Sitting of 4 December 1902

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.
The Clerk at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence of the Chairman of Ways and Means.
PETITIONS.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petitions against: From Wem; Swansea; and Dunfermline; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  Copy presented, of Report of the Committee on Mercantile Cruisers [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  NAVY (WATER-TUBE BOILERS).
  Copy presented, of Report on Trials of H. M. S. "Sheldrake," H. M. S. "Seagull," H. M. S. "Espiègle," and H. M. S. "Fantôome" (with diagrams) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  SUPERANNUATIONS.
  Copy presented, of Treasury Minute, dated 1st December, 1902, declaring that for the due and efficient discharge of the duties of the office of Scientific Adviser in the Fisheries Branch of the Department of Agriculture, Ireland, professional or other peculiar qualifications not ordinarily to be acquired in the Public Service are requisite [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TEACHERS (SUPERANNUATION) RULES (JERSEY).
  Copy presented, of Rules made under The Elementary School Teachers (Superannuation) Act, 1898, as extended by the Elementary School Teachers Superannuation (Jersey) Act, 1900 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  INEBRIATES ACTS (INSPECTOR'S REPORT).
  Copy presented, of Report of the Inspector under the Inebriates Acts, 1879 to 1900, for the year 1901 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  SPIRITS (ABERDEEN, ELGIN, AND INVERNESS).
  Return ordered, "for the collection of Aberdeen, Elgin, and Inverness, relating to spirits, giving (1) the stock of spirits in bond at the 31st day of March, 1901; (2) total spirits bonded from the 31st day of March, 1901, to the 31st day of March, 1902; (3) total spirits cleared from bond from the 31st day of March, 1901, to the 31st day of March, 1902."—(Mr. Gordon.)
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Rabies in Dogs brought from Abroad.
  MR. CHANNING: To ask the President of the Board of Agriculture if he will say what were the dates of the two cases of rabies in dogs imported from the Continent since the order of 1897; from what countries the dogs were imported, and how long after their landing in this country the disease was detected, and, in the case of the dog brought back by its owner with a licence from the Board, how long the dog had been abroad; under what circumstances and in what place, the owner's house or a veterinary establishment, the disease was detected; and whether the owner attempted to conceal the disease or gave aid to the authorities.
  (Answered by Mr. Hanbury.) The two cases of rabies to which the hon. Member refers occurred in December, 1898, and April, 1899, in dogs brought respectively from France and Gibraltar. In the one case nearly three months elapsed between the landing of the dog and the detection of the disease, and in

  1303
  the other there was an interval of a fortnight. The dog which has been taken abroad had remained abroad for fifteen months. In both cases the dog was detained on private premises, and in neither was there any attempt at the concealment of the disease, its existence being reported in the one case by the owner and in the other by the veterinary surgeon who had been called in.

  Island of Lewis—Water Supply.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Lord Adocate, in view of the fact that the water available at Valtos, Uig, Ness, Coulregrein, Bragar, and the east end of Leurbost, Island of Lewis, is of an unsatisfactory character, will he say when wells with force-pumps will be supplied.
  (Answered by Mr. A. Graham Murray.) I am informed that a well with a force pump was constructed two months ago at Valtos, Uig; that samples of water taken from Ness were not considered quite satisfactory, an accordingly the District Committee are endeavouring to secure a good spring in a central spot before constructing a well; that tenders have been invited for a well at Coulregrein; and that both at Bragar and the east end of Leurbost a well is in course of construction, while another well with a force pump was constructed at the west end of Leurbost about three months ago.

  Ross-shire Roads.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Lord Advocate whether the Secretary for Scotland is aware that the Western District Committee for Ross and Cromarty recently received a memorial from a public meeting at Applecross, Ross-shire, pointing out that, although the people of the townships of Camusheel, Ardhu, Ardbain and Coillieghillie are rated for the upkeep and maintenance of highways, no footpath of any kind exists for the connection of those townships with one another or with the main road; and, seeing that the people have offered free labour with a view to secure the construction of the required paths, will he say whether the Congested Districts Board are prepared to provide a grant in aid of the work.
  (Answered by Mr. A. Graham Murray.) I am informed by the Congested Districts
  1304
  Board that on 13th November they received an application from the Western District Committee of Ross for grants in aid of the construction of these paths, and that they are making the inquiries necessary to enable them to come to a decision.

  House of Commons—Alterations in News Room.
  SIR HENRY FOWLER: To ask the hon. Member for North Hunts if the First Commissioner of Works will, before the commencement of next session, consider whether the news room can be made available for the convenient accommodation of a larger number of Members.
  (Answered by Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.) The First Commissioner of Works has given instructions for fitting glazed screens to the windows of this room as in the smoking room for the prevention of draughts. An additional rack for papers will be provided, also two more armchairs. The large round table will be removed.

  Provision for Aged Auxiliary Postmen.
  MR. LLOYD MORGAN: To ask the Postmaster General whether his attention has been called to the case of rural and other postmen who have spent the greater portion of their lives in post office work and are compelled to resign owing to old age; and whether, seeing that in some instances the condition of service of these men disqualifies them for any award under the Superannuation Acts, and that in some cases auxiliary postmen are thus left destitute, he will consider the question of introducing legislation with the object of providing some pension or gratuity for them.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) No, Sir. The position of the postal servants referred to in the Question does not differ from that of many employees of other Departments of the States, and it is evident that the Postmaster General cannot initiate separate legislation on the subject.

  Australian Mail Service.
  MR. JOSEPH HOWARD: To ask the Postmaster General whether he can explain why the

  1305
  New Zealand and Australian mails are kept back at New york and sent by a New York line of steamers; and also whether he will make representations to the United States postal authorities of the inconvenience caused by this means to British traders, and point out the importance of sending on the mails by the first available steamer.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) I have no knowledge of any such detention as is described in the Question. On the contrary, the mails in question are understood to be sent on from New York by the steamer which will secure their earliest arrival in this country. During the present year the Australasian mails have been brought to this country from New York more frequently by the British steamers of the Cunard Line than by those of any other company, but they do not always reach New York in time for the Saturday despatch. There does not appear to be any case to represent to the United States Post Office.

  Pacific Cable.
  SIR EDWARD SASSOON: To ask the Postmaster General, as representing the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether he will consider the advisability of arranging with the Pacific Cable Board that, in the interval before opening the Pacific cable to public traffic, or at any other early and convenient date, the consulting engineers to the Board should conduct a series of speed trials over the Vancouver to Fanning Island cable to ascertain, in the interest of scientific knowledge, how many letters per minute this cable is capable of carrying under the simplex and duplex conditions of working, and under either or both of these conditions, when an automatic curb is employed, and whether a report of such trials, together with the final tests after the laying of this cable, can be made public.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain, for the Secretary of State for the Colonies.) I am glad to be able to say that the cable has been laid in perfect condition and that the tests for insulation and conductivity are satisfactory. The consulting engineers of the Pacific Cable Board have conducted a series of speed trials over the Vancouver to Fanning section of the cable. These tests show that the cable is capable of carrying eighty-five letters a minute with
  1306
  hand working, one hundred letters a minute with automatic curb working, and, approximately, one hundred and sixty-eight letters a minute (eighty-four letters each way) with duplex and curbed automatic working. These tests exceed the anticipations of the expert witnesses who gave evidence before the Pacific Cable Committees.

  South Africa—Trade Mark Fees
  MR, PRICE: To ask the Postmaster General, as representing the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether he is aware that a manufacturer wishing to register a trade mark throughtout British South Africa would have to pay separate fees for each of the five Colonies, amounting altogether to £70 or thereabouts, and whether he will consider the advisability of consulting with the Governments of those Colonies with a view to their arriving at some joint arrangement in this matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain, for the Secretary of State for the Colonies.) The question is one affecting the internal revenue of the several Colonies, with which His Majesty's Government are unable to interfere.

  Canadian and Australian Bounties on Beet Sugar.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: To ask the Postmaster General, as representing the Secretary of State for the Colonies, does the province of Ontario, in the Dominion of Canada, grant any, and, if so, what bounties on the production or export of sugar, or of sugar products, or other analogous products containing in a notable proportion sugar artificially incorporated, and, if so, what is the rate of such bounty; does Queensland grant any such bounties, and, if so, what is the rate thereof; and do any of the other countries included in the self-governing Colonies of the British Empire grant such bounties.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain for the Secretary of State for the Colonies.) Ontario grants a temporary and limited bounty for three years only on the production of beet sugar, the term of three years expiring at the end of 1903; Queensland does not grant any such

  1307
  bounties. The grant of bounties in Australia is now subject to the control of the Federal Legislature. No such bounties are granted in any other of the self-governing Colonies.

  Colonial Bounties on Agrcultural Products.
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY (Somersetshire, S.): To ask the Postmaster General, as representing the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether he will give a Return showing the bounties paid by the self-governing or Crown Colonies, directly or indirectly, on the production or export of agricultural products, and stating the amount of such bounty paid on each separate article in each Colony.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain, for the Secretary of State for the Colonies.) Yes, Sir.

  North-Eastern Railway—Haxey Level Crossing.
  MR. SEYMOUR ORMSBY-GORE: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that a level crossing of the projected Isle of Axholme Railway to be constructed by the North-Eastern Railway in that district traverses the main street of the village of Haxey; and whether, in view of the opposition of the Haxey Parish Council to the crossing, he can take any steps to have the railway diverted from the centre of the village.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) The railway was authorised by an Order under the Light Railways Act in 1899, and the Order contains no provision enabling the Board of Trade to divert the railway. No opposition to the Order appears to have proceeded from the Haxey Parish Council.

  Salmon Fisheries' Commission Report.
  MR. RICHARD CAVENDISH: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he intends to introduce a Bill next session to carry out the recommendations contained in the Report of the Salmon Fisheries' Commission.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) I am afraid I am not in a position to give any undertaking in this subject.

  Brussels Sugar Convention.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: To ask the President of the Board of Trade can he give the reference to any passage either in the Brussels Sugar Convention itself or in any of the proces-verbaux, or in any other document, showing that where any doubts exist as to the interpretation of a Clause in the Convention, reference is to be made to the proces-verbal.
  (Answered by Lord Cranborne.) Where a Treaty is the result of a Conference the instrument is always interpreted in the light of the proces-verbaux. But I must not be understood to suggest that any doubt arises on the text of the Sugar Convention itself, that we are in any circumstances under any obligation to penalise sugar from a British self-governing Colony.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: To ask the President of the Board of Trade is he aware that on the 17th December, 1901, the delegate of His Majesty's Government to the Sugar Conference at Brussels declared that even if bounties on sugar were abolished the Cartels with the surtax would re-establish their inconveniences; and will he state what steps His Majesty's Government propose to take in order to procure the abolition either of the Cartels or of the surtax.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) The declaration refered to related to the operation of Cartels in the absence of any limitation of surtax. Article III. of the Convention provides for the limitation of the surtax to an amount which the Conference considered would not permit of the re-establishment of the inconveniences resulting from bounties.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the statement by the Danish Minister of Finance that, in his opinion, England would be obliged, by the terms of the Sugar Convention, to levy countervailing duties on bounty-fed sugar for her self-governing Colonies and India; and what steps he proposes to take, before ratifying the Treaty, to secure that no such obligation will rest on the British Government.

  1309
  (Answered by Lord Cranborne.) The hon. Member probably refers to the proceedings in the Dutch Second Chamber. As already stated, in the opinion of His Majesty's Government no such obligation rests upon His majesty's Government.

  Navy—Practice Ammunition—Gunnery Regulations.
  MR. MOON: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, whether the Admiralty propose to make any alteration in the gunnery regulations in the direction of authorising an increased allowance of practice ammunition, improving the conditions of prize firing, and making long range firing more efficient.
  (Answered by Mr. Arnold-Forster.) The question of the desirability of altering the gunnery regulations in these respects amongest others is under consideration, but I am not as yet in a position to say what alterations, if any, it will be decided to make in the existing regulations.

  Naval Prize Money Return.
  MR. KEARLEY): To ask the Secretary to the Admiraity if he will state the cause of delay in printing and circulating the list of persons entitled to naval prize money covering the period from 1856 to 1897, and when its issue may be expected.
  (Answered by Mr. Arnold-Forster.) The Paper in question is a voluminous one, extending to about 200 pages, and the printing has necessarily occupied a longer time than would be required for the issue of a less bulky Parliamentary Paper. There has, however, been no unnecessary delay, and I am informed that the printers hope to have the Paper ready for issue within a week.

  Bluejackets' Clothing.
  MR. HARMSWORTH: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he can state why the price of clothing to the lower deck ratings was recently raised; and whether he will take steps to fix a uniform price for the articles of clothing used by the Bluejackets.
  (Answered by Mr. Arnold-Forster.) A full explanation of these variations in
  1310
  price will be found in the reply I gave to the honourable Member on the 15th April last. As I pointed out then, any rise or fall in the prices charged to the men is solely the result of a rise or fall in the prices paid by the Admiralty. It is not considered advisable to fix a uniform price for these articles, as such a course would sometimes involve a loss to the Crown and at other times a loss to the men

  Naval Gunnery—H. M. S. "Empress of India."
  MR. HARMSWORTH: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, in view of the fact that during the recent prize firing practice of H. M. S. "Empress of India," the flagship of Rear-Admiral Jeffreys, only three shots out of 18 fired from the 13.5-inch guns, and 17 hits out of 69 shots fired from the 6 inch guns were made, he will state what steps the Lords of the Admiralty propose to adopt to prevent the recurrence of such a low average of shooting in this ship.
  (Answered by Mr. Arnold-Forster.) The prize firing of the "Empress of India" on this occasion cannot, as brought to the notice of the Admiralty by Admiral Jeffreys, be regarded as satisfactory. It is partially, however, accounted for by the fact that this ship has just returned from a three months refit in the dockyard, during which time the target practice could not be carried out, and many of her men were temporarily employed in other ships. The "Empress of India" now flies the flag of the Rear-Admiral of the Home Squadron and is carrying out the prescribed exercises, which will no doubt remedy the shortcomings referred to.

  Local Government Audit—Subscriptions of Metropolitan Boroughs to the Association of Municipal Corporations.
  MR. VICARY GIBBS: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the fact that a subscription to the Association of Municipal Corporations by a metropolitan borough was disallowed by the auditor, and that this disallowance was upheld on appeal by the Local Government Board; and whether he will take steps to make it known to the Corporations of all
  † See (4) Debates cvi., 276.

  1311
  boroughs, whether metropolitan or under the Municipal Corporations Act of 1882, that such subscriptions are not properly chargeable to the rates.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) A disallowance was made in the accounts of one of the metropolitan Borough Councils of expenditure of the kind referred to on the ground that there was no statutory authority for the payment. On an appeal being made to me the legality of the auditor's decision was upheld, but the disallowance was remitted. As regards the last part of the Question, I think it probable that the Councils of metropolitan boroughs are aware of the decision in the case mentioned; but at all events the Question of my hon. friend will no doubt have the effect of making it known to them. I have no jurisdiction with regard to the matter so far as the Councils of other boroughs are concerned.

  Army and Navy Reservists in Canterbury Workhouse.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been directed to the fact that last week twenty-one Reservists just returned from South Africa were admitted to the Canterbury Workhouse, and that they were compelled to break stones before their departure each day; and whether he will provide that, in the case of men who have served in South Africa and bear high characters, the breaking of stones will be omitted form their task before leaving the workhouses.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) I have made inquiry on this subject, and I understand that, of the twenty-one Reservists referred to, only five had just returned from South Africa, the rest being Army and Naval Reservists and time-expired men. I am informed that none of these men asked to be excused their task of stone-breaking or stone-pounding, which is the task usually given to able-bodied males admitted to the casual wards of the Canterbury Workhouse. The Guardians are, however, now considering the advisability of admitting any bona fide cases into the workhouse until full inquiries can be made, with a view to
  1312
  employment being obtained through the East Kent Association for the employment of reserve and discharged soldiers.

  Education Bill—Liabilities of Transferred Authorities.
  MR. HENRY HOBHOUSE: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education if the debts and liabilities of School Boards, other than those incurred on capital account, which are transferred to a County Council on the appointed day will be charged on the old School Board area or on the whole education area of the County Council.
  (Answered by Sir William Anson.) The debts and liabilities in question will be charged on the old School Board area. The whole subject is dealt with by Section 86 of the Local Government Act, 1894, which is applied by paragraph 8 of the Second Schedule of the Bill. Under this section current liabilities are to be liquidated so far as possible before the appointed day. In case any liabilities are not so liquidated and are carried over to the new authority, machinery is provided by the same section for enabling them to be met in the same manner as before the transfer.

  China—Position in the Yang-tsze Valley.
  MR. REGINALD LUCAS: To ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will explain how the Internaitonal situation created by the circumstances set forth in the China (No. 3, 1902) Paper affects the position of this country in the Yangtsze Valley.
  (Answered by Lord Cranborne.) The views of His Majesty's Government are set forth in the Papers contained in the Parliamentary Paper, and it does not seem possible to add anything in explanation of them by way of answer to a Quesiton.

  Brussels Sugar Convention.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: To ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the Dutch Minister of Finance stated on the 2nd December, in the Dutch Second Chamber, that Great Britain will be bound by the terms of the Brussels Sugar Convention to levy countervailing duties on

  1313
  bounty-fed sugar from her autonomous Colonies and from British India; can he state whether any, if so, which of the other States who have signed the Convention adopt a construction of its terms similar to that of the Dutch Minister of Finance; are there any other, and, if so, what points or articles in the Convention as to whcih any of the other contracting States adopt a different construction from that of His Majesty's Government, and which are those States.
  (Answered by Lord Cranborne.) The answer to the first Question is in the affirmative. In answer to the second Question I have to say that it is the fact that the interpretation which I gave to the House yesterday has been called in question from other quarters. His Majesty's Government, however, are satisfied that this interpretation is correct, but until the correspondence which has arisen upon the point has been concluded it would be premature to give the information asked for. In reply to the last Question I am not aware of any points or articles upon which a construction is placed different from that adopted by ourselves.

  Ireland—Conduct of Police at Glenville.
  MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the action of a sergeant and two police constables at Glenville, on Sunday, the 23rd of November, in demanding admission to an ordinary indoor meeting of the local branch of the United Irish League, and, on being refused, attempting to force an entrance, which, failing to effect, they then proceeded to fasten the door of the League room, thus preventing ingress and egress; and will the police be instructed to refrain from interference with the ordinary meetings of the United Irish League at Glenville.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The police did not seek admission to this meeting, nor did they fasten the door.

  Irish Technical Instruction—Equivalent Grant.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will say what decision has been arrived at by
  1314
  the Treasury in the matter of the equivalent grant for technical instruction in Ireland.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) It has been decided that the existing grants, amounting to £3,500, shall continue, but that a limit to their expansion should be laid down, not as a final limit, but as a future point of departure for the reconsideration of these grants in correlation with other Irish demands, whether educational or industrial, which may be disclosed, and with the resources available to meet them. The limit is fixed, provisionally in accordance with these considerations, at £7,000 a year.

  Irish School Building Grants.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: To ask the chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that the grant of tow-thirds of the cost of building new national schools in Ireland is made on an estimate of the cost of labour and materials of some thirty years ago, which estimate now barely equals one-half of the cost; and whether, in view of these circumstances, he will consider the advisability of increasing the grant to two-thirds of the actual cost, the increase to date from the commencement of 1903, so as to enable the building of new schools to be commenced immediately.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The question of a revision of the scale on which grants are made towards the erection of national school buildings has recently been inquired into by a Departmental Committee, which is now considering its report.

  China Operations, 1900—Medals and Clasps.
  MAJOR RASCH: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will lay upon the Table General Dorward's despatch of November, 1901, with reference to the Chinese regiment; and will he say whether a clasp will be given for Tientsin.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) The question of a clasp for Tientsin was considered by the war Office and India Office and Admiralty in consultation at the time of the grant

  1315
  of the China 1900 medal, and it was decided that only two clasps should be given, one for Taku and one for the relief of Peking. I have no copy of General Dorward's despatch in my possession, but I understand that it is not considered desirable to publish it.

  Irish Gold Ornaments Dispute.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he can state when the trial of the case of the Irish Gold Ornaments is likely to take place.
  (Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour.) I am advised that it is expected that this case will be tried at the next sittings, commencing in January.

  Municipal Corporation Act Amendment.
  MR. LLOYD MORGAN: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, having regard to the fact that by Section 1 of the Education (England and Wales) Bill, the Council of a borough with a population of over ten thousand becomes the local education authority for the purpose of Part III. of the Act, and that the clergy and minister have in the past taken a leading part in educational affairs as members of School Boards and otherwise, he intends to introduce a Bill to repeal Section 12 of The Municipal Corporation Act, 1882, which disqualifies any person who is in holy orders or the regular minister of a dissenting congregation for being members of a municipal corporation, and to allow the clergy and ministers to be members both of County Council and of Borough Councils.
  (Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour.) The Government do not propose to introduce such a Bill.

  Solway Fishery Regulations.
  MR. CLAUDE LOWTHER: To ask th First Lord of the Treasury whether it is the intention of the Government to take any steps to alter the state of the Fishery Laws on both sides of the Solway, seeing that such remedial legislation has been recommended by the three last Royal Commissions on the Salmon Fisheries.
  (Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour). Something has been done to assimilate the
  1316
  bye-laws of the Fishery Board for Scotland with those made by the Cumberland Local Fisheries Committee relating to sea fisheries; but to carry out the recommendations of the Royal Commissioners (involving the constitution of a separate Solway authority) would require legislation, and that legislation, whether controversial or not, could evidently not be introduced at present.

(2. 15.) QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  South Africa—Permit Regulations.
  Mr. WEIR: I beg to ask the Postmaster General, as representing the Secretary of State for the Colonies, if he will state on what ground the practice of granting permits in this country to persons desirous of proceeding to the Transvaal or Orange River Colony has been discontinued; and will he state or publish the conditions under which permits are now granted, on application to the permit office, at the port of debarkation in South Africa.
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,, for Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN): The practice has been discontinued because of the practical difficulties of giving effect in this country to the provisions of the local laws on the subject. A notice on the subject of the issue of these permits has been published by the Transvaal and Orange River Colony Governments and will be communicated to the Press in this country.

  Soldiers' Pay in South Africa.
  MR LAMBERT (Devonshire,): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state the total amount per diem, including allowances, paid to non-commissioned officers and men now serving in South Africa.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,): The non-commissioned officers and men of the regular army serving in South Africa receive the same pay and money allowances as elsewhere. They get in South Africa the benefit of a free grocery ration, and certain other issues

  1317
  in kind are made to them which, if at home, would have to be met out of the money allowance for messing.

  South African Blockhouses.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state approximately the cost of the blockhouses which were erected in South Africa during the war; to whom have the blockhouses been sold, and at what price; were tenders invited; and, if so, how many tenders were received.
  MR. BRODRICK: The blockhouses in the Transvaal and Orange River Colonies were taken over by Lord Milner at a valuation agreed upon by him with Lord Kitchener: the question of sale by open tender did not therefore arise. The accounts have not yet been forwarded to us. It is impossible, without a reference to South Africa, Which I am not prepared to make, to ascertain the cost of erection.

  Army Reserve.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state the present position of the Army Reserve, and the effect on the numbers of the reserve of the new proposals for the re-engagement of time-expired men.
  MR. BRODRICK: The strength of the First-Class Army Reserve on the 1st November was estimated at 46,000. The precise number will be ascertainable when the men on gratuity furlough are re-transferred to the reserve. The number of men who have rejoined the colours is approximately 600.

  Provisional Regiment of Dragoons—Ex-Sergeant Leonard.
  *MR. GEORGE FABER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if, in regard to ex-Sergeant Leonard's case, he can now state what measures he has determined to take consequent upon the inquiry by the General Officer commanding the York district into the state of the Provisional Regiment of Dragoons now stationed in York; what was the result of the inquiry into the allegations made by Leonard in his letter to the Secretary of State for War on the 8th
  1318
  October last, and will he say why Leonard was not called as a witness at the inquiry.
  MR. BRODRICK: The matter is at present under the consideration of the Commander-in-Chief, and I have therefore nothing to add to the statement I made on the 26th ultimo. I must point out to my hon. friend that the report of the inquiry made by the General Officer commanding to the Commander-in-Chief is strictly confidential.
  *MR. GEORGE FABER: Can the right hon. Gentleman answer the last paragraph of the Question?
  MR. BRODRICK: No. It was a military inquiry, and I presume that the ordinary course was pursued.

  Naval Cadets—Cost of Messing.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he can state the cost per head of the messing of cadets in His Majesty's Navy, as well as the number and character of the meals provided.
  *THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER,): The average cost of messing of the Naval Cadets in H. M. S. "Britannia" is 2s. 3d. a head per diem. Three meals are provided in the day, viz., breakfast, dinner, and tea. A statement of the dietary will be found on page 21 of the published regulations for H. M. S. "Britannia."

  Mediterranean Squadron—Ranking of Inspectors of Machinery.
  SIR WILLIAM ALLAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that the Commander-in-Chief of the Mediterranean Fleet has laid it down that for official entertainments inspectors of machinery shall rank with commanders in command; whether, seeing that by Admiralty instructions inspectors of machinery have the relative rank of captain, this order of the Admiral embraces the Deputy Inspector of Hospitals at Malta, who also hold the relative rank of captain; will he say whether
  † See page 501.

  1319
  this order was sanctioned by the Board of Admiralty; and, if so, for what purpose.
  *Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I must ask leave to refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for North Salford as recently as Monday last, and which was as follows: "No information has reached the Admiralty to the effect stated in the hon. Member's Question, but inquiry will be made, and I shall be happy to answer a further Question on the subject when the reply has been received." Steps have been taken already to fulfil the promise then given, but I think the hon. Member will agree that it is not unreasonable to allow more than three days for an inquiry which involves communication with the Mediterranean.

  Naval Engineer Artificers.
  SIR WILLIAM ALLAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that in some of His Majesty's ships where engineer artificers are appointed in lieu of assistant engineers, the captains refuse to give to the artificers the cabin accommodation assigned to assistant engineers; and will he say what steps he proposes to take in the matter.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The Admiralty are not aware that the facts are as stated in the Question, but if the hon. Member will send me the information on which his inquiry is based the matter will be looked into.
  SIR WILLIAM ALLAN: Will the hon. Gentleman ask if it is not the fact that the Captain of one of His Majesty's ships refused to grant a cabin to an engineer artificer who was doing duty as assistant engineer?
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: It will be more satisfactory if the hon. Member will send me the information.
  SIR WILLIAM ALLAN: I will do so.

  Naval Construction—"County" Class of Cruisers.
  MR. HARMSWORTH: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he can state the reasons
  1320
  which have induced the Lords of the Admiralty to alter the designs of the cruisers of the "County" class; and what alterations have been, or are to be, made in these ships.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: No alterations have been made in the design of the first ten ships of the "County" class, except that in three cases Belleville boilers have given place to other types of water-tube boilers. In the case of the last six ships of the class—(1) the thickness of the armour was increased from 4 inches to 6 inches to enable them to better withstand modern projectiles. This modification involved an increase in displacement of about 500 tons. (2) The number and type of guns forming the auxiliary armament was altered, and 7.5 inch guns fore and aft. (3) Certain internal modifications have also been made to enable the ships to carry a combination of cylindrical and water-tube boilers. No other changes in the design are contemplated.

  H. M. S. "Canopus."
  MR. HARMSWORTH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he can state if it is the intention of the Lords of the Admiralty to shortly recall H. M. S. "Canopus" from the Mediterranean squadron; and, if so, for what reasons they are taking this step; whether the boilers, condensers, and economisers of this ship require repairing of replacement; whether he will state why, during the recent manœuvres of the Mediterranea squadron, this ship was compelled to withdraw; how many times this vessel has been in the dockyard under repair during her commission, and the longest period she remained in the dockyard on any occasion; whether it is usual to bring back battleships at the end of their first three years in the Mediterranean; and if he can state what this vessel has cost in repairs to boilers and otherwise during the period of her commission.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: It is intended to recall the "Canopus" from the Mediterrean, as she requires an extensive refit. Battleships requiring small refits are sentto Malta, but it is now the practice to

  1321
  bring back all battleships which require large refits at the end of three years, and to repair them in the home dockyards. The boilers and economisers of the "Canopus" are of the earliest type of their class, which have been found to be less satisfactory than the later designs. The ship was ordered not to take part in chasing in the Mediterranean manœuvres, on account, it is believed, of defects in her economisers. The "Canopus" has been under repair on eleven occasions since she was commissioned. The longest period for which she has been in dockyard hands is four months eight days. The cost of repairs to her boilers since first commissioning has been about £3,100, and the total cost of repairs £15,800.
  SIR WILLIAM ALLAN: Is it not the fact that this battleship's economisers and boilers are practically done, and that the vessel cannot steam?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I have no such information. When I have the report as to what the defects are I shall be ready to give the House the information. I shall ascertain exactly what is wrong.
  LORD CHARLES BERESFORD: Will the hon. Gentleman recommend that these boilers shall be at once placed on the scrap-heap, so that the country's money shall not be expanded on useless repairs?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The question of effective repairs must be decided by the Controller of the Navy; but the Question of the noble Lord will be brought under his notice.

  Naval Gunnery—China Squadron—Admiral Seymour's Order.
  MR. HARMSWORTH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the Admiralty has countermanded Admiral Sir E. H. Seymour's order when Commander-in-Chief in China to the effect that the ship holding the Seymour Challenge Cup for good shooting will always take the right of the line at all parades on shore or whenever a brigade is landed.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The Admiralty has given no orders with respect to this Question, which is one entirely within the discretion of the Commander-in-Chief on the Station.

  Russia and Gibraltar.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government have any information to the effect that Russia has obtained the Chafarinas or Zafarinas Islands on the coast of Morocco, near to Gibraltar, as a coaling or naval station; and is he aware that the Spanish Government is preparing to fortify certain points on Spanish territory adjacent to Gibraltar, and that the Captain General of Algeciras has given notice to owners of land in the neighbourhood of that place, whether Spaniards or others, not to proceed with any buildings within the military radius.
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord CRAN-BORNE,): No such information has been received.

  Export of Japanese Beverages from Kobe.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in view of the fact that beer to the value of £46,536 was exported from Kobe, Japan, during the year 1900-1901, and that beverages to the value of £21,360 were exported from that port during the same period, can he ascertain of what these beverages consisted.
  *LORD CRANBORNE: The point referred to in the Question will be brought to the notice of His Majesty's Minister at Tokio, and he will be requested to furnish the information, provided it can be readily obtained.

  Brussels Sugar Convention.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether, in view of the fact that the Brussels Sugar Convention is incorrectly translated from the binding French text into English as regards Article X., he will arrange that the careful revision of the whole translation for the version to be inserted in the Treaty Series shall be

  1323
  made forthwith, and the revised translation laid upon the Table and circulated among Members of this House.
  *LORD CRANBORNE: Publication in the Treaty Series cannot take place until after the Treaty has been ratified. As soon as the translation for the Treaty Series is made it shall be laid before Parliament.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER: Was it not stated the other day that there was a difference of opinion amongst the contracting parties as to the effect of the provisions of the Convention?
  *LORD CRANBORNE: That is not the question that deals with the English translation of the French version in which my hon. friend has found a mistake.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Is it not the fact that there are other mistakes, and will the noble Lord, for the benefit of hon. Members who only understand the English language see that the House is put in possession of a correct version forth-with?
  *LORD CRANBORNE: Yes, I will do my best to hurry it forward.

  Russia and the Sugar Convention.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government has received from the Russian Government a communication intimating that the imposition by Great Britain of countervailing duties on Russian sugar would be regarded as an infringement of the commercial treaty between the two Powers, and suggesting that the question should be referred to the Permanent Arbitration Court at the Hague; and, if so, will he say what reply has been made by His Majesty's Government to the Russian Government.
  *LORD CRANBORNE: The answer to the first Question is in the affirmative. With regard to arbitration, the Russian Government have stated that, if His Majesty's Government expressed the wish to submit the question of the bearing of countervailing duties on sugar upon the treaty to international arbitration, they themselves would find no difficulty in falling in with this desire, and would
  1324
  consider that the question should be discussed not only with regard to sugar, but generally with regard to all other descriptions of goods. The Russian Government have been informed that His Majesty's Government cannot agree that the case, even if restricted to the matter immediately at issue, is one proper to be submitted to an arbitral tribunal, but that they are willing to renew the offer made in 1899 to denounce the Treaty of Commerce of 1859.

  Licensing Act, 1892—Translation into Welsh.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the desire in Wales for the translation of the Licensing Act, 1892, into Welsh, he will reconsider his decision upon this point, and will authorise the issue of a certain number of copies of the Act in the Welsh language.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. AKERS DOUGLAS,): No, Sir! I hardly think that there is sufficient reason for taking this exceptional course. On the one hand a considerable portion of the Licensing Act is technical, and scarcely of popular interest, while on the other as regards those sections of it which have a distinct bearing on the general public they can be translated into Welsh and posted up, if thought desirable, by the police or other local authorities. If they do not do so, I will consider whether any action on my part can be taken.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the latter part of his reply. Is he aware that the precedent exists in the cases of the Local Government Acts of 1888 and 1894?
  *MR. AKERS DOUGLAS: Yes, I believe it is the fact that the Local Government Acts of 1888 and 1894 were translated, but it is not always done—for instance, the Welsh Sunday Closing Act of 1881 was not translated.

  Income Tax Returns.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether

  1325
  he is aware that certain public companies have been pressed by the local surveyors, by special official from Somerset House, and also by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, to disclose the amounts paid to their employees; where this information has been refused the returns of the employees have been surcharged and certificates demanded from the companies as to the amounts paid to the employees; and whether, seeing that people in business on their own account are their own assessors, he will give instructions to discontinue the portion of the Return relating to amount of incomes.
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. RITCHIE,): My attention has not been called to any case of the kind described. But, if the hon. and gallant Member will supply particulars of any cases that have been brought to his notice, I will cause inquiry to be made. To discontinue the portion of the Return relating to amount of income would cause, I believe, much inconvenience, not only to the Department, but also to the public.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I will supply the right hon. Gentleman with the particulars of several cases. Meanwhile, will he not suppress that portion of the Return which has no statutory authority?
  *MR. RITCHIE: I have said that that would cause great inconvenience, but if the cases of which the hon. Member promises particulars show hardship ans just cause of complaint, I will reconsider that portion of the Return; but until I receive the particulars I can give no promise.

  Intercommunication Apparatus on Railways.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will state whether the apparatus for the intercommunication approved by the combined railway companies has been adopted by all the railway companies in the United Kingdom; and, if not, will he state what companies have refused to adopt the system.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): The correspondence with the railway companies on this
  1326
  subject is contained in a Parliamentary Paper issued in 1899, and shows that at that time practically all the important companies had decided to adopt the system of communication by means of a partial application of the continuous brake. The principal exceptions were the companies already possessing electrical systems of communication and the Great Eastern Railway Company, who were in doubt as to the best method, but have since decided to adopt the brake system.

  Mallaig Railway.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will state when the Annual Report as to the condition and working of the West Highland Railway to Mallaig will be presented to Parliament.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The Report in question has been prepared. Is is now in the hands of the printers. and will be presented as soon as possible.

  Mail Car Contracts.
  MR. WOOD: I beg to ask the Postmaster General if he is aware that mail car contractors have, as a result of late running of mail trains, to wait for the mails from a half-hour to two and a half hours; is he aware that this causes inconvenience and loss to these men, for which no remuneration is allowed; and can he take any steps to redress this alleged grievance.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Whenever mail trains are unpunctual it necessarily follows that mail cars working in connection with them cannot be despatched at the appointed time. In the existing forms of tender for mail car contracts it is announced that the Post Office will not make any extra payment for detentions of mail cars due to this cause, and persons tendering are warned to bear this fact in mind. But the hon. Member no doubt has some service or services specially in view; and if he will be good enough to let me have particulars, I will see whether there is any cause for further inquiry.

  Parcels Post for Agricultural Products.
  MR. LAMBERT: I beg to ask the Postmaster General if he will consider

  1327
  the advisability of instituting a cheap parcels post for perishable agricultural products.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The question of instituting a special parcel post for agricultural products has been considered on more than one occasion; but the difficulties surrounding it are so great that it has not hitherto been found possible to adopt any such scheme. This is, however, one of the questions which I propose to examine afresh as soon as I have leisure to do so.

  Penalties for Illegal Trawling.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, in view of the fact that the maximum penalty imposed on the masters of trawlers for trawling within the three mile limit is fixed at £100, will the Secretary for Scotland consider the expediency of taking steps to so increase the penalty as to make i deterrent.
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE (MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY,): The Secretary for Scotland cannot at present come under any promise to propose legislation on the subject.

  Irish Land—Second Term Rents.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he can state the number of second term rents fixed in the several Provinces of Ireland between the 31st March and the 31st October last, and the average reductions on the amount of the rent fixed for the first time.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,): The number fixed by the Land Commission in Ulster, Leinster, Connaught, and Munster, respectively, was 1,913,557, 609, and 620; the percentages of reductions were 23.1, 15.8, 20.8, and 17. In Civil Bill Courts, the number fixed by Provinces, in the same order, was 51, 17, 90, and 269; the percentages of reduction were 20.1, 17.4, 17.6, and 19.1.

  Boycotting Statistics.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Cheif Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can give
  1328
  the number of families and of persons wholly or partially boycotted in the several provinces of Ireland; and how many of such cases are due to agrarian questions.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The figures for the 30th November will not be available for a few days. But on the 31st October there were 42 cases, comprising 243 persons who were totally or partially boycotted throughout Ireland. The distribution, by provinces, was as follows:—Ulster, 2 cases, 4 persons; Leinster, nil; Connaught, 21 cases, 120 persons; Munster, 19 cases, 119 persons. Of these, 40 cases, affecting 229 persons, are due to causes of an agrarian nature. The latter figures include one case (11 persons) of total boycotting in Connaught, and three cases (16 persons) of total boycotting in Munster. In addition, there were, at the end of October, 150 cases of minor boycotting or attempts to boycott. affecting 673 persons. The gross totals on that date were, therefore, 192 cases and 916 persons. On the occasion of a debate in this House, on the 17th April last, I stated that there were, at that date, 318 cases of boycotting, involving some 1,500 persons.

  Ogilby Estate, Co. Tyrone.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, seeing that the Ogilby Estate, county Tyrone, has been in the Landed Estates Court since the year 1882, he can state whether any progress as to the sale to the tenants has been made.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I called for a report on this question on Tuesday, but so far have not received it. In February last I was informed that the delay in the settlement of the rental on the estate was due solely to the action of two or three tenants who had resisted the claims of the remaining tenants to certain rights of turbary. I was also informed that a notice was about to be served on the former requiring them to state their objections, which would be adjudicated upon by the Land Judge and the settlement of the rental proceeded with.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Has the court any power to compel a refractory minority on a large estate to accept terms of agreement?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I do not think so.

  Ardglass Labourers' Cottages.
  MR. WOOD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been called to applications made to the Downpatrick Rural District Council for labourers' cottages in the district of Ardglass; and will be explain the cause of delay in the erection of these cottages.
  MR. WYNDHAM: In April the Local Government Board made a Provisional Order authorising the erection of seventeen cottages in the Downpatrick rural district, including three in the Division of Ardglass. The Order became absolute in July. Negotations between the Council and the owners and occupiers in respect to the compensation payable to the latter for their interests in the lands to be acquired have broken down in many cases, and an application is about to be made to the Board to appoint an arbitrator.

  Labourers (Ireland) Acts.
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received from Rural Councils resolutions complaining of the complications in the working of the Labourers' (Ireland) Acts; and whether he intends to introduce legislation to promote their simplification.
  MR. WYNDHAM: no recent representations have been received. The extent to which the Government was prepared to go in this Session is indicated in the Amendments which I have put down to the Bill of the hon. Member for South Louth. I cannot give any under-taking in respect to next year beyond a promise of careful consideration in connection with the Land Bill I intend to introduce.

  Glasnevin Lectures on Bee-keeping.
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether the Vice President of
  1330
  Agricultural was responsible for the appointment of Mr. J. M. Gillies as bee-instructor, and made personal inquiries into his fitness; and what action have the Department taken on the representations they have received from the Irish Bee-keepers' Association about this appointment.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The appointment was made by the Department in the exercise of the powers conferred upon it by the Act of 1899. The Department is satisfied as to the fitness of Mr. Gillies for the post. No representations have been made to it by the Association named.
  Mr. TULLY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the experts of the Bee-keepers' Association are satisfied that Mr. Gillies has no qualifications for this post?
  MR. WYNDHAM: No such representations have reached me. In a matter of this kind I am prepared to support the action of the Department.
  MR. TULLY: His only qualification is that he was on the staff of the Freeman's Journal.

  Complaint against Dublin Police.
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Commissioner of Police has directed an inquiry into the action of the Dublin Metropolitan Police in locking up without any authority from the owners that premises situated at 39, Upper O'Connell Street, Dublin, on the 27th November; and what explanation has been offered by the police authorities to the gentleman who was affected by this action.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The culprit—if, indeed, blame attaches to anyone—was not a member of the Dublin Metropolitan Police, but the caretaker of the premises. It was a constable, however, who procured the ladder by means of which the hon. and learned Member for South Donegal descended to the street, and who received the thanks of the latter for the trouble he had taken.

  Prison Treatment of Irish Members.
  MR. TULLy: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of

  1331
  Ireland whether he can state if any Members of Parliament sentenced to imprisonment under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act have been obliged to perform prison tasks such as washing prison clothes.
  MR. WYNDHAM: No, Sir. This charge was made in an aggravated form on the 27th October by an hon. Member in this House.† It was couched in language which admitted of no interpretation other than that during my tenure of office as Chief Secretary an hon. Member had been obliged to perform a peculiarly degrading task in prison. It was so understood at the time, and could not have been understood to mean anything else, for the hon. Member who preferred it added that the Prime Minister under the old Coercion Act would have shrunk from what he called "a new way of stretching political opponents on the rack." To that charge I give an absolute and unqualified denial.
  MR. TULLY: Had the Member for Cork any authority for stating that he had to wash dirty linen in gaol or else-where?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  Rock Angus Lighthouse.
  MR. T. L. CORBETT: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will explain why the Irish Lights Board have not yet lighted the lighthouse on the Rock Angus; and whether the Lights Board has prepared any estimate of the cost of the leading lights that would be required; and, if so, to what it would amount.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: As I have already stated in reply to previous Questions, the Commissioners of Irish Lights have explained that they are unable to advise the lighting of Rock Angus unless an extensive system of lights to guide vessels up the Lough to the anchor-ages of Audley and Cross Roads was adopted in conjunction with it. As such a scheme of lighting would, in the opinion of the Commissioners, be solely for the benefit of local trade, they are unable to
  † See (4) Debates, cxiii., 904.
  1332
  recommend that it should be carried into effect at the expense of the General Lighthouse Fund, and consequently they have not caused any estimates to be prepared.

  Water Gas in Dublin.
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether his attention has been called to the deaths from gas poisoning in the City of Dublin; and can he give the percentage of water gas used in Dublin as an admixture; and what is the proportion of water gas allowed in English towns.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: My attention has not been called to any death from gas poisoning in Dublin. According to the Return made by the Alliance and Dublin Gas Consumers' Company for 1901 the maximum proportion in which carburetted water gas was supplied by that Company in admixture with coal gas during that year was 39 per cent. There is no statutory restriction on the proportion of water gas which may be supplied in any part of the United Kingdom. The proportions in which water gas is actually used in various English towns are given in the Annual Return presented to Parliament.
  MR. TULLY: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman give the proportion in English terms?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: If the hon. Gentleman will refer to the Return, he will be able to see for himself.

