Sitting of 9 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.
LOCAL TAXATION (IRELAND) RETURNS.
Copy presented, of Returns of Local Taxation in Ireland for the year 1900-1901 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
Copy presented, of the Liquor Licensing Ordinance, 1902 (No. 32), for the Transvaal [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

SPIRITS (ABERDEEN, ELGIN, AND INVERNESS).
Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 4th December; Mr. Gordon]; to lie upon the Table.
Paper laid upon the Table by the Clerk of the House.

LUNACY.
Copy of Report to the Lord Chancellor of the number of visits made, the number of patients seen, and the number of miles travelled by the Visitors of Lunatics between 1st April and 30th September,1902 [by Act].

PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1899.
Return ordered, "of all the Draft Provisional Orders under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, which in the Sessions of 1901 and 1902 respectively have been reported on by Commissioners; together with the names of the Commissioners; the first and also the last day of the sittings in each group; the number of days on which each body of Commissioners sat; the number of days on which each Commissioner has served; the number of days occupied by each Draft Provisional Order before Commissioners; the Draft Provisional Orders, the Preambles of which were reported to

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

Date when closure moved.

By whom moved.

Question before House or Committee when moved.

Whether in House or Committee

Whether assent given to Motion or withheld by Speaker or Chairman.

Assent withheld because, in the opinion of the Chair, a decision would shortly be arrived at without that Motion.

Result of Motion, and if a Division, Numbers for and against.

(in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 347, of Session 1901)."—(Mr. Caldwell.)

DIVISIONS OF THE HOUSE.
Return ordered, "of the number of Divisions of the House in Session 1902; stating the subject of the Division, and the number of Members in the majority and minority, Tellers included; also the aggregate number in the House on each Division; distinguishing the Divisions on public business from private; and also the number of Divisions before and after midnight (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper No. 0.206, of Session 1901)." —(Mr. Caldwell)

PUBLIC BILLS.
Return ordered, "of the number of Public Bills, distinguishing Government from other Bills, introduced into this
436
have been proved; and the Draft Provisional Orders, the Preambles of which were reported to have been not proved."— (The Lord Advocate.)

ADJOURNMENT MOTIONS UNDER STANDING ORDER No. 17.
Return ordered, "of Motions for Adjournment under Standing Order No. 17. showing the date of such Motion, the name of the Member proposing, the definite matter of urgent public importance, and the result of any Division taken thereon during Session 1902 (in the same form as, and in continuation of, Parliamentary Paper No. 346, of Session 1901)."—(Mr. Caldwell.)

CLOSURE OF DEBATE (STANDING ORDER No. 25).
Return ordered, "respecting application of Standing Order No. 25 (Closure of Debate) during Session 1902, under the following heads:-
House, or brought from the House of Lords, during the Session of 1902; showing the number which received the Royal Assent; the number which were passed by this House but not by the House of Lords; the number passed by the House of Lords but not by this House; and distinguishing the stages at which such Bills as did not receive the Royal Assent were dropped or postponed and rejected in either House of Parliament (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper No. 0.205, of Session 1901)."—(Mr Caldwell.)

PUBLIC PETITIONS.
Return ordered, "of the number of Public Petitions presented and printed in Session 1902; with the total number of signatures in that year (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper No. 0.204 of Session 1901)."—(Mr. Caldwell.
SELECT COMMITTEES.
Return ordered, "of the number of Select Committees appointed in the Session of 1902, including the Standing Committees and the Court of Referees; the subjects of inquiry; the names of the Members appointed to serve on each, and of the Chairman of each; the number of days each Committee met, and the number of days each Member attended; the total expense of the attendance of witnesses at each Select Committee, and the name of the Member who moved for such Select Committee; also the total number of Members who served on Select Committees (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper No. 0.201 of Session 1901)."— (Mr. Caldwell.)
SITTINGS OF TH HOUSE.
Return ordered, "of the number of days on which the House sat in Session 1902, stating for each day the date of the month and day of the week, the hour of the meeting, and the hour of adjournment; and the total number of hours occupied in the Sittings of the House, and the average time; and showing the number of hours on which the House sat each day, and the number of hours after midnight; and the number of entries in each day's Votes and Proceedings (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper No. 0.203, of Session 1901)."—(Mr. Caldwell.)

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (DAYS OCCUPIED BY GOVERNMENT AND BY PRIVATE MEMBERS).
Return ordered. "showing, with reference to Session 1902, (1) the number of Sittings on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays at which Government Business had precedence; (2) the number of Sittings on Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Fridays at which private Members had precedence; (3) the number of other Sittings at which, in accordance with the Standing Orders of the House, Government Business had precedence; (4) the number of Sittings at which Government Business had precedence under a special Order of the House: (5) the number of Saturday Sittings; (6) the total number of Sittings at which Government Business had precedence; (7) the total number of days on which the House sat; (8) the
438
total number of Motions for Adjournment of the House on a matter of urgent public importance; and (9) the number of days on which Business of Supply was considered (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper No. 348, of Session 1901)."—(Mr. Caldwell.)

PRIVATE BILLS AND PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Return ordered, "of the number of Private Bills, Hybrid Bills, and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders introduced into the House of Commons and brought from the House of Lords, and of Acts passed in the Session of 1902, classed according to the following subjects: Railways; Tramways: Tramroads; Subways; Canals and Navigations: Roads and Bridges; Water; Waterworks; Gas; Gas and Water; Lighting and Improvement; Police and Sanitary Regulations; Corporations, etc. (not relating to Police and Sanitary Regulations or to Lighting and Improvement Schemes); Ports, Piers, Harbours, and Docks; Churches, Chapels, and BuryingGrounds; Markets and Fairs; Gaols and other County Buildings; In-closure and Drainage; Estate; Divorce; Naturalisation; Hospitals, and Miscellaneous."
"Of all the Private Bills. Hybrid Bills, and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders which in the session of 1902 have been reported on by Committees on Opposed Private Bills or by Committees nominated partly by the House and partly by the Committee of Selection, together with the names of the selected Members who served on each Committee; the first and also the last day of the sitting of each Committee; the number of days on which each Committee sat; the number of dayson which each selected Member has served; the number of days occupied by each Bill in Committee; the Bills the Preambles of which were reported to have been proved; the Bills the Preambles of which were reported to have been not proved; and, in the case of Bills for confirming Provisional Orders, whether the Provisional Orders ought or ought not to be confirmed."
"Of all Private Bills and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders which, in the session of 1902, have been referred by the Committee of Selection, or by the General Committee on Railway and Canal Bills, to the Chairman of the Committee

439
of Ways and Means, together with the names of the Members who served on each Committee; the number of days on which each Committee sat; and the number of days on which each Member attended."
"And of the number of Private Bills, Hybrid Bills, and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders withdrawn or not proceeded with by the parties, those Bills being specified which have been referred to Committees and dropped during the sittings of the Committee (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 0.200, of 1901)."—(Mr. Caldwell.)

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Naval Torpedo Flotilla—Damage to Fishing Nets at Sidmouth.
  SIR JOHN KENNAWAY (): To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can arrange, by way of compassionate allowance or otherwise, to give some compensation to the fishermen of Sidmouth for the loss sustained by reason of damage occasioned by the Royal Naval Torpedo Flotilla to their nets in Sidmouth Bay on the night of 9th July.
  (Answered by Mr. Arnold-Forster.) As it appears that the damage done was not the result of any negligence on the part of the officers of the flotilla, whilst the fishing boats, on the other hand, were not complying with the Board of Trade regulations as regards lights prescribed for drift net-fishing, the Admiralty are advised that they are not liable for any compensation in this case.

  Naval Construction.
  MR. JAMES HOPE (): To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether orders have yet been placed for the contract-built battleship and cruiser and for the armour required for the dockyard-built battleship and cruiser authorised under the naval programme of the current financial year.
  (Answered by Mr. Arnold-Forster.) The order for the contract-built battleship has been placed; that for the contract-built cruiser has not yet been placed, but tenders are at present under consideration. No orders for armour for the
  440
  battleship and cruiser to be built in the dockyards have yet been placed, but tenders for the armour for the battleship are at present under consideration.

  Liverpool Telegraph Staff.
  MR. AUSTIN TAYLOR (): To ask the Postmaster General if he will state the number and weekly wages of the postmen at Liver-pool who, during the past twelve months, have attended the telegraph school at that office, and how many have been declared efficient and have been retained in the telegraph department at Liverpool,
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) Twenty postmen, at wages ranging from 19s. 6d. to 28s. a week, have attended the telegraph school at Liverpool. Twelve are now being employed in the telegraph branch, of whom ten have attained the first standard of efficiency, and one has passed the second standard.
  MR. AUSTIN TAYLOR: To ask the Postmaster General, seeing that a telegraphist at Liverpool, who was number twenty-five on the seniority list, has recently been advanced to the clerks class, whether he will state what opportunity of appeal was afforded the seniors before they were passed over.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) In making promotions the officer best qualified for the vacant post is selected. I fear it would not be practicable to give the officers who are not selected an opportunity of representing their claims before a decision is arrived at.

  Belfast Postal Deliveries.
  MR. SLOAN (): To ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware that in connection with recent complaints of late delivery of the English mails in Belfast, instructions have been issued that deliveries must commence at a certain time, and that the Belfast postmaster has stated that no excuse will be taken in lieu of a prompt despatch; and whether, seeing that sufficient time is not given for sorting the mails, the Postmaster General will inquire into the circumstances of the case with a view to making a satisfactory arrangement.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) In consequence of complaints of delay

  441
  received from the public, the postmaster of Belfast has given special attention to the question, and has properly enjoined upon the staff the importance of securing punctuality in the deliveries of letters. His action has my entire approval. Sufficient time is allowed for sorting the mails under normal conditions.

  Belfast Telegraph Staff.
  Mr. SLOAN: To ask the Postmaster General, in view of the fact that the services of a number of substitutes in Belfast Telegraph Department have recently been dispensed with owing to slackness of work, while at the same time assistance required by the engineering branch has been refused owing to alleged pressure of work, whether he will state the qualifications of the clerks drawn from two small provincial offices; and, seeing that they are receiving an allowance of 3s, per diem, will he explain why local assistance was not obtained.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) The two officers in question were reported to possess the qualifications necessary for temporary duties in the superintending engineer's office. As regards the latter part of the Question, I must refer the hon. Member to my reply to him of the 27th November last on the same subject, to which I have nothing to add.

  Halfpenny Postage.—Place and Date on Obliterating Stamps.
  Mr. STUART-WORTLEY (): To ask the Postmaster General whether the obliterating stamps used upon postal matter charged at the halfpenny rate can be made to show, as in the case of other stamps, the place as well as the date of posting.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen chamberlain.) I am considering the right hon. Gentleman's Suggestion.

  Education Bill—Clause 18 (3)—Model Schemes.
  LIEUT. COL. PRYCE-JONES (Boroughs): To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether it is the intention of the Board of Education to frame a model scheme or schemes under Clause 18, sub-Section (3); and, if so, when will they be issued.
  442
  (Answered by Sir William Anson.) The Board of Education will be ready to enter into communication with local education authorities on the subject of schemes, and to assist them, when invited to do so, with advice and suggestion. But they have no present intention of framing a model scheme or schemes.

  Education Bill—Financial Arrangements during First Year of New System.
  LIEUT. COL. PRYCE-JONES: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether there is any provision in the Education Bill to meet difficulties which the local authorities will experience in obtaining the money required to carry on the public elementary schools in the interval which will elapse in the first year before the Government grants will be received.
  (Answered by Sir William Anson.) It is not anticipated that there will be any difficulties of the kind suggested in the Question, nor would any provision in the Education Bill be the proper way of meeting such difficulties were they likely to arise. It is not the case, as the wording of the Question would seem to suggest, that the Parliamentary Grants in respect of the public elementary schools in the area of an authority are not paid until the expiration of twelve months after the appointed day. Some of the grants are paid by quarterly instalments; and the annual grants in respect of the various schools in an area will be payable to the authority at varying dates throughout the year. Arrangements will also be made for an early disbursement of some portion of the new aid grant to authorities.

  Brussels Sugar Convention.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis): To ask the President of the Board of Trade can he state, in view of the differential treatment prescribed by the Brussels Sugar Convention in respect of sugars and sugared and other analogous products, when coming from countries which grant bounties either on production or export, what measures it is proposed to take in order to ascertain from what country such sugars or products may have originally come; and is it proposed to require certificates of origin in respect of all such sugars or products as may be imported into this country.

  443
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald BaIfour.) In the event of the Convention coming into operation, suitable measures will have to be taken by the Customs to distinguish sugar coming from foreign countries which grant bounties. I am not now prepared to make a detailed statement as to these measures, which will he provided for in the Bill to be introduced next session.
  MR. GIBSON-BOWLES: To ask President of the Board of Trade can he give the names of all States, not being signatories of the Brussels Sugar Convention, between which and Great Britain treaties exist containing the most favoured nation Clause.
  (Answered by Lord Cranborne.) Argentine Republic, Bolivia, Bulgaria, Colombia, Denmark, Greece, Honduras, Japan, Mexico, Liberia, Paraguay, Persia, Roumania, Russia, Salvador. Servia, Switzerland, United States, Uruguay, Venezuela, and Zanzibar have treaties binding Great Britain to give them the treatment of the most-favoured nation.

  Government Agreements with Cunard company and Atlantic Shipping Trust.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: To ask the President of the Board of Trade, have the agreements as regards shipping made with the Cunard Company and with Mr. Pierpont Morgan, or the Atlantic Shipping Trust, been yet completed; when will he lay copies upon the Table of this House; if they are not completed, can he state the cause of the delay; and can he state when the evening promised for the discussion of these agreements during the present sittings will be given.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) The agreements have not yet been completed; they are complicated documents, the details of which have taken longer to settle than expected, and are still under consideration of the lawyers. I do not anticipate that the agreements can be laid upon the Table this session. The promise was to give an evening if desired after the agreements had been laid.

  Bankruptcy Acts—Criminal Prosecutions.
  MR. H. C. RICHARDS (): To ask Mr. Attorney General if his attention has been called to
  444
  the remarks of the Recorder of London in the recent bankruptcy prosecution at the Central Criminal Court; will he say by whose direction was the prosecution instituted; and will he give instructions that in future prosecutions he will refuse to allow more than a reasonable number of counts in the indictment; and that unless the interests of public justice demand a warrant, the proceedings shall be initiated by information and summons only.
  (Answered by Sir Robert Finlay.) My attention has been called to the matters referred to in this Question. The prosecution was instituted by the directions of the director of public prosecutions. The number of counts to be inserted in any indictment must depend on the circumstances of each case. The case in question was of a very complicated and intricate nature, and the indictment was no longer than was necessary in the opinion of the very able and experienced counsel by whom it was prepared. It is, of course, preferable that proceedings should be commenced by summons, but it is impossible to lay down any fixed rule as to the circumstances which may render a warrent expedient.

  Uganda Railway
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL (): To ask the Under Secretary of state for Foreign Affairs whether he can state the cost of constructing and removing the temporary rope inclines used on the Uganda Railway.
  (Answered by Lord Cranborne) The total expenditure on the rope inclines to which reference is made has been £31,362. This includes the greater part of the cost of removal, a comparatively small item in any case. Against this, on the other hand, for whatever they are worth, must be set the materials which have become available for use elsewhere.

  Civil Servants and Private Trading.
  SIR EDGAR VINCENT (): To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if officers and clerks in the service of His Majesty's Government are under rules not to trade on their own account; and, in view of the fact that a number of them are dealing in excisable plate, as

  445
  agents of tally house firms, without holding a plate licence, he will say what steps he proposes to take in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Ritchie.) A civil servant is not allowed to engage in any business which is incompatible with his giving his whole official time to the public, or which may conflict with the proper performance of the duties of his office. Subject to this condition, he is under no restriction in the employment of his time out of office hours. As regards the latter part of the Question, if the hon. Member will furnish the Board of Inland Revenue with the names and addresses ot any persons whom he believes to be selling plate without a licence, inquiry will be made with a view to prosecution if sufficient evidence is forthcoming.

  Spiddal Pier, Galway.
  MR. O'MALLEY (): To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state the amount of money expended on the Spiddal Pier, County Galway, the number of persons employed in that work, and the weekly wage of each employee.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham) The expenditure amounts to £3,057. The number of persons employed varied as the works progressed; the maximum number was 100. The weekly wages of the employees were as follows:- Foreman mason, 36s.: time and storekeeper, 30s.; carpenter, 30s.; carters. 30s.; quarrymen,15s.; labourers, 12s.

  Irish. Land Purchase—Rockford Estate, Connemara.
  MR. O'MALLEY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state the terms and conditions upon which the holdings on the Rockford Estate, Connemara, have been let to the tenants by the Congested Districts Board.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) Seven of the new holdings have been sold to the tenants at seventeen years purchase of the rents, the prices varying from £157 to £186. The one remaining holding is about to be sold to the Connemara Basket Company.

  Irish National Schools—Attendances of Assistant Teachers.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will consider the advisability of reducing the average attendance required for assistant teachers in Irish National Schools from sixty to fifty, owing to the increase of work in connection with new programme and the decrease of population, particularly in rural districts.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) It is not proposed to alter the scale of averages, according to which assistant teachers are appointed under existing rules.

  Irish Convent National Schools.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, in view of the fact that the Board organisers have held, or are holding, courses of training in convents for the exclusive use of the inmates, and that a number of national school teachers are still deprived of facilities for training in the new system owing to the attendance of organisers in convents, whether he will arrange for the organisers to hold courses in larger non-convent national schools for the use of their staff.
  (Answered by MR. Wyndham.) The courses conducted in convent national schools are not limited to the inmates of convents. They are open to, and are attended by, the teachers of other national schools. Similar courses are also held in schools and buildings not in any way connected with convents. The Commissioners have made, and will continue to make, arrangements for courses in model schools and other non-convent schools so as to suit the requirements of all classes of national teachers.

  Mullingar Rifle Range.
  MR. KENNEDY (): To ask the Secretary of State for War whether, seeing that negotiations for the establishment of a rifle range at Mullingar have been in the hands of the military authorities for nearly five years, and that all the occupiers of the lands proposed to be taken and all the landlords of same with one exception have consented to the taking of those lands, he can explain the cause of the delay in carrying out the completion of the proposed rifle range.

  447
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) The negotiations have, as stated in the Question, been protracted but are now practically concluded. The hon. Member will understand that it is impossible to commence the construction of the range unt 1 the War Department is in possession of the land required, but as soon as the land is handed over we shall proceed.

  Pacific Cable Board and Eastern Extension Telegraph Company.
  SIR EDWARD SASSOON (): To ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware that the Pacific Cable Board are about to enter into a pooling arrangement with the Eastern Extension Telegraph Company; and, if so, whether he will veto the proposal in the interests of reduced cable charges.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) No, Sir. I have no reason to suppose that such an arrangement is contemplated by the Pacific Cable Board. But the Postmaster General is not directly represented on that Board and has no control over its proceedings. Any further Question on the subject should therefore be addressed to the Treasury.

  Poor law Emigration to Canada.
  MR. WHITTAKER (): To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the fact that the number of orphan or deserted children emigrated to Canada by Boards of Guardians has fallen from 360 in 1893 to 174 last year, while 934 children were sent out there during the first six months of 1900 by various accredited societies, and for those 934 children 5,613 applications from householders were received: and whether, seeing that the cost to the Guardians in sending children to Canada is only one payment not exceeding £24, while the expense of maintaining them in workhouse schools here is £30 a year, he will take steps to bring to the notice of Boards of Guardians the increased facilities and advantages now existing in Canada for such children.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) I am aware that the number of children
  448
  emigrated to Canada by Boards of guardians in recent years has been less than was the case in 1893, and that the number of children sent out by private societies in 1900 was considerably less than the number in respect of whom applications were received. Boards of Guardians have from time to time been made aware by the Local Government Board of their powers in relation to emigration, and the matter was referred to in a Circular issued so recently as August, 1900. I have no reason to doubt that the Guardians are fully informed on the subject, but I shall not fail to avail myself of any suitable opportunity of pressing the matter on their attention.

  Argentine Cattle Regulations.
  Mr. HARWOOD (): To ask the President of the Board of Agriculture if he can say whether negotiations are proceeding with the Government of the Argentine Republic for the admission of live cattle for slaughter at certain ports in this country under due, precautions against the importation of disease.
  (Answered by Mr. Hanbury.) As I explained in my reply to the hon. Member for North Manchester on the 27th ultimo, we have suggested to the Argentine Government that they should take further precautions against the introduction of foot-and-mouth disease on lines similar to those we ourselves adopt. They have introduced, and, I believe, have now passed a Bill giving them the necessary statutory powers for the purpose, and I expect to hear shortly that a decree under the new law has been issued. If, as I have reason to expect, the terms of the new law and the decree issued thereunder prove to be satisfactory, I should hope that the negotiations which have been taking place may be brought to a satisfactory conclusion.

  China Operations, 1901—Clasps for Tientsin.
  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.

  449
  (Answered by Secretary Lord George Hamilton.) 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 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 Pekin. I have no copy of General Dorwards despatch in my possession, but I understand that it is not considered desirable to publish it.

(2.15.)QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Sokoto.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE (): I beg to ask the Postmaster General, as representing the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether he is aware that, by a treaty concluded in 1884, Mr. Joseph Thomson undertook, on behalf of the Niger Company, to pay to the Emir of Sokoto a sum of about £1,500 a year, that the treaty was renewed in 1890 and in 1894, that the Emir of Sokoto in those treaties was made to acknowledge the Niger Company as representatives of His Majesty's Government, and that this country, being still in possession of the consideration transferred in these treaties, has ceased the yearly payment to the Emir of Sokoto, and is now contemplating an expedition in the direction of Sokoto; and whether, seeing that a military expedition is now being sent against Kano, described by the Secretary of State for the Colonies as the Manchester of Africa, he will state what attempt has been made to remove by friendly negotiations the causes of difference between the Emir of kano and His Majesty's Government.
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,, for Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN): The yearly payment specified in the treaties referred to has not been made since the Royal Niger Company's rights were transferred to the Crown, as the Sultan of Sokoto has always refused to recognise the transfer. Attempts have constantly been made by Sir Frederick Lugard to establish friendly relations both with him and with the Sultan of Kano, but hitherto without success. The reports which have appeared in the newspapers with regard to expeditions against
  450
  Sokoto and Kano appear to refer to the preparations which Sir F. Lugard has stated that he would have to make to ensure the safety of the British and French Commissioners appointed to delimit the boundary between the Niger and Lake Chad, who will commence their work in January, and who will have to spend a considerable time in the country to the north of Sokoto and Kano. It will be necessary to maintain communication with the Commissioners and to keep them regularly provided with the supplies upon which they will depend, and in view of the present attitude of the Sultans of Sokoto and Kano it is necessary not only to provide the Commissioners with a strong escort but also to take into consideration beforehand the possibility of hostile action on the part of those Sultans and to provide an adequate force to deal with it.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: I understand that there is no present intention of attacking Kano?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: That is my understanding. The military preparations which are being made are preparations only for the protection of our Commissioners.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: Will the hon. Gentleman ask whether it is possible to give any Papers showing the attitude of these Mohamedan Kings later than the last annual Report of Sir F. Lugard?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir, I will make inquiry.

  South African War— King's Medal
  MAJOR, RASCH (): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is intended to grant the King's medal to officers and men, who, after serving Her late Majesty, were, on account of wounds or illness (attributable to service in the field), contracted while serving the King, unable, to return to South Africa between 1st January and 1st May, 1902.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,): As I have already explained to the

  451
  House, service in South Africa for some period between 1st January and 1st June, 1902, is held to be essential in order to earn the King's Medal. All officers or men who were invalided early in the war and returned between those periods are eligible, even if they did not compleate eighteen months service.

  Martial Law in South Africa—Case of Mr. Shoeman.
  MR. PIRIE (): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, with reference to the court martial held in Cape Colony by the Standing Military Court, Western District, for the trial of Mr. J. H. Shoeman, M.L.A., can he explain why no preliminary examination was held as provided in the instructions on Martial Law, issued 1st May, 1901, and seeing that a promise had been made by the military authorities to the prisoner's attorney that at least seven days' notice should be given him of the charges against the prisoner before he was brought to trial, will he explain why, only on the day previous to the trial, the charges were communicated to the prisoner, thereby depriving him of the opportunity of calling witnesses for his defence.
  MR. BRODRICK: The points raised in the question have been included in the letter recently despatched to General Officer Commanding, Cape Colony, on this subject.
  MR. PIRIE: Why did not the case come before the Commission?
  MR. BRODRICK: I cannot say. Of course the Commission took their own course; I have no control over them.
  MR. PIRIE: When can we have papers? The case has aroused much interest in Cape Colony.
  MR. BRODRICK: Time must be given for answers to be made to the letter sent to South Africa.

  Factory Acts—"Particulars" Section—Wholesale Tailoring Trade.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether any representations have been received to the effect that the
  452
  Particulars section ought to be extended to outworkers in the tailoring trade; and if any, and what, steps are to be taken in the matter.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. AKERS DOUGLAS,): Yes, Sir. I have received such representations on behalf of outworkers in the wholesale tailoring trade, and after inquiry I have decided that the section ought to be extended to them. The draft order making the extension was published on the 18th of November.

  Petroleum—Flash Point.
  MR. TULLY (): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can state the prescribed limits for the flash point of petroleum in Pennsylvania and New York; and whether, in view of the recent accidents from the use of low-flash oil in this country, he is prepared to introduce legislation to give effect to the recommendations of the Select Committee who inquired into this matter.
  MR. AKERS DOUGLAS: I am informed that the method of testing petroleum adopted in Pennsylvania and New York is different from that in use in England. It is a fire test rather than a flash tost, and merely gives the temperature at which the oil will ignite and burn in an open cup. If the results wera reduced to terms of the flash point according to the Abel close test employed in England, they would show as nearly as possible 63 and 73 degrees Fahrenheit respectively for the States named. As regards the second paragraph, I am not at present satisfied that recent experience has strengthened the case for further legislation in this matter.
  MR. TULLY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the information he has just given is contrary to the evidence of the experts before the Committee, of which I was a member?
  [No answer was given.]

  Mallaig Pier.
  MR. WEIR (): I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, in view of the fact that under the West Highland Railway Company

  453
  Guarantee Act, 1896, it was arranged that the sum of £30,000 should be paid by the Treasury to the North British Railway Company towards the cost of constructing a pier breakwater and other works at Mallaig, will he state why the breakwater has not yet been constructed.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): This is entirely for the railway company, but I have communicated with them, and am informed that owing to the cost of the Mallaig extension of the west Highland Railway having greatly exceeded the estimate, the question of proceeding with the breakwater has been deferred.

  Applecross (Ross) Road and Bridge.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the Secretary for Scotland is aware that, owing to the bridge over the Applecross River having been closed on account of its dangerous condition, the people of the district are unable to reach the parish church and churchyard except by wading the river; and will he say whether the Congested Districts Board aid prepared to provide a grant in aid for the construction of a new bridge.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY,): I am not to be held as assuming the accuracy of the statements which form part of the Question of the hon. Member, and with regard to the latter part I can only refer him to my reply to his similar Question on 12th November†, there having been no further action taken in the matter by the local authorities concerned.
  † See (4) Debates, exiv., 749.

  Typhoid in the Island of Lewis.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if he will state whether the Local Government Board for Scotland have taken any steps to ascertain whether patients suffering from typhus or typhoid fever in the Island of Lewis are segregrated; and, if fever cases are not thus isolated, will he state the cause.
  MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: As I have already informed the hon. Member, such measures of segregration as are possible in the Lewis crofters' houses have been
  454
  employed by the district medical officer, who reports to the Local Government Board that efforts are made to treat the sick in a separate apartment.
  MR. WEIR: Is the Secretary for Scotland aware that there are absolutely no means of isolation for fever patients at this place? Will the right hon. Gentleman make further enquiry?
  MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: The Secretary for Scotland is, of course, aware of the fact.

  Tolsta School Children.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, in view of the fact that the school at Tolsta, Island of Lewis, which has 196 scholars on its register, has been closed since the 3rd July last, and that the children have thus lost upwards of five months education, will measures be taken to stamp out the fever epidemic.
  Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: I have to refer the hon. Member to my previous answers relating to this matter. I can only add that a Report from the medical officer has been called for.

  Ben Wyvis Grazings.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether he is aware that the grazings on the southern slope of Ben Wyvis, lying between the hill known as Little Ben Wyvis and the pass of Bailloch Mor, formerly in the occupation of crofters, are being fenced off for the extension of a deer forest; and, seeing that the crofters on the Heights of Strathpeffer have frequently urged that they should be allowed to occupy these lands, will the Secretary for Scotland consider the expediency of introducing an Amendment of The Crofters Act, 1886, so that the Crofters Commission may have power to allocate lands such as those indicated for the benefit of the crofters.
  MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: I am given to understand the lands in question form part of the Wyvis Deer Forest. No application from the Heights of Strathpeffer Crofters for enlargement of holdings has reached the Crofters Commission. The Secretary for Scotland is not prepared to introduce legislation as suesested.

  Culloden Estate, Inverness-shire.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, in view of the fact that the law agents to the trustees of the Culloden Estate, Inverness-shire, have commenced the eviction of crofter tenants, will he consider the expediency of introducing legislation at an early date, such as will give crofters holding under lease the benefits of The Crofters Acts, 1886.
  MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: I am given to understand proceedings have been taken in one case for the removal of a tenant holding under lease on the estate referred to and therefore not a crofter within the meaning of the Crofters Holdings Act. As regards legislation I have nothing to add to the answers already given to the hon. Member on several occasions.
  MR. WEIR: Is it not the fact that Mrs. MacDonald, who has eight children, was evicted on the 3rd July?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order ! That does not arise out of the Question.

  Londonderry Telegraph Staff.
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware that the telegraph staff at Londonderry have been called upon to sign a paper repudiating their personal connection with a paragraph that appeared in the Telegraph Chronicle on 7th November, 1902; and whether this procedure has his sanction.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: It is not the case that anyone has been called upon to sign such a paper as the hon. Member describes; but certain members of the female staff at Londonderry of their own accord repudiated any connection with the paragraph in question.

  Bee Instructors in Ireland.
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state on what grounds was Mr. Read, of Stratfan, honorary secretary of the Irish Beekeepers' Association, removed from the position of bee instructor under the Department of Agriculture.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,): His
  456
  services at the Glasnevin Institute were discontinued on the ground that his residence in County Kildare was too remote from the scene. He still retains, however, the position of itinerant bee-instructor.
  MR. TULLY: Has Mr. Horace Plunkett inquired personally in this matter, in view of the absurd appointment which has been made.
  [No answer was returned.]

  Irish Agricultural and Technical Training Schemes—Circulation in Irish Language.
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state what steps have been taken in the Irishspeaking districts to circulate in the Irish language the instructions issued by the Department of Agriculture on agricultural and technical training.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The publication of agricultural and technical instruction schemes, promoted by local authorities is a matter that concerns these authorities alone. It is open to them, if they think it expedient, to issue such schemes in the Irish language. The schemes made by the Department in connection with cattle breeding have been printed and circulated in the Irish language. Some of the Department's leaflets will shortly be published in a similar manner.

  Irish Local Government Auditors.
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Local Government Board can explain why two auditors, who were superannuated, were recalled to duty, in order to audit the accounts of the local boards; and whether it is proposed to appoint from the members of the present Poor Law service two auditors to discharge this work.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The two retired auditors were re-employed pending the appointments, which have now been made, of two auditors on the permanent establishment.

  Land Purchase Bill.
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of

  457
  Ireland whether he can indicate the nature of the instructions that have been given to Sir Antony MacDonnell as to the preparation of material and collection of facts on which to base a Land Purchase Bill for Ireland.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Sir, I must respectfully decline to discuss departmental communications between myself and official colleagues in respect of future legislation.

