment of life. The superior said that for every boy he could send out he had twelve applications, and that he never bad to wait a single week to place one of his boys in a good situation.
  He asked the House could there be any better work in any country in the world? This work was well done in Ireland. By all means they invited the Government to test it by the strictest inspection, and also to enforce the law in order to put down any attempt at fraud on the part of parents to have their children cared for at the public expense. When the children of drunkards were taken from them and put into these schools to be away from the contaminating influence of their parents, then let them make the parents pay, and punish them if they would not pay, but let them not destroy the children. Let the children have a chance, and let a work as great as it was beneficent continue unhampered and untrammelled by the law, or by restrictive circulars from Dublin Castle. These poor children had been left waifs and trays in the world through no fault of heir own, and let them be handed over,

  1027
  as they had been handed over in the past, to the charitable, sympathetic, and marvellously successful care of communities of men and women who in Ireland had devoted themselves through charity to the service of the poor.
  *MR. WILLIAM JOHNSTON: I congratulate the hon. Member who introduced this motion on the temperate speech in which he brought the subject before the House. The subject is a very important one, and I have great pleasure in co-operating with hon. Gentlemen opposite in any practical effort to remove the grievances and improve the condition of our native country. I should like to correct a mistake which the hon. Member made when he spoke of the Inspector of Industrial Schools. So far from that gentleman being a stray or a wanderer, he is a Roman Catholic and an Irishman. I have no desire to speak in any obnoxious or hostile way of any Irishman or Roman Catholic, and I should like to say that Dr. John Pagan, the Inspector of Industrial Schools, is an extremely able and intelligent man, and I would commend to the consideration of hon. Members his report for the year ending 31st December, 1899, which can be read in the library. I think the hon. Member went somewhat away from the Circular of 1st October, 1899. That Circular was preceded by one which was issued on the 22nd May, 1896, which was intended to correct abuses that were well known and recognised in many parts of Ireland, where children were sent out to beg in order that they might be sent to these industrial schools. That Circular stated that—
  "orders for such commitals should, whenever possible, be made upon evidence given in open court, and only after remand and inquiry by the police."
  The Circular issued on 1st October, 1898, stated—
  "The constabulary are to make inquiries with regard to children brought up for committal, and the member of the constabulary making the inquiry in each case shall attend before the magistrates and make a deposition, giving the result thereof in detail, so as to enable them to decide….in the interests of the poor children for whose benefit the Act was really intended, but many of whose places in the schools are now filled by quite another class."
  The Circular proceeds—
  "The practice of sending out children to beg or receive alms….is calculated to defeat the intentions of the Act, and is an abuse of its provisions."
  1028
  Surely hon. Members will not advocate sending children into the streets to obtain money under false pretences, in order to get into industrial schools? May I be permitted to quote from the report of Dr. Fagan for the year ending 31st December, 1899. It states—
  "The class of children at present being committed is of a character more in accordance with the spirit of the Industrial Schools Act than has hitherto been the case, and I am pleased to find that managers have not objected to receive such children."
  We all desire to see these industrial schools improved and extended, and I am sure the sympathetic way in which the Chief Secretary has treated the subject shows that he will go thoroughly into it and do what he can, in consultation with both sides of the House, to make the Act even more satisfactory. I have some knowledge of the industrial schools of Belfast, and I should like to quote a few words regarding one of them from the inspector's report—
  "The Balmoral Institution is eminently adapted for its purpose. It is a well-built, well-arranged structure, having most of the essentials required for a school, without any useless adjuncts. There is sufficient land attached, and it is exceptionally well situated, being within easy reach of the city, from which it gets an abundant water supply, gas, etc. The school committee is composed of a most capable and zealous body of gentlemen who, with the aid of their excellent manager, will I am sure make their institution one of the most successful in the country."
  I will not detain the House longer, and will only say that I desire to co-operate with hon. Members in developing and improving these industrial schools. I hope, however, hon. Members will disabuse their minds of any feeling of mistrust in the inspector of these schools because of the few words of commendation which have fallen from me.
  MR. JORDAN: I hope the Chief Secretary will permit me to congratulate him on the sympathetic tone of his speech to-night. Lately my faith in the Chief Secretary has gone down very low. I thought he promised a great deal and did nothing. To-night, however, my faith in him has considerably increased, after what he has said on this question, and I believe that he will fulfil the promise he has given. I fully agree with everything that has been said by my hon. friend the Member for South Kilkenny in relation to the Circular. The administration of