  Galway as a Transatlantic Port.
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has received any representations in favour of Galway being made a transatlantic port for the new ocean service between this country and Canada; and if so, what steps does he propose to take in the matter.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The Board of Trade have received norepresentations in the matter to which the hon. Member refers.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: May I ask what the business next week will be?
  THE PRIME MINISTER and FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): On Monday and subsequent days we shall go on with the London Water Bill.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Has the right hon. Gentleman yet been able to allocate a day for the consideration of the Shipping Combine Agreements, in pursuance of he undertaking given in his name by the President of the Board of Trade?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not think that the necessary Papers are laid, but I will inquire.
  MR. T. W. RUSELL: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to take Local Government (Ireland) No. 2 Bill, and when?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am afraid I cannot fix a date. I hope some little time may be found, but I cannot give a promise.
  MR. TULLY: I thought the right hon. Gentleman fixed a date at the request of the hon. Member for Mid-Lanark, who said he represented Ireland!

  BETTING.
  Ordered, That a message be sent to the Lords, to request that their Lord-ships will be pleased to communicate to this House a copy of the Report from the Select Committee appointed by their Lordships on Betting, with the proceedings of the Committee, minutes of evidence, etc.—(Mr. Attorney General.)

  NATIONAL EXPENDITURE.
  Report from the Selsct Committee, with Minutes of Evidence and an Appendix, brought up, and read [Inquiry not completed].
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed [No. 387.]

  LONDON WATER (RE-COMMITTED) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee).
  [Mr. JEFFREYS[Mr. JEFFREYS (Hampshire, N.) in the Chair.]
  Clause 1—
  (2.40.) MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONasked the Deputy-Chairman whether he would be in order in moving to report Progress, so as to give the Government an opportunity of stating their intentions as to the progress of the measure.
  *THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMANsaid he should have to rule that such a Motion would be out of order under Standing Order 23, which gave to the Speaker or Chairman the right to decline to accept a Motion if he considered it an abuse of the Rules of the House.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid he would like to state his reasons for desiring to make the Motion. The Bill was duly resumed at the end of a very long, exhausting and tedious session. and they were almost at the beginning of a very long, very difficult and very complicated Bill. It was a Bill exceeding in length, and in some respects not far inferior in importance, to the Education Bill on which they had been engaged for so many months. It contained fifty-two Clauses, and five or six Schedules, many of them involving questions of large importance. The Bill dealt also with property to the value of many millions sterling, and that touched very closely the interests of many millions of people.
  *THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: I shall have to rule the Motion out of order under Standing Order 23.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: Will you please read the Rule?
  *THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Yes, it is as follows:—
  "That, if Mr. Speaker, or the Chairman of a Committee of the whole House, shall be of opinion that a Motion for the Adjournment of a Debute, or of the House, during any Debate, or that the Chairman do report Progress, or leave the Chair, is an abuse of the Rules of the House, he may forth with put the Question thereupon from the Chair, or he may decline to propose the Question thereupon to the House.
  Mr. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I submit that this Motion is not an abuse of the Rules of the House. Nothing is further from my intention than to be guilty of any abuse of the Rules of the House. I really do want the House to have an

  1335
  opportunity of considering whether under the extraordinary circumstances of this Bill we shall go on with it. We went to know what are the intentions of the Government in regard to the future of the Bill, and how long it is proposed to sit. I think you should hear my reasons before you decide to refuse the Motion.
  *THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The Committee has already taken the Bill into consideration. It is a very unusual step to report Progress at this stage, and I must decline to accept such a Motion. I must rule it out of order. In regard to the first Amendment on the Paper, its right place is on the Schedule, and I therefore rule that out of order.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONfailed to understand why the Amendment could not be taken. It referred to the Municipal Corporations Act, and surely the question of whether the appointment should be annual or triennial could be raised on the Clause itself instead of on the Schedule. He might point out that the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill had himself already taken out the bulk of one Schedule and put it into the Clause, and surely it was competent for other hon. Members to follow his example.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. WALIER LONG,): What I have done has been in accordance with an arrangement made for the convenience of the House generally, in order that an opportunity might be given to debate the general question. There was a clear understanding that if, in the interests of the draftsman-ship of the Bill it was found more convenient to replace the words in the Schedule, I should be at liberty to do so. With regard to the Municipal Corporations Act, may I point out that the conditions governing elections are contained in the Schedule of the Act.
  Mr. SYDNEY BUXTONadmitted that what had been done had been for the general convenience of the House, but his point was that it was equally in order for any hon. Member to make a similar proposal.
  *THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: It could only be done by general agreement of the House and with the consent of the Chairman. As to the next Amdements, those of the hon. Members for Hoxton and Dundee are also in the wrong place. The former comes under sub-Section 5 of the Clause, and the latter belongs to the 4th Schedule. The Amendment of the hon. Member for Popular is out of place, because the Committee has already decided that the Chairman and Vice-Chairman should be appointed by the Board. The first Amendment of the hon. Member for Cleveland is also a question for the 4th Schedule.
  MR. CORRIE GRANT: In the absence of the hon. Member for North Camberwell, I beg to move the Amendment standing in his name.
  MR. WALTER LONG: I accept that.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 22, to leave out 'appointed' and insert 'elected.' "—(Mr. Corrie Grant.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  *MR. LOUGHsaid he wished to propose a further Amendment to secure that the election should be made by the Councils, and he hoped the President of the Local Government Board would favourably consider that point. The object was to secure that membership of the Water Board should be restricted to the country constituent authorities. The list contained in the Amendment of the right hon-Gentleman embraced a great number of authorities in the suburbs of London, but a great many others were excluded, had there had been no explanation given why some were included and others were not. There were five counties interested in the Bill outside London, and each of these had its own County Council, and he thought it would be wise to leave it to those bodies to select the members of the Board.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 22, after the word 'appointed,' to insert the words 'from among their own members.'"—(Mr Lough).
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid it was very difficult to argue the Amendment at this

  1337
  stage of the Bill, and the moving of it was not an altogether fair acceptance of the arrangement he entered into for the convenience of the Committee and of hon. Members on both sides, to bring out of the Schedule the words that now stood in his name, so that they might at once approach the consideration of the important question of the method of appointing the new Board. The hon. Member had not advanced any arguments on behalf of his Amendment, because he was reserving them for the debate on the Amendment of the hon. Member for North-West Wilts. But if the Amendment were adopted it would dispose of the whole question at once, by destroying the scheme of the Bill. He should follow the example of the hon. Member and reserve his arguments also for the real Amendment on which, by common consent, it had been agreed to discuss this very important point.
  MR. LOUGHsaid he had only moved because other Amendments had been ruled out of order, and he wanted to protect himself. He was quite prepared to discuss the whole point on the Amendment of the hon. Member for North-West Wilts, and begged leave, therefore, to withdraw his own Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. WALTER LONGthen said he would move the Amendment standing in his name without comment, except to say that it had undergone one slight change since it first appeared on the Paper, in as much as the district of Foot's Cray, which was a rural district when the Bill was introduced, had since been made an urban district. As it had been agreed that the question should be discussed on the Amendment of which the hon. Member for North-West Wilts had given notice, he would defer stating the reasons of the Government for the proposal.
  Amendment proposed,
  "In page 1, line 22, to leave out the words from the word 'appointed,' to end of sub-section, and insert the words 'as follows:— 'Ten by the London County Council; two by the Common Council of the City; two by the Council of each of the Metropolitan Boroughs of Islington, Kensington, Lambeth, St. Pancras, Stepney, and Westminster; one by the Council of each of the other Metropolitan
  1338
  Boroughs; one by the County Council of Essex; two by the Council of the Borough of West Ham; one by the Council of the Urban District of East Ham; one by the Council of the Urban District of Leyton; one by the Council of the Urban District of Walthamstow; one by the Councils of the Urban Districts of Buckhurst Hill, Chingford, Loughton, Waltham Holy Cross, Wanstead, and Woodford; one by the County Council of Kent; one by the Councils of the Urban Districts of Beckenham, Bromley, Chislehurst, and Penge; one by the Councils of the Urban Districts of Bexley, Dartford, Erith, and Foot's Cray; one by the County Council of Middlesex; one by the Council of the Urban District of Tottenham; one by the Council of the Urban District of Willesden; one by the Council of the Borough of Ealing and the Councils of the Urban Districts of Acton and Chiswick; one by the Councils of the Urban Districts of Brentford, Hampton, Hampton Wick, Hanwell, Heston and Isleworth, Sunbury, Teddington, and Twickenham; one by the Councils of the Urban Districts of Edmonton, Enfield, and Southgate; one by the Councils of the Urban Districts of Hornsey and Wood Green; one by the County Council of Surrey; one by the Council of the Borough of Kingston and the Councils of the Urban Districts of East and West Molesey, Esher and the Dittons, Ham and Surbiton; one by the Councils of the Urban Districts of Barnes, the Maldens and Coombe, and Wimbledon; one by the County Council of Hertfordshire; three by the Conservators of the River Thames; one by the Lee Conservancy Board.' "—(Mr. Walter Long.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONexpressed surprise at the action on the right hon. Gentleman in not giving the reasons of the Government for their proposal.
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid it was distinctly a part of the understanding to which the hon. Gentleman was a party, that he should put his Amendment down to afford an opportunity of discussing the Amendment of the hon. Member for North-West Wilts.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid he could not agree with that. The agreement they came to was this. It was quite obvious that it was desirable to have at once a general discussion on what was after all the main part of the Bill, instead of deferring it until the schedule was reached. He did not see why under the circumstances the debate should be confined to the Amendment of the hon. Member for North-West Wilts. Surely they were

  1339
  entitled to discuss the general proposals of the right hon. Gentleman before they dealt with particular Amendments which would very much restrict the field of debate. Why dad not the right hon. Gentleman explained the reasons for their proposal?
  MR. WALTER LONG: I gave my reasons at full length on the Motion for the Second Reading.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid he had read the speeches, but could find no argument in favour of the right hon. Gentleman's proposition. Seeing that six months had elapsed since the matter was last discussed, it would have been only courteous to the Committee to recapitulate some of the arguments in favour of this extraordinary proposal. He rose chiefly, however, to protest against any attempt on the part of the right hon. Gentleman to confine the Committee to a particular alternative proposal to the general scheme. Surely that scheme could stand or fall on its merits, if it had any, but to confine the discussion to a particular proposal was not treating the Committee fairly.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANthought some reply should be made to his hon. friend. London Members had a right to arrange their own affairs, and he interposed simply as amicus curice. The right hon. Gentleman had referred to an understanding, butan understanding between individual groups on Members did not bind the Committee.
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid that with his long experience the right hon. Gentleman would doubtless agree that an understanding arrived at across the floor of the House by the Minister responsible for and the opponents of a Bill was binding. He could have declined to give the Committee the opportunity they now had of discussing the proposal—he could have adhered to the Bill as drafted, but in order to meet the convenience of hon. Gentleman opposite, and the Committee generally, he undertook to bring these words out of the schedule and put them into Clause 1, on the understanding that the debate should arise on his hon. friend's Amendment.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANagreed that the transference of the proposal from the schedule to Clause 1 was a
  1340
  great improvement for the purposes of regular and reasonable debate. But the question then arose whether, the scheme having been thus brought forward in order that it might be fully discussed, the Committee were not entitled to debate that scheme at large with all possible alternatives to it. Were they to wait until a particular Amendment had been moved, and then be confined to the alternative between the Government proposal and that of the Amendment? Outsiders like himself were entitled to hear the general question stated and discussed. There were a host of alternatives to the Government plan, such as that a Government department should manage the whole business, and therefore it was most important that the Committee should be given a reasonable opportunity of discussing the general question. He suggested that the right hon. Gentleman should re-state to the House, as no one was more capable of doing, the reasons for his scheme, and allow the Committee to argue the point to their satisfaction.
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid that if the right hon. Gentleman had been present when the question was before discussed he would have understood the reason which led him to adopt the course he had taken. According to Hansard, he used the following words:
  "The Committee must clearly understand that if I adopt the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman, there should not be a debate on this question over and over again."
  It was a matter of perfect indifference to him whether he stated the general reasons in favour of the Government scheme now or on the Amendment, when the first direct attack was made. He would have to state those reasons either now or later; he was prepared to defend his scheme at the proper time; and it was solely in the interest of the Committee that he thought it would have been better to make his speech on the Amendment rather than have to say, in reply to the mover of the Amendment—"I have already made my speech, and have nothing left to say. Having endeavoured to justify my scheme, I have only to ask the Committee to reject the Amendment." To adopt the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition would be to delay the progress of the Bill, and that

  1341
  he was not prepared to do. He had nothing to add to his remarks on the Second Reading. As he then stated, the scheme of representation adopted by the Government included the London County Council, the Metropolitan Boroughs, the adjoining County Councils, and the Urban District Councils. The Rural District Councils were not included, but were given power to receive and a right to obtain water. They were given no representation and no obligation with regard to rating was laid upon them. The Government had selected the Metropolitan Boroughs because they were the sanitary authorities of London; the Urban District Councils, because they were the sanitary authorities of districts surrounding London; the London county council, because it was the central body of London, and had long taken an interest in the question; and the Councils of the adjoining counties, because there were rural district which had a right to some representation which they did not get through the Urban District councils, and because in some of the surrounding districts were to be found the sources which supplied London. There ought to be on the governing body a general representation of all the interests concerned. The whole case had been put with admirable clearness by his hon. friend the Member for Exeter, who, as a member of the Joint Committee, in addressing the House, stated that—
  "The principle of the scheme is the representation on the governing body of all the interests concerned."
  This was the only proposal for dealing with the London water question which had ever found general acceptance among the people concerned. When five or six months ago he referred to the Metropolitan Boroughs as being favour able to the scheme, he was speaking of what he knew only by general report, but he knew it more authoritatively now. The Municipalities valued the representation given them because they took an active interest, not only in London as a whole, but in their individual boroughs, and because they found in the scheme a recognition of their rights as representing the citizens of metropolitan boroughs, and London generally.
  1342
  As to the objection that the body was too large, he had stated it would be impossible to carry out the principle he had laid down if the number were reduced. He had tried in vain every method for reducing the size in the belief that it might be better if the body were somewhat smaller— although he fully thought there would be plenty of work for all the members to do. He started on the principle that London, though not necessarily the London County Council, should have a majority on the new body, and London found its representation in the London County Council and the Metropolitan Borough Councils. The moment that principle was departed from either the superiority of London on the body would be destroyed, or the proportion between London and the outside areas interfered with. Under the scheme of the Government, London had a majority on the governing body, while at the same time what he believed was a fair and strict proportion of representation was given to the surrounding districts. The scheme embodied in the Bill was, in his opinion, not only the best, but the only practicable scheme which could be carried into law, because any attempt to force through a scheme against the will of a great majority of the people of London and the surrounding areas would fail. These were the grounds on which the scheme had been put into the Bill. He had given these reasons on the Second Reading of the measure, and had proposed to state them on his hon. friend's Amendment, but in deference to the wish of the Leader of the Opposition he now repeated them. That being so, he hoped he would not be aging accused of want of courtesy if, when dealing with various amendments, he declared that he had already stated the grounds on which the proposal of the Bill was made and the reasons why he thought it should be supported.
  *(3.15.)MR. LOUGHsaid that with the greatest deference to the right hon. Gentleman he must bear with them at this stage. The President of the Local Government Board had repeated the reasons he put forward upon the Second Reading for proposing this extraordinary body, but he thought

  1343
  they were most inadequate. The Committee ought not to be treated in this way, because hon. Members could not remember what was said upon the Second Reading. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would reconsider his attitude and give some stronger reasons for this proposal or else leave it to the Committee to decide whether such an extraordinary body as was now proposed ought to be accepted or not. The principle adopted in this proposal was that certain bodies outside and inside London should be represented, and having adopted the principle the right hon. Gentleman said it could not be carried out except by such an Amendment as he had moved. The body suggested was both impracticable and unworkable, and he should have liked to have heard some further reasons for its number and special construction. It consisted of seventy-three members, fifteen to be appointed by the various county Council, ten by the London County Council, and five by the others. One of the boroughs was to have two members, certain urban districts five, and the Borough Councils of London thirty-six. Then certain urban districts which worked jointly appointed nine, and the Thames and Lea conservancies four members, making a total of seventy-one. That was the body as contained in the Bill when it left the Committee. They had since added a Chairman and Vice-Chairman to be appointed by the right hon. Gentleman himself, and so they arrived at seventy-three.
  The first thing he suggested was that this body was far too numerous to do its work properly. The right hon. Gentleman treated this question as if it had never been thought of before, and as if Parliament and Royal Commissions had never dealt with it. It had been examined carefully by Royal Commissions and Committees, and it had been discussed frequently during the last ten or twelve years. His complaint was that for twelve years certain principles had been accepted by every Committee and Commission, and by the House of Commons, and now the right hon. Gentleman suddenly brought forward a new proposal which had no authority behind it, and which was entirely different to anything
  1344
  they had had before, and the Government were trying to thrust it down the throat of the House of Commons. In 1891 they had the Report of the Commission presided over by Lord Ridley, and it recommended a Committee or thirty or thirty-five members. Commissions and Committees had sat since on this question and they all agreed that the body should be about half the size of the one now proposed. Where did the right hon. Gentleman get hold of this plan for placing the number at seventy-three? Those who opposed this proposal got their principle from the results of careful examinations and recommendations made by Committees and Royal Commissions and the House of Commons itself. When this proposal to make the number seventy-three went to the Joint Committee which had considered this Bill, they treated it with contempt and scorn. By a majority of six to three the Committee sent this Bill back, and told the right hon. Gentleman to bring up a working body of about thirty or thirty-five members.
  What did the right hon. Gentleman do? He caused a communication to be made to the Committee to the effect that the Government had received the decision with profound regret. Surely that was an extraordinary course to take. Why did the Government refuse to adopt the decision of the Committee? The principle of the Bill would not be involved by reducing the size of the body. The object of the Bill was to buy out the water companies and entrust the water supply to a suitable body to manage. Many representatives of the water companies sat opposite, and they could not be interested in the number of this body, although they were interested in getting a fair price fixed for the undertakings before they were taken over. The right hon. Gentleman said there was great difficulty about altering the constitution of the Water Board now, because it had been accepted by those bodies who were interested in it. The Kent authorities had askedssss that they might be struck out of the Bill, and already many outside counties had made a similar request. The same demand had been made on behalf of Middlesex,

  1345
  Essex, and Hertfordshire. The constitution of the Water Board had not been accepted at all unanimously.
  He thought it was an extraordinary statement to say that this proposal had been received with universal favour. The only favourable evidence before the Committee was that given by two gentlemen from the Local Government Board, but they had not much weight against some of the authorities who gave evidence against this scheme. Witnesses came before the Committee from all the great cities, including Glasgow, Liverpool, Manchester, and Edinburgh, and they all expressed the opinion that it was extremely undesirable to have such a large body if they wanted the work well done. Nearly all the evidence went to show that they ought not to have a body of the size now proposed. It would not be difficult to give a smaller representation. Instead of thirty-six members for the metropolitan boroughs there might be eight or ten, and this result could be arrived at by grouping them. If the Committee thought that this body was unwieldy and represented divergent interests, then the Committee should not hesitate to press upon the Government the desirability of modifying the number even now. There was another feature, which was even worse. The proposed board would consist not only of a great number of people, but of the representatives of a great number of bodies. It would represent the County Councils and Borough Councils inside and outside of London. It was perfectly clear that those bodies would have no common interest. Any experience which the House have had of such bodies was against the setting up on another. The indirect representation given to London was merely the resurrection of the Metropolitan Board of Works, and nobody would say that board worked well when it existed. It seemed to him an extraordinary thing that the Government should propose to practically set up again a body which had been so discredited as that board was. The fact that an Amendment had already been passed placing the new Board practically under the control of the Local Government Board, and giving the power to appoint the first Chairman to the Local
  1346
  Government Board showed the respect with which the right hon. Gentleman felt disposed to treat the body himself. The Chairman and the Vice-Chairman were to be sent in from outside. The result would be that there would be two officials at the head of the body, and the other members would not have a proper sense of responsibility for the great duties they would have to perform on behalf of the citizens of London. They would be mere tools in the hands of these two gentlemen. That was an extraordinary proposal. He did not think the right hon. Gentleman had treated the House with much respect in the way he had brought forward this proposal. He hoped the House would take the opportunity which the Amendment would give of considering the matter, and if it did so he felt sure it would arrive at the conclusion that the proposed body was not one that ought to be appointed.
  MR. COHENsaid the hon. Member who had just spoken had not told them anything which they had not heard before. He thought the Committee would be addressing themselves to a more business-like solution of the problem now before them if they proceeded as speedily as possible to the consideration of the Amendment of which the hon. Member for North-West Wilts had given notice.
  MR. COURTENAY WARNERsaid that one of the things which he did not like about the proposal of the Government was that the number of the Board would be so great that the influence of the individual representative would be infinitesimal unless he was something very much superior to the ordinary representative sent up from the district. As a rule he would not be able to make his influence felt or his voice heard in such a large assembly. If this body was to be so large the ordinary individual would be practically out-classed as well as out-numbered, and it would be better to give the districts protection in other ways than by a mere nominal representative on a body of this size. He saw from the Amendment that some places were left out. Personally he thought it was a pity that all places should not be represented so far as

  1347
  possible, but it was better to leave them out altogether than to give them a false representation. He considered that the appointment of a very small number to represent those vast districts would be a false representation entirely. He would mention three cases in regard to which he had the figures. The Unban Districts of East Ham, Leyton, and Walthamstow, had each a population of about 100,000, and they were each to have one representative. That might be quite right for the present, but these districts were doubling every ten years, and, therefore, they would be grossly underrepresented in the course of a few years. He felt quite confident that the protection these districts would receive by so small a representation on so large a board would not be sufficient. Representations had been made to the right hon. Gentleman through Committees of this House and through bodies outside that so large a body as one consisting of seventy-three members would not be a good working body. His hon. friend had said that the water companies did not care what the number was. He was quite sure that they would prefer a large body because they would be better able to drive a hard bargain. With a small body consisting of men took a keen interest in the business of the Board, the public interest would be better looked after than by a Board of seventy-three. Whatever was done, do not let them have a resurrection of the Metropolitan Board of Works. All sorts of local boards had been tried in all parts of the country, but never had there been such an egregious failure as the Metropolitan Board of Works. [Cries of "No."] Those who remembered the work they did, and the cost of it would bear him out. [Cries of "No."] He gathered that there were some admirers left of the Metropolitan Board of Works. He did not think that those Gentlemen who had such admiration for the shade of that body that had passed would wish to raise it again to manage their own affairs. Perhaps they would like it to manage the water supply of London and neighbourhood, and perhaps the water directors would like them to deal with. He hoped they would have a body more practical and business-like, more in touch with the people who were
  1348
  to be supplied, and less interested in large money-making concerns than that body was.
  SIR GEORGE BARTLEYsaid he represented two interests. He was a water company director and a London Member of Parliament. He should like to say one or two words as to the formation of the new body. He entirely repudiated the suggestion of the hon. Member for the Lichfield Division, that the directors of the water companies wished to drive any bargain at all. They wished to have what was fair and reasonable. He personally thought that London might regret what was now proposed by the Bill. The cost might be very large, and it was extremely likely that in years to come it might be realised that it would have been better to compel the companies to do the work under the penalties which could have been imposed upon them in the event of their refusal or failure. But London had made up its mind to but up the water companies, and as a London Member he desired that the body appointed to carry out the work should be an efficient one in the interest of the ratepayers and the water consumers. He must candidly say that to his mind the idea of creating a body of seventy-three members brought together from all parts, and existing for three years, to carry on a business involving something like fifty millions sterling, was not his idea of the way in which the work could be done successfully. He wished to say this to protect himself hereafter if the scheme did not answer, and London had to pay dearly for the present scheme. His own view, like that of Lord Llandaff's 'Committee, was that there should be a very much smaller body than the Government now proposed. Speaking with the knowledge of a director who had had to do with the finance of one of the largest of the water companies, he considered that the financial part of this great work rendered it desirable that a smaller body of efficient men should be appointed. He should prefer very much a smaller body similar to a paid Board to look after this great work. This would be one of the largest businesses in the country, and his opinion was that the work could not be well done by such a body as was proposed.

  1349
  If the Chairman of this new body was efficient he must become the autocratic ruler of the concern. But if he were not the whole thing must fall into the hands of the paid officials. This scheme represented an enormous development of municipal trading, and he looked upon it with misgiving. As a London Member he should be glad to see some modification of the proposal, but as he had the misfortune to be tarred with the brush of being a director he had no right to take part in the vote. His only object was to protect London from what he considered would be a great evil. If the Chairman were efficient he would become an autocrat of this great concern, and that he thought might be the best, but if he was not a good man, the whole of the thing would fall into the hands of the permanent officials. He looked upon this development of municipal trading with great suspicion, and he objected very strongly to any scheme that might open itself to municipal corruption. He regretted he could not support the scheme of the present Bill as regarded the formation of the Water Board.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  *(3.50.)SIR J. DICKSON-POYNDERsaid he wished to move the comission of the word "Ten" in the first line of the Amendment in order to insert the word "Fourteen." He submitted this Amendment with that amount of reluctance which must always inspire a Member sitting on that side of the House in moving an Amendment to a Government Bill. But that reluctance was tempered by the conviction that his proposal was in the interests of the water administration of London, and was far preperable to that of the Government. His status in moving this Amendment might, he said, be considered a some what slender one. In the first place he was not a London Member, and in the second place he sat as a representative on the London County Council, and the Borough Council of his constituency had passed a resolution in favour of the proposal of the Government. He was, however, perfectly willing to face these disabilities because
  1350
  of the intrinsic merits of the position, and the really overwhelming case that there was against this proposal of the Government.
  He ventured to contend that the principles underlying the Government proposals were unconstitutional. Every Committee and every Commission that had previously exhaustively investigated this question had practically condemned the Government proposal and had advocated the identical principle of his Amendment. In 1891 Lord Ridley's Committee recommended a scheme on the lines of his Amendment; Mr. Plunkett's Committee had in 1895 done the same; while in 1899 Lord Llandaff's Commission had advocated the principle of his Amendment, and in doing so he condemned the principle of a large Board. To come to a more recent date, the Joint Committee of both Houses, which sat this year, arrived at the same conclusion. That opinion of the Joint Committee was all the more important because it had been come to subsequent to the re-arrangement of London government by the establishment of the municipal boroughs. Moreover, this Joint Committee was composed for the most part of Conservatives, and after listening to all the evidence put before them they came to a perfectly clear decision, and by an overwhelming vote condemned the proposal of the Government. He would not go into the subsequent tergiversations of that Committee when they substituted another scheme. He knew he was unable to allude to the unprecedented and extraordinary methods by which those tergiversations were influenced and by which the first decision of the Joint Committee was overturned. The ruling of the Deputy Chairman would not permit of his revealing the whole story of that transaction. If a decision could be taken by this Committee on the Government proposal and his—which embodied the principle of the decision which the Joint Committee had come to in its saner and uninterfered with moments—he had not the slightest doubt that the proposal of the Government, which the Joint committee had never really sanctioned, would be rejected.
  Now, to come to the main objections to this Board, which was to consist of seventy-three members, drawn from the London County Council, from the City Corporation of London, from the

  1351
  London Municipal Corporations, and from certain outside bodies. His first objection to such a Board was that it was constructed on a basis of duplicate representation—which he ventured to say was unprecedented. The system of duplicate representation was introduced in order to include the Borough Councils; and having included them, it became necessary to include the Urban Authority also. The county Council had always been recognised as the water authority for London; and he contended that from the general point of view it was also the sanitary authority for London. The local bodies had not had any dealing in the water question, where as the County Council had had dealings with it for many years. Under a statute passed by the House of Commons it had certain powers; and had investigated the whole question. Therefore, the County Council should be considered the water authority for London, not the subsidiary borough authorities. In 1899, before Lord Llandaff's Commission, the urban authorities outside London were invited to give evidence; but they replied that they knew, or cared, little about the subject; and that they were quite content that county authorities should give evidence. Had there been any general demand on the part of the Borough Councils for representation on the proposed Board? If there had been a loud demand running back for years, he could understand the difficulty in which the Government would be placed; though he himself would consider that to include representatives of the Borough Councils with representatives of the London County Council would be subversive of the existing municipal system. Before the Joint Committee only fifteen Borough Councils petitioned; and, of these, thirteen petitioned after the 1st January in the present year, when, although the Bill was not introduced, the proposed constitution of the Board was an open secret. Then the idea was brought before them for the first time, that they should have representation on the Board. He would ask why, if these bodies were to be included, should representatives of the County Council be included? That appeared to him to be wrong on every principle of local government, and would be certain to result in a conflict of interests. It seemed to him that County Council representation would be
  1352
  far better than Borough Council representation; and, in saying that, he did not intend to pass any reflection on the Borough Councils, or the urban authorities. They were very important bodies, and had extremely important duties to discharge, but those duties were confined to their own areas, and were of a purely local character.
  He saw in the proposed Board a danger to the whole local government of London; and also a danger of confusing duties which related to London as a whole, and duties which related to its several localities. They could not be too careful, in the early days of administrative Boards, to discriminate carefully between local questions, and questions which concerned London as a whole. If that principle were ignored in a complicated city such as London, there would be small hope that municipal life would be conducted on lines compatible with public welfare. To emphasize that point he would make one quotation from an authority which he did not think could be impugned by hon. Members on that side. Lord Salisbury, in a speech he delivered in 1894, said—
  "I am told that there are certain subjects which it is necessary that a central body should conduct and control. I quite admit that there are such subjects. They are principally connected with the main drainage of the Metropolis, with the management of the river which flows through this city, and, if you will, with the water supply. In fact, with those matters which depend upon the natural law that water will run down and will not run up. All these things, which depend upon those natural laws, are necessarily brought under a central management, but if that management were duplicated or were multiplied it would cause confusion."
  It was contended by the advocates of the Board that the supply of water was a local question. He contended most strongly that it was not a local question in London; it was essentially a universal question. If it had been local it would have been one of the very matters which would have been given to each individual Borough Council and urban authority. He would ask the Committee to consider the analogy of the main drainage scheme of London at present. It was very little heard of because it swas carried out most satisfactorily by one small central committee. Indeed, so satisfactory was the work of that committee that outside authorities had asked to be allowed to

  1353
  come under its administration. He himself could not see very much difference or distinction between extracting foul water from a house and putting pure water into it. What had been done by a small committee in the one direction could be done by a small committee in the other direction. He did not wish the Committee to imagine that he advocated, or had ever advocated, that the County Council should be the sole administrative authority for water in London. He had always opposed that proposal; and when the Committee investigated the only possible alternative—the severance—it was found to be impossible and impracticable.
  Once the central principle of local government in London was grasped, the problem, complex as it seemed, became simple. That principle was contained under three heads. The first related to matters concerning London as a county which should be under the central authority of London. The second referred to matters relating solely to a locality without overlapping in any way, which were dealt with by the Borough Councils. Then the rapid development of London Beyond its artificial boundaries necessitated a third system of local government, viz., a Board; and in that matter he contended most strongly that the Board must be drawn, not from the subsidiary authorities, but from the county authorities. The Water Board was a very fair example or the last mentioned form of government. In order to carry out its work in a far-sighted manner it would be necessary, from time to time, to transact work in a particular locality for the benefit of other localities. That was always extremely unpopular in the locality concerned. It might be a case of drains, storage, or reservoirs; and if representatives of that locality were on the Board, their primary idea would be the interests of their own area, with the result that they would be very often in conflict with the general interests of water London. He did not speak of the old Board of Works in the derogatory manner that the hon. Gentleman opposite did; but one of its weak points was that there were representatives of outlying districts on it who protected those districts against attack, although the attack was in the general interest;
  1354
  and there would be a great danger, if these small cabals were to be set up again. He did not reflect on the local bodies; but he advocated a Board which would look at London as a whole. It might be argued that the outside counties would send representatives from districts without the water area; but the bulk of the population would be within the confines of water London, and it would be perfectly easy for those outside areas to send in their representatives drawn from that particular part whose interest would be considered as within the water area of London.
  With regard to the portentous size of the Water Board—seventy-three members—the House did not want to institute a Water Board which was a large debating body; what was wanted was a small administrative body. He would suggest that this Board should consist of thirty-three members. The fact that provincial corporations had a large number on their Boards was no analogy. Those corporations had various functions to perform which necessitated committees and sub-committees being created. In this case there was only one function to perform, which could be well done by a smaller body. Every authority on this matter strongly disapproved of a large body. The main argument in favour of seventy-three members was that there must be a large body in order to establish the many committees that would have to be established to control the water business in all these areas. The evidence given before the Commission was that some seven or eight committees would be required, but in the opinion of the experts examined two or three would be ample. It was said it would be necessary to create appeal committees in various districts, and again the evidence of the experts controverted that evidence and said such a thing would be most undesirable. The detail work would have to rest with a paid official. He quite agreed that it was not desirable that all the work should be in the hands of a paid official, but a great deal of it must be. With regard to local members being placed on this Board in order that the grievances of their localities might be ventilated, he did not think such a thing was desirable. Under such conditions a

  1355
  grievance had little chance of being remedied. By far the most effective way would be for the locality aggrieved to send a deputation to the central body. That was the practice of the London County Council, and the complaints of deputations were always listened to and dealt with on their merits. It had been pointed out that the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of this Water Board would be paid officials and do most of the work, but he did not envy the man who would have to preside over these conflicting interests. He should be a good administrator, and with a large body like this it would be found that he would be nothing more than a Chairman to keep order. The Board was unwieldy, and from its size was not likely to be a good administrative Board, and no case had been made out for such a large Board when the Committee considered that the only work it would have to do would be to administer the water of the Metropolis.
  He had tried to consider this matter from a broad point of view, and the conviction to which he had been forced was that such a Board as this would not conduce to the good administration of the water of London. He made an earnest appeal to the Government to reconsider this matter. They had now arrived at the last month of the year after a most fatiguing session; the House was exhausted; many Members had gone and the debates were becoming more desultory every day. Was it right, under these circumstances, that a great question like this, affecting the health of millions of people, should be dealt with in this manner. The postponement of this Clause would not disturb the other portions of the Bill, which could all be got through; but the constitution of the Board affected the whole municipal power of the country, and was going to affect the finance and health of this vast and increasing city, and therefore he asked the Government to reconsider this proposal. It was a proposal which hardly any business man outside the House approved of, and therefore he appealed to the Government to adjourn this proposal to next session.
  Amendment proposed to the Amendment proposed—
  1356
  "In line 2, to leave out the word 'ten' and insert the word 'fourteen' "—(Sir J. Dickson Poynder)—(instead thereof.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'ten' stand part of the proposed Amendment."
  (4.20.)MR. JOHN BURNSsaid the Committee had listened to the excellent and well-informed speech of the hon. Member for North Wilts in support of the Amendment, and he could not help contrasting that speech with the one which had been made by the right hon. Gentleman upon the clause. The President of the Local Government Board was unable to make a good speech, because he had no case. The right hon. Gentleman had made a speech this afternoon in which there was little argument, but what there was had quickly been disposed of by the hon. Baronet. He supported the appeal the hon. Baronet had made to the Government not to press this Clause at the moment, in the interest of the Government for the smooth working of the Bill, and in the interest of economy in the working of it. He hoped they would not force through the House what he believed to be the most extravagant policy that had ever been forced on London. The President of the Local Government Board had stated that he had given the London county Council representation on the governing body because it had taken an interest in the question, and to the other district because they were affected, but he had not mentioned the extent to which the County Council was concerned. In the course of the next ten years the County Council, out of the County Council rate, would probably have to provide a sum of money ranging from £30,000,000 to £50,000,000, and the body which would have to provide the money, upon whose financial credit and administrative responsibility the money would have to be found to buy out the companies in the first place, and to supply shortages which would inevitably ensue if such a large body as was proposed managed the water supply—that body was entitled, if not to a clear majority, at any rate to more than one-seventh of the representation. Then, what about the other bodies? The Borough Councils would have thirty-six members out of sevety-three.
  *THE DEPUTY CHAIRMANreminded the hon. Member that a specific Amendment had been moved, and the discussion must be restricted to the substitution of "14" for "10."
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONpointed out that the object of the proposal being brought from the Schedule to the first Clause was that a general discussion might be taken. If the Committee had understood that they were to be limited to the question between "10" and "14," they would have taken the general discussion before the Amendment had been moved. He trusted the Deputy Chairman would allow the general discussion to be taken, as that was the distinct understanding.
  MR. CORRIE GRANTsaid the hon. Baronet in moving the Amendment, so far from confining his argument to the substitution of "14" for "10," dealt with the whole of the proposal.
  *THE DEPUTY CHAIRMANsaid that at that time there was no specific Amendment before the Committee, and therefore the hon. Baronet was entitled to discuss the whole subject. The discussion would now have to be restricted to the particular Amendment, but when the Question that the original Amendment of the President of the Local Government Board stand part of the Clause was put, a general discussion could be taken.
  CAPTAIN NORTONasked whether it was not on the clear understanding that they might discuss the whole Question that the hon. Baronet was allowed to move his Amendment.
  MR. WALTER LONGsuggested that the debate should be allowed to proceed as though the whole of the hon. Baronet's Amendment were before the Committee, it being understood that the debate should not be repeated at a subsequent stage.
  *THE DEPUTY CHAIRMANsaid that that could be done with the consent of the Committee and himself. If, however, the discussion was now taken, it must be clearly understood that no discussion would be allowed at the end of the Amendment.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: Always provided that Amendments to the Amendment will not be disallowed.
  *THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Oh, no.
  MR. JOHN BURNS (continuing his speech)contended that the Borough Councils were not entitled to the disproportionate representation proposed, inasmuch as they had no financial responsibility, were not particularly vested with metropolitan knowledge such as would be required, and were not elected or supposed to ask for representation on a body which ought to look at the water question from a universal point of view, without local prejudice or interest. He objected to the disproportionate representation because it would make the Board unusually and unnecessarliy large. All authorities on the subject agreed with that. If it was possible for a body of fifteen to manage the main drainage system of London, which, from some points of view, was more important as regarded the health of the people, more difficult to manage, and more dangerous to administer, it was taxing the patience of the House of Commons too much to ask that a mob of seventy-three men, gathered from thirty localities, should deal with the water supply. The proposal was contrary to the recommendations of all the Commissions and Committees that had inquired into the subject, and if the right hon. Gentleman attempted to get up an agitation in its favour he doubted whether even the fifteen or sixteen Borough Councils which had given a most perfunctory assent to the scheme would now be found in its favour. In such a matter, with the enormous sums of money at stake, and the necessity for economy, and for securing a personnel of the highest character on the financial side, with a view to obtaining credit, he was not diposed to attach undue weight to the view of the newly elected Borough Councils, who had not this subject before them at the time either of their creation or election. The hon. Members for Chelsea and West Marylebone, and other supporters of the Government, who had some knowledge of the question, had declared themselves in favour of a smaller body, on the ground that the authority now proposed was too large, might be inefficient, would overlap, and was not the proper kind of body for the purpose. The President of the Local Government Board ought to recognise facts. Not a single Conservative Member had yet stood up to defend the constitution of

  1359
  this Board. The hon. Member for Exeter had indeed tried to help the Governmental lame dogs over the stile, but his remarks were in the nature more of apologetics than of a wellinformed defence. It had been truly said that some counties which were enamoured temporarily of the Government measure were now realising that with such a large board there was a probability of theier localitits not being well served, and, in the matter of compensation, being unfairly treated. The Kent Water Company had already expressed a desire to get away from this large body, and some of the Middlesex authorities were anxious to follow the example of Kent and cut themselves off from this Board altogether. It did seem to him that a Board condemned by Lord Cross's Committee, Lord James's Committee, and Lord Llandaff's Committee, failed from the point of view of economy and efficiency. Why did the President of the Local Government Board want the Borough Councils to be represented at all? He believed that it was due to his unreasoning dislike for the London County Council. What was the reason for his dislike? The London Country Council would have to find the money, and the right hon. Gentleman should be inclined to conciliate, in the interests of the Water directors, the body which would have to pay the piper. This dislike appeared to have been begotten by a belief that if the right hon. Gentleman disliked the London Country Council sufficiently he could use the thirty-six Borough Councillors against the London County Council for political reasons, but if that was the Government view he wished to point out the consuquences of holding that view.
  No reasons had been given why the London County Council should be discredited and displaced in this way. The right hon. Gentleman asked that the London County Council should be over-whelmed and outvoted on this Water Board by those who might look at the question with more justice to the Water shareholders than the London County Council would. If that was the reason it was unreasonable, unstatesmanlike and unfair. Let the Committee look at the matter from a Borough Council's point of view. What did the Government do?
  1360
  They abolished vestries and put the Councils in their place. And why? Because some of them indulged in malpractices bordering on corruption. When the vestries were replaced by the Borough Councils thier numbers were reduced, and the very reason which induced the Government to make this reduction was the reason why thay should reduce the number of this Water Board. The Borough Councils were made smaller in numbers and larger in area, and if the new Borough Councils would do their work as they ought to do they could not afford that proportion of their small number which would be necessary for them to be represented on the Water Board to the extent proposed by this Bill.
  It had been said that in the future some members of the Borough Councils would have to be provided for education. He thought that instead of education and water it would be better to give them poor law matters to look after. It appeared that the County Council was to be supplanted by bodies which had already got enough to do. With regard to this new body the Bill said that it could purchase by agreement. This meant that a body of seventy-three persons coming together for the first time would have to agree to purchase the water companies either by agreement or arbitration. If purchase by agreement was settled upon then this new body was the wrong one to deal with it. This boby would probably decide to purchase by agreement, and they might be driven in their own interest to press harder upon the water shareholders than an arbitration tribunal, or harder even than a body like the London County Council would. There was a danger of this new body treating the companies unfairly. Of course there was also the other alternative that they might treat the companies too generously, which would be detrimental to the interests of the ratepayers of London. They would have experts on both sides. One side would try to get the best bargain they could for the ratepayers, and the other side would do the best they could for the water shareholders, and between those two interests he could see both sides appealing to those thirty-six Borough Councillors who would have no knowledge of this particular subject, and