  Labourers' Cottages in Cork.
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Local Government Board can explain the delays that have arisen in giving effect to the Provisional Order in Cork rural district to increase the plots of lands attached to existing labourers' cottages, seeing that the Local Government Board inspector held his inquiry in 1901; and will he state what steps will be taken to place the labourers in possession of the additional plots of land.
  MR. WYNDHAM: On the 27th October, I stated it had been proved at the inquiry, that the occupants of sixteen existing cottages were not agricultural labourers, and that the issue of the Provisional Order would be deferred until the District Council considered these cases and to what extent the scheme should be modified in consequence. The Council has not, so far, taken any definite action in the matter.

  Ballymote Lighting Arrangements.
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Local Government Board have received from the Sligo Rural District Council a memorial asking for powers under the Public Health (Ireland) Acts, 1878 to 1896, to light the town of ballumote with the townlands comprising Ballymote the area; and will he state what steps have been taken to give effect to this memorial.
  MR. WYNDHAM: No such memorial has been received. It is understood, however, that the Council propose to apply for urban powers to light Bally
  458
  mote. Upon receipt of the application the necessary steps will be taken in the matter.

  The Council of Defence.
  LORD CHARLES BERESFORD (): I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the duties appertaining to the position of President of the Council of Defence are still associated wilh the Minister in charge of Education; and, if not, whether he will consider the advisability of placing those duties for the future in the hands of the Prime Minister.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): The President of the Council of Defence is not the Minister of Education. The Minister of Education is Lord Londonderry, who is not the President of the Council of Defence. I may add that the whole subject is at this moment engaging the very earnest attention of the Government, and, though I have no statement to make on the subject now, I hope early next Session to be able to do so.

  Brussels Sugar Convention. II
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis): I desire to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the right hon. Gentleman, in view of the new facts, doubts, and differences which have arisen as to the Sugar Convention, will consider if he cannot arrange for another debate on it in this House, before the Convention is ratified.
  MR. A.J. BALFOUR: I have no ground for thinking that a debate would serve the purpose of clearing up the points to which the hon. Member wishes to direct attention. The hon. Gentleman knows the condition of public business, and he can surely hardly press theGovernment further on the matter.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
MR. BRYCE (): Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House any further information as to the business for this week, and especially on Friday. May we assume that nothing will be taken this evening after the Uganda Railway Bill
MR. TULLY: Is it proposed to proceed with the Irish Fisheries Bill tonight?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: As to Friday, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will not mind repeating his question tomorrow, when I will make a point of answering it. At this evening's meeting the first business will be the Uganda Railway Resolution, and I certainly should not propose to take any seriously controversial measure after that. But I think the Lords Amendments to the Patent Law Amendment Bill might be disposed of. It would be a convenience if we could also take the Committee of the Militia and Yeomanry Bill, which I hope will pass its Second Reading this afternoon, but I am aware that that is a very unusual request, and I could not put the Order down without the general consent of all parties.
MR. LOUGH (): May we rely on having the London Water Bill reprinted, so that we can put down Amendments for the Report stage?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am informed that it was expected the Bill would be circulated this morning.
MR. LOUGH: How can we put our Amendments down unless wo have it? The Bill has been greatly changed.
SiR ARTHUR HAYTER (): I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not take the Committee stage of the Militia and Yeomanry Bill tonight. There are several Amendments I wish to put on the Paper.
MR. A.J. BALOUR: I quite recognise that my suggestion could only be acted upon by agreement with both sides, and the right hon. Gentleman may rely on it that I will not attempt to force that stage tonight.

MILITIA AND YEOMANRY BILL.
Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [10th November.] "That the Bill be now read a second time:"—
Question again proposed.
SIR ARTHUR HAYTER ()moved that the Bill be read a
460
second time this day three months. He desired, he said, to protest, in the first place, against the Bill being taken at all during this part of the Session, which was to be devoted to the Education Bill and the London Water Bill. In the second place, he thought he could easily prove that the Bill was not by any means an innocent or simple measure, but introduced great and far-reaching changes, which were not at all required at the present time. His great objection to the Bill was that it gave powers to the Secretary of State which, could already be exercised by Order in Council, and he could see no reason whatever why the Secretary of State should be so invested with exceptional powers. Moreover, the Bill was opposed to the territorial principle on which the Army system was based. The territorial principle had been adopted by Germany and Russia, and by the Japanese as well, and it had certainly proved very successful in our own case in the matter of recruiting. He did not propose to say much with regard to the Yeomanry part of the Bill, because there were many hon. Members opposite better acquainted with that organisation than he was who would state the objections to the way in which it was proposed to deal with the force.
He would ask the House to consider the first Clause of the Bill. It declared that for the purpose of forming Reserve divisions of the Militia and Yeomanry, the Sacretary of State might relax or dispense with any enactment relating to the training of those forces. But what was the use of putting that into the Bill. The Militia Act gave power to the King in Council to order from time to time that the annual training be extended to not more than fifty-six days in any one year, that the training of all or any part of the Militia be reduced or even dispensed with. Thus His Majesty already possessed the powers this Bill would give to the Secretary of State, and he could see no reason why they should be handed over to the Secretary of State.
It was quite possible he might wish to keep a great number of men on foot without any training whatsoever, and it was a well-known fact, especially with regard to cavalry soldiers, unless they were continually drilled they were of little use.

461
Next he came to a much more serious part of the Bill, the second part of Clause 1, which provided that any man in a Reserve division might be transferred from one corps of Militia or Yeomanry to another, so, however, that, a militiaman should not without his consent be transferred to a corps of another arm. That proposal absolutely set at naught the territorial system. It, meant that a Cornish militiaman must be transferred to a Northumberland Regiment or a Devonshire man to a Derbyshire Regiment. Why did militiamen desire to join a particular corps? Simply because they knew the non-commissioned officers and men, and they certainly would be very reluctant to go to quite another part of the country. The only alleviating feature of the proposal was, that a man should not be transferred without his consent to an entirely different branch of the Army, he would not, in fact, be liable to be converted from an infantryman into an artilleryman, or from an artilleryman into an engineer. This proposed transfer from one regiment to another was strictly guarded against by regulations made under the Militia Act of 1882, which provided that no Militiaman could be transferred from the corps he enlisted in without his consent. That regulation would become waste paper if this Bill were passed, and he believed, if such a power was given, that it would do very great injury to recruiting, for the men would not be able to depend on their engagements being kept. They would in fact become very shy of accepting service in the force under such conditions.
Now he came to Section 2, which applied Sections 3 and 4 of the Militia Act to the Yeomanry. There was no objection whatever in the case of Section 30 which merely provided that the Secretary of State might raise such a number of yeomen and militiamen as the House had already provided for. But Section 4 in his opinion reduced the Bill to absolute nonsense. As he had already pointed out, power was given under the first Section of the Bill to the Secretary of State to move men from one corps to another just as he pleased. But Section 4 of the Militia Act provided that no man should be so transferred
462
without his consent, and it was proposed to extend that provision to the Yeomanry. Why it was an absolute contradiction in terms of the second part of the Clause, and it ought to be deleted if the Bill was to become a permanent Act. Then under the last Section of the Bill a special service squadron of the Yeomanry, a sort of corps d'elite, was to be formed, which would be alone capable of serving broad in case of war. He thought that would be a very mischievous thing for the Yeomanry as a whole, and the Yeomanry were not likely to regard the formation of such a corps with anything but jealousy. It was creating a corps within a corps, and certainly to pay some men £5 to engage for foreign service, while others get nothing, would be a poor compliment to the latter. Again, it it would be a dangerous thing at the outbreak of a war to mix up these different country corps into one heterogeneous mass. He knew that the reason for the proposal was that the right hon. Gentleman wanted to find cavalry for his three last army corps. Would it not have been much better to say at once that he would raise a regular cavalry regiment, rather than to risk spoiling Yeomanry regiments by taking away their best squadron, and at the same time to take into the field a heterogeneous body with no cohesion and no right to be called a cavalry corps? His main objection to the Bill was that it placed the Militia and Yeomanry entirely in the power of the Secretary of State for War, and he certainly could see no reason why the right hon. Gentleman should be vested with liberty to transfer men from one corps to another, or to interfere with the training arrangements which were already open to be changed by Order in Council. If the Bill were read a second time he would put down Amendments to the various Clauses, for he thought the whole scheme required thoroughly sifting.
Amendment proposed—
"To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day three mouths.'"—'(Sir Arthur Hayter.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
MAJOR RASCH ()said that ever since he had the honour of a seat in the House he had always opposed the Vote for the Yeomanry, because he thought it was impossible to justify the existence of the force. But during the last two years the Yeomanry had been completely changed and reformed in every particular, and had been made such a valuable force that, though he felt like Samuel among the prophets, he was now one of their warmest supporters. He was specially struck by the extraordinary success of the county Yeomanry regiments which were formed last year, although perhaps a little more riding drill was required, in order to avoid some of the casualities he had witnessed. That, however, was a detail which could be remedied in the near future. If the Yeomanry, however, were to be levelled up to the Militia they ought to have the advantages which the Militia enjoyed. Their bands ought to be paid for by the Government, and regular officers serving with them should be allowed to count such service for pension. Two objections were raised to that Bill. One was that the offer of £5 a year to a certain number of men would only be accepted by the worst possible men—by the scallywags. The other objection was that it would deplete the regiment of its best men. These arguments were mutually destructive, and he did not think there was much force in either of them. The object of the Bill, so far as the Yeomanry were concerned, was to form a corps d'elite to supplement the miserable weakness of the present cavalry regiments, and any one who had seen the cavalry regiments at Aldershot knew it was not too soon to supplement them by some means of other. It seemed to him that the proposal of the War-Office was very much like a sort of Cousin-German to the old Militia Reserve. It found a good many enemies, but during the course of a somewhat chequered military career he had the honour of serving in it, and he always found that the attraction of the Militia Reserve not only did not weaken the battalion, but was a considerable accession to the strength of the territorial regiment. He had never had much faith in the proposals of reform of the auxiliary forces adumbrated by right hon. Gentlemen on both sides. They had always appeared to him more or less like a merry-go-round. They started with much drum-beating, but when the band
464
stopped they found themselves in precisely the same position as when they began. As he thought the Bill meant business with regard to the Yeomanry, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would succeed in placing it on the Statute-Book.
MR. HALDANE ()said that the Secretary for War, bringing in a large scheme, desired to carry it out in the way his experts had elaborated it, and under these circumstances, no doubt Parliament was often a nuisance to a Minister who desired that scheme he had in hand should go quietly and smoothly. He understood, therefore, why the Bill had been brought forward at the fag end of the autumn sittings, when he was not likely to be hampered by unnecessary discussion and the necessity of wearisomely explaining the details, as he would be expected to do were the Bill brought on at the proper period of the session. Nevertheless Parliament had still some functions left, and there was an obligation on the Opposition, at all events, to see that Parliament understood the work to which it put its hand. When a Bill of this sort was brought before the House some explanation of its provisions should be given by the Minister in charge. It was not enough to say that at some time back those provisions had been discussed. Nobody carried in his head what had been said about technical details of a Bill brought in months ago, and it was the duty of the Minister to put the House in possession of the materials on which it could from a judgement. This was peculiarly necessary on the present occasion, for in the drafting of this Bill legislation by reference had been developed to a fine art in order to meet the exigencies of the Government situation, so that it was not easy for a Member to know what he was voting on unless he brought a library with him into the House. This Bill was very concisely drawn, and on the face of it appeared to be a very luminous measure. But closer examination of it soon dispelled that idea. For instance, Section 2 ran,— "Sections 3 and 4 of the Militia Act, 1882, relating to maintenance and government of the Militia shall apply to the Yeomanry." These artless words

465
completely changed the constitutional relations of the Yeomanry. They placed the Yeomanry under the entire control of the Secretary of State for War. He had the greatest confidence in the public spirit of his right hon, friend, but he objected to make him a Parliament, or a sovereign body of him, right off. Whatever good there might be in Home Rule he was bound to say that, in this instance, the War Office was claiming a measure of Home Rule far exceeding anything which had ever yet been submitted to Parliament. The great scheme of Army reform introduced by the right hon. Gentleman might be a good scheme—he was not nowdiscussing it—but this Bill was an integral part of it, and should not be passed without adequate consideration. How was it possible now to give it that consideration? This Bill could not have come on at all were it not for the arrangement come to by the two sides of the House with respect to the London Water Bill, and it was a little hard that people who had, in order to conduct public business in a reasonable fashion, consented to that arrangement should have this Bill thrust down their throats before they had an opportunity of digesting it. It seemed to him also that the course now being adopted by the Government was not in accordance with the understanding arrived at when the business of this special session was arranged. Speaking on the 16th October last, the Prime Minister, in moving his Resolution about Government business, said that the business in this winter sittings would be the Education Bill, the London Water Bill, the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, the Osborne Estate Bill, and one or two oddments; but there was not a word in the right lion. Gentleman's statement about this Bill, which involved such sweeping changes as he had pointed out; on the contrary, the only reference to any other in mattersof legislation than thosespecifically mentioned was the reference to such non-controversial matters as there might be a general desire to pass into law. He submitted that be had made out a complete case against proceeding with this Bill. He might also put it so high as to say that it would be almost a breach of faith to proceed with it if any objection were taken. Perhaps the right hon.
466
Gentleman was of opinion that it would pass without discussion, but they did not wish to pass it without discussion. They claimed the benefit, not only of the spirit, but the letter, of the undertaking which the Prime Minister gave to the House, and, therefore, while he was the last person to put difficulties in the way, he did not apologise for making the Motion that the debate be now adjourned.
MR. TREVELYAN ()seconded the Motion.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the debate be now adjourned." —(Mr. Haldane.)
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,): I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not imagine for a moment that we think he is desirous of obstructing in any way the business of Parliament in proposing the Motion he has made this afternoon, but he would probably not have taken up the attitude he has done if he had fully apprehended the scope and intention of the measure now presented to the House. I do not know how far I shall be in order in going into the merits of this measure on the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman, but I really think there is one point which is not appreciated in any quarter of the House, or, at least, by those Members who have spoken in opposition to the measure today, namely, that this is not in any sense a new proposal which is brought before Parliament. It is not a demand for additional men or additional money, nor is it a measure brought forward in order to obtain Parliamentary assent to proposals which have not already obtained the assent of Parliament. As a matter of fact, and I put this most strongly to the House, this measure contains two propositions, both of which have not only been assented to already by the House of Commons, but they have been discussed. In one case, so far as I know, the proposal was unanimously agreed to. In the other case, I cannot recall a voice which was raised against it. Both proposals involve a sum which was put into the Estimates in 1902, and one of them a sum which was put into the Estimates in 1901, and

467
in each case these sums were voted by the House. I will not go into the merits of the Bill, but if Mr. Speaker will allow me, I will put the object very briefly. All that is required is simply this. You have the power by the Vote of Parliament to raise a number of men for the Militia Reserve and to pay them, but you have not got the power, as has since been discovered, to suspend their training, and if you raise them on those terms, you will have to train them exactly the same as the ordinary Militia require training, which, in the opinion of the military authorities, the Reserve does not. In the same way as regards the special service section of the Yeomanry, you have the power of Parliament to train and pay them, but you have not the power at this moment to call them out without the special power we propose to take in this Bill. If they were new proposals containing serious controversial matter, then I think probably the right hon. Gentleman might be justified in calling attention to the fact that this is not one of the measures specifically referred to in the speech of my right hon. friend on 16th October, but, as a matter of fact, with regard to the Militia not one word has been said against the proposal in these two years, in both of which I brought the subject before the House in my speech on the Estimates. As regards the Yeomanry, the Committee appointed to inquire into the subject strongly approved of this experiment being tried. The Committee was composed entirely of Yeomanry officers, and they expressed a year and a half ago the view that it should be attempted. I brought the matter as prominently as I could before the House in March last, and in all the debates which have taken place I do not remember that a single word was said in opposition. I say that is how the matter stands before the House of Commons at this moment. I would ask the House of Commons to understand our difficulty. I do not bring forward the Bill in pursuance of any ambitious scheme of any sort or kind, but merely to prevent the extraordinary expenditure involved in calling up totally untrained men to which we were put during the late war. It does seem a little hard that forces which have been voted by Parliament, and the money for which has been approved by Parliament, should not be allowed to be
468
raised on account of the technical difficulty which exists, and which is removed by this Bill. I would ask the House to remember that unless we get legislation on the subject now, it is practically putting off for a year measures which the military authorities consider to be essential to place us in a proper state of defence. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider this Motion. I believe that the time is ample for us to discuss such objections as may be raised, and I sincerely trust that we may be allowed to proceed with the discussion.
SIR EDWARD GREY ()said he was glad his right lion, and learned friend had made this Motion. He did think that the House was not being treated in the way it had a right to expect in regard to proceeding with the Bill at this time of the session. The right hon. Gentleman opposite had truly said that his lion, and learned friend could not be accused of making this Motion from a dilatory motive or a desire to impede the Government in the performance of necessary business. Obstruction in the ordinary sense could not be effective at the present time. The House was too thin and small to make obstruction effective if the Government wished to press anything. Their point was that the House relied upon the programme put before it, and the statement that it would not be asked to undertake controversial business other than that mentioned in the speech of the Prime Minister. The Government had the House at its mercy. The Secretary of State for War did not think this Bill urgent in the ordinary sense in which the House regarded urgency. What the right hon. Gentleman did plead was that it was something so consequential, and of so little importance considering what has proceeded in military discussions this year or the previous year, that it really did not require the attention of a full House. That was a statement which was not accepted by hon. Members on more than one side of the House who had paid special attention to this question. The real difference of opinion between the right hon. Gentleman and the House on this occasion was as to whether this Bill was so small and so consequential as had been stated. A considerable part of the House held that it was not so small

469
and consequential, and that it did involve larger changes in principle than the right hon. Gentleman admitted. When a dispute of this kind arose between a Minister and the House as to whether the House had previously pledged itself in the debates in a way that rendered it unnecessary to discuss a particular measure, the House alone should be the judge, and at present it was too thin for them to expect an opinion as to whether this measure was a consequential part of the larger scheme of which it had already approved. When the Bill was brought forward earlier in the year at least two Members on the Government side of the House had expressed the strongest objection to the Bill being pressed. If objection to the Bill existed, it was not confined to one side of the House, and that entitled them to say that the right lion. Gentleman ought to pause before proceeding with it, on the assumption that it was one which did not need much discussion. The Bill involved some large changes in principle.
MR. BRODRICK: May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that they have already been discussed and approved by Parliament—one of them on two occasions?
SIR EDWARD GREYsaid that was his very point. The right hon. Gentleman said the House had already approved of the large changes which were covered by the Bill. The question of difference between hon. Members and the right hon. Gentleman was whether a full House in giving its general approval to his scheme was contemplating then a measure of this kind as an integral part of it. He held that they could not go on with this Bill without discussing the large changes of principle which were involved, even though those changes were small in practice. They did not know but that this was part ot a much larger scheme. What lie asked the Prime Minister was this— Was it fair to the House of Commons to press this measure forward after the statement lie had made at the commencement of the session. Ot course "breach of faith'' was a strong term, and should never be used except in circumstances of extreme exasperation
470
and provocation; but no one could read the statement of the Prime Minister at the commencement of the session without seeing that the introduction of this measure was a most unexpected departure from the programme then announced. The Prime Minister, after stating that programme which, of course, included the Education Bill, and the London Water Bill, said, "Thereare a few other measures on the Order Paper which I think are uncontroversial. With regard to these I shall certainly not think of asking the House to make any exceptional exertions, but, if there is a general desire that they should pass, I think they ought to pass into law." He did not think it was consistent with that statement that this measure, which was clearly regarded as controversial, should be pressed. He therefore supported, and asked the House to support, the Motion of his hon. friend that the debate be adjourned.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No notice has been given to me that objection was going to be taken against proceeding with this Bill, on the ground that it was inconsistent with what I had said on a I previous occasion, I am the more surprised that this argument should be sprung on the House, because it was perfectly understood that in making arrangements yesterday to meet the views of hon. Gentlemen opposite in regard to the Water Bill. I especially begged that it should bo understood that no objection should be raised to the Bill of my right hon. friend without notice.
SIR EDWARD GREY: I beg pardon; I was not present myself, but I understand that the right hon. Gentleman, the Leader of the Opposition, did enter a caceat
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am in the recollection of the House as to the general accuracy of what I have stated. But the right hon. Gentleman will see that that has nothing whatever to do with my speech, at the beginning of the Autumn Sittings. I gather that it is on that speech that the right hon. Gentleman who has sprung this Motion on the House relies. I had not had time to read all the debates on the 16th of October. Only

471
one of my speeches has been quoted. After making it, I was reminded, immediately after I sat down, that I had omitted to mention the Militia and Yeomanry Bill, and I took care to remedy that omission when I came to reply on the afternoon's debate. It is reported in Hansard, which seems to be very accurate, that I said, "The only general pledge I give to the House is that it will not be asked to discuss general legislative questions which, however interesting or important, can be deferred to a subsequent session. I believe in that connection I ought to mention in the first place a one-Clause Bill which my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for War will introduce and explain in good time, and which he tells me ought to be passed without any undue delay." I am quite sure that everybody who heard me make that statement will recognise that part of the programme for the Autumn Sittings was the Bill of my right hon. friend. I hope, therefore, that that particular argument will not be used beyond the point to which it can be reasonably carried, seeing that we have always regarded the passage of this Bill as eminently desirable, and have stated this on the first day of the session. I venture respectfully to suggest to the House that, at all events, the explanation of the Bill by my right hon. friend should be beard, and that he should be allowed to state his reasons for thinking that this is the proper time for passing the Bill. It will then be admitted, I think, that it is not with the view of obtaining any Party credit for the Government, but in the public interest. I hope, therefore, that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will not press his Amendment, but will give my right hon. friend a chance of stating his case to the House of Commons.
MR. COURTENAY WARNER ()said that the House would have listened with great interest to the Secretary of State for War if he had made a statement when the Bill was introduced. The difficulty was that there were important points in the Bill which many Members, who did not expect it to be proceeded with, would wish to discuss. The Secretary of State tor War made the point that the Militia Vote had not been discussed this year. That was quite true,
472
because it came on at nine o'clock, when few Members were in the House. But, on the general discussion of the whole scheme of Army Corps and Yeomanry, it was very strongly opposed in many parts of the House. He begged to support the Motion of his right hon, friend for the adjournment of the debate.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis)said he was surprised to hear the right hon. Baronet read the passage from the speech of the First Lord of the Treasury so as to suggest that there was a breach of faith. He remembered that speech, and had himself intended to quote the passage which the Prime Minister had read from his speech—and it was an extraordinary and rare instance of the accuracy of the Hansard report—that it was proposed to introduce a one-Clause Bill.
SIR EDWARD GREYsaid he did not adopt the term "breach of faith."
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he did not say so, but that the right hon. Gentleman had read the passage so as to suggest that there had been a breach of faith. The reference to the "one-Clause Bill" had suggested to him something quite informal, which would have been brought in and passed without any discussion. He was, therefore, surprised when he saw what the Bill was. Of course, they might have a one-Clause Bill to abolish the Monarchy, and really this one-Clause Bill did the next thing to it. This one-Clause Bill proposed to do for the Secretary of State for War that for doing which James II. was sent over the water. The Act of Settlement recited that James II. "by the assistance of divers evil counsellors, judges, and Ministers employed by him, had endeavoured to subvert and extirpate the Protestant religion, and the laws and liberties of this kingdom by dispensing with, and suspending the laws." That was exactly what this Bill was to enable the Secretary of State for War to do, as though he were to be set up as a sort of James III. It said. "For the purpose of forming reserve divisions of the Militia and Yeomanry, the Secretary of State may, by regulations, relax or dispense with the provisions of any enactment relating to training of Militia and Yeomanry, so far as

473
regards their application to men in the reserve divisions, &c." This gave him a dispensing power over every enactment that referred to the subject matter. For a one-Clause Bill this was rather a tremendous measure, and it did not in the least answer to the expectation raised in his mind by the words used by the First Lord of the Treasury when he introduced it. He was merely dealing now with its character in point of weight and importance. It was a large thing to give to a Minister a dispensing power over any enactment whatever. The right hon. gentleman the First Lord had made the suggestion that before deciding whether the House should continue the discussion on this measure, it should hear a larger description from the Secretary for War as to what it was intended to do. If that suggestion were accepted, he presumed it would be necessary for the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw his Motion, on the understanding that it could be revived, if necessary, after the right bon. Gentleman s explanation. He should like to add that undoubtedly these sittings had been crowded with new measures and new proposals, which no oneever expected. They had had new Supply, another Appropriation Act, and tonight they were to have further Supply set up, or probably a third Appropriation Bill. That was not quite the way to treat special sittings—
MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member is not addressing himself to the Question before the House.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he would merely repeat his suggestion, which seemed to be the most reasonable way of dealing with the matter—viz., that the right hon. Gentleman should withdraw his Motion, and allow the Secretary for State to explain the measure. The Motion might then be revived.
MR. BRYCE ()said he did not suggest that the Government had committed anything like a breach of faith in the matter. What were the facts? They were told at the beginning of the Autumn Sittings that the Government were not going to proceed with any large measures, except the Education Bill and the London Water Bill. Then the right hon. Gentleman said that there might be one or two small Bills, not of a controversial or very urgent nature; but at
474
a later period, not leading the House to suppose that it was uppermost in his mind, the right hon. Gentleman interposed a remark in regard to this Bill, which had not then been introduced. It was described by the right hon. Gentleman as a one-Clause Bill; and they naturally supposed that it was some simple Departmental measure, which might require half-an hour or an hour to discuss, and which would not raise any serious difference of opinion. Therefore, he thought that, although there was nothing in the nature of a breach of faith, there was an understanding, or an impression, created in the House, which was not consistent with the course that the Government now proposed to take. They did not expect that they should be called upon, after the two main measures hadbeen disposed of, to discuss any question which would raise new issues, on which there was considerable difference of opinion, and which might have very important results. No one could say that the Bill was not an important one, or one which did not raise considerable opposition. As was observed by his right hon. friend, there were three hostile notices on the Paper, two of them by hon. Members opposite and, as the hon. Gentleman had just said, it gave dispensing power over certain legislation. That power was sometimes given, but many of them thought the present proposal was going rather further in that direction than Parliament, with due regard to its functions and principles, ought to go by releasing a Government Department from the ordinary provisions of the law, and entrusting to it practically legislative power. The right hon. Gentleman asked by the Bill to be what the Roman Emperor was—relieved from obligation to the law. Whatever confidence there might be in the right hon. Gentleman's Department—he would not discuss that now—was it right that any Department should be granted such wide powers without a far larger and fuller discussion than was now likely? What was the position of the House? Hon. Members had been exhausted by long debates; the attendance was exceedingly thin; and many hon. Members, who had the knowledge and experience enabling them to take part in the discussion of the Bill, were not present; and could not have been present considering the notice

475
that was given. The discussion, therefore, under such conditions, must be of a perfunctory character; and it was not right that the large matters to which the Bill led should be proceeded with at this period of the Session. It had been suggested, as he understood, by the right hon. Gentleman that what was chiefly desirable was that the purport of the Bill should be explained. If that were the main thing desired, he did not suppose that there would be any objection to allowing the Secretary of State to make a statement; and he presumed, under the circumstances, that his right hon. friend would be willing to withdraw his Amendment. But that if the statement of the Secretary of State removed the objections which were felt to the Bill, if it put the Bill on a new footing and made it appear to be no longer controversial, then the House might consent to go on with it; but that if objections were still entertained to it, if any considerable section of the House still felt it was too large a measure to be proceeded with at such short notice, the Government should consent to the debate being adjourned and to the Bill going over until next session. It was only on some such terms that they could consent to allow a statement to be made. But if the Government seriously proposed, in spite of the difficulties which had been stated in a manner that carried conviction to every dispassionate mind, to persist with the Bill, it would be necessary for them to enter a protest, which was conveyed in the Motion for the Adjournment, and to take the sense of the House as to whether the Bill should be proceeded with on such an untimely occasion.
MR. BECKETT ()said he would urge the Government to accept the Motion of the right hon Gentleman. He thought the Prime Minister was under a misapprehension. The Secretary of State for War stated, just before the Prime Minister entered the House, that he had already sufficiently explained the Bill. Further, the right hon. Gentleman said that he had explained it to such an extent that the House was already committed to it.
476
Either they knew what the Bill contained or they did not. If they did, then it was not necessary that they should abstain from pressing the Motion; if they did not know what the Bill contained, and that a longer statement from the Secretary of State for War was necessary, then it was obvious that they ought not, at that period, to be called upon to consider it. It was true that the Secretary of State for War made an explanation on the Estimates, but that was part and parcel of the whole scheme of Army Administration; they could not pick out the particular part which referred to the Bill; and they naturally passed the Estimates as they were presented to them. But he could not see how the House could be said to have given consent to a Bill which, at the time, was not in existence. If the Government wished to press it, they could carry the Bill; but whether that would be wise or desirable, in the teeth of strong opposition from all quarters of the House, was another question. He would, furthermore, appeal to the Prime Minister on the ground that, as his right hon. friend had said, the Bill was part and parcel of that larger scheme which was not yet in full operation. Before they discussed a Bill which introduced a great many serious changes they ought to see the other parts of the scheme in full operation; and on that ground he would ask his right hon. friend to consent to the Bill being postponed.
COLONEL BLUNDELL ()said he would most respectfully urge on the House that the Bill was an urgent Bill. What they wanted especially was a reserve for the Militia. Any hon. Member who had studied the Army at all would agree that the Militia was the stand-by of the nation. He had seen that at the Crimea. It was very important that they should have a reserve of Yeomanry; but he disagreed very much with the proposal that the Yeomanry should be called to pass from regiment to regiment, except in time of war. There were at present in the country a number of men returned from the War who found it difficult to get work. Each of them would know where they could get a little extra money by

477
joining the reserve of Militia or Yeomanry if the Bill were passed; and he was satisfied that great injury would be inflicted if the measure were not proceeded with.
MR. GRIFFITH BOSCAWEN ()said he was very much astonished at the attitude which had been taken up by many hon. Members with reference to the measure, especially at the attitude of his hon. friend the Member for the Whitby Division. For a long time past hon. Members on both sides of the House had been calling out for Army reform; and he believed that there was no keener Army reformer than his hon. friend. Yet, on the present occasion, when his right hon. friend the Secretary of State for War came forward with a very small but very necessary measure of Army reform, it was immediately met by a dilatory Motion from the other side, which was supported by his hon. friend. It seemed to him that, in Army reform they ought to take small measures, such as that before the House, and press them through when they had time at their disposal. For his part, he could not understand what the objections to the Bill were. They had been told that under sub-Section 2 very large powers would be given to the Secretary of State in connection with the Yeomanry; but these were the very powers which had been in force since 1882 in connection with the Militia, and he had never heard that any bad result had followed from the exercise of them. Why, therefore, should they not be entrusted to his right hon. friend in connection with the Yeomanry? Then, as to that part of the Bill in which he was more immediately concerned, the powers given to the Secretary of State in connection with the Militia, he, speaking as a Militiaman, would submit to the House that the reserve of Militia promised by the Secretary of State would be far better than the old Militia reserve. It seemed to him most extraordinary that when his right hon. friend the Secretary of State asked the House to pass this small Act to carry out the purpose which he had fully explained both this year and last, for which the House had already voted the money, and which would give the country a real reserve of Militia, that he should be met with a dilatory Motion of this kind. Speaking as a Militiaman, he
478
hoped this Motion would be defeated, and that the Government would press forward this Bill. It was impossible to obtain a Militia reserve without this Bill, and it was only right that the Bill should be passed in order to enable that reserve to be created without delay.
MAJOR SEELY ()said the hon. Member who had just sat down contended that all army reformers ought to support this small Bill, because they ought in the interest of army reform to support all such small Bills as this whenever the House had time to pass them. The contention of his hon. friend opposite was that the Bill was a retrograde step.
MR. SPEAKERsaid the question whether this was a good or a bad measure was not before the House. The question was whether the debate should be adjourned.
MAJOR SEELYapologised for having trespassed beyond the subject before the House. He should support the Motion for the Adjournment because he believed, quite apart from the Bill being a retrograde measure in itself, it was as contentious a Bill as could well be. The people acquainted with it were almost unanimously opposed to it, and although no one would accuse the Government of a breach of faith in the matter, the House contended that the Government had made a mistake in saying that the Bill was non-controversial, when, as a matter of fact, directly it was put into words it was highly contentious. He strongly urged the House to support the Motion for the Adjournment.
LORD CHARLES BERESFORD ()thought the House was in a rather curious position. As he understood, the right hon. Gentleman had been asked by his light hon. friend the Prime Minister and others to explain the Bill, and as he (Lord Charles Beres-ford) understood, if that explanation were made the Motion for the Adjournment would not be persisted in. Would the right hon. Gentleman explain the measure?
MR. BRODRICK: I cannot on the Motion for Adjournment.
LORD CHARLES BERESFORDsaid in that case he would offer a few remarks upon the Motion for the Adjournment and the reason why he should vote for it. He should vote for the Adjournment because the thought this Bill was a portion of a patchwork scheme of Army reform; it was part of an enormous scheme which the right hon. Gentleman had taken in hand. Whether the scheme was a good or a bad scheme he did not know, but from what he had heard he thought the whole scheme was a very bad scheme indeed, and that any such scheme of reform was perfectly impossible. He should also vote in favour of the Motion for the Adjournment because to bring forward this patchwork Bill at this late period of the Session was in his opinion impolitic in itself, and because he believed that such a course would land us into enormous expenditure without our getting any of that efficiency which we all wished for. On those grounds, and believing that, as some a scheme of Army reform had been proved to be necessary for this country the matter should be amply, quietly, but not hurriedly debated, he should support the Motion for the Adjournment. They should look at the matter more from a national than a Party point of view.
SIR JAMES FERGUSSON ()said his noble friend who had just addressed the House was an Irishman in the best sense of the word, and his speech on this occasion seemed to have been one of those Irish conundrums so difficult of solution. The Motion before the House was to prevent the Bill being discussed. Yet the noble Lord voted for it because he thought the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman was a bad one. The noble Lord could form no opinion on the matter until he had heard why it was desirable that a considerable part of the scheme should be passed now. No doubt his right hon. friend could give good reason for passing this portion of his scheme at the present time, and he was inclined to think his right hon. friend might now regret not having made a statement when he moved the Second Reading. But was not the House stultifying itself in discussing a dilatory motion of this kind without knowing what the scheme was?
MR. KEMP ()pointed out that the hon. Member for King's Lynn had suggested that the House ought to hear the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State first of all, and then if it was not satisfactory the Motion for the Adjournment of the debate should continue. The Prime Minister, quoting from a speech in which he stated he was going to bring in this Bill, said the Bill would be explained in good time. Was this explaining it in good time? As he understood it, this was an important part of a large scheme of Army reform, and if that was so it ought to be discussed at the time when the whole question came up and not at the end of a Session such as the present. The House had met for the Education and the Water Bills, and they did not expect to have other important questions brought forward for discussion. He would be very sorry to oppose anything which had for its ostensible object the reform of the Army, but he strongly objected to the manner in which this matter was being dealt with, and therefore he should support the Motion.
SIR ARTHUR HAYTERsaid the right hon. Gentleman had stated, and had been backed up by the hon. and gallant Member, that this Bill was absolutely essential in order to alter the training of the Militia. If that was so, what had become of that article in the Militia Act which stated that His Majesty in Council might order the training to be extended or to be dispensed with? That article was in force now, and therefore this Bill could not be required. Did the right hon. Gentleman mean to maintain that the question whether men should be changed from one regiment to another, and from one county to another, had ever been discussed in this House?
(3.59.) Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 60; Noes, 90. (Division List No. 621.)