  1029
  statute law in Ireland is bad enough, but circular law is a hundred times worse. Ireland is largely ruled, in my opinion, not by law but by officialism. I want to know who interpreted this law. I cannot see why an interpretation of an Act of Parliament which has been accepted for thirty years should now be upset by the interpretation of some official, and why that interpretation has been given the force of law. One would have thought that no change would have taken place without some Parliamentary inquiry, but all we have had has been the issue of the Circular. Such a great change would not have been made in England without inquiry, and probably not without legislation. Ireland, however, is not ruled as England is; she is ruled in an arbitrary way, legal or otherwise. So far as my experience goes, the magistrates exercise a wise discretion in sending children to industrial schools. When this Circular came to the Enniskillen bench of magistrates, commanding us to change the course of our procedure without any change of law, if I had had my way we would have ignored the Circular, and allowed the authorities to take their own course. I am very glad to be borne out in that view by the Chief Secretary, who says that if a case came before him as a magistrate he would consider it on its merits, irrespective of the Circular. But he is not an Irish magistrate, with a resident magistrate over him. That is the course that I advised my brother magistrates to follow; but we calculated too soon. We had a resident magistrate in the court, and he directed us to obey the unauthorised and unparliamentary Circular. As a matter of course, the magistrates took the law from the resident magistrate, and the resident magistrate took the law from the Circular, and the Circular, over-riding and ignoring the law of the land, was issued by some unknown authority. Under these circumstances, the best thing the Government can do is to withdraw at once this objectionable Circular. The Chief Secretary says that abuses have arisen. If abuses arise they should be corrected, not by a Circular, but by law. I am glad to hear that in the Bill which the Home Secretary is to bring in clauses will be introduced that will to a large extent clear up the matter of the Circular
  1030
  and remedy these abuses. It is very hard that magistrates, who are sworn and are endeavouring to perform their duty, should be compelled to take the interpretation of the law from a resident magistrate, who is paid to carry out, whether right or wrong, the will and behests of Dublin Castle. In view of the tone of the reply of the Chief Secretary, I think we ought to trust him before we take any further drastic action.
  MR. RENTOUL: I think, especially after the remarks of the last speaker, that hon. Gentlemen opposite will consider that they have served their purpose in having had a full discussion and obtained acknowledgments from all sides of the House as to the value of these institutions. If, however, this matter is pressed to a division, we shall be obliged to vote against the resolution. ["Why?"] Simply because a very wrong construction would be put upon our action—namely, that Dublin Castle had issued a highly improper Circular and one attempting to interfere with the administration of the law. The notice of motion was "to call attention to the question of industrial schools in Ireland." That has been done very thoroughly, and I think with great advantage to all present. But then the motion goes on to say—
  "That, in the opinion of this House, the Circular issued by the Lord Lieutenant in October, 1898, has seriously interfered with the usefulness of the industrial schools, and ought to be withdrawn."
  That is a thing that some of us, at any rate, do not in the least degree believe. It seems to me that some hon. Gentlemen who have been talking about this Circular have not actually read it at all; their remarks cannot be accounted for in any other way. The Circular is simply "to call the attention" of the magistrates—there is never any harm in calling the attention of any man to a subject—"to the fact that these schools are in some instances being used for children for whom they were never intended." That is admittedly the case. If the schools were not intended for children who ought be admitted, then the law requires to be changed, but certainly to teach children a lesson of downright dishonesty as a foundation to teaching them honesty in these schools is an absurdity indeed. The Circular then suggests that thorough inquiry should be made into each case, and