  1361
  who, with a little political bias, would come down either on the side of the directors or the County Council who might want to have too much of thier own way. That course would be neither business-like nor just to the ratepayers or the water companies.
  Now that the terms were roughly determined and both side were satisfied with the arbitration tribunal, now that it was admitted that the County Council was the best authority, it did seem to him to be unreasonable and unfair beyond conception that these thirty-six Borough Councillors should be brought in without any knowledge and experience to determine the price of something which might range from £30,000,000 to £50,000,000. The problem of London government was every year becoming more serious, more difficult and complex. The way in which various vested interests had been allowed in the past to ride rough-shod over the common interest of this vast city had become intolerable, and if this was to be rectified they would have to have central bodies with larger control and wider powers than existing central bodies possesed in order to keep local bodies and companies down to certain lines and conditions by which a minimum of public inconvenience would be caused in carrying out their work. For executive reasons alone it was simply madness to say that the body responsible for the main drainage of London should not have a more or less dominating voice in the executive work of carrying out the water supply of London. By centralising the water and drainage management they would confer, in the matter of comfort and convenience, untold advantages upon London. A centralised body, small in numbers, trusted by the people, as central bodies invariably were now when directly elected, ought not to wait for the complaints of local people. It ought to anticipate local complaint by removing the cause long before it ran to the extent of a public grievance. These subcommittees would be used for preferential treatment by localities, they would be manipulated by officials, and perhaps by workmen. He could see, in connection with contracts, a fine vista of jobbery if this system of local committees was
  1362
  instituted. He objected to the proposed Board for, roughly, the reasons given by Viscount Hampden, a director of the Lambeth Water Works Company. Speaking at the half-yearly meeting of the company on 25th November, he said—
  "Both as a consumer and a ratepayer London he hoped that, even at the last moment the Government would avoid establishing such a cumbrous, unwieldy, and inexperienced Board as that proposed in the Bill. It had been said that the great advantage to be derived from transferring the undertakings to a public board would be unity of management, but it would be quite impossible ever to obtain unity of management with a board such as that proposed by the Government. They proposed to give representation to every single borough in the metropolitan area. Speaking quite generally, north and west London were supplied at a less charge than east and south London, and it would therefore follow that the representatives, say, of Westminster, instead of being in favour of unity of management, would do their best to oppose in every possible way they could any proposal to alter the incidence of charge or any effort to secure the equalising of rates."
  That ought to be conclusive to the President of the Local Government Board Viscount Hampden's statement was in it self argument enough against the establishment of this Board of 1873.
  He would state another argument. Everyone in the House knew that the Thames could not very much longer be depended upon as a source of water supply for London. Middlesex would seek power to go out of this scheme before two years had gone by. Surrey, Hertfordshire, Essex, and part of Kent, would object to remain compulsorily under this Water Board, because they would be under the impression that they could be better served in some other way. The effect of that would be that an extravagantly disproportionate cost in certain districts would ensue, and the water rate might go up. If it went up it might cause people to resist what he believed to be absolutely inevitable, namely, the abandonmnet of the river Thames as a source of supply in favour of some big project which would require business men, and great engineers with prescience and capacity. They would have to go to Wales or else where for the new supply. What would the Councillors who were on the proposed Water Board do? They would look at this project from a narrow, petty,

  1363
  parochial, and microscopic point of view, because Vestrymen and Borough Councillors who never spend more than £200,000 or £250,000 in a particular locality would not have the moral courage to take up, in a bold way, the work necessary to give London, a proper water supply. Failing the adoption of the scheme of the London County Council, which he believed was the best, and which experience would prove to be the only way of dealing with the question, the proposal of the hon. Baronet the Member for North-West Wilts was the next best thing, and he would support the Amendment with all the power he could command, because he was extremely anxious that the water supply should be managed by men above local prejudice, and not susceptible to the influences arising out of vested interest. He hoped the President of the Local Government Board would go on with less contentious Clauses and give the question of the constitution of the board consideration between now and March next.
  (5.7) SIR EDGAR VINCENTsaid that hon. Members who urged the postponement of that portion of the Bill which dealt with the constitution of the new boby must either have forgotten, or taken singularly little account of, a petition signed by a large majority of London Members urging the Government to finish the Bill before the end of the present session. He submitted that that petition represented the preponderating opinion of the water consumers of London. Having given great attention to the subject, he was altogether unable to comprehend the alarm which was apparently felt at the constitution of a body of seventy-three members, and, still more, to understand the enthusiasm with which the constitution of a board of thirty-three members apparently inspired them. The difference between these two bodies was a little matter of detail, but he submitted there was no essential difference in the matter of administration between them. If hon. Gentlemen chose to substitute for the quasi-representative body proposed by the Government a small committee of ten, twelve, or fifteen paid members, he could understand that arguments of considerable force might be used in support of that proposal, but whatever arguments were given, it was perfectly certain they would not come from hon. Gentlemen
  1364
  opposite. If one looked beneath the surface it would be seen that the argument did not really turn on the municipal difference between a body of seventy-three or thirty-three members. Whether by coincidence or otherwise, it was a fact that! the Water Board proposed by his hon. friend the Member for North-West Wiltshire, and supported by hon. Gentlemen opposite, did give a practical majority and preponderance to the London County Council, whereas in the measure brought forward by the President of the Local Government Board the London County Council was merged in the larger representation. He admired much of the work done by the London County Council, but on the Water Question it appeared to him that the Committee were met by this difficulty, that every outside authority which had expressed a view on the question had petitioned, and urged the petition with the greatest possible force, not to be compelled to form part of a body for the management of the water supply on which the London County Council would have a predominant position. He believed the opposition to any proposal of the Government to give the London County Council a preponderating influence, would have been absolutely insuperable from all the counties round. It had been argued that the proposed Board was unwieldy, but surely the fact that a representative body drew its members from a considerable area, and that opposing views were represented, was a distinct advantage rather than a defect.
  The further argument had been advanced that the whole subject of water supply was rather the function of a committee than of an independent Board. He thought that that view arose from a complete misapprehension of the problem they were dealing with. The views of water authorities in various provincial cities had been cited with approval and emphasis, but he submitted that the problem before the Committee now was one differing totally in extent and nature from any water supply scheme at present in force throughout the country. Water London contained a population of six and a quarter millions. It was composed of districts differing mostly in thier requirements and their habits, while the sources of the water supply were widely separated from each

  1365
  other. He could not find the smallest analogy between the circumstances either of Glasgow, Liverpool, Manchester, or the other large provincial towns, and the problems which now confronted them in London. An interesting paper had been put in by the London Country Council, in which the figures concerning thirty-nine large towns in the provinces were given. But there was no analogy whatever between the water supply of London, with its six millions of inhabitants, and the water supply of towns whose population did not exceed 200,000. It had been argued on the basis of these figures that the committees were totally unnecessary, but if the details of the statement were read it would be found that of the thirty-nine large towns all but eleven worked through sub-committees; and that the number of sub-committees increased in direct ratio with the increase of area and of population. That appeared to him to destroy altogether the argument that the proposed Water Board, consisting of seventy-three Members, would be inefficient. It was perfectly obvious that the work of the Water Board would be conducted almost entirely through sub-committees. It had been repeatedly brought forward that a better proposal to the one now before the Committee would be Lord Llandaff's—viz., a Board composed of thirty members; but he thought that in taking that view the members of the London County Council were some what illogical; because, when the Llandaff commission reported in favour of a small Board, a deputation waited on the Government and Mr. Mackinnon Wood stated that he had not been able to find a single man to approve of that Report. A small Board, that Gentleman said, was not representative enough, but too administrative. They were, however, now told that the proposed Board of seventy-three members was too representative and not administrative enough. The real fact of the matter was that the opposition to the Bill came from those who would be satisfied with no solution but that which left the London County Council in command of the field.
  Then it was said that the ratepayers were not sufficiently represented on
  1366
  the proposed Board. He confessed that the reasons adduced for that criticism did not appear to him to be well founded. He maintained that the real wishes of the ratepayers and water consumers of London would be better represented in a Board of seventy-three than in one of thirty-three. And it went without saying that the representaion would be more complete ina Board of such numbers than on an administrative Board of twelve or thirteen. He could understand the argument against the new body as being inexperienced, and as not being able to get the best of the discussion when settling terms with the Water Companies; but it was forgotten that the Bill itself had laid down in precise terms the method of transfer and the conditions. He drew attention to Clause 23, which established the Board of Arbitration—
  *THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Order, Order! The hon. Member must not discuss any future Clause. I think I have already allowed the hon. Member too much latitude in regard to the financial part of the Bill.
  *SIR EDGAR VINCENTsaid he would pass from the financial Clause. His only object was to show that the danger apprehended in regard to the constitution of the Board from the fact that it was composed of seventy-three members was largely dicounted by the fact that the financial business of the transfer would rarely come before them. Attention had been almost entirely confined to one point, viz., the number and the constitution of the necessary authority. Outside that, there appeared to be a general consensus of opinion that the proposal before the Committee was acceptable. His own view was that it was not only acceptable, but that it was in the highest degree ingenious; and he believed most sincerely that if it were accepted by the Committee it would provide a good working solution of the question which had been too long before the community. He therefore urged the Committee most strongly not to be diverted from the examination of the real point of the Bill. If the argument of those who had—if he might use the term without offence—an axe to grind,

  1367
  were put aside, those who desired that the body to be created the sole authority for water, outside the London County Council—there was no alternative suggested to that submitted in the Bill.
  *MR. MELLORsaid he was not going himself to urge on the President of the Local Government Board to withdraw this Bill, although he was not enamoured of it. He hoped that a good Bill would be passed, because, as the hon. Gentleman who spoke last had said, this question had been a long time before the House, and it was desirable that it should be settled. He was, however, bound to say that he thought that it was very late in the session to discuss so important a Bill. When they considered the very large amount of money that was going to be invested in this matter, all the difficulties of the question, and the extreme importance of it to the ratepayers, he was sorry that it had come up to be dealt with now, when they would not be able to give it the attention which it deserved. He joined in the suggestion that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board should accept this Amendment now. and then those difficulties in regard to the rest of the Bill would be very small, and that he would get it passed without much difficulty. If it should turn out that this Amendment would not cause the Bill to work properly, the right hon. Gentlenman had the remedy in his own hands. He could bring in a Bill to alter it next session, and with the Government majority at his command the amended Bill could be passed easily. This was not a political matter in any sense. It was a pure matter of providing London with an adequate supply of the best water. It was absurd to look at it from a political point of view. He was a member of Lord Llandaff's Commission, and it was as a member of that Commisssion, and not as a ratepayer of London, that he was now speaking. Why should the Government force upon them this Board of seventy-three, when all the authorities were against it? Lord Llandaff's Commission, which sat for two years, proposed a body of thirty-three; and he was sure that if the question had been put in that Commission
  1368
  whether there should be a Board of seventy-three or to leave the water companies alone, the water companies would have been left in possession. There was much more to be said in favour of the water companies than had been heard in this House.
  This was purely a question of administration. Could it be seriously suggested that any one who read the evidence taken before Lord Llandaff's Commission, or the evidence before the Select Committee, that seventy-three was the best number for administration? The Select Committee decided by two to one in favour of Lord Llandaff's Report, and the conclusion they arrived at was arrived at after considerable consideration and thorough examination of the evidence. What was the use of a Royal Commission if Parliament was not going to attend to its recommendations, especially when the Commission made a unanimous Report? All the eight men on the Commission started with different views, and finally, by the force of the evidence they heard, they Joined in a unanimous Report. The real reason why the number of thirty- three for the Board had been fixed upon was this: they had to inquire as to whether it was prudent, for financial reasons, that the water companies should be bought out by some body, and if they were to be bought out, by what body. They came to the conclusion that it would not be advantageous to the ratepayers that the water companies should be bought out by any body unless the greatest possible care were taken for future administration, and that that should not be to the disadvantage of the ratepayers of London. His objection to seventy-three members was that the people who returned the Borough Councils were also represented on the County Councils, and practically got their representation twice over. The County Council was the proper authority to be represented on the water board. The right hon. Gentleman had told the Committee that he had arrived at the number seventy-three after a great deal of consideration and thought. The Commission came to the conclusion that it was not to the advantage of the ratepayers that the water companies should be bought out unless the greatest possible

  1369
  economy and care were afterwards exercised in administration. They recommended a board of thirty-three members who should, as far as was possible, be experts—people well acquainted with water administration, who would administer the water in the most economical way and prevent waste. Of course, the Commission supposed that the experts would, to a great extent, be taken from among the old directors of the water companies, who had practical experience of the business. He hoped the Government would, even at this the eleventh hour, listen to their suggestions. If they did, no one could blame them, and it never could be reasonably suggested that either the Government, or the Bill, had been damaged by such a course. The Opposition simply wanted to get for the ratepayers of London the best possible administration, in order that no reproach might rest upon Parliament when the Bill began to work. Thirty-three members was quite enough. The Government's scheme would result in the borough and county representatives differing from each other, and the system of Progressives and Moderates would be reproduced. It was most desirable to avoid anything in the nature of debating; what was wanted was administration. He spoke not as a Member of the Opposition but as a member of the Royal Commission, which was a very strong one, and came to a unanimous conclusion after reading the evidence. That surley was a good argument in favour of adopting their recommendations, and he hoped under those circumstances the Committee, at all events, would not agree to the proposal of the Government.
  (5.38.) MR. WALTER LONGsaid he had little to add to his previous remarks. The right hon. Gentleman complained in almost pathetic terms that the Government had not adopted the precise recommendations of the Royal Commission. He was surprised, however, that the right hon. Gentleman should have raised the question on the Amendment of his hon. friend, which, whatever the views of the Government might be, was not based on those recommendations. The reason why they departed from the recommendations of the Commission was very simple; it was because they had to
  1370
  deal with this question as practical men who had to face a practical difficulty. As a matter of fact, the advice given by Royal Commissions was very seldom taken; their recommendations, unfortunately, were very often put on one side. The right hon. Gentleman said this was not a political question, and he was quite sure the statement was made in perfect good faith, but it was rather remakable that nearly all those who had denounced his proposals were Gentleman who sat on the opposite side of the House, or those who held similar opinions to hon. Gentlemen opposite. His hon. friend who moved this Amendment did not represent any London constituency; it was true he was a member of the London County Council— a Moderate—and he appeared now as the advocate of the Progressive policy. That was rather a curious mixture, which did not suggest to him that he should have much regard to the suggestions of the hon. Member.
  The right hon. Gentleman opposite assured them that if they accepted the Amendment all their difficulties would disappear. But did the right hon. Gentleman really believe that hon. Members on that side, who in a vast majority represented London, and who had supported the Bill with the approval of their constituents, would surrender the policy with which they had associated themselves in order to adopt that of hon. Gentlemen opposite, or of his hon. frined's A more remarkable receipt given to a Government for the easy carrying on of its business was surely never heard. While the Government might get rid of some difficulties by adopting the suggestion of the Party opposite, they would be only raising fresh difficulties which would make the passage of the Bill more difficult. It was impossible to approach this question in the same way as it could be approached if the country were new and there were no existing bodies. It was impossible not to recognise that there were a lot of metropolitan and urban authorities who, up to now, had failed to come to an agreement on this matter, and who had to be considered. Why all these attacks on the Borough Councils? Why should it be imagined that the County Council was endowed with every virtue and the Borough Councils with every vice? Why was it supposed that

  1371
  the County Council could do anything they set their hands to, and that the Borough Councils could do nothing? There was no justification whatever, in fact, for these attacks. He contended that it was impossible to ignore the position of the London water area. That area extended much beyond the Limits of the London County Council, both in extent and population, and it would be found that much of the money spent for the various purposes of water supply would be spent outside the area of the London County Council. It was rapidly growing, and rates would increase proportionately. Apart from actual numbers, not only was it wise to select the governing body from these constituent authorities, but if they were to create a body to deal with the great sanitary questions involved, it was natural and just to go to the sanitary authorities of the area concerned. He hoped hon. Members would not suggest that these metropolitan boroughs should only be represented through the County Council, because he was not prepared to adopt the suggestion that the Government should shut out from any place on this body the metropolitan boroughs which had shown themselves so thoroughly capable of looking after the affairs of those boroughs, and who, he believed, were going to add largely to the interest and energy which must be bestowed on municipal work in London if the Metropolis was to vie with the work done in the other great towns.
  He did not believe that any other plan than that adopted by the Government was practical or workable. He saw no reason to alter the view at which he had arrived after carefully investigating this question, namely that if they were to obtain the support and agreement of all the people they must secure that there should be on the Board representatives of all the districts concerned. In that way only would they be able to secure a Board which would have the confidence of Water London. If, as was alleged, a Board consisting of seventy-three members would be a mere debating assembly, what became of the great corporations and County Councils? At present London was supplied with water by eight companies controlled by eight different directors. It would be necessary to divide London into districts and work
  1372
  through committees—for all the detailed work would have to be done in that way—and he did not believe it would be found in practice that there was one man more in this new body than would be wanted for the adequate discharge of their duties. It was amusing to note that the decision of the Committee upstairs as to numbers, upon which so much stress had been laid, was not particularly unanimous, because when the Committee were discussing the desirability of reducing the number to thirty-five, upon going into details of this particular question they raised the number to sixty-nine. The Committee found that unless this representation was given it would be impossible to secure the common agreement essential to the smooth working of such a body. These were the reasons which led the Government originally to put the proposals in the Bill, and they were the reasons which would make the Government adhere to the proposals, and thus render it impossible for the Amendment of the hon. Baronet to be accepted.
  (6.0.) MR. HALDANEsaid that the word "practical" ran through the right hon. Gentleman's speech, but he had listened in vain for some distinct indication of how, in the right hon. genthleman's mind, the "practical" nature of a proposal was to be tested. Above everything he should have thought practical considerations required that this Board should comprise a body able to proceed at once efficienlty to the business of conducting the arbitration. The first business of the Board would be to enter upon the arbitrations so that the awards might, if possible, be given before the "appointed day'. That was why, in the view of many Member who were anxious that there should be a temporary body which could conduct this business, the refusal of the right hon. Gentleman to entertain a compromise made the constitution of the Water Board a much more serious matter.
  MR. WALTER LONG: What compromise?
  MR. HALDANE: To deal with the constitution of the Water Board in a later measure.
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid he did not understand the surrender of half the Bill to be a compromise.
  MR. HALDANEasked the Committee to consider the position in which this body would find itself. If it had to deal only with the matters spoken of by the right hon. Gentleman it would be different. But the arbitrators would probably say, "The sooner we set to work the better," and these seventy-three gentleman, drawn from all quarters of the London water area, not elected by any homogeneous method, but appointed by bodies holding the most divergent views, would have to prepare for and conduct arbitrations against the most skilled experts who for years had been steeped in the business of conducting these references. The Board would have no officials, as the officials of the companies would not come under their control until a later stage in the proceedings, nor would they have the skilled assistance of the London County Council. He really could not see how, with this body of seventy-three gentlemen, it was possible to have this business conducted with that degree of efficiency which the people had a right to expect. That was why some hon. Members considered that it would not have been a surrender of half the Bill, but a useful and easy compromise, to have dealt with the constitution of the Water Board in a separate measure, in the meantime passing a provision to enable some body—the County Council would have done very well—which had all the machinery for conducting these references at hand, to undertake what after all was the most serious business. Financial questions also would arise before the unfortunate body had anything like an efficient staff at its command. He had looked in vain for evidences of the enthusiasm of London Unionist Members for this measure. Where were the hon. Members for West Marylebone and the Epping Division of Essex, both of whom were keen on the Water Question? They were absent, and the right hon. Gentleman was backed only by a few depressed-looking supporters of Government.
  MR. WALTER LONG: We might return the compliment.
  AN HON. MEMBER: We are but seven.
  MR. LOUGH: There are six out of seven hon. Liberal Members present.
  MR. HALDANE (continuing)said the right hon. Gentleman had spoken of the difficulty of working out the scheme of any of the Commissions on the subject, and the necessity, again of proceeding on practical lines. It was, therefore, somewhat peculiar that the scheme ultimately adopted should have differed in such an extraordinary degree from anything that had ever been suggested. Seventy-three was a great contrast to thirty. The consideration that should have been uppermost was that of securing a practical and efficient body rather than that of adequately representing this or that authority. He had no prejudice against the Metropolitan Borough Councils, and would like to see them adequately represented, but it should be "adequate representation" in relation to the question with which the Bill dealt. Certainly without entirely swamping the London County Council, which was practical body, and had conducted its business with great vigour and efficiency, the Government could have given the Borough Councils adequate representation by grouping or otherwise. A feebler argument from the practical point of view in support of any measure had seldom been heard.
  It was-said that the Board would require all these members because it was likely to have to separate itself into local Committees. He would have liked that idea to be worked out, because, from a perusal of the Bill, he was unable to see how that part would come in. Questions of policy would concern the water area as a whole. If questions of appeal and valuation such as were dealt with by borough assessment committees were to come before the Board, one could understand the desirability of local committees, but this body would have nothing to do with questions of ratable value and so forth. He presumed that the water supply was to be dealth with on a comprehensive and scientific scale. If so, these things would be reduced to rules to a far greater extent than was at present the case, and even if there were a certain number of appeals they would not be

  1375
  sufficiently numerous to require the enormous number of committees the right hon. Gentleman seemed to indicate. The real work that this body would have to do was, in the first place, to purchase the undertakings upon proper terms; next, to look after the finance—a matter requiring all the expert advice that could be obtained; and then there would be the question of carrying on the undertakings with the existing staff, as far as possible, on certain general principles which it would be for this body to work out. He felt quite sure that if by putting on this enormously heterogeneous representation they meant that the interests of the localities were to be made permanent, they would get themselves into great trouble. They wanted a policy which would apply to the whole area, and it was much better to deal with these matters upon general principles. He was sure they would have questions enough to deal with without bringing in local problems. If one looked at this matter from a practical point of view the only really practical way to get a thoroughly efficient administration of the system of water supply would be to secure a body altogether free from sectional interests, and be sufficiently moderate in numbers to work out its policy without the confusion which would result from entrusting this work to what was practically a new Parliament for London. It was to be regretted very much in the interests of London that this Board had been framed as it had been. He believed in the advice of the experts and he thought that upon this occasion the Government were going against the great body of expert opinion upon this matter, for the Royal Commission and the Committees which have considered this question were against any such proposal as this, and he could only look upon the future of this new body with grave apprehension. He did not really think that the proposals made by the right hon. Gentleman had got half-a-dozen really convinced supporters besides himself.
  SIR J. BLUNDELL MAPLEsaid he rose to give his support most thoroughly to the present Board being constituted at the number of seventy-three. He did so because the outside
  1376
  area was a very important one, and because it was the one from which they got all their water supply. When they came to look at the Bill and counted the number of representatives on the Water Board from these outside areas they would see that of the total of seventy-three there were twenty-five men to be co-opted from those outside areas and they were men who had managed the water supply of those areas, in the past in a most thorough and efficient way. He had been on the London County Council for some years, and had seen the members of the Council there, who worked very hard, but he doubted whether on the London County Council there were men with the same capacity as those who would be chosen from those outside areas. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Haddington, who had just sat down, complained of what the President of the Local Government Board said in regard to the work to be done by this Board. They knew that the Board would have to buy up all the water companies, which would mean an outlay of between forty million and fifty million pounds.
  On this Board of seventy-three there would be all sorts of committees required. This Water Board would have to take charge of an area which had up to the present been looked after by the Boards of eight water companies, embracing some eighty different representatives. Therefore the Board they were asking for of seventy-three members was no large number to deal with this important business. There would be the finance committee, committees to deal with the water supply and also with the waste of water. A great many arguments had been adduced as to what they had to do with regard to the water supply, but he thought they would have a much better supply brought to them by the local authorities in outside areas, who ought to look after their own water coureses and see that there was no wasting of water. They would require committees to take charge in those outside areas, and it seemed to him that this number of seventy-three was little enough when they came to consider the large area to be dealt with. Last year he look up the subject of the future dealing with this water question, and he then thought

  1377
  it was advisable to have a smaller Board. In the meantime, after carefully considering the question, he quite agreed with the President of the Local Government Board that they must have a larger Board. It had been said that when they came to deal with the question of purchase with a Board of seventy-three, that those gentlemen who were on that Board would not be able to deal satisfactorily with the arbitration question. But surely they would be able to do this, for they were not going to decide the question.; They were going to decide the question. They were going to appoint arbitrators, and they would hare the demand of the water companies, and members of the Water Board were sure to be men who wished the companies to have proper value for their property, and they would be able to instruct learned gentlemen like the hon. and learned Member opposite to argue their case, and see that only the proper value was given for the interests of the water companies.
  The hon. Member for Battersea, if he might say so, appeared to wander all over the place in dealing with the question of the constitution of the Water Board and what it would be. He thought the main question they had to deal with was what was to be the authority and how was it to be constructed. His opinion was that this Water Board, as proposed by the President of the Local Government Board, would be an effective body, would not be too large, and would be able to do the work most efficiently. The whole question of passing this Bill into law was a very small one, and practically resolved itself down to the constitution of this Water Board. He had yet to learn that any of these different localities had disputed this question. No speaker in the debates on this Bill had said that these different localities chosen by the Bill ought not to have their representatives It was necessary that all these localities should be represented, and when they came to think that twenty-five of the Members of the Water Board represented outside areas, surely the water consumers of London ought to have somebody from the different Metropolitan Boroughs to represent London County Council. It was the London interests as well as the London County Council. It was absolutely necessary that they should
  1378
  have a larger number of representatives on the Water Board than the outside areas had. As there were twenty-five representatives of the outside areas, it was necessary that the rest of London should have some forty-eight representatives to make up the seventy-three As to the question of the proportion of representation to be given to the different bodies, he thought the London County Council had got too much work to do now. The right and proper thing was that the London County Councils should have about ten representatives, as was promised by this Bill, because they had to deal with the drainage question London was a most extraordinary city and the question of the future water supply and the great waste of water which was continually going on ought to be considered. The streets of London were mostly paved, and the roofs caught the rain, and consequently the water was taken immediately down the drains to the sea. It was estimated that in London alone about 120,000,000 gallons of water every day were taken right out of London and poured into the sea, and that was one of the reasons why London and the London water area was becoming so shorty of water. There was less and less water every year in London, because the whole of that which fell within the London area found its way immediately to the sea. He hoped, therefore, that the Government would stick to thier number of seventy-three members for the Water Board, and he thought the distribution of the representation, as now proposed, would be satisfactory to the House and also to ratepayers of London.
  *(6.28.)MR. THEODORE TAYLORsaid the question of the constitution of the Water Board for London, althought it was one which did not concern so much the rest of the country, yet did concern the question of local government generally. They all desired that the principle of devolution should be carried be carried out, and therefore they had an interests in the constitution of the future Water Board of London. The hon. Baronct the Member for North-West Wiltshire had no axe to grind or any personal interest to serve

  1379
  in going against his Party upon this occasion. He (the hon. Member) also disclaimed any party motive in desiring see the London Water Supply made efficient. There were many objections to the London County Council being created the sole authority, because there were so many other districts included in the London water area which were not in the London County Council district, and therefore, it was only right that they should be represented. He could not understand the expressions used by the hon. Baronet the Member for Dulwich, who appeared to think that if the Borough Councils had no special representation, there was a danger of them being swamped by the representatives of outside areas. He wondered what hon. Members would think if small what hon. Members would think if small portions of their own constituencies wanted separate representatives in Parliament because they were afraid of being swamped by the whole division. Members who represented the London County Council would represent the whole of their constituents. He thought there was something in what had been said as to it its not being desirable that some corners of London should be specially represented. He could not help being amused at the statement of one gentleman, who said that certain places ought to have representation because in their areas orginated some of the water supply. He thought that the further from London the water used in the Metropolis originated the better it would be for the people. One of the draw-backs of the Government proposal which the Amendment was designed to correct was the very great inequality of the constituencies which were to be created under this Clause. Camberwell, with a population of 258,000; and Stoke Newington, with 51,000, were each to have one member on the new Board. He was informed that in each of those districts there was room for extension. Why in the scheme proposed was there such an inequality of representation? In proportion to the size of a representative body was the amount of work done. The larger the body, the less the work. He did not know a better illustration of that than this House itself. The more talk, the less work. [MINISTERIAL cheers.] He was glad to find that
  1380
  sentiment received the approbation of hon. Gentlemen on the other side. He did not know until the President of the Local Government Board told them that the Borough Councils would have to levy the rates. He was under the impression that the County Council would have to do it. Certainly, if any borrowing had to be done, they would get the benefit of the credit of the whole of London from the County Council, rather than the borough point of view. It seemed to him that the hon. Member for Exeter was rather mala propos when he said he could not find the smallest analogy, between the population of Water London, of six and three-quarter millions, and that of any difference had 849,000. Well, the only difference was that of population and area, and there was no difference in principle between 849,000 and 6,000,000.[Cries of "Agreed."] Then, why did they not apply the provincial principle to this area?
  Hon. Members who were opposed to the Government proposal supported the Amendment because they objected, in the first place, to such a large body, and, in the second place, to the duplication of representation. The president of the Local Government Board said the hon. Baronet the Member for North-West Wilts represented the policy of the Progressive Party of the London County Council. If he was rightly informed. this was the policy of the London County Council as a whole, and not merely of the Progressive Party. It was a very unfortunate circumstance, at all events, that when this duckling, which was hatched by a former Government corresponding to the present, was going into the water, its original parents should be afraid of it. He was only sorry that the Government could not trust the London County Council to the extent of giving it fourteen out of thirty-three representatives The President of the Local Government Board spoke as if it were somehow a matter of principle that not only should be in a small minority, surely the interests of the London County Council and those of the other Councils included in the Board of Management did not clash to

  1381
  the extent that there would be cliques and intrigues. These were more likely to arie among the representatives of very much smaller areas, who could hardly be expected to take as broad and liberal views as the representatives of the London County Council. He has endeavoured to import no Party spirit into this discussion. It but of the country at large, that great care should be taken in the formation of those bodies, who were in future, he hoped, to relieve Parliament of many of its most irksome duties, and it was in that spirit that he desired to support the Amendment.
  MR. D. J. MORGANSaid he would like to make a remark or two on behalf of the outside areas. In the area with which he had to do there was a population of over 100,000, and the ratable value was over £2,000,000. The people of that district were very interested in this Bill, and they were decidedly in favour of it. The Committee had heard a great deal about the increase of population. He remembered when fifty years ago in the district which he represented there only 5,000 people. Not only had there been the enormous increase of population during that period, but there was still a large amount of ground which was yearly being covered with houses, so that the ratable value in the district would increase to a very large extent. Looking to the immense area over which the new Board would have to do its work, he thought the Committee would see that when the members were split up into small committees there would be no more than necessary. Where there was a very large area to administer it was very difficult to get attendances if there was only a small body. The result was that the attendances became smaller and smaller, and then the work was done practically by permanent officials He hoped the Committee would support the proposal of the Government.
  DR. MACNAMARAsaid he was astonished to hear the hon. Baronet the Member for Dulwich support the proposal of the Government. On the Second Reading of the Bill the hon. Baronet made it a matter of complaint that the Board was too large, the number then proposed being sixty-nine He did not understand the suggestion of the President of the Local
  1382
  Government Board that the Unionist Members were pledged on this subject at the last General Election. Even the right hon. Gentleman himself was not pledged to the precise numbers of the Board. At the last County Council election, when this issue was before the people of London , an overwhelming majority in favour of purchase and control by the County Coucil was returned. The present Bill was not in existence then. Had they been pledged since? He was a fairly careful student of London affairs and he did not recollect the ocassion when they were pledged The President of the Local Government Board on the Second Reading of the Bill said they were not pledged to the number. He told the House that he would leave the number an open question.
  MR. WALTER LONG: No. Quote my words.
  DR. MACNAMARAsaid he not the words, but certainly the right hon. Gentleman said he was not pledged to the actual number. On 3rd March the right hon. Gentleman said that he would consider in the freest possible managers the number of the governing body.
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid he had carefully guarded himself against a general reduction, but stated that he would be glad to consider proposals distributing the numbers amongst the Metropolitan boroughs.
  DR. MACNAMARAsaid that he had not taken the right hon. Gentleman's speech in that sense. He did not know of any London Unionist Member who was pledged through his constituency to anything like this number of seventy-three. At the last election of the County Council, the issue submitted to the people was, by the Progressives, purchase and control, financial and otherwise, under the County Council, and by the Moderates purchase. The result was a large majority in favour of the Progressive programme. Personally, he had been and was entirely opposed both to the number and constitution of the Board proposed by the Government. He was opposed to it because there was nothing in any recommendation of any Committee or Royal Commission to support it, and all the best expert testimony

  1383
  called before the Joint Select committee strongly repudiated the idea of making the Board so large as was proposed by the Government. Mr. Deakin of Liverpool thought that thirty was a sufficient number; Sir B. Leach said that in Manchester the Water Committee consisted of eighteen members, and he thought that sixty-nine was too large. The Deputy Lieutenant for the city of Edinburgh approved of twenty-five, and the Town Clerk of Glasgow twenty-eight. The latter said that sixty-nine was too unwieldly a body, and too unworkable, and that it would militate against the general efficiency of the Board. The other expert witness approved of a body consisting of between eight and twenty-six. The right hon. Gentleman said that when the Joint Select Committee recommended thirty-five, he thought there was little to complain of, but that when he came to consider the matter, form a practical point of view, he felt bound to make it seventy-three. Now if thirty-five was utterly impracticable what became of the recommendation of the Royal Commission and of the Committees, which were all in favour of a body of from fifteen to thirty? On 6th May, in the Joint Select Committee, Mr. J. G. Fitzgerald said that the decision of the Joint Committee had been considered by the Government with profound regret, and then he went on to say that London could have a fair representations on the Board by giving representations to the Metropolitan Boroughs; while Mr. Bremer, of Westminster, said that the decision of the Committee had been received with the utmost regret, and he hoped that they would have an opportunity of being heard. The Joint Committee were, he contended, compelled to come back to the representation of the Metropolitan Boroughs because the Government practically had had it thrust upon them. He was deliberately against the representation of the municipal boroughs which were represented by the London County Council. He did not say a word against the personnel of the Municipal Boroughs or the fitness of the men. This was purely a question of financial propriety. They were told that the boroughs were to raise the money to take over the Water Comapnie's concerns. Nothing of the sort. The County of London would indent the money as the fiduciaries of the
  1384
  rates of the County of London. He maintained that from the point of view of pure financial propriety there was no justification for the representation of the Municipal Boroughs on the Water Board, when most of the money came from the London County Council. The inclusion of the Metropolitan Boroughs was a difficulty which the right hon. Gentlemen had created for himself, and he would have to arrange a scheme of representation with something like equality, because it was unfair to give equal representation to unequal area and populations. The whole thing was unjust and absurd in the utmost degree.
  MR. GEORGE WHITELEYsaid he was not a London Member, and had no personal interest to serve in advocating any point of view. He had no axe to grind, and it seemed to him that Members who did not represent London interests were more likely to regard this question in a judicial frame of mind. It was because he had been for many years a member of a Municipal Corporation and had sat on a Water Committee for a long period that he wished to make a few observations. In his humble judgment the scheme of the Government was unfair, unjust, and impolitic. It was founded on bad principles. It appeared to him to formulate those old feelings of distrust of the London County Council, which they had ventured to hope were dwindling. He would look for a moment at the history of the Bill. It was introduced by the Government in the early months of the year, and the Second Reading was passed after a discussion of two days; but he did not think that the London Members were then very vehement in their support of the Bill. Hon. Members would not deny that there was most vehement opposition to the proposals of the Government in the two days debate of March this year. In this Bill the Government had evolved from their inner consciences a multiplicity of Water Boards, and that was because the Government were, practical, men, as against the experts who sat on the Royal Commission to consider this question. They had flown in the face of the recommendations of the Royal Commission, which had sat for two years to consider the question and

  1385
  which had arrived at a unanimous conclusion. But that was not the only body which had deliberated upon this matter and formulated an opinion. A joint Committee, which the Government itself had set up, which might have been described from its composition as a most biassed and partial Committee, had come to a conclusion almost identical with that of the Royal Commission. They recommended that the Water Board should be on the lines sketched out by the Royal Commission. When the Committee had come to that conclusion, the Government had endeavoured to go behind their judgment. The Committee then considered that matter afresh. No further material facts were brought to their notice except that the Borough Councils desired representation, and even on that the borough councils were not unanimous, for no less than twelve of the metropolitan boroughs condemned the suggestion that they should be associated with the Water Board. Notwithstanding these facts, the Government was attempting to rush this Bill through the House. The Bill was a big one of fifty-seven Clauses, and that was not the course to adopt. The Government in this matter claimed to be influenced by the London Members, but the County Councils were a far better reflex of the opinion of London on this matter. They were elected by the rateprayers, who, in many cases, were not directly represented by Members in this House. The London County Council was strongly opposed to this Bill. Why should the Committee go behind the County Councils to obtain representatives elected on the same franchise as the County Councils? He was strongly of opinion that this borough representation was a mistake, the various representatives would be apt to push their own interests rather than deal with the matter on broad lines. He agreed with the hon. Member for North Camberwell, that if once borough representation was allowed it could not stop there. Everybody in the area covered by the Water Board must also be given representation. Other great cities in this country had outside areas as large in proportion as London's outside areas, but they did not co-opt members from them. They simply took the
  1386
  water and paid for it. So far as subcommittees were concerned, a Board of thiry-five members could split itself up into as many sub-committees as were required to administer the water of London. If the Government insisted on a Board of seventy-three members he could only say that in his opinion, although there would be volumes of talk, very little business would be done He supported the Amendment.
  MR. ATHERLEY-JONESSaid he should like to put the view of the London resident, as he was so unhappy as not to share the views of his otherwise distinguished representative. He held that the President of the Local Government Board was not entiled to point to the opinion of his supporters, who were representatives of London, as at all reflecting what the opinion of London was on this Bill. The London County Council ever since its creation had been constantly Progressive, but the Parliamentary representation of London had been quite the country. There was no parity of reasoning in the right hon. Gentleman's argument in comparing this Water Board with provincial municipal authorities. On those provincial bodies there was a large variety of functions necessitating a multiplicity of Committees. This Board had only function. Upon the same principle as Parliament placed the control of main drainage and sewage upon the County Council and devolved upon it those matters which appertained to the whole Metropolis in contradistinction to particular units, so they ought to impose upon the Council the duty of looking after the water supply. The Government would be well advised to pay attention to the desire of Londoners as expressed through their municipal authority, the County Council, in this matter.
  (7.24.) MR. WALTERLONGrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the question be now put."
  Question put, "That the question be now put."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 156; Noes, 46. (Division List No. 607.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Allhusen, AugustusH'nryEden

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

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

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

  Purvis, Robert

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Gordon, MajEvans-(T'rH'mlets

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Austin, Sir John

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Rattigan, Sir William Henry

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

  Groves, James Grimble

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Balfour, Rt Hn Gerland W. (Leeds

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  Renwick, George

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney.

  Bignold, Arthur

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Bigwood, James

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Bond, Edward

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Hendrson, Sir Alexander

  Russell, T. W.

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Higginbottom, S. W.

  Sackvile, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Brown, Sir Alex. H. (Shropsh.)

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Bull, William James

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Sasson, Sir Edward Albert

  Butcher, John George

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Kimber, Henry

  Seeley, Maj. J. E. B. (IsleofWight

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Cerbyshire

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Lawrence, Wm F. (Liverpool)

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Chamberlain, Rt Hn J. A.(Wore

  Lawson, John Grant

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Champan, Edward

  Lee, ArthurH(Hants, Fareham

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

  Charrington, Spencer

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwhich)

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

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Stanley, EdwardJas. (Somerset

  Cohen, Bebjamin Louis

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Long, RtHn. Walter(Bristol, S.)

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Lonsdale John Brownlee

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Loyd, Archie Kirman

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth)

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Crossley, Sir savile

  Maclver, David (Liverpool)

  Valentia, viscount

  Cust, Henry John C.

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

  Davenport, William Bromley-

  M 'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

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

  Dewar, Sir T. R. (Tower Hamlets

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Maple, Sir John Blundell

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Dimsdale, Rt. Hon. Sir Joseph C.

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

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

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Morgan David J(Walthamstow

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Morrell, George Herbert

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

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Wylie, Alexander

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

  Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham(Bute

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Myers, William Henry

  Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Fisher, William Hayes

  O' Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

  Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Flower, Ernest

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Forster, Henry William

  Plummer, Walter R.

  NOES.

  Allan, Sir William(Gateshead)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Allen, Charles P. (Glouc., Stroud

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr)

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Jones, David Brynmor(Swansea

  Toulmin, George

  Bowles, T. Gibson(King'sLynn)

  Lough, Thomas

  Walton, John Lawson(Leeds, S.

  Brigg, John

  macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Wason, Eugene(Clackmannan)

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  M 'Kenna, Reginald

  Weir, James Galloway

  Burns, John

  Mellor, Rt. Hon. John William

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Burt, Thomas

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Wilson, Chas. Henry(Hull, W.)

  Caldwell, James

  Pirie, Duncan V.

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

  Craig, Robert Hunter

  Rigg, Richard

  Cremer, William Randal

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Crombie, John William

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES— Mr. Warner and Mr. Rea.

  Dunn, Sir William

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  (7.33.) Question put accordingly, "That the word 'Ten' stand part of the proposed Amendment."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 153 Noes, 48. (Division List No. 608.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Forster, Henry William

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Allhusen, Augustus H'nry Eden

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

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

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Gordon, Hon. J. E(Elgin & Nairn

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Austin, Sir John

  Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rH'ml'ts

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

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

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Purvis, Robert

  Balfour, Rt Hn. Gerald W(Leeds

  Groves, James Grimble

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  Rattigan, Sir William Henry

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Beresford, Lord Chas. William

  Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G(Midd'x

  Renwick, George

  Bignold, Arthur

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

  Ridley, Hon. M. W(Stalybridge)

  Bigwood, James

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

  Robertson, Herbert(Hackney)

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Brookfield, Colonel. Montagu

  Henderson, Sir Alexander

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Brown, Sir Alex. H. (Shropsh.)

  Higginbottom, S. W.

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Bull, William James

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Butcher, John George

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Cavendish, V. C. W(Derbyshire

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Sassoon, Sir Edward albert

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Kimber, Henry

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

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn JA(Worc.

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Chapman, Edward

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Charrington, Spencer

  Lawson, John Grant

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East

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

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham

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

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Legge, Col. Hon. Henage

  Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

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

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

  Tufnell, Lieut. -Col. Edward

  Cust, Henry John C.

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Valentia, Viscont

  Davenport, William Bromley-

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Walrond, Rt. Hn, Sir William H.

  Dewar, Sir T. R. (Tower Hamlets

  Maconochie, A. W.

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

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  M'Arthur Charles (Liverpool)

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C.

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Willough by de Eresby, Lord

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Maple, Sir John Blundell

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

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Duming-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Morgan, David J (Walth'mstow

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

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Morrell, Geroge Herbert

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

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

  Morton, Arthur H. Aymer

  Wylie, Alexander

  Fielden Edward Brocklehurst

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Murray, Rt Hn. A Graham(Bute)

  Wyndham- Quin, Major W. H.

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Myers, William Henry

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Nicholson, William Graham

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES— Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

  Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Nicol. Donald Ninian

  Flower, Ernest

  O' Neil, Hon. Robert Torrens

  NOES.

  Allan, Sir William (Gateshead)

  Craig, Robert Hunter

  Mellor, Rt. Hon. John William

  Allen. Charles P(Gloue., Stround

  Cremer, William Randal

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Crombie, John William

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Dunn, Sir William

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Fenwick, Charles

  Pirie. Duncan V.

  Bond, Edward

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Rea, Russell

  Bowles, T. Gibson(King's Lynn)

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Rigg, Richard

  Brigg, John

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Burns, John

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. sir Arthur D.

  Russell, T. W.

  Burt, Thomas

  Jones, David Brynmor (Sw' usea

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Lough, Thomas

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Caldwell, James

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

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

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe

  Weir, James Galloway

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir John Dickson-Poynder and Dr. Macnamara.

  Toulmin, George

  Whiteley, George (York, W. R.

  Walton, John Lawson(Leeds, S.

  Wilson, Chas. Henry(Hull, W.)

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  It being after half-past Seven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again this evening.

EVENING SITTING.