AYES

Beckett, Ernest William

Harwood, George

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Beresford, Lord Chas. William

Hayne, Rt.Hon. Charles Seale.

Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

Bowles,Capt. H. F.(Middlesex)

Hayer, Rt.Hon. Sir ArthurD.

Smith, Abel H.(Hertford,East)

Bowles, T. Gibson(King'sLynn)

Jones, David Brynmor(Sw'nsea

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Broadhurst, Henry

Kemp, George

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

Bryce, Rt.Hon. James

Kitson, Sir James

Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings

Burt, Thomas

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Tomkinson, James

Caldwell, James

Lloyd-George. David

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Cameron, Robert

Lough, Thomas

Wallace, Robert

Causton, Richard Knight

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

M'Kenna, Reginald

Wason, Eugene(Clackmannan)

Crombie, Johm William

Markham, Arthur Basil

Wason, John Catheart(Orkney)

Cust, Henry John C.

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Weir, James Galloway

Davies, M. vaughan-(Cardigan

Parker, Sir Gilbert

Whiteley, George(York, W.R.)

Dilke, Rt.Hon. Sir Charles

Paulton, James Mellor

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Fenwick, Charles

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

Pirie, Duncan V.

Fuller, J. M. F.

Rea, Russell

Gladstone, RtHn. HerbertJohn

Rigg, Richard

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Mr. Haldane and Major.

Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Seely

Grey,Rt.Hon. Sir E. (Berwick)

Saunderson, RtHn. Col. Edw. J.

NOES

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Fletcher, Rt.Hon. Sir Henry

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Flower, Ernest

Parkes, Ebenezer

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Forster, Henry William

Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlingt'n

Arrol, Sir William

Galloway, William Johnson

Plummer, Walter R.

Atkinson,Rt.Hon. John

Gardner, Ernest

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Garfit, William

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Balcarres, Lord

Godson,Sir AugustusFrederick

Purvis, Robert

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

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

Balfour, RtHn. GeraldW(Leeds

Heath,ArthurHoward(Hanley

Rattigan, Sir William Henry

Bartley, Sir George C. T.

Heaton, John Henniker

Remnant, James Farqubarson

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Hoare, Sir Samuel

Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Brodrick, Rt.Hon. St. John

Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Johnstone, Heywood

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Bull, William James

Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Carson, Rt.Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Law, Andrew Bonar(Glasgow)

Spear, John Ward

Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)

Chamberlain, RtHn. J. A. (Wore.

Lawson, John Grant

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

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

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Lockie, John

Valentia, Viscount

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Walrond, Rt.Hon. Sir Wm. H.

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Long, Rt.Hon Walter(Bristol, S.

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Cranborne, Viscount

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

Wilson-Todd,Wm. H. (Yorks.

Crossley, Sir Savile

M. Killop, James (Stirlingshire

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

Dickson, Charles Scott

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Doaglas, Rt.Hon. A. Akers-

More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire

Wyndham, Rt.Hon. George

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Mount, William Arthur

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Muntz, Sir Philip A.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

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

Murray, RtHn A.Graham(Bute

Sir Alexander Acland-

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

Fisher, William Hayes

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Question again proposed. "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
MR. BRODRICK: Before proceeding to describe the scope of the Bill, I may say that it is through no fault of mine that I have not explained this measure hitherto. I did explain its main points under the Ten Minutes Rule, but at a time when the House was in a state of excitement over an incident which had
just occurred, and, through no fault of mine except that I could not make myself heard, was unable to gauge the full effect of the measure. Again, when I was called on the other night, an hon. Member rose and moved the Adjournment of the debate. On the present occasion I thought it was only reasonable and courteous to the right hon. Gentleman opposite, who had given notice of his intention to move the rejection of

483
the Bill, to listen to what he had to say, and before I had an opportunity to rise, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Haddingtonshiremoved the Adjournment of the debate. But I have now an opportunity of bringing the scope of the measure before the House, and I will endeavour to do so without taking up an undue amount of time.
First of all, I think there is very considerable misapprehension in the House as to the scope of the measure. Several speeches have been made indicating a belief that some large new principles are affirmed by the Bill, that very large new powers are to be given to the Secretary of State, and that there is an amount of change involved which the House has not contemplated, and which would justify a very considerable discussion at a period of the Session when it could not be carried on without great disadvantage. I think I can show the House that all these contentions are unsound, and that the scope of the measure is limited. To begin with, it is not a measure to take the opinion of the House as to the establishment of the Militia and Yeomanry reserve. What was the position of the Militia during the past campaign? It consisted of an establishment of 150,000 men which had always been at a strength of about 100,000—that is to say, the Militia had 100,000 men to fulfil functions assigned to 150,000. Each regiment, in other words, was short of one man in three. But that did not represent the full effect of the position of the Militia. They were liable to send to the Line at any moment 30.000 men who were liable to be called upon for Line service, and who were, in fact, so called upon during the late campaign. Consequently, a Militia colonel who ought to have had about 1,000 men in his regiment, taking the average of all the regiments, found himself, to begin with, with 650, and with the full expense of the permanent staff and establishment for a complete regiment. He saw three out of every ten of these men called away to serve in the Line. Thus the force, already reduced to 100,000, was further reduced to 70,000. But even that was not the full extent of the difficulty. Of these 70,000 men, half were recruits in their first year, men
484
who had joined at the age of seventeen or a little over, and who were not physically fit to be put in the field. Even in this country it was a strong thing to put a boy of seventeen in the field.
CAPTAIN PIRIE (): But how often is it done?
MR. BRODRICK: I think the hon. Member will agree with the remark I made, whatever he may say as to what has been done. Even if these men had been physically fit, they were not sufficiently trained to be put in the field against European troops. Thus the actual numbers of the active Militia two years ago, after the Militia Reservists had joined their Line battalions, were about 35,000 men instead of 150,000. I am sure the House will agree that that was a condition of affairs which no War Minister could possibly leave alone. It was recognised in the beginning of 1900 by the enormous expenditure incurred in rapidly collecting together the men who had served in the Army and Militia, who were induced to come hurriedly forward, and who were rapidly arranged into Royal Reserve regiments.
That was the condition of affairs which I put before the House early last year, and which the House debated on a Resolution distinctly carrying out the proposition, to give legislative effect to which is the object of the main Clause of this Bill. I proposed to the House, as the cheapest, most efficient, and most certain way of bringing the Militia up to its proper strength of 150,000. that 50,000 men who had served in the Army and completed their service in the Line Reserve, or had served for ten years in the Militia, should be allowed to take 4d. a day to join a Reserve for the Militia, to be called up in case of national emergency. That proposition was the onlv one of the numerous propositions I then submitted in a scheme which the Militia authorities inform me is working out satisfactorily in almost every detail, which, so far as I am aware, was unanimously approved of by every speaker, and after three days debate was specifically approved of by the House in these

485
terms: "That it is expedient that six Army Corps," and so forth, "be organised," and "That a Reserve for the Militia be enrolled not exceeding 50,000 men." We are actually under pledges to the men who have joined the garrison regiments. The principle upon which the garrison regiments were formed was to give the men who had completed their service in the Line and in the Reserve one of two alternatives. They might go back to civil life if they liked; but if they desired to continue further service up to twenty-one years they could do so, by going into the garrison regiments, and then, after two years, transferring themselves into the Reserve of the Militia. Having before us the Resolution of Parliament sanctioning that arrangement, and the Vote for the money, the War Office, as we were entitled to do, issued to the men who had come forward to join the garrison regiments the pledge of Parliament that they should be subsequently allowed to serve in the Reserve of the Militia, and in March or April a number of the men will be in a position to take that service. How do we stand? It was not, I admit, pointed out before I made the proposal that, under the existing Militia Acts, if you enrol a Militiaman in the Reserve he is subject to all the Militia enactments with regard to training, and to remove those regulations the right hon. Gentleman asks: "Why do you not do that by Order in Council?" But an Order in Council is intended only for temporary cases in which it is not thought necessary to train a particular corps in a particular year, and, besides, it is subject to the provisions of the Militia Acts, which do not contemplate the establishment of a Reserve for the Militia, which is now desired. Obviously, therefore, the most straightforward course for the War Office was to bring forward their proposals in the form in which we have submitted them to the House. It seems to be supposed that power can be given to the Secretary of State for War to dispense with all the enactments relating to the Militia; but, as a matter of fact, those only which relate to training are touched, and all the general enactments with reference to the Militia remain exactly the same. I therefore hope that this portion of the Bill—involving the good faith of the War Office, which has been pledged to the men in the garrison
486
regiments that they should be permitted to enter the Reserve of the Militia—shall be regarded as non-controversial, and that the discussion shall be confined to those portions relating to the Yeomanry which are regarded as novel. The chief provision in that section of the Bill is that which proposes to ask 5,000 of the Yeomanry to agree to serve abroad in case of emergency, and to give them £5 a year per man for that obligation.
Many things have been said about this. The first is that it is establishing a Reserve similar to the old Militia Reserve, which provided a force of 100,000 men— one-third available, one-third recruits, and one-third taken away from the Line. How is it with the Yeomanry? I ask the House to vote a large additional sum for the Yeomanry, because the value of the Yeomanrv as a mounted service has been clearly established by their record in South Africa, and considering that within a year of the time within which I had laid my new proposals with regard to the force before the country, it has gone up from 9,000 to 27,000, and the numerous demands for the establishment of new regiments which come before the War Office, I do not think it is too much to ask that out of the 35,000 men proposed to be raised 5,000 should he available for service abroad in case of need, leaving 30,000 available for service in this country. I do not believe that the general force of the Yeomanry will suffer through jealousy of this special corps of 5,000 men. Not only did a Departmental Committee report unanimously in favour of making the experiment, but at a meeting which I summoned, attended by thirty commanding officers of the yeomanry, twenty-seven supported it. It should be also remembered that this is an insurance against large expenditure upon the Army. Every Regular soldier costs the country £50 a year. These men will cost only £9 a year. The proposal carries out what should be the policy of every Minister for War— namely, having the largest number of men in the Reserve and the smallest number of men with the Colours, consistent, of course, with every regiment being maintained in a proper condition. The country cannot afford to keep at full pay, standing as it were to arms, the whole of the forces required for the defence of the country; and by giving 5,000 men of the Yeomanry £5 each

487
for agreeing to serve abroad in case of emergency, you avoid, for £25,000, an expenditure, which, in the case of Regular soldiers, would amount to £500,000 at the very leat. For that reason, and having regard to the service which the authorities hold that these troops did in South Africa, and their absolute eligibility for such services in case of emergency abroad, or in any other part of the world, I sincerely trust, in fact, I am certain, that this provision, if time be given to discuss it, will obtain the assent of this House. Remember that this question has been discussed with great exactness before, and carried, and a Vote has been given for it, and therefore we have already obtained the assent of Parliament.
SIR CHARLES DILKE (): What does the right hon. Gentleman mean when he says that this proposal has been discussed, and a Vote given on it, with regard to the Yeomanry?
MR. BRODRICK: I mean that the proposal was put forward in the sense that a proposal was put into the Estimates, and specifically called attention to by the Minister, and a discussion was raised upon it. So far as I am aware no hostile objection was taken to it.
SIR CHARLES DILKE: Will the right hon. Gentleman name the day on which he says that the question was discussed?
MR. BRODRICK: I cannot give the day, but I certainly called attention to it. The right hon. Gentleman says that you ought not to move Militia from one regiment to another. Many of these men have served in territorial regiments, and some in regiments which were not territorial. The large number of men who are coming home far exceed those that are necessary for a Militia battalion of that calibre, and include some of those who have never served in the Militia. Of course the general principle of the territorial system will be kept up to the extremest limit possible.
MR. CLAUDE HAY (): And how about the Yeomanry?
MR. BRODRICK: As regards the Yeomanry, power is taken to transfer where a reserve is possible, and we desire to keep the system on the most common-sense basis. Let me now explain the position. I trust, at all events, in regard to the Militia, we shall be allowed to consider the provisions of the Bill as non-controversial. As regards the Yeomanry part, if there was any general consensus of opinion among Yeomanry officers against it I would not press it for a moment; but the mass of Yeomanry officers strongly support it, and I still hope, therefore, that hon. Members will give this portion of the scheme that fair discussion which is still possible, and allow it to be inserted in the measure. I have referred to what are the strong grounds in our possession for originating the Yeomanry part of the Bill. It is, as I have said, not a new proposal, but merely the completion of a scheme for which Parliament has already voted money. It is urgent from the point of view of the military authorities, and, if put off, must seriously inconvenience the arrangements we are making to put the Army into a proper condition after the war.
SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid he would not follow the right hon. Gentleman on the Militia part of the Bill. There were Members in the House who were fully competent to discuss it from the Militia point of view, though he himself was not able to do so. He frankly admitted that he was a revolutionist in regard to the infantry services of the country. He did not believe in the distinctions which were drawn in regard to these services, and therefore he put himself out of court for discussing from a technical point of view the Militia. The Yeomanry part of the Bill was a different matter, and it was impossible to discuss it as if it were one that could be decided by Yeomanry colonels. Their opinion on Yeomanry was of the utmost value, but it was not worth more than the opinion of any member of the Committee with regard what should be the mounted troops of this country for war abroad. Some of our Yeomanry officers who had done most distinguished service abroad were those who had served during the past two or three years in

489
South Africa. They had had more experience of cavalry and yeomanry than any troops in the world. They had become absolutely competent men to speak on the subject of mounted infantry; but the opinion of a Yeomanry colonel at home was only of the same value as that of any Member of the House on a matter of this kind. They must discuss the Yeomanry part of the Bill from a larger point of view. They could not form an opinion on it unless they had in their mind what the British Empire was, and what in case of war the Yeomanry would have to do. Applying himself only to the portion of the Bill affecting the mounted services of the country, he asked the House to have in view the wider considerations of which he had spoken. The right hon. Gentleman said that the House had already approved of his proposals. On every occasion when questions affecting the mounted infantry and cavalry had been under consideration in the House, there had been a great deal of objection taken to the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman, and as one who was present at the whole of these debates, he did not think they could be said to have been generally favoured by the House. The feeling of the House on those occasions was against the proposals which were shadowed forth. When the right hon. Gentleman put his six Army Corps scheme before the House, a great attack was made against making up any of the Regular Army in respect of cavalry and mounted infantry by the use of Yeomanry. At that time no statement was made by the right hon. Gentleman to lead the House to suppose but that the Yeomanry regiments selected for service in time of war would be there as they had served in time of peace. In the statement made the year before last, he did not think the right hon. Gentleman gave any hint to the House of the proposal ever to take out a portion of the Yeomanry and use them to make up the deficiencies of the Reserve or for the cavalry of the Regular Army.
MR. BRODRICK: I ought to have made it clear that the proposal now made would of course not be on the lines of the old Militia Reserve, who were a body of trained soldiers.
SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid the proposal now was a new one. Last year the right hon. Gentleman threw out a hint that a certain number of men were to be taken for service abroad in time of war, and to receive pay for that purpose, but he did not then tell the House what was the scheme proposed. Now for the first time an explanation was given in regard to the men who were to serve in separate squadrons attached to the regiments which were to go abroad.
With regard to the 30,000 Yeomanry at home, that was an essential portion of the ideas of the right hon. Gentleman, who believed in a home army to resist invasion, and who contemplated the possibility of the defeat of our fleets at sea. It was impossible not to take these considerations into view in discussing this subject. Those who believed in naval defence as the only one that could be effective, rejected the home army part of the scheme, and believed that what was wanted was a striking army that could go abroad, and for that a high proportion of regular trained mounted troops was required. That they could not get without professional training; they could not get it from the Yeomanry would be trained. The differences between cavalry and regular mounted infantry had now become so distinct that the Powers were likely in the next few years to be going in a direction in which, with our South African experience, we ought to precede them—namely, of having both cavalry and regular permanent mounted infantry. The War Office were too much inclined to take a good class of recruit for the Yeomanry, and to take this as being the equivalent of cavalry. They had in recent times seen regiments take highly belligerent titles, such as the Rutlandshire Rough Riders, or words to that effect, and they were accepted by the War Office as being what they appeared to be at first sight. But they were not cavalry soldiers, and they could not be counted upon as persons who had received a cavalry or a mounted infantry training which would fit them at once to take their place in the ranks of the regiments into which they would be sent. But now, he believed, the Government had not finally made up their mind on the subject, and that was one reason why he thought the discussion that afternoon would be of value. He had seen

491
hints given that it was possible the Government might have in view the creation of regular mounted infantry regiments. Of course there were a great many men serving in South Africa who had had such a training, and in that respect we stood in a position of superiority to the other Powers. But the Government would have to take a decision on this subject. The right hon. Gentleman had told the House that he shrank from the cost of extending this branch of the service; but the plea he offered to the House was that if the cost of the service had become too great, it was on the infantry, which they could improvise, rather than on the mounted infantry, that they should economise. The same argument had been used some years ago in regard to the artillery and the cavalry, which had been cut down and their horses reduced in number; and it was ultimately admitted that he and his friends were right and the Government wrong. The same thing was now going on in regard to the mounted infantry. They were going to try, for the sake of cheapness, to save on this branch of the service, although there was much ground for thinking that it was on it they must rely in an emergency. He should not be in order if he were to point out, on the Second Reading of this Bill, where a saving on the infantry might come in; but he did most earnestly plead with the Government and the House not to try to save money on the mounted branches of the service which could not be improvised in case of war. They all knew what occurred in South Africa. A portion of the mounted troops hurriedly raised were good, but the great bulk of them were not only useless, but were absolutely a danger; and it was not till they had been some time in the field that they were found to be of much service. The Government had too much in view, in regard to home defence as compared with naval defence, this 30,000 Yeomanry, as against this striking force of 5,000 men. The need of this country was to have a thoroughly prepared striking force. These troops, for which we paid so highly, ought to be of the best description; and Bills of this kind, which provided for masses of half-trained men as an imperfect makeshift, should not receive the sanction of
492
this House. The Prime Minister had that day made a most important declaration as to what was occupying the mind of the Government at the present time in connection with national defence. The right hon. Gentleman had promised a complete statement at the beginning of next session; and the House would wait for that with great interest. He could not but think that it would be better for the Government to agree to drop the Yeomanry portion of the Bill, for if they passed that portion they should be shutting the door against those fresh proposals which the Prime Ministerled them to hope for next session. He did not think it would be difficult to pass the Militia portion of the Bill. The Secretary for War had apparently forgotten what Napier had said of the Government of 1813, that they seemed to be unaware that we were surrounded by the sea. The Secretary for War had always in his mind that it was necessary to have a large land force in these islands because we might be invaded. Let the right hon. Gentleman get that out of his head. We should have a highly organised and concentrated force, but above all, we ought to be strong in cavalry, mounted infantry, and artillery.
SIR JOHN COLOMB ()said that he would heartily endorse all that had been said by the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean. Having taken some part in the debate on the Army Reform Bill, of which this was really a part, he could say that his objection to that scheme was the want of appreciation of the conditions in which the Empire existed and of its military necessities. It would be quite improper for him to proceed on that line now, but he strongly objected to voting in any way for any part of a scheme which showed that the Government were carrying out a false policy which was not for the benefit of the country. He could not accept the plea of his right hon. friend the Secretary for War as to the urgency of this Bill. Twenty months ago the House passed a measure creating the Militia Reserve of 50,000 men, and now his right hon. friend came down and said—"If you don't pass this Bill, such and such terrible things will happen." If it

493
was urgent now, it must have been urgent all through the session. The fact was that the War Office were blundering into a policy, and hence their claim for urgency for this Bill. He heartily supported the right hon. Member for Forest of Dean, who advocated the old policy—for which they had been fighting for twenty years—and that was the influence of the element of time, which had never been recognised by the War Office. Cavalry and artillery took longer to train than infantry, and, therefore, in the nature of the case, they must in peace maintain regular cavalry and artillery at a higher proportion, numerically, than the infantry. The Government had never really accepted common-sense principles in their organisation. They had created what was called Imperial Yeomanry—a force which was neither Yeomanry nor Imperial. The title was only adopted to catch the public imagination and would not stand examination, because any proper consideration of the Yeomanry meant that you do not want this 35,000 men at all. He altogether objected to the right hon. Gentleman saying —"5,000 men will only cost you £25,000 and look what a Regular soldier will cost you." It was not a just argument, and therefore in Committee he should move the deletion of sub-Section 3 of the Bill. He had it from his right hon. friend that from the beginning to the end the Militia Reserve system was a bad one, and now he says—"You can apply the same principle, which has been found in practice to be bad to the Yeomamy." But says the right hon. Gentleman, "There is a very great difference. The Militia Reserve man was a private soldier who went into the regular Army for military service abroad; the individual unit of the Imperial Yeomanry is not a private soldier, he is subject to a different law." He saw no difference between the two. His right hon. friend tried to harmonise his arguments by saying that the Imperial yeoman will go with his own officer. Why could not the militiaman do the same? If that was a practical argument for the one it was practical for the other. We ought to have some explanation of this. How was it going to be arranged that the yeoman shall go with his own officer? They had two yeomanry cavalry regiments. In one they had only
494
ten men in the Yeomanry reserve, and in the other fifty men. How ware they going to arrange for the ten men to go with their own officer? His right hon. friend had no doubt a very large scheme in his head, but he had not explained to them where the difference between the Yeomanry reserve and the old Militia reserve was. In Committee ho would have to show them and give them definite proof that the principle was to be so different in its application to the Yeomanry reserve as compared with the Militia reserve to provide that the men shall always go with their own officers. He did not vote for the Adjournment of the debate, because he wished to hear what the Secretary for War was going to say, but had he known, as he now did, he certainly should have voted for it. With regard to the Militia part, he had not much to say except on the broad ground that it was carrying out a bad policy, but he objected to this provision in regard to the Imperial Yeomanry, because he thought it was throwing dust in the eyes of the people; because it would produce inferior cavalry units, and because this policy might be used by future Ministers to keep down the efficiency of the real Army.
MR. BECKETTsaid that after the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, the Bill seemed to have been divided into two parts. With regard to the Militia part of the Bill, for which both men and money had been voted, nothing could be said, but it was around sub-Section 3 that all the opposition concentrated, and considering that the Session was drawing to a close and there was not much time for the carrying through of this Bill, he would suggest to the Secretary of State that he should drop sub-Section 3 for the present, and be content with carrying the remainder of the Bill. If the right hon. Gentleman would adopt that course he would find no opposition to the measure.
MR. BRODRICK: I am most anxious to meet the wishes of the House in a question of this kind. But although I am aware of the strong opposition entertained by my hon. friend and others to this particular sub-Section, I believe that if the subject were debated in a full House the proposal would

495
be strongly supported by military Members. I do not feel quite clear whether the occupants of the Front Opposition Bench would accept the other part of the Bill as of an uncontroversial character if I abandon for the time sub-Section 3. In the event of it being abandoned for the present it must be understood that I do not hold myself in any degree bound not to re-introduce it at the first opportunity. I believe that my hon. and gallant friend has misconceived what the effect of the sub-Section will be, but I realise that we are at a late period of the Session, and that strong objection has been taken to proceeding with the measure for that reason. If it is clearly understood that the first two sub-Sections are to be regarded as uncontroversial, namely, those which permit the Government to establish a Militia and Yeomanry reserve, and if it is made clear that men shall be allowed to remain on the books of the Yeomanry under the Militia Act, so that training may continue, I will try to meet the wishes of my hon. friends by dropping sub-Section 3. I should like, however, to have some assurance from the Front Bench, opposite with regard to this.
CAPTAIN NORTON ()said it was impossible to consider this Bill without, to some extent, looking at the whole scheme of Army reform of which this was a part. The reason for the opposition to it was that the majority of the Service Members of the House felt that the right hon. Gentleman would have had little necessity for this Bill if he had taken the opportunity when the country was ripe to make use of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, and had placed himself in the position in which he might then have placed himself with reference to militia affairs. The proposal to transfer militia from one county to another altered the whole character of the force, both territorially and constitutionally. Of course, circumstances had altered in the last half century, and agricultural counties formerly able to produce large quantities of militiamen were not now in the same position, whilst other counties like Glamorgan were able, owing to the increase of population, to raise as many as six regiments; but the principle of transferring the men from one county
496
to another would result in muddling up the Militia in a manner never before known. One of the six Army Corps was to be supplied with cavalry from scrap squadrons from different Yeomanry regiments, an unsatisfactory force for a general officer to rely upon. He ventured to point out that it would be impossible to secure a force of the right character. There was a great distinction between mounted infantry and cavalry, and no absolute lessons could be drawn from the experience of the South African War. Scrap cavalry of this description would go down like ninepins before trained Continental cavalry. No fewer than 35,000 Yeomanry were to be raised, in order to obtain 5,000 efficient cavalry, and the remainder of the force would be of no value whatever in the event of their having to operate at home. What was needed in this country was a mobile striking force, and this Bill was beginning at the wrong end. Instead of pressing this Bill now, at the close of the session, it would be far better if the Government would hold it over until next session, when they were developing their entire system of Army reform.
SIR ARTHUR HAYTER: The right hon. Gentleman has made an appeal tome, and has, I think, made an extremely fair otter to this side of the House. I understand he proposed to drop sub-Section 3, Clause 1, for the present session only, if we withdraw the Amendment to read this Bill a second time this day three months. I may say on behalf of this side we will accept the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman, and leave this discussion to a later date, and though we may move small Amendments we shall move no obstructive Amendments.
Amendment by leave, withdrawn.
Original Question again proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
COLONEL NOLAN ()desired to have some explanation of sub-Section 1. He quite understood that the War Office, or the Commander-in-Chief, might be able to transfer all the men of the Yeomanry, Volunteers, and Militia from one part to another, as it suited the Service, and that they were very impatient at the fancy some soldiers took for a particular regiment as against

497
another. He understood that under this Bill a militiaman could be transferred from one Militia regiment to another, with one exception. An infantry man could not be transferred to an artillery regiment, and an artillery man could not be transferred to an infantry regiment. But a Militia Reserve man could be transferred from a Galway or Mayo regiment to an Antrim regiment or a Yorkshire regiment. Did that rule appertain to all militiamen or only the Militia Reserve men? Because he did not want west-country men who had joined the militia of their county to be transferred to a northern regiment, where there might be some objection to their religion. He knew some regiments which had a very great objection to Catholics and would not allow them to join. Then with regard to the convenience of the men themselves, there were many who would be likely to suffer from such a transfer. There were many objections to men being called out and transferred to other regiments in other parts. Irishmen rightly or wrongly liked to be with their own regiments in Ireland. This Bill seemed to him to take this power to transfer, and he would like some explanation upon that point. He also wished to know whether a man in the Galway or Mayo Militia could when he joined the Reserve be transferred to an English regiment at the will of the Secretary of State or the Commander-in-Chief.
COLONEL WELBY ()pointed out that in the latter part of sub-Section 1 militiamen were mentioned, but not yeomen. Was it intended to enable a yeoman in the Reserve to be transferred from one arm of the Service to another? He did not say that the principle was a bad one, but if a yeoman could be transferred to the artillery, engineers, or the Army Medical Department, it ought to be clearly stated.
MR. BRODRICKsaid a yeoman could not be transferred to another arm, inasmuch as there was only one arm of the yeomanry.
COLONEL WELBYhad always understood the word "arm" to refer to a branch of the service. Technically it
498
did so, whatever might be its meaning in Parliamentary language. As to the point raised by the hon. Baronet, he understood sub-Section 2 to refer to the raising of Militia. Technically the Militia could be raised by Ballot unless the Ballot Act was suspended by the House. He therefore asked whether this sub-Section would bring the Yeomanry under the provisions of the Ballot Act.
MR. COURTENAY WARNERthought the Bill afforded a good instance of the way in which the War Office always mixed up a lot of rubbish with a little good work. There were many things that might have been done with regard to the Yeomanry and Militia, but this Bill simply tinkered with the question without affecting the important points. One of the chief reasons urged for the Bill was the scarcity of men in time of war. But did not that scarcity exist in time of peace? In some counties additional battalions of Militia could easily be raised, while the neighbouring counties were short of men, and if there had been inserted in the Bill a provision with regard to recruiting in other counties similar to that proposed in connection with the transfer of reserves, he believed many more recuits could be secured. There was one thing without which no Militia Bill was sound. Militia officers were almost unanimous in the opinion that it would not make the least difference in recruiting if the Militia were recruited to serve either at home or abroad in case of emergency. That would do away with the ridiculous and unsatisfactory farce of the so-called "volunteering" for foreign service. He was glad the proposal to take the Yeomanry for foreign service in sections was to be dropped. It was an impossible idea. If they were sent in companies, and under their own officers, a great deal might be done. By the amalgamation of corps it would be possible to arrange for the men to go out more or less with friends, and under officers whom they knew. If the same principle were applied with the Militia there would be no fear of the recruiting falling off, and the Bill would do more good. He agreed that it was a good thing to establish a Militia reserve, and he hoped it would fulfill all expectations. At present, however, the

499
rush for the Army and Militia had fallen off, and, unless the men were made more comforable, the required number of recruits would not be forthcoming. The question of having more mounted troops would have to be faced; and the Government would have seriously to consider the question of having regular corps of mounted infanntry as well as our present cavalry. He was pleased that the Bill was going through without opposition, as the Militia reserve was an excellent thing, and everybody agreed that, if the Yeomanry were to be efficient, they would have to be under the same discipline and training as the Militia in days gone by.
MR. TULLY ()thought Irish Members were entitled to some explanation of how this Bill would affect Ireland. Important alterations were to be made with regard to the Militia and Yeomanry, which might seriously concern many poor men in that country. Some time ago a Bill was rushed through the House without discussion, with the result that men who had previously joined the Militia found themselves liable for service in South Africa. The first Clause of the present Bill might have a similar effect, inasmuch as the proposal to transfer militiamen from one corps to another might mean that Irish-men would suddenly be transferred, without their previous knowledge or consent, from an Irish to an English Militia regiment. He did not think that militia who joined at Roscommon should be liable to be transferred to some English regiment, such as the Yorkshire or the Lancashire regiments. On theose grounds he thought they were entitled to some explanation from the noble Lord as to how this Bill would affect Irish regiments. They were prohibited in Ireland from having Volunteers, although some Yeomanry regiments were raised in Ireland during the recent war. A great many of the Yeomanry raised in Ireland had distinguished themselves in South Africa by the facility with which they surrendered to the Boers. If they were to have Yeomanry in Ireland, he wished to know whether they could be transferred to English and British regiments. The hon. Member for North Galway had asked for an explanation, and he hoped the noble Lord would give them some assurance on this point.
THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Lord STANLEY,)said this Bill would not affect Irish reservists or Militia reservists any more than English. Men, at the completion of ten years, could go into the reserve of the battalion to which they belonged. There were also in the Army a lot of men who, when they left the Army, were lost to the military service. They were to be asked to go into the Militia reserve to serve as a reserve for the whole of the Militia. There was no esprit de corps concerned at all, and they would be allotted amongst the various Militia regiments as required.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read a second time, and committed for Tomorrow.