  1031
  that the result of the inquiry should be placed before the magistrates. There can be nothing wrong from any possible point of view in that.
  MR. O'MARA: Read the remainder of the Circular—where it lays down the law.
  MR. RENTOUL: Certainly—
  "In order to carry out the Act more effectively His Excellency desires me to repeat the suggestion made to the magistrates by the Circular dated 21st May, 1896, that detention orders should, whenever possible, be made upon evidence given in open court."
  MR. O'MARA: I call that an interference with the magistrates.
  MR. RENTOUL: The hon. Member may call it whatever he likes, but it is a very peculiar bench of magistrates who would regard that as an interference. The hon. Member who spoke last said that he agreed with the Chief Secretary that magistrates should have ignored the Circular. Therefore an intelligent magistrate like the hon. Member understood at once that the Circular was not law, because we all know that he would be the last to defy the law of the land. He simply regarded it as a suggestion. The hon. Member for East Mayo referred to the effect of the Circular upon the magistrates. He divided magistrates into two classes—the resident magistrates and the ordinary magistrates. He certainly placed a very low estimate on the intelligence of the ordinary magistrates. As far as they were concerned, he took them to be a very unintelligent lot of men who would misunderstand this Circular; while with regard to the resident magistrates, he suggested, not that they misunderstood the Circular, but that they were afraid to disobey it as it came from Dublin Castle. We are told that Dublin Castle desired improperly to influence these resident magistrates. If the Lord Lieutenant had any such desire, it seems to me that he could have secured his object in another way rather than by a Circular published in the face of the country. The hon. Member speaks of this Circular as an interpretation of the law. It does not contain a single word which can be said to interpret the law in any way whatever. It seems to me that to withdraw a perfectly harmless and very useful Circular would be a course which could not for one moment be supported on this side of the House, and, therefore, if the motion is pressed to a division, the mover will seemingly get a vote against the administration of the
  1032
  industrial schools in Ireland, which is certainly a thing none of us desire to give.
  MR. FIELD: The hon. Member who has last addressed the House generally lectures us upon our want of understanding, and he says that we do not understand this question. But some of us do understand the subject. I was on the deputation to the Chief Secretary last year, and I remember distinctly that this matter was brought forward not alone by the Catholics, but also by the Protestants, and the head of the Protestant school of Belfast made a very bitter complaint about the Circular. The result of this Circular has been enormously to decrease the number of committals. In 1897 there were 1,415 committals in Ireland; in 1899 there were only 955. In Dublin City in 1897 there were 337 committals; in 1898 there were 219; and in 1899 there were only 94, or just one-fourth of the number in 1897. I have no intention, of travelling over the ground which has already been covered, but I wish to give the House the benefit of my personal experience, as one who takes an interest in this subject. I believe the Circular was an undue interference with the authority of the magistrate. I do not care what view is put forward by the Chief Secretary or by any legal gentlemen; the fact remains that this Circular was looked upon by the magistrates in Ireland as an order from the Lord Lieutenant to stop the committals of children to the industrial schools. I agree with the Attorney General that in some instances there may have been abuse, but let us look at the question in its larger issues. What is the fact? There never was an Act of Parliament passed by this House so beneficent in its results to Ireland as this Industrial Schools Act. As a result of its operations child crime in Ireland has been almost entirely stopped. The Lord Lieutenant is a common-sense gentleman—more so than most Lord Lieutenants—and I believe that he was led into the issue of this Circular by some officials who did not exactly understand what they were doing. For my part, I would say that if the Chief Secretary will give a definite undertaking to have a full, clear, and public examination into this matter we will not press the motion to a division; but, assuredly, unless we receive some such promise we will not