  LONDON WATER (RE-COMMITTED) BILL.
  Considered in Cimmittee—
  (In the Committee.)
  [MR. JEFFREYS (Hampshire, N.) in the Chair.]
  Clasue 1:—
  (9.0.) MR. H. J. WILSONcalled attention to the act that there were not forty Members present.
  *THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: There can be no count at the opening of the Evening Sitting before ten o'clock.
  MR. CALDWELL: The new Rule is that there can be a count, but that the House cannot be counted out. What happens is, that if there are not forty Members present the House passes to the next business. [MINISTERIAL cries of "No."]
  *THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: According to the new Rule the House cannot be counted at the Evening Sitting before 10 o'clock; but if a division takes place before that hour and forty Members are not present the House passes to sthe next business.
  MR. CALDWELLsaid he thought the Rule meant that the House could not be counted out, and unless there were forty Members present they must pass on to the next business.
  *THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I take it that "count" means count in teh ordinary way.
  CAPTAIN NORTONsaid that in moving the Amendment standing in his name he wished to say that he had no animosity whatever towards the City Council. It might be thought that he was a champion of the London County Council, but he wished to point out that he had no connection with that body in any way, and he was not addressing the Committee as their champion. When it was the fashion of those with whom he usually acted to make little of the great past of the City of London he had always readily acknowledged what they had done, not only for that one square mile in the City but for greater London and for the Empire. He did not wish to urge that the City of London should not have the fullest amount of consideration and representation on anything with which it was connected in regard to matters of this kind. The question of representation was based mainly upon the ground of ratable value and population. He wished to consider whether the City had a claim on these grounds to the representation which was now proposed to be given to it upon the Water Board. It might appear that the City, having a very great ratable value, ought to have considerable representation, but, as a matter of fact, did this question of the water supply rest in the case of the City of London upon the rateable value?
  The bulk of the water which was supplied to the City of London was supplied by the New River Company. What had been the action of that company? Over and over again it had been represented in the past that the amount of water supplied to the City was not in keeping with the ratable value, and that the charges made for water were out of all proportion to the water supply. The New River Company accepted that as a fair argument upon the part of the City authorities, and they had reduced those charges

  1393
  because it appeared to the water company that the City should not pay for large warehouses and large buildings containing innumerable sets of offices as if they were habitations peopled like the thickly inhabited parts of London. The Water Company was aware that the water was used largely for cleansing the asphalte in the street at night, but the amount of water used in the daytime was very small, simply because those who lunched in the City did not consume a very large quanity of water. If, therefore. it was unfair to base the representation of the City on the Water Board upon ratable value, the only other basis to go upon was that of population. It would be grossly unjust to give to the City of London two members on the basis of ratable value when the water in the City was not supplied upon that basis. It would be admitted that this was not a case of giving to each individual in the City a certain proportion of water, but it was a case of providing that the service on the whole should be sufficient that a certain standard of purity should be maintained, and that the supply should be sufficient for the purposes of public health. Otherwise the supply might be taken on the basis laid down by a certain Irish waiter who supplied a customer with oysters, the customer complaining that they were bad. The waiter replied, "You have nothing to complain about; you called for a dozen oysters and I have given you two extra."
  Therefore the test in the City should be population and not ratable value. He would therefore examine the clams of the City from the standpoint of population. The night population of the City of London was 26,923. That was the population upon which to base the water supply, because the bulk of those who inhabited the City by day left in the evening and generally had only one meal in the City. Therefore the bulk of the necessity so far as water was concerned did not fall upon the area of the City, but upon the localities where those, persons who were employed in the City compare with some of the districts which had two members of the Water Board under this proposal? Take for example the
  1394
  Borough of Islington, Which had a night population of 334,991. That was tweleve times as great as the night population of the City of London. Take the borough of Camberwell. The City of London had not one-tenth of the night population of the great borough of Camberwell, which contained 259,359. The City of London, therefore, with onetenth of the population of of Camberwell, and one-twelfth of that of Islington, was to have two representaives; in other words, six times the representation of Isligton and ten times that of Camberwell, Even on the day population of 301,384 in 1891, the City had fewer inhabitabts by 31,000 than Islington. Or, to put the case in another way, the City had 43 per cent of the population of the entire water area, and 9.7 per cent. of the ratable value, the mean of those two ratios being 5.09. The London County Council area , with ten representatives, had 72.44 per cent. of the entire population, and 80.18 per cent of. the rateable value, or a mean of 76.31. Therefore, each representative of the County Council represented a mean of 7.63 per cent., so that the City, with a mean of 5.09 per cent. had a greater representation to the extent of 2.63. He asked hon. Members to show on what basis the City, if entiled to only one representative according to ratable value and population, was given two members, and why the County Council was not given a proportionate representation. He begged to move.
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Amedment—
  "In line 3, to leave out 'two' and insert 'one."—(Captain Norton.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'two' stand part of proposed Amedment."
  *SIR JOSEPH DIMSDALEsaid the satatments that the London County Council had always been recongnised as the water authority for the Metropolis, were both inaccurate. The sanitary authorities were the Borough Councils, and if anybody could clam, and he believed nobody could to be th ewater authority for London, it certainly

  1395
  was the Corporation. The hon. Member opposite was obviously not aware that this water question had been a vital one with the Corporation for the last twenty-five years. Up to 1892, the Corporation was the only authority in London that could promote Bills in Parliament for gas or water undertakings, and they had been entirely in unison with the London County Council during the last few years on the subject and had received much generous and sympathetic help from that body. He believed, however, that the water question would never have been brought to its present stage but for the Corporation. Within the last twenty years the Corporation had spent, not out of rates but out of their own cash, £20,000 in endeavouring to bring this water question to a focus, with the one aim of doing what they could for the benefit, not of their own square mile only, but of the whole Metropolis. The most extraordinary thing about the hon. Member's Motion was that while he desired to eliminate a good many of the seventy-three Members of the Board, he yet was willing to hand the water supply over to the 126 members of the County Councils. Then the hon. Gentleman opposite was quite wrong in his statistics. The night population of the City, according to the statistics of the London County Council, was 36,002. Then the hon. Gentleman quoted the day population at something like 300,000. It was more than double that. Then hon. Gentleman would give the City representation on the night population, but would he assess the City on that basis? No, he would assess them on their £3,872,679 of rateable value. Not only was it right that the City should have the representation the Government had proposed, but it was surprising that someone had not asked that its representation should be doubled. By securing what was known as the Auction Clause and the Chamberlain of London Sinking Fund Clause, the City had done good service to Londoners generally. The City had not acted on any niggardly onesquare-mile idea in its discharge of its trusts, and he was surprised that the hon. and gallant Member had made this proposal.
  MR. JOHN BURNSsaid that in these days when there was a diminution of
  1396
  interest in local affairs, a dying out of public spirit, and not that attention paid to the traditions of local government that could be desired, he was prepared to forgive the right hon. Baronet for using the debates of the House of Commons to speak of the greatness and history of the City of London. The ex-Lord Mayor defended the City in and out of season, but at present it was desirable to get back to the object of the Amendment before the Committee. His hon. friend did not object to the City having two members; he would not mind it having three or four, or whatever its ratable value and population entitled it to, provided there was an equalised water rate over the whole area of supply, and the representation was on a common basis. With its high ratable value, small population, and paying on the amount of water consumed, the City, if it availed itself of Clause 15 (6), would have to pay only half the amount per thousand gallons paid by Stepney, Limehouse, Battersea, or Whitechapel. Westminster had secured a Clause enabling the present low water rate to be maintained in districts where it was possible to have a low rate. What guarantee was there that the City would not follow suit? There was no desire to impose a disability on the City by this Amendment, but simply to point out that under the Bill such an arrangement as he had described was possible. As to other remarks of the right hon. Baronet, the County Council was the chief sanitary authority for the Metropolis, the Borough Councils looking after local sanitation only, while the central body was responsible for the public health, main drainage, fire brigade, and other services. It was perfectly true that for two or three centuries the City Corporation was the only authority in London with power to initiate legislation, but they failed to exercise that power, and that was his complaint. If the City had done its duty a hundred or so years ago the House of Commons would not have had to discuss ad nauseum various Water Bills. What they were now contending for was an equalised water rate over the whole area on some intelligible basis; it would then be an easy matter to determine whether the City was entitled to one, two, three or four members on the Water Board.
  MR. GEORGE WHITELEYthought the hon. and gallant Member for West

  1397
  Newington had knocked the bottom out of the contention that the constitution of the Water Board was based on proportionate grounds, whether of ratable value or of population. The right hon. Baronet urged that the day rather than the night population should be considered, but it was not people but property and hereditaments that were assessed. Evidently the ex-Lord Mayor favoured a poll-tax, a view which his constituents might do well to note. But where were the champions of Islington, Lambeth, Stepney, St. Pancras, and Wandsworth, whose interests were jeopardised by this proposal? The population of those districts was overwhelmingly greater than that of the City, and yet the right hon. Baronet stood alone in supporting the cause of his people.
  CAPTAIN JESSEL (St. Pancras, S.)pointed out that the question of other boroughs would come up on other Amendments.
  MR. GEORGE WHITELEYsaid the scheme of the Bill had been shown to be illogical in every sense, and he was surprised that members of the opposite Party did not rise in their places in the interests of their constituents.
  Mr. SYDNEY BUXTONexpressed his surprise that the right hon. gentleman had vouchsafed no reply on this matter. The Amendment was not directed against the City as such;it was moved with a view to getting information as to the basis on which the City was allowed two members on the Board. There must be some reason, as the right hon. gentleman had declared that the Bill was founded on a logical basis, and the Committee were entitled to know what that reason was. There was great danger in this differentiation between the various parts of the Metropolis. It involved artificial and arbitrary selection. If adhered to, it would enable other parts, as they increased in population or ratable value, to claim a larger share of representation, and then this Board, already too large, would become yet more cumbersome and unwieldy. Westminster had already taken care to guard itself against any equalisation of the water rate, and the Opposition desired to know whether that provision would apply to other parts, especially to the City.
  Mr. WALTER LONDsaid the hon. Members for Battersea and North Camberwell and himself were never likely to agree as to the precise result of the Bill or as to the present incidence of rates in London. They held exactly opposite views. The hon. Member for Battersea held that the London County Council would find all the money;he, on the other hand, held that the money would be found exactly as the greater proportion of the expenditure of the London County council was now found, viz., by precepts issued to the Metropolitan Borough Councils. Each of those districts would pay their share according to the ratable value of their own area. In making this proposal the Government had had regard to the mean of population and the ratable value. Upon this basis they had given to certain Metropolitan Boroughs two members each and they had found that the City of London judged in this way was second only to the City of Westminster in the amount of ratable value. They had also based the representation in the case of the City of London upon historical precedents and the fact that the ratable value came second as compared with all the ratable areas in London. Therefore on those grounds the Government thought the City of London was entitled to have two representatives on the Water Board.
  Amendment negatived.
  *(10.0.) MR. LOUGHsaid he did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman was disposed to make any concession upon the Amendment which he was about to move. This provision seemed to be an attempt to give proportionate representation to the metropolitan boroughs, but he thought he would be able to show to the Committee that there was no success in this attempt. There were other boroughs quite as large which had only one representative, and he wished to know why two members had been given to certain boroughs and only one to others Stepney got two representatives while Camberwell, Wandsworth, and Hackney, which had a much larger area than Stepney, and each of which contained a vast population, were only to be allowed one member each. Kensington got two representatives whilst Southwark only had one. This showed that there was considerable inequality, and that the Government could not

  1399
  Possibly have followed any just principle in making this division of representation. Altogether there were some 3,000 representatives on the metropolitan boroughs, each of them representing a ward. The largest wards contained about 4,000 electors and the smallest between 800 and 1,000. Under this proposal they gave thirty-six representatives to the Borough Councils. Supposing they were taken from the most populous wards, the whole of these thirty-six members would only represent a population of about 144,000. If they were taken from the smallest wards they would represent between 29,000 and 36,000 electors. If the right hon. Gentleman felt himself pledged to give these Borough Councils representation, surely one would be quite enough, and by adopting this Amendment he would be doing something at the same time to reduce the size of this unwieldy Board. The President of the Local Government Board said that he had considered not only population but also rateable value. If that were so, why sould Lambeth have two members and Paddington only one? There were 300,000 people in Paddington, or almost the same number as in Lambeth, and Wandsworth also had a very large ratable value. He was bound to say that he thought the right hon. Gentleman by this proposal had failed to establish any intelligible system of proportionate representation. If they now established a precedent for giving these bodies two members, in two or three years time the right hon. Gentleman would have to double the representation of other districts, and they would probably get eventually some ninety or one hundred members on the Water Board. The great objection to this proposal was that the Board would be too large and unwieldy.
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment—
  "In line 4, to leaveout'two,'and insert one.'
  "—(Mr. Lough.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'two' stand part of the proposed Amendment."
  *MR. WHITMOREsaid he proposed to support this Amend-
  1400
  ment for reasons which the hon. Member who moved it had not given. Some of the reasons which actuated him in taking this course might have been advanced in regard to the last Amendment upon the representation of the City. When the new Act constituting the metropolitan boroughs was passed the principle was laid down that all these metropolitan boroughs should be treated with absolute equality. Their existence was not based on any rig figures of population or ratable value —some boroughs were created which were small both in ratable value and in population, but nevertheless they were supposed to be worthy of a new municipal life because of their history and present local life. In his opinion the introduction into this Bill of a differentiation between these boroughs was a distinct departure from the real spirit of the Act which created them. Therefore he felt bound to support this Amendment, and he asked hon. Members to support him in resisting this attempt to make an artificial distinction in regard to the metropolitan boroughs. The hon. Member opposite had pointed out that the reasons given by the right hon. Gentleman for this difference of treatment in respect of the six selected boroughs were very small reasons. In all these boroughs the conditions were constantly changing, and from time to time, if they paid this regard to small differences of population, it would be necessary to re-adjust their representation on the Water Board. Surely this would be undersirable. He thought all those twentyeight boroughs ought to have one equal representation on the new Water Board. He wished to remind the President of the Local Government Board that although they were quite prepared to accept the scheme of the Government he thought that if without affecting the essential character of the scheme they could reduce the number of representatives it would be a good thing for the future working of this Board, and in the Amendment before the Committee they had an opportunity of doing this. At the same time he must admit that Westminster was in a different position to the other boroughs, and it was so treated under the London Government Bill. The City of Westminster partook

  1401
  more of the ancient character which characterised the City of London, and therefore they would not be doing anything contrary to the spirit of the London Government Act by placing Westminster and the City in an exceptional position, and in allotting to them both two representatives on the Water Board.
  DR. MACNAMARAsaid he had listened with much pleasure to the speech of the hon. Member for Chelsea. He appealed to the Government not to differentiate on artificial grounds between the different metropolitan boroughs because this would cause irritation in a number of ways. Camberwell seemed to him to be the most hardly treated of any Borough in London, and he did not know what Camberwell had done to be treated in this way. Camberwell was the birth-place of the Colonial Secretary, and he thought that fact ought to commend itself to the Government. Camberwell had a population of 258,538, and that population was growing. It also had a ratable value of £971,305. Nevertheless under this scheme Camberwell would only have on representative. Stepney, which was to have two representatives, had a population of 294,466, or 35,000 more than Camberwell, but it ratable value was £200,000. less than Camberwell. How did they square that argument? He thought that the basis of representation which was good enough for the House of Commons ought to be good enough for a Water Bill. After what had been said he was compelled to take rateable value and population into consideration, and considering these two questions, what fair basis had the Government adopted in giving Stepney two members? He had examined this thing with the utmost impartiality. Take the case of Kensington, which was to have two members. Kensington had a population of 86,052, while Camberwell had a population of 258,538.Therefore, on the basis of population, one Kensington man according to the proposal of the Government was equal to three Camberwell men. That was not true;at any rate it was not true in the Old Kent Road. The hon. Baronet the Member of Dulwich brought in a Bill last year, in which he proposed a Water Board much smaller
  1402
  than was now proposed. He stated not long ago that the hon. Baronet left out of his Bill the representation of the Borough Councils, but he had since discovered that he was wrong in that statement, and he desired to withdraw it. The hon. Baronet's scheme gave sixteen members to the London County Council, one to the City of London, and one to each of the Metropolitan Boroughs. Therefore he thought the hon. Baronet the Member for Dulwich ought now to support this Amendment, which would operate in such a way as not to create this unjust differentiation. It would be fair and reasonable to give one representative to each of these boroughs, thereby standing by the principle of 1899.
  MR. W. F. D. SMITHstated that Westminster had a population eight times larger than that of the City of London and an assessable value nearly one and a half millions greater;therefore, if the City was to have a representation of two on the Water Board, it was only fair that Westminster should have a representation at least equal to it.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid that if the Government saw their way to accept the Amendment of his hon. friend, the Opposition would be willing that Westminster should have two Members. If this course was adopted it would leave all these different Borough Councils on a footing of equality in regard to representation on this new Water Board.
  SIR ROBERT MOWBRAYhoped that the Government, before assenting to the Amendment, would carefully consider what they were doing. The Boroughs had been put into the Bill and he hoped they would remain there with the right to elect two members of the Board. His constituency in Lambeth were exceedingly anxious that this double representation in their case should remain. If they were to go into the ancient history of these constituencies he thought a claim on historic gronuds might be made on behalf of Lambeth, in the same manner as had been with regard to the City of London and the City of Westminster. He would put this consideration before the Committe. Of

  1403
  all the Metropolitan Boroughs, Lambeth was second in point of population and fifth as regards ratable value. By reducing the number of the Board to 33 they might get a more workable Board, but it would have lost its representative character. A mere reduction of numbers from 73 to 68 or 69 would be of no practical value in making the Board more workable, but it would reduce the interest taken in it by the Metropolitan Boroughs. He hoped the President of the Local Government Board would not accept the Amendment.
  Mr. BOUSFIELDsaid he could not support any proposal which would make any inroad on the scheme produced by the Government, but this Amendment would not make an inroad upon it. He thought it would improve the scheme to slightly reduce the number of members of the Board. After all it should be remembered that the object ought to be to get the best men on the water Board. Each of the boroughs might be able to get one good man, but if they had to select two good men he thought there would be a practical difficulty in getting a second as good as the first. He thought the City of Westminster should have two memebrs on account of its special position.
  *MAJOR EVANS GORDONsaid he did not agree with all the figures which had been given by the hon. Member for North Camberwell. Speaking for the Borough Council of Stepney, he could not believe that they would be so unreasonable as to wish, for the sake of a difference represented by a few hundred pounds, that they should have two members while Camberwell had only one. He did not agree with the proposal in regard to Westminster, and he hoped the Government would not except that city.
  SIR J. BLUNDELL MAPLEsaid he was decidedly of opinion that it was a bad thing to make a difference in the representation of these boroughs. Except with regard to Westminster, he thought it as a pity to differentiate the representation. He trusted the Government would accept the proposal.
  MR. COHENStated that he objected to the proposal to reduce the re-
  1404
  presentation of Islington. On the ground of population and ratable value, that district was entitled to the representation proposed by the Government, and he hoped they would adhere to their original plan in regard to Islington. If the London County Council was equitable represented by ten members and Islington by two, how was that equity preserved if they took away one member from Islington and allowed the County Council ten to remain? Equity and justice required that Islington should have two representatives.
  MR. WALTER LONGstated that the Government had selected these particular boroughs in consideration of their population and ratable value. The Government felt that there was so much difference in regard to the population and rateable value in the case of some of the metropolitan boroughs that they ought to be given a larger share of representation. Of course he fully admitted that there were some boroughs which came very near the line, and he was glad that the representatives of boroughs to which additional representation had been given had given way. He could not help thinking it would be fairer all round that the boroughs should have equal representation, and would avoid a difficulty which he confessed had not occurred to him—namely, that, however accurate the calculations of the Government might be now, the time must come before very long when they might be entirely upset. In these circumstances he hoped the larger boroughs would feel that it was to the advantage of the whole that they should conced this.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment made—
  "In line 4, by leaving out the words, 'two by the council of each of the metropolitan boroughs of Islington, Kensington, Lambeth, St. Pancras, Stepney, and Westminster,' and inserting the words, 'one by the council of each of the metropolitan boroughs.'"— (Mr. Walter Long.)
  (10.45) MR. SYDNEYBUXTONmoved an Amendment with the object of grouping the metropolitan boroughs for the purposes of representation, and so reducing their total number on the Board. The object of the President of the Local

  1405
  Government Board in having the metropolitan boroughs represented would still be gained, although, by the system of grouping which he suggested, the number of representatives would be reduced from thirty-four to twelve. By his Amendment a considerable number of the boroughs would be grouped, but there was nothing in it which would affect the principle of the proposal of the Government. He did not desire to discuss further the question of the excessive size of the board. He thought it was generally admitted that it would be an advantage to reduce the size of the body. It was on these grounds that he desired to press his Amendment on the right hon. Gentleman. He did not cling to the exact number he had proposed, but threw it out more as a suggestion. If the right hon. Gentleman was prepared to accept the principle of his Amendment, he would not press as to details. If the right hon. Gentleman showed a conciliatory spirit in this matter he would do much to make the passage of the Bill easy.
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment—
  "In line 6, to leave out the words 'council of each of the other metropolitan boroughs, and insert the words 'councils of the metropolitan boroughs of Poplar and Stepney;one by the councils of the metropolitan boroughs of Bethnal Green, Hackney, and Stoke Newington.'"—(Mr. Sydney Buxton.)
  Question Proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment."
  Mr. WALTER LONGsaid he thought he had shown the Committee that the government were desirous of meeting any reasonable proposal which had for its object the more equitable distribution of the representation. But it would be impossible for the Government to accept the hon. Gentleman's suggestion, even in a limited form. In the first place, they thought that each of the metropolitan boroughs was entitled to separate reprsentation on the new Board. Apart from that, if the hon. Gentleman's suggestion were accepted it would seriously disturb the balance of power as between London within and London without.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid that if his Amendment were carried, it would also carry with it a considerable reduction in the representation of the outer areas.
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid that if they were practically to reduce at the same time the representation given to the outside areas, the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Poplar would not be open to the criticism he had been makeing upon it. He could assure the Committee that from the first, when it was represented to him that one of the flaws in their proposal was the largeness of the number of the new governing body, he had endeavoured to meet that criticism. He thought the best plan to do that was to maintain a proper balance of representation between London Within and London Without. If they were to strike out a number of representatives from London Within, It would involve the re-casting of the representation of London Without, and thus destroy the whole character of the Bill. While he was most desirous of meeting in a conciliatory and reasonable spirit any suggestion, he felt that the Government had gone as far as they could, and that they could not accept the hon. Gentleman's suggestion, either in whole or in part.
  *Mr. REAsaid he supported the Amendment for the simple reason that it would reduce the number of the Board from seventy-five to forty-seven, a number approaching very nearly to that of the old Metropolitan Board of Works. That body had few friends, and he was not one of them, but he considered it was a more practical and reasonable administrative body than that proposed for the Water Board. The Metropolitan Board of Works had far more duties to perform than the Water Board would have. At the beginning they had only to take care of the main drainage, but shortly afterwards parliament added to their powers the care of the main thoroughfares, the improvement of the new streets, and the charge of commons, open spaces, and the fire brigade. It had never been said that the Metropolitan Board of Works was under-manned. The Board of Works was a superior body to the proposed Water Board in another respect. Although its elections were indirect they were more direct than those of the proposed Water Board. In the case of the latter, the electors elected the local authority, the local authority met together and elected a committee, and the committee elected one member of

  1407
  the Board. But that was not the end of it. When they were elected they elected members to the Thames Conservancy, and then the Thames Conservancy elected members Back to the Board.
  *THE DEPUTY CHAIRMANsaid that the Committee were not now discussing the Board of Works, and the hon Gentleman was not in order.
  *MR. REAsaid he was only alluding to the Board of Works as an illustration, and he would pass from it at once. He remembered a speech made in Committee before the recess, by the hon. Member for Exeter, in which that Gentleman admitted that if he were to judge from the point of view of efficiency, he would have a small Board, but he justified the Goverment proposal on the ground of representation. Surely it was not beyond the wit of man to frame a Board which would be both efficient and representative. The number of directors of the water companies, excluding those of the New River Company, which was a mediaeval concern, put together amounted to sixty-one. He should like to ask any water Director, if he wished to make a commercial combine of the water companies, would he suggest that all the Boards should be amalgamated too, and that the directors should continue to draw their fees?
  *THE DEPUTY CHAIRMANsaid that the hon. Gentleman's remarks were not relevant to the Amendment before the Committee.
  *MR. REAsaid he supported the Amendment because it would reduce the number of members on the Board.
  *THE DEPUTY CHAIRMANsaid that that was a general question which had been decided on the first Amendment.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid that the whole reason of his Amendment was that it would reduce the numbers of the Board.
  *THE DEPUTY CHAIRMANsaid that the Amendment before the Committee was to leave out the words on the Paper and insert another word.
  *MR. REAsubmitted that the effect of the Amendment before the Committee
  1408
  would be to reduce the number of Members of the Water Board by on less than eighteen. In the great provincial towns, although the committees are often large, the real business of the Water Committee was done by two or three members, and what the other members were most interested in were the sources of supply and the fishing. The metropolitan water companies had not the possesion of any effective fishing at the present time. Why bring in the metropolitan boroughs, because after all these were not real boroughs. [Cries of "Oh, oh !"] They were metropolitan boroughs, but they differed from real boroughs in that, although they hada Mayor and Town Council, they had not even the powers of Urban District Councils. The Urban District Councils which would be represented on the Water Board had control of the fire brigade, open spaces, and building regulations, whereas all these duties in the metropolitan area were performed by the London County Council.
  CAPTAIN JESSELasked if the hon. Gentleman was in order in calling attention to the powers and duties of the metropolitan boroughs.
  *THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMANsaid that the hon. Gentleman was not entitled to go into these questions except as an illustration of his argument.
  *MR. REAsaid that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board declared that everybody approved of the constitution of the new Water Board except the London County Council, and that the London boroughs did approve of it. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to intimate that the London boroughs represented the citizens, while the London County Council only represented the members of the London county Council. Why, the London County Council was elected on this very issue. The metropolitan boroughs were consultled by the Government and were offered this representation, and naturally the members had not declined it. As to the London Members of Parliament they knew that they were not elected on this question but on something very different. It appeared to him that instead of everybody agreeing with this Bill except the London County Council,

  1409
  all the experts, the Royal Commission, the Committees of this House, and all public opinion condemned the Bill.
  *MR. LOUGHsaid that whether they accepted the precise Amendment before the committee or not, the Government ought to give this matter more serious consideration before this Clause was passed. The right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill said that the main principle on which he had proceeded in allotting members to the new Board was ratable value; but when thirty-two members were allotted to the Borough Councils that was far beyond the proportion they were entitled to on ratable value. The right hon. Gentleman had also taken the population into account; but if the Amendment was not accepted there would be many anomalies. Boroughs with a population of 50,000, 60,000, or 70,000 received one member, while other boroughs with a population of from 200,000 to 300,000 received only one member also. Would not the right hon. Gentleman be willing to reduce the number of representatives of the Borough Councils, if not to ten, at least to fifteen or sixteen? His argument was that the right hon. Gentleman could secure the whole principle of the Bill by accepting some reduction.
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid he had already stated that if the Government were to reduce the number of representatives given to the Metropolitan Boroughs they should have to reduce the proportion of representatives of London Without. He had already grouped as far as possible the outer districts, and had given a minimum representation to the metropolitan boroughs. If they were to take 15 or 20 from the representatives of the metropolitan boroughs, the representation of London would become unfair. Of course, the hon. Gentleman was quite right in saying that there were many anomalies in regard to the representation of the different boroughs. The only way to avoid that would be to carve London into new districts, but everybody would admit that it was best to take the existing areas which had their own local life.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid that everyone could see the force of what the right hon. Gentleman had said with regard to the necessity of maintaining
  1410
  a proper proportion between inner London and outer London. But he did not understand that his hon. friend wished to alter materially the proportion fixed in the Bill. They proceeded on the original question as to whether a Board so constituted would not be unwieldy, cumbrous, and ineffective; and in that opinion they were supported by all the authorities who had investigated the question. What was the use of appointing Royal Commission after Royal Commission if no attention was to be paid to what they said. The one thing on which all the Commissions were agreed was that the governing body should be much smaller than that proposed by the right hon. Gentleman. If he might be permitted to say so, the right hon. Gentleman seemed to him to assume rather a helpless attitude, in which he should have thought he would not allow himself to remain. The right hon. Gentleman said, "What am I to do? The body may be cumbrous, and I would be quite content to see the number of the representatives of the metropolitan boroughs reduced, but we cannot do that, because we must have representatives from certain districts outside London, and they are so numberous that we must have a sufficient number of representatives of inner London to maintain the balance." He should have thought that the ingenuity of the right hon. Gentleman would have overcome that difficulty, and certainly he thought the obvious and acknowledged evil of such a huge, cumbrous Board would outweigh any little difficulty of that kind. There might be a county basis, or some other arrangement. His hon. friend was not particularly tied to the grouping he indicated in the Amendment, but what he proposed was that there should be a governing body of thirty-six members, twenty-four from London and twelve from outside. The Committee ought to bear in mind the importance of a effective and business-like body, reather than the desire to please this locality or that locality, and to satisfy its requirements, and, in some respects, its pride. He regretted that the right hon. Gentleman could not see his way to accept the Amendment.
  MR. BOUSFIELDasked if it would be worth while to spoil the symmetry of the scheme in order to save seven representatives. London had been divided up into different units, and they wished to

  1411
  make them separate and corporate units in reality, and to reat them all on the same basis, with the exception of special areas.
  MR. COURTENAY WARNERsaid that, as a very large ratepayer in one of the outlying districts. The importance of a small and effective body was so great that he was quite sure the outlying districts would be willing to sacrifice some off their representation in order to secure it, with a view to mitigating the enormous rates now paid in the suburbs. The amalgamation of boroughs inside London would be a great help, and it would reduce the representation to a manageable size. He thought the outlying districts, if they had a chance, would say that they desired the Amendment to pass, even with the condition that their representation should be reduced, and he was quite sure it would be a benefit, not only as regarded the reduction of rates, but also as regarded the working of the Bill as a whole. There would be much less friction, as the larger the constituency, the less likely would it be that its representatives would heave special local interests to serve, instead of fighting for a pure and sufficient supply of water and a reduction of rates. He hoped the Government would yet make the concession asked for, and reduce the representation both in inner and outer London.
  MR. HARRY SAMUEL, Limehouse said he would point out that, even according to hon. Members on the Opposition side, the outside areas were growing areas, and, in these circumstances, he thought the Amendment was unsound.
  MR. COURTENAY WARNERsaid the proportion would remain unaltered as the outer representation would also be reduced.
  MR. CORRIE GRANTsaid the hon. gentleman opposite, said the Amendment would spoil the symmetry of the scheme; but surely there should be grouping in inside London as well as in outside London. Many of the Urban District Councils mentioned in the Bill were just as important as some of the Borough Councils. Personally, hefeltgreat difficulty in voting, because, which was not a representative system at all. It was popular control three degrees removed; but on the principle that the smaller the body for administrative purposesthe better he would support the Amendment.
  (11.23.)Question put.
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 130; Noes, 37. (Division List No.609)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Groves, James Grimble

  Allhusen, AugustusH'nry Eden

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Hamilton, Rt. HnLordG (Midd'x)

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Cust, Henry John C.

  Henderson, Sir Alexander

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

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds)

  Davenport. William Bromley

  Higginbottom, S. W

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Hozier, Hon. JamesHenry Cecil

  Beresford, Lord Chas. William

  Dimsdale, Rt. Hon. Sir Joseph C.

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Bignold, Arthur

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Jessel, Captain Herbert AMerton

  Bigwood james

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Law Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Bond, Edward

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Lawson, John Grant

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Fardell, sur T. George

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Bull, William James

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Butcher, John George

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Carson. Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

  Covendish, V. C. W (Derbyshire)

  Forster, Henry William

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

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth)

  Chamberlain, Rt Hn J A. (Wore.)

  Gibhs, Hn. A. G. H. (CityofLond.)

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Chapman, Edward

  Gordon, MajEvans-(T'rH'mlets)

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E

  Gouldidng, Edward Alfred

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Maple, Sir John Blundell

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

  Colston, Chase. Edw. H. Athole

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Renwick, George

  Stanley, Lord (Lance.)

  Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.)

  Richards, Henry Charles

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge)

  Taylor, Austin (East Taxteth)

  Morgan, David J (Walth'Msto

  Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Robertson. Herbert (Hackney)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Murrary, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute

  Lopner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Walrond, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. H.

  Myers, William Henry

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Royds, Clement Molynenx

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

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford.

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

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

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Samual, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Wylie, Alexander

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Seely, Maj. J. E. B. (IsleofWight

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Purvis, Robert

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES— Sir Alexander Acland Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

  Reid, James (Greenock)

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

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset)

  NOES.

  Allen, Charles P. (Gloue., Stroud

  Helme, Noval Watson

  Tully, jasper

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. HerbertHentry

  Lough, Thomas

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Nortnon, Capt. Cecil William

  Wason, JohnCathcart (Orkney)

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Weir, James Galloway

  Brigg, John

  Rea, Russell

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Burns, John

  Rigg, Richard

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Robets, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

  Caldwell, James

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

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

  Cremer, William Randal

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Grant, Corrie

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Causton and Mr. Spencer.

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Thomas, DavidAlfred (Mertthyr)

  MR. BOUSFIELDsaid he wished to move in line eight to omit "two" and insert "one." The Principle had been accepted that the metropolitan boroughs should be treated as units withouht regard to size; and therefore it seemed to him that the borough of West Ham should not be given two representatives. He thought it would give rise to great jealousy, especially in the important boroughs which had agreed to their representation being reduced. Why should West Ham have two representatives, when Islington, which was one of the largest boroughs in London, had only one?
  Amendment proposed to proposed Amendment—
  "In line 8, to leave out 'two' and insert 'one.'"—(Mr. Bousfield.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'two' stand part of the proposed Amendment."
  *MR. ERNEST GRAYsaid he ventured to hope that the Goven-
  1414
  ment would not accede to the Amendment. It was perfectly true that the representation of some of the metropolitan boroughs had been cut down; but there was an immense difference between the metropolitan boroughs and the county borough of West Ham. Not only had the metropolitan boroughs direct representation on the Water Board, but they were also represented through the County Council. West Ham, however, had no hand whatever in the election of the London County Council, and would not be represented by it nor by the Essex County Council on the Water Board. Therefore, it was not on all fours with the metropolitan boroughs. He would further point out that the councils of the various urban districts had agreed to the scheme in the Bill, and now relied on the good faith of the Government. He said with all possible respect that if the Government broke faith and accepted an Amendment such as that before the committee the influence of the action in West Ham would be that they would use their utmost efforts to oppose the Bill at every stage. They

  1415
  had the greatest difficulty in arriving at a satisfactory scheme, but having obtained one it should not now be heedlessly destroyed. It should further be remembered that the greatest earning power existed in the outside areas.
  MR. BOUSFIELDsaid he did not understand that there was any question of an arrangement; and as the matter required greater consideration, he would ask leave to withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  *MR. LOUIS SINCLAIRmoved to leave out "one" in line nine, and insert "two by the councils or urban districts of East Ham, Barking, and Ilford." The President of the Board of Trade had said that outside areas had the minimum representation, and this especially applied to the districts mentioned in the Amendment. Further, the hon. Member for North-West Ham pointed out that the greatest earning power existed in the outside areas; and inasmuch as the Water Board was going to take a well in Barking for the use of other districts, the least that district might receive was representation on the Board. East Ham had a population of nearly 100,000, and Barking had a population of over 40,000; and it was apparent that a Bill of this kind would operate adversely on such districts unless they had proper and adequate representation on the Board. He would be very grateful to the President of the Local Government Board if the districts mentioned in the Amendment would be given representation on the Board. They would be affected by the Bill, and should not be excluded from representation.
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment—
  "In line 9, to leave out 'one' and insert 'two' by the councils or urban districts of East Ham, Barking and Ilford.'"—(Mr. Louis Sinclair.)
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid he wished to point out to the hon. Member that only a very small portion of Barking was supplied at present, and that there was supplied at present, and that there was a provision in the Bill, it the circumstances which now existed were altered,
  1416
  giving the Local Government Board power to alter the conditions of the representation. The other districts were provided for in the Bill; and therefore he hoped the hon. Member would not press his Amendment.
  Amendment negatived.
  *Mr. LOUGHmoved to leave out lines 9 to 13, and insert "One by the councils of the urban districts of Buckhurst Hill, Chingford, East Ham, Leyton, Loughton, Waltham Holy Cross, Wanstead, and Woodford." The object of the Amendment was to reduce the representation of the country of Essex. The right hon. Gentleman stated that a balance had been established between inner London and outer London; but he wished to point out that the representation of inner London had been altered, and therefore it would be a great injustice if the representation of outer London was not also altered. In the original scheme inner Londond had forty-six members and outer London twenty-one. That meant that a reduction of five in London within necessitated a reduction of three in London without, and if the right hon. Gentleman would look at the counties. where a reduction was possible he would find that Essex was the county in which it was most desirable to make a change. The representation of the various counties was most unequal. The county of London had one representative for ever 99,000 inhabitants, Middlesex one for every 81,000, and Essex one for every 56,000. Therefore, Essex had a larger representation than it was entitled to. If ratable value were considered, the difference was equally astounding. The five members given to Essex represented a ratable value of £886,000 with a population of 234,000. Islington, with a population of 340,000 and a ratable value of £1,500,000, had only one representative. He thought such inequality ought to be removed. The idea of giving five memebers to such a county, was, if he might be permitted to say so, quite absurd. The Amendment proposed only one representative; but if the right hon. Gentleman would be content with two, he would be prepared to accept it. He would urge the right hon. Gentleman to look at the matter in a liberal spirit. If the right hon. Gentleman did not wish

  1417
  to agree to the precise words of the Amendment, perhaps he would consider the matter, and bring up a Clause at a later stage.
  Amendment propsed to the proposed Amendment—
  "To leave out lines 9 to 13, and insert—'One by the councils of the urban districts of Buckhurst Hill, Chingford, East Ham, Leyton, Loughton, Waltham Holy Cross, Wanstead and Woodford.'"—(Mr. Lough.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment."
  Mr. WALTER LONGsaid the Amendment would reverse the effect of the Amendments which had been already adopted. It would be juest as inequitable in one direction as the operation of the previous Amendment would be in the opposite direction. The Amendment before the Committee would reduce the representation of the outside areas, and would, therefore, make the predomininance of London greater than it was, or than it ought to be. The hon. Member pointed out that there was no very consistent plan for the distribution of representation in the Bill; but his answer to that was, as he had stated over and over again, that they should take England as they found it and not cut it up into new areas merely to suit new requirements. It was perfectly true that the unit of representation was less in some districts than in others; but so far as they could they had endeavoured to secure an equitable representation for all the parts represented. He did not in any way wish to suggest that the subject was not one of considerable importance, but he would venture respectfully to point out that the Amendment was merely ringing the changes on the original proposal. They had considered almost every possible alteration, and he would only add that he strongly felt that unless they stood by some recognised principle of representation which would maintain the balance of power between London within and London without, they would disturb that balance, and have the various authorities claiming to have the whole question reconsidered.
  Mr. SYDNEYBUXTONsaid that inner London only had a representation of 64 ½
  1418
  per cent., whereas, on the basis of population and rateable value, it ought to have a representation of 81 per cent. It was therefore clear that inner London was under represented. He did not see why the outer areas should be over represented. especially as under the Bill if the population increased to a certain point in any particular area that area would be entitled to further representation. that would safeguard the interests of the outer districts, and the Board should be put on the proper basis of representation and rateable value. The Amendment would make the proportion as between inner and outer London better; and therefore he would support it.
  Mr. BOUSFIELDsaid he would ask the President of the Local government Board dto consider before the Report stage whether he could not, by a little different grouping, make a reduction in the representation of the outside areas which would be proportionate to that made in the inside areas.
  MR. WALTERLONGsaid the matter had been very seriously considered more than once, but he should be glad to consider what would be the precise effect of the changes which had been made in the representation of inner London, and whether it called for any alteration of the Kind indicated.
  MR. CORRIE GRANTsaid he would suggest that Progress should now be reported, in order that the Committee might have an opportunity of considering the matter.
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid if his undertaking to consider the matter was met by a Motion to report Progress, he certainly would withdraw it.
  MR. LOUGHsaid that the question which had been put to the right hon. Gentleman was, would he undertake to reduce the representation? [HON. MEMBERS: To consider the reduction].
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid he was willing to consider it.
  MR. LOUGHasked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  It being midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Committee reported Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.
  Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER, in pursuance of the Order of the House of the 16th October last, adjourned the House without Question put.
  Adjourned at three minutes after Twelve o'clock.

THE EARL OF BELMORE
Took the Oath.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY
Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
>RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  NAVY (WATER TUBE BOILERS).
  Report of trials of H. M. S. "Sheldrake," H. M. S. "Seagull," H. M. S. "Espiègle," and H. M. S. "Fantôme" (with diagrams).
  Report of the Committee on Mercantile Cruisers.
  COLONIES: ANNUAL.
  NO. 373. Jamaica (Report for 1901–1902).
  CENSUS OF ENGLAND AND WALES (1901).
  Area, houses, and population, also population classified by ages, condition as to marriage, occupations, brithplaces, and infirmities of the counties of (I.) Wilts; (II.) Hertford; (III.) Cumberland.

  INEBRIATES ACTS (INSPECTORS'S REPORT).
  Report of the Inspector under the Inebriates Acts, 1879 to 1900, for the year 1901.
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  LUNACY (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1857.
  Rules approved by His Majesty's Secretary for Scotland for the reception of pauper lunatics into lunatic wards of poorhouse.
  ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TEACHERS (SUPERANNUATION) RULES (JERSEY).
  Rules made under the Elementary School Teachers (Superannuation) Act, 1898, as extended by the Elementary School Teachers Superannuation (Jersey) Act,1900.

  SUPERANNUATION.
  Treasury Minute, declaring that for the due and efficient discharge of the
  1190
  duties of the office of scientific adviser in the Fisheries Branch of the Department of Agriculture, Ireland, Professional or other peculiar qualifications not ordinarily to be acquired on the public service are required.
  Laid before the House (Pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petition in favour of; of School Board of Birmingham.
PETITIONS.

  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petition for rejection of, pending reference to the country, of National Council of Evangelical Free Churches.
  Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

  CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES.
  Moved, That the Lord Balfour be appointed to take the Chair in the Committee of the Whole House this day in the absence of the Chairman of Committees" —[The Lord President (Duke of Devonshire)]; agreed to.
  AGRICULTURE AND TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION (IRELAND) (No. 2) BILL.
  House in Committee (according to order): Bill reported without Amendment. Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a tomorrow.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING ACTS AMENDMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.