PATENT LAW AMENDMENT BILL.
Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
FISHERIES (IRELAND) [EXPENSES].
Order for Committee thereupon read, and discharged.

MAIL SHIPS BILL.
Order read, for resuming Adjourned. Debate on Question [1st December], "That the Bill be now read a second time."
Question again proposed.
MR. CALDWELL ()said it was necessary for him to put before the House the nature of this measure. It was a simple and very useful Bill, and had reference to the bond of security which the owner of mail ships carrying mails between this country and a foreign State had to give in order that the ship might have the privileges of a mail ship, which privileges were very considerable in many ways. Under this Act the High Court had to be satisfied with regard to the sufficiency of the security, and if the High Court was not satisfied the security had to be provided in another way. Therefore this Bill made the law more effective by bringing the parties within the jurisdiction of

501
the High Court, and in this respect the measure was an improvement. He wished to point out that the Bill contained a provision in regard to "change in the residence or place or business and serivice." The President of the Board of Trade would find that the whole of this had arisen from tautology in the present Act. They ought to have scored out the words "is from any cause insufficient." As for the Bill, as a whole, it always gave him pleasure, when he found that a Bill was right, to give every facility for it passing, and this was an illustration of the fact that they did not find a measure opposed if it was a really substanital one, as this Bill was.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read a second time, and committed for Tomorrow.

BANKERS (IRELAND) ACT REPEAL BILL.
Order for Committee read, and discharged; Bill withdrawn.

FISHERIES (IRELAND) BILL.
Order for Committee read and discharged; Bill withdrawn.
(5.55.) There being no further business which could, under the terms of the Order of the 16th October, be taken at the Afternoon Sitting, Mr. SPEAKER left the Chair until the Evening Sitting.

EVENING SITTING.

  UGANDA RAILWAY [GRANT].
  Considered in Committee.
  (in the Committee.)
  [Mr. JEFFEREYS (Hampshire, N.) the Chair.]
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord CRANBORNE,): In moving this Resolution in Committee, I beg first to call the attention of hon. Members to the memorandum on the subject which was presented two days ago, and which gives a very complete statement of the reasons why it is necesary for the Government
  502
  to ask for more money. It begins with a short summary of the history of the railway, and it includes a memorandum by the managing member of the Uganda Railway Committee containing a comparative table shewing the original and the present Estimates, and an explanation of the reasons why the Estimate has had to be modified. That dispenses me from making any elaborate statement in detail, though I shall be quite willing and ready, so far as my powers allow, to answer any questions hon. Members may put to me on the subject. I may, however, make a few general remarks.
  It is, perhaps, hardly necessary to remind the House of the past history of the Uganda Railway, or that our presence in East Africa was dictated by considerations of trade expansion, by our hope to fulfill the mission of civilisation which has so long been the function of the British Imperial authorities, and by the position this country occupies in Africa, which requires that we should take our share in the development of that country. I have used the word "development." Any sensible man who owns property thinks it his duty to develop it, and there is nothing more essential in the development of a property than the making of proper communications. It follows almost as a matter of course that if we are right to be in East Africa at all we should make a railway. I challenge contradiction of this statement, that if we were to be in East Africa at all, sooner or later, being established as the controlling authority over this was tract, it was our duty and our interest also to make this railway. Hon. Members will remember that the vast majority of the House of Commons when the project was first proposed were in favour of making the railway forth with, and that it was at once entered upon. Great difficulties almost immediately showed themselves. In the first place, it was impossible to get the requisite labour on the continent of Africa, and an army of 20,000 labourers and artisans had to be transported from India in order to make the railway. In the second place, 600 miles of railway had to be made. The line passed through most difficult country. In its course it reached a point over 8,000 feet above

  503
  the sea, and in the middle there was a formidable drop of 1,500 feet, which had taxed the ingenuity of our engineers to the very highest point. I may mention, in order to show the kind of country that this railway had to traverse, that there are no less than seventy-live viaducts, as distinct from bridges, and the Committee cannot be surprised to learn, therefore, that in all the circumstances the railway has been an expensive one to build. Including the present grant, if the House is good enough to give it us, it will have cost, in order to complete it, £5,550,000, the demand I am now making on the Committee being for £600,000. 1 ought to say here that as against that sum there is an asset in the shape of stores which are valued at about £150,000.
  What the Committee will require me to justify is my demand for an increased sum over the estimate made in the early part of 1900. The details of the reasons are to be found in the Parliamentary Paper I have laid on the Table, but generally speaking I may say that it is due partly to causes over which the Government have no control, and partly, I. frankly admit, to mistakes which ought not to have occurred. The first cause was, I think, by far the largest. The line was begun in complete ignorance of the country through which it was to be made. There was not in 1900 even a complete or detailed survey with which to work out the quantities. Indeed, there was no material at that time with which to work them out. On the top of that came the great rise in the price of coal last year, which made an enormous difference in the cost. It was felt in almost all departments of the work. The coal rose in fact from 13s. to 27s., and freights from 22s. to 23s. Then there was the abnormally bad weather. For five months, to the end of September last, it rained continuously, and it began again at the latter end of October. We did not get fine weather until the 25th November. Thus the Committee will see the difficult conditions under which the latter part of the work was conducted. The circumstances were entirely beyond the control of those responsible for making the railway. It was not to be expected that the weather would be so bad as to make it impossible over large sections to do any work at all. All the
  504
  time, the coolies brought from India had to be paid, and the additional expenditure consequent upon the bad weather is a very serious item indeed in the total cost. Then there is another item which must be taken into account, and of which the Government has no reason to be ashamed. So long as water could not be found in sufficient quantities, it, of course, had to be carried. The cost of carrying water was not a capital expenditure at all, but as water was discovered machinery had to be supplied, and the charge for that was thrown on capital expenditure. It is economy in the long run, but it makes it necessary to ask for a large sum. The Government were undoubtedly over-sanguine as to the time it would take to make the railway, and in generalising from the cost of the earlier portion of the railway to the cost of the whole, it turned out that the latter part of the railway further into the interior was more expensive to make, and that, of course, threw out the whole calculation, which was made on the average of the earlier months. Then, certain things were undoubtedly omitted which ought to have been included. Certain, works at headquarters were not estimated for, for which the money has to be found now. These are, roughly speaking, the general heads under which the greater part of the excess has occurred.
  The Committee will ask whether, in the judgment of the Foreign Office, there will be any more expenditure. I am not going to enter into any engagement which I cannot fulfil, and 1 do not desire to deceive the House. It is perfectly possible, these works being what they are, that certain extra expenditure may be thrown on the country at a future date. It may be possible, and I hope it will be, that sources of water will become available in much greater quantities than at present. Work will be required to make them useful, and this will involve extra capital expenditure. If there is a necessity for that, the money will have to be found in the ordinary Estimates to be laid before this House. It would, there fore, be rash to say that there is an absolute certainty that other capital expenditure will not be incurred. On the other hand I ought to bring before the House and

  505
  the country what they have got for their money. They have in the first place got a good article— a first-rate railway. People may differ as to whether a railway ought to be made at all, undoubtedly the money has been expended in producing a good article. That has been testified by several impartial observers. Sir G. Goldie, who enjoys a great reputation, visited the railway not long ago, and has stated that after seeing the line throughout practically its whole length, and visiting its fully-equipped workshops, stores, and other accessories, he has no hesitation in answering affirmatively the question whether there is intrinsic value in the railway in proportion to the capital expended upon it. Sir Harry Johnston, although perhaps not so absolutely an impartial authority as Sir George Goldie, also speaks in the highest terms of the railway. In expense of construction the railway compares favourably with the Cape Railway and that of Natal, the Uganda Railway having cost about, £9,500 a mile, as compared with rather over £10,000 in the case of the Cape Railway, and £11.000 in that of Natal. The gauge of the Uganda Railway is. I admit, three feet three inches, as against three feet six inches in the case of the other South African railways, but the difference in gauge, I am told, makes very little difference in the cost.
  MR. BRYNMOR JONES (): What did you pay for the land?
  LORD CRANBORNE: I am informed that the land cost nothing in either case.
  MR. BRYNMOR JONES: £20,000 is put down for it now.
  LORD CRANBORNE: I am not going to make any promise as to the prospects of the line. Trade there is now in its infancy, but the country is a very fertile one, and capitalists in England are showing a willingness to venture considerable sums on concessions which we are granting for trade. But I may say that the opinions of Sir George Goldie and Sir Harry Johnston are again favourable, the former saying he has not a shadow of doubt that ultimately the line will prove a sound commercial speculation, and the latter predicting that in ten years' time the railway will be returning a handsome
  506
  profit on working expenses, which may enable the Government to pay back to the nation the original cost of its construction. The value of the railway, moreover, is not to be calculated only by its promise of a direct return. There is a considerable indirect economy, because all that is required for the development of the country is now so much more cheaply introduced. The cost of carriage as between porter-borne and railway-borne stores may, for example, be compared. The cost of carriage by caravan was 7s. 6d. per ton per mile; by rail it was from 2 1/4d. to 2 1/2d. The Committee will realise what an enormous difference that is. Applying that figure up to March 31st, 7,417 tons of Protectorate—that is Government—stores have been introduced at a cost of £57,000. Under the old system of carriage by porters, the cost would have been £552,000. The economy which will be caused by the railway is in fact almost incalculable. Without the railway, in fact, the development of our dominions there would have been impossible. With it everything was open to us. In the progress of administration and in the comfort of the people the railway will be an unexampled blessing. The journey from London to the capital of Uganda can now be made, according to Sir Harry Johnston, in twenty-four days, as compared with four months in former times, and the natives will be able to avail themselves of these great advantages when they go in quest of more profitable employment on the coast, or when they seek to sell their products. In fact, from the native point of view, the commercial advantage of the railway can not be, over-estimated.
  I think that the Government have done nothing but their duty in pushing forward this railway. I regret, of course, that it should have cost as much as it has done, but provided we have got a good article for our money, that we confer these great blessings on the native population, and at the same time promote our own trade. I do not think the Committee ought to grudge the sum I am now asking. The reason why I am asking leave to introduce a Bill for a loan is that this course has always been adopted in regard to sums asked for this railway. It is only just that

  507
  this method should be pursued, because this is in the nature of capital expenditure. The benefit of the expenditure will accrue to future taxpayers, and therefore the cost ought to be thrown partly upon them. The same method has been adopted in respect of other public works, such as military and naval works, and a precedent is also, I believe, to be found for it in the specific cable expenditure which was defrayed in the same way. This money is to be borrowed from the National Debt Commissioners on the security of terminable annuities payable in thirty years in the ordinary way. I move the Resolution, and I have only to add that, if further information is desired, I shall be happy to answer questions.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That it is expedient to authorise the issue, out of the Consolidated Fund, of a further sum not exceeding £600,000 for the purposes of the Uganda Railway."—(Lord Cranborne.)
  MR. BRYNMOR JONESsaid the noble Lord had made a very clear statement, but he should like to remind him of the debate that took place a few sessions ago. The noble Lord's speech tonight was directed rather to the principle of the undertaking than to the details which they on this side of the House ventured to criticise. He had talked of the development of our dominions. If we did undertake the protectorate of Uganda it could be well understood that we had also to undertake the making of railways and roads, and many other things which were necessary to the effective support of our Empire and of good government in that region. The hon. Member said, in 1900, that he was in favour of the making of this railway, because we were practically committed to that or the giving up of the protectorate. Let them take that as their postulate in argumentation. It appeared to him that the noble Lord had forgotten that the point they were making was that the Foreign Office, in becoming a kind ot railway contractor, had been guilty of inefficiency, waste, and extravagance. That was the main burden of the opposition to the Bill of 1900. He did not know that it was expedient for
  508
  him at present to enter upon the details of the mistakes of which the Government had been guilty in regard to the carrying out of this undertaking. He had, however, this complaint to make, and it might justify him for not talking at length at this stage of the Bill, that he had only had the "Memoranda relating to the Uganda Railway, 1902," for two or three hours in his hand. That Paper was not signed by anybody, and it was only by a process of inference that he could assume it was laid before the House by the noble Lord. It was not sent to his house this morning with the other Papers.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out'£600,000,'and insert £500,000'"."—(Mr Brynmor Jones.)
  Question proposed, "That ' £600,000' stand part of the Question."
  LORD CRANBORNE: If that is so I think the hon. Member has been very badly treated. It was in the Vote Office yesterday afternoon, and, of course, according to the ordinary practice it ought to have been circulated to hon. Members this morning. Perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to say this much. My right hon. friend the First Lord of the Treasury had originally arranged that this matter should be taken on Wednesday, and if that arrangement had been carried out the hon. Gentleman would have had more time to consider the memoranda, but, owing to the exigencies of business, the adjourned debate was put down for today. My right hon. friend, when he altered the arrangement, said he hoped that hon. Gentleman would understand that he did so for the convenience of the House, and that they would not complain that they had lost the opportunity of considering the new business put down for today which they otherwise would have had.
  MR, BRYNMOR JONESsaid that, as far as the personal position of the noble Lord was concerned, the explanation he had given was absolutely right, but at the same time, when they remembered that the Session commenced in January, there was good cause to complain of the delay in the presentation of Papers. The Foreign Office made a great mistake when,

  509
  in 1895, they undertook to carry out this business. There was an experienced firm of contractors ready to carry out the work at the rate of £3,500 per mile and, as a matter of fact, it had cost the country £9,000 per mile. If the Foreign Office would take on its shoulders this work of railway construction as well as other things appertaining to that office, it must expect to be severely criticised for its inefficiency, waste, and extravagance. The Foreign Office appointed a Committee, and he had followed every step taken by the Committee in so far as appeared from the printed documents which had been laid before the House. but, of course, these formed only a very little part of what must be at the disposal of the noble Lord. Colonel Gracey was appointed to go out in an independent manner and examine into the state of things.
  LORD CRANBORNE: He is a member of the Committee.
  MR. BRYNMOR JONESdid not think Colonel Gracey was a member of the Committee. If he was a member of the Committee there had been no independent inspection at all. He understood that Colonel Gracey, who had had experience in India, was appointed as a kind of independent officer not concerned at all in regard to this matter. He was to go over what had already been done by the officers on the spot, and to test the accuracy of the estimates which had been already framed. Colonel Gracey went out, and in his report he made the most damaging criticism in regard to the work which had been done. He wished to call the noble Lord's attention to the question of inclined planes. The noble Lord had said that the railway was finished to Port Florence. As a matter of fact, he had reason to believe, for he had seen the figures, that the inclined planes were by no means finished. He was told by an hon. friend that the inclined planes were only temporary. This was not, perhaps, the occasion for going into engineering details, but he advised the noble Lord to give attention to the accounts for the construction of another African railway from Beira to Umtali, and he would find under every head of expenditure, the construction had been more efficient and cheaper, and quite as good a line had been the result. But the House never
  510
  seemed able to get to the end of expenditure on this Uganda Railway; every two years a fresh account was opened. The construction of this railway was not a work for the Foreign Office to undertake, and the result had been extravavance and waste of money. As a protest, he moved a reduction of the Vote by £1,000.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis)saqid it was unfortunate that a Department organised for negotiations and diplomatic business should embark upon the work of railway construction. He was not quite sure that they would be more successful in Uganda than they had been in Brussels. It was inconsiderate to keep back the information contained in the Papers until the day before debate; it was a growing practice which he hoped the noble Lord would endeavour to check so far as his Department was concerned. In the opinion of many hon. Members a sum of £600,000 was a fleabite, but he thought that it was a very large sum indeed. There was no notice in the Paper cirulated this morning of the sum to be asked for. Until a few minutes ago the House had no notion of what the sum was to be. He did not think any private person would be content to be dealt with in that wat, He regretted that they had not had a little more time to consider the proposal. He could not but remember Standing Order 62 of the House, which absolutely prescribed that when such a proposal was made the consideration of it should be postponed to a future day.
  LORD CRANBORNE: It is to go into Committee tomorrow.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he was perfectly well aware that what was now being done had been usual of late years, but if the noble Lord would refer to the old journals of the House he would find that when such a proposal was made it postponed to a subsequent day appropriated for it under Standing Order 62. In this case a demand for £600,000 was flung at the House, and, then and there, it was asked to vote upon it. He thought that was a highly inconvenient method of procedure. In view of the large expenditure which had been incurred this £600,000 might be considered a very small matter, but it was a straw on the camel's back, and he must take some

  511
  account of it. Moreover, this demand had to him a very serious aspect. This was the third time that the House had been asked for Supplies this year, and the present vote would necessitate the passing of another Appropriation Act. But it appeared to be easy for the Government to obtain moneyin these days. He pictured "youth at the prow and pleasure at the helm"—the Colonial Secretary in South Africa and the Prime Minister at the helm here. Even the Chancellor of the Exchequer made no resistance. The predecessor of the right hon. Gentleman had the appearance of a mastiff sitting on thecash-box showing his teeth to everyone who came near. There was nothing of the mastiff about the present Chancellor of the Exchequer; there was more of the spaniel, he thought, for the right hon. Gentleman could not refuse anything, not even to the noble Lord and the Foreign Office, when accounts were presented such as no human being ever before looked at, and when reasons such as no human being ever before adduced were made in support of them. These accounts, if not so sad and pathetic, would be positively comic. When this matter was first raised they were told that the railway would cost £3,000,000, and would be one of the most valuable assets of the Empire. He predicted then that it would cost at least £6,000,000. It had already cost that amount, and the noble Lord with perfect frankness had told the House that it was possible that it might cost a great deal more. As to the future, the noble Lord could give them no information. He thought this a good article, as if it were a piece of haberdashery. The Public Accounts Committee had had trouble over the Uganda Railway accounts, but he was not going over the ground they had ploughed with so much assiduity and toil. The Paper which had been issued in regard to the Uganda Railway contained some remarkable statements. He should like to know whether the whole of it was by F. L. O Callaghan, or whether it was partly by the noble Lord.
  LORD CRANBORNE: My hon. friend knows that all the Papers laid before the House are passed by the Foreign Office, which is responsible for them.
  Mr. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he had asked the information in regard to the
  512
  authorship of the Paper in order that he might understand it a little better. The hon. Member called the attention of the House to the reasons set forth in the paragraphs (a) to (e) of the "Reasons for the figures in the Revised Estimate" on page 8 of the Paper. The noble Lord gave the House a fearful picture of five months' constant rain, and of everything and everybody being overwhelmed with water. It appeared, however, that if there was too much water at one time there was too much water at one time there was not enough at another. Why, having all this water, did they not keep some of it and use it? Was the rain in one part of the country and not another? ["Oh!" and laughter.] He really thought this was not a thing to jeer at. The Chief Engineer's estimate was plans were completed, therefore the data he relied upon were imperfect. Of course, when the Chief Engineer knew that he had git perfect data, he could work out his calculations to perfection! Then the Report went on to say that the Chief Engineer—
  "took the cost of so much of the line as was then finished as a guide, and used the actual cost per mile of each main head of account, modifying the averages in some cases where his experience led him to believe the cost would differ materially from that in the past."
  Now here was the comment on that statement—
  "Conditions being similar in all respects, this method gives fairly accurate results, but the actual condition proved not to be similar."
  Then, it was admitted that the Chief Engineer had very imperfect knowledge of climate conditions, which could only be determined after years of observation. The two years following the date of his estimate proved exceptionally wet. The gentleman never thought of these rains, or whether there would not be rain enough; and then to his surprise, during the year 1901, there was an unexpected loss of 100 working days. How were these working days lost? They were not thrown out of the calendar. The Report went on to say that—
  "For 1900 a table of lost working days does not exist, but as the line was blocked for three months the amount would not be less."
  Why. they were not told. He would not go into this Memorandum further than that as to details. But, what did the Office say? 'This Office can only

  513
  form a, surmise '' of the amount of the loss. That was the way the Foreign Office kept its accounts—by forming surmises! He was sorry to go into these matters, but In; had to do so because they illustrated the frame of mind in which the Foreign Office went into the construction of railways. At the bottom of page 10 of the Memoranda there was a reference to rolling stock, which stated that—
  " In regard to the increase under this head, the figure of the original estimate was made in this office, and was less accurate than that made by the chief engineer."
  Then came this remarkable paragraph—
  " The cost of repairs to rolling stock, due to accidental parting of trains, on the steep inclines, already incurred would have paid for a considerable portion of the cost of safety appliances.''
  He could not follow these accounts, because they were in such a fearful muddle; and when he came to the explanations of the Foreign Office, he was lost in much greater confusion than ever. Whether the chief engineer was still out there making his poetical estimates for the construction of the railway, he did not know, and the noble Lord apparently could not tell them. It seemed to him to be a very sad and melancholy thing that the House of Commons should be asked again this year for a large sum of money for this railway, and for the third time to make a new Budget. It was still more sad that they should have such imperfect accounts, and, sadder still, that they should have such absurd explanations of them. He could only express the hope that the Foreign Office would leave off making wars and railways, and set themselves to learn how to write a despatch.
  SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid that the House was not in a fit condition to discuss this Bill efficiently after the exhausting labours on the Education Bill. He asked, however, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should at this or some other stage of the Bill make a statement of the various loans which had been indulged in for works that used to be borne on the Budget. As the noble Lord had told the House, they now voted loans for Army works, Navy works, public buildings, the Pacific Cable—all
  514
  these were new—now they had a loan. for this Uganda railway. He was not at all opposed to the policy of these loans, provided full publicity was given to them in Parliament. They ought to have from the Chancellor of the Exchequer a statement of the amount of money they had to raise for these purposes. He shared the views of his hon, friend who had moved the reduction of the Vote that the Foreign Office was not a Department to carry on railway construction, or a war. Personally, he went much beyond his hon. friend. He had never been a partisan of the Uganda occupation. He did not believe that we had done any good to civilisation, or to the native population of that part of Africa, by going to Uganda. He knew that the extraordinary depopulation of the Unyiro Province was a disgrace to civilisation. If they could not make the West Indies pay, with all their advantages of soil and climate, he did not believe that they could ever make Uganda pay. He hoped, however, that this would be the last the House was to hear of the Uganda Railway.
  MR. BAYLEY ()said that this was a business matter, and the House was forgetting that the Foreign Office were carrying on a trading concern. What he wanted to know was—Who was responsible for the gauge of the Uganda railway being different from that of the railways either in South or North Africa, because the idea was that at some future time all these railways would be connected up. Proper engineering opinion ought to have been asked before deciding on that question of gauge. He noticed that general charges, including administration, amounted to £283,431; but so much were the Foreign Office out of their Estimates lor these general charges that they were now asking for £200,000 more. He did not see their friend the Crown Agent for the Colonies figuring in this matter. He should like to ask how much of that £200,000 was going to that old friend. The noble Lord had told them that he could not say what this railway was going to cost next year; but of the Gentlemen who called themselves by the extraordinary name of the

  515
  Managing Members of the Uganda Rail-way Committee, he would like to know how many of them had any experience of English or Colonial railways? The gentleman who prepared these Memoranda stated that the cost of rolling stock to September 1899 Was £246,332, and that the cost of the locomotives and other rolling stock to be added would bring up the total to £455,707. There were thirty-six new American locomotives on order at a cost of £92,700, making an enormous total of 128 new engines in three years, together with several thousand trucks of different sorts, to run a train a day for 560 miles. Why there was sufficient rolling srock to run ten trains a day each way, thought there was no possibility of having traffic for such a service for vers! No business man would approve of such a thing. The noble Lord in his Memoranda was not quite correct in saying that the traffic earnings (including Protectorate stores but excluding railway stores) came to £80,797. That was not traffic earnings, but traffic receipts. The gross working expenditure, including maintenance and carriage of railway stores, was £378,891,so that it cost £378.891 to earn a traffic of £80,797. He was not at all sure whether they had got the proper water out in Uganda for the boilers of the locomotives, and it might be cheaper to convert the line into a tramway and run it with horse. The noble Lord had told the House that certain concessions had been given. He supposed these concessions had been paid for in some way. Could the noble Lord put these concessions on the Table of the House so that hon. Members cold see them before they voted this Bill? this was a most serious matter.
  LORD CRANBORNEsaid that the concessions had nothing to do directly with the railway. He only mentioned the fact to illustrate his contention that there were a considerable number of persons who had confidence in the future of these territories.
  MR. BAYLEYsaid he would like to know the terms and conditions of these concessions and what the Government were to have in return for them. It was important to know whether there
  516
  were any Englishmen going out to Uganda as farmers and settlers. If the Government went on in the extravagent way they had done in buying engines and rolling stock for a railway which had no traffic in the sense that English or South African railways had, where there was a large population at both ends, his impression was that they would require more than a million of money to carry on this Uganda railway as a working concern.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUEL ()said he did not see in the Memoranda any sum put down for the steamers on the victoria Nyanza. How was the cost of these steamers to be provided? He wanted some information as to the surplus stores, Which were estimated to be of the value of £160,000. Were they of a character to be used afterwards? In regard to the concessions he wished to ask: Were they granted for lands in the British East African Protectorate or in the Uganda Protectorate, or for both; and in what proportion were they distributed between Uganda and the British East Aftican Protectorate? When he was at Nairobi at the beginning of the year there were great complaints about the site on which that town was built, and a report was current that it would be necessary to remove it from the plain. Where drainage was impossible, to the adjacent hills. Was there any truth in this report, and was the expense of the removal included in the Vote which they were now discussing?
  SIR EDWARD GREYsaid the story of this railway was a very old one, and he did not think that much that was new had been put before the Committee on this occasion. They had become used to these extensions of the cost, and compared with previous demands the amount now asked for did not seem a very large one. It was quite hopeless to look at this matter as a commercial transaction.
  When once we had gone to Uganda the railway clearly had to be made, and we did not go there as a commercial speculation. He did not think any one could put his finger on the precise reason why we went to Uganda or the precise moment when we decided to do so. European countries having decided to

  517
  embark on the development of the African continent, it was impossible for this country to stand aside; but to say that we went to Uganda as a commercial speculation was entirely an inaccurate account of the matter. He thought the noble Lord was a little sanguine in saying that the money spent on the railway was capital locked up which was going to be profitable in the future, but he thought it would be long time before the railway paid its way. What they had to remember, he thought, was that a great deal of capital had been locked up in this undertaking, and that they had rather to make good what had been put in. They had got to develope the resources they had already got and not lock up more capital in Africa.
  Attention called to the fact that there were not forty members present; House counted, and forty members being found present —
  SIR EDWARD GREYsaid the other point he wished to refer to was the fact of the under-estimate of the work. He did think that was a serious thing. It was one of the most notable instances of under-estimating cost that had ever come before the Committee. It was a dangerous thing that the cost of works like these should be so much underestimated, because, if the Committee got into the habit of treating with distrust the estimates put before them, they would become reluctant to vote money to embark on undertakings when the government asked for it. The under-estimate in this case was so serious that it ought to be a warning to the Foreign Office, and any other Department undertaking such works, to do their utmost to prevent any such case of under-estimating coming before the House of Commons again. They were told that weather was exceptional. So it was in every part of the world. But all such things would be allowed for by a contractor, and if he did not allow for them he would very soon become bankrupt. He trusted the noble Lord's statement was true, and that the railway would prove to be a good undertaking: but it certainly ought to be the object of the noble Lord to take the account he had had to give of the underestimating as a warning. The moral to be drawn from it was that the way in
  518
  which the foreign Office had undertaken the making of this railway was not the right way. It was much better that railways should not be undertaken by government Departments. They had much better be put in the hands of business men. There was no doubt now that the railway had to be made, and, having been made, had to be paid for. That being so, he hoped his hon. friend would not press his Motion to a division. He hoped, however, that steps would be taken to secure that the country was never again placed in the same position they had been placed in over and over again in regard to this matter.
  MR. JOHN BURNS ()said he was one of the small number of Members in the House who opposed going to Uganda, and who always criticised the extravagant way in which estimates were formed, expenditure incurred, and money wasted; and so long as he was a Member of the House he would never lose an opportunity of protesting against the original sin, whether of a Conservative or a Liberal Government, of going to a place like Uganda for the flimsy reasons alleged by both Parties whenever this subject was up for discussion. He should like to congratulate the right hon. Baronet who had just resumed his seat upon the chastened tone he had displayed, which contrasted very much with his previous utterances upon this subject. This was one of the worst of the crazy Imperial schemes into which in this this country had been misled during the last seven or eignt years. The right hon. Baronet was perfectly right when he said that it would be very difficult for them to say that we went to Uganda for a commercial reason. If they did go there for a commercial reason, that object would never be justified. He had read nearly every book which had been published upon this subject, and he was convinced that if Africa was to be civilsed and Imperialsed, in the best sense of the world, it was worth doing for England's sake: and if cilvilisation was worth supporting and extendidng in Aftica, he would rather that the honour should be Britain's than any other country, Of that he was convinced by a study of the subject following a year's experience in the Niger territory, and he also