  1033
  withdraw the resolution. The Chief Secretary has stated that the number of committals last year was greater than in the previous year. The reason of that is that in the previous year there was a debate on the subject in the House, deputations waited upon the Chief Secretary, the press took the matter up, and public attention was focussed on the subject. We have nothing to conceal, and if hon. Members are prepared to advocate that the Circular should be upheld, let them have the courage of their conviction and stand up in favour of it in this House. I am quite sure that the Chief Secretary had no idea that the consequences of issuing this Circular would have been so serious. As I have pointed out before, every class of industrial school has been more or less affected, and surely a Circular of this kind should not be allowed to interfere with the law of the land. I hope we shall have some assurance from the Chief Secretary or the Attorney General that a public examination of this question will be held, and if such an assurance is given we shall have no desire to divide the House. Unless some definite assurance is given, of a satisfactory nature we are pledged to follow this matter to an issue.
  *SIR JOHN COLOMB: As an Irish magistrate, perhaps I may be allowed to say one or two words on this question. The motion before the House is that a certain Circular issued by the Lord Lieutenant in October, 1898, has seriously interfered with the usefulness of the industrial schools, and ought to be withdrawn. The reason why we are asked to vote for this motion is that we have no assurance from the Government that there will be an inquiry into the working of the Industrial Schools Act. I fail to see the connection between this argument and the motion. All I know is that the Circular was very necessary. [Nationalist cries of "No, No."] I am only expressing my own opinion, and I say that it was a very necessary Circular because both the taxpayers and the ratepayers in Ireland were beginning to find themselves over-burdened by paying rates for industrial schools in support of children who should not have been sent to those schools at all. That was the complaint of the ratepayers. [A NATIONALIST MEMBER; It was not.] I am simply speaking of my own experience, and I assert that it was the complaint of the
  1034
  ratepayers that they were unduly taxed in this respect. [A NATIONALIST MEMBER: Where?] In Kerry, in the Kenmare district. The Circular does not tell the magistrates how to interpret the law, and it merely draws attention to complaints made from certain districts. The Circular does not affect the interpretation of the law in any way. It merely draws the attention of the magistrates to the necessity for very careful inquiry before they commit children to industrial schools. That is the whole pith and gist of the Circular. The hon. Member who has just sat down spoke of this Circular as being an instruction to the magistrates not to commit any children to industrial schools, but there is not a word in the Circular to justify such an assertion. The hon. Member for South Fermanagh said the magistrates took their law from the Lord Lieutenant, but that is not so. I have met a good many magistrates in Ireland, and I am sure they would resent any interference with their own interpretation of the law. Irish magistrates can read for themselves, and put their own interpretation upon the law. While I admit that there is some necessity for an Inquiry into the whole question of industrial schools in Ireland, I shall most cheerfully go into the lobby against hon. Members opposite, because I am of opinion that the Circular should not be withdrawn. On the contrary, I believe it is a proper Circular, issued in the interests of the Irish people.
  *MR. HEMPHILL: I think the argument used by the hon. and gallant Member for Yarmouth demonstrates clearly the effect of this Circular upon magistrates. One of the main arguments in favour of this motion is that the Circular prevents magistrates doing what they have been in the habit of doing.
  *SIR JOHN COLOMB: The gist of my argument was that the Circular merely called attention to what the law was, and called upon the magistrates to see that the law was carried out.
  *MR. HEMPHILL: The magistracy of Ireland are a very intelligent body, and if they were not they would have no business to be magistrates. There is no question that the effect of the Circular is to tie the hands of the magistrates, and prevent them administering this useful Act in the manner which they have previously done. There is one passage in