  THE EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  [SECOND READING. FIRST DAY'S DEBATE.]
  Ordered of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  *THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE): My Lords, no one can regret more than I do that your Lordships should have to discuss so important a measure, on which a large number of your Lordships are eminently well qualified to express an

  1191
  opinion, within a time which I am afraid will be so limited, unless, indeed, any prolongation of the session were contemplated, which would, I fear, cause serious inconvenience to many of your Lordships, and at the same time involve very serious and grave disturbance of the legislative work of next session. The time before the end of the session is now limited, but I do not think that the inconvenience your Lordships must feel can be imputed to the Government. This Bill has occupied in the other House a length of time almost equal to that ever devoted to any measure, and has occupied in Committee more time than any measure ever submitted to Parliament. The Education Act of 1870 occupied in all twenty-two days in the House of Commons. The home Rule Bill of 1893 occupied seventy-eight days, of which forty-six days were devoted to the Committee stage; and the present Bill has occupied fifty-eight days, of which no fewer than forty-six were devoted to discussing the details of the Bill, besides two days on which the financial Resolutions were under discussion. If any blame can be attributed to the Government for the shortness of time allowed to your Lordships, it is only that they did not resort at an earlier period to those drastic measures which were eventually necessary. In the case of the Home Rule Bill of 1893 closure by compartments was resorted to after twenty-eight days in Committee, whereas in the present case that Resolution was not moved until the Bill had occupied thirty-nine days. The Government were extremely unwilling to resort to any measure of this kind on a Bill of this importance, and it will be admitted that they extended forbearance to the utmost limit.
  The Minister who is in charge of a Bill coming from the other House labours under a disadvantage. There is no discussion of such a Bill in this House on the First Reading, and he is compelled in moving the Second Reading to combine such explanation as to the structure and provisions of the Bill as may be necessary with such arguments as he may think necessary in support of the principles of the Bill. I feel that it will be difficult for me, with due regard to the time and patience of your Lordships, to combine these two somewhat different duties on the present occasion. shall
  1192
  assume, therefore, that during the protracted discussions on the Bill in another place and in the country most of your Lordships have made yourselves tolerably well acquainted with the main provisions of the Bill. It may be convenient, however, that I should very briefly review the previous legislative attempts of the Government and the position in which the comparative failure of those attempts, taken in conjunction with the important judicial decisions, placed the question, and also explain the reason why it has been deemed imperatively necessary by the Government to introduce a measure of so controversial a character, and one which has not only occupied a great part of the time of the other House, but has deprived your Lordships of almost any legislative work during the course of the present session.
  The Bill which was introduced by the Government in 1896 provided that the Country Council or the County Borough Council, acting through the Education Committees, should be the education authority for the county or the borough. That authority was to exercise all the powers already possessed by counties and boroughs under the Technical Instruction Acts, and those powers were to be considerably extended, inasmuch as they were to relate not merely to technical or manual instruction, so called, but also to secondary education generally. As to elementary education, the Bill provided that no new School Boards were to be formed, and that if a School Board were otherwise required, or in a School Board wished to be dissolved, or if a School Board were defaulted under the Act of 1870, the new authority was to take the place of the School Board. It contained provisions for transferring from the Education Department and from the Science and Art Department some of the powers exercised by those Departments to the new authority. It also provided a special aid grant for necessitous schools, and the organisation of associations of schools which was adopted in a subsequent Act, was then for the first time suggested. The Bill, as regards educational administration, was therefore based upon one of the main principles of the present Bill, in as much as it indicated municipal councils as the authorities for the future for secondary and elementary

  1193
  education, although the Bill of 1896 left the application of that principle to be adopted in a gradual, tentative, and permissive fashion. The history of that Bill is well known to your Lordships. Amongst other opposition, it met with vehement opposition from the non-county boroughs, and after it had been discussed for a short time in Committee, it was found necessary to drop it. The following year two measures were passed—the Voluntary Schools Act and a measure for increasing the grant which had been given in 1870 to certain School Board districts. Both were financial measures, the one intended to relieve the voluntary schools from the intolerable strain of poverty, and the other to relieve the oppressive burden of the rates in some of the poorer districts. Neither of these measures professed to do anything to improve the machinery of education generally. In the following year the Board of Education Bill was introduced into this House, and it was passed in a modified form in the year after by Parliament. That Bill united two educational Departments, which had been independent of each other, in one central authority. It also contained powers for transferring from the Charity Commissioners all the powers that were deemed necessary in relation to education to the new authority. The Bill of 1896 had not included any attempt to reorganise the central authority, and the Government felt that any attempt to deal with the problems raised by that Bill ought to be preceded by a thorough reorganisation of the two education departments. That reorganisation is still to a certain degree incomplete. It must necessarily be a work of time to combine two great Departments of the Government with separate staffs, separate habitations, and separate and distinct official positions. The complete amalgamation of these two Departments cannot be effected until it is possible to bring them under one roof, or until their permanent administration is controlled by men who have had some experience of both branches of the subject. The reorganisation, therefore, is still to a certain degree incomplete. But I do not think it is possible to exaggerate the importance of the principle which was contained in that Act. It is a strange thing that it could
  1194
  so long have been thought possible to carry on the work of education under two independent Departments.
  There is, and there must always be, a certain distinction between elementary and secondary education. That distinction is recognised in our legislation. One form of education is made compulsory and free, while the other is not compulsory and is not necessarily gratuitous. Of the children in this country there has always been a very large number who would not go beyond the elementary stage of education, but it should undoubtedly be one object, at least, of a system of national education that the means should be provided by which the more intelligent pupils could obtain more advanced education. The schools, moreover, should be so organised as to make the transition not difficult but easy. I have said it was a strange idea that schools attended by young children should be under one department, and the schools of elder children under a separate and distinct department. That unwise and unpractical separation has been, so far as lagislation can do it, removed by the Board of Education Act as regards central administration. But that distinction still remains in regard to our local administration of education, and it is one of the objects of the present Bill to remove it. The Bill of 1900, which I introduced into this House, was entitled "a Bill to make better provision to enable Councils and other local authorities to aid forms of education not being elementary." The Bill was discussed in this House, was read a second time, but was never considered in the other House. Indeed, it was intended rather to indicate the proposals of the Government, and to give and opportunity for the discussion of them in the country, than to effect immediate legislation. That Bill, as a matter of fact, was largely discussed by County Councils and other educational authorities during the subsequent recess, and, so far as County Councils and Municipal Councils are concerned, it met with a very considerable amount of support. The Bill introduced in the following year in the House of Commons was based on very similar lines. It related solely to education other than elementary, it being intended late to add powers relating to elementary education. That Bill was read a second time in the House of Commons by a very large majority, but after a certain amount of discussion

  1195
  in Committee it was dropped. One Clause only, that relating to the situation produced by the Cockerton judgment, was enacted at a later period of the session.
  In the meantime, while these legislative proceedings were going on, a judicial inquiry had taken place, and judicial decisions had been given which had consequences almost as important as any that have been brought about by legislation. Ever since 1870, in the absence of sufficient legislative provisions for secondary education, School Boards had gradually been establishing schools and giving courses of instruction for older children, and even for adults, which went far beyond anything which by any construction could be called elementary education. The Act of 1870 had strictly limited the powers of the Shool Boards to the provision of elementary schools, but the School Boards had not, I think, without the connivance, or perhaps even the encouragement, of the Education Department established higher grade schools, schools of science and of art, and pupil teachers' centres, where was given instruction which was, or professed to be, of a secondary character. As was inevitable, these schools were found to come into competition, not only with private institutions but with institutions which had been either founded or assisted by another set of public authorities whose powers were derived under the Technical Instruction Acts. Sooner or later this question was bound to come before the Courts, and when it did there could be but one answer—the answer contained in the Cockerton judgment. In this way, two or three years ago a large number of schools, some of which may have been superfluous, some of which may have been inefficient, and some of which may have been unsuitable to the wants of the locality, but still in which a large number of children and young men and women were receiving an instruction which they, or their parents, considered of value, were threatened with immediate or summary extinction. The position, therefore, at the commencement of the present year was this—the Government had attempted to deal with the whole question comprehensively, but in a tentative and gradual manner. They had then attempted to deal with it partially. They had suc-
  1196
  ceeded in organising the central administration; they had failed to give a similar organisation to local administration. They had given a certain amount of relief to voluntary schools and to certain ratepayers in the poorer districts. They had succeeded in making some of the elmentary schools more efficient, but not to an adequate extent, and they had altogether failed in making adequate provision for either the organisation or the supply of secondary education throughout the whole country. The effect of this comparative failure, and of the judicial decision to which I have referred, was not only that we failed to make that educational progress which we desired, but we stood, in the absence of some further effort, to incur the risk of actual educational retrogression.
  Legislation, then, had become imperative. Both Parties in the State were committed to it. Eight years ago the last Government appointed a Commission designed to inquire into the best method of establishing a well-organised system of secondary education in England. We were ourselves committed by our previous attempts. The problem had become more urgent, and its settlement incapable of further delay. The only question was whether further legislation should be of a partial and incomplete character, based on the impossible and unscientific idea of a hard-and-fast line being drawn between secondary and elementary education, and of a distribution of local powers based upon that distinction, or whether the time had not now come, after a lapse of more than thirty years, for a complete and general review of the system which has been created by the Act of 1870 and the amending Acts, and by the series of Technical Instruction Acts. We had to consider whether the time had not come when an attempt should be made to place our national education on some intellgible and rational basis. We might again have attempted to deal with the question in some hand-to-mouth fashion, and find some escape from our immediate difficulties. We might, as some have urged us to do, have proposed a kind or permanent Cockerton Act, which would have legalised the proceedings which School Boards had, with the best intentions, but, as it proved, illegally, been carrying on. We might, as the same

  1197
  time, have further developed the powers of municipal authorities in respect of technical or secondary education. But if we had done that we should have established more firmly two authorities, each charged with important duties, possessing important powers, and disposing of large resources, to do the same work, probably to hamper each other in the discharge of that work. Partial legislataion of this sort might have been a tempting course for a Government which had already to a certain extent burnt its fingers over the education question, and which was fully aware of the great difficulties attending any comprehensive attempt to deal with the whole subject.
  My Lords, fortunately, as I think, there wee two insuperable objections to any such course as that. The first was our educational conscience, which told us that any such course would be fundamentally unsound, and would, in the long run, tend rather to aggravate than to remove or diminish the existing evils; and the second was the conviction that we entertained of the fixed resolution of a very large number of our own supporters that no final settlement, or even temportary settlement, of the education question would be acceptable to them which did not do something to increase the efficiency and secure the permanent efficiency of that class of elementary schools in the existence of which they were deeply interested. In those circumstances we resolved on what is admitted to be a bold and comprehensive measure. Indeed, it has been described as a revolutionary measure. I will not admit the justice of that description. If we had had to deal only with one form of education possibly there might have been some foundation for such a charge, but dealing, as we had to deal, with the whole subject, and in the educational position which I have attempted to relate, I should prefer to describe the measure rather as the natural sequel and offspring of the great Act of 1870 and of the Technical Instruction Acts which have followed it. We had then to consider first what should be the education authority which we proposed to establish. For reasons which I have indicated, it was impossible for us to continue the dual organisations of School Boards and municipal councils. Our choice lay between universal School Boards or universal magnified School Boards, with a new ad hoc authority and
  1198
  the existing municipal institutions, charged with the duty of superintending local government and local finance. Either alternative which we could have adopted would have involved the disestablishment of one existing authority. If strong opposition has been offered to the disestablishment of School Boards it is not probable that we should have met with less opposition on attempting to deprive county or borough councils of the powers which they are exercing under the Technical Instruction Acts or on attempting to put an end to the work which is going on under their Technical Committees. It is quite true that some of these bodies have protested against the duties which this Bill will impose upon them, but I wonder what the West Riding County Council, for instance, would have said if we had proposed to deprive it of its powers under the Technical Instruction Acts, or to put a stop to the great work which its Technical Committee is carrying on at the present time.
  I do not think that I need trouble your Lordships with any elaborate arguments on the subject of the creation of a new ad hoc authority, because I perceive that the authority which we propose, and its suitableness for the purpose, have only been seriously questioned by those who are opposed to our measure on other grounds. It is alleged that the Bill does not establish a single authority, or the unity of administration which has been claimed for it. It is said that we shall still have in certain areas separate authorities controlling elementary and secondary education, and exercising concurrent control. To a certain extent I admit that that is true. But if it is true, it is due rather to our existing local government arrangements than to any defect in the principle of this Bill. If it is a blot on the Bill, I contend that, at all events, the Bill is and inprovement on the existing state of things. I will trouble your Lordships with an instance taken from the county with which, naturally, I am best acquainted—the county of Derbyshire. We have in Derbyshire three non-county boroughs, which are the principal areas in which the Bill fails to establish a single education authority. Two of them have School Boards—Chesterfield and IIkeston; the

  1199
  third, Glossop, is without a School Board. In one, therefore, we have the County Council and the Borough Council exercising concurrent powers over technical education, and we have no elementary education authority at all. In the other two, the same bodies exercise concurrent control over technical instruction, and we have a third authority, differently elected, controlling the elementary schools. In none of these is it possible for the borough to frame for itself any complete scheme for its elementary and secondary schools. In the first instance, because there is no body entitled to speak in the name of secondary schools or to control secondary schools; in the other case, it would be most difficult, if not impossible, to frame such a scheme, because the body which controls elementary education being differently elected and having no financial responsibility, would probably have ideas very different from the County or Borough Councils as to the organisation of its higher grade and evening continuation schools. There would be the greatest probability of friction, of overlapping, and of bad administration, whereas, under the present Bill, there would be in each of these non-county boroughs a Municipal Council which would have full powers over all kinds of schools existing within their area, and full powers of organising a complete scheme of education for that area. I admit that in these boroughs there is still a possibility of friction on account of the concurrent powers of the County and Borough Councils over secondary education. But, although there is a possibility, there is a very small probability of such friction, because both these bodies being elected in a similar manner, and both having full financial responsibility to the ratepayers as well as educational responsibility, there will be every inducement to both of them by arrangement to make the greatest use possible of schools and to work together in one general scheme.
  I next call attention to an important amendment which was introduced in he Bill in Committee in the House of Commons. The Bill as introduced provided for the appointment, by scheme, of committees through which the Councils should act. Clause 18 in the present
  1200
  Bill still provides for the appointment of such committees. It directs that all educational matters shall stand referred to such committees. It directs the Councils to receive and consider their Reports, but in urgent cases it relieves them form that obligation. But according to the terms of the Clause, although the Councils are bound to consult the committee, they have full powers to act as they please without reference to any other body appointed by scheme or otherwise. That Amendment may be considered open to some objection on educational grounds because the expert influence upon the authority is some-what diminished by this Amendment. It has been inserted, however, to make absolutely clear the complete independence of the popular body, which will, as the Bill now stands, be subject to no interference by any other body appointed by scheme or otherwise, except in certain cases subject to the control of the Board of Education itself. This Amendment, I believe, is admitted by the opponents of the Bill to be a considerable practical improvement in making perfectly clear the reality of the control which will be exercised by the popularly appointed local authority over the secular instructon in all schools, voluntary as well as Board.
  Another Amendment which I may refer to is one relating to Wales. In the Bill as introduced the county governing bodies under the Welsh Intermediate Act were to be the Educational Committees for the Welsh counties in place of those which were to be appointed by scheme in the English counties. But, as your Lordships are aware, the Welsh Members have been the most strenuous opponents of this Bill, and it was at their instance that this provision was omitted; and now in the Bill as amended the county governing bodies under the Welsh Intermediate Act are to be abolished, and the committees framed liked the committees for all English counties will be not only the education Committees for the purpose of this Bill, but also the governing bodies under the Welsh Intermediate Act. This Amendment, introduced at the instance of the opponents of the Bill, shows, in my opinion, that in their judgment the authority of the committees appointed

  1201
  by the Bill will be more effective, and will be better constituted for educational purposes than the former governing bodies, which up to now have, it is supposed, possessed the complete confidence of the Welsh people.
  I come now, my Lords, to the powers which are to be conferred on the new local authorities with respect to secondary education. The Councils will have all the existing powers and the considerably extended powers which they now possess under the Technical Instruction Acts. Their powers will not be limited to technical and manual instruction, but they extend to the whole range of secondary education. The second clause of the Bill which deals with this part of the subject has been considerably strengthened in the Committee in the other House. In the previous Bills and in this Bill as introduced, those powers were permissive only. In the present Bill a more mandatory form has been adopted, and specific directions are given to county authorities to consider the educational needs of the area, and to take steps to provide education other than elementary, and they are to do this in consulation with the Board of Education, which, under the Board of Education Act, has a Department of secondary education. The rating powers of the County Councils have been enlarged to the extent of empowering them to impose a two-penny rate. With the assent of the Local Government Board that limit may be raised, while for the county boroughs there is no rating limit at all. As to the powers of the new authority over elementary education, here, again, the new authority will have all the powers of School Boards where they now exist, and the same powers in districts where no elementary education authority exists at all. They will also have large additional powers as to the provision of schools. No School Board can now provide new schools unless there is an actual deficiency of school accommodation. They can take no account of the denominational or undenominational character of the school; they can take no account of the character or wishes of the population; the line is a hard and fast one. Where there is a sufficient number of places in denominational schools the School Board has no power to provide a new school. The
  1202
  population may be mainly Nonconformist, but if there is a sufficiency of places in the denominational schools the School Board has no power, even if it thinks it necessary, to supply new schools. And conversely, if there is a sufficient number of school places in board schools, Churchmen or denominations are not permitted to provide a new school in which distinctive religious doctrine can be taught. That limitation is removed by the Bill, and under certain conditions the local authority will be able, in a case where it considers it necessary, to provide a school, which shall be under the Cowper-Temple Clause, although there may be no deficiency in accommodation. Similarly, Churchmen and denominations will have the liberty to provide their own schools, even though there may be a sufficient amount of accommodation in the existing schools.
  Objections have been taken to these provisions on account of their alleged tendency to multiply the number of small schools. These objections, I think, ought in the main to be dealt with in Committee, but it cannot be doubted that the principle of the Clause is essentially just, and it gives a power to the local education authority which ought to be inherent—namely, that of providing not only a sufficient number of places, but the power to provide such places as the authorities may consider best adapted to the wants and necessities of the people. Besides being just, it goes a long way to remove a religious grievance. It is the grievance that the Nonconformist is obliged to send his child to a denominational school because there is no other accessible, and the grievance felt by the Churchman of being compelled to pay rates for board schools, and who cannot, if he wishes it, find a school in which the children can receive the religious instruction which he desires.
  I now come to what is probably the most controverted provision of the Bill—that which deals with the maintenance of the schools. The local authority, under this Bill, unlike the School Board, will have cognisance of and will be responsible for the efficiency of not the board schools only but of every school within its area. If the authority is to be responsible for the efficiency of all the schools, it must have the means of securing that efficiency. That principle, I think, can hardly be questioned by anybody. How is that

  1203
  efficiency to be secured? There is no difficulty as regards the rate-provided schools. The difficulty arises in that type of school which has hitherto been called the voluntary schools—schools which have been built mainly by means of private funds, and which have hitherto been partially maintained from private sources. The difficulty we have to deal with is how the efficiency of this class of school should be secured. No increase in the amount of the grant from the Exchequer would accomplish it. The Bill does provide for a very considerable addition to the Exchequer grant. It provides an additional grant, which, I believe, has been estimated to amount to very nearly £1,500,000. That amount will be distributed to the different districts, in a large degree, in proportion to the necessity of the district. That is to say, a large part of it will be distributed on a basis ascertained by a comparison of the rateable value of the district and the number of children to be educated in it. I do not think I need discuss these provisions at much length, because it is obviously a portion of the Bill with which this House is not able to interfere. But the cost of education will still naturally vary in different localities, and it is the principle of the Bill—and I think the right principle—that in all cases there will be some margin of the cost which will remain to be locally provided. What then is to be done in those districts where the voluntary subscription will not suffice to meet the cost of this margin that will remain to be provided? Either we must give to the local authority power to acquire compulsorily those schools which, for want of funds, are inefficient, or we must give them power to close them and to replace them by others, or, as the Bill proposed to do, we must require the local authority to find the funds to make them efficient. Are we to say to the supporters of these schools, "Your schools have done their work. There was a time when they were the only schools which provided any education in the country, but they are now superannuated and they must go, or if they remain it must be under the condition of the surrender of the one object for which they were mainly instituted."
  1204
  I know there are many conscientious and religious men to whom a denominational school, especially if it is supported out of public funds, whether those funds be derived form the taxes or the rates, is an abomination. But what we have to consider is whether that is the opinion of the majority of the country. Certainly it is not the opinion of His Majesty's Government, and we do not believe it is the opinion of the majority of the country. And we have, therefore, deliberately adopted the principle that, subject to conditions which we believe to be adequate to secure their efficiency and all necessary popular control of these schools, they shall remain a part of the educational provision of the country, and that they shall not, at the same time, be compelled to sacrifice their definite religious character. This is the question which has now been debated in Parliament and the country for the last eight months, but I am not sure that even now we know distinctly what is the opinion of the Opposition on this question, vital and fundamental as it is. I have referred in a speech in the country to some speeches made by responsible leaders of the Opposition, and as they were not made in Parliament, but in the country, I may refer to them here. Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman at the Alexandra Palace used these words—
  "Let me at once lay down this as my opinion, that it is sheer nonsense to talk of a denominational system. We must have a national system, and a denominational system can never be a national system. The two terms are contradictory. A denominational system can never be made a national system with all the restrictions and disguises which may be put into it by Act of Parliament."
  Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman made great play on this occasion on the antithesis of a national and denominational system. I do not believe there is any antithesis whatever except verbal antithesis. But what is it exactly that he means? Does he say that the system which we propose under this Bill is a denominational system because we do not exclude from it the school which gives distinctive religious instruction? Does that make the whole scheme a denominational system? We might just as well say that it was an undenominational system, because schools which give only undenominational instruction are not excluded from the receipt of public funds.

  1205
  But the scope of these declarations was made rather more clear by Mr. Asquith, who followed him on the same occasion. Mr. Asquith said—
  "It would, in my opinion, do no harm to the children of England, and it would wound the consciences of a very insignificant number of parents, if we confined the religious teaching in all our public elementary schools to those simple acts and truths which are the common heritage of Christianity."
  That is, I think, a tolerably clear declaration. In the opinion of Mr. Asquith, at all events, there is in the future to be a Cowper-Temple Clause for every public elementary school in the country. We know very well what the effect of this would be. We know that if we incorporated any such provision in our Bill as this it would have the effect of closing half the voluntary schools, if not all of them. It would involve the country in the expense of either compulsorily acquiring those schools or of building new schools to replace them, and we should be doing this at a cast which is differently estimated at a sum of from fifteen to twenty-five millions, and for the purpose of closing schools which are valued, and intensely valued, by a very large number of our fellow-countrymen, and which to a very much larger number still do not offer any offence whatever. I hope we shall hear, in the course of the discussions in this House, what is really the view which is taken on this question by the Opposition, and whether they are prepared to contend that what the country desires and that what they wish to enact is that for the future no denominational school should be admitted as part of our educational system.
  I fully admit the perfect right of noble Lords opposite to criticise, and, if they think fit, to condemn as inadequate and insufficient, the provisions which we make for securing the efficiency and the public control of the schools which receive public assistance. I admit their right to criticise and condemn the securities which we concede to the managers of these schools for the retention of their religious character as unnecessary or excessive, but I think we have a right to know from what point of view these provisions are criticised, whether they are critics who accept, perhaps unwillingly but in good faith, the denominational schools as part of our educational system,
  1206
  or whether they are critics who are openly opposed to their retention in any form or shape. That is the main issue. All the rest of the discussion is, in my opinion, mere detail. I shall not now enter more fully into the provisions. Every man who takes an interest in the subject knows what are the conditions we require from the managers, and what are the concessions we are prepared to make them. Starting from the principle that we desire to keep, and do not desire to get rid of, denominational schools, we have endeavoured to make the best conditions, the best compromise—if you will, the best bargain—we could suggest, and which, in our opinion, will be fair to the State and just to the managers of voluntary schools. Starting from that principle, starting from that point, we do not believe you can suggest any conditions more fair to the State on the one hand and to managers on the other. The concessions are not all on one side. There is no doubt the Church and denominations under this Bill will gain a great deal, that is to say, if they desire, as I believe they do desire, to remain in the forefront of educational work. They will, no doubt, be relieved from the task that falls to the lot of too many of having to make bricks without straw; they will be relieved from the humiliating task of having to beg alms for the means of performing what they believe to be a national as well as a sacred duty. But many of them feel that that relief is dearly bought by the conditions imposed. We have heard something of this in the other House, and no doubt we shall hear more here. Ministers, the clergy of the Established Church or of the Roman Catholic Church, will have to surrender under this Bill much of the freedom, much of the sole authority, much of the power they have hitherto enjoyed. They will have to surrender their control over secular instruction in the schools, to which many of them may attach importance from a moral point of view hardly second to that which attaches to their control over religious instruction. Even in the matter of religious instruction their power will be no longer absolute, but will be shared with popularly-elected joint managers. The boon which this Bill gives them will, to many of them, not be an unmixed benefit.

  1207
  As to the Nonconformist bodies, I know they do not welcome this Bill and that many of them are bitterly opposed to it; but I ask whether they would have been less hostile to any measure proposed if it continued the existence of denominational schools. This Bill does not strengthen clerical control in the slightest degree; on the contrary, it diminishes it; this Bill does not weaken public control over any school; on the contrary, it strengthens it. It brings it to bear in schools where hitherto it has not existed at all. This Bill contains nothing that aggravates a Nonconformist grievance; the real grievance is that it does not extinguish Church schools. They hoped, many of them, either to have these destroyed by legislation or starved out of existence. My Lords, that is a grievance we cannot undertake to remedy, but there are many grievances, of which we have heard much in the past, which by this Bill will be either removed or greatly mitigated. The Bill opens a way by which, as I have already shown, an undenominational school may be established in any district where, in the opinion of the local authority, such a school is required. It enables the establishment by the local authority of training colleges, or institutions in connection with training colleges, where Nonconformists can be trained for the teaching profession, subject to no religious test. The Bill removes the bar which has hitherto stood in the way of access by Nonconformists to the position of teachers. I ask whether it is nothing to Nonconformists that they, for the first time, are given a voice, perhaps a controlling power, in the management of secular instruction in every school. Is it nothing to them to secure efficient secular teaching in what may be the only available school to which they can send their children, without being required to submit to religious instruction?
  I submit to your Lordships that this Bill gives effect to three main principles. In the first place, it co-ordinates education under similar homogeneous authorities, if not a single authority. In the next place, it imposes on these authorities, and gives to these authorities the duty and the means for securing efficiency in every school. Thirdly, it preserves the existence of those schools in which definite religious doctrine is
  1208
  taught. As to the first two of these principles which the Bill contains, I do not think there will be any serious difference of opinion among experts and educational authorities that the Bill marks a substantial if not a complete advance. As to the third, I admit there is room for difference of opinion, it is a question rather of opinion than one that can be met by abstract argument. If the Bill were defeated, I admit that, with a change in the political position, you may succeed in forcing on the country either a secular system of education which it detests, or a colorless religious education to which it is indifferent, but if you are going to wait for this you will be delaying for an indefinite time the accomplishment of the first two objects; you will be sending forth to the business of their lives, to the work of the country, thousands, and hundreds of thousands, of children who but for your action might have received a better and more practical training. I think your Lordships would be wise in securing these objects, which are within your grasp, and in refusing to postpone them to that distant day when, perhaps, we may all be agreed, or at least be content, to forego religious teaching. Thanking your Lordships for the patience with which you have listened to me, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Duke of Devonshire.)
  *EARL SPENCER: My Lords, I rise under somewhat difficult circumstances to follow the noble Duke the Lord President of the Council. The noble Duke has made a very clear, and I will venture to say, a very able speech, going over the whole question of education as it has been before us in recent years, and I may, in a few sentences, refer to what he said in his opening remarks in reference to the late period—I might say, the short period—in which we have to review this enormous subject. The noble Duke said no blame for this rested upon His Majesty's Government, but I cannot entirely agree with him. Everybody knew this Bill would arouse very strong feelings in another place, and that it would probably be debated

  1209
  almost word by word; and yet His Majesty's Government, instead of making this the first business of the session, spent a long time in discussing Rules of Procedure. I quite admit that His Majesty's Government after that were not responsible for another delay which took place — the delay caused by His Majesty's Coronation, so happily consummated after great vicissitudes.
  In the interesting historical reference to education which the noble Duke made there is only one point on which I would differ from him, in anticipation of what the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack may say with regard to the Bill of 1897. The noble Duke said that was purely a financial Bill. We on this side of the House did not consider it a purely financial Bill. We considered that that Bill in a very material point affected the settlement of 1870. Now, my Lords, I shall try to answer the challenge of the noble Duke when he said he hoped that in this House we should have reasons given by the Opposition for the opposition which we intend to give to this Bill.
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I do not think that is exactly what I said. I said I hoped we should hear exactly what was the position the noble Lords opposed to us.
  *EARL SPENCER: I do not see a great deal of difference, between us as to what the noble Duke said, but I am ready to accept what the noble Duke says, and in the course of my speech I hope I shall be able to indicate the position which we take up with regard to this measure. I wish we had not to go into this question at this moment. I stand here to-night in an unusually difficult position. We have not had the usual interval of a week or a fortnight between the Third Reading and the passing of the Bill in the other place. Last night only was this Bill passed in the House of Commons. I am not blaming His Majesty's Government for proposing the Second Reading to-night, for we on this side of the House were a party to it, and we see the necessity of taking the Second Reading to-night. But we are put in a peculiarly difficult position as we have to make speeches on the Second Reading of the Bill immediately
  1210
  after the eloquent speeches which have been made in another place on the Third Reading. At the same time this is so great a subject, and one that affects so fundamentally the condition of this country and its population—for it affects the whole intelligence and instruction of the people, without which they will not be able to do their duty to the State or to complete with other nations—that it is of the utmost importance that we should give our opinion fully upon it.
  This measure deals, as your Lordships know, with two subjects, with secondary education and with primary education. We all know that there have been various attempts of late yearas to deal with secondary education, and not only within the last few years. I am not overstepping the mark when I say I believe that for the last fifty years all great educational experts have declared the absoulute necessity of dealing fully and ably and thoroughly with this great subject. We have experts like great subject. We have experts like Matthew Arnold; we have another great expert in a prominent place in this House, who, when he was only Dr. Temple, was one of the greatest educational reformers that we had. We are proud to think that he will be here tonight to give his opinion on this Bill. All these men of great ability and great experience and knowledge on this subject have been calling out for prompt and thorough dealing with this question. Now this Bill does not do so. It is a Bill of twenty-six Clauses, and only four, or perhaps five, deal with secondary education; all the rest deal with primary education. I do not say it requires a long string of Clauses to deal widely and wisely with a particular subject, but in my opinion the Clauses that have been introduced here are most inadequate for dealing with this great subject. The noble Duke has referred to this, and he has told us of various points upon which there is some expansion of power for dealing with the subject. He says that Town Councils may now have and unlimited rate to deal with it. The County Councils may only do so with the permission of the Local Government Board; they are limited in their rate to 2d. in the £. The noble Duke spoke of greater mandatory power. I confess, in reading the Clause, I can hardly see there is much of a mandate

  1211
  with regard to supplying the deficiency in secondary education. There is no Clause such as we have had in various other Bills that have been brought before us making it imperative that all the money called whisky money should be bestowed on technical education.
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: Yes.
  *EARL SPENCER: I fail to find it.
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: They cannot spend it on anything else. If they do not spend it they must keep it in reserve.
  *EARL SPENCER: I do not understand that. I hope the noble Duke is right.
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: Let me read the Clause—
  "And for that purpose shall apply all or so much as they deem necessary of the residue under Section I of the Local Taxation (Customs and Excise) Act, 1890, and shall carry forward for the like purpose any balance thereof which may remain unexpended."
  *EARL SPENCER: I stand corrected by the noble Duke. I am glad that that should be the case. Now, my Lords, it also deals with the question of boarding schools for secondary education and day schools. I hardly think the provisions that are made for religious teaching under the Conscience Clause where residence is concerned are satisfactory. They are more satisfactory with regard to day schools. Now this part of the Bill which relates to secondary education deals with all continuation schools and evening schools. But there is another subject which is of still greater importance. It also deals with training colleges. The question of training colleges is one of supreme importance to education in this country. So far as I understand, the Bill gives power to the county authorities to have a rate for the purpose of establishing these training colleges. May I for a moment dwell upon this question? I believe that at this moment there are altogether forty-four training colleges, with 4,084 students. Of these thirty-one belong to the Church of England, three to the Roman Catholics, two to the Wesleyans, and eight to the British and Foreign Schools Society and undenominational bodies. The Church of England
  1212
  have 2,780 students, the Roman Catholics 271, the Wesleyans 231, and the British and Foreign Society 802. This number is perfectly inadequate for the requirements of education at the present moment. We read in the reports of the inspectors that these training colleges are by no means sufficient; that they are not always efficient in their teaching, and in equipment they are deficient. I should like to read the report of Mr. Rankine, who is, I think, the principal inspector of His Majesty's schools, in regard to this matter. He says—
  "The number of our training colleges is insufficient. Many teachers would gladly avail themselves of the advantage of college life, but there is no room. Nonconformists especially are at a disadvantage …. Another undenominational college for women seems urgently needed. A trained teacher to every 100 children in average attendance does not seem extravagant, but to meet such a demand 46,000 teachers will be required, or 10,000 more than we possess. At the present rate of increase it would be twenty-five years before this modest requirement could be satisfied, even assuming that the average attendance of 4,600,000 children remains, which, it is to be hoped, will do no such thing."
  That is a very unfortunate history of the present condition of the training colleges, and I doubt extremely whether the provisions for secondary education in this Bill will be able to meet this great demand. No doubt I shall be told, and told properly, that there will be a great deal done by grants from the Exchequer. But the Bill rather indicates that these training colleges are to be supported by the county rates. Although I am not myself so anxious to increase Parliamentary grants, I cannot help thinking that the Exchequer should find the greater part of the funds for training colleges, and I will give you a reason. Will there be any county willing to go to a very heavy expenditure out of the rates with the chance of the teachers going out of their area? Unless this is done chiefly by the Government—I should like to see them provide a large number of these training colleges—very little will be done to remedy this great deficiency of teachers.
  Now I turn to what is really, in our opinion, and perhaps in that of your Lordships, the principal part of the Bill—namely, primary education. I at once say that one of the reasons why I oppose strongly this Bill, and am quite ready to

  1213
  see it thrown out, an event which is not very likely, is that I feel the greatest possible objection to many of the provisions in it, and I fear that many of those provisions, instead of improving education, will have the effect of driving back the education of the country. First, as to the question of the School Boards in the country. I greatly deplore that this part of the Act of 1870, which has done an enormous amount of good work for the public, is to be done away with. These School Boards have raised the standard of education to an enormous degree, not only in the schools under the Boards, but, by the competition which they have developed in other schools, they have caused great improvement in the education given in the schools in all parts of the country. But what does this Bill do? I will take the first part, which refers to towns. The Bill places the power in the hands of the Municipal Council, which is to be the local education authority. I have the greatest respect and admiration for the Municipal Councils. They do their work efficiently, admirably. They have a very large amount of important work to do, and their operations are carried out all over the country for the benefit of the citizens. But they have more than enough to do, and I think they ought not to have the work which belongs to the School Boards thrust upon them. I believe that will place them in great difficulties indeed. There is another reason—I value extremely the manner in which these board schools are managed. They are managed by persons who are specially elected on account of their interest in and knowledge of education and everything connected with this great subject. All this is to be handed over to the Councils, which are necessarily not so competent to deal with it. Education will lose, it must lose, a great deal by not having these experienced men, who are special experts, at the head of affairs, managing education. If we are to get the best education we must see that a high standard is maintained at headquarters, and a living interest kept vigorous in the locality. Those who have hitherto occupied this position have realised these expectations. They took a living interest in the progress of education in the locality.
  1214
  The change in the management proposed under this Bill will not enable these schools to be conducted as they have hitherto been carried on, there will not be that support given in the future in the management of education as has been given in the past, and the locality will lose very considerably in the interest which will be displayed in education, not having the primary right to elect those who are to manage education.
  Now what is the County Council, outside boroughs, to do? Its members will have to delegate their duties to committees. Well, in towns that may not be very difficult, though I object to the co-option for members. I prefer direct election for those who are to manage the education interests of a locality. Control will be comparatively easy in the towns, where people can get about by means of trams and carriages in a few minutes, but it will be difficult when you come to the County Councils which will have to deal with large areas. I speak with some knowledge, for I have had a great deal to do with county work. I have been chairman of the Sessions and also a member and chairman of a County Council, and, therefore, I say that there will be an enormous difficulty in getting the work carried out in rural districts. We have very large districts in our county, which is seventy miles in length and where some of the villages, over 300 in number, lie at a great distance. It will be perfectly impossible for a County Council as the education authority to control the whole education of the county. What will the County Councils do? They are to appoint committees. In a Town Council the committee, or the majority of it, must consist of members of that body, but in the rural districts the County Council may abrogate that and have a committee consisting of persons who are not members of the Council. I object to that very much. You may have advisory committees in the various localities, and that will be still worse. These arrangements form, in my opinion, one of the great blots on the Bill, which directs that education is to be worked out of the rates and out of grants from the Exchequer. How would this work out. Practically, the popular representation is almost a sham. My belief is that these committees,

  1215
  instead of being representatives of the ratepayers and those most deeply interested, would be persons who had nothing to do with representation. It is not for the first time that I have said this. I have always said with regard to popular elementary education you will never get any satisfactory management unless you have some body smaller than the County Council and larger than the Parish Council to control it. It would be a very easy thing to have the election of the district educational committee carried on at the same time and with the same aids as the election for the District Council.
  I come now to another matter which has been referred to by the noble Duke, the Boards of Management—I mean those authorities who are to manage the old voluntary schools, or the denominational schools, whichever you like to call them. There is the crux, I think, of the whole thing. Those persons who will manage the schools in the parish are those who are in constant touch with and nearest to the parents of the children. These are the most important persons in the management of the schools. How are they to be selected? I object to the plan proposed in the Bill. These persons will have the most serious part in managing the schools, and they will practically have the chief business of distributing enormous grants from the public Exchequer, as well as disposing of the money provided by the rates. It is of the utmost importance that real local control and management should be allowed where these enormous grants are to be given, but you place this power in hands where it should not be placed. I say that the principle here adopted is entirely wrong. Then the power given as to the appointment of the teachers is one to which I have the greatest objection. I object altogether to an official of the State—because these schools will be practically State schools—being placed under a religious disability. These school managers will never elect a Nonconformist to be a head teacher. They will always elect a churchman to be the head teacher in these schools. What does this religious test do? It not only limits competition and prevents the school getting the best man, but it reimposes a religious test which has been abolished elsewhere. This
  1216
  scheme, I am convinced, is viewed as most objectionable by the country and is resented among all the members of the Free Churches.
  I presented a petition to-day from nearly all the Free Churches in the country against the Bill, and in that petition it is stated that 8,000,000 adherents of these Free Churches support the petition. Why is it that there is this great feeling against the Bill? The principal objection, I venture to say, is to voluntary school managers and the religious test placed upon teachers. It may be said that the educational authority has some voice in the matter; but it cannot interfere except on educational grounds. A teacher may be appointed who has high ritualistic views, and bring with him an atmosphere of religion which is hateful to the parents of the children in the parish many of whom may be members of the Anglican Church. There would be no redress. The education authority have no power whatever in the matter. There is one thing which has come out strongly in these discussions which I desire to bring before your Lordships. It is the absolute necessity of putting all primary schools in the country on an equal financial basis. We have now a law that all children must attend school. In some parts of the country, particularly in rural districts, the children are obliged to attend voluntary schools, which do not, like the board schools, give the best teaching under the best masters. Is it not very hard that the children should be compelled to go to these inferior schools—often the only schools in the parish—when their neighbours with whom they may have to compete in this world can go to good schools? I therefore believe it was absolutely necessary that a great change should be made, but I deny that if that change is to be made it should be made in a way which the Bill proposes. The noble Duke has challenged this Bench to express their opinion on the subject of religion instruction. I admit that the logical position would be that the State should pay for all secular education and that sects and private individuals should pay for religious instruction. I am afraid that, at the present moment, cannot be carried out. I myself am in favour of religious instruction, if not dogmatic instruction, being given in the schools of this country. I believe that is in consonance with the the wishes of parents

  1217
  and of the great multitude of the people of this country. I venture to think that School Boards have discharged this task in a highly efficient way, and we have the testimony on this point of the most reverend prelate who preceded the present Archbishop of Canterbury. The late Archbishop said, in 1893—
  "We should get on a great deal faster with what we want to get on with if people would cease their futile denunciations of board schools. The Bishop of Durham has been carefully through the Board school of the Diocese of Durham, and he tells me that he is satisfied."
  And again in the following year the Primate said—
  "I am persuaded that in a very great number of board schools there is very good religious teaching indeed. Those terrors of a polymorphous religion, in which a child is being taught in one standard by a Baptist, and in the next by a Congregationalist, and in the next by a Roman Catholic, and in the next by an Agnostic, do not exist. I do say that in the Board school teaching in London we have a very great amount of the knowledge of the Gospel, and a very great amount of that which is practically and really the teaching of the Church."
  I am quite satisfied with this teaching myself, I believe that dogmatic teaching, if the parents desire it, should be given out of school hours at home and in the Sunday school. I will go even further and say that under proper regulations dogmatic teaching might now, out of school hours, be taught in some of these very schools, and it should be taught in the Sunday schools.
  As regards the Kenyon-Slaney Clause, I wish to say that if that is debated here I shall most strongly support his Majesty's Government, who I hope and believe will maintain the Clause. One of the weaknesses of the Church at the present moment is that there is a tendency in certain quarters to force the cleric and the pries over the individual independence of a religious man. I believe the Church would be much stronger if it could get more of the lay element into discussions and management. A very able and clever thing has been said by the Prime Minister about there being a party that wishes to make the school the annexe of the Church. The school is certainly the annexe of the home, and I think it is carrying things much too far to urge that the influence of the priest must be paramount in everything.
  The noble Duke said he was not going to discuss at length the finances
  1218
  of the Bill, but we are entitled to refer to them. There has been an enormous change with regard to the finances of our primary schools in the last thirty years. In 1870 the percentage of income contributed by the Government to voluntary schools was only 34·7; in 1901 it was 78·2. That alone shows what an enormous change has taken place. I cannot help referring to a very able statement by Dr. Temple in the Report of the Royal Commission of 1888—
  "The duty of providing and maintaining a good system of elementary education is essentially a local duty. The Central Government may aid in the discharge of this duty, but cannot undertake it alone. There is no security for efficiency without interested local supervision; there is no security for economy without the vigilance of those who bear a substantial share of the burden of the cost. We cannot recommend that, in any case, the grant for the Department shall exceed the amount provided on the spot. Nor is it, in our judgment, a sufficient plea for overriding this principle that people on the spot are unwilling to contribute enough. Their unwillingness is not good ground for calling on the nation at large to do the duty which ought to be done by themselves."
  I agree with this very clear Statement. Grants from the Exchequer over which the Exchequer has very little control, are often very extravagant and detrimental to the public interest. Local authorities have no interest in checking and controlling the expenditure, which consequently becomes enormous. As to the grant to voluntary schools in the past, I find that they may be calculated at about £3,346,148 annually This in future will be paid to the education authority. But the education authority will lose a certain amount, in respect of subscriptions, endowments, fees, and they will have to pay about £125,000 a year for the hire of schoolmasters' houses. That will come to omething over a million a year. But what of new grants, some of which were made quite recently and long after the Bill was launched in the House of Commons, amounting to something like £1,300,000? That leaves, therefore, a balance in the hands of the local authorities. But I venture to say that it will be necessary to level up the voluntary schools, and if they are levelled up to the efficiency of Board schools there will be a very