  519
  thought that under the guise of civilisation we should introduce habits and customs that would decimate the native population. This had been proved in the district to which the hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean had referred. They would superimpose upon these people certain habits and customs that would more than counterbalance some of the supposed advantages of civilisation. They would seek to impose upon this subject people customs which were supposed to be in the interests of Imperialism and civilisation, but which were invariably in the interests of the military subjection of people who were better off without us than with us.
  The right hon. Baronet had said that if we went to Uganda for commercial reasons they would not see their money back, and he also said that it would perhaps never be known why they went to Africa at all. He had read a well-informed article, which put the case in a nutshell as to why they went to Uganda, and the quotation he would now read was in his opinion the real reason—
  " Putting aside the practical and optimistic statements in Sir Harvey Johnston's Report, the truth appears to be that Uganda is held for political purposes because it commands the head waters of the Nile, ensures the safety of Egypt to the south, and on the northern side of the Victoria Nyanxa will be the terminus of the Egyptian Railway."
  That was the real reason why we went to Uganda. We went to Uganda for political reasons with the idea of commanding the head waters of the Nile, and to secure a link in the Cape to Cairo railway communication. For a political will-o'-the-wisp there had been all this waste of money and human life, and misuse of energy in accordance with the expansionist doctrines of the new diplomacy. Solomon said, many centuries ago, "The fool hath his eyes in the ends of the earth." That was why we were in Uganda. England had got great ambitions, and they knew that Uganda was a wealthy country, and so statesmen thought it was their mission to have their eyes in the ends of the earth and thus waste money and dissipate the strength of this country. He believed that this £6,000,000 which the Uganda railway had cost up to date, might have
  520
  been better spent in developing their home markets or in developing their trade in India, and in every other part of the British dominions, rather than in this plague spot which Uganda happened to be. Having decided to go to Uganda, they ought to have done it in a much better way. As a mechanical engineer, and as one who was a pioneer in Africa for the Royal Niger Company and a servant of the Colonial Secretary, he felt positively ashamed of the incapacity shown in the construction of this railway. A properly trained civil engineer and practical contractors would shave carried out plans for interchangeable links of line, but the Foreign Office had three converging links with dissimilar gauges, arid had already doubled their estimate of three millions. The Foreign Office had responded to a wave of Jingoism that synchronised with a full treasury, and this was the result. They had employed military men for civil work, without training, without knowledge of the country, or of the language of the Indian coolies, whose lives had been sacrificed by thousands. The noble Lord would probably think he was over-stating his case, but he would quote upon this point from the report of Sir G. Molesworth. What did he think about the officers who constructed this railway? He said—
  " The officers are new to each other and to the country, and many of them are new to the language and character of the Indian coolie.''
  When they knew that the lives of thousands of these poor Indian coolies had been sacrificed, as the reports showed when they remembered the way in which the cost had exceeded the original estimate, and when they saw the incompetency which had been displayed in the making of this railway, he thought they should at once insist that the Foreign Office should correct its habits and retrace its steps and get rid of this particular class of work altogether, if they were desirous of being known as practical business men. Now they had been told in a very optimistic way by Sir Henry Johnstone that this railway was likely to be profitable within ten years. A railway was not likely to be profitable when in 1902 the following report was made—

  521
  "The loss of small materials, fish-bolts, nuts, and keys. has amounted to as much as 50 per cent. due to the matives stealing these small articles."
  He notice that on papge 10 of the Paper relating to the Ugada Railway, the expenses of the staff quartes appeared. Althought those officers employed in the construction of this railway did not know the language and the habits of the coolies, they appeared to have got a good idea of the comfort and luxury which was necessary for the. He noticed that for staff uarters to the end of September, 1899, the sum of £75,505 was required, while to the end of May, 1901, the total was £215,117. He thouth the quarters for the officers were on such an extravagant scale as the conditions of life in that region did not warrant. With the refreshing candour which was typical of his distinguished father, the noble Lord had told them the short and simple annals of the poor Uganda Railway. but he must not imagine that he could explain a way the imcompetence which the noble Lord had dwelt. especially as regards the bad weather, were such as ought to have been foreseen, as they were the normal meteorological conditions in tropical Africa. He invited the noble Lord to coonsider seriously whether there ought not to be a change in policy with regard to the construction of this railway, or it it were persisted in, whether he should not call to his assistance the most able and experienced men he could command. There was no information as to the necesssity for voting more locomotives. Locomotives in Africa deterirated more quickly than human beings, because bad water would very quickly eat the heart out of the locomotivie, thus increasing greatly the cost of maintenance and repairs. If Parliament had made pu its mind to spend £10,000,000 or £15,000,000 upon this railway, let them pursue the line of least resistance, reduce the expenditure to a minimum and employ the best men. machinery, and organisers. He hope the Uganda railway would be an objectfesson to certain politicians, and he welcome the period of disillusiomment as to his project whih had now set in. In conclusion, he wished to tell the noble
  522
  Lord that there was other places in the British Empire upon which he could have spent this £6,000,000 to better advabtage than in Uganda, Where everything would be wasted, with no good results to British trade, and which might Prove a curse to the very peole in whose interest the money was supposed to have been spent.
  LORD CRANBORNEsaid the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had asked him whether they were determined that this railway was to be made. They railway was made, and therefore there could be no question about it. They were quite aware of the kind of difficulty to which the hon. Member for Battersea had called attention. They knew perfectly well that locomotives deteriorate with bad water, and that this constituted one of the great difficulties in railway enterprise, because they often met with water which was unusable for that purpose. Hon. Members opposite had spoken of the mistakes they had made. Of course they had made mistakes. Anu contractor or Government or Government Department which undertook the making of railways in an unkown country was perfectly certain to make mistakes, and he felt sure that the House of Commons would be the last to judge the Government so harshly necaise, ostales jad neem, ade. He quite agreed with a very great deal that had been said, and althought he did not agree with all the criticisms, he did most fully agree with the right hon. Gentleman opposite that this railway was never inended to be made, and had not been made, entirely for commercial resasons. Of couse he hoped that there would be some commercial return. It migtt he that the hon. Member for Battersea knew more than sir Harry johnstone about this matter, and it was possibel that the estimates for which he was responsible were too sanguine, but if that be so, all he could say was that he agreed with the right hon. Baronet on the Front Bench opposite that the railway in Uganda was not made for commercial reasons. The hon. Member said that if the railway had been built for benevolent reasons, he desired that Great Britain should be foremost in efforts of benevolence. But he failed to see the consistency of the hon Gentleman. Didthehon. Membersuppos that if we had not gone to East Africa

  523
  it would have been left alone—that the natives of the country would have continued in a state of Arcadian simplicity? If the British Government had not gone then some other European Government would have gone there, and he was certain that the natives would prefer to be under the British Government than under any other Government. He belived that would command the assent of every hon. Member.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: They would prefer their own government.
  LORD CRANBORNEsaid that the hon. Gentleman was quite wrong. If he considered the condition of things which existed, he was confident that the hon. Member, who had a sympathetic mind, would not make such a statement. Before the white man went into those regions it was a history of lust, blood, robbery, and murder, and he did not agree with the right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean that we had been a curse to the people. On the contrary, though the country had been costly to the Government, he believed that when means of this great movements was written it would be conceded that we had brought, on the whole, nothing but the blessings of peace to the people. It was siade by the right hon. Baronet that the experience of the Uganda Railway should be a warning not a underestimate an engineering enterprise. He had never heard of an engineering enterprise which had not been under-estimated; it was almost the universal esperience of privatge gentlemen, as it was of public Departments of Government. What was the position? Estimates had to be made on the materials available, and he did not think that the HOuse would like the system of an estimate tol cover all possible contingeneies. A very large sum of money would be asked for. and when the Bill came to be paid it would be found that the Government had asked too much. Besides, such a system would almost certainly lead to the
  Lord Cranborne
  524
  extravagance which hon. Member wished to avoid. the estimate must be made as accurately as it could be on the material available; there was no other means of doing it. No doubt they were making two bites at the cherry, but no more money would be spent than if the sum had been properly estimated at the beginning. Then, it was asked, why not make the railway by the assistance of a contractor? It was an old story, but the answer was that it was impossible. It was doubtful whether any contractor would have tendered for it.
  MR. BRYNMOR JONESasked if it were not a fac t that a contractor did tender, and offered a guarantee of a million sterling.
  LORD CRANBORNEsaid he was not aware of that.
  MR. BRYNMOR JONESsaid it was in the noble Lord's office.
  LORD CRANBORNEsaid that the subject was fully debated a year or ago, and no hon. Member was in explaining why contractors could not be employed than the hon. Gentleman himself. He would give the reason why a contractor could not have been employed. The railway had to made by coolie labour.
  MR. BRYNMORJ0NESsaid he denied that. The noble Lord, in the debate two years ago, referred to the Beira Railway, on which native labour was employed: and there was not the slightest reason why a contractor should not have been entrusted with the Uganda Railway, and should not have employed native labour.
  LORD CRANBORNEsaid he could not agree. The Beira Railway was the worst constructed railway in Africa.
  MR. BRYNMOR JONESsaid denied that.
  LoRD CHANBORNEsaid he did not know under what conditions the Beira Railway was made, but it had to lie renewed a few years afterwards. It was, however, impossible to make the Uganda Railway except by coolie laboui, and the Government of India would not allow coolies to be enlisted for I he work except by the British Government. Therefore, the Government had to make the railway; and that was his answer with reference to the contractor. As the lion. Gentleman the Member for King's Lynn was not present, he would not trouble the Committee with an answer: to what the hon Gentleman had said. As to the gauge, he did not deny that he regretted the gauge was not 3ft.6in., but there were good resons at the time for having the meter gauge. It was not contemplated at the time that there would be a great development of railways in the future, and for many years to come the gauge was almost certain to be broken at the Great lakes. As to the steamers, they were paid for out of the votes in supply, and the money had been granted for them. They were in a forward condition; one was on the eve of being launched, and the framework of another had been set up. The criticiosm as to the sanitary condition of Nairobi was to a large extent well founded. A great deal of the township would have to be moved to higher ground, but that did not come under the Vote before the Committee. The size of the figures in the general charges had been remarked upon, but was explained by the over-sanguine estimate of the time it would take to
  526
  make the railway; the longer the time, the larger the general charges. There were perhaps other reasons as well. The hon. Member for Chesterfield asked as to terms of the concessions in Uganda and East Africa. That was a very fair question, but hardly on the present ocassoin. He would, however, engage to consider how far the terms could be given; and if the hon. Gentleman put a question on the paper, he would be happy to answer it. As to the stores, he thought they consisted partly of construction stock and partly of rolling stock; but he would ascertain, and inform the hon. Gentleman at the next stage. He had answered all the questions which had been put, and the did not know whether hon. Gentlemen desired to continue the discussion.
  MR. WILLIAM McARTHUR ()said that the question before the Committee was one in which he had taken a great deal of interest, and on which he had always found himself in a difficulty as to the votes he had given from time to time. He joined in the criticisms of his hon, friends in reard to the details of the expenditure on the Uganda Railway; and would not enter further into that part of the question. He wished, however, to indicate the main point, which, he thought, was constantly missed by the Foreign Office and by many hon. Gentlemen. They could not occupy all the waste places of the earth, as they had been in the habit of doing for twelve or fifteen years, absolutely without regard to what, was to follow after occupation. He had felt, ever since he entered the House, that the the nation and the foreign Office and the Colonial Office had not taken a business like view of the engagements they had entered into He had found himself at

  527
  variance with certain of his hon. friends on account of the votes he had given, although they had been given by him on what appeared to him to be a most con sistent principle, viz., that they could notgo a particular point on the earth and occupy it, and then conclude that they would only have to bear the expenses of occupation,When they did that, they found themselves on a long, long road, of which they could not possibly see the end. He thought the House was being steadily drawn into all sorts of enterprises, of the results of which it had no conception when they were entered upon. What he was contending for was that the lesson of the Uganda Railway should be taken to heart by the Foreign Office, the Colonial Office, and the whole House of Commons, as being a typical example of the cases in which they had gone to particular parts of the earth thinking they could occupy them at little expense and trouble, and had found themselves committed to vast expenditure, for which they werealtogether unprepared as the natural consequence of their having gone there. They could not, having gone to East Africa, divest themselves of the responsibilities they had undertaken, not to foreign nations or Governments, but to the aboriginal inhabitants. What had happened in Uganda? They had ruined whatever native Government, bad though it was, which was there.
  LORD CRANBORNE: A very good thing too.
  MR. WILLIAM McARTHURsaid he was not defending the native Government; but, such as it was, it was ruined. They produced chaos; and, therefore, the character of this nation being what it was they had to restore order and set
  528
  up another form of government. He was not quarrelling with the noble Lord for having gone to Uganda; but what he was complaining of was that the House of Commons and the country went to Uganda without the slightest idea of what they were doing. He did not think the noble Lord would say that when they went to East Africa they understood that they would be committed to the Uganda railway, and to the civilisation of that huge tract of country. He wished to say that in explanation of the many votes he had given, because he did not think that any Government—Liberal or Conservative—was going to learn anything from the Uganda railway. All Governments would continue to make similar mistakes. His own course was to consistently support such Votes as that before the Cornmittee once the House had made the initial mistake of going to the place at all. He hoped the Foreign Office and the House of Commons would onsider that, if they touched those wild territories at all, they incurred duties and responsibilities to the native races which they could not divest themselves of. He trusted that in future the Government and the House of Commons would take into account the huge responsibilities they took upon themselves when they went with light hearts to Such places, which looked so small on the surface of the earth, and regarding which they thought their duty was over when they were occupied. They had sufficient responsibilities all over the world to tax the power and strength of this country, and he hoped the example of this railway would be taken to heart. The Government ought to make quite sure that they had established good government in their own

  529
  territory before there was any thought of further annexation or expansion in other directions. Before adopting such a policy they should make quite sure that they had done the best they possibly could for the welfare of the territory over which they had assumed responsibility.
  MR. WEIR ()said he was opposed to the policy of scuttling out of Uganda, a policy which (was sometimes advocated. He believed that would be an absolute calamity. They were now in possession of Uganda, and if Great Britain had not been in possession, the Germans and Portuguese would have been there. It was therefore better for the people that Britishers should be there instead of Germans or Portuguese. Would the people of Uganda be better oft'if they were left to themselves? lion. Members are no doubt aware that horrible acts of cruelty are perpetrated by the native chiefs upon the natives. It was a, blessing for those natives that a Power like Great Britain was there to protect them. He would not go into the questions raised in the Report, because the noble Lord had admitted that mistakes had been made, and he supposed there always would be mistakes in the opening up of such a country as Uganda. What he had risen for was to say how much he objected to the adoption of a policy of scuttling out of Uganda. Being in Uganda they should now stop there, and do the best they could for that country. This railway was essential, but he was disappointed at the bad management in regard to its construction. The noble Lord had stated that no contractor would have undertaken the construction of this line, but an hon. Member had already
  530
  told them that some substantial firms would have willingly taken the contract. He considered that there was something very wrong at the Foreign Office in regard to the construction of this railway, and the noble Lord should look into the matter in order to see if it was not being managed by a number of incompetent men. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Battersea had spoken about the nuts and bolts which were stolen by the natives. Of course, they expected a certain amount of that kind of thing, but the discipline must have been bad, or probably there was none, otherwise there would not be such an enormous loss. The noble Lord had stated that there had been some difficulty in getting out the quantities.
  LORD CRANBORNE: The survey was not completed at the time, and therefore it was not possible to get out quantities.
  MR. WEIRthought it was a very bad system that the Foreign Oftice should undertake the construction of the railway at all, and it would have been far better if a contractor had taken the work in hand Two years ago the noble Lord told them what a charming country Uganda was, and said it resembled Scotland with its mountains, its lochs, and its moors. They had just heard about the scarcity of water in Uganda, but he would remind the noble Lord that there was no scarcity of water in Scotland. He thought it would be a good thing if the noble Lord would go to Uganda, and then he would be able to tell the Committee whether it was really a Country of the desirable character which he represented it to be two years ago,

  531
  His object in rising was ot emphasise the fact that as they were now in possession of Uganda they should stop there, but they ought to be more careful in the expenditure of money. he hoped the noble Lord would be able to tell something about the progress of the railway northwards.
  MR. LOUGH ()said that he would not trouble the Committee with the details about engines, and whether they should have a contractor or not, or whether the right gauge had been adopted. Those details were a little wearying, and he was content to leave them altogether alone. He thought the Government had fared very badly in the criticisms which had been made. No doubt his railway was as made as any such tremendous enterprise could have been done under the circumstances, and after all they must not forget that right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Opposition Bench were responsible for starting this railway. He thought it was time that some attempt should be made to grasp the great principles of this subject. He was glad to hear his hon. friend on the Front Opposition Bench remark that they would have to look at the principle of this matter very soon, and he invited the Goverment not to occupy other territories without having first had experience of Uganda. He asked the Government not to reply to their criticisms in such speeches as the noble Lord had made. The Government ought to grasp a little more boldly the great questions of policy which were involved, and they ought to know exactly what was going to happen. There had been a most beautiful book published by Sir Harry Johnston which
  Mr. Weir
  532
  was beautifully illustrated and which would put anybody in possession of as many facts as ti was possible to get from any book on this subject. One part of the book was devoted to animal life and the other to the various tribes to be seen there. These might be interesting facts to those who kept the Zoological Gardens, but they wanted to get at something about the commerce of the country, in order that they might see what prospect there was for an investment. This question was treated in Sir IIarry Johnston's book in a very short chapter, in which the writer was perfectly candid. and in which he gave a most admirable summing up of the whole situation. He said that so far as mineral resources were concerned they had not discovered any so far. Then he proceeded to treat other great articles of commerce. He mentioned coffce, and said that a few pounds had been discovered and there was a good climate for its production in Uganda. How anyone could think that they could produce coffee in competition with other parts of the world he could not understand. Sir Harry Johnston admitted that there were no passengers or goods to be carried, and was that the best thing the Government could tell the Committee as to the prospects of Uganda? Sir Harry Johnston's conclusion was that they must go on with this expenditure for about ten years, but he was not quite so much of a jingo in his talk as his hon. friend who had just sat down. He admitted that they must stay for ten years adn then he said their expenditure would have been something about £11,500,000 expanded upon the Protectorate altogether. What were they to get back? They were now asked to

  533
  grant a further sum of £600,000, and it had been admitted that they would not get back a penny. Sir Harry Johnston had urged them to try and tempt a few colonists out there, and then he said this money should be capitalised, and the Colony should begin to pay interest upon it. It would be impossible to get any colonists to go out there upon such terms, and the whole burden of this expenditure would be a dead weight upon the Colony. It was quite time the Government took this matter seriously in hand. There was one figure which went right to the heart of the question. They had now spent £7,000,000 upon the Uganda railway.
  LORD CRANBORNE: No it is only £5,500,000 altogether.
  MR. LOUGHsaid it would possibly be £7,000,000 before they had finished They had now spent £6,000.000, and they were getting no revenue from it. Sir Harry Johnston admitted that there was no revenue to he obtained from Uganda. In sixty years of railway development in Ireland, the House of Commons had spent £3,000,000.
  LORD CRANBORNE: What Sir Harry Johnston says is that we shall begin to get our money back at the end of ten years.
  Mr. LOUGHsaid they had spent already in Uganda on railways twice as much as they had spent in Ireland, although in Ireland they had been reaping a revenue all the time. They were
  534
  now spending £380,000 a year in Uganda, and the total amount that was coming for traffic, including all the Protectorate charges, was only £80,000, so that was a loss of £300,000 a year on the railway. If they were to stop in Uganda, he thought they should manage their business more economically. Last year the gross expenditure was £366,000, and this year it was £380,000. The amount granted in Ireland was £130,000 a year, so that in Uganda the sum was three times as much, although no taxation was collected at all in Uganda. He asked the Government to submit some bold policy to the House on Thursday next, because a loss of £300,000 a year was no joke. They were annually losing money in these unfortunate railway enterprises, from which he could see no good result at all likely to come. They should never mind morals and lessons, but they ought to be practical and make some sane proposal to the House. The prospects were bad this year, and the last year for which the figures were given was worse than the year before. The traffic, was not extended in proportion to the number of miles ot the line which had been completed, and although the capital expenditure was increasing, and also the annual expenditure, yet the traffic was diminishing. He appealed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and to the noble Lord to think over whether they could not hold out some word of hope to the poor taxpayers of this country. [Mr. RITCHIEdissented.] It was a common thing for right hon. Gentlemen to meet these arguments with a shake of the head, but he sincerely trusted that this expenditure in Uganda would rapidly

  535
  diminish and that before long they would see some good result from what they had been doing there.

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Duke, Henry Edward

  More, Robt. Jasper(Shropshire)

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Morton, Aylmer

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Mount, William Arthur

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Murray, RtHnA. Graham(Bute

  Atkinson, Rt.Hon. John

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Murray, Charles J.(Coventry)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Flower, Ernest

  Nicol, Donald Ninan

  Balfour, Capt. C.B. (Hornsey)

  Forster, Hennry William

  Palmer, Walter Salisbury

  Balfour, RtHnGeraldW (Leeds

  Foster, PhilipS.(Warwick, S.W.

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Banbury,Sir Frederick George

  Garner, Ernest

  Percy, Earl

  Bentrick, Lord Henry C.

  Godson,SirAugustusFrederick

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Bignold, Arthur

  Greene,Henry D.(Shrewsbury)

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  pretyman, Ernest George

  Bond, Edward

  Hamilton, RtHn LordG.(Mid'x

  Purvis, Robert

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon Chas. Thomson

  Brodrick, Rt.Hon. St. John

  Heath,ArthurHoward(Hanley

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

  Henderson, Sir Alexander

  Round, Rt.Hon. James

  Brothernton, Edward Allen

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

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

  Butcher, John George

  Johnston, Heywood

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Cavendish, V.C.W (Derbyshire

  Kemp, George

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

  Chamberlain, RtHnJ. A.(Wore.

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Charrington, Spencer

  Lawerence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Lawson, John Grant

  Thornton, Percy M.

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

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Valentia, Viscount

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Long, Rt.Hn. Walter (Bristol,S

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Lucas,Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Lucas,ReginaldJ.(Portsmouth

  Wilson,J.W.(Worcestersh.,N.

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Milvain, Thomas

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Doughty, George

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Sir Alexander Acland-

  Douglas, Rt.Hon. A. Akers-

  Mosntagu, Hon. J. Scott(Hants.)

  Hoodand Mr. Anstruther.

  NOES

  Burns, John

  Levy, Maurice

  Tully, Jasper

  Caldwell, Jemes

  Lough, Thomas

  Weir, Jemes Galloway

  Crener, William Randal

  M'Kenua, Reginald

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Rigg, Rihchard

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Mr. Brynmor Jones and

  Griftith, Ellis J.

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Mr. Thomas Bayley.

  Original Qustion put, and agreed to
  Resolved, "That it is expedient to authorise the issue, out of the Consolidated Fund, of a further sum not exceeding £600,000, for the purposes of the Uganda Railway."
  (11.30.) The Committee divided:— Ayes, 91; Notes, 14. (Division List No. 622.)
  Resolution to be reported upon Thursday.
  Mr. SPEAKER,in pursuance of the Order of the House of the 16th OCtober last, adjourned the House without Question put.
  Adjourned at twenty minutes before Twelve o'clock

PETITIONS.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES)BILL.
  Petition in favour of; of Conservatives and Unionists of Sheffield; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petition against: of the School Board of Savoch, Aberdeenshire; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

  TRADE REPORTS.
  Annual Series:
  No. 2919. Portugal.
  No. 2920. Chile (Supplementary).

  TRANSVAAL.
  Liquor Licensing Ordinance, 1902. (No. 32.)

  LOCAL TAXATION (IRELAND).
  Returns for the year 1900-1901.
  Presented (by command) and ordered to lie on the Table.

  LUNACY.
  Report to the Lord Chancellor of the number of visits made, patients seen, and miles travelled by the visitors of lunatics, pursuant to the Lunacy Act, 1890, between 1st April, 1902, and 30th September, 1902: laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING ACTS AMENDMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order); Bill reported without Amendment; Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a Tomorrow.

EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
Moved, "That the House do resolve itself into Committee on this Bill,"—(The Duke of Dexonshire.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The EARL of HALSBURY)having put the Question and declared it carried, left the Woolsack, and the EARL of MoRLEY took the Chair.
EARL CARRINGTONthen rose to speak, but—
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The EARL of MORLEY)informed him that the House had gone into Committee.
LORD TWEEDMOUTH: I think it was a very distinct understanding on Friday night, when the Debate on the Second Reading of the Bill was brought to a close, that the two or three noble Lords who still desired to address the House should have an opportunity of doing so on the motion for going into Committee.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: I agree with the noble Lord that that was the understanding; but I am bound to say that when I put the question no one rose, am it is extremely difficult for the person who has to preside over these deliberations to conduct the business properly if no one will take the trouble to take the ordinary means of dissenting from, or agreeing with, the Motion before the House. Strictly speaking, we are in Committee, but if the general consent of the House is obtained, I will move that the Committee be not proceeded with.
The Motion was agreed to, and the Lord Chancellor resumed his seat on the Woolsack.
EARL CARRINGTON: My Lords, I desire to thank your Lordships very heartily for the courtesy you have extended to me in permitting me at this stage of the Bill to say a few words on its main principles, to which we are very greatly opposed. The curtain has now fallen on another act of the education drama. On a day last week, which will be remembered I think by all educationists as "fatal Friday," your Lordships gave a Second Reading to this Bill by a majority of between four and five to one, and thereby endorsed the principles of a measure which was carried in the other House of Parliament by the stupendous majority of 250, owing, I am bound to admit, to the votes of the Irish allies of the Government. The Bill when it came

335
into your Lordships' House was described by Lord Goschen, who invariably hits the nail on the head, as "a Bill to save Church schools from death," but it is also a Bill which gives the coup de grace to the School Boards. I will confine my remarks to the case of the voluntary schools as affected by the Bill.
There are 14,000 voluntary schools, or denominational schools, or non-provided schools, or national schools—whatever you call them—they are Church schools; and, as your Lordships are aware, half the children of the working men of this country are educated in them. Twelve thousand of these schools belong to the Church of England, and it is these schools that I shall refer to first. The Bill, as we read it, endows the Church schools with public money, and leaves them practically under clerical control. We should be among the first to acknowledge the devotion, the sacrifices, and the earnestness of a great many of the clergy as regards education, but we object to the Bill because it Makes the parson omnipotent as regards religious teaching. The reason for that is not far to seek. In the Church of England, when a clergyman has been given a living, and has been inducted, he is practically on his own freehold. He is the absolute master of his own actions, and interference with him is extremely difficult and expensive. Indeed, only recently we read in the newspapers an account of a clergyman of the Chursh of England who openly declared, having been censured in private by his Bishop, that if the language which had been applied to him had been applied to him in public he would have had no difficulty in bringing an action for libel. To those who have property in the country, and who have voluntary schools, this is a matter of considerable anxiety. Take the case of the Rev. Mr. Leeper, who was given a living by KebleCollege. Mr. Leeper was inducted into the living by the Bishop of Exeter, and is now a recognised rector or vicar of the Church of England, although, on the testimony of Sir H. Howorth, which I have not seen contradicted, he is the author of a manual of devotion in which every Romish doctrine is taught and inculcated with the sole exception of the supremacy of the Pope. It has been my experience, and it must have been
336
that of not a few of your Lordships who have the giving of livings, to find that many clergymen—God-fearing, conscientious men, no doubt—are out of touch and out of harmony with the population, and very considerable friction and difficulty is apt to ensue. Therefore it was that after the Bill was read a second time in the House of Commons he protested strongly against one-man control of religious teaching.
The objections went on increasing till at last the difficulties became very formidable, dangerous, and menacing; so much so that the Ministerial newspapers had to say that the objections were stage thunder. Some of the clergy described the objections as insincere, and the protests of Dr. Clifford and many other leaders of the Nonconformist Church were openly denounced as the veriest bunkum and the merest claptrap. But, though we were as men crying in the wilderness, there suddenly came a bolt from the blue and we discovered a very unexpected and very strong ally. About five weeks ago an Amendment was put down by Colonel Kenyon-Slaney to the effect that religious instruction should be under the control of the managers, and, to some people's great astonishment, Sir William Anson rose and announced that the Government were inclined to accept the Amendment. The Prime Minister also rose in his place and supported it. Why did he support it? The Prime Minister said he did so—
"On account of the abuse bore and there by the clergyman—very rarely, he admitted—of the powers that were given him by the trust. The harm done to the whole cause of religious education in elementary schools was not to be measured in words. He met it at every turn and on every occasion."
By that statement the Prime Minister raised an ecclesiastical tornado, which he was possibly not aware would be the result of his change of front. Of course, the Kenyon-Slaney Clause had to be explained, and the Church of England took it very much to heart. They were told that it was not a slur, that it was never meant in any way to be a reflection upon them; yet they were very indignant, and resented it accordingly. I do not wonder at it. Let us put ourselves in the position of a clergyman of the Church of England, who, during a long, holy, and religious life, had done the best in his power to promote religious education. We hear of hundreds of such men in

337
London—men like Canon Barker—who have raised as much as £40,000 or £50,000 for their schools, which are a pattern to the country, and which they hope to hand down in the same condition to their successors. Then, there are heaps of men who lead most devoted lives in obscurity in the country, and who have managed, either through the help of the squire of the parish, or by sending their daughters out as governesses, and by pinching and saving, to have efficient schools. One can imagine the feelings of such men when they were told that they were to have five other men with them to see that they taught education properly. It would be no use to tell them that these men would be of the greatest possible assistance. The clergyman would say that was all very well, but he did not believe it. A devout, religious and conscientious parson would most strongly object that the squire, a churchwarden, a retired naval or military officer, a member of the County Council, and, perhaps, a Dissenter thrown in to see fair play, should be over him as the supreme arbiters of religious faith. The Bishop of St. Asaph saw that at once, and he declared to his clergy in Wales that though he had the most profound respect for his brother Bishop of London, yet he was not going to accept his version of the Kenyon-SIaney Amendment; it would be necessary, he said, before he accepted it, that he should be informed more clearly of its meaning. So the Prime Minister found himself between the devil and the deep sea, because by this Bill he had set England in a blaze, and by his acceptance of the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Rosebery's schoolfellow, he had set the Church in an uproar. Though you may turn this Clause inside out as much as you like, though you may say that it all depends upon where you put a comma as to what it means, you are face to face with this terrible fact, which you must recognise in all its naked hideousness, that there is in the Church of England so much inconsistency and uncertainty amongst the ministers, that by 211 votes to 41 the House of Commons accepted the Prime Minister's advice, and practically declared before Christendom that in the year 1902 Old England cannot trust her parson. So much for the Church of England schools.
As I have said, there are 14,000 Church schools in this country, 12,000 of which belong to the Established Church.
338
There are, I think, 450 schools which belong to the Wesleyans, 1,000 which may be called odds and ends, and there are 1,042 which belong to the Roman Catholic Church. I think that of all the speeches we listened to on the Second Reading, the one which touched those who were privileged to hear it most was the speech of the noble Viscount opposite, Lord Llandaff, who spoke with genuine emotion of the sacrifices that had been made by his Church to establish and maintain their own schools. He spoke of the Catholic religion being in a great minority in this country. He also spoke of the poverty of the Roman Catholic Church in England, and ended by stating that he feared his Church was an unpopular one in this country. The Prime Minister spoke of the Roman Catholic Church as a religious body against which no doubt a strong feeling prevailed amongst large sections of society; and if you look at the continent of Europe, if you look at the terrible scenes taking place in France, Spain, and Portugal in connection with the expulsion of the nuns and other religious communities, you will see that the Roman Catholic Church is undergoing a time of great trouble. But in spite of what has happened on the continent of Europe, free, tolerant England has given Roman Catholicism a home, and said, to quote the words of M. Clemenceau, "So long as you ask only for liberty of belief and to practise your religion we refuse you nothing. I submit with all seriousness that it is a very remarkable thing that in Protestant England we should, under this Bill, for the first time practically endow Roman Catholic schools.
I may be told, my Lords, that the Bill before us is the simple flinale to the Act of 1870, but I well remember that we were told at that time that the result of the compromise would be that all the "rotten" Church schools would eventually die out and that the best ones would survive; and I venture to say that if we had imagined for one moment that thirty-two years afterwards we should have seen a Bill introduced which kept up with public money clerical schools and left them under clerical control, including Roman Catholic schools— I say, on my honour, that I for one, and, I believe, all that band of Liberals with whom I voted, would have cut off our hand at the wrist before consenting to a