  1035
  the Circular to which I do not think sufficient attention has been called. The Circular sets forth that—
  "In order to remove any misunderstanding his Excellency desires me to explain that he is advised that the Act was designed for the saving of children who, if not rescued, would grow up in vice."
  That is completely out of place in a Circular issued to magistrates. Their jurisdiction ought to be altogether independent of Dublin Castle. The law invests them with certain powers, and it has not invested Dublin Castle with any control over them. If the magistrates go beyond the law or disobey it, the remedy is in the Court of King's Bench, and a Circular like this, giving instruction upon an Act of Parliament nearly twenty-eight or twenty-nine years after the statute was enacted, is obviously issued with the intention of swaying the Bench, and interfering with the free exercise of their jurisdiction. In England magistrates would never tolerate a Circular from the Home Office telling them what an Act of Parliament meant. If they require assistance they can get it, and they can state a case for the opinion of the Court of King's Bench if necessary. This Circular gives a particular instruction to the magistrate not contained within the limits of the Act, and it goes behind the statute in order to state what the design of the statute was, although it is the duty of the Bench to interpret the statute as it is written. There never was a simpler statute, and I do hope that many hon. Members opposite will have the courage to vote in support of the authority of the magistrates in Ireland, and declare that the officials at Dublin Castle have no right to interfere with the construction which they in the exercise of their judgment may place upon any statute. There is not a word in the Act which states that the intention was simply to rescue children from evil surroundings. It is the function of a magistrate to satisfy himself upon the evidence, and no one ought to interfere with the exercise of his judgment upon that evidence. Even supposing that a particular case was included in the particular categories mentioned in the Act, the magistrate has still to determine whether it is expedient to deal with the case under the Act. Undoubtedly the words of the Circular are calculated to influence the magistrates, and since it was issued the manner in which the
  1036
  Act has been administered for the last thirty years has undergone a change. The figures quoted by the hon. Member who moved this resolution show what the effect of the Circular has been. There were 1,400 children, male and female, in the industrial schools in 1897, but after the issuing of this Circular that total fell in 1899 to 900. That speaks far more conclusively than any argument which has yet been put forward by hon. Members opposite. We have also a further statement that the number of children in Dublin sent to the industrial school after the issuing of this Circular was reduced by 75 per cent. I am willing to believe that the intention of the Government was not to divert so far the Act from its original intention. One of the things we are continually complaining of is that in Ireland the law is always being meddled with, and it is not allowed to take its natural course. The House of Commons often passes good and reasonable laws, but when they get across the channel they are interfered with by Circulars from the castle. The stipendiary magistrates are given all the power, and the unpaid magistrates are mere puppets in their hands. Like many other Circulars which have emanated from Dublin Castle this Circular interferes with the proper exercise of judicial discretion by the magistrates of Ireland. Undoubtedly the speech of the Chief Secretary for Ireland to-night was most sympathetic, and I believe that the most irreconcilable of the hon. Members below the gangway would be quite satisfied if the Chief Secretary could have his own way in the management of the affairs of Ireland. If this Circular is an innocent document why not withdraw it? If it is not intended to control the magistrates why leave it in force? There is more in this than hon. Members from England can appreciate. This interference, this meddling with every department in every way, and with the administration of justice in Ireland is the radical cause of all the troubles and misfortunes of that country, and of the irreconcilable discontent, which to my knowledge, instead of being diminished as time goes on, is burning more intensified from year to year.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: I think everybody interested in the existence and welfare of the industrial schools system in Ireland has reason to congratulate himself upon the course of this debate, and certainly hon. Members