  1219
  large increase in the rate. I calculate that that rate will come to £1,500,000. That shows what an enormous sum is to be guarded and looked after. It is said that the Church has been very hardly treated. I cannot see that at all. I think the Church has a very good bargain. The Church gets relief from the rates and it gets a larger grant. The only condition is that it has to allow a certain number of persons to take part in the management. What will the Church have to do? It will receive a very considerable sum from various sources, as far as I can make out, something like £300,000. What will be the cost of repairs? So far as I understand, it will not amount to more than £150,000. Financially, therefore, the Church has a remarkably good bargain. Then they ask, "Are you going to take away altogether out denominational schools?" But I maintain that the children of the Church will be able to get their denominational education as well, after this change is made, as before, and that they would do so even if the management and control were more popular than they are under the Bill. The Church will get the schools at times when they are not being used for secular education, and it will get them also for Sunday schools. I consider that that is of the very greatest importance. We shall find, if we look at what the Nonconformists have done, that they have had quite as many or more children in their Sunday schools as the Church of England. I find that there are 2,222,890 children attending Church of England Sunday schools, and that there are 2,977,886 children attending Nonconformist Sunday schools. After this, while the Nonconformists will still have to find these Sunday schools themselves, the Church will have their Sunday schools provided for them.
  I wish to appeal to the right rev. Bench and to all Churchmen on this Bill. I wish them to consider what I believe to be the grave position in which they are placed in this matter. I will venture to say that they are opposing a gigantic weight of opinion in this country. I presented to your Lordships at the opening of the sitting a very influential memorial from the leaders of the Free Churches, praying your Lordships to throw out the Bill to which
  1220
  they are so strongly opposed. They state that they have 8,000,000 adherents, making this is no transient opinion. It is a well-rooted, conscientious conviction. It will not pass away. If an appeal were made at this moment to the country, I cannot but feel confident as to the result. Will they, therefore, and will this House, pause for a moment, and hesitate before passing this measure? The time may come when others will sit on those benches. Is it likely that any of those who are in opposition now will be able to avoid dealing with this subject? My Lords, believing as I do in the injustice of the measure, and in the stimulus it will give, as I feel sure, to religious animosity and bitterness, I move that this Bill be read a second time this day two months.
  Amendment moved—
  "To leave out 'now,' and add at the end of the motion, 'this day two months."—(Earl Spencer).
  *THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I have listened with the closest attention to what has fallen from the noble Earl, and I do not question at all the ability with which he has advocated his view of this Bill. I have complaints to make against the Bill myself, and some of them relate to points which he considers give no ground for complaint. The main purposes of this Bill do not appear to be questioned at all, in this House at any rate, and I think with very good reason. For the main purposes of the Bill are, in the first place, the establishment of a uniform system, which shall handle all the different branches of education on one thoroughly consistent plan; in the second place, the introduction of what has been a deficiency in our system for a longer time than I like to think of—that is, the organization of secondary education; and, in the third place, to redress and injustice of which the Church has complained for some time—namely, that the burden put upon her supporters is not fair. The subscribers to the Church schools everywhere find themselves in this position. They have to pay subscriptions for their own schools, which could not be maintained without subscriptions, and they have also to pay rates for Board schools. I think

  1221
  it is very difficult to maintain that that is just. The rates paid for the schools constitute a demand upon all alike, and whether a man approves of the school or not he has to pay. Nevertheless, he may be asked for a very considerable sum over and above the rates to support those schools which he thinks not only the right sort of schools, but absolutely indispensable.
  The position of the voluntary schools stands upon this ground. The country will not have education without religious instruction. It has been tried under auspices that surely would have carried such a system if the country had been willing to accept it. The Colonial Secretary has told us how he tried it in a place where there was more hope of its succeeding than anywhere else in England. He tried it in Birmingham. He thought the just thing was to exclude religious instruction, about which there is so much difference of opinion, and to have secular schools only, but he found that his supporters would have nothing to do with such a method. He was not defeated by the Church, but largely by those who are and have been all along the opponents of the Church, and he was obliged to give up that theory simply by finding that the country would not support him and that his own adherents would not support him. For that reason, as he publicly stated, he finds no difficulty in retaining office in a Government which did not adopt his view upon that matter and does not now propose to adopt it.
  The aim of the Bill I do not think any one will question for a moment to be a great and noble aim. It aims at making a consistent system of our education, and without such a consistent system out education must necessarily be bad. You cannot have a really good system of education unless all the different portions of it are so co-ordinated that the efficiency of the whole shall be derived from the efficiency of every part. Schools at the bottom of the scale ought to be in proper relation to the schools above them, and you can only get that to work thoroughly well if you put them both under one authority. The system set up by this Bill aims at doing that.
  Further, this Bill aims at organising secondary education. Again and again in this House have I joined with others
  1222
  in pressing on the Government that our secondary education ought to receive attention and that we were doing damage by leaving it without organisation. The necessity of organisation has at last been proved by unmistakable proofs—namely, that the authorities charged with the lower education have been driven by the position in which they found themselves to encroach upon next the secondary education which stood next above them. The noble Earl complains that although there is provision made for secondary education, it is quite inadequate. Well, on that point I am in considerable agreement with the noble Earl. I say unhesitatingly, that if I had the drawing up of the Bill I should go considerably further in the direction of dealing with secondary education than the Bill does. On the other side, you must remember that things must have a beginning, and you very often gain—I am not sure you do not gain considerably in this case—by feeling your way. There is nothing better, as a first step, than to appoint a body to deal with secondary education in such a manner as to put it in harmony with elementary education. The noble Earl has said that we should do much better if we moved a little faster. As I have been saying so for last thirty years in this House, I think that I can hardly object to what the noble Earl has said.
  The third purpose of the Bill appears to be the rectifying of an injustice which has hitherto been inflicted on the supporters of the voluntary schools by compelling them to perform the double labour of supporting their own schools, which were a necessity, and of supporting the kinds of schools which they did not themselves want. There has been an attempt made to redress this injustice, and I do not know that any better mode could have been adopted than that of putting the additional expenditure on the rates. Meanwhile, what has the country been doing? It has been quietly watching Many of the clergy in a very impoverished condition have been spending their money freely, with severe self-sacrifices made by themselves and by their families, to provide what they found to be a necessary instrument in their hands for the discharge of their duty to the

  1223
  children of their flocks. The sacrifices which the clergy have made now for very many years, and are still making, seem to me to have received very inadequate consideration from either side interested in the Bill. They have spent freely of their substance for the discharge of a great Church duty, and they have now the satisfaction of knowing that this sacrifice has not been in vain, and that the instruction of the children of their own people is no longer to rest so largely upon the uncertainty of voluntary subscriptions, but is to be put on the stable ground of authorised national payment.
  But the condition made is that, meanwhile, the supporters of the schools hitherto maintained by public subscriptions shall still be called upon for public subscriptions to maintain the buildings and to repair them. It is not a very fair mode of dealing with the matter. Voluntary subscriptions will still be wanted, and I am not sure, as the Bill stands, that they will not be wanted even more than hitherto, because many of these voluntary schools, in consequence of the difficulty of obtaining the subscriptions dilapidated, and many of them have found themselves on the verge of bankruptey. After all, this demand that they should be responsible not only for maintaining the buildings as they are, but also for carrying out any orders they may receive for improving them, does not seem a very adequate way of redressing the injustice of which our subscribers are perpetually making complaint. It is certainly hard, because they do not feel that they can keep up subscriptions at the same rate as they have hitherto done. We are grateful to the Government for bringing in a Bill which will make all this a little easier to them. But it is not very easy for some of your Lordships to realise what the school is to the clergyman of the parish. It is one of the means of dealing with the children who are as much his charge as the grown up-persons. He is the religious instructor of all the children of the Church, whether of one age or another, and he will sacrifice very much indeed in order to discharge his duty. Among those who have done their utmost to maintain these religious schools there are not a few who have done it, as far as it goes, at the cost of considerable
  1224
  deprivation to themselves and to their families. There are not a few who have been crippled in the necessary expenditure for the education of their own children. Not a few have felt that they were come upon evil times, and which this demand has been made upon them, there have been at the same time operating quite different causes which do not belong to out present subject at all. Their incomes have after parish where the clergyman, with an income which is utterly insufficient to live upon and to educate his children, has been very seriously crippled in resources by the fact that he could not, in the presence of God, sacrifice the children of his flock, by neglecting to do all in his power to give them such instruction as the Church has charged him to give. The relief, of course, is great as far as it goes; but it does not go very far if we are still to be begging all round for money to keep the buildings in repair and to make such improvements as the thorough efficiency of education requires. I think that in this respect the Church is right in raising the complaint that the Bill is doing something, but is not doing nearly as much as it ought. The conscientious man, put down in a parish where there are so many claims, where his charges must of necessity be a drain on all the income that he gets, and without the means of doing his work as his conscience bids him do in God's sight, feels that the infliction is very often a cruel one; and I do not think that it has been sufficiently recognised. There are no doubt many of the laity who understand something of it, and they bestir themselves to enter into the feelings of the clergymen; but they can never know what the clergy know full well—how dreadful is the pressure to which the poorer clergy are subject in this matter. I do not deny that it is a great relief for the schools to be upon the rates, because instead of their being supported on an uncertain, fluctuating basis they are to be supported by the action of the law. It is a great relief, but I doubt whether many in either House of Parliament are aware how insufficient it seems to have that relief on the conditions now made. You cannot handle a Bill of this sort without looking to such questions as these. You cannot put aside all these considerations simply because it is not

  1225
  your business to provide for what is wanted. You cannot leave these considerations altogether out of sight. I believe that the Bill is a very great step in advance. I believe that it will greatly improve the secular education. I agree with much that has fallen from the noble Earl opposite on secondary education of all forms and types. I am ready to admit—I fully believe that the aim of the Bill, though, in my judgment, not adequately pursued, is honestly pursued. The Bill is an honest and statesmanlike measure, and I hope your Lordships, in spite of any objections that may be made, will, nevertheless, pass it into law and let us see how it will act when it begins to work.
  THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: My Lords, I am sure every one of your Lordships must have been impressed by the speech which has just been delivered by the most rev. Prelate; but when he speaks of injustice to the Church I think he is touching upon somewhat debatable ground. He mentions, as a great instance of injustice, that members of the Church of England should have to subscribe to their voluntary schools, and at the same time pay rates for the support of Board schools. Anomalies of all sorts and kinds exist. I am bound to say, with regard to this subject, that it seems somewhat inequitable that the only owners of property who are compelled to contribute to the Church of England are the owners of the real property. It might be said, and said perhaps with some force, that it is rather hard that the country gentlemen of England, whose incomes now are also very much depleted by agricultural depression, should, besides having to pay a heavy tithe, also have to contribute to support their Church schools. The answer to the position that has been assumed by the most rev. Prelate is this—that the Church of England should have subscribed a fund of its own to maintain its schools and its independence. What we on this side of the House complain of is that instead of doing that, instead of the Church providing funds to maintain its own schools, it should ask the public to subscribe while it reserves to itself the right to manage. I was glad that the most rev. Prelate made use
  1226
  of the words "authorised national payment." That is exactly the position of those who sit on this side of the House. We object to this Bill because it makes an authorised national payment which does not entail an authorised national control. I wish to assure your Lordships that I am myself no enemy to voluntary schools. I maintain two entirely at my own cost, and subscribe to others. Nor have I any reason to be jealous of clerical management, because in one of my schools my two clergymen are the two managers. But I do not think we can argue from any one particular case in regard to the application of a particular principle.
  I should like to amplify what fell from my noble friend Earl Spencer when he said that Board schools had afforded good religious education, and to add, on unimpeachable Church testimony, that voluntary schools do not of necessity afford sound religious education. The Diocesan Inspector for Ely, in his report for 1901, felt it his duty to speak severely of the growing tendency in Church schools to suppress religious teaching altogether for weeks, and even months, before the visit of His Majesty's Inspector; and that this should be done with the sanction of the clergyman was indeed, he said, a melancholy reflection. Canon Routledge is responsible for the statement that—
  "Whilst the individual superintendence of clergymen was supposed to be the special boast that in nine cases out of ten he had to report that the managers had taken no personal interest whatever in the lessons. In preparing a class of pupil teachers at Canterbury in the Bible and prayer Book he was surprised at the lamentable ignorance of some of them with regard to the simplest facts of Scripture."
  The fact is, there always is a danger that when the Diocesan Inspector is introduced and the question of religion assumes too much a professional matter for examination the real spirit of religious teaching fails. Of course, I do not wish to say that there are not in a great many schools in England religious teaching personally conducted by the clergyman which is of the most valuable and essential kind; but I do think that it is carrying the matter a little too far to say that we can entirely trust the clergy or voluntary schools in this matter, and that we can dispense—for that is the view which is urged by many—with the

  1227
  interference or control of the laity. I cannot help myself feeling strongly that we are dealing now with a very different Church of England from what it was in 1850 or even in 1870. We are face to face with a wholly different state of facts from those which confronted the men who accepted the Act of 1870. I think would be very difficult for anybody in this House or out of it to state clearly and distinctly what the authorised doctrines of the Church of England at the present day are. It is difficult, I think it is impossible, for any Church to claim that it is an absolute authority in this matter unless it speaks in one intelligible voice. It is perfectly clear that the Church of England speaks in very different, I might almost say very contradictory, voices. On the one hand, the lower clergy adopt with impunity the practices and the views of the Church of Rome. On the other hand, some of the dignitaries of the Church of England are permitted to promulgate opinions which, if language means anything, strike at the whole root of the divinity of our Lord and Master. I say that when such conflicting views as these are publicly expressed, and the Episcopal Bench are unable to prevent their expression, it is a claim which cannot be supported that the Church of England should be the sole and only exponent of religious instruction.
  I listened to the speech of my noble friend the Lord President of the Council with much interest, and as I heard the concluding portion of his speech my mind wandered back to some of the educational debates that have taken place in the House of Commons, and I have to congratulate the Conservative Party upon the absolute success with which they have absorbed the noble Duke's Whig principles. When the noble Duke, as Lord Hartington, was in the House of Commons, a Bill was introduced which, compared with this Bill, was a very mild and moderate measure in respect to denominational education. But what did my noble friend say on that occasion? He said:—
  "What is the position of Nonconformists under the Bill as introduced? They were forced for the first time to send their children to schools of the character of which they didn't altogether approve. They were forced by the provisions of the Bill to contribute to the prosperity and the success of schools of a character they considered objectionable."
  That is precisely their contention now.
  1228
  "But which they hoped might in the course of time disappear, not by the action of any violent change, but by the gradual change of the public opinion of the country, and give place to a system which, in their opinion, was vastly superior."
  That, I presume, meant the universal Board School system. The noble Duke went on to say:—
  "Who are these persons of whom I speak? Are they persons as to whose interests no respect ought to be entertained in this House? These are men whose feelings and prejudices cannot be safely neglected by either side of the House. I should have thought that, if not justice, at all events have generosity, would have led those having at their command a powerful majority in both Houses of Parliament to consider carefully the feelings and views and prejudices of these men, and when they knew that a measure would be distasteful to them they would have imposed it with the greatest consideration and forbearance."
  That is precisely the position of Nonconformist bodies at the present time. Those bodies, roughly speaking, represent about half the population of the country, and are they more likely now than they were then to accept a Bill of this kind, even when it passes into law? It is not a question whether this Bill will pass your Lordships' House. I think, in a matter of this kind, we ought to consider whether it will pass the people. I cannot conceive a more objectionable legislative proceeding than to pass a Bill in opposition to the principles and strong feelings of such a vast body of earnest and determined men.
  My noble friend Lord Spencer dwelt upon the manner in which, under Clause 8 of this Bill, a new test will be established. If this Bill passes into law as it now stands, no head teacher in a voluntary school can belong to the Nonconformist body. Now, I douby whether, as a matter of general expediency, it is wise or possible to re-impose religious tests. Let us look at this not as a matter of theory, but from the point of view of practical results. We all know that the population of Wales is a Nonconformist population. In a Return that was issued in 1899, I find that the majority of voluntary schools in Wales are in single school districts. The total number of voluntary schools in Wales is about equal to the number fo Board schools—the voluntary schools number 694 as against 733 Board schools. This Bill, as it now stands, will prevent the teachers in any one of those voluntary schools

  1229
  sharing the religious opinions of the parents, and I am bound to say that not only is that a great piece of injustice as regards the teachers but also as regards the parents. We in our class of life have the power, and we exercise it with great care and discretion, to select who the teacher of our children is to be. Why are not the poorer classes to have this privilege? Is not the feeling of injustice more likely to be accentuated and depened when it is felt that the religious atmosphere of the school is hostile to the religious opinions of the parents? I do not believe that that is a condition of things which can last, because I do not think it will be tolerated. I am surprised that the Church did not institute a subscription fund, to which I am sure all loyal Churchmen would have willingly subscribed, for the maintenance of its own schools, and also a fund—for in that matter I entirely endorse the views of the most rev. Prelate—to improve the incomes of the clergy; but if the Church has not the public spirit to come forward and do this, why cannot it throw in its lot openly and frankly with popular management?
  There are, I am sorry to say, several cases in which the extreme views of the clergyman place him in antagonism to his parish, and under this Bill the position of such a man will be very much increased. These extreme men in single district parishes have up to now been under some little control, because they have had to depend on public subscriptions; but under this Bill that will not be so. In Committee we must see if it is not possible to provide against an abuse of power of that kind. There are many parishes in England in which the clergyman would gain power if he would allow himself to work with the laity, and I venture to say that the Church is making a great mistake if it supposes that its strength in the country is increased by assuming an ecclesiastical position detached from the sympathies of the laity. Everyone who has worked among the poor knows that the way in which you can influence them for good is to interest them in their children. That the parents should have an interest in the school and in the school and in the control of the school is to my mind a legitimate desire. But that is not the policy of this Bill.
  1230
  The policy of the Bill is distrust of popular control, and knowing the force of Nonconformists when they are united, I question very much whether, in the interests of the Church, it it is wise to enforce a measure which is disliked and distrusted, which will never be accepted by a large portion of the community, and which will certainly produce what I am sure all religious minded people will regret—an increase of sectarian bitterness. I shall therefore give my vote against the Second Reading of the Bill.
  *VISCOUNT LLANDAFF: My Lords, the noble Earl who has just sat down has presented the view that the Nonconformists have reasonable ground for complaint under the Bill. I confess, looking at the measure from a completely opposite point of view, that it strikes me Nonconformists gain the greatest advantage under the Bill. In future every school that is provided out of public funds is to be subject, both in secondary and primary education, to the Cowper-Temple Clause. Schools that are governed by the Cowper-Temple Clause are satisfactory to nobody but Nonconformists. Every other denomination in England regards that as being a mischievous form of religious instruction. Nonconformists, therefore, will have built for them, as well as maintained for them, schools conducted under the system they desire, while denominations will have to build and provide their own schools. So that for Nonconformists to say they have any reasonable ground for complaint seems to show a mistaken view—I will not put it higher than that—of the facts. I admit to the full the Nonconformist grievance which arises in certain single-school areas. It is a grievance that I think ought to be redressed as soon as practical means of doing so are discovered. Wales has been mentioned, where large districts are inhabited entirely by Baptists. I see no reason why the County Council of such a district should not have power to provide and maintain a Baptist school. There are many districts in the country in which a school is wanted for Church of England children, and I see no reason why, in justice, the County Council should not have an option, at least, of providing a school for denominationalists as well as for Cowper-Templeists, which is only another name

  1231
  for Nonconformists. It seems to me that Nonconformists have an immense advantage under this Bill, for no school will be built hereafter out of public money except a school which suits them and dose not suit denominationalists.
  I rise to give expression to the opinions of a minority of the subjects of His Majesty, to whom I have the honour to belong, and who, although they give their support to the Second Reading, do feel severely hurt by some of the enactments that the Bill contains. I refer, of course, in the first instance, to the Kenyon-Slaney Amendment. It is a settled principle of the Roman Catholic Church that the direction of religious instruction belongs, as part of his office and of his Episcopal jurisdiction, to the Bishop, and to no one else. This Bill gives the control of religious instruction in our schools to a body of lay managers. Not even an appeal is given to the bishops. That conflicts, therefore, with our conscientious convictions. Two of the six managers are to be appointed by the local authority, and the managers so appointed will not be Roman Catholics. That is pretty certain. In all probability in many of the towns they will be Dissenters. The noble Earl who moved the rejection of this Bill, and the noble Earl who spoke last, both appear to think that there should be no test for teachers; that you ought to allow teachers of any denomination to serve in all schools; that, in fact, in a Roman Catholic school you might have a Baptist or Unitarian as head teacher. I do not know whether noble Lords are serious in that view. To appoint men who are ignorant of the subject they have to teach and hostile to the doctrines they are supposed to inculcate is to do something that approaches to the grotesque. These sismanagers, of whom two may be Dix senters, are to control the religious instruction given in Roman Catholic schools. That is an arrangement which will not work satisfactorily. Again, one of the chief duties of the managers will be to provide funds for the repair of the schools. Imagine the zeal with which these two foreign managers will go about collecting subscriptions to repair the schools in which doctrines are taught which they abhor. I may be told that these two foreign managers will not
  1232
  interfere in the religious instruction they know nothing about. If so, they are useless; and if they do interfere they are mischievous.
  The most rev. Prelate referred to the struggles which the members of the Church of England have made in support of their schools. The body I represent have made struggles no less earnest and no less sincere. We are not so noisy as are the champions of Nonconformity, but we are not less earnest. Out of our small resources we have succeeded in providing 1,100 schools for our poor, in which their children can receive that sound religious teaching without which we consider all education to be worthless and even mischievous. And after all those efforts and sacrifices it does seem to me a little hard that we should be compelled either to deprive ourselves of the benefits to be given by this vast scheme of national education, or to submit to a Clause which offends our conscience and is needless as well as unjust. What is the secret of the enactment of the Kenyon-Slaney Clause? It is that certain clergymen of the Church of England kick over the traces, so to speak, and teach doctrines which are said not to be the doctrines of the Church of England. That is a grievance which I agree ought to have a remedy, but what is the proportion between the remedy proposed by this Amendment, and that which would have been sufficient to meet the case? I should have thought that it would have been sufficient to give an appeal to the Bishop against the erratic clergyman, or give the parents power of appeal to the Board of Education. That would have been a remedy that would have been co-extensive, so to speak, with the evil. There are, perhaps, a few score of these exceptional cases of clergymen whose conduct has been called in question, but there are thousands of schools of the Church of England and hundreds of Roman Catholic schools in which the clergyman gives instruction that is agreeable to the parents, acceptable to the children, and welcomed by all. Why, I ask, should you apply the Kenyon-Slaney Clause in all those cases?
  One word upon the question of repairs. It seems to me that the point upon which the objection with regard to

  1233
  repairs arises is this. By the Voluntary Schools Act, 1897, a certain aid grant was given to voluntary schools and has been applied, as it was intended to be applied, for the purpose of meeting a large number of repairs which are not structural repairs. Those repairs are at present paid for out of the aid grant, but this Bill transfers that grant bodily to the County Council, free from the obligation it has to bear now—namely, the obligation of meeting those minor repairs. You are therefore increasing the charge on the managers of these denominational schools for repairs, and throwing an additional burden upon them. There is to be in everyone of these districts an education committee. Upon that education committee the provided schools will have ample representation. There must be a majority of the committee appointed by the Council, and therefore they will have complete representation and control. For the non-provided schools—the denominational schools—there is no direct representation. The Church of England is sure to have numerous members on the County Councils and the education committee, but Roman Catholies are not likely ever to have representation on those councils. When the functions of these committees are borne in mind that seems to me a thing of which we are entitled to complain. The education committee will, either as an advisory body or as delegates of the County Council acting as principals, have the widest powers relating to matters which are of the deepest interest to denominational schools. It will have to advise or decide on questions of extensions of school buildings, of repairs, of equal treatment to provided schools and non-provided schools, of salaries to teachers and of equipment generally, including the choice of teachers and of text books. If the religious body which I represent has no representation on the education committee the interest and welfare of the schools that belong to them may be seriously prejudiced, and I do therefore appeal to the Government, and also to your Lordships, to say that we ought to have at least a representative upon the education committee. I hope the Government will take care that there shall be these committees someone to represent Roman Catholies in matters
  1234
  which go home to that religious and unpopular minority.
  It must not be forgotten that the religious instruction in our schools is interfered with by the appointment of two outside managers, and surely, if you claim to interfere with the religious management of a school belonging to a certain denomination, it is unjust not to give that denomination one representative. I may be told that by the Clause it is possible for the County Council to put a representative of the Roman Catholic faith upon the education committee. That is true, but the likelihood of their doing so is so remote that I do not think we ought to be asked to trust to that. I claim this, not on the ground that these are religious bodies owning schools, but on the ground that they are educational bodies which have done considerable work in education already, and who can only continue that work if the treatment they reccive at the hands of the education committee is fair and just. Considering the little knowledge that the local bodies in this country have of out-of-the-way religious such as I am pleading for, it is obvious that unless they have a representative on the education committee, their chance of fair treatment is a small one. At present, we have, by the cumulative vote, been able to secure one representative on the School Boards, and, as far as I know, the presence of those Roman Catholics has not caused any friction; on the contrary, they have assisted in bringing about cordial co-operation between all the various religious denominations in carrying on educational work. I belong to an unpopular minority, but that minority looks to the fairmindedness of your Lordship's House for protection, and I have a confident hope that a just claim, advanced by those who, by deeds as well by words, have shown their zeal in the cause of education, will be met by your Lordships with indulgence and with sympathy.
  *LORD MONKSWELL: My Lords, I am happy to be able, in the first place, to correct a misapprehension. The noble Viscount who has just sat down said there never would be a time, as there never had been a time, when a Roman Catholic would have the slightest chance of being elected to a County Council. I would remind him that the noble Duke who sits behind him, the Duke of Norfolk, was for some time an elected member of

  1235
  the London County Council, and I hope and trust that other Councils throughout the country will be as liberal-minded in that direction as the London County Council, and that their example will be followed. The Government have in this Bill gone far beyond what public opinion would warrant, in favour of denominational schools, and yet the supporters of some of those schools are not satisfied. Nonconformists do not agree with the noble Viscount that they have any advantage under this, Bill, and they strongly protest against it. They take vehement objection to teaching given in denominational schools not being accompanied with adequate control. The moral would seem to be that it is almost impossible to have a satisfactory system of denominational schools where religious and secular subjects are taught in the same buildings and by the same masters, and consequently you ought to separate them. The noble Viscount strongly objected to the Cowper-Temple Clause being put upon secondary schools for the first time. I do not agree with him, and I would remind him that in that respect the Government had an almost unanimous body of public opinion behind them. The Amendment adding the Cowper-Temple Clause to the Bill had only 29 dissentients, while 318 Members voted in support of it. Therefore I am afraid the noble Viscount will see that it is perfectly useless for him in that respect to try and kick against the pricks. On this side of the House we often accuse our opponents of wishing to curry favour with the public, and we sometimes say they introduce a Bill, not because they like it, but in order to conciliate public opinion. It is certain that in introducing this Bill the Government had not been actuated by any such motive. The Prime Minister himself has been obliged to acknowledge that the Bill is not popular and that it may damage the Conservative cause at the next General Election, and he referred to the educational fiasco of 1896 by way of showing how very thorny a thing it is to bring in a comprehensive Education Bill. I think that probably I have addressed more meetings on this Bill in London and the country than any other Member of your Lordships' House, and from what I have seen it appears to me certain that the passing of this Bill will not only lead to a Conservative defeat at the next election but to a great Conservative rout. I daresay noble Lords on the Front Bench opposite
  1236
  look at that prospect with complete equanimity. It is possible that many of them agree with Lord Rosebery that the ideal pleasure is to get office, but the real pleasure is to relinguish office. Perhaps the chief recommendation of the Bill to the Front Bench opposite is that it gives them a certain prospect of well-earned repose, which they ardently desire.
  I will deal shortly with the Bill on its merits for it appears to me that in this House there is another question quite as important as, and, I should have thought, more important than, that of the merits or demerits of this Bill. Here the chief question of interest to your Lordships is one of the gravest constitutional importance, and it is: What are the functions of this House as a Chamber of revision? Is it not a fact that this Bill has been rendered possible only by an electoral trick? Does not the passing of the Bill constitute a grave infringement of the first principle of constitutional government, and, if so, is it not the duty of this House to remit it to the people so that they may say whether they approve of it or not? With regard to the merits of the Bill I do not propose to give the House my own opinion, but the opinion, so far as I could gauge it from attending and speaking at public meetings, of the audiences that I addressed. The public object to this Bill because they consider that it is not chiefly conceived in the interests of education but of party. As regards the voluntary schools, the public conceives that the Bill is in the interest of the clergy of the Established Church, who are the staunchest adherents of the Conservative Government; and, as to board schools, the public object to the taking away of the supervision of those schools from the School Boards, which are educational authorities, and the putting of it under County Councils, which are primarily political bodies. The public further believes that the object is to place the board school under Tory domination, because throughout the whole length and breadth of England, with the one exception of the West Riding of Yorkshire, every one of the County Councils have a Conservative majority. The country, then, has a grave suspicion that in putting forward this Bill the Government have placed the interests of party

  1237
  before those of education. That suspicion has been a good deal confirmed by an unfortunate utterance on the part of Mr. Wyndham, the Chief Secretary for Ireland. Mr. Wyndham recently said that whether the Bill was a good Bill or a bad Bill it was the duty of every Conservative—I use the right hon. Gentleman's own words—to "go blind" for the Bill. Surely that is putting Party before education with a vengeance. The second objection is that there is no ade uate control in return for the large amount of money granted to voluntary schools. The public think, and I believe rightly, that the managers will manage, and that it is the intention that they should manage, because the Government have thrown a considerable obstacle in the way of the education committees carrying out their duty of looking after these schools by rejecting the Amendment which would have enabled the members of those committees to have their travelling expenses paid. If, therefore, the education committees do their duty and visit the schools, they will do so at their own expense. The Bill will stir up sectarian strife and bitterness. A large number of Nonconformists are very keen in this matter of the vountary schools being subsidised by the rates without any control, because they believe, whether rightly or wrongly, that it will have the effect of spreading popery and sacerdotalism. No one who has been in the habit of frequenting public meetings against this Bill can fail to have been struck with the protests that have always greeted any allusion to the possibility of these Bills subsidising an anti-Protestant crusade. There is no doubt that the alarm, whether reasonable or unreasonable, is perfectly genuine. No doubt there are other people who, like myself, do not think there is any such danger. On the contrary, I think it will have the opposite effect, because to subsidise a sectarian religion unjustly, as the public think, out of the rates, is the way to make that religion unpopular.
  Those who agree with me are not alarmed at the prospect of Roman Catholicism being triumphant. We are angry because we say that it is an absolute travesty of constitutional government that the rates should be used in any case to bolster up a school
  1238
  the tenets of whose religious teaching are absolutely detestable to the majority of the ratepayers. The noble Duke has said that the object of Nonconformists is to extinguish sectarian schools. Nothing of the kind. Nonconformists do not in the least object to the clergy keeping up these schools themselves. Already out of the public exchequer four-fifths of the money for these schools is paid by the public, who naturally think that a rich denomination like the Church of England might very well itself find the remaining one-fifth. There is another thing on which Nonconformists feel extremely keen, namely, the establishment of religious tests for teachers. The noble Viscount has said that to do away with those tests would be a perfect absurdity. Why? He said that teachers who did not believe in denominational teaching ought not to be allowed to give instruction in it, but we contend that this teaching should come from other than those entrusted with secular education. Nonconformists say that they will be paying an enormous price for keeping up these tests in the shape of the grave incitement to hypocrisy which they involve and the lowering of the standard of secular education.
  The last objection that I shall take brings me to the constitutional question, which I venture to think ought to be of special interest to your Lordships. This is, I think, undoubtedly, a War-Education Bill, for it would not have been possible had it not been for the war. I do not think it is denied that the size of the Government's majority is due to the war. It is not denied that at the last election Mr. Chamberlain went about saying that it was the duty of Radicals who never voted Conservative before, and who, he supposed, would never again vote Conservative, to vote for the Government on that occasion, because no domestic issue was involved, but only that of the war. An ordinary Tory majority could not possibly have passed this Bill. The revolt in Parliament was something astounding. The Conservative majority in the House of Commons, excluding the Irish Members, who voted in their favour when they voted at all, is over 200, but what were the majorities by which important Amendments were passed? Why, this very Amendment to do away with the imposition of tests on teachers was

  1239
  only defeated by a majority of twenty-six, and on Clause 7, the most important Clause of the Bill, there were various Amendments on vital subjects which were only defeated by majorities of from forty-one to fifty-eight. The revolt in Parliament is exceeded in intensity in the country. During the time this Bill was before Parliament bye-elections took place in which the Liberal poll was increased by 38 per cent. while the Tory poll was decreased by 8 per cent. That was before the result of the Orkney and Shetland election, which was, perhaps, the most striking of all. A miserable 740 were all the supporters that the Government could obtain in that constituency out of a record poll of 5,000. Then we have the revolt of that most distinguished educationalist, Sir Michael Foster, who has given up his seat for the University of London rather than support this Bill. The revolt does not stop here, for the municipal elections and public meetings tell the same tale. I say that this is a Bill of the first importance foisted on a hostile people by an electoral trick, and in the name of constitutional Government.
  On the constitutional point I will quote a man whose opinion I think your Lordships will regard as of considerable value. Mr. Green, in discussing the "Impeachment of Lord Strafford," after saying that Strafford perhaps acted legally but certainly unconstitutionally, proceeded as follows:—
  "It is impossible indeed to provide for some of the greater dangers which can happen to national freedom by any formal statute. Even now a Minister might avail himself of the temper of a Parliament elected in some moment of popular panic, and, though the nation returned to its senses might simply, by refusing to appeal to the country, govern in defiance of its will. Such a course would be technically legal, but such a Minister would be non the less a criminal."
  I am not so truculent as Mr. Green. I do not wish to impeach the Prime Minister or the Government. All I suggest is that it is 'your Lordships' duty to strangle this conspiracy against the Constitution. Noble Lords laugh, but I would appeal to another authority—namely, the Duke of Devonshire. In 1893 the noble Duke went with very great care into the constitutional question of how far your Lordships were or were not entitled to deal with
  1240
  the Home Rule Bill on its merits. He said:—
  "If I could conceive the case of a majority of your Lordships being of an opinion favourable to this measure, if, as the Prime Minister thinks might be possible, a measure founded upon a similar principle had been introduced by a Conservative Government, I do not undertake to say what the conduct of this House might have been; but I, at all events, should be prepared to say the duty of this House would be the same. I maintain that on a question of such magnitude, so closely touching the fundamental institutions of our State, if there is any object in the existence of a Second Chamber at all it is, at all events, to prevent changes of that character being made without the absolute certainty that they are in accordance with the will of the majority of the people."
  The noble Duke, in meeting our argument that we had a mandate to introduce the Home Rule Bill, said, in effect, Your mandate is no manadate at all, because at the General Election there were other points as well as Home Rule brought up on which the election might have turned. Now, at the last General Election there was only one issue, that of the war. I venture to say that a Bill which puts our whole educational system into the melting pot is as important to the general public as the question of Home Rule, for a good or bad system of education has a much greater effect on the welfare of the people. But even if the House is against me on that point, I will again quote the Duke of Devonshire. The noble Duke was extremely angry because the Home Rule Bill was closured in the House of Commons. He said:—
  "We are entitled to say that we should decline to pass a measure so presented, even if only of minor and secondary importance."
  Therefore, even if the noble Duke considers this Bill as only of secondary importance he would have said that this House ought to decline to pass it. The noble Duke went on to say:—
  "The consequences of our acceptance of an undiscussed measure would fall, not upon those who have been guilty of the offence [obstruction]—if an offence has been committed—but upon British and Irish subjects whose interests are disposed of without discussion."
  I do not go entirely as far as the noble Duke. I do not assert that on every occasion your Lordships should inquire curiously as to the amount of popular support of any Bills that pass through the Commons. Such a task would constitute an intolerable strain. I do not

  1241
  go so far as the noble Duke, who says you are bound, independently of their merits, to reject Bills of first importance unless you are certain that they have the people at their back. But I do suggest that, unless you abdicate your functions as a Chamber of Revision, if it is clearly proved that a measure of the first importance is detestable to many, and disliked by most, of the electors, it is not only the right but the duty of this House to remit that measure to the constituencies. In this case the evidence is overwhelming—the revolt in Parliament, the revolt at the bye-elections, the revolt at the municipal elections, the crowded public meetings and the resolutions passed even at Tory gatherings. Add to this the fact that the Opposition in 1900 were lulled into a sense of false security by the statement that no domestic issue was involved, that a majority obtained for one purpose was used for another, that a trick was played off upon the electorate, surely we are justified in asking the House to resent such shabby tactics and to defeat this conspiracy against the Constitution by remitting the Bill to the judgment of the people.
  VISCOUNT CROSS: My Lords, I am rather short-sighted, and could not see for the moment who was speaking, and I was doubting whether it was my noble friend or Dr. Clifford who was addressing the House. I should not have intervened in the debate if it had not been for the weight which the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition has attached to the petition which he presented earlier in the evening. I thought I should like to see that petition, and what do I find? I find that the petition is not signed by the 8,000,000 people referred to, but that it is the "humble petition of the President and Secretaries" of the National Council of the Evangelical Free Churches, acting on behalf of the Council, so that it never passed that body at all. And what are the reasons why they object to the Bill? They draw your Lordships' attention to the fact—
  "That this Bill, which was conscientiously opposed by half the population of the country,"
  which I do not believe—
  "—not only is injurious to edcuation,"—
  which also I do not believe—
  "—but also is unjust to Nonconformists,'—
  1242
  I think that the justice to the Nonconformists has been amply vindicated by the noble Duke who introduced the Bill tonight—
  "And subversive of their rights as citizens,"
  What rights of theirs as citizens have been subversed? What have they lost? They have got everything they had before, and they have got a great deal more. I suppose these gentlemen refer to the Act of 1870. Great importance has been placed by the noble Earl upon the fact that the educational system is going to be handed over to the Municipal Councils. I wish the noble Earl would look at the original proposal of Mr. Forster himself, which was to give it to Municipal Councils, and it was only found that it could not be given to Municipal Councils because in the counties themselves there was no authority of the same kind to whom it could be given. Therefore Mr. Forster's original notion of giving it to the Municipal Councils, which is supposed to be "subversive of their rights as citizens," does not go for very much. I will hand back to the Clerk this marvellous petition which has been presented, and I do not think it deserves the weight attached to it by the noble Lord. As to the constitutional question which has been alluded to, I think I may brush that by, because that merely means that this particular Parliament can pass no measure without a special mandate.
  LORD MONKSWELL: Unless it has the people at its back.
  VISCOUNT CROSS: I was going to say, unless it had the country at its back, but I stoutly maintain that this Bill has the people at its back, and I have not the smallest doubt that when this Bill is set to work the supposed feeling in the country will subside, and that my noble friends will find that they are totally mistaken as to the way in which this Bill will be received by the country at large. My noble friend has spoken of religious tests. I ask him, are you or are you not going to have denominational schools? Do you wish to abolish them?
  LORD MONKSWELL: No.
  VISCOUNT CROSS: Then we may take it from the Opposition Bench that denominational schools are to be preserved.