339
compromise which would have led to such disastrous results. How is it possible to contend that it is right to endow the Roman Catholic religion as it is endowed under this Bill? I further respectfully ask a question which I think the nation has a right to have answered, How do the Bench of Bishops reconcile it with their conscience? The mandate of the Roman Catholic Church is "faith and discipline "; but the English people have their faith too, and I believe that one of the principal articles of that faith is that our Sovereign is, under Christ, over all persons, ecclesiastical and temporal in his dominions, supreme. That the Sovereign, in Christ, is the sole head of the Church is a doctrine to which the Episcopacy and clergy with one voice agree. The Bishops are appointed by the Sovereign, and I believe by Royal authority alone Convocations are summoned and dissolved. The King on his accession swears a solemn oath, in language which some of us think far too strong, to preserve inviolate the Protestant religion, and yet the Bishops are actively supporting a Bill which proposes to vote public money for the endowment, support, and sanction of those who teach the supremacy and infallibility of the Pope, and of the doctrines of the Church of Rome—a Church which has absolutely refused to recognise our Prelates and clergy as properly ordained ecclesiastics. What will be the result of this Bill when it becomes law? I have said there are over 1,000 Roman Catholic schools now. Cardinal Vaughan himself has told us that the great object of a Catholic school is not so much to promote education as to turn out good Catholics, and he has publicly complimented the Prime Minister on his victory over the Nonconformists. The Bishops may be content to follow their course, and they may have no conscientious scruples on this head; but it cannot bo denied that they, in return for a subscription, are willing to coerce those of their fellow countrymen—Churchmen and Nonconformists alike—who, by payment and obedience to the law, must sacrifice principles which they hold to be sacred, and which, from generation to generation, they have tenaciously upheld, even at the cost of the most bitter suffering. I followed my noble
340
friend Lord Spencer, who leads the small band of Liberals in this House with so much courage and consistency, into the Division Lobby against this Bill on Friday last, with the fixed belief that we were serving the best interests of our religion and of our country in registering our protest against this fatal and most iniquitous Bill.
THE LORD BISHOP OF MANCHESTER: My Lords, I think it desirable that a word should be said in reply to what has fallen from the noble Lord opposite in respect to his appeal to the Episcopal Bench. We are asked how we reconcile our consciences to endowing the Roman Catholic Church by this Bill. I refuse altogether to admit that the assignment either of rates or of taxes, or both, for the support of schools under a local authority which has entire control of the secular education in them is an endowment either of the Church of Rome or of the Church of England. The rates and taxes are given to the local authority, not to either Church. Neither Church can touch a penny of the money. Whatever advantage we get, we get indirectly through our schools being kept open by the local authority. Indirectly we get this advantage, that the local authority, by keeping the school open, enables us to give religious instruction such as we believe in. But if we do get this indirect advantage we get back no more than we have already paid for in rates. We represent half the population of England, and for many years we have suffered a gross injustice. We have been obliged to pay rates for the maintenance of schools we did not use, and to subscribe to the support of the schools we did use. What the Government has done is simply to put an end to that injustice. Nonconformists get exactly the same indirect advantage as the Church of England or the Church of Rome, because the money which represents the rest of the rates and taxes is given to the support of schools which, under the Cowper-Temple Clause, provide religious education for the children of Nonconformists which is entirely acceptable to them. They get precisely the same indirect advantage as we obtain. No question of conscience

341
arises in the matter, and I think that the noble Lord's appeal to the Bench of Bishops, as persons who had difficulty in reconciling their consciences to the action they had taken, was a little superfluous.
THE LOUD BlSHOP of HEREFORD: My Lords, like the noble Earl opposite. I feel grateful to your Lordships for giving me this opportunity of addressing the House in opposition to the Bill. I will not attempt to follow my brother of Manchester with regard to the special point he has raised, because we may have an opportunity of dealing with that point when we come to certain Amendments in Committee. I occupy a somewhat isolated position among my right rev. brethren in reference to this matter. In fact. if the noble Ear! on the Cross Benches would spare me the loan of a famous phrase, I may venture to say that I have to plough my lonely furrow in this matter. It is a furrow, my Lords, which I hope and believe will bear some good fruit for the Church of England when I am gone. I feel that I can perhaps best set my views before the House it I base them on two or three of the speeches which have been already delivered —the speeches of my right rev. brother of Winchester, of my younger Episcopal brother of London, and of the noble Viscount Lord Goschen. The Bishop of Winchester, I am bound to acknowledge, surprised me to some extent by taking exception to the Non conformist call to prayer for the defeat of this Bill. I was surprised, because I drew an entirely different inference from that call to prayer than that which my right rev. brother seems to have drawn. I take it as indicating beyond all question that the great Nonconformist bodies in England are in deadlv earnest about this measure. If we knew more about Nonconformists than some of us do, I think we would recognise that they are in the habit ot praying directly and in deadly earnest for the things which they desire.
THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER: I regret to have to interrupt my right rev. brother, but I should be sorry that it should be supposed that I had
342
taken the smallest exception to the Nonconformists having asked in all their places of worship for united prayer on the subject of this Bill. That course would have been entirely suitable. What I objected to was the terms in which that was done, because the Nonconformist authorities, instead of asking for Divine guidance, prejudged the case by a series of vituperative epithets as to the character of the Bill.
THE LORDBISHOP OF HEREFORD: I am glad to hear this explanation, and to know that my right rev. brother did not intend to take exception to the directness of the prayer. Any of us who have had the opportunity of studying such a life as that of Oliver Cromwell know very well how prayer and action went together. I remember, my Lords, hearing the noble Earrl(LordRosebery)give a most interesting account of how that great Englishman was lost for two hours immediately before one of his greatest battles, and how he was found in a garret on his knees with his Bible and his sword in front to him. Does any one suppose that for those two hours the great Oliver was wrestling with his God in some platitudinous prayer? No, beyond a doubt he was praying, as a great many Nonconformists are praying with regard to this Bill, that his enemies might be smitten hip and thigh with the sword of the Lord and of Gideon. I venture to dwell on this for a moment because I have an impression—I may be wrong—that a great many members of this House are very imperfectly acquainted with the sentiments of our Nonconformist fellow countrymen. Among Nonconformists I have a great many intimate friends, and there are in that body some of the best and holiest Englishmen I know. They are not men who take part in politial life, but they have told me again and again during the last few months that it is hopeless for them at present to look for that godly union and concord for which we, have been labouring until this time of stress and storm is over. Therefore, I think we do well to consider what the prayers of the Nonconformists mean in this matter.
My right rev. brother said further that the, opposition to this Bill was mainly a Nonconformist opposition. I cannot but

343
think that he was under a misapprehension on this point I leave noble Lords opposite to take care of themselves, but, at any rate, much as I respect Nonconformists, I feel that it was a little hard upon me as a Bishop who opposes this Bill to be classed implicitly as a Nonconformist. I oppose this Bill as a Churchman. The Bishop of Winchester said that he supported the Bill both as an Educationist and as a Churchman. I venture to say that I oppose the measure on precisely those grounds, and on one other—namely, as a citizen. I do not presume to put myself in the scales against either of my right rev. brethren the Bishop of Winchester or the Bishop of London, but if I might lie permitted to gather up and bring with me all the educational lay opinion with which I am acquainted in our great universities, and public schools—in fact, the great mass of educational thought up and down the country—to fill up—as one might say, then I am not afraid of the scales going down against me. What I desire, then, to urge is that this Bill deserves to be opposed first on educational grounds, and on those grounds I would merely indicate one or two of many points. I will take Part II. of the Bill, the part for which wo have all been looking and longing during seven long and lean years, and which deals with secondary and technical education. Having had a good deal to do with education of every degree, from the elementary school to the University, I venture to say that this is a miserable provision considering the need and the opportunity. The most important paragraph in that part of the Bill is the one which allows the local authority, if they wish, to levy a 2d. rate. No one who knows anything of what our educational needs are, and what we should be doing, can describe that in any other void but as a niggardly and parsimonious allowance. I have wondered again and again whether the members of the Government have ever read their own Yellow-books on the subject of higher education in other countries, which are published under the direction of Mr. Michael Saddler. No one could sit down to the study of these illuminating books without seeing that it is necessary that we should do ten times as much as is proposed in Part II. of the Bill. What I also complain of is that this work of education is just left
344
to the 'prentice hands of bodies which have not had to do with educational matters before, so that among the most backward and inert portions of the people you will naturally get the least efficient bodies to manage this difficult business.
Moreover, I object to the destruction of the School Boards for two reasons. First, because it destroys all direct popular representation on the management of the schools, and in doing that everyone who has had to do with local educational matters knows that it is sweeping away one of the greatest of all educational forces existent in this country. I say that, having myself sat upon two School Boards and having also managed a great number of Voluntary Schools. Secondly, no proper arrangement is made for continuation classes. There is no obligation to attend these classes, or even to provide them. What a waste is involved in our truncated system of elementary education ! We spend a large amount of money and the lives of a vast number of persons in educating children in elementary schools up to the age of twelve or thirteen, and then we let them go, no one knows whither, as regards educational influence. Can a more wasteful process be imagined? It is just as if every springtime your Lordships were to have one of your fields ploughed, cultivated, sown with good seed, and fenced in, and then, just as the seed was beginning to grow in the April sunshine, yon pulled down the fence and let the whole world trample over it; and repeated this process year by year and every year. What a grand opportunity has been missed in not adding to this system a system of continuation classes something like that found in Germany and elsewhere! A German boy leaves the elementary school at the age of fourteen, and he is bound to go on with continuation class instruction till the age of seventeen. Let us put the English boy and the German boy together at the age of seventeen, and you will understand how it is that Germany is going ahead of England in so many directions.
Again, then there is no real provision in this Bill to help talent up the ladder of progress. On the other hand—I do not like to use strong words, but I know no other word which quite fits the case—very great care has been taken to confiscate the endowments which have hitherto been

345
used for the benefit of the poor. As I read that Clause of the Bill, I could not but think what would have happened in both Houses of Parliament if a Radical Government had brought in such a confiscation of endowments. What an outcry we should have had from every Bench in this House against the sacrilegious hand which was robbing the poor of the endowments they had hitherto enjoyed. I still hope, though it is with a very faint hope, that by an Amendment which I have put down this injustice to the poor may be remedied. I object to the Bill also as a citizen, because every voice from the country outside of a Government dockyard that has reached us of late has declared unmistakably that the country does not like the Bill further, I object to it because I have always been taught for forty years of public life, that it is a Constitutional axiom that any institution maintained by rates and taxes should be under public control, Again, I object to the Bill because it shuts the door in half the schools, to a considerable extent, though no longer, of course, entirely, against a great multitude of Nonconformist teachers. Further it does hardly anything to uplift and help forward our citizen education, and it sows the seeds of discord and sectarian strife in the community like a crop of dragon's teeth. But I chiefly object to it as a member of the Church of England. I may be mistaken, and I shall be thankful if I am proved to be so, but I have a great fear in my mind that this is a very dangerous step for the Church, and that the Church has received in gifts which come to it under the Bill a very insidious blow. Undoubtedly it has given great strength to the opposition to the Church in the country, and it leaves us, without doubt, as a Church, in a position of unstable equilibrium. There is no finality whatever about this measure. If there is one thing in political life more certain than another it is that there will come by-and-by a radical change in the sentiment of the community, and that one of the first things that will have to be done will be to make a new system of public education. In these circumstances, as I have before asked some of my right rev. brothern, are we likely to get a system anything like
346
so advantageous as we might have got at the present juncture? I think we shall probably get a system of absolute popular control of all schools, with no tests. I do not know whether that would be more to the taste of my right rev. brethren than the present arrangement.
I regret that the Church seems to have acquiesced so readily in the policy which is described in an old doctrine that "they should get who have the power, and they should keep who can." That, in the vernacular, which I am shy of using, is what people sometimes describe as a game of "grab." I do not like it. I feel that this aggressive policy of getting all you can is bad enough in the open held of political life. In China and in Africa it is bad enough, but I cannot endure it in the Church of Christ. If i had to formulate in a single sentence my reasons for objecting so strongly to this policy of aggressive grasping at all we can secure without giving the popular control which we ought to give, I would say that it is because it tends to destroy the influence of the Church by corrupting its highest spirit—corruptio optimi pessima. This kind of policy, in so far as it tends to destroy the spiritual influence of the Church in English life, is propter vitam vivendi perdere causas. I have been perhaps more closely associated for thirty years with our venerable Primate than any other Bishop, and I had hoped that the most rev. Prelate might have crowned his greatcareer by persuading the Government to bring in a great and liberal educational measure on the expanding and progressive lines of the Endowed Schools Act, in regard to which he took such an honourable part. I deplore that he has acquiesced in this Bill instead of using his great and well-won influence in the production of a really good educational measure. The Bill does not give us the sustaining and strengthening bread of educational progress, but a miserable bone of contention in our English life. The Bishop of London, in the course of the Second Reading debate, quoted certain statistics by way of attack on the School Board system, and I feel that those statistics ought not to go unchallenged. He some of my right rev. brethren, are said that he had examined, or caused to be examined, a large number

347
of lads in the East of London—in Stepney and Bethnal Green, which, after all, is only one section of the world—and he found that about 80 per cent. of them went neither to Church nor chapel. In saying this he was reproducing statistics which he had produced in the summer of 1899 in The Times. He said then that 1,000 boys of about fifteen years of age had been examined, of whom 900 went nowhere. On that occasion a great educational authority said it would be interesting to know from the Bishop in what sort of schools these children had been brought up, board schools or voluntary schools. But the Bishop said, "I forgot to inquire." He forgot to inquire. Then what are these statistics worth for his purpose? I venture to think that it is quite possible that half of these lads grew up in our Church schools. As these statistics were quoted with a view of depreciating the education given in the board schools, I feel it my duty to say that I think such statistics are worthless, and the illogical inferences drawn from them are misleading. I was sorry that my right rev. brother drew the inference that the teaching of the Old and New Testaments is not really the teaching of religion. I appeal to your Lordships to say, from your own personal experience, whether the best lessons of your religious life have not been learnt at your mother's knee in the teaching of the beauties the attraction and the power of the Divine life of Jesus.
I desire to say one or two words with regard to the subject of tests, on which the noble Viscount Lord Goschen spoke the other day. The noble Viscount won his spurs in political life by throwing open the doors of the Tory Universities to all comers, and there is not a single person in the Universities who would not tell him what a good work he then did. But what has he to say about a similar opening of the door in elementary schools? Instead of pleading for an open door the noble Viscount drew an idyllic picture of a country school where the liberal-minded squire and parson invited the Nonconformist minister to share in their educational feast; but, having regard to their trust deed, they had to tell him they were not sure they were doing right, but they welcomed him out of pure love
348
and charity, only they were obliged to seat him below the salt. They hoped, however, he would feel that "Better is a dinner of herbs where love is, than a stalled ox and hatred therewith." This, my Lords, is all very beautiful, but now the Nonconformist will say, "It is true the dining-room is yours still, but the chairs and tables and everything on the board are no more yours than mine Why should I still have to sit below the salt or be liable to have the door shut in my face?" I regret that the noble Viscount, with his great record, should ever have brought himself to support this Bill. I, myself, do not look on the Billas a strictly educational measure, but as an opportunist political patchwork, and a thing, consequently, that will not last. Moreover, I believe that if the noble Duke had been unhampered by his surroundings he would have given us a ten times better Bill. I regard with interest and gratitude the work which for years the noble Duke has done for technical and higher instruction; but the noble Duke has found himself involved in the serpent coils of political entanglement. I think of him as a pathetic and noble Laocoon, a victim to that ill-starred union, which has been very disastrous to English life, between old-fashioned Tory and traditional Whig and Birmingham Radical. That is admitted to be the source and the origin of all the bad elements of this Bill. Such a Bill as this would have been impossible in English politics but for that disastrous union. As for the Bill itself, I will do my best to amend it; but when it has passed, as I presume it will, for it is a foregone conclusion, and the discussion in this House is a very unreal discussion, I will also do my best to administer it in my diocese and neighbourhood in all honesty and for the good of the people. If it dies in its infancy, however, I shall lift up no lamentation over it, for I believe that the death of this poor offspring of a united Cabinet will be the resurrection of a new and a better hope for our educational advancement, and still more for that godly union and concord as between one denomination and another which I had hoped to see growing in these latter years of my life.
EARL SPENCER: I rise merely to explain the position which I and my noble friends behind me propose to take with regard to the Amendments to this

349
Bill. Having opposed the Bill on Second Reading, and having been very severly beaten, we mean, of course, to accept that, and not to move Amendments which would uselessly repeat the view we have already advanced on Second Reading. Any Amendments which we would care to move would really be aganist the substance of the Bill, which your Lordships approved when you accorded the measure a Second Reading. Moreover, I beleive that a great many of the Amendements would go very near to transgressing the privileges of the other House. I quite admit that the other House is the guardian of its own privileges, but I should be very sorry myself to do anything which would be supposed to infringe those privileges. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has said that he will deal with such questions as they are brought the Committee. While I for one would agree that we ought not to touch on questions of finance, I would point out that there are other questions much more difficult to solve—questions as to the conditions on which the grant is made—which we reserve the right to discuss and consider as they come up.
THE DUKE OF RUTLAND: My Lords, I rise to express dissent from the view which the noble Earl has just taken on the subject of privilege. I deny altogether that there is any breach of constitutional privilege in your Lordships discussing and interfering with any of the Clauses of the Bill which are connected with financial considerations.
LORD DAVEY: My Lords, I should not presume for one moment to set my opinion aganist that of the noble Duke, who has had such a vast experience of Parliamentry life, larger perhaps, than that enjoyed by any other Member of your Lorships' House. I am, however, bound to say that it is not my opinion alone, but also the opinion of others better qualified to speak, that the Resolution of the House Commons of 1678, which has now been acquiesced in by this House for upwards of 300 years, no longer remains a mere Resolution, but has become part of the constitutional law of this country. I quite agree with what was said by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack the other night, that in a Bill of this
350
kind, which deals not only with finance but also contains a number of other provisions, we need not be too particular in scrutinsing Amendments which may possibly affect either the "conditions, qualifications, or limitations" of the grant which is made by the Bill. But undoubtedly this Bill does come within the definition "aid or supply" to His Majesty, referred to in the Resoultion of 1678, and the constitutional practice of this House, arising out of that resoultion, has been not to interfere with either the amount, extent, or incidence of the rate which such a Bill enabled a local authority to raise.
I have given careful study to the the provisions of this Bill, and endeavoured to make myself acquainted with its Clauses, and the conclusion I have come to is that every Amendment of importance is so dependent on questions of finance, either of rating or of Parliamentary grant, that it would be difficult, if not absolutely impossible, to make any Amendment of real substance, such as some of us on this side of the House would desire to make. Let me give your Lordships three illustrations of what I mean. The proviso of Clause I contains what many of us regard as one of the most serious blots on the Bill, because it is inconsistent with the establishment of one authority to control secondary and elementary education. In that proviso the Council of a borough with a population of over 10,000, or on an urban district, with a population of over 20,000, is made the local authority for the purpose of elementary education, but not of secondary education. We contend on this side of the House that there should be one authority in these districts for both elementary and secondary education. But that confusion is made worse conformed by Clause 3 of the Bill. I find there that although the Council of a non-county borough or urban district is not made the local authprity for the purpose of secondary education, it shall have power, as well as the County Council, to spend such sums as they think fit for the purpose of suppling or aiding the supply of education other than elementary. Therfore we have this position, that the authority which is not the local authority for the purpose of secondary education, may still spend money and raise a sum not exceeding the amount which would be produced by a rate of one penny in the pound. It

351
is obvious that it would be idle to submit any Amendment to remove the serious disfigurement in the Bill, because in attempting to amend that we should be altering the incidence of the rate. I will take another example. There is a good deal of difference of opinion with regard to Clause 7, which imposes upon the local education authority the obligation of maintaining denominational schools, and there are many things in it which we would like to alter. I feel very strongly, for instance, on the provision, which was not in the original Bill, which enables the trustees on a charitable trust to charge a rent for the use of the master's residence, I find tucked away in the Clause the words:—
" Compliance with this section shall be one of the conditions required to be fulfilled by an elementary school in order to obtain a Parliamentary grant."
I am not quite sure as to the effect of those words, but they seem to me to make compliance with the whole section a condition of the enjoyment of a Parliamentary grant. Take Clause 14, which was alluded to by my right reverend friend the Bishop of Hereford, and which relates to endowments. That, of course is a very important Clause, and one that has given rise to a great deal of controversy. It is obvious that if you alter the distribution of the endowments under the Clause, which provides that certain parts of the endowments shall go to the local educational authority, practically in relief of the rates, you will be interfering with the amount of the rate, because, if the local educational authority does not get the benefit of that portion of the endowments allotted to them by this Clause, the rate which they will have to levy for the purpose will, of course, be increased. I have given these illustrations in support of my contention that every Amendment of importance is so dependent on questions of finance that it would be impossible to make any Amendment of real substance without coming within the charge of committing a breach of constitutional privilege. In these circumstances, I am not surprised that my noble friend Lord Spencer has thought fit to take the course he mentioned with regard to Amendments.
House in Committee (according to Order).
Clause 1:—
LORD WENLOCKmoved to provide that the Council of a borough with a population of over "twenty" thousand, and not of over "ten" thousand as in the Clause, should be the local education authority for that borough. The object of his Amendment was, he said, to place the boroughs on the same footing in this respect as Urban District Councils. He would give an example of how the Clause as at present constituted would work. In the Isle of Wight, the County Council would not be the central and responsible body to carry on education in that area, but there would be three separate authorities—the County Council and the Councils of the boroughs of Ryde, which had a population of just over 10,000, and of Newport which had a population of 11,000. This would prevent the establishment of one really good educational scheme for the whole of the area. He could not help thinking that some bargain must have been struck between the Government and the Association of Municipal Corporations in regard to this matter, but he was sure the arrangement proposed in the Bill would produce extremely bad educational results, and would simply lead to the perpetuation of the small and very inefficient School Boards which this measure so wisely did away with
Amendment moved—
" In page 1, line 10. to leave out 'ten'and to insert 'twenty.'"—(Lord Wenlock.)
LORD HERRIESsupported the Amendment on the ground that it was most important to place the smaller boroughs under the control of the County Council. He had had the honour of being Chairman of the Technical Instruction Committee of his county ever since it was first started, and could assure their Lordships that if the boroughs in question were to be no longer subject to the County Council, but were to be allowed to become their own local education authority, a great injury would be done to the cause of national education.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I cannot deny that from an educational

353
point of view tliis Amendment would have a certain advantage; but I am afraid that from the practical point of view it is one which it is quite impossible to ask the House to accept. There are, I believe, fifty-one English and four Welsh boroughs which would be affected by this Amendment, and would lose the educational autonomy which the Bill proposes to continue to them; but all thost boroughs which are in Wales are at present under School Boards, and about half of those in England are similarly situated. There can be no doubt that the small boroughs which have up to the present enjoyed complete educational autonomy would very strongly resent being deprived of it, as suggested by this Amendment. The House will also, perhaps, recollect that it was upon a point of this kind affecting the privileges of the small boroughs that the Bill of 1896 received the first, and, I believe, what was really the fatal blow. I do not desire in the least to attempt to intimidate your Lordships by referring to majorities in the other House of Parliament, but when I state that a similar Amendment to this was defeated in the House of Commons by a majority of 220, I think it must be obvious that any such Amendment as this would be very little likely to meet with acceptance in the other House. There is also another objection which your Lordships ought to consider. Boroughs with a population of 10,000 are already separate authorities for certain purposes under the Act of 1888, and to create, as would be the effect of this Amendment, a separate category of boroughs, some possessing a different set of powers, between 10,000 and 20,000, would be a very considerable inconvenience. I am afraid, therefore, it is impossible for His Majesty's Government to accept the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2:—
LORD REAYinquired whether the local education authority would have compulsory powers to acquire sites to
354
provide for the needs of secondary education. Under the Technical Instruction Acts there was only power to obtain sites by agreement. He desired to know whether the Government intended that in future thai system should prevail, or whether they proposed to give compulsory powers.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: There are no compulsory powers under this Clause.
EARL BKAUCHAMPmoved an Amendment to provide that the local education authority should take such steps "as are necessary," instead of such steps "as seem to them desirable," to aid the supply of higher education. He said that he moved the Amendment in no hostility to the Bill, but for the purpose of stiffening its provisions in regard to secondary education. As the Clause now stood the question of drainage would be on a better footing than that of secondary education, for drainage was compulsory and secondary education was not, except, of course, that the whisky money had to be spent for the purpose of technical education. At present this branch of education was carried on in a very happy-go-lucky manner, and there was a great demand for further provision. For instance, Somersetshire had five times as many evening continuation scholars as the county of Gloucester, which did not spend half the whisky money on technical instruction. It was eminently desirable that counties like Gloucester should be made to do something more for higher education, and he hoped the Government would see their way to accept the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
" In page 1. lines 19 and 20, to leave out 'seem to them desirable,'and to insert 'art; necessary,'"—(Earl Beauchamp.)
LORD HARRISopposed the Amendment, not because he was out of sympathy with the object of the noble Earl, but because the whole cost of secondary education was to be thrown on the ratepayers.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: No, there is the whisky money.
LORD HARRIS,continuing, said that if any part of the Government grants now used for technical education had to be used for secondary education as distinguished from technical education, it would be absolutely necessary to interrupt the system of technical education which now existed. He confessed to the greatest possible disappointment in regard to this part of the Bill. He had thought the Bill would deal comprehensively with secondary education, but that part of the Bill had become almost swamped by elementary education. The improvement of secondary education was a national burden, and he objected to this Clause because it would throw an additional burden on the shoulders of the ratepayers for a national purpose, and it would do this in the teeth of the Report of the Commission on Local Taxation, over which Lord Balfour presided, which expressed in the strongest terms the opinion that the ratepayers were already overburdened, find that as regards matters which could be considered national they should be relieved.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My noble friend who has just spoken is mistaken in supposing that secondary education is only aided by the Government from what is called the whisky money grant. He entirely forgets that the whole of what used to appear in the Estimates as the grant to the Science and Art Department is now given in aid of secondary education, although the greater part of that education may be described as technical or art education. But those grants still continue to be given, and there is no doubt that any steps which may be taken by municipal authorities under this Bill to extend secondary education will have to be met by a very considerable additional grant from the central authority. My noble friend is therefore mistaken in supposing that this Bill puts a new charge for secondary education solelyupon the ratepayers. With regard to the Amendment moved by the noble Lord opposite, I do not think I can add anything to what I said at the conclusion of this debate the other night. The noble Earl lias explained that his Amendment will give a very much more compulsory character to the Clause than it
356
already possesses. As I stated in moving the Second Reading, the scope of the Clause was considerably extended in Committee in the other House. The changes which were made in Committee were, in the first place, to make the application of the whisky money to higher education compulsory, and. in the second place, to oblige the local education authority to consider the needs of their area in respect to higher education and to take such steps as might then, after consultation with the Board of Education, seem to them desirable. I understand that the Amendment which the noble Earl has proposed would compel them to take such steps as the Hoard of Education might consider desirable, but I cannot conceive anything in the present state ot things which would be more likely to indispose the authorities and the ratepayers generally to an extension of secondary education, which, we agree, to him is eminently desirable, than to drive, rather than lead, the local authorities. I think it is quite impossible to go further than the Clause now goes, and I regret therefore that we are unable to accept the Amendment.
EARL SPENCER: The Amendment which has been proposed by the noble Earl so entirely agrees with the views I expressed on the Second Reading of the Bill that I shall certainly vote for it. Stronger words than those in the Clause ought to be inserted, because the Clause, as far as I can see, leaves it perfectly open to the local authorities to take no step whatever, even though tliero may be a pressing need.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (The MARQUESS of LONDONDERRY): I should like to say that the Board of Education desires to act as an advisory body, and does not wish to bring compulsion on the local education authorities. In the event of an extreme case arising the Board of Education, if the Amendment were carried, would have the power to force the authority to raise a rate for secondary education. Such a provision would be directly opposed to the pledge I gave the other day. The Government have been denounced for not having donea greatdeal

357
more to promote secondary education, but I maintain that much has been done in this direction by ear-marking the whisky money in the cause of secondary education. I also deny that we have, as Lord Harris appears to think, inflicted any injustice whatever on the ratepayers by the line we have adopted in this Bill.
LORD BURGHCLEREagreed with what had been said by Earl Spencer as to the desirability of higher education being advanced as far as possible, and admitted that we, were lamentably behind other nations in that respect. It had been stated that the Government had earmarked the whisky money for the purpose of technical education. He might be wrong, but that was not his reading of the Clause, which provided that the local education authority—
"For that purpose shall apply all, or so much as they deem necessary, of the residue under Section 1 of the Local Taxation (Customs and Excise) Act. 1890, and shall carry forward for the like purpose any balance thereof which may remain unexpended."
Surely, the whole of that was governed by the words "as they deem necessary."
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: They will not be able to spend the money on any other purpose.
LORD TWEEDMOUTHsaid that although this might be so, there was

CONTENTS.

Halsbury, E. (L. Chancellor.)

Cowper, E.

Mount Edgeumbe, E.

Devonshire, D. (L. President.)

Dartmouth, E.

Nelson, E.

Denbigh, E.

Northbrook, E.

Norfolk, D (E. Marshal.)

Derby, E.

Onslow, E.

Bedford, D.

Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

Radnor, E.

Newcastle, D.

Romney, E.

Northumberland, D.

Ducie, E.

Saint Germans, E.

Portland, D.

Egerton, E.

Selborne, E.

Rutland, D.

Eldon, E.

Shaftesbury, E.

Simerset, D.

Ellesmere, E.

Shrewsbury, E.

Wellington, D.

Feversham, E.

Stamford, E.

Hardwicke, E.

Stanhope, E.

Aliesbury, M.

Harewood, E.

Strafford, E.

Bath, M.

Hillsborough, E. (M. Dornshire.)

Tankerville, E.

Bristol, M.

vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Camden, M.

Ilchester, E.

Verulam, E.

Hertford, M.

Lathom, E.

Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]

Lansdowne, M

Lauderdale, E.

Wharncliffe, E.

Winchester, M.

Leven and Melfile, E.

Yarborough, E.

Zetland, M.

Lichfield, E.

Churuchif, V. [Teller.]

Londes borough, E.

Cross, V.

Clarendon, E. (L. Chamberlain.)

Lucan, E.

Falkland, V.

Abingdon, E.

Lytton, E.

Falmouth, V.

Bathurst, E.

Malmesbury, E.

Gosehen, V.

Belmore, E.

Manvers, E.

Halifax, V.

Bradford, E.

Mayo, E.

Knutsford, V.

Coventry, E.

Morley, E.

Llandaff, V.

nothing in the Clause to compel them to it in this particular way. They might put it in the bank and let it accumulate. It would be better if the Cause provided that the local authority should spend the whisky money year by year on secondary education. The object of the Amendment was to make it compulsory on the local authority to take such steps as were necessary, instead of such steps as seemed to them desirable.
LORD HARRISsaid he would like to have this point cleared up. Would the Bill prevent County Councils from devoting any portion of the whisky money to the relief of the rates?
The DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: Yes.
THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTERsaid that he certainly should support the Government if the Amendment were pressed. He regretted that more had not been done to make compulsory or semi-compulsory provision for secondary education, but he thought it was perfectly impossible now so far to alter the measure as to make the radical changes suggested by the noble Earl.
On Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," their Lordships divided:—Contents, 174: Not-Contents, 33.

Ridley, V.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Ludlow, L.

Colechester, L.

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

Congleton, L.

Chester, L.Bp.

Cottesloe, L.

Mendip, L. (V. Clofden.)

Chichester, L. Bp.

Crawshaw, L.

Middleton, L.

Durham, L. Bp

Dawnay, L. (V. Downe.)

Monckton, L. (V. Galway.)

Ely, L. Bp.

De Freyne, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

London, L. Bp.

De Mauley, L.

Mostyn, L.

Manchester, L. Bp.

Dormer, L.

Muncaster, L.

Newcastle, L. Bp.

Douglas, L. (E. Home.)

Newton, L.

Ripon, L. Bp.

Dunmore, L. (E. Dunmore.)

North, L.

Rochester, L. Bp.

Ellen borough, L.

O'Brien, L.

St. Asaph, L. Bp.

Elphinstone, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Southwell, L. Bp.