  1037
  on this side of the House and my hon. friend who initiated this debate have reason to congratulate themselves. I listened with the greatest possible interest to the speech of the Chief Secretary, and I have come to the conclusion that this debate is likely to have a beneficial effect upon the subject in question. There is no Member of the House more alive to the fact that "soft words butter no parsnips" than I am, and certainly hon. Members on this side of the House have in recent years, while receiving many soft assurances of sympathy, got very little practical benefit for their country; and in listening to the Chief Secretary's speech I endeavoured to extract as far as I could something practical out of it. We have had from beginning to end sympathetic speeches—we have been accustomed to them; but I saw in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman something practical; and it is because I think I detected some practical promise on his part that I believe we are likely to derive some benefit from this debate.
  If I understood the right hon. Gentleman correctly, he has given to the House and to Ireland what amounts to three practical promisesor assurances. The first is with reference to the law dealing with reformatories. He has stated that the Home Secretary is introducing a Bill, and that he has induced the Home Secretary to introduce into it certain clauses dealing with Ireland which will remove the hateful state of the law which necessitates the sending of a child to prison before it can be sent to a reformatory; and he has stated further that if through pressure of business the Home Secretary is unable to pass that Bill into law this session, he will embody these clauses in a separate Bill, and will then use his influence to have that separate Bill passed into law this session. That, of course, does not go very far, some people may think; but it is, so far as it goes, a valuable promise given by the right hon. Gentleman. The second promise which, as I understand, he desired to make was this. He contends that this Circular has not been misunderstood in Ireland by the magistrates, and his second promise is that he will institute some inquiry—I do not ask him to state in what way—to ascertain whether our contention is right or not, and if he finds we are right in the matter he will take such action as may be necessary, either by the issue of a new Circular or in some other way, to
  1038
  remove the misapprehension or to set the matter right. I gather that I have not misrepresented the statement of the right hon. Gentleman. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman has given on this point to the House and to Ireland a promise which I regard as of very great importance. The third promise which I understood the right hon. Gentleman made to the House was, if possible, more important than either of the first two. It was this. He declared, of course, that the law must be maintained, but he said it was his firm conviction that the institution of these industrial schools was a most valuable institution, and one which should not be allowed to be destroyed, and if he found by the operation of the law that these institutions were being destroyed, that it would be his duty, by some such administrative action as was open to him, to preserve these institutions from destruction. I regard that also as a very important promise made by the right hon. Gentleman, and one that will be taken note of widely in Ireland, and one which, I think, justifies me in the statement with which I commenced—that this debate has been productive of a good deal of benefit. We will now await the development of the question. We will see what the right hon. Gentleman will do, and how soon he will take action in order to redeem his promise. Having made these clear and definite promises to us, I do not think we would be right if we went to a division, and I would suggest to my hon. friend who moved this motion, and who was instrumental in raising this valuable debate, that he should withdraw his motion, and I would recommend the friends of the industrial schools in Ireland to carefully watch developments in the future, and see how soon the right hon. Gentleman will take practical action to carry his promises into effect.
  MR. O'MARA: In view of the promises that have been made by the Chief Secretary, and on account of the appeal made to me by the leader of my party, I beg leave to withdraw the motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  CONTINUATION SCHOOLS.
  *MR. SAMUEL SMITH: called attention to the question of continuation schools. He had brought the subject before the House on many occasions, and a resolution which he moved some years ago was carried unanimously. Since then there had been an enormous