  1243
  What is the meaning of a denominational school? It means a school in which you teach religion according to the Creed of the Church to whom the school belongs. Then, do you mean to say, if you are to have denominational schools, and to teach particular dogmas of religion, that you are not to have a head master who coincides with those dogmas and who teaches religion according to the foundation of those schools?
  LORD MONKSWELL: What I said was that religion and secular edcuation ought to be separated, and that there ought to be separate teachers.
  VISCOUNT CROSS: But I asked whether you are in favour of keeping denominational schools.
  LORD MONKSWELL: Certainly.
  VISCOUNT CROSS: Then I say if you have a denominational school you must leave the choice of the teacher who is to teach religion in that school to the denominational managers. I do not wish to detain the House any longer. My sole object was to point out the tremendous fallacies contained, as I thought, in that petition.
  *THE LORD BISHOP OF NEWCASTLE: My Lords, there is somedanger, I think, of the debate degenerating into a theological discussion, and I hope you will allow one speaking from this Bench to attempt, at any rate, to turn it into an educational channel. It has been maintained that there has been no mandate given to the Government to introduce this Bill, and the noble Lord who spoke opposite has given us very strong constitutional reasons why such a measure should not be introduced without an appeal to the country. But I should like to say that, without entering into the constitutional question, which I hardly feel capable of dealing with, it does seem to me that any Government worth the name was absolutely bound by a sense of duty to deal with the educational problem at the present time. One of the arguments which have been brought before the country very strongly of late has been the commercial prosperity of the United States, and perhaps I may say to a certain extent of Germany, in comparison with
  1244
  England, and it has been maintained that education in Germany and the United States compares very favourably with the education given in England. I do not feel competent to deal with the question of Germany at all, but I do venture to say that there are certain lessons to be learned from American education. Three visits to the United States, at intervals of nine years, have at any rate convinced me of this, and I hope I shall not weary your Lordships if I try to suggest some of the lessons which this country ought to learn.
  Let me say that after considering this matter and having had opportunities for observation for some nineteen or twenty years, I have certainly come to the conclusion that in the United States there has been very much greater progress made than in England during the same time, and I confess that the state of education in England at the present moment is anything but satisfactory, and I cannot understand how any Government whatever could refuse to deal with the educational problem. First of all, let me say that if America teaches us one lesson more than another it is the value of having one authority to co-ordinate education and to deal with its various branches. I will illustrate that by the state of things in New York. New York has to deal with a very difficult problem, for there are very many foreigners landing at this port, many of them having to be taught English, and I take it that there is probably no town in America where there is really greater difficulty in dealing with education. When I went to New York I found, first of all, a very large Kindergarten School for children under six; then the children are drafted into primary schools from the age of six to nine; then into grammar schools from nine to fourteen; then they have the opportunity of going into high schools from fourteen to eighteen, and then there are still further opportunities of higher education besides. The population of Greater New York at the present moment is rather more than 3 1/2 millions, and there are rather more than half a million children in the public schools of New York. About 9,000 of these children apparently at the present time are passing on from these grammar schools, which they leave at the age of

  1245
  about fourteen, each year to the high schools in the city. Of these 9,000, about one-third fall away during the first year, and the others pass on during the other three years, but irregularly, so that of the whole 9,000 who pass into the high schools observe by the last report which is in my hands that 1,411 had "graduated" (to use the American expression) generally at the average age of seventeen. But I observe that something like 1,300, which is very nearly as many as those who have graduated at the high schools, have passed into what really almost corresponds to the University. The lads can go into the City of New York College and the young women can pass into the Normal School. Now, that is what is done with one authority dealing with education—and free education all through. I am told by New York lawyers, merchants and others, that the great commercial prosperity of that city (and the same thing is said elsewhere) is largely due to this system, and to the fact that one single authority deals with the children all through from the beginning almost to the end. Now, my Lords, I feel grateful to the Government for introducing a Bill which, at least, establishes an authority that can co-ordinate the various kinds of education. I know it is said that very little is done for secondary education, but it seems to me that the great thing is to establish an authority. When the authority is established and is at work, it is perfectly simple—and I am quite sure that any Government would attempt to do it—to engraft further legislation upon this Bill and enable more to be done. But, at any rate, I am grateful for the authority being set up, and I am perfectly certain that it is in the minds of those who are setting up this authority to go further and give further inducements to lads and young women to pass into the high schools and receive what is commonly called secondary education.
  My Lords, I am afraid that the arguments of noble Lords opposite, particularly of the noble Earl who led the opposition to the Bill, with reference to what we may call generally the ad hoc authority, do not receive very much support from the experience of America. Two interesting volumes have been
  1246
  lately published by the Board of Education with reference to America, and I venture to say that they deserve study by your Lordships. It will be observed that there is a very great variety of custom in reference to the appointment of the boards, whatever they are called, which regulate education in the United States. But the point I want to make is this: that some of those systems which are most successful in reference to education are not managed by authorities which are elected ad hoc at all. I venture to say that on the whole the experience of America does not tend to make one believe that it is really necessary to have an authority elected ad hoc for the purpose of obtaining really good and efficiently controlled education. There is a further point with reference to this authority which I should like to advert to, which is this. One great advantage of the Bill as we have it now is that there are large areas in comparison with the small areas which have hitherto prevailed. We have found it so far, until a recent Act was passed, to be an exceedingly difficult thing to establish School Associations of any kind whatever. Speaking as the chairman of one of these Associations, I feel grateful to the Government for having brought our schools together, for there is no question whatever that it is by association that one school is polished, as it were, by comparison with another, and whereas before there was considerable isolation, now, and still more in the large areas which will prevail under the Bill, there is every reason to believe that there will be a very great advance in education altogether.
  But there is further lesson which it seems to me we may learn from America, and that is this. There is no doubt whatever that in the United States there has been a considerable advance in education made by a very wholesome rivalry between the great cities. Anyone who takes up a report of the Board of Education of one of these great cities is interested to find the comparisons made with other great cities. I was looking just now at the last report of the City of St. Louis, on the junction of the Mississippi and Missouri, a city of about 600,000 people. The Superintendent of Education states that the amount spent upon education at St. Louis did not compare favourably with the amount spent in

  1247
  certain other great cities. I think the cost of education altogether in St. Louis was about 22 dollars per child, and he said that in New York the cost went up to as high as 40 dollars per child, and that other cities differed practically between those two limits. In answer to what has been said about the want of interest which is likely to be taken in education in consequence of the abolition of school boards, I cannot but believe that we may set against that this certainly growing wholesome rivalry that there is likely to be between the great cities and the great towns of England when there is thrown on the municipalities the duty and the necessity of caring for the education of the people. At present they have not had that responsibility thrown upon them. Do your Lordships think for one instant that Birmingham, for instance, is likely to be behind Liverpool, or Liverpool behind Manchester? Has not Liverpool lately shown its independence in reference to its desire for a University, and is it not certain that the great towns of this country will enter into a very wholesome rivalry with each other in their efforts to provide for their own city as good education, primary and secondary, as lies within their means? I venture to say that the effect of that rivalry will be seen not only in towns themselves but in the country districts around. What we want is a really good stimulating influence brought to bear on the country parishes, and I believe it will come mainly through the towns, and that a wholesome rivalry between the towns is the very thing that is needed to stimulate education in the country. It has been said that the Board of Education is rather giving up its functions under this Bill. It has been said that we have hitherto had the stimulus of the School Boards, and the stimulus from Whitehall. I cannot seriously believe that whitehall will in any way be less stimulating just because it pays its grant in future through the local education authority. It is perfectly incredible that any Minister of Education in time to come will blandly hand over the money without taking care that the education of the country is sufficiently raised. For my own part I feel, I do not hesitate to say, personally grateful to one representing the Opposition, I mean Mr. Acland, for the way in which, while he was Vice-President of the Council, he unquestionably stimulated the education of the country. Speaking for myself,
  1248
  I can only say that, while there was a great deal of criticism with reference to his administration, my own experience of it was that he was conspicuously and absolutely fair, and I am grateful to him for trying, as he certainly did, to raise gradually the elementary education of the country. My belief is that under any system the Minister for Education may be trusted to do the same. Therefore, so far as this Bill is concerned. I cannot see that there is any force, or any sufficient force, in the arguments which have been adduced either with reference to the Board of Education having less influence than before or with reference to the abolition of School Boards.
  There is another point on which I should like to say a word with reference to American experience, and it is this. I think there is some tendency in England to depend too much on the rates and taxes and the Government, and to forget that under this improved system (as I think it will be) there will still be very considerable need of private aid and private endowments. No one can visit America without being astonished at some of the very large benefactions that have been made for founding colleges and universities and the like. As education is now to be co-ordinated, I may safely say that grants and benefactions given towards universities will really be of assistance towards secondary and primary education as well. It does seem to me that there is a sort of tendency now-a-days to depend too much on the endowments of the past, and to forget that we are now dealing with a generation of people and with a population of which our forefathers had no knowledge whatever, and that it does become us (and I cannot but hope that some of our millionaires will realise that there is a call upon them) to give largely in time to come towards higher and secondary education, and so more materially to assist primary education in the country in which they live. This seems to me one of the lessons which we may learn from the consideration of the American education.
  My Lords, I am afraid that the controversy with reference to the voluntary schools is almost worn threadbare, but there is one thing that

  1249
  I should like to say in reference particularly to what has fallen from the noble Lord opposite. The noble Lord said that we were entirely to separate secular and religious instruction, and the noble Earl who began the opposition to the Bill today told us that we had abolished tests altogether in our universities, and he thought it evidently a very retrograde step for us now to impose, as he called it, religious disabilities with reference to teachers in our elementary schools. But, my Lords, I ask, have we abolished—I do not like to use such a word as "tests—"but have we abolished definite and distinctive teaching in our great public schools? Most of us in this House have been brought up at one of those great public schools. Is there one of your Lordships who thinks that the great schools at Eton, or Harrow, or Winchester would be improved by a headmaster being appointed simply in virtue of his being a Senior Wrangler without reference to those higher qualities which count for so much in the training and forming of character? Is there any reason why we should be so very anxious to introduce a system into our public elementary schools which at any rate the great majority of us do not desire to see introduced into the large public schools? I know it is said that these public schools are supported by endowments under definite trusts and by the sums paid by parents for their children's education, but I venture to think that, after all, the great thing to be considered is—What is the best thing for the children of our country? What is the best way to develop their brains and their character? And, if we find that the old English public school system has been of such value in the development of character without any diminution in the development of the brain, surely that is a very strong argument for our maintaining the same system in reference to our public elementary schools as well. And, my Lords, without attempting to enter into details which would be more properly dealt with in Committee, I may say this, that if our public elementary schools are to be maintained, if our voluntary schools are to be maintained as denominational schools. It stands to reason that the appointment of the headmaster or the headmistress must be to the satisfaction of the denomination
  1250
  concerned. The noble Lord opposite says that we must separate secular and religious teaching. I ask, would he separate them in Eton, or Harrow, or Winchester? It seems to me that the aim should be not to have teachers of religion, but to have religious teachers of common things. When you have a man who is a religious teacher of the common things of life, and teaches those things in the right and proper spirit, you have got the very best teacher you can desire. I do not deny that with a system even of secular instruction you may have teachers who would be the greatest boon to the country. Nearly thirty years ago when I was in India I visited a very remarkable Mission—now connected with the University of Cambridge—the foundation of which was entirely due to the fact that a Government teacher, the head of the Government College at Delhi a little time before the Mutiny, was such a conspicuous Christian that he attracted to him two Brahmins of the very highest caste, and that led to the founding of this Mission. But, while I know that any system, if there are Christian influences in the country, will produce the men we desire, yet I think it cannot be seriously contended that you have at present any security or guarantee for such training as we desire. This is the main issue that is before your Lordships in reference to this particular part of the Bill, and, while I have been anxious tonight to speak rather on educational than on theological grounds, I could not help making this allusion to what is, after all, a very crucial matter.
  I will simply add this in conclusion. The real issue of this educational effort does not depend simply upon Parliament, or upon the shape which this Bill may ultimately assume. It depends upon the country, upon the way the Bill is worked, upon the goodwill and the good feeling of the people who have to work under it. I know full well the objections that have been taken, and the very unhappy antagonisms that have arisen—I venture to say, frequently through a misunderstanding of motives and of facts. I think that already there is a very considerable opening of the eyes of the people, and that already the opposition to the Bill is very much diminished, and I am certain that it only requires a little further careful

  1251
  understanding and explanation of the Bill to make the country determine at least to give it a trial. I cannot believe that there are county councillors or others who are absolutely determined not to try it at all. It seems to me that that is quite an unconstitutional principle. For my own part, if your Lordships determined, with the House of Commons, that there should be a system of secular education pure and simple, much as I should desire to repudiate it absolutely, I should yet feel it my duty to do my best to work it, and to, at least, give it a fair trial. And I am convinced that after this Bill becomes an Act, the good sense of our people will prevail, and that there will be a real effort to make the Bill the means of the further development and enlightenment of the British people.
  VISCOUNT MIDLETON: My Lords, the eloquent words which we have just listened to from the right rev. Prelate presented in a temperate manner the view which the Episcopal Bench take of the Bill. I approach the Bill from a totally different standpoint. I approach it as a layman, and I have one advantage over the right rev. Prelate which he is not likely to envy me, namely, that I had the privilege in another place of taking part in those debates which initiated the measure of 1870. Now, the first thing that strikes me is that every one of the gloomy prognostications (and there were many) than formed as to the probable success of the great measure—the groundwork of our English education— has been absolutely and entirely falsified. They were not confined to one side. There is not a bitter taunt which has been levelled at the framers of this Bill, there is not a sinister prediction which has been made with regard to its effects upon Nonconformity in general, which was not equally levelled and equally brought against that able, fairminded, and upright public servant, Mr. Forster, to whose memory I am sure the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition will do justice. No single statement that was then made has been borne out by the results. But those who feared for Nonconformity were not alone in their denunciation of
  1252
  the Bill. It was prophesied on the other side that the passing of the Act of 1870 would ring the knell of the voluntary schools. What are the facts? The statistics are now before us. The number of those voluntary schools has increased within the last thirty years 75 per cent. The number of children attending them has increased in rather a larger ratio and the amount of the Government grant is about 75 per cent. more to the voluntary schools than it was in the year 1870. May we not admit that all that we have heard lately as to the misfortunes which will be brought upon the country should this Bill become an Act have equally little foundation in fact as those prognostications which we made in 1870, and which have been amply falsified by the result. Now, what are the main objections that are made to this Bill? They seem to me to take two forms; first we are assured that it will raise the religious difficulty in almost every parish in rural districts. Now I can speak with some experience upon this. I have been for some years a manager and a regular attendant of the managers' meetings of one of the largest London schools, and I can only say that we never had to face it there. Just before the passing of the Act of 1870, I had become, and I still am, a manager of a large mixed school in a purely rural district. I have never encountered the religious difficulty. The difficulty that we have found as managers has been to interest the parents sufficiently in the religious education of their children. I know that it is held by some of those who advocate secular education alone that the religious faith of the children ought to be inculcated at home. I venture to think that those who speak thus know very little indeed of the conditions under which the life of toilers, either in cities or in rural parishes, is carried on. I do not at all know how the artisan who has to give the whole day to his work can look after the religious instruction of his children, and as his wife has the children to feed and look after before they go to school, and the dinner to cook and the children to put to bed, I do not see how she is to find time to give those lessons in religious instruction which men of all parties and

  1253
  of all schools of thought admit it is desirable that the children should be taught in in their early years. The other day I asked the (clerical) manager of one of the largest schools in the neighbourhood of London whether he had ever come across the religious difficulty, and his reply was: "Yes, I have. Since this Bill has been before the House one parent has expressed to me his wish that his child should be withdrawn from the religious instruction—a wish which I need not say was immediately gratified." I believe the whole fear of the interference with the religious faith of the children has arisen from the isolated acts of a few unwise men who had certainly tried to inculcate a teaching which was not that either of Nonconformity or of the Church of England, but whom the Bishop of the Diocese in which he happened to be had either been unable or unwilling to restrain. I believe the religious difficulty to be a newspaper difficulty, perhaps a platform difficulty; and it has recently unfortunately been rendered a Parliamentary difficulty; but as a question of practical politics I do not believe it exists.
  The second bogey which has been conjured up has been that of the clerical autocrat. I have admitted that in some isolated instances—with which no one sympathises less than I do—wrong things have been done, but I believe that in 999 out of 1,000 voluntary schools such a thing is impossible, and of one thing I am convinced, that if it is possible it is because the lay managers of the schools do not do their duty. It is utterly impossible if the managers do their duty, if they take advantage of their trust deed, and call the attention of the Bishop to the fact that doctrines are being inculcated or teaching is being resorted to which is not consistent with the faith of the Church of England as expressed in our Articles of Religion. I may say that I think great injustice has been done through discussions upon this Bill (I speak as a layman) to the clergy as a body. I am old enough to remember the time when in three-fourths of the country parishes in England there would have been no education worth a name at all if the clergyman had not devoted his time, and often a much larger amount of his means than he could properly spare, to
  1254
  education which was then in its infancy and to which grave opposition was raised. And I am quite certain, speaking from practical experience, that in nine cases out of ten the difficulty which this "clerical autocrat" experiences is, not that of carrying out his own wishes, but that of interesting any appreciable number of the laity in the work of education which belongs equally to them as it does to him.
  Then, my Lords, the next objection I hear is that this Bill is not a perfect Bill. Of course it is not. I have had the honour of a seat in your ordships' House for more than thirty-two years, and I never yet saw a Bill turned into an Act in which I should not have liked to make some alterations, and I believe the same idea will have occurred to every single Member of your Lordship's House. This is not a perfect Bill. It is not in some respects what I could wish to see it. One serious practical danger, and one which I fear we cannot deal with in your Lordships' House, is with regard to the upkeep of the schools. That is now charged upon the school funds, but it will be in the future, in the case of denominational schools, a burden that will fall on the subscribers, and I think that may constitute a very serious incubus. I know schools myself which were built many years ago and which were supposed to be models of their kind but which from age and from the progress of public opinion have certainly become out of date. They will probably have to be pulled down, and at present I do not exactly see where in some cases the funds will be forthcoming to rebuild them. I think also that many requirements will be made which will take existing managers by surprise, and that we shall need all the self-devotion of the clergy and laity alike if we are to maintain some of the denominational schools at the present level and prevent their being turned into provided schools.
  But after all, my Lords, this Bill, whatever its imperfections may be, at present holds the field. There has been no alternative scheme presented to the House. There has been scarcely any alternative scheme even hinted at. I believe there is one Minister who has held Cabinet rank in another place, who has indicated that he has some measure

  1255
  up his sleeve which may set everything right; all I can say is that if he has it up his sleeve he has never proposed it. I have read most carefully the debates which have taken place both in and out of Parliament on this subject, and I defy anyone to say that any clear and comprehensive scheme which could possibly be worked has ever been placed as an alternative before the people of this country.
  Even supposing that the Bill is not all that could be wished, what do we gain by it? We gain four things. First, it co-ordinates for the first time our educational system which sorely wanted something of the kind. Secondly it places for the first time in the hands of a public authority the power to see that the secular teaching in all schools is thoroughly up to date and efficient. Thirdly (and I confess I attach great importance to this) it for the first time makes it possible for women to sit upon these boards as managers of local schools and especially of the rural schools in which I think their assistance may be beyond all price. I am not at all satisfied that in the board schools at present the pressure which is being put upon the children (sometimes even with the electric light) is not seriously affecting the eyesight of the children. There have been researches made by medical men into the number of children educated in Board schools within the Bills of Mortality whose sight and hearing cannot be described as normal. I do not propose to trouble your Lordships with the figures, but they are accessible to all of us. They work out most unsatisfactorily as far as regards the general health of the population. We know perfectly well that in Germany the medical authorities have already had to deal very seriously indeed with the tendency to overwork and overpressure to which children of very tender years are exposed in that country. I confess that I can conceive nothing which is more likely to prevent any overstraining of the youthful nerves, or the youthful minds, than that capable and clever women should find a place upon many of these boards, and that they should be able to apply to the moral and physical training of the children that assistance which is often wanted under present conditions. Then, fourthly, the nation obtains a direct
  1256
  present by this Bill of a sum estimated at from £25,000,000 to £35,000,000, in the shape of the schools which have been built by voluntary subscriptions, and which it would otherwise have either to build or to lease. I think that all those are definite and substantial advantages.
  I quite admit that, as the right rev. Prelate observed, it is possible that should all the different elements who are mixed up in the educational question combine to wreck the Bill they may do it very serious mischief when it becomes an Act. If the clergy of the Church of England, the Nonconformist ministers, the Roman Catholic episcopacy, those ratepayers who draw nice distinctions between the payment of rates and the payment of taxes, and finally the school teachers who may be dissatisfied with some of the incidences of their new position—if they all determine that the Bill shall not be a success, it is possible that they may have their way. But I confess that I have more confidence in my fellow-countrymen. I do not believe that they would act in so foolish, so wrong a manner as to do their best to render impossible the work of educating our little children—who, after all, are a factor of the situation, though the consideration of it has been so often neglected. The men and women of the future generation, the men and women upon whom, humanly speaking, the weal or woe of this country depends, surely ought not to be left during their tender years to the mercy of an indifferent education simply because a number of excellent and well-meaning individuals have made up their minds that for one reason or another they do not mean that the Act should be a success. All I can say is that if that be the mind of the country now, it is very different from what the mind of the country always has been hitherto. I do not believe it for one moment. I believe that should this Bill become an Act it will falsify the expectations and the predictions which have been made with regard to it, as the Act of 1870 has falsified them for the last thirty-five years. I believe that if we can all be content to look a little more upon the many things in which we have a common interest, upon the many things in which we are agreed, and

  1257
  less upon the comparatively few things in which we differ, there is no reason why this Bill should not be in every sense of the word, and as far as human ingenuity can make it, a crowning success. It is never safe to prophesy unless you know, but I cannot help thinking that those of your Lordships who live to see the operation of this Bill two years hence will be surprised, now, to hear the sort of prophecies which can be made with regard to it—prophecies wholly unfortified by all the facts of the case. I think that we owe a deep debt of gratitude to those who have taken an interest in the education of the past, and I will not credit for a moment that we of this generation shall be behind those who have gone before us in endeavouring to make the education of this country all it ought to be, all it might be, and to give Englishmen a fair chance in the race of life against those competitors by whom they are surrounded on every side, and in comparison with whom they are at present sorely handicapped by the system of education—even improved as it has been—which now prevails. I would appeal if they possibly can the Party aspect of the case, and to concur with those on this side of the House who are ardently anxious for the future of education, and not to stand in the way of a measure which I am persuaded will be for the lasting good of the country.
  *LORD COLERIDGE: My Lords, the first object of every Education Bill should be the improvement of education, and I am afraid that amidst the somewhat violent disputes which have enveloped this Bill this primary object has been a great deal overlooked. Does this Bill improve education, does it improve the education of the young, does it fit them better for the competition in life of which the noble Lord who has just sat down has spoken?
  Now, the history of education in this country since 1870 proves this, at any rate. It proves that if you put education in the hands of the ratepayers and allow them the management of their own money they will build up for themselves an efficient system of education.
  1258
  Since 1870, the time from which we date the birth of board schools, School Boards have spread and grown and covered the land until they now educate some half of the boys and girls in the elementary schools of the country. And they have done that in spite of every obstacle that has been placed in their way by the advocates of denominational education. In the year 1876 the noble Duke who introduced this Bill expressed his belief in the principle of the School Boards as the abiding and true principle which he said would in the end prevail. Their teaching, their equipment, their buildings, all are the best. Their educational results have been superior, and they have been entirely out-stripped the sectarian schools, who cannot keep up with them. That the religious teaching in them has not been inefficient has been testified to by the evidence given before the Royal Commission, by the evidence given by the late Archbishop of Canterbury, and by a right rev. Prelate now on the Bench. And with regard to their religious education. I have heard no complaints, no rumours of complaints, on that score from any of the parents of the children who go to those schools. well, my Lords, if the object of the Legislature was the improvement of education, one would have thought that any Government having education at heart would have encouraged and spread the growth of those schools which have beaten all other competitors. This Bill proceeds to abolish those very schools. Every effort is made, so to speak, to catch the infant lamb, and to pen him into one of the sectarian folds; what the real worth of his education is to be seems to be quite a secondary matter.
  Now, this Bill proposes to deal with two classes of education. It proposes to deal with higher education and with elementary education. It is quite true that is places them both under one authority. It is also quite true that higher education in this country has grown up piecemeal, and has grown up a great deal in a haphazard manner. School Boards, for instance, have come to the rescue of higher education; they have provided higher grade schools; they have provided evening schools; they have provided schools and colleges, and classes. But so far as the work of the

  1259
  School Boards in this direction is concerned, the Cockerton decision—I venture to characterise it as an inspired decision—has destroyed and crippled that work. And this Bill now destroys the authors of that work likewise. This Bill, moreover, repeals the Technical Instruction Acts, and it destroys, in the first place, every statutory power which has been operative in regard to higher education in the past. It produces an absolutely clean state, and what does the Government propose to write upon it? We have had some light thrown upon What ought to be done. We have had the Report of the Royal Commission, and the noble Duke has described to us the introduction of the Bills of 1896, 1900, and 1901. All those are thrown aside and the work of higher education is placed in the hands of the Country Councils so far as the counties are concerned in a mode which the noble Duke now says is not optional. All I can say is that it was optional when the Bill was introduced, but an Amendment was moved to make it mandatory, and that Amendment was opposed by the Government. The words which have been inserted are curious words, and I am not by any means sure that they contain the compulsory powers which the noble Duke has attributed to them. The words are, if I remember right, that they "may consider," and if they do consider, then they "shall take such steps as shall seem to them desirable." That is language falling far short in its compulsory and mandatory character of the language in any of the Bills introduced by the noble Duke or in the propositions recommended by the Royal Commission.
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: The words in the second Clause are "shall consider."
  *LORD COLERIDGE: "Shall consider the educational needs of their area and take such steps as seem to them desirable." To my mind that is not mandatory. The Country Council may say "Yes, we will consider; we have considered, and having considered we do not think anything more than this very small step desirable;" and I should like to know, if that position is taken up by
  1260
  any Country Council, whether there is any lawyer in this House who would say that any compulsory powers could be applied to it. I may be wrong in that. I would only like to ask the noble Duke, if I am wrong, why did the Government reject the Amendment proposing the word "shall" instead of the word "may" which was in the Bill as originally introduced? The word "may" was in the Bill when it was originally introduced; the word "shall" was proposed to be introduced to make it compulsory, but that Amendment got refused, a division was that Amendment got refused, a division was taken upon it, and the Amendment was lost.
  Now I pass from that to the next head. A very limited power of expenditure is placed in the hands of the local authorities. We know what the provisions are as to the counties—that the County Councils should spend the whisky money and 2d. in the £, and that the Councils of boroughs and urban districts should spend an extra 1d. in the £. Now, in this matter the local authority might have had an impulse given to it in either of two ways, either by direct popular representation, or by having certain powers subject to the direction and control of the Board of Education. It might have had, and I should like to know why it has not— because it would be a most useful thing—the powers given under the Endowed Schools Act of 1869. It has none of these things. There is not a word in the Bill defining its duties, its powers, or its covers. "Education other than elementary." Why that would comprise the education of the upper and of the middle classes; it would comprise grammar schools; it would comprise girls high schools; it would comprise private academies, and I am not sure that it would not comprise our big public schools. Also, namely (I will enumerate them) evening continuation schools, higher grade schools, the teaching of specific subjects in day schools, science and art classes, municipal technical colleges for teachers. Now with regard to the whole of this, there in no provision to compel either that the schools shall be provided, or that there

  1261
  shall be a sufficient number of them, or that they shall be suitable in curriculum, or that there shall be an adequacy of staff and equipment, or that there shall be inspection, or that they shall be available to all. I say, having regard to that, it seems to me so far as higher education is concerned this Bill is a very great step backwards. A great opportunity was afforded to the Government, which opportunity it seems to me they have sadly neglacted. Now let us contrast this. There is an Act called the Welsh Intermediate Education Act of 1889. Let the noble Duke look at the provisions of that Act. Each county has a duty cast upon it—an imperative duty—to submit a scheme to the Charity Commissioners for intermediate and technical education, and they have a right to levy a rate unlimited in amount. If those powers are entrusted to the local authorities for higher education in Wales, what is the reason for not entrusting similar powers, with similar compulsion and with similar rating facilities, to other parts of the country?
  My Lords, I have said what I have to say about this Act so far as it affects higher education. I should like to say a word so far as it affects elementary education. It seems to me that with regard to elementary education there are two ways of dealing with it, both of which admit of very sound reasons. First of all, you can entrust elementary education to the central body, urban or county, a body which at least is popularly elected. There is a great deal to be said against that. First of all, it would add very severely to their labours; they would probably have to act through committees of their own number, and it would undoubtedly lead to an alteration in the complexion of that body. You would have strenuous educational conflicts in each Division and you would have a different style of man coming upon the central authority; and I doubt not it might damage the work that those Councils do now in other directions. But at any rate it would have this advantage that it would stimulate to activity and life that body in matters educational. That is the first alternative. There is another alternative that admits a very cogent argument. Yon could have the local education bodies popularly elected. At any rate, What-
  1262
  ever they spent would have the sanction of the constituency which they served.
  But, my Lords, it seems to me that this Bill shows the worship of a fetish. The noble Duke kept reiterating in his speech that whatever the failure of the Bill in other respects, at any rate, it created "one authority"—there was no overlapping, no confusion, and there was "one authority." Now, what has been set up? There is first of all the Board of Education. I pass by that, because, of course, that is the highest authority, whatever is done. Then you have the local education authority; then you have the education committee; then you have the managers. Now it seems perfectly plain to me that the local education authority, which the noble Duke says will be so supreme, will have no substantial voice in the matter. I do not think it is intended to have; and I will say wh—because it is the only body that is popularly elected. Now why do I think that it will have very little substantial voice? It is quite true that it will levy the rate. Well, this House has to sanction expenduture, but what authority has this House over the expenditure of the country? It can only reject Money Bills by dislocating the finances of the whole Empire. So your Lordships will find that the education committee being the persons who will spend, the local education authority, namely, the County Council, will practically have to say ditto to the expenditure and ditto to what the education committee say. And if they do not there is always the power of the Board of Education above them, which may compel them to agree with their own local education committee in matters of difference. Therefore, I say, I think it is clear that the local education authority will practically do nothing but write cheques or levy rates. It is the education committee that is the substantial body to do the work; it is that body that has to take the place of the vanished School Board. Not a single member of that body need be popularly elected—not one. And to prevent, as it seems to me, the breath of popular election from ever blowing upon these bodies, it is carefully provided that they shall come into existence before there can be any contest in the constituencies of the County Council, and before,

  1263
  therefore, they can ever have a chance of returning to the County Council men who may be interested in local education. Why is that? If it be desired that there should be one authority, and if the noble Duke claims that the one authority of the County Council has some popular representative instincts in it, why not arrange that the first body constituted under this Act shall be constituted after an election which has given the constituencies the power to elect person whom they think proper to represent them upon that authority? My Lords, I cannot explain that of myself. Therefore, what we have is this, that the local education authority, upon which no single member of the County Council need compulsorily be a member, is to be the creation of a Council never elected for such a purpose, and having no popular sanction or mandate for such an election.
  Then as to the term of these local education committees. Are they to be for life? No term is mentioned. Every one of the appointments of the local education committee, so far as the Act is concerned, may be for life, and so far as the Act is concerned no member need ever be a member of the Council, and no member need ever retire during the course of his natural life, It does seem to me that to suggest that such a body as this is an efficient substitute for the vanished School Board, with its popular fibre and its power of representing fibre and its power of representing popular opinion, is a most extraordinary idea. Moreover, the education committee is apparently to be flooded with that precious person, the educational expert. I do not want to say anything disrespectful of the expert, but I think the educational expert is about as big a fraud as any expert in the world. Who is going to be this precious expert? He is to be a man "experienced in education"; he is to be a man "acquainted with the needs of the various kinds of schools in the area." I think I see the educational expert is meant to be. He can be nothing but the clergyman. I do not suppose there will be another man of station and position who has ever taught in the school but the clergyman, and the clergyman will undoubtedly be a man "acquainted with the needs of the various parishes in the area," And obviously what is intended is this, that the clergyman, who is not content with being the ex officio chairman with a
  1264
  casting vote upon the managers of his own school, is now, under the guise of an educational expert, to invade the managerial body of the provided school. My Lords, whether by design or not, that will possibly prevent the free expansion of work and activity of the non-sectaraian schools, and will hamper the formation of schools, and will hamper the formation of school of that class in the future.
  My Lords, this Bill is designed to prevent the creation of non-sectarian schools in the future. Let us take an instance. A new school is necessary; is it to be a non-sectarian or is it to be a sectarian school? The local education authority suggest or propose that it shall be a non-sectarain school. Up jumps the clergyman and his ten ratepayers, and he proposes a sectarian school, and the appeal is made to the Board of Education. What is the Board to consider? They have got to consider firstly the interests of secular education. Well, it will be easy to show that in either case secular education will be equally good—that there will not be a pin to choose between them. Next they have got to have regard to the wishes of the parents. This is a very strange Clause; when it is suggested that on the managerial body there shall be introduced persons representing the wishes of the parents the Government object; they will not have them on the board at all; yet when they think that on the question as to whether there is to be a non-sectarian school or a sectarian school it will possibly aid in the direction of preference for a non-sectarian school, then, if you please, is called in the aid of the parents' wishes. Well, my Lords, I should think probably in those cases the wishes of the parents will be much divided, or very apathetic, and what will really dictate the choice will be the third recommendation, namely, that they shall have regard to the economy of rates. Now what is the position there? By the Voluntary Schools Act of 1897, all rates on voluntary schools are abolished, and they remain upon all others. Therefore, the first thing that will be said by the Board of Education—it must be said and ought to be said—is "We are to have regard to economy of rates; well, the law settles that for us, because if we say it shall be a non-sectarian school, the school will have to pay the rate, and if we say it is to be a sectarian school them, as a voluntary school, it need not pay any rates at

  1265
  all." Therefore it seems to me that that question is decided very much before hand by the provisions of the Act. I think the probability will be that the choice will be in favour of sectarian schools.
  Now the sectarian school, which is obviously intended to be the school of the future—what is it? It is managed by foundation managers. The clergyman has two votes; in nine cases out of ten by trust deed he is an ex officio manager, and therefore he has only to get two others to agree with him in order to carry his way. Nor will the subscribers have to pay for the privilege of controlling. It is only repairs that fall on the subscribers. They have ample funds given them by the endowments—all the endowment, if the terms of the endowment prescribe that it is to be given for the building of the school; half, if the terms are not so clear in favour of the building. They have school fees, which are paid not by themselves but by the parents; they have the rents of the teachers' houses. All these sources of income may be pooled, and therefore no subscriptions need practically be paid in the future. That is the net result of this Bill.
  My Lords, I say that this Bill in the first place destroys School Boards. It deprives non-sectarian schools of any possibility of direct popular control. It quarters sectarian schools upon the public without any substantial control; and it hampers the creation of non-sectarian schools in the future. It is a step backwards and a long step backwards on the score of secondary or higher education, and I do not believe it is approved of substantially by the country.
  Now, my Lords, what is the function of this House? The function of this House has been well expressed by two noble Lords now in this House. The noble Duke in the year 1893 said this—
  "It has been absolutely impossible to form any opinion as to what the real desire and wish of the people is upon this very vital question. We contend that it is a question large enough to justify us in refusing to pass this measure until the question is settled beyond the shadow of a doubt."
  Then the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, who of course speaks with the authority of the law, said—
  "If there is one thing which proves the absolute nece sity of such an institution as the
  1266
  House of Lords it is that that House has given the constituencies an opportunity of making their voices heard on a matter in respect of which they have been tricked out of their votes by these men."
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The EARL of HALSBURY): Will the noble Lord say where and when those words were used?
  *LORD COLERIDGE: Those words were used in this House on September 8th, 1893, and I have copied them from the authorised Report in Hansard. I think, my Lords, that those are very cogent arguments, and, following, not the language, but the example, set to me by those noble Lords, I must vote against the Second Reading of this Bill.
  VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: My Lords, I think it would assist us in debating this Bill if we had any confidence that the noble Lords opposite and the Opposition generally would stand by one line of argument; then we should know on what points to reply to them. There are an infinite number of cases where the diverse views held by Members of the Opposition are apparent, but I can point to one after the speech that has just been delivered by the noble Lord. He believes that the duties of the local authorities and the County Councils will practically be confined to signing cheques—I think that that was his phrase—that practically they will exercise no control, that they will look with an apathetic eye upon the operations of the education committee, and that they will supply the funds, and that will be all. Now, I have ringing in my ears a speech—I will not say where I heard It—of a very different character, where it was prognosticated that every County Council and every Urban Council would be distracted in the future by the fervid, the perfervid interest, that they would take in educational matters; that the consideration of lunatic asylums, the consideration of roads, and every other consideration would be passed over repeatedly in order to come to that most exciting and engaging topic the question of education, surrounded by a "religious atmosphere." Well, I do not know which of these two doctrines is correct. My own impression it that the local authorities to whom this duty is assigned will endeavour to perform

  1267
  their duties as popularly elected bodies generally perform the duties assigned to them; that is to say, with industry, and, as far as they possibly can, with impartiality. That is my view of the line which the local authorities will take.
  Before I deal with the further arguments of the noble Lord, I wish to say one word upon that which I may almost call the neglected part of this great Bill, namely the part relating to secondary education. There, I frankly confess it appears to me to be more or less committing us to a leap in the dark, because we are not sufficiently informed of the ideal which the Education Department and the Government have as to what ought to be done. It has been clearly explained to us how the money is to be applied so far as it supplements existing arrangements, but attention of the public has been so concentrated upon elementary education that I think scarcely enough attention has been given to that part of the Bill which is concerned with the great question of secondary education. Perhaps the noble Lord who represents the Department may be able to tell us something on this subject tomorrow. I should like to know more as to to goal at which they are aiming and the subjects they consider as necessary. There is a distinct indication given to the country authorities—whether it is mandatory or not, I will not argue with the noble Lord opposite—that they are to deal with secondary education; but as to when they are to consider that the supply is deficient, and upon what principles they will go in arrining at a proper supply, we are very much in the dark. I do not blame the Government with regard to it, because, if they had been invited to speak at greater length upon the subject of secondary education, no doubt they would have done so, but, to the great misfortune of the country, to the great misfortune of the country, to the great misfortune of education, to the misfortune of all religious bodies, the subject has been so overlaid with religious controversy that some of the greatest issues connected with this Bill have necessarily been neglected and have passed out of sight. It is a matter for deep regret that this move forward in the direction of education has been clouded to the extent which it has been
  1268
  colouded by this fog of religious controversy. By whom has it been forced? It has been forced by that body in the country, who were deeply disappointed— I put the matter quite squarely—that the hope of the demise of the voluntary schools under financial pressure would be averted by this Bill. I am not sure that most candid Members of the Opposition would not freely confess that that was at the bottom of their opposition. They have always been conscientiously against the voluntary schools. The voluntary schools since 1870 have had a terrible struggle. They have been assisting in the education of millions of children; they have done a great work; their subscriptions have been meeting that protion of the education for which it was demanded that they should pay; but it would seem that the iron hand of financial necessity was closing round the throats of the voluntary schools, and the moment was expected when death would ensue. This Bill saves the voluntary schools from that death. It has been put before us that subscriptions were falling off. It is not the subscriptions falling off which has created so much the financial difficulties of the voluntary schools. It has been the increasing demands of the Education Department. I do not say that proper pressure was not put on, but do not ley those who have supported the voluntary schools and who, in those voluntary schools, have contrubuted to the education, so far as they are concerned gratis, of a number of Dissenters—do not let them be told that it is on account of their illiberality that the voluntary schools have been at the point that unless they are saved by some Government money they must necessarily go to the wall. No; it has been increased pressure which has been put on by the Education Department—occasionally from fads—often from fads, but also from the demand of the country that the education should be more effective.
  Now, my Lords, I speak to your Lordships tonight in the capacity of the manager of a humble parish school. I have some experience form that position which I occupy, and I know practically how matters have gone. We have been told that the voluntary schools have been under no control. I think that any body who is the manager of a voluntary school will know what control is. They say "There is only inspection." What, "only inspection!" Why, the inspector is a

  1269
  despot; the inspector holds the power of the purse. Unless the local managers can satisfy the inspector the grant is cut off. They may have to dismiss their teacher. It is a fallacy—due, I think, to a want of sufficient knowledge of the practical working of these matters—to suppose that the local managers at present have been uncontrolled. They have been under the strictest possible control. We cannot have desks of any size without the inspector saying what they shall be; we cannot have hat-racks without appealing to the inspector. I myself have had to build an annexe to the school in order to have hat-racks in the cloak-room for the pupils. Of course, I was very glad to do that, but I only mention it to show how strictly we were under control. The control is so strict that I know that, in the days before the surprise visits were arranged, two or three days before the inspector came, neither the schoolmaster nor the school-mistress could ever get a night's rest. The pressure of the school inspector was thorough and despotic. That is the control under which we have been working.
  Now, my Lords, may I state what probably is new to a good many noble Lords opposite and to the public generally, that quite apart from the compulsion of the Legislature, from the very idea that it was advisable to take parents and even Dissenters into Council, there are many Boards of Management at present existing upon which Dissenters—Nonconformists—sit and act. That is so in the case of large numbers of schools. It is so in my own school. We have the vicar and myself, and we have one Churchman, and one Dissenter whom (almost altra rires, against the trust deed) the vicar himself invited to take part in our deliberations because the vicar was anxious to have a representative of the Dissenters on our Board. Now that kind of spirit is supposed not to exist amongst the clergy; and I protest against the way in which the clergy have been treated in this respect. We have cases trotted out to us where clergymen have been intolerant, and no doubt there are such cases, but against that we can set off large numbers of cases in which the clergy have voluntarily asked Dissenters to act with them
  1270
  in managing schools where there were dissenting children. One would think, when one reads and hears all the speeches that are made, that it was a terrible grievance on the Dissenters, and that the children were all being inoculated with Anglican doctrines. How many children in our voluntary schools have been withdrawn by the parents from Church instruction on account of the teaching of Anglican doctrines? It is an infinitesimal proportion. I should like noble Lords to answer the question— Why are they not withdrawn? It it because parents have known perfectly well that common-sense and useful instruction was given to the children and that there was no reason whatever to withdraw the children. It is really almost too absurd—and one wonders what the vast body of unbelievers think when they hear of the terrors which are expressed in this matter—it is almost absurd to think that the parson and the schoolmaster are conspiring together in order to Anglicise the school and in order to force dogmatic teaching on the children. I will give noble Lords opposite a test. Anglican schools have existed for the last thirty years, and they have become more and more active, they have become more and more alive to their duties. Have they so perverted the children generally who have been to the schools that the present generation are more dogmatically Anglican than the generation before? I dare say many a devout rector or vicar may wish that it was so, but when we know that the Anglicans have in such vast numbers had the field to themselves, the question is, have they done any damage to the children of this country? On the contrary, they have civilised them; they have increased their love for education, and they have done good in many parishes throughout the whole of this country. We hear a great deal about the "atmosphere," and the fear is expressed that the Nonconformists are not sufficiently protected in some of these schools. Well, I doubt whether it is a bad atmosphere. Sometimes one would wish that the atmosphere penetrated even more deeply than it does, but it requires a very strong atmosphere to be able to influence at least the agricultural children of this country. It

  1271
  will be a long time I think before dogmatic teaching sinks deeply into our agricultural population.
  Then, it has been suggested this evening that the schoolmaster might belong to a different denomination, and it is considered as a reflection against the sacred doctrine of the abolition of tests that teachers should belong to the denomination of which the school is. Now I want to know something about that. At all events I have a clear record— I ought to have a clear record, in the eyes of Nonconformists, for I myself took the main part in the abolition of tests in the Universities as Member for Oxford a great many years ago. Therefore I have got absolutely no anti-Nonconformist views in regard to this question. But common-sense would tell you that you should prefer to have in your school a teacher belonging to the denomination to which your school belongs. Take Wesleyan schools. I should like to know is there one single Wesleyan school where they have a Churchman as a master? I have never heard of one. It is said we have to deal with the teaching of our children, and we have got to think of the wishes of the parents. I heard the statement last night that parents really had nothing to say in this matter—that, as the State pays, the State should decide as to what is for the good of the community. But I hold the more old-fashioned doctrine that parents have still something to say as to the education of their children. I believe that the great majority of the parents would wish that the schoolmaster should belong to the community which they belong to themselves, and that, therefore, where there is a great majority they would themselves prefer that the majority should select the teacher.
  My Lords, I pass from that subject to a question which I confess is very obnoxious to me. It is a question that has been argued in your Lordships' House tonight, and with has been argued in the country, and it is this: What is the loss and the gain to the Church through this Bill? What is the loss and gain to the Nonconformists through this Bill? It has become almost absolutely indispensable to deal with this question, on account of the manifold misrepresentations which are
  1272
  made with regard to this Bill. One would think, listening to the speeches, not so much the lamb-like and more innocent speeches that are made in your Lordships' House, but speeches that are made else-where and on the platform, that positively this Bill threw back the position of the Nonconformists with regard to the control of our schools, and that the Church would have the schools more in their owh hands than they had before—that this was a reactionary measure, and that it was a surrender of popular control. Why, my Lords, looking at it from the point of view of the school managers, we may gain in money, but we lose largely in control. We lose more in control than, as a school manager deeply interested in the school, I myself like to contemplate. It is a heavy price that the managers of the voluntary schools have to pay for the financial relief which this Bill is to give them. I only trust that the enactments which have been made may not diminish the local interest of the school managers, which is essential for the well-con-ducting of these schools. You may lay down your syllabuses and your books; you may lay down your programme and the number of your teachers, centrally or by an education committee; still the managers have got to see that it is all carried out, and they have got to see what influence they can bring to bear upon the whole tone of the school. That is a matter that has scarcely been touched upon in any of the discussions upon this Bill. The question of the tone of the school has been entirely ignored—as if you could separate absolutely secular education from religious education—and three has been the fear that some little breath of religious education might unfortunately permeate into secular education.
  Well, my Lords, it Is, I confess very difficult to separate the two, but now let me take the secular education in the first place. I have, I hope, proved conclusively that, as it is, the school managers have not been uncontrolled; that if they had Government money there if they had Government money there was Government control— continuous, formal, effective Government control payment by results being the result of inspection. The powers which have been exercised by the school managers are now to be transferred practically to the education committees. I do not quite know

  1273
  how that will work in detail, but hitherto under the Code the school managers have managed the books and the times of the school, within certain limits the subjects, the degree of interest to be given to each, and especially I may mention the syllabuses—the books. Noble Lords tonight have said: "Oh, there will be no really effective control taken away from the managers." I say that all control is taken away. It is said: "Oh, you will be able to dismiss or to appoint the teachers." You cannot dismiss the teachers. The local authority has a veto upon that. The local authority can coerce the local managers almost in every conceivable educational point. Noble Lords opposite, and those who oppose this Bill, may be delighted at that result; it will be taken away from "those incompetent school managers"—men who have loved their schools, who have supported them for thirty years, but who are to be displaced now by those who dislike denominational education, and wish to substitute a different system for it. They are to be displaced. Their power is to be transferred to the local authorities. Dissenters say that this is a Church Bill, and that it is the Church that gains. But the fact is, that popular control over secular education is under this Bill effectively, decidedly, and widely transferred to the local authorities.
  Now, my Lords, the school managers are to have two members appointed beyond their own four. I should like to know who those two are likely to be—I mean, not the persons, but the class. I can conceive two different theories. I can conveive the theory — and this is the theory which is put forward by the belligerent and aggressive Nonconformists—that if there were a Nonconformist, or a secular, or a Cowper-Temple majority on some of the County Councils, they would put on two men on purpose to represent that side. If controversy is to be the guiding factor in the appointment of the two additional school managers, then, indeed, I fear there will be friction beyond end, and I fear efforts may be made to wreck those results which every patriotic citizen would desire to see following from this Bill. But I do not think that that need be the interpretation put upon it. The interpretation I should myself wish to see put upon it is that in choosing the two managers who are to be added to the four the governing idea would be
  1274
  some view to local considerations. If there was a considerable body of Dissenters, a Dissenter should be put on, not to fight but to co-operate; a parent should be put on to put forward his views, not to create friction but to avoid friction; and from that point of view (as noble Lords have seen from the experiments which I mentioned as having been tried in my own parish and which have been tried elsewhere) the addition of others is useful. But at all events there you have the successive loss of power—some of it right, some of it perhaps wrong—from the school managers. You lose your sole control, because two others are to be put on the school managing committee from outside. You have no power left, but the whole power of the six is to be transferred to the education committee. Therefore I say that, as regards secular education, with all the powers reserved for the education committee and ultimately for the County Councils, to say that this Bill is conceived in opposition to popular control is as great a perversion of the truth as has ever been made by a partizan, a pamphleteer, or a controversialist on the platform, or by any other person. It is absolutely untrue. The position is there. We are saved by the finance, but we are saved to continue a precarious existence under the absolute control of popularly elected bodies.
  There is one point that strikes me incidentally. Besides having the two additional members joined on to the four who, I will say, belong to us, are we to have inspectors appointed by the local authority? I have heard nothing about that. I do not know whether the noble lord who represents the Department will be able to tell us more about that.
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: The authority may inspect.
  VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: Yes, they may inspect, and a pretty inspection that will be. We have already got the Government Inspector. Now we are going to have two despots—the central despot and the local despot. Whether there will be the slightest harmony between the local despot and the central despot is a question which I should be very sorry to answer, except as expressing my conviction that they are certain not entirely to agree. And who is to overrule? That is a point that has not been explained at all. Suppose the