Erskine, L.

Pirbright, L.

Winchester, L. Bp.

Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow.)

Rathmore, L.

Fingall, L. (E. Fingall.)

Redesdale, L.

Forester, L.

Revelstoke, L.

Addington, L.

Gage,L. (V. Gage.)

Rosmead, L.

Allerton, L.

Glanusk, L.

Rothsechild, L.

Arundell of Wardour,L.

Glenesk, L.

Rowton, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Gromanston, L. (V. Gormanston)

Saltoun, L.

Avebury, L.

Seaton, L.

Balfour. J.

Harris, L.

Sherborne, L.

Barry more, L.

Hatherton, L.

Snjte, L. (V. Barrington.)

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Herries, L.

Stalbridge, L.

Belper, L.

Hothfield, L.

Stanmore, L.

Boston, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Suffield, L.

Braybrooke, L.

Hylton, L.

Teynham, L.

Braye, L.

James, L.

Tredegar, L.

Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

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

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)

Burton, L.

Kenyon, L.

Wenlock, L.

Calthorpe. L.

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

Wimborne, L.

Chelmsford, L.

Lawrence, L.

Windsor, L.

Cheylesmore, L.

Lindley, L.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Northampton, M.

Hampden, V.

Kinnaird, L.

Hereford, L. Bp.

Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

Beauchamp, E. [Teller.]

Norwich, L. Bp.

Monkswell, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Salisbury, L. Bp.

Reay, L.

Carrington, E.

Ribblesdale, L. [Reller.]

Chesterlield, E.

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

Rosebery, L. (E. Rosebery.)

Crewe, E.

Brassey, L.

Sandhurst, L.

Portsmouth, E.

Burghclere, L.

Saye and Sele, L.

Sandwich, E.

Coleridge, L.

Sudley, L. (E. Arran.)

Spencer, E.

Davey, L.

Tweedmouth, L.

Denman, L.

Wandsworth, L.

Gordon, V. (E. Aberdeen.)

Farrer, L.

Welby, L.

THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIREmoved to omit the words "including the training of teachers" from the first part of Clause 2, which read—
"The local education authority shall consider the educational needs of their area, and take such steps as seem to them desirable, after consultation with the Board of Education, to supply, or aid the supply, of education other than elementary (including the training of teachers), and" etc.
He said: The words I propodse to omit are rather out of place in this Clause, and can only limit its operation, inas-much as the special mention of the training of teachers might be held to exclude other subjects which ought to be included. Clause 23 makes all the
Provision necessary with reference to this subject of the training of teachers.
Amendment moved—
"In page 1, lines 21 and 22, to leave out 'including the training of teachers.'"—(The Duke of Devonshire.)
EARL SPENCER: If that is the correct view of the matter, and if clause 23 makes the necessary provision, I will not object to this Amendment. But I should strongly oppose it if I thought its effect would be to give a hint that nothing was to be done with regard to this exceedingly important branch of the subject.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BURGHCLEREasked what was to become of the whisky money in the event of the local education authority not setting up a secondary school.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: It need not set up a school itself but can employ the money in aiding other schools, in scholarships, or in any other way in which it is now employed.
EARL BEAUCHAMPmoved the substitution of the words "Board of Education," for "Local Government Board'' in the proviso to the effect that the amount raised by the Council of a county under the Act should not exceed a twopenny rate, or such higher rate as the County Council, with the consent of the Local Government Board, might fix. He held that, at a time when the whole of the educational system was being put on a different footing, the body who ought to be applied to for permission under such circumstances was the Board of Education. It was quite true that at the present time the Local Government Board held inquiries when it was a question of raising a loan, but the question in this Clause was one of rating, and, therefore, entirely different.
Amendment moved—
"In page 1,line 2,line 3, to leave out 'Local Government Board,'and to insert 'Board of Education.'"—(Earl Beauchamp.)
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: The question of the extension or not of the limit of 2d. must be considered in relation to the whole financial responsibilities of the country, and not their educational responsibilities only. The Local Government Board is the Department which is charged with watching over questions affecting the whole expenditure of the country, and the Board of Education has no means of knowing anything beyond such responsibilities as rest upon them in respect of education. Therefore, if any Government Department is to be charged with this duty, I think it must be the Local Government Board.
Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
LORD DAVEYinquired what means there were in this Clause to stimulate local educational authorities and compel
362
them to do something substantial to promote secondary education. He asked this question because he observed that it was proposed to repeal Section 16, which dealt [with School Boards in default.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I should have thought the question of the noble and learned Lord had been already answered in the course of the discussion on this Clause. The duty of supplying adequate elementary school accommodation will be compulsory on the local education authority as it is now on the School Board, but there is no such compulsory obligation upon them for the supplying of secondary education.
LORD DAVEY: That is no answer at all to my question.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid the new Clauses which be proposed to move after Clause 2, though somewhat lengthy, were very innocuous. They were taken without any alteration from the Bill for the provision of technical and secondary education which His Majesty'sGovernment introduced in 1896. Therefore they had the highest sanction, and he hoped His Majesty's Government would see their way to incorporate them in the present Bill. The issue was a simple one—namely, whether the Government were prepared to accept what they recommended in 1896, or whether they were afraid of the measures they then brought forward.
Amendment moved—
" After Clause 2, to insert the following new Clauses:—
(A.)—(1) A council, for the purpose of promoting education other than elementary, may, amongst other matters—(a) aid any school to provide such education, or, with the consent of the Board of Education, take a transfer of any school which provides such education, and is not an elementary school; and (b) establish a school, and for that purpose provide land and buildings, whether by purchase, hiring, or otherwise; and (c) establish and maintain scholarships or exhibitions; and (d) supply or aid in supplying teachers; and (e) make inquiries with respect to the sanitary condition of the school buildings (including boarding houses) of any school within their area; and (f) make

363
inquiries with respect to the education given by any school within their area, except a school which, in the opinion of the Board of Education, is of a, non-local character; and (g) take such measures as they think fit for giving information to the public with respect to the result of such inquiries.
(2.) The exercise of any powers under this section shall require, in the case of an industrial, a day industrial, or a reformatory school, the consent of a Secretary of State, and in the case of a poor law school the consent of the Local Government Board.
(3) A council may guarantee, for a term not exceeding five years, any annual or other periodical payment required for the purposes of this section, and may charge on the proper fund or rate any sum required to fulfil the guarantee.
(4) If a council make it a condition of giving aid under this section, that representatives of the council be added to the trustees or other governing body of the school, and the trustee or other governing body assent to the condition 'those representatives shall for all purposes be trustees or members of the governing body of the school.
(B.)—(1) A council in the performance of their duties shall not give any preference or advantage to any school on the ground that it does or does not belong, or is or is not in connection with, or under the management of, any particular church, sect, or denomination, or that religious instruction is or is not given in the school.
(2) The council shall take care that every school aided by them is inspected and examined by such persons and in such manner as may be approved by the Board of Education with reference to the particular class of schools to which the school belongs, and shall satisfy themselves with respect to every such school: (a) that the buildings are sufficient and suitable as regards size, sanitary accommodation, convenience, repairs, and otherwise; and (b) that the furniture, fittings, and school apparatus are adequate; and (c) that there is an adequate staff of teachers; and (d) that proper discipline is maintained, that the course of education is sufficient and suitable, that the fees, if any, are suitable, and that the teaching is efficient; and (e) that proper accounts are kept showing the receipts and expenditure of the school; and (f) that the school is conducted in accordance with such regulations made by or in pursuance of any statute, or made by the Board of Education as are applicable to the school.
(3) Every council shall make such Report and Returns, and give such information to the Board of Education as the Board may from time to time require.—(Earl Beauchamp.)
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRYdid not think they would be strengthening the measure by defining the duties of the Council, as that course would tend to the enumerated branches of education being regarded as more important than those not mentioned. As
364
the result of past experience, the Government had not repeated in this measure the Clause in question from the Act of 1896.
Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
Clause 3:—
EARLBEAUCHAMPmoved to give Rural District Councils as well as non-county Borough and Urban District Councils power to spend sums on secondary education up to a rate of Id. in the pound. The Amendment was a somewhat important one. Their Lordships would notice that it was merely permissive, the idea being to allow the enlightened Rural District Councils the same authority in the matter of secondary education as the Bill gave to Urban District Councils. There were many rural districts which were larger and more important than some of the urban districts to which the Clause gave powers in this respect, and it was difficult to see why they should be denied those powers. The Clause already made so many new authorities that to add to them the Rural District Councils would not be making any great alteration in the principle of the Bill.
Amendment moved—
"In page 2, line 8, after 'urban,' to insert 'or rural.'"—(Earl Beauchamp)
LORD DAVEY,while not expressing any opinion as to the Amendment, could not help feeling that it came within the question of Privilege, because it enabled a district not named in the Clause to make a new rate.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: The effect of the noble Earl's Amendment would undoubtedly be to increase the number of authorities which would be powers in respect of secondary education. I understood that one of the principal complaints urged against the Bill by noble Lords opposite, and especially by the noble Earl himself, was that it did not establish single education authorities: but this proposal would add to the grievance, whatever it might be. The Bill as originally introduced limited the powers under this Clause to boroughs over 10,000, and urban districts over 20,000 inhabitants; that is to say, it limited these powers to those authorities

365
which were made autonomous for the purpose of elementary education. In the course of the discussion, however, it was, point out that under the Technical Instruction Acts, Urban District Councils already possessed these powers in regard to secondary education, that they had made certain arrangements, and that it would lead to great inconvenience if those powers were taken away from them. The request of these authorities was backed up by the County Councils Association, who desired that this additional rating power which was possessed by the minor authorities should be continued. It appears to me, however, that it is quite unnecessary to place the Rural District Councils in the same category. It is far better, in my opinion, that those authorities which do not possess these powers under the Technical Instruction Acts should not have them conferred upon them, and that in respect to the whole of a county which is not included either in a borough or a large urban district the powers relating to the provision of rating for secondary education should be entirely in the hands of the County Council. I do not know what the experience of other members of this House may be, but being the Chairman of the Rural District Council myself I am bound to say that I cannot imagine any authority less likely to spend any money on the provision of technical or any other form of education than the body over which I have the honour to preside.
LORD TWEEDMOUTHsaid the noble Duke had not answered the question put to him by Lord Davey, who desired to know the opinion of His Majesty's Government with regard to the position of the Amendment. The Amendment proposed to allow Rural District Councils to levy a rate for the purpose of education other than elementary, provided that the same did not exceed a rate of a penny in the pound. Was it competent for that House to pass an Amendment giving to a body which did not possess power to rate in the Bill as it came from the House of Commons, power to impose a rate for any particular purpose?
VISCOUNT LLANDAFFcould not see in what way the Amendment from the one upon which their Lordships had already voted, and which would have
366
compelled the County Council to aid secondary education, not where it seemed to them desirable, but wherever it was necessary. That would certainly have increased the rating burden which might be cast either on the county or district.
LORD TWEEDMOUTHcontended that the two cases were totally different. In the former case there was no proposal to add to the rate, or to give the authority any new power of rating. The rate was limited by the Clause to 2d. in the pound, and all that was proposed was that the authority should exercise the power which the Clause gave it.
VISCOUNT LLANDAFFpresumed that the cases in which it would be necessary to aid secondary education would be more numerous than the cases in which the authority would think it desirable, Otherwise, there would be no object in moving the Amendment.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNasked whether it was really necessary for practical purposes to enter into these minute questions. Earl Beauchamp had moved an Amendment, and the Government had given him an answer. If the noble and learned Lord, Lord Davey, thought the noble Earl had gone beyond the powers of the House, the proper course to adopt was, not to ask a question of the Government, or of the Lord Chancellor, but to move that the Amendment be not now put.
Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4:—
VISCOUNT HALIFAXmoved to omit the latter part of the first sub-Section, which provided that "no catechism or formulary distinctive of any particular religious denomination shall be taught or used in any school, college, or hostel" provided by the Council. The words he proposed to omit were words which extended the provisions of the Cowper-Temple Clause into the area of secondary education. They precluded the local education authority from providing any schools, colleges, or hostels, except such

367
as were undenominational and administered under the provisions of the Cowper-Temple Clause. He was sure that they never would solve the religious difficulty attaching to the education question unless they were going to help all denominational or undenominational schools equally and impartially. He did not deny that in some of the larger Board schools the religious teaching had been good, but that, was because a large proportion of the teachers had been brought up in denominational colleges. It was obvious that the teaching of an insufficient Christianity might be the teaching of no Christianity at all. If they extended the operation of the Cowper-Temple Clause as proposed it would make any future satisfactory settlement of the education question much more difficult. This was essentially a matter which the local education authority could judge better of than persons at a distance, and he should have thought that it was pre-eminently a matter to leave to the discretion of the local authority. He was glad that Nonconformists should have schools provided for them which would meet their religious convictions; he could not understand why they should not be willing that he should have the same. He asked that the local authority should not, by a Clause in the Bill, be limited to helping only undenominational schools to the exclusion of denominational schools and hostels.
Amendment moved—
"In page 2, line 24, to leave out from 'council' to the end of the sub-Section."—(Viscount Halifax.)
LORD COLCHESTERjoined with the noble Viscount who had just sat down in asking that these local education bodies should be trusted and allowed to decide according to the requirements of each case. This was a matter preeminently fitted to be left to the local education committee. They should follow the principle of the Endowed Schools Act rather than adopt the unfortunate Clause of the Act of 1870. What was done under the Endowed Schools Act, in the case of foundations which were not denominational, was in the first instance to require religious instruction to be given, and, secondly, to lay down that it should be according to the principles of the Christian faith,
368
leaving the governing bodies power to interpret that as they thought fit. Why would not a similar provision be sufficient in the case of the schools set up by this Bill? Moreover, the wording of the Cowper-Temple Clause was ambiguous, and could be very easily evaded. When he was a member of the London School Board, they had deputation after deputation asking them to keep to the spirit of the Cowper-Temple Clause. What was the spirit of that Clause? He had put the question to the deputation as to what they meant by the spirit of the Clause, but none of the answers agreed. It passed the wit of man to understand what the spirit of the Clause was. Its form was thoroughly bad, and its provision should not be extended into the area of secondary education. Had there been religious peace in the School Board as a result of that Clause? He had been for three years a member of the London School Board, but did not find it. He asked that the local education bodies should be trusted, and should not have thrown upon them the stigma that they were unworthy to decide this important question.
THE LORD BISHOP OF ST. ASAPHdid not intend to enter upon any academic discussion of the Cowper-Temple Clause. But Wales supplied valuable evidence on this point. The Welsh Intermediate Act of 1889 was in, its religious provisions built up upon this Clause. Many still regarded that Act as defective, if not unfair. It was, therefore, at first viewed with some distrust. All that had now disappeared, and he frankly recognised that many of the dangers anticipated had not been realised. In the schemes under the Act there had been some over-straining of the Cowper-Temple Clause, but the Amendment of Viscount Goschen, if adopted, would render that impossible for the future. The Cowper-Temple Clause had certainly saved them much sectarian wrangling in their secondary schools in Wales.
THE LORD BISHOP OF SALISBURYasked the Government to state what course they intended to pursue towards Viscount Goschen's Amendment, which proposed that the local education authority might, "at the request of parents of

369
scholars, or on other grounds, allow any religious instruction to be given in the school, college, or hostel, otherwise than at the cost of the authority." He did not wish that denominational education should be endowed at the cost of the State, but he did think it was the duty of the State to allow the parents of children who attended secondary schools to have such religious instruction, at the cost of the denomination, as might reasonably be given to them.
LORD STANMOREexpressed his own dislike of the Cowper-Temple Clause, but said he presumed the noble Viscount had brought his Amendment forward mor with a view of airing his own distaste for the Clause than with any hope of obtaining from the House of Lords a reversal of the decision of the other House on this point. He (Lord Stanmore) remarked upon the great and significant change in the language now used by noble Lords on the other side of the House as compared with that held during the debates on the Education Bill of 1870. It would be remembered how much they heard at that time of undenominational Christianity, which was what was to be taught under the Cowper-Temple Clause. He noticed that no noble Lord had said anything on this Bill about undenominational Christianity. What they spoke of was undenominational religion. There was a considerable difference between the two. Moreover, he noticed that those noble Lords seemed to consider that the words "undenominational" and "undogmatic" were convertable terms, that they were synonymous and meant the same thing. Even the noble Earl who moved the rejection of the Bill, and whose moderation, sincerity, and fairness made him a leader whom he for one would love to follow if he could only agree with him, used the words as if they were the same Undenominational Christianity was a thing one could conceive, but undogmatic Christianity was a thing which had no existence. Undenominational religion was a very different thing to undenominational Christianity, because the latter, however wide, did preserve the essential dogmas of belief in Christ. Undenominational religion went further, and would include the Jew, the Agnostic, and the Mahomedan, but when they used the words "undogmatic religion" they pronounced that which could not exist, for religion began with a
370
dogma. Even if they reduced it to the very lowest expression, and made it undenominational religion, even then they had dogma. Even if they reduced the religion that was taught to simply the first Article in the Creed, "I believe in God," was not that an enormous dogma? It was, in itself, a dogma which completely put out of the question the idea of there being such a thing as undogmatic religion. They would find that undenominational religion. which, if they pursued it logically, became religion without any dogma at all—that was to say, no religion.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, I cannot, of course, treat the Amendment moved by my noble friend opposite as one which is in any degree hostile to the principle of the Bill, for the Bill, as it was originally introduced, did not contain the provision he now seeks to strike out. We have always considered that while it would be a great advantage, for some of the reasons which have been stated by the noble Lord opposite and also by the noble Lord behind me, to leave the authorities a perfectly free hand in the matter, it would be very difficult, as long as the Cowper-Towple Clause remained part of the law in regard to reate-provided elementary schools, to resist its application to schools for providing education other than elementary. The proviso which it is now sought to strike out was introduced by Sir William Anson when a private Member of Parliament; and, as the hon. Gentleman was the representative of Oxford University, his Amendment cannot be supposed to have been moved in any hostile spirit either to the Government or to the Church of England. The main argument, in my opinion, for the retention of this provision is that which was referred to by the noble Lord behind me. He has said he has not found in his experience that the Cowper-Temple Clause has brought about peace. On the other hand, would not the omission of this proviso be extremely likely to produce in every local authority a spirit of strife on religious topics which would not be conducive to the interests of peace? I fully admit that there is much in

371
what has been urged by noble Lords opposite and behind me; but I ask them to consider in how many cases it is in the slightest degree probable that a local authority established under this Bill would desire to build and maintain a denominational college, and whether it is worth while, for the extremely small practical effect which the Amendment can ever be likely to have, to introduce into the discussions of every local authority created under the Bill so fruitful a subject of religious controversy? In anything that I have said with regard to this Amendment I do not wish to exclude myself or the Government from a perfectly fair consideration of the Amendment which my noble friend Lord Goschen proposes to move. I understand from some observations made by one right rev. Prelate that the acceptance of that Amendment would be preferable to teh acceptance even of that which has been moved by the noble Viscount opposite; but I will not discuss that point till we come to the Amendment itself. I only wish to say that in opposing, as I am obliged to do, the Amendment moved by the noble Earl opposite, I do not in the least desire to commit ourselves as to the view which we shall take on the next Amendment.
Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT GOSCHENsaid he was glad to hear, in the last few words of the noble Duke, that he was prepared to give a fair consideration to his Amendment. He moved to add, after the provision that no formulary distinctive of any particular denomination shall be taught or used in any school, college, or hostel provided by the local authority, the following words:—"Except in cases where the local education authority, at the request of the parents or scholars, or on other grounds, allow any religious instruction to be given in the school, college, or hostel otherwise than at the cost of the authority." He said that the Clause as it stood for the time riveted upon secondary education the Cowper-Temple Clause; and that was a very serious step. They had been assured by noble Lords opposite and by cretain Nonconformist gentlemen that everything was
372
to be done to maintain the Nonconformist grievance when this Bill was passed; and he feared that some remarks made by a noble Earl opposite might have a very baneful effect upon the working of the Bill. If agitation was to continue there should be some relaxation from the Cowper-Temple Clause by premissive means. He asked the noble Duke whether he would allow the local authority, when the parents demanded it, or when the circumstances seemed to render it necessarey, to permit denominational education to be given in those schools, colleges, and hostels at the cost of the denomination. That would establish a right of entry, which would be a useful precedent.
Amendment moved—
"In page 2, line 26, after 'provided' to insert 'except in cases where the local education authority, at the request of parents of scholars, or on other grounds, allow any religious instruction to be given in the school, college, or hostel otherwise than at the cost of the authority.'"—(Viscount Goschen.)
THE LORD BISHOP OF ROCHESTERsaid that while the Amendment of Viscount Halifax, if pressed to a division, might have proved extremely comtroversial, he could not help hoping the Amendment now before the Committee would be found to be very uncontroversial. It was no doubt a very serious thing to extend the domination of the Cowper-Temple Clause, because it represented a doctrine which denominationalists had never been able to accept. In some of the speeches in connection with the Bill grave attacks had been made on the Episcopal Bench, and those who agreed with its occupants, on the ground that they were trying to get so much for themselves. Noble Lords seemed not always to remember that if undenominationalists had consciences, so also had denominationalists, and their desire to find a place in the national system of education for that form of instruction. which they conscientiously believed to be the best was not always a sign of greed or of grab. They were contending for what seemed to them to be the principle of justice and religious freedom. For these reasons be would have felt compelled to support the noble Viscount had he taken to a division his Amendment to omit a caluse which had always been made the symbol of that particular

373
form of orthodoxy which said the State might support undenominational religion but no other, and of which they had heard many professions of late, both in this House and in another place.
The present Amendment, however, might be approached in an altogether different spirit. It was not always sufficiently observed that the Cowper-Temple Clause had two effects, both important, but each separable from the other. One was that the teaching supplied by the State should be of a certain character—that distinctive formularies should not be taught, and so forth. That was an extremely important affirmation, in favour of which there were not only reasons of convenience, but reasons standing on a higher plane than convenience—viz., reasons of peace. But the Cowper-Temple Clause had also a negative or exclusive effect in that it shut out any other form of teaching, even though it were provided by other than public authorities. Surely that was a condition of things which might be departed from. He had noticed in the speeches of the Chairman of the London School Board and of Earl Spencer words to this effect: "By all means let the denominationalists teach their own children, but let, them do it at their own expense." The expression was, of course, used in a different connection, but he thought it applied equally to the present proposal. What they asked was, not that the local authority should be compelled, against its will, to admit this teaching, but that where the local authority took the view of the denominationalists as to what made for justice, and religious freedom it should allow denominationalists to come in, and, at their own expense, give instruction after their own fashion to the scholars and students. In many of these institutions the students would not be children, and that led him to point out that in several ways the application of the Cowper-Temple Clause to secondary schools differed from its application to primary schools. It was often said by the advocates of undenominational teaching that children could take in only the very simple elements of religion, and that the denominationalists desired to force upon them elaborate doctrines which their minds were incapable of understanding. Without discussing the value of that argument, he thought all would
374
agree that it applied with nothing approaching the same force to young people of greater age, and still less to such as would come under the operation of the Clause in training colleges. To his mind it would plainly make for liberty and advance the interests of the local authorities to say that even in institutions provided by them, and in which the whole of the teaching provided at their expense was absolutely undenominational, there should be opportunities afforded for young people to be instructed in the principles of the religious denomination to which they belonged.
The Amendment might further be supported by arguments of convenience. Although not a practical expert in these matters, he believed he was right in saying that in secondary schools there was a greater variety of subjects taught, and more specialisation, and, consequently, more grouping of the scholars in various ways. It would therefore be much less marked and exceptional to have denominational students grouped from time to time for religious instruction. The buildings, also, would probably lend themselves more to such special classes and arrangements than would the buildings of primary schools. Moreover, secondary institutions would, in the nature of the case, more often be of a central character; there would not be so many of them, and consequently students would have fewer options as to the schools they should attend. In many cases the particular training college or secondary school would be the only one in a large district; therefore the plea that in such institutions opportunity should be provided for student of different religious convictions to be instructed in the principles of their particular denominations had much to support it. He did no believe there would be any difficulty in working such a system. Lord Shand, if he were present, would have been able to tell the House from his own experience that he had worked such a system very effectively, and that instead of setting persons of different religious convictions sparring and jarring with one another, as was sometimes alleged would be the result of such a plan, it had led to mutual respect for the sincerity of each other's views. The acceptance of the Amendment would be a valuable concession to

375
feelings held by many people if the Government would consent to make it. More than once it had been said by noble Lords on the other side that if differences of opinion were to be provided for it should be on the basis of allowing facilities for the different convictions to organise and express themselves side by side. He hoped, therefore, in all sincerity and truth, and not in any controversial spirit, that noble Lords opposite would feel that by supporting the Amendment they would be assisting to keep the door a jar for a plan for which they themselves looked for some advantage to the future of education in this country.
LORD TWEEDMOUTHsaid that he, at all events, was not convinced by the arguments which had been adduced in support of the Amendment. Without going into the theological question at all, he objected to the Amendment on the ground that it would break into the unity of our educational system. To all elementary schools the Cowper-Temple Clause applied. The secondary schools were now to be under and aided by the local authority, and the House of Commons had decided by a very large majority—only 29 voting against it—that to these new secondary schools the Cowper-Temple Clause should apply also. The Amendment was simply a proposal largely to nullify the application of the Clause, and, if it were inserted in the Bill, he believed there would be great risk of serious contention arising. The local authority were to be given a considerable power of discretion with regard to allowing religious instruction. They might do so, not only at the request of parents, but also "on other grounds." Those "other grounds" would have to be at the discretion of the local education authority, so that it was perfectly possible that, contrary to the wishes of a considerable number of the parents of scholars attending a particular school, the teaching of religious formularies might be introduced. In order to keep undisturbed the unity of our educational system, the same rule that applied to schools for elementary education should be applied to schools for secondary education. It was desirable, therefore, that the Amendment should not be accepted.
VISCOUNT HALIFAXpointed out that the noble Lord, in speaking of the unity of our educational arrangements, had been a little misinformed. At Birmingham, facilities were provided in the board schools for the religious education to be given. The Prime Minister also had been a little misinformed in some of the information he had placed before the House of Commons on this point, and during the last week or ten days there had appeared in the Press letters from persons of authority in Birmingham pointing out that definite religious teaching, at the expense of the various denominations, was permitted in the board schools of Birmingham, and that the system had met with a considerable amount of success. Therefore, the argument as to the unity of our educational system in this matter was not founded on fact.
THE BISHOP OF SOUTHWELL, speaking neither as a Churchman nor as a Liberal, but for Education, said he had felt the deepest regret that the effect of this Bill had not been to establish a uniform system of national education for elementary schools, with the essential condition that there should be perfect freedom of religious teaching in all the schools under the system. He believed that that was the only basis on which this question would be finally settled. He accepted the Bill as a transition stage towards that end, as the only stage from which it could be reached. It was still more important and resonable that that liberty should be provided in secondary schools, and, speaking as an old schoolmaster, he believed that the prospect of such schools being established would be materially diminished if parents felt that their childran, at the age at which they would be sent to these schools, were to be restricted in the matter of religious education by the limitations of the Cowper-Temple Clause. Parents, in his opinion, did not generally desire their children to be brought up in one set of tenets, or to be instructed in no tenets at all. In the case of elementary schools the children caught their religion at home, and it did not so much signify, in the opinion of many parents, that they were taught undenominationally at school; but in the case of children attending.

377
secondary schools, parents naturally deed that the religion of their growing years should be formed, moulded, and explained by the education they were receiving at that age where the children of Church of England parents ought to be confirmed and prepared for the Holy Communion. He thought, therefore, it would not further the development of secondary schools by the local authorities if they were prevented from allowing liberty of religious teaching in whatever form might seem to them most convenient.
THE BISHOP OF HEREFORDsaid the noble Lord opposite had most properly placed his finger on the words "or on other grounds," because they formed the portion of the Amendment most likely to cause disquiet in many minds. If those words could be omitted he would heartily support the Amendment. His twenty-five years experience as headmaster of public schools had shown him that with this Amendment the Clause would almost exactly represent the actual practice at nearly all public schools. The main portion of the religious instruction was biblical instruction, but special instruction, such as in the preparation of candidates for confirmation and Holy Communion, was given to those boys whose parents desired it. If, however, the words "or on other grounds" were adhered to, he feared they would never get rid of suspicion, anxiety, and controversy.
LORD RIBBLESDALEexpressed great sympathy with the Amendment, and said that if the words "or on other grounds" were omitted and the words "to the children of such parents" inserted after "given," he would support it. The position of the local authority as "the arbiter of all educational matters"—to use the words of the Prime Minister— was amply safeguarded.
LORD REAYfelt bound to take notice of an expression used by the Bishop of Rochester to the effect that undenominational religion was the religion of those who were satisfied with the Cowper-Temple Clause. There was great confusion on that point. The parents who sent their children to board schools, and who, after the passing of this Bill, would send them to provided schools,
378
were just as loyal to their own denominations as parents who sent their children to voluntary schools. In the schools under the London School Board there were many children of Church of England parents, so that it was hardly correct to say—as Lord Halifax had maintained—that such parents were dissatisfied with the religious teaching under the Cowper-Temple Clause. Moreover, under that Clause dogmatic teaching could be given. The teaching was not denominational, but it was dogmatic. It was teaching common to many denominations, and instead of being called undenominational it might more accurately be called "multi-denominational." He could assure the noble Viscount that the doctrines of the Incarnation and the Resurrection could be and were taught under the Cowper-Temple Clause, but there were certain formularies which could not be so taught, and these would have to be taught supplementarily by the various Churches.
With regard to the particular Amendment before the Committee, he wanted an assurance that if, with the alterations which had been suggested by Lord Ribblesdale, it were agreed to, the House would not be told, when they reached the elementary part of the Bill, that it ought also to apply in that case. From his experience on the London School Board he agreed with what the Prime Minister had said in another place, that it would be impracticable in elementary schools, but with regard to secondary education he thought the circumstances were somewhat different. In reply to the question of Lord Colchester, he could only repeat that his experience in connection with School Board work in London was that the Cowper-Temple Clause had been an absolute safeguard against religious strife.
LORD COLCHESTER: What I said was that I believed there was now a calm after the storm, but that there had been the greatest disputes as to the spirit of the Cowper-Temple Clause.
THE DUKE OF NORFOLKhoped the words "or on other grounds" would not be omitted from the Amendment; the matter would be perfectly safeguarded by the local authority.
THE LORD BISHOP OF SALISBURYalso asked that the words should not be withdrawn. In the training colleges there would be young people up to the age of twenty-two years, many of whom would have no parents living. Surely young people of that age, and those old enough to be confirmed, had a right to speak for themselves, and to have their religious convictions respected.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNpointed out that no Motion had yet been made to omit the words "or on other grounds."
VISCOUNT GOSCHENsaid he would not be able to assent to either of the changes which had been suggested. It had been strongly urged that confidence should be placed in the local authorities in these matters, and that as they were to be entrusted with the vast powers proposed in the Bill, they might very well be trusted to exercise wisely this purely permissive provision. To omit the words "or on other grounds" would make the enactment too restricted, because, as had been pointed out, there were many scholars who had no parents. Moreover, they had to deal with training colleges and with older children than those in elementary schools. In fact there were many grounds that might be urged against the omission. To bring the Clause into operation would require a little organisation. It would be necessary to know that there were a sufficient number of children to form a class, and a certain amount of money would have to be raised. A single parent could not make the demand; there would have to be a general feeling among the parents of the locality, or some other ground on which to the local authority it seemed good to exercise the power. He really thought noble Lords opposite must find it difficult to object to the proposal. It was impossible to have absolute unity between elementary and secondary education, and, although he would much like to see a similar power given with regard to elementary schools, he would promise not to appeal to this Amendment as a precedent when the Committee came to consider the part of the Bill dealing with elementary education.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIR: I do not think it would be possible to omit the words to which objection has been
380
taken without making the Amendment almost ineffective. The omission of the words "or on other grounds" would seem to imply that the consent of every individual parent was to be obtained. It might be necessary in many cases to make certain arrangements in anticipation, and then in case of uncertainty with regard to the wishes of the parents the whole scheme would fall through. Then I conceive that one of the "other grounds" which my noble friend had in mind was that the Clause would apply especially to training colleges, and that the local authority might consider it extremely desirable, having regard to the needs of a considerable number of denominational schools within their area, to allow provision to be made for the religious training of the teachers to be employed in those schools. That is a ground which I imagine the local authority would take into consideration, besides the wishes of the parents concerned. The Amendment has met with so much support, and so little actual opposition, that I need say verylittle about it. As to the objection that it would destroy the unity of our educational system, I do not think there is any unity to be destroyed. I understand the noble Earl's argument to be that because a hard and fast Cowper-Temple Clause applied to elementary schools a hard and fast Cowper-Temple Clause ought also to apply to secondary schools. I would point out that Parliament has always made a difference between elementary and secondary schools with regard to religious instruction. Not only must every board school have a Cowper-Temple Clause, but under the existing law a School Board cannot aid a denominational school. But that has never been the case under the Technical Instruction Acts. Under the Technical Instruction Acts the existing local authorities may aid, have aided, and do aid very largely, denominational institutions, subject only to the protection of a Conscience Clause. I venture to think, therefore, that there has never been that unity in our educational system which the noble Earl claims for it. Taking into consideration the large amount of support which the proposal has received and the fact that it would be likely to mitigate the hardship and

381
inconvenience entailed by a hard-and-fast Cower-Temple Clause, and believing also that it is a power which many local authorities will welcome, I have no hesitation in giving, on the part of the Government, their assent to the Amendment.
EARL SPENCER: I feel that I must say a few words on this subject, because I was one of those who in the Second Reading debate said that, although satisfied with the Cowper-Temple Clause, I should not object, under certain circumstances, to an arrangement being made by which some denominational teaching might be given in the schools. I have carefully followed the debate, and, reluctantly, I confess, come to the conclusion that I shall not be able to vote for the Amendment. My reasons are the same as those put forward by my noble friend Lord Tweedmouth. I do not see that there is any sufficient ground for making this difference between the secondary and the elementary schools. If the Cowper-Temple Clause is to rule in the provided schools, I say that the same stipulation should apply to the others also. I am

CONTENTS.