  1039
  development, He was glad to say that, whereas twelve years ago the number of children attending continuation schools was only 30,000, the number now was 474,000. He was told that, owing to the Cockerton judgment, no less than 150,000 might have to be dismissed, except in so far as they might be provided for in the legislation announced that day. He hoped that the Education Bill would contain provisions of a very clear and explicit kind. He thought they were all agreed that to withdraw a child from school after reaching the age of thirteen meant a great waste. If children left school at that age they were often under no control; they wandered about the streets, and frequented public-houses and low music-halls. Out of that class came the modern Hooligan, of whom there was a large number in the metropolis. He had inquired into the whole system of elementary education in Germany, and he found that pupils were generally required to attend evening schools until they were seventeen years of age. Older boys attended these continuation schools two or three evenings a week, and the result was that Germany did not possess the class of Hooligan we had in this country. There was nothing more serious for a child than to be turned adrift at thirteen, and allowed to roam about the streets in large towns, unchecked and unhindered. He would like to quote some remarks that fell from the President of the National Union of Teachers last month—
  "The Hooligan or street blackguard is not a sudden growth; he is the result of street education…. The thoughtful student of modern life sees nothing sadder than the crowds of boys and girls in the streets late at night, exposed to many and serious dangers, acquiring evil habits, and generally laying the foundation of a life of idleness, vice, or crime. Even the little ones, who ought to be at home in the care of their parents, are found in the streets in charge of those scarcely older than themselves. The bad manners which some of the critics ascribe to the elementary schools are really the consequence of this. The boisterous, rude behaviour, the vulgar and coarse language and the inculcation of positively sinful deeds, are facts which must be faced and fought…. What kind of parents would allow their little ones to sleep out night after night without taking the trouble even to enquire for them at the police station? Ask at any police office how far this is true. Is a man a father who permits or compels his child, under the pretence of selling matches, papers, or like things, to bring him money to spend on drink? And there are mothers! When we think of 'mother' what endearing and noble images arise in the mind, yet there are mothers so degraded, so utterly unworthy of their name
  1040
  so lost to all sense of their duties and privileges, that savage women ignorant of Christianity are in such respects their superiors After thirty years of educational effort why is it that with these parents the standard of duty is so low? Why has a lad or girl no nobler sense of enjoyment than that which comes from riotous conduct in the streets? Thoughtful consideration gives the reply, because they have no homes. Until self-respect leavens the being, and until that is founded on decent conditions of daily life, progress is impossible. Decency is almost impossible where families are herded together."
  That was a plain statement from a man of practical judgment, and it was true more or less that we had a semi-savage, semi-criminal class in all our large towns. He had often thought we should never exterminate that class until we insisted on the prolonged education of children. What really was required by these children was discipline, and the evening schools provided this for some years longer than was possible in the day schools. He would give the substance of his argument in a few lines which he would quote from. Dr. Paton, of Nottingham—
  "First we build up at an immense expense a colossal system of primary education, and then see and allow the results of it to be very largely wasted and lost. Teachers speak dismally of the havoc to the fruit of their labours in the first two years after school is left. The garden which by daily culture has been brought into such an admirable and promising condition is given over to utter neglect; the money, the time, the labour bestowed upon it are lost. We cease to educate at the most important, most plastic, most receptive period of life,"
  That was written a few years ago. Our educational system had been gradually improving. If the Vice-President of the Council had been present he was sure the right hon. Gentleman would have given a sympathetic reply, but in his absence the hon. Member thought the best thing he could do was to move the resolution standing in his name.
  MR. WM. JONESformally seconded the motion.
  Motion made, and Question proposed. "That, in view of the vast number of children whose education ceases at thirteen years of age or less, and in view of the increase of youthful offenders in the metropolis, owing in large measure to the absence of parental control and to the licence of the streets, it is desirable to extend the advantage of evening continuation schools to the whole child population, and to require the attendance in the case of boys to the age of sixteen for at least two evenings per week."—(Mr. Samuel Smith.)
  It being midnight, the debate stood adjourned.
  Adjurned at one minute after Twelve of the Clock.

EARL OF DONOUGHMORE.
  LORD FARNHAM.
  Reports made from the LORD CHANCELLOR, that the right of Richard Walter John, Earl of Donoughmore, and Arthur Kenlis, Baron Farnham, to vote at the elections of Representative Peers for Ireland has been established to the satisfaction of the Lord Chancellor; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

  PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:
  Gateshead and District Tramways.
  The same was ordered to lie on the Table.

  STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEES.
  Report from, That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the
  London United Tramways Bill
  ought to be dispensed with, provided that the powers to construct Tramways Nos. 2, 2A, 3, 3A, 4, 4A, 5, 5A, 6, 6A, 7, 7A, 7B, 8, 16, 17, 18, and 18A be struck out of the Bill.
  Read and agreed to.