  1275
  local inspector says; "I will not have such and such a book: that book is a bad one; it is ineffective; it does not represent the popular view of history or geography"—(perhaps there will be more difference as to history than as to geography!)—who is to decide between the two? And there will be the wretched school managers who are to be inspected by a local inspector who will tell them that something is all wrong; they meet his views; then the Government Inspector comes down and tells them that it is all right. And the Government Inspectors are not always consistent; one inspector does not always take the same view as another inspector. On that subject I could tell your Lordships some doleful tales; it is one of those factors which has assisted in ruining the finances of the voluntary schools. I myself have had an experience in that direction. Pictures were ordered at great cost on the representation of some inspector; they were bought; the children were excellently taught according to those pictures by object lessons, and so forth. (Noble Lords will excuse me if my nomenclatare is not absolutely correct. Then a new inspector was appointed, and he came down and said: "All that is too much advanced; you are trying the brains of the infants too much; they answer the questions very well, but they are too advanced, and you must have a totally different set of pictures." Well, my Lords, that is very trying to voluntary school finances. But I want to know is that going to be a danger to which local finance is to be exposed in the future? What are to be the relations between the central Department and the local authorities? Will be central Department treat the local authorities with a little more deference than they have treated the school managers, and will they treat them all alike? Will they be able to maintain the uniformity which hitherto they have in vain attempted to secure through the inspectors? Will they be able to attain it through their popularly elected local bodies? That is a question that the future will have to decide; but I must say that I think the question of double inspection is one which really demands consideration, because it may expose the whole system to a very considerable degree of pressure.
  My Lords, I pass from the question of secular education to the very difficult question of religious education. Here
  1276
  I would deprecate in the strongest possible manner the attempts which have been made, I do not say directly, but impliedly, or perhaps I should say the tone which has been adopted, regarding the close connection of the clergy with these schools. I think that that close connection is of the greatest importance. It may be nece sary to check the excesses of a certain class of parsons who bring obloquy on the whole body of the clergy—an obloquy which ought to restrain them, whatever their convictions may be. The whole tone of the debates in another place, and of many speeches on the platform—in fact, I am not sure that it has not penetrated even within these walls tonight—is this! the clergyman is a rather dangerous man as regards the school. Heaven forbid that such a view as that should penetrate the public opinion of the country! It would be a calamity if it were so, as the reverse is the case. The men who are to be checked by the Kenyon-Slaney Clause are, as was extremely well put by my noble friend Lord Lansdowne, a very, very small minority, but, of course, what they do is exaggerated in public opinion, and put forward as if it were the practice of the clergy at large. I say without hesitation that some of them, very extreme men, are pseudo- Anglicans, but they are worse than that in one respect, for they are also pseudo- Romanists, because they will not submit to the discipline which the Romanists would exact from any recalcitrant clergyman. They claim the licence of the English Church, while they put for ward doctrines which are not the doctrines of the English Church. I think, and I say so frankly, that they have done incalculable harm to the clergy at large, and I regret it with a regret the depth of which I cannot express, because, I hold, on the other hand, that the Church during recent years has developed a vigorous life under feelings of enthusiasm which has been of the greatest advantage to the country at large. We no longer have the cold clergy of a certain number of years ago. There are men—a good many perhaps—who would perfer to have the cold, easygoing rector or vicar of, say, thirty years ago; they would prefer not to see men who are meddling far beyond their

  1277
  own school. Meddling? No, moulding, often, the civilisation of their parishes, and they would prefer to see quieter men.
  Now, my Lords, there is one thing which is as certain as anything in the world, and that is, that for all great movements—for life itself—you want enthusiasm. The reason I resent the excesses of fanatics is that it brings a certain amount of obloquy on enthusiasts. What have not the enthusiasts amongst the clergy done during these last years? The Right Rev. Prelate the Archbishop of Canterbury has spoken of their services and their pecuniary sufferings, but what have they not done in the way of assisting, apart from their own pulpits, the cause of civilisation in crowded towns? Think of the occupation of these men—you will see why I ask you to think of it in a moment. Their occupation in the large towns, and to a certain extent in the country also, is what? They have to wage a terrible fight. They have to fight barbarism, darkness, sin, poverty, all in their vilest shapes. Day after day these devoted men are struggling in the performance of that sacred duty as soldiers of the Cross. But there is one redeeming duty that they have to discharge. What is that redeeming duty? It is that of looking after their schools. I am told that from all these sights and from all this work among the depraved, the poor, and the unbelieving, where they are fighting a hopeless battle, they come to their school, and it is in the school that they see the hope of the regeneration of the next generation. It is in the innocent, or the comparatively innocent, children whom they have before them that they see some consolation, some privilege, some redeeming feature in their terrible and sombre work. I say that to discourage these men would be a calamity. There is one right rev. Prelate, at any rate, who well knows what these things are. The Right Rev. the Bishop of London has been in the East End of London; he knows what are the duties of the clergy there and what their miseries are. If the result of these debates was to cast a slur upon the clergy, or cause suspicions to be expressed towards them, because in their zeal they wish to retain some command and some control over their schools, it would be a great pity. Let us not begrudge them this task, associated as they will be with the managers. Do not let us put enactments
  1278
  into a Bill which would seem to imply that the clergy of the country are not to be trusted with that which is their sacred duty, and which they have hitherto attempted to discharge, viz., their work in moulding the hearts and souls of the young.
  *LORD RIBBLESDALE: My Lords, if I may say so without offence, it seems to me that the motor muscle of the eloquent speech to which we have just listened is the happy experiences which the noble Viscount has had owing to his influence with those with whom he has had to do in the management of a voluntary school. I should like to say here that I do not think the experiences he has related to us are exceptional. I am a manager of a voluntary school myself, and I think most people know the difficulty of scraping together subscriptions and keeping up to the mark. I hope I love my school as much as the noble Viscount loves his, but I confess, like the fat boy in "Pickwick," that the noble Viscount made my flesh creep when he spoke of all the new difficulties with which we should be faced under the Bill, a Bill which I agree with him falls far short of an ideal Bill in its management Clauses with regard to voluntary schools. I think we all admire the rather Salvator Rosa-ish picture which he drew of the devotion of the clergy, but I must say, for my own part, that I disassociate myself altogether from the picture he drew of people on this side of the House who take a different view of the clergy from that held by himself.
  I confess, my Lords, that I thought the whole area of this subject had been explored, and that there was very little new for anybody to say. The speech of the noble Viscount, however, has wonderfully fertilised the ground, and I have no doubt that in the debate tomorrow he will hear a good many points made, not perhaps against, but at any rate suggested by the points he has made so admirably tonight.
  I do not want to give a silent vote on this Bill, because up in the West Riding we do not think much of it, and in that part of the world we are pretty stiff in our convictions. Mr. Fox said that by being a good Churchman you might

  1279
  become a bad citizen. Speaking for myself, I hope I am a good Churchman; I always listen to the right rev. Bench with interest, and very often with acceptance; I read the lives of great Churchmen, and I approve of a Parliamentary religion. Perhaps, in view of some of the provisions of the scheme now before us, the measure of my approval of a Parliamentary religion is to some extent the measure of my disapproval of the Bill.
  The noble Viscount expressed the wish that people on this side of the House would confine themselves to some main ground of objection. I will endeavour to conform to that wish. My main ground of objection to the Bill is that instead of giving us a great educational measure, it seems to me that, as regards voluntary schools, the Government are giving us an Ecclesiastical Instrument. Speaking for myself, I do not want to be taken back to the days of Bishop Jewell, who, putting it generally, held that the voice of the Church was to be held superior to the voice of reason. Nor do I wish to be taken back to the days of tests Nor am I prepared to be satisfied with a very weak dose of education in what seems to me to be a strong decoction of denominational teaching and local government. I do not know what are the general views of the noble Viscount on the Bill, but, as far as I could see, his happy experiences as a manager of a voluntary school led him to make somthing very like an attack in force on the management Clauses of the measure, and he has made it quite clear that he does not approve very much of what I was prepared to say a good word for, namely, the secondary education parts of the Bill. As he is a staunch supporter of His Majesty's Government I will not say what I was going to say, but will accept his adverse criticism that this matter ought to have been looked into much more closely than it was.
  Now, the main line of defence in the speeches both of the noble Duke who introduced the Bill, and of the Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury was that the measure co-ordinated education. All through these debates I have noticed that the word "co-ordination" is a sort of "Mesopotamia" which gets people out of difficulties—or into them. The
  1280
  Prime Minister stated the other day that secondary and elementary education were to be indivisible halves of one great whole, and that one authority was to be responsible for education, for rating, and for administering monies within its area. This body, as we know, is, as the case may be, either the Town or the County Council. What does that mean? It is a body elected, in both cases, for quite different duties both in kind and in degree. These bodies, again to quote the Prime Minister, are now
  "constituted by Act of Parliament in a true and real sense the arbiters of education in the area of control."
  I suppose—and here I find myself in tolerable agreement with the noble Viscount—that that practically means the extinction as a very active force of the old Board of Education. But what is this co-ordination? I would like the noble Duke to tell us whether I should be co-ordinating my affairs if I suddenly bade my agent, whom I had engaged to look after my planting, my draining, and my estate accounts, to choose the governess for the young ladies, to suggest the course of their education, and to select the "coaches" and the public schools to which the young gentlemen of my family were to be a credit. And, to follow out the metaphor, if I were to do this, I should, of course, have to abdicate all control myself, and to pay the piper for a tune I did not call. I do not know whether or not that is co-ordination, but that seems to me to be the position in which you are placing these local authorities. They were elected for quite a different set of duties, and suddenly they are told they are to undertake the education of the country. Far be it from me to speak lightly of local authorities of any sort. I preside over the cautious operation of a Parish Council, and I belong to the London County Council. I hope, without any disrespect to the London County Council, I may say here that when the time comes to deal with London, I should feel much more easy if I saw the London County Council entrusted with the making and the working—certainly the working—of tube railways than if I saw them appointed sole arbiters of elementary education. However, co-ordination is to be the new basis and the progressive force of education. The Primate laid great stress

  1281
  on the advantages which this Bill offered for securing efficiency in every part. Here I would like to ask whether you will get much co-ordination in a lean clay country, with agricultural wages of perhaps 14s. a week, an impoverished body of ratepayers, and a gentry very much out at elbow? Are their views and action in matters of education likely to be the same as those of, say, the County Council of the West Riding? I do not think they are. But I will pass from that. I am afraid it is impossible to find any fresh ground, so I will take up a matter touched upon by Lord Coleridge. He asked, what is the immediate contribution to the increased efficiency of education under this Bill? In the first place—and I am talking now of the towns—with provided schools—I see that the School Boards are to be abolished, they are to be co-ordinated out of existence. Everybody, I believe, pays tribute to the good work they have done, and Lord Spencer put before us very clearly what this abolition of the School Boards means, viz., the great loss to the country of a volume of expert, trained, and devoted service. It is quite true that by the grace and favour of the new agencies created by the Bill, the members of School Boards may be appointed as nominees, or they may be willing to stand the racket of a municipal election. But will they care to stand that racket? I do not know that they will; they may have no taste for sewers, lamp-posts, highways, or lunatic asylums; and I am bound to say that it seems a most extraordinary start to make, especially at a time when there is a sort of actuinest de republica complexion about every expert on education, owing to our want of education. We are told that we are being beaten in the markets of the world, although the doctors differ as to whether it is due to bad elementary education or to the want of secondary education. We are told that it is quite as much for one or other reason as by our partiality for high wages, short hours, and plenty of rational amusement. I confess that I feel no confidence in this sudden flinging of ourselves educationally on the municipal bosom, this shedding, as it were, of tried and trained servants. Even in the case of the voluntary schools, which the noble Viscount tells us are to be saved under this Bill, I feel only a qualified alleviation of this anxiety when I know that the
  1282
  new system is to be inaugurated, protected, nurtured, and perfected by the oversight of the right rev. Prelates from their bishopries, and by the inspired efforts of the foundation managers on the spot, of whom, with any ordinary luck, I hope to be one.
  Some time ago—but not very long—the Primate levelled at His Majesty's Government the suggestion that they were not a very brave Government. I do not think that anybody will say that now. They have got rid of School Boards; they have pouched—that is not a very nice word—they have collared the endowments—I cannot find quite the right word. ["Appropriated." "Commandeered."] Well, they have appropriated the endowments; they draw the rent for teachers' houses; they have assigned fees in relief of subscriptions: they have renewed tests; and they have unhorsed that venerable maxim that representation and taxation should go together. It is a long time since the Primate—he was then Dr. Temple—used these words (I am speaking of the Commission of 1858)—
  "I should leave the parents of the children to determine the religious character which a public school should have."
  At the same time, he deprecated the spreading influence of a particular denomination, and said that the religious zeal of that particular denomination was very unhealthy. These voluntary schools now become public schools. And what did the Primate do not very long ago? He warned the voluntary schools against getting on "the slippery slope of rate aid." He said that that would be the end of them. But to-night he has told us that the Bill is a very fine thing for the voluntary schools because they will get off the uncertain basis of voluntary subscriptions by receiving rate aid. I think the Primate was quite right. He never thought—I do not suppose that anyone did at that time—that a Bill of this sert would be brought in. Mr. Haldane, who is a stalwart for the Bill, writes in one of the most influential of the magazines, that Ministers have been "brokers in this mater between Educationalists and the Church." If that is the case, I am bound to say that I do not think the people of this country, or a very large section of them, will be much inclined to employ them again as brokers.

  1283
  Now I will turn to the education to be provided by Part III. of the Bill. I said at the beginning of my remarks that we had a very strong decoction of what I will call religious politics as against very little about education. In the statement as to the weak dose of education pure and simple, I find I may claim the support of the Prime Minister. Speaking at the Guildhall recently, he said that questions of religion and local government had been a great deal discussed in these debates, but he could not remember much time being given to education. I do not think that that was due to any defect in the Prime Minister's memory; the defect is in his Bill. The fact is, the Bill provides very little for the educationalist to say. Part III. all refers to local government. What do all these Clauses and sub-Sections work up to? Implicitly to the generating of a religious atmosphere, and to keeping it at a particular pitch. In Shakespeare's line—
  "The why is plain as way to Parish Church.
  It is, as I said just now, the machinery of an Ecclesiastical Instrument. When I first obtained the Bill I looked feverishly through it for something to do with education. The only thing I could find was hidden away in Clause 23, the definition Clause, which, I believe, was closured, and there I found that the mixture is as before, but it is to be made up by fresh chemists, put into new bottles, and labelled with—what shall I call it?—a clergy or bishop's brand. No doubt, here and there, through the Bill you get a glance of that now attenuated organism the Board of Education, a vision of its former self. I quite agree with Lord Goschen that we used to be very much afraid of the Board of Education; it kept us up to the mark very well, particularly in the days of Mr. Acland, and really I, as a manager of a voluntary school, was always afraid to open my letters. Now, as I understand, the Board of Education is only to be called in to give ticklish judgments on the thorny complications which abound throughout this Bill. I am glad to be able to congratulate my old friend Lord Londonderry on looking in health and spirits; he does not appear to feel his situation at all. I am sure he will manage the business very well and that he will steer with ability between the Scylla of the Secular and the Charybdis of the Church controversialists.
  1284
  I have always noticed that the danger of a Second Reading speech is that, if you look at the Clauses at all, you are told that you ought to reserve your observations until the Committee stage, while if you do not look at the Clauses you are said to be shirking the Bill. I will do a little of both, and get off as lightly as I can. I followed very carefully, and agreed with a great deal of the speech of the noble Viscount with regard to Clause 7. It seems to me an extraordinary Clause. The local authority are to tell the managers what to teach, they are to tell them the right sort of man to teach it, in some cases they can appoint and not dismiss, in other cases they can affirm a dismissal but have nothing to do with the appointment; they are to act on their own views, and yet there is no sort of obligation laid upon them so far as I can see from the Clause, to take any expert advice on the subject. They will have an Education Committee, but I do not know that they are bound to act on its advice. How are they to know all this? Are they to know it by the light of Nature? As Lord Spencer has said, the authority may be some fifty or seventy miles away from the scene of operations; how are they to know all about these matters? I suppose the anonymous letter writer, who always plays a great part in this sort of affair, will come out and inform them of what is going on.
  Then I come to the very thing of which Lord Goschen made such a strong point. The local authority can inspect. What are they going to inspect? Will they inspect log-books or lavatories? No doubt these are very good things in their way to inspect, but they will not get you on much educationally. And how do they inspect—like the Government inspector? Lord Goschen asked all these questions and I should very much like to have an answer to them. I quite agree, as far as I read the Clause, it gives the local authority only an enabling power; it does not oblige them to inspect. I can quite see that if they exercise their enabling power they may come into collision with the inspector under the Education Department. I hope we shall have some answers to these questions to-morrow. It seems to me that out of this Clause 7, the local authority and the foundation managers, the noble Marquess and the

  1285
  Board of Education will emerge with very confused notions of their relative powers and duties and possibilities, but, I think, with very firm convictions that they will have endless opportunities of treading on each other's toes.
  I agree that probably all these things will work out. solvitur ambulando is a maxim which applies with wonderfully happy and practical results to English affairs, but I am not so sure about the religious difficulty. Sir John Gorst, whose utterances on education every body reads with interest, has said that the religious difficulty flourishes only on the floor of Parliament and on the platform. I used to think so myself, but I must say that the course of this Bill through Parliament and the feeling which it has aroused in the country make me think it will flourish anywhere if you give it a chance—and I am afraid His Majesty's Government have given it that chance. You have provided us, as somebody has said, with bickerings for ten years to come. The administrative part of the Bill teems with occasions for friction and misunderstanding. The religious atmosphere that you have created—and this I think is the most serious part of all—divides Church and Nonconformity into standing camps, and remits to the Greek Kalends the concordat which I think all sincere people, whatever their views on the matter, really desired to see arrived at.
  Now why do I say this? I was very glad to hear the Duke of Devonshire speak quite openly of the tests. I say it because implicitly and explicitly throughout the Bill, you have re-imposed tests. You have Church of England managers for the non-provided schools, and it is clear that the head teachers in these schools also will be Church of England men. I quite admit the toleration of the secondary education part of the Bill, but I adhere to my view that the tests of the elementary part are in a form which is justifiably very unpopular and alarming to a large section of the people of the country. By the Bill it is clear that the seed ground of doctrinal teaching is to be children under fifteen years of age. After that, I suppose they are considered to be immune, unless during that period they have come under the influence of some infidel pupil teacher or assistant teacher, and this brings out
  1286
  how clearly it is meant that the head-teacher should be a Church of England man.
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: Is that in Clause 15?
  *LORD RIBBLESDALE: No, my 15 has to do with age. I will give the Clause. I said you were a bold Government. In Clause 7, sub-Section 4, you have been sufficiently brave to define the age of denominational puberty. You say that the pupil teacher and the assistant teacher may be anything you please; it is only the head teacher about whom you are particular?
  I have here several sincere questions which I wish to put to the noble Duke. I want to ask him about the head teacher. What are the tests? What is required to constitute membership of the Church of England as by this Bill established? Is it the test of Baptism? If so, would baptism by a Nonconformist minister be valid?
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: Where does the Bill say anything about tests?
  *LORD RIBBLESDALE: I say that tests are provided for.
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: Where?
  *LORD RIBBLESDALE: Explicitly by the operation of your Bill.
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: Where?
  *LORD RIBBLESDALE: You prescribe that the pupil teacher may be anything you like; you make the foundation managers Church of England people. The trust deeds of voluntary schools always affirm that, so that naturally your foundation managers will be Church of England people, unless you go against the trust. deeds, which I do not believe that even this courageous Government mean to do. I say that explicitly by the operation of the Bill, and implicitly by its wording, you re-impose tests, and the noble Duke all through his speech spoke of the tests of the Bill. What I want to know is how we arrive at the test. Is it the test of baptism? Is it the test of confirmation?

  1287
  Is it the test of attendance at Holy Communion? Is the attendance to be regular or occasional, or is it to be according to the Prayer-book, that every parishioner should communicate at least three times in the years, of which Easter is to be one?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (The Earl of ONSLOW): Is this in the Bill?
  *LORD RIBBLESDALE: I am asking all these questions of the Government. If you are so keen on having Church of England teachers, how do you satisfy yourselves that they are Church of England teachers?
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: The managers will do that.
  *LORD RIBBLESDALE: Who is to certify that they are members of the Church of England? Is there to be any certificate?
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: The managers will attend to that.
  *LORD RIBBLESDALE: Is it to be on the affidavit of the managers, like Lord Rosebery's German waiter?
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: The managers have the power of appointing, subject to the control of the county authority.
  *LORD RIBBLESDALE: Supposing that under the trust deed people are not satisfied with the appointment on the ground that the person appointed is not what they conceive to be a member of the Church of England; whether he is a manager or a teacher, who is to decide the point?
  *THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: Four managers are appointed by the trust deed.
  *LORD RIBBLESDALE: But I am talking of the test which you apply to the teachers.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I think there is some misunderstanding. There is no test applied to the teachers. The appointment of teachers rests in the
  1288
  hands of the managers. The trust deed appoints four of those managers to be of the same denomination as that to which the school belongs, and the other two are appointed by the local authority. Therefore, the majority, with the Chairman—who is understood to be the clergyman—will have the appointment of the teacher who is supposed to represent their own religious teaching.
  *LORD RIBBLESDALE: Of course I must accept the explanation of the noble Marquess, who is at the head of the Board of Education, and probably knows the points to which I am referring. I really did not know of whom to ask these questions; whether of the noble Duke or the noble Marquess, or the right rev. Bench or Lord Hugh Cecil, or Mr. Lloyd-George.
  Enough of that. It seems to me that, while it is the duty of the State to educate all alike in secular affairs and good citizenship, those higher duties which we associate with religion should be learnt elsewhere, and that the clergy of all denominations are the proper persons to teach them. That is my individual opinion. Having regard to the majority which His Majesty's Government enjoys in the House of Commons, and to its dictatorship in the House of Lords, and having regard especially to the resolute, yet flexible, mind and high statesmanship of the Prime Minister, I wish that before the right hon. Gentleman had put his hand to drafting this Bill he had tried to arrange a conference with Nonconformists and Leaders of the Church. I believe tha by that means a concordat might have been arrived at, towards the bringing about of which his own tact and ability would have done wonders. However, that has not been done, and there is nothing more to be said about it.
  I also wish that with the special advantages enjoyed by His Majesty's Government the opportunity had been taken to work the teachers connected with elementary education into a sort of national Civil Service, with its possibilities of promotion. That, of course, would have had to be in the hands of local authorities, for I cannot conceive that in these days, even a Government endowed with the courage and the advantages of the present Administration, would have dared to impose religious tests upon a branch of the Civil Service. But, after

  1289
  all, these are, so to speak, only alternative kites, which contribute nothing to a Second Reading debate. I merely express my regret that nothing was done to bring the teachers into a national Civil Service, and that before you put your hands to the draft of this Bill no steps were taken in an endeavour to arrive at a concordat.
  In conclusion, my Lords, I disagree with this Bill on three main grounds, which leave me very little to agree with. I disagree with it because, by doing away with School Boards you are depriving education of the directly elected services of trained and devoted educational experts. My second ground of disagreement is, that you are ignoring the necessity—as I think, the proved - to - demonstration necessity—of a central educational force, such as the old Board of Education. My third ground of disagreement is that by the provisions of this Bill for the non-provided—that is, the old voluntary—schools you are re-affirming tests. In 1827, on the repeal of the Tests Act, Lord John Russell wrote to Moore "of the joy of having forced the enemy from his first line, that none but Churchmen were worthy to serve the State." Lady Spencer, who, I believe was grandmother of the noble Earl who leads us on this side of the House, wrote Lord John, from the experience of a long life passed in the heart of public affairs, congratulating him on the relief of Dissenters, and predicting a concurrence and unanimity of intelligence and enterprise which would be brought to the service of the State. My Lords, would that this union and consent of heart and mind had been evident in the course of this Bill, and in a great portion of the country. Would that the Bill had not by its provisions laid down that none but Churchmen are worthy to serve the State in half the elementary schools of the country in the high cause of education. Unfortunately, the right rev. Prelates, His Majesty's Government, and the exigencies of the situation as regards the great difficulties in which the voluntary schools found themselves, have willed it otherwise, and we are now asked to give a Second Reading to a Bill which throws education into the arena of religious politics, quarters the whole, or nearly the whole, cost upon the people at large, and sets at naught some of those principles which we have held to be more or less sacred since the
  1290
  day of Ship Money. As far as I am concerned, I shall vote with cheerful conviction against the Second Reading of such a measure.
  THE EARL OF CHMPERDOWN: My Lords, if I may attempt to summarise the interesting but somewhat discursive speech to which we have just listened, I think I may take it that the noble Lord regards this Bill as an ecclesiastical instrument. I think he said further that it was a religious decoction with an episcopal label. Without pursuing those remarks, I would like to answer one observation which he made towards the conclusion of his speech, viz., "That this Bill re-affirms tests." I am utterly at a loss to understand what he means by that statement. So far as I have read the Bill, and I have read it very carefully, there is nothing in the Bill about tests of any sort or kind. The fact to which I presume he was referring was that the headmasters in voluntary schools under trust deeds are to be members of the Church of England. But, my Lords, the test, if the noble Lord likes to use that word, is contained not in this Bill, but in the trust deed, and, so far from re-affirming tests, all that this Bill does is to leave the trust deed in that respect exactly as it now stands.
  The noble Lord, in the course of his speech, said very little directly about voluntary schools. I venture to submit that in considering either this or any other Bill dealing with education in England and Wales, it is impossible to arrive at any useful conclusion unless you always keep in mind the existing condition of things with regard to education. You must remember this, that 15,000 out of 20,000 are voluntary schools, and that in them are educated more than half the children of England. If, therefore, you propose to consider the educational position and leave out of account the voluntary schools, you are looking at only half the situation. The board schools are supported by the rates, and no doubt educate nearly half the children in England, but there are a large number of people who are not satisfied with the religious education which is perfectly satisfactory to Lord Spencer and many others. How is it possible or practical to put forward a proposition ignoring the voluntary schools? We hear talk about buying up the voluntary schools, or of leasing them from people

  1291
  who do not want to let them, or of establishing Loard schools in every parish in England. Phrases of that sort are all very well for the platform, but for any purpose other than that of mere declamation they are perfectly idle, and will not stand examination.
  There is another point which, in considering this Bill, I think we ought to keep before us. I am addressing myself now more particularly to those who support voluntary schools, and especially the ecclesiastical supporters of those schools. We must remember that there is all the difference in the world between a school and a church. The primary object of Church schools as laid down in the trust deeds is to give education. The religious education given in those schools is the secondary and not the primary object of their existence. Therefore, for anyone to talk about shutting up these schools because the religious teaching is not to be given solely by the clergyman or exactly in the way that he suggests seems to me to be a very unfortunate position for the Church to take up. If the mischievous advice—for I must call it mischievous—which I have heard given at some meetings and in some speeches were to be adopted, viz., that the Church schools should be closed, you may depend upon it that that would be a most unfortunate course of, action for the Church, and would do more to undermine her authority than any other course of conduct that could be pursued.
  The Government have been found fault with for bringing forward this Bill, on the ground that they had no mandate to do anything of the kind. I was very glad to hear that Lord Spencer, at all events, made no allegation of that kind. We all know that the Education question is a pressing question, and we know also that is an extremely dangerous question for any Government to touch. The history of the Education question since 1870 may be stated in a very few words. In 1870, board schools were established, rate-aid was first given, and grants were made to voluntary and other schools as they were earned. From that day to this, as was said by Lord Goschen to-night, the requirements of the Education Department have been constantly on the increase. Different
  1292
  Governments have increased the grants, but the requirements have increased to an even greater extent. I do not find any fault with those increasing requirements. It is no doubt necessary that the standard of education should be higher, but, at the same time, voluntary aid and liberality can go only a certain distance, and that is the position in which you find yourselves at the present time. It simply comes to this: Are you going to strike out these voluntary schools altogether? If you are not prepared to do that—and I do not believe it would be seriously proposed, certainly not by any responsible Government—what other course have you except that of giving aid from the rates. Whatever you may say of this Bill—you may say it is not perfect, or that it dose not provide a complete solution of the question, or other general remarks of that kind which are, no doubt, to a considerable extent true—will anyone say that it is not a considerable advance? I am not going through the Bill. The noble Duke, in introducing this measure, enumerated various points in which this Bill wrought changes in the educational system of this country. You must at all events concede that one authority is created, that the Bill for the first time draws a distinction in accordance with the Cockerton judgment, between elementary and secondary education, and that the question of an undenominational training college for teachers is to a large extent, if not completely, settled.
  Turning now to the enactments of the Bill, the complaint I have to raise against the measure is that it does not enable the local authority which it professes to trust to inquire into the small schools. Your Lordships will remember that the whole principle of the Bill is to set up this local authority, to give it all the income, to give it all the powers over the Committee, to give it powers over the managers, and over every department of education. The Government say the local authority may raise the question of whether schools are necessary, but the moment you come to the smallest schools, viz., those with an attendance of thirty or so, they are to be considered necessary and into these schools there is to be no inquiry. I think I may fairly ask what

  1293
  is the reason for such an enactment as that? Prima facie, it seems to me absolutely contrary to the principle of the Bill. You propose to trust the local authority; why, then, is the local authority not to inquire into the schools which, of all schools, most require to be inquired into? You are placing, for the first time, the schools of the county on the county. You are going to say that these schools are to be kept up for all time out of the county rate. It seems to me that of all the schools that should be inquired into these are the very schools into which it is most desirable the local authority should be authorised to inquire.
  There is another matter, but one which does not, perhaps, so much affect this House, viz., the financial question. After considerable examination, it appears to me that the financial terms of the Bill are most unfortunate. Let me for a moment remind your Lordships of what the present system of finance is—the system laid down by the Act of 1870. In the first place, you had the subscriptions; these are paid by the owners. In the next place you had the grants earned by the school. The subscriptions and grants are all paid to the managers. If anything further is required it falls upon the managers to collect the money in the best way they can. In that way managers have a very considerable position and a large financial responsibility. But what do you do by this Bill? You entirely destroy the parish as the financial unit created by the Act of 1870. All the grants are paid over, not to the managers of the school by which they were earned, but direct to the local authority. The managers have no income, because, of course, subscriptions have entirely disappeared. No one will subscribe when he has not the remotest idea as to where his money will go. The income of the managers will consist merely of whatever the local authority chooses to give them. The local authority is bound it is true, to maintain the school, but there is nothing whatsoever in the Bill to indicate that if a school under the managers earns a good grant, that grant, or any fixed proportion of it. shall be paid to the managers. In this way, it appears to me that you do away with all individual interest in the schools. What interest will a schoolmaster any
  1294
  longer have in getting a high grant? He will have no knowledge of what becomes of it when earned. What interest will the managers have? It matters not to them. So long as the school attains the standard of educational proficiency, whatever it may be, fixed by the local authority, they will receive the cost of maintenance, and that is all they will get.
  Then, not merely that, my Lords, but for the first time you introduce a county rate. You place this charge upon the county instead of the parish, and you place it upon the occupiers instead of the owners. I have looked into a great many cases, and in a certain number of agricultural parishes it came to what amounted to nearly 5d. in the £. If you put on a county rate of 5d. in the £, depend upon it you will hear a great deal from the occupiers of land. Besides that, you are really attacking the basis on which all English rating rests.
  The next question on which I wish to address your Lordships is as to what really will be the cost under this Bill. That is a question which no human being can answer. There is a reference in the Bill to a threepenny rate. I remember that in the discussions on the Education Bill of 1870, the late Mr. Forster spoke of a threepenny rate. A threepenny rate! All that we know about the various financial calculations made in connection with Education Bills is that they have invariably been exceeded—exceeded not merely to a small extent, but in some cases doubled or even trebled. Clause 10 (b) is a financial conundrum. I do not know whether any of your Lordships have read it, but I should like to know whether either the noble Duke or the noble Marquess can interpret it. It is this: "In lieu of the aid grant you are to receive a sum equal to 4s. per scholar." That I understand. Then you are to receive—
  "an additional sum of three-halfpence per scholar for ever complete twopence per scholar by which the amount which would be produced by a penny rate on the area of the authority falls short of ten shillings a scholar; provided that in estimating the produce of a penny rate in the area of a local education authority not being a county borough the rate should be calculated on the county rate basis."
  Then the Clause, which, up to this point, has dealt, or professes to deal, only with

  1295
  the aid grant, bursts out into a general disquisition on grants, and says—
  "But if in any year the total amount of Parliamentary grants payable to a local educational authority would make the amount payable out of other sources by that authority on account of their expenses under Part III. of this Act less than the amount which would be produced by a rate of threepence in the pound, the Parliamentary grants shall be decreased, and the amount payable shall be increased by a sum equal in each case to half the difference."
  I worked very hard at that Clause for some time, and I invoked the aid of one or two skilled persons who were not altogether unconnected with the preparation of the Bill, but I am bound to say I should be very sorry to have to make the necessary calculations. In the first place it would be necessary to obtain the number of scholars in each county; then you would have to find out how much it would take to bring the amount up to 10s. each child; then you get into the three-halfpence and twopences calculation; in short, I can neither make head nor tail of it. I hope when we are in Committee the noble Duke will give us a lucid explanation, so that we may be able to understand the Clause. ["You cannot amend it."] No, but we can discuss it. We do not want to amend it, but it would be most satisfactory if anybody could give us something approaching a lucid explanation of it. We must remember that with regard to the cost of this Bill, no calculation whatsoever can be made from what has been spent up to the present time. As soon as this Bill passes the voluntary schools will no longer be under financial necessities; they will at once be levelled up to the standard of the board schools. I dare say that that may be a very good thing, but, at the same time, the increase of expense which your Lordships and the country must be prepared for is, I believe, very large indeed.
  Then we come to another matter which was alluded to by Lord Goschen to-night, and that is the question of the two inspectors. I dare say it has sometimes happened to your Lordships when you had a point which you thought a rather good one that somebody else has made it before you. That is what Lord Goschen has done in regard to this matter to-night. I had intended to bring this point of the two inspectors before your Lordships, but he has
  1296
  done so fully and thoroughly. You are aware of the objections there are even to one inspector in the fact that all inspectors, even Board Inspectors, are not necessarily sensible men, but when you add to the Board Inspectors these new inspectors, who, apparently, under the Bill, may and probably will be sent by the local authority, the case is much worse. You will have not only two inspectors but two sets of requirements, and two sets of requirements occasionally mean, as Lord Goschen said, two sets of faddists, and certainly a very considerable increase of expenditure. My regret at the alteration which has been made in the financial system of the Act of 1870 is chiefly owing to the fact that it appears to me that it was so entirely unnecessary. There was nothing to hinder the local authority from setting up any standard of education that it saw fit, and there was nothing to prevent it sending inspectors to see that the standard was observed. After all, the education of the children of each parish is surely a matter of strictly local concern, and it is, I anticipate, the object of Parliament to arouse, excite, and stimulate local interest in the schools as much as possible. If you had left the existing system alone you would have had the subscriptions: in that way the owners would have contributed towards the cost of the Bill; you would have had the grants, and it would then have been to the interest of the managers and the schoolmasters for financial reasons to make the schools as successful as possible; and if there had been any money wanted after that we all know that persons will pay, whether they be owners or otherwise, if they know the money is to be spent for their own children and in their own immediate locality, whereas they will not give when they have no idea as to where the money is going or how it is to be spent. I apprehend that the reason of this alteration is that the weak schools may be supported. If it is desirable to support weak schools and to give them extra support, by all means let that be done, but why is it to be done by the ratepayers of a county? It seems to me that if financial aid of that kind is to be given it ought to be given by the national taxpayer. So far as I read the Bill, a very large contribution is to be given to the local authority in lieu of the aid

  1297
  grant. Why should not these payments be made out of the aid grant in the same manner as before?
  I would now call your Lordships' attention to another matter, and that is the consideration of how this Bill is likely to work. My belief is, that when the supporters of denominational schools have succeeded in transferring the burden to the county ratepayers, they will have done the very worst day's work for themselves that ever they did. The effect of the Bill in its operation will be gradually to destroy, or at all events greatly to diminish, voluntary schools. In the first place, there are many voluntary schools which have no trust deed. Is it not obvious that their interest will be to make themselves county schools, because, if they come under the county they will no longer be under the necessity of keeping up their buildings? I do not say that this is at all a matter to be regretted. Personally, I do not think it is. Indeed, in my view the most important feature of the Bill is the creation of the county schools. and, in endeavouring to work the Bill according to its spirit—as I should certainly do—I should be inclined to use any influence I might possess in any school to get that school transferred to the county. Bat, my Lords, with regard to the Church schools, I think it will be found that when you rest the county rate upon all the occupiers in a parish, experience will tell your Lordships that it will be more than difficult to extract voluntary subscriptions for the purpose of keeping up the school buildings. Everybody will say "We have paid our rate. You tell us we ought to subscribe to keep up denominational schools. Our answer is that we prefer to let the schools go." In reply to those who use that argument, it may be said that if they do not subscribe they may have to build another school. I do not think there is much force in that remark. If the schools of the Church, which are under trust deeds, are empty, I do not believe that Parliament would allow new schools to be built while those other schools remained empty. Parliament would fairly and properly say that the primary purpose for which those schools were built was that of education, and that if private individuals on religious grounds cannot obtain the subscriptions necessary to keep them up it would then be necessary to employ the schools for the purposes of education.
  1298
  Taking this view, I must confess that what surprises me is that the Nonconformists should oppose this Bill in the bitter manner they do. They seem to be exactly like the members of the United Kingdom Alliance, who, being devoted to temperance, for a great many years sturdily refused to accept anything but the complete abolition of licences. So far as I read this Bill, it is bound to work in the direction of increasing the number of board or provided schools, and I think that that tendency is likely to continue and extend.
  I do not say that the Bill which the Government have introduced is the one I should have liked best to see. There is an alternative which, personally, I should have much preferred. It was alluded to the other night by the Prime Minister, and it has been alluded to by others. I refer to the proposal to abolish the Cowper-Temple Clause in the county schools, and at the same time to aid the voluntary schools from the rates. I confess that I cannot see the injustice of that course being taken. I see many advantages which a plan of that sort would have over the scheme proposed by the Government, and I certainly should have given my most hearty support to such a proposal. I do not see that there is any injustice to Nonconformists in doing away with the Cowper-Temple Clause. Under this Bill as it stands, if Nonconformists are so deeply imbued with the religious difficulty that they desire to erect schools of their own, they have the opportunity of going before the Board of Education and obtaining power to erect such a school if they can prove it to be a right school to erect. The great objection taken to this plan the other night by the Prime Minister was that it would be opposed tooth and nail by the Nonconformists. Have the Nonconformists not opposed this Bill? What tooth or what nail do the Nonconformists possess that they have not used in opposition to the present measure? How long has the struggle against this Bill gone on? What more could the Nonconformists have done against any other proposal than they have done against this? One of my reason, even the chief reason, for supporting this Bill is the helpless and hopeless attitude which the Nonconformists have taken up throughout the whole of these discussions. I think I have read all the reports of meetings and of the

  1299
  proceedings in Parliament on the subject, and I have no doubt many of your Lordships will sympathise with me in the ordeal through which I have gone. My object has been to look for some practical proposition, some ray of light, some offer made by the Nonconformists to deal with the situation, the difficulties of which no one attempts to deny, but I have found nothing. The noble Earl who moved the rejection of the Bill spoke of a universal School Board, or a School Board in every parish. ["No"]. Then I am incorrect, and the noble Earl made no suggestion to-night for meeting the difficult situation which has been created. We are in the presence of a situation from which some escape must be found; you must make up your minds either to see these schools starve and disappear, or to give them assistance by rate aid. It is because I see no way out of the difficulty except that of rate aid that I shall support the Second Reading of the Bill.
  *LORD HARRIS: I shall not detain your Lordships more than a few minutes; I simply wish to ask a question. I am not sure whether I should address my question to the First Lord of the Admiralty or to His Majesty's First Commissioner of Works, but there does not appear to be anybody on the Front Bench representing the Board of Education. The question I have to ask is whether the Board of Education, under Clause 17, have the power to compel the education authority under Clause 2 of Part II. to levy a rate. According to Clause 2—
  "The local education authority should consider the educational needs of their area and take such steps as seem to them desirable."
  and under Clause 17—
  "If the local education authority fail to fulfil any of their duties under the Elementary Education Acts, 1870 to 1900, or this Act. the Board of Education may, after holding a public inquiry, make such order as they think necessary or proper for the purpose of compelling the authority to fulfil their duty."
  The question is—What is their duty? Is the mere preparation of a scheme their duty, or is it for the Board of Education to declare what is their duty? My object in asking the question is that we may be perfectly sure of what the intentions of the Government are as to the provision of secondary education institutions within the areas. In the county to which I belong we have never used any part of the whisky money in relief of the
  1300
  rates, but have used the whole of it for technical education, and technical education, I imagine, is secondary education. Therefore, unless our scheme of technical education is to be interrupted it would be necessary, if the Board of Education had the power to compel us, to levy a rate. I want to know what the Government conception of the drafting of this Bill is—whether it is their intention that the Board of Education should be able to compel a county to levy a rate for establishing secondary education institutions. I will not attempt to conceal what I feel upon this particular point. I think that in doubling the liability of the ratepayers for secondary education, those members of the Government who belong to the Conservative Party are departing from the promises which they have made to the ratepayers for many years past.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: There is no fear of the county being compelled to levy a rate; there is no question of it. I will deal with the question fully tomorrow.
  *LORD HARRIS: I do not quite follow my noble friend. Clause 2 of the Bill distinctly provides that the county may levy a rate, and if it is true that the Board of Education may compel the county to do so, I think my question is quite legitimate. But to proceed from the point at which I was interrupted. I think that in doubling the liability of the ratepayers in regard to the provision of secondary education the Government is departing from those promises which through many years it has made to the ratepayers. I do not deny for a moment the gratitude which the ratepayers ought to feel to the Government for the many things it has done for them in the way of relief, but as regards this particular subject of secondary education it must be remembered that the Royal Commission on Local Taxation has most distinctly laid down that secondary education is a national liability. In the face of that declaration a Conservative Government is doubling the liability of the ratepayers in that direction. If in addition to that the Government provide that the Board of Education may compel the county to levy a rate, I think it will have undertaken a very dangerous task. With every other part of the Bill I am

  1301
  in entire accord, but having regard to everything I have said on the public platform with regard to the ratepayers it is impossible for me to approve of this particular proposal.
  Further debate adjourned until Tomorrow.
  House adjourned at five minutes before Twelve o'clock, till tomorrow Half-Past Ten o'clock.