Halsbury, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Onslow, E.

Balfour, L.

York, L. Abp.

Saint Germans, E.

Basing, L.

Devonshire, D. (L. President.)

Shaftesbury, E.

Belhaven and Stenton. L.

Stamford, E.

Boston, L.

Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal.)

Stanhope, E.

Braye, L.

Newcastle, D.

Vane, E.(M. Londonderry.)

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Northumberland, D.

Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Rutland, D.

Churchill, V.[Teller]

Colchester, L.

Cross, V.

Cottesloe, L.

Ailesbury, M.

Falkland, V.

Crawshaw, L.

Bath, M.

Goschen, V.

Dawnay, L. (V. Downe.)

Camden, M.

Halifax, V.

De Freyne, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Llandaff, V.

Dormer, L.

Winchester, M.

Ridley, E.

Ellenborough, L.

Erskine, L.

Clarendon, E.(L. Chamberlain.)

Chester, L. Bp.

Gage, L.(V. Gage.)

Abingdon, E.

Chichester, L. Bp.

Glanusk, L.

Bathurst, E.

Durham, L. Bp.

Glenesk, L.

Bradford, E.

Ely, L. Bp.

Gormanston, L. (V. Gormanston.)

Camperdown, E.

Lichfield, L. Bp.

Dartmouth, E.

Lincoln, L. Bp.

Harris, L.

Denbigh, E.

London, L. Bp.

Hatherton, L.

Derby, E.

Manchester, L. Bp.

Herries, L.

Duice, E.

Newcastle, L. Bp.

Hothfield, L.

Feversham, E.

Norwich, L. Bp.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Hardwicke, E.

Rochester, L. Bp.

James, L.

Hillsborough, E.(M. Downshire.)

St. Asaph, L. Bp.

Kenyon, L.

Salisbury, L. Bp.

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

Lathom, E.

Southwell, L. Bp.

Lawrence, L.

Londesborough, E.

Truro, L. Bp.

Meldrum, L. (M. Hently.)

Lucan, E.

Mendip, L. (V. Clifden.)

Mayo, E.

Addington, L.

Monckton, L. (V. Galway.)

Morely, E.

Allerton, L.

Montagu of Beaulien, L.

Mount Edgeumbe, E.

Arundell of Wardour, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Nelson, E.

Ashbourne, L.

North, L.

encouraged in that belief by the speech of, I think, the Bishop of St. Asaph, when he spoke of his views having completely changed in Wales, with regard to the application of the Cowper- Temple Clause to secondary schools. That fact ought to strengthen us in supporting the Bill as it stands rather than in inserting the Amendment of the noble Viscount which, to a great extent, gets round that Clause. If the Bill had been framed so as to give complete popular control, a great deal might have been done in this direction. It would then have been somewhat on the lines of the Scottish system; great latitude might have been allowed to particular schools in the introduction of some such plan as is now proposed, and we should have had something approaching unity. I agree with the noble Duke that that unity does not at present exist, but it must be remembered that the Bill was framed with the object of increasing the unity between the different branches of education.
On Question, their Lordships divided:—Contents, 107; Not-Contents, 14.

Petre, L.

Seaton, L.

Tredegar, L.

Robertson, L.

Stanmore, L

Wentworth, L.

Rowton, L.

Teynham, L.

Windsor, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Carrington, E.

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

Denman, L. [Teller.]

Chesterfield, E. [Teller.]

Brassey, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Portsmouth, E.

Burghclere, L.

Reay, L.

Spencer, E.

Coleridge, L.

Ribblesdale, L.

Davey, L.

Tweedmouth, L.

EARL BEAUCHAMP, in moving to omit the words "attending as a day or evening scholar," said his Amendment practically covered the Nonconformist grievance in regard to training colleges, and, if carried, would remove that grievance. Whatever might be the nominal object of the training colleges, they were, as a matter of factlargely supported by the State, although they chiefly belonged to one religious denomination or another. The whole position of the teachers was exceedingly anomalous. Every year 3,000 students became entitled to places in the training colleges, but there were nothing like sufficient places for them. In residential colleges there were 2,083 places, and 730 in day colleges, the latter being undenominational, while only 397 places out of the 2,083 residential places were undenominational, and a large proportion even of those were filled by Church of England teachers. There were, therefore, very few places with which to satisfy the demand made by Nonconformists. But the really important thing was the amount of support given to these colleges by the State. The Oxford diocesan training college had an income from private sources of £117, while it received from the State and fees no less than £1800, so that 94 per cent, of its income came from the State, against 6 per cent, from the Church of England, and yet that institution was maintained as a Church of England institution, to which students belonging to other denominations could not gain admittance. Another instance was that of the Culham Diocesan College, where, according to the accounts for the year ending June 30th, 1901, the subscriptions from voluntary sources were £233, against £5,000 from the Government. If this Amendment were adopted, the position would be exactly the same in all training colleges, whether Church of England, Roman
384
Catholic or Nonconformist. He was not bound to the particular form of words on the Paper, but would be willing to accept any proposal which would do away with this undoubted grievance. It might be urged that as the colleges were built by the denomination, they therefore belonged to the denomination. But there was a fallacy underlying that argument. The total cost of building the Church of England training colleges was £293,000, towards which the State contributed £97,470, or, roughly speaking, one third. In view of the fact that a very large proportion of the annual cost of the upkeep also came from the State, he thought the State was justified in asking for a Conscience Clause in connection with these colleges. Those who made that request were strengthened in their demand by the opinion of the Secretary of State for the Colonies, who on one occasion described the present system as "an antiquity." To show how the system worked out he mentioned a case of a Nonconformist teacher who passed very high on the list, and yet was passed over in favour of a Church of England teacher, who was more than a thousand places lower on the list. Obviously, it was much better to make it easy for a Nonconformist who passed high on the list to enter these colleges than for the State to take a teacher lower on the list whatever might be his or her religion, simply because that teacher happened to belong to a particular denomination. This question was regarded by Nonconformists as one of extreme importance, and he should therefore press the Amendment to a division. It was to the interest of the nation to get the best teachers, of whatever denomination they might be, and he hoped the amicable spirit which prevailed in the House would result in some Amendment being secured by which satisfaction would be given to the great Nonconformist communities of the country.
THE LORD BISHOP OF SOUTHWELLsuggested that this Clause was hardly a convenient place for the alteration, inasmuch as it dealt rather with boarding-houses and schools than with training colleges, and if the Amendment were carried scholars would be able to claim to stay in these boarding-houses or schools without being required to attend any religious instruction at all.
EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid he would like the advice of the noble Earl, his leader; but personally, if the right rev. Prelate thought the Amendment would come in better in another part of the Bill, he was prepared to postpone it.
THE LORD BISHOP OF SOUTHWELLsaid it was eminently desirable that Non-conformist teachers should be enabled to enter these colleges, but he thought the Amendment would be rather inconvenient in the Clause under discussion.
THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORDthought the object of the noble Earl would be better met by an Amendment standing in his own name lower on the Paper, by which the House would be asked to provide that in every aided school or college at which boarders were received, the local authority should require suitable boarding arrangements to be made for the reception of boarders whose parents belonged to different religious denominations. The intention of that Amendment would be to exempt students from attendance at religious observances and religious teaching to which the parents objected. Section (1) of Clause 4 dealt with boarders, and it might be practically very inconvenient if a Conscience Clause were inserted in regard to boarding schools, so that individual children could claim the privileges of it. Every necessary privilege would, he thought, be secured without any inconvenience whatever by the Amendment of which he had given notice.
LoRD KINNAIRDsaid that in order to show the need for a Conscience Clause for the protection of those who did not hold the tenets of the Church of England, or who held Low Church views, he might refer to a book which was of some importance, because written by one who for eighteen years was the principal of a Church Training College. He believed
386
their Lordships would agree that children required protection from such teaching as this:-
"Church schools are, in fact, worthy of the name of Church nurseries, where the young plants are guarded, watched, and tended, so that they may grow up into goodly trees. They should be Church grounds for drill and exercise, where the young soldiers of Christ's army are taught to use the Christain armour."
The writer then went on to show what the true ideal of Church teaching should be:—
"That the Bible is emphatically the Church's Book, to which the Dissenters have no more right than have deserters to the drill and the text books of the army from which they have seceded."
EARL SPENCER: As my noble friend appealed to me as to what I would advise in this matter, I confess that I would much prefer that he should go on with his Amendment. If I had to choose between the Amendment of the Bishop of Hereford and the one now before the Committee I would prefer the simpler method of the latter. I think the Amendment of the right rev. Prelate might lead to considerable difficulty. Jt might be very difficult to provide suitable boarding arrangements, but I can see no objection to omitting words as proposed by my noble friend. This question is one of the most important in the whole Bill, and, as far as I can see, to omit these words, and thereby to guard the consciences of any Dissenters who go to the boarding houses or hostels or schools, will largely diminish the great injustice of which Nonconformists now complain.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I could not very well follow the argument of the noble Earl who moved the Amendment, as I heard him but imperfectly. I gathered, however, that he rested his case mainly on the question of the denominational training colleges which he produced figures to show received an amount of assistance from the State very disproportionate to the small amount of assistance received from private sources. I venture to think that that is a subject with which it is unnecessary to deal by legislation. The assistance which denominational colleges receive is undoubtedly very large, and a

387
perfectly legitimate subject for consideration, but it is one which may be dealt with either in the other House on the Estimates, or in this House on the Code which is annually presented. I do not think, therefore, it is necessary to pass such an Amendment as that now proposed in order to deal with what may possibly be the excessive provision made by the State for training colleges, The effect of the Amendment would be extremely serious, and would be going far beyond the law as it at present stands in the Technical Instruction Acts. It would be almost impossible for a denominational training college to accept aid from a local authority if these words were admitted. A certain amount of discipline of a religious character, such as attendance at morning and evening prayer, is a necessity, or approaches thereto, in a denominational school and for the boarders in that school, and such a provision is a necessary part of the discipline of a college. There are many strictly denominational colleges and Roman Catholic institutions receiving aid from the local authorities under the Technical Instruction Acts. By adopting this Amendment you would insist on those colleges and institutions adopting a Conscience Clause for boarders, for whom they are not intended, and whom they do not wish to admit. That a Conscience Clause should be applied in the case of day scholars is perfectly right. It is quite possible, even in the case of a Roman Catholic institution aided by the local authority, for the day classes to be attended by scholars who do not belong to the denomination, and for their protection a Conscience Clause is undoubtedly necessary. But why, because the Roman Catholic Church or the Church of England have established boarding schools intended exclusively for the education of their own children, are they to be excluded from the receipt of aid unless they propose to extend the advantages of those institutions to others than members of their own denomination? The Government certainly cannot accept the Amendment.
LORD TWEEDMOUTHthought the noble Duke had gone further than the case warranted. It was not proposed by
388
the Amendment that religious instruction should not be given in these schools, or that the scholars should not be required to attend chapel, and so forth. It was perfectly clear that if these words were omitted the schools and colleges concerned would be able, for the benefit of scholars belonging to the particular denomination, to conduct religious services and to give religious instruction in the way they were at present doing. The effect of the Amendment would simply be to allow scholars of other denominations to attend the schools or colleges, without being required to attend those services or to receive that instruction. That course was now taken in many colleges at Oxford, and might very well be extended to the institutions to which this Clause of the Bill applied. It would not in any way interfere with the power of an institution to give whatever instruction it desired to the members of its own denomination, but at the same time, in consideration of the assistance received from public funds, it would be required to accept scholars from other denominations without those scholars being compelled to attend that instruction.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: Would it be possible for a, denominational institution to accept as a boarder a pupil who not only did not attend the religious instruction of the institution; but who did not attend any at all
LORD TWEEDMOUTH: It is done at Oxford at this moment.
THE LORD BISHOP OF NEWCASTLEsaid this was really a very serious question. If there were sufficient accommodation in the training colleges he had no complaint to make of the proposal, but would feel that it was necessary that students who did not belong to the denomination of the college should be permitted to claim some of the vacant places. But the training college accommodation was altogether inadequate. He hoped that this Bill would lead local authorities to open training colleges, to which doubtless there would be the fullest possible freedom of admission. As one who had been connected with one or two of these training colleges, he knew it would be exceedingly difficult to carry on. the discipline of the institutions, and to

389
supply the teachers required in the denominational schools connected with those colleges, if the Amendment were accepted. He hoped, therefore, it would not pressed; if it were, he should certainly vote against it.
LORD BURGHCLEREpointed out that the argument of the Bishop of Newcastle hardly met the case. The right rev. Prelate had admitted the existence of a great deficiency of teachers, and expressed the hope that more colleges would be opened. But why, because there were so few teachers at the present moment, should they cut off, by insisting on the provision of the Bill, that supply of teachers which would be produced by the Amendment? He could see absolutely no harm in the proposal. Both at Oxford and Cambridge, and also at Harrow, students of all denominations—including Hindus, Parsees, and so forth—were afforded education, without being required to attend the religious services. Under the circumstances he thought it only reasonable that the Amendment should be accepted.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I do not for a moment deny the importance of the Amendment. It was discussed at considerable length in the other House, and the conclusion then arrived at was that considerable difference existed between residential colleges and hostels in which there were day scholars. I agree with the right rev. Prelate that it is absolutely necessary, in order to maintain, not only the spirit of the religious instruction, but also discipline, that this Amendment should not be inserted. No pressure whatever is put upon those who attend these colleges and live outside; but I think your Lordships will allow that, in whatever house or college you may have been, there was a religious service daily carried on, which not only maintained the religious atmosphere, but also discipline.

CONTENTS.

Halsbury, E. (L. Chancellor).

Camden, M.

Denbigh, E.

Lansdowne, M.

Derby, E.

Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal.)

Winchester, M.

Doncaster, E. (D. Bucclcuch and Queensberry.)

Northumberland, D.

Portland. D.

Clarendon, E. (L. Chamberlain.)

Feversham, E.

Rutland, D.

Abingdon, E.

Hardwicke. E.

somerset, D.

Bathurst, E.

Hillsborough, E. (M. Down shire.)

Belmore, E.

Ailesbury, M.

Bradford, E.

Lathom, E.

Bath, M.

Dartmouth, E.

Lauderdale, E.

EARL SPENCER: At Harrow there were many Siamese; I do not think they were ordered to attend chapel.
THE MARQUEss OF LONDONDERRY: But perhaps they had services or prayers in their own house, I maintain that if the Amendment were accepted, it would upset all the necessary arrangements for the management of these schools or colleges, and restrict very largely the number of institutions which could receive aid at the present moment without sacrificing their denominational character. It is therefore, impossible for the Government to agree to this proposal.
LORD BURGHCLEREsaid it had been held to be highly reprehensible in the interests of religion to turn attendance at chapel or prayers into a mere calling over, and he believed it was now the general practice at both Oxford and Cambridge, and in the public schools, not to call upon persons of other denominations to attend the various services or chapels.
EARL BEAUCHAMPexpressed his thanks for the words of the Bishop of Southwell which would, he believed, be read in many Nonconformist circles with deep sympathy and interest. This matter was undoubtedly felt to be a substantial grievance by all the Nonconformists in the country, and he hoped their Lordships would do something to remedy that grievance.
On Question, "Whether the words proposed to be left out shall stand part of the Clause," their Lordships divided:— Contents, 121; Not-Contents, 19.

Lichfield, E.

Rochester, L. Bp.

Glenesk, L.

Londesborough, E.

St. Asaph, L. Bp.

Gormanston, L. (V. Gormanston.)

Lucan, E.

Salisbury, L. Bp.

Malmesbury, E.

Southwell, L. Bp.

Harris, L.

Mayo, E.

Winchester, L. Bp.

Hatherton, L.

Mount Edgeumbe, E.

Herries, L.

Nelson, E.

Addington, L.

Hothfield, L.

Oneslow, E.

Ashbourne, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Saint Germans, E.

Balfour, L.

Hylton, L.

Selborne, E.

Barrymore, L.

James, L.

Shaftesbury, E.

Basing, L.

Kenyon, L.

Stamford, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

Stanhope, E.

Belper, L.

Lawrence, L.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry)

Boston, L.

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

Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]

Bray brooke, L.

Wharncliffe, E.

Braye, L.

Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

Monckton, L. (V. Galway)

Churchill, V. [Teller.]

Brongham and Vaux, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Cross, V.

Chelmsford, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Falkland, V.

Clifford and Chudleigh, L.

Mostyn, L.

Halifax, V.

Colchester, L.

Mount Stephen, L.

Knutsford, V.

Congleton, L.

Petre, L.

Llandaff, V.

Cottesloe, L.

Revelstoke, L.

Ridley, V.

Crawshaw, L.

Robertson, L.

Dawnay, L. (V. Downe.)

Rothschild, L.

Bath and Wells, L. Bp.

De Freyne, L.

Seaton, L.

Chichester, L. Bp.

Dormer, L.

Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)

Ely, L. Bp.

Dunmore, L. (E. Dunmore.)

Stanmore, L.

Hereford, L. Bp.

Ellenborough, L.

Tredegar, L.

Lincoln, L. Bp.

Elphinstone, L.

Wenlock, L.

London, L. Bp.

Erskine, L.

Wimborne, L.

Manchester, L. Bp.

Fingall, L. (E. Fingall.)

Windsor, L.

Newcastle, L. Bp.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Ripon, L. Bp.

Glanusk, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Beauchamp, E. [Teller.]

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

Kinnaird, L.

Carrington, E.

Brassey, L.

Mendip, L. (v. Clifden.)

Chesterfield, E. [Teller]

Burghclere, L.

Monkswell, L.

Spencer, E.

Coleridge, L.

Reay, L.

Davey, L.

Ribblesdale, L.

Gordon, V. (E. Aberdeen.)

Denman, L.

Sudlev, L. (E. Arran.)

Farrer, L.

Tweedmouth, L.

THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORDmoved an Amendment to provide that in every aided school and college the local education authority should appoint two members of the governing body. He said the proposal expressed the desire to insert the kind of compromise which existed in the Endowed Schools Act, and simply affirmed the principle that where-ever a local authority gave support to an institution it ought to be represented on the managing body of that institution.
Amendment moved—
"In Clause 4, page 2, line 38, after 'there-from' to insert '(3) in every aided school or college the local education authority shall appoint two members of the governing body.'"—(Bishop of Hereford.)
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I am afraid it is impossible for the Government to agree to the Amendment.
In the first place, the main principle of theis Measure is to enable the County Council to make its own arrangements, and if we were to accept the Amendment of the right reverend Prelate that would at once strike a blow at the very foundation of the Bill. The Amendment is a reversal of the principle of sub-Section 1 of the Technical Instruction Act, 1889. The provision was alluded to by Lord Rosebery on Friday night, and after his speech on that occasion I do not think the noble Earl, if he were present, would support this Amendement. The effect of the proposal of the right rev. Prelate would be to prevent the local authority from founding scholarships at schools whose goverors did not consent to the appointment of two members by the education authority. Therefore, in the interests

393
of higher education I maintain that it would not be right or just were your Lordships to accept the Amendment.
THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORDasked for the reference made by the noble Marquess to another Section in the Bill.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I referred to a Section in the Technical Instruction Act, 1889. It is diarnetrically opposed to that Section.
THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORD: Then the Endowed Schools Act is diametrically opposed to the Technical Instruction Act.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I did not say that, but that the Amendment of the right rev. Prelate is a reversal of the principle of sub-Section 1of the Technical Instruction Act.
THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORDthen asked if the Government would be willing to accept the Amendment if the word "may" was substituted for the word "shall."
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I think the whole principle of the Amendment is to take away from the County Council the power which we intend to give them, and as such I do not think I can accept it in any form.
THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORD: Then I understand that the noble Marquess leaves it to the local education authority in each case to initiate the terms on which they will give aid.
Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORDmoved an Amendment to provide that the consent of the local authority should be required for the dismissal of teachers in all schools and colleges provided or aided under Part lI. of the Bill, and that any dismissed teacher might appeal to the Board of Education, whose decision should be final. He said there was a very strong arid general feeling among assistant masters that it was not fair to such a profession as theirs that they
394
should be subject, as they would be unless this Amendment were carried, to arbitrary dismissal without appeal of any sort. It was contrary to the ordinary English practice that they should not have an opportunity of appeal. Those who were at all familiar with school matter, were constantly coming across cases in which justice seemed to require that an appeal should be allowed, so as to afford an opportunity for some investigation. He therefore ventured to move the Amendment on behalf of a vast number of educated men engaged in secondary schools, believing it to be an Amendment which would afford them a reasonable security in the exercise of their professional duties and with a confident hope that the Government would make the concession asked for.
Amendment moved—
"In Clause 4, page 2, line 38, to insert, '(4) The consent of the local education authority shall be required for dismissal of teachers in all schools and colleges provided or aided by the said authority under Part II. of this Act, and any teacher dismissed from one of the said schools or colleges may appeal to the Board of Education. whose decision shall be final.'"—(The Lord Bishop of Hereford.)
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I am afraid I must again ask your Lordships not to agree to the Amendment. I need not say that anything like injustice to teachers would receive no support whatever from the Board of Education. But the Amendment of the right reverend Prelate would prevent secondary schools of a high character under governing bodies being made available for secondary education under Part II. of this Act, unless the authority was about to provide a very large subsidy for the benefit of the school. No governing body would hand over to the contributors of only a small part of the income of the school such a very important detail of the management as the control over the dismissal of teachers, otherwise any one contributing the most trifling sum might be in a position to take such a line as would prevent the authority really being in a position to use their own discretion, and under these circumstances I must ask your Lordships to decline to accept the Amendment.
THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORDpointed out that unless the Amendment were accepted, the local authority would have nothing whatever to say to the dismissal of the teachers.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: Why should they?
THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORDcontended that the local authority ought to have something to say in the matter, because it was in a school aided or supported by themselves. Under the Bill, as it stood, a sub-committee, or body of managers, or some local clique might dismiss a master and spoil the whole of his professional prospects, and yet there would be no person to whom that master could appeal against their decision. All he asked was that an appeal should be allowed to the local authority and the Board of Education.
THE LORD BISHOP OF ELYasked wnether it was not becoming the almost universal custom in important secondary schools for the Governors to appoint the head master and to look to him for the success of the school, putting entirely into his hands the question of the assistants. This Amendment would go exactly contrary to that almost universal practice.
THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORDcould not quite agree with the statement of his right reverend brother, but if it was the almost universal custom he felt, from his long experience, that it was a bad one for the profession. If they wished to encourage the profession, and to induce a high type of men to enter it, it necessary that they should take care that individuals were not subjected to such arbitrary action without any right of appeal whatsoever.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORDmoved an Amendment providing that in every aided school or college at which boarders were received the local education authority should require suitable boarding arrangements to be made for the reception of boarders whose parents belonged to diffcrent religious denominations. He said the object of this Amendment was
396
to enable members of different denominations to go to boarding schools and to enjoy such exemptions as were enjoyed by day scholars. His proposal touched some what closely on the subjeet discussed earlier in the debate, but he believed it met the difficulty in a better way. In country districts there would be a certain number of boarding schools, suited to the needs of those districts, but if all these schools were of a denominational character it became a great hardship to persons of a different denomination living in those districts that they should not be able to send their sons to those schools. That difficulty would be entirely met if the local authority required the children of Nonconformists to beadmitted to the local Church boarding school under some such Clause as he now proposed. Moreover, it would entirely solve the difficulty with regard to training colleges, because hostels could be established to meet the requirements of Nonconformists. With regard to secondary schools, it had to be borne in mind that there might be no other suitable school within reach, and yet these parents would have to send their childrent to some boarding school, so that, unless some such Amendment were inserted, this hardship would press very heavily upon many parents. There ought certainly to be some guarantee that the children of parents of a denomination other than that to which the local school belonged—but a school, be it remembered, aided by the local authority—should be admitted to that school without doing violence to their consciences. It was only reasonable that the training colleges, which were so largely supported by public money, should by willing to establish hostels and to make such boarding arrangements as would be suitable for the needs of such students.
THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER: What do you mean by "boarding arrangements?"
THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORDsaid the "boarding arrangements" in a training college would mean the hostel arrangements.
Amendment moved—
"In Clause 4, page 2, line 38, to insert ' in every aided school or college at which boarders are received the local education authority shall require that suitable boarding arrangements are made for the reception of boarders whose parents belong to different religious denominations.'"—(The Lord Bishop of Hereford.)
THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTERasked the right rev. Prelateto explain his argument by a concrete case. For instance, should a Roman Catholic college be compelled at its own cost to provide a hostel or other accommodation outside for Wesleyan or Church of England students?
THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORDsaid the Committee were suffering from the inconvenience of mixing up training colleges with every class of secondary school in the country. There were few training colleges, but hundreds of secondary schools distributed throughout the country. The Bishop of Winchester objected to a provision of this kind being required in the case of certain training colleges; but why, even in the extreme cases to which he referred, should not students be allowed to live in their own hostels, to attend the secular instruction, and to have arrangements made for their own religious instruction? Where was the objection to it? In the right rev. Prelate's own school at Harrow and at Clifton College, over which he himself presided for fifteen or seventeen years, there were instances of exactly that character. He himself established a house for Jews, and that house was now occupied by twenty-four boys, who were in just the position in which students would be under this Amendment. For a quarter of a century such boys had been members of that school; no difficulty had ever arisen, and, as a practical schoolmaster, he ventured to say that no difficulty would arise. He felt convinced, however, that there would be a considerable sense of injustice in many cases if no such provision was made.
THE LORD BISHOP OF ST. ASAPHasked whether, if a Wesleyan or other secondary school was receiving a small amount under the Technical Instruction Acts, that school was an aided school, and
398
did the right rev. Prelate suggest that a Wesleyan school, under such circumstances, should be compelled to build a hostel for Church boys who might wish to attend the school? Reference had been made to the provision of a hostel for twenty-four boys at Clifton College; but many of these secondary schools would not have more than twenty-four boarders altogether, and was it intended that they should build a hostel for one boy?
THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORDsaid that his Amendment asked for suitable boarding arrangements to be made. At Rugby he had a single Roman Catholic pupil, for whom he made suitableb boarding arrangements. Those "suitable boarding arrangements" consisted in allowing the boy to live in a Roman Catholic or other family agreeable to his parents, and that was what he meant by making "suitable boarding arrangements," so as to put a boy in the same position as a day scholar.
LORD BURGHCLEREhad considerable sympathy with the principles underlying the Amendment, but he thought the House had debated the real principle on a previous Amendment. There might also be some difficulties in the matter on the score of additional expense. Therefore, while he warmly supported the Amendment of Lord Beauchamp, he ventured to ask the right rev. Prelate to withdraw his proposal.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I should not have risen except out of respect for the right rev. Prelate to offer a few words in reply. From all I have heard I think his proposal is absolutely impracticable and impossible. He has told us that at Clifton there were a certain number of Jews, for whom he provided, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St. Asaph asked what he would have done under similar circumstances with another denomination. May I ask him whether, if he were head of a training college, and three Mohammedans arrived, he would build a mosque for them, or how would he propose to deal with them? As I say, I think his proposal is so utterly impossible that I need scarcely ask your Lordships to support the Government.
THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORDsaid he had pleasure in answering the noble Marquess's question. When he was Headmaster of Rugby, two Mohammedan princes arrived. He admitted them to the school, they lived in their own house, had their own religious instructor, and they were excellent members for two or three years; and no shadow of trouble or difficulty ever arose in connection with them.
Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORDmoved to insert a new Clause calling upon the local authority to make suitable arrangements for continuation schools or classes in connection with elementary schools or otherwise, and giving them power to require that all children under seventeen years of age, if no longer attending school or under equivalent instruction, should attend not less than sixty meetings of a duly recognised continuation class during each year till they reached that age, the responsibility for such attendance to rest on both parents and employers. He felt that if an end was to be put to the enormous waste in our educational system the country would have to cease to be content with the present truncated scheme of elementary schools, under which scholars were allowed to go where they pleased at the age of twelve or thirteen. If all children up to a certain age were kept under some amount of discipline, and received a certain amount of elevating instruction after leaving the elementary schools, it would be an enormous boon to both clergy and laity in the moral and spiritual interests of the community. That was the object of the Amendment. He could find no adcquate provision in the Bill for continuation schools. He did not see that in the county of Hereford any continuation schools or classes must be provided by the local authority as a consequence of the passing of the Bill. The first part of the Amendment dealt with that point, but he desired also to go a step further, and to give the local
400
authority the power to compel children up to the age of sixteen or seventeen to attend suitable classes when provided. He had some hesitation in pressing the latter part of the proposal, but he hoped that, either in whole or in part, the Amendment would commend itself to the House.
Amendment moved—
"After Clause 4, to insert the following new Clause. 'The local education authority shall make suitable arrangements for continuation schools or classes in connection with elementary schools or otherwise; and shall have power to require that all children under seventeen years of age, if no longer attending school or under equivalent instruction, shall attend not less than sixty meetings of a duly recognised continuation class during each year till they reach that age, the responsibility for such attendance to rest on both parents and employers.'"—(The Lord Bishop of Hereford.)
LORD JAMES OF HEREFORDsaid that all who had had the opportunity of practically observing the course of education in rural districts would feel that the Amendment was one deserving of the full consideration of the House. At the age of twelve, having passed a certain standard of examination, children left school, and, there being a great demand for all kinds of agricultural labour, they went at once into the fields, where they worked for ten hours a day. On returning home in the evening, they had no instruction to attend, no books to read, and no means of continuing or increasing the small store of knowledge they had attained. The result was that the large sums of money annually spent on education in the elementary schools in rural districts was to a great extent thrown away. Many chiIdren who left school at twelve years of age had for-gotten all they ever learnt by the time they reached the age of fifteen, even to the extent of not being able to write their own names. Unless that state of things was to continue something would have to be done. Private effort was doing a great deal. Through the munificence of private individuals continuation schools had been started in various districts, so that the small store of knowledge possessed by these children might be made of some utility. The