  CITY AND NORTH-EAST SUBURBAN ELECTRIC RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
  Petition of Messrs. Hollams, Sons, Coward, and Hawksley, of Mincing Lane, in the City of London, solicitors praying for leave to present a petition of the Trustees of the Wesleyan Methodist Missionary Society, praying to be heard by counsel against the Bill, although the time limited by Standing Order No. 92 for presenting such petition has expired; read, and ordered to lie upon the Table; and Standing Order No. 92 to be considered on Thursday next in order to its being dispensed with.
  SOUTH WESTERN AND ISLE OF WIGHT JUNCTION RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
  The King's consent signified; and Bill reported from the Select Committee with Amendments.
  DOVER HARBOUR BILL [H.L.]
  Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, no parties having appeared in opposition thereto; read, and ordered to lie on the Table; the orders made on the 8th of March and Tuesday last discharged; and the Bill committed.
  BOLTON CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
  Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, no parties having appeared in opposition thereto; read, and ordered to lie on the Table; the orders made on the 8th of March and Tuesday last discharged; and Bill committed.
  HEYWOOD AND MIDDLETON WATER BOARD BILL [H.L.] RUGBY WATER AND IMPROVEMENT BILL [H.L.] LLAND GAS BILL [H.L.] LOWESTOFT CORPORATION BILL [H.L.] WOLVERHAMPTON AND CANNOCK CHASE RAILWAY BILL. GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY BILL. MIDLAND RAILWAY BILL.
  Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Lord Saye and Sele be proposed to the House as a member of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Lord Penrhyn; read, and agreed to.
  COLWYN BAY AND COLWYN URBAN DISTRICT GAS BILL.
  Read 2a, and committed.
  CORK, BLACKROCK, AND PASSAGE RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
  Read 2a (according to order).
  LONDON (CITY) SCHOOL FOR ORPHANS OF FREEMEN BILL [H.L.]
  Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
  THAMES DEEP WATER DOCK BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 11) BILL [H.L.] (No. 66.)
  A Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the Electric Lighting Acts, 1882 and 1888, relating to Bromsgrove, Goole, Ilkley, Lyndhurst, the extension of the area of supply of the Midland Electric Corporation for Power Distribution (Limited), Northwood and Ruislip, Rick-mansworth, Rishton, Great Harwood, and Clayton-le-Moors and Warwick.

  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 12) BILL [H.L.] (No. 67.)
  A Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the Electric Lighting Acts, 1882 and 1888, relating to Lewisham and Penge.
  Were presented by the Earl of Hard-wicke (for the Earl of Dudley); read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners.

  TRAMWAYS CONSENTS OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES).
  Petition against amendment of Standing Order No. 22; of Westminster Corporation; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
  PRESENCE OF THE SOVEREIGN IN PARLIAMENT.
  The evidence taken before the Select Committee from time to time to be printed for the use of Members of the Committee; but no copies thereof to be delivered except to Members of the Committee until further order.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND).
  Report of the Committee of Council on Education in Scotland; with Appendix, 1900–1901.

  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  No. 2588.

  Turkey (Vilayets of Trebizond and Sivas);

  No. 2589.

  Denmark (Faroe Islands);

  No. 2590.

  Stockholm and Eastern Coast of Sweden.

  Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  PRISONS (ENGLAND AND WALES) (VISITING COMMITTEES).
  Rules approved by the Secretary of State for the Home Department under the Prison Acts, 1877 and 1898, with respect to the constitution of the Visiting Committee of Hull Prison.

  PUBLIC RECORDS (BOARD OF TRADE: GENERAL REGISTER AND RECORD OFFICE OF SHIPPING AND SEAMEN).
  Second Schedule containing a list and particulars of classes of documents which exist or accrue in the office of the Registrar-General of Shipping and Seamen (under the general superintendence and control of the Board of Trade), or which have been removed therefrom and deposited in the Public Record Office, but which are not considered of sufficient public value to justify their preservation in the Public Record Office.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), to lie on the Table.
  House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before Five of the clock to Thursday next, half-past Ten of the clock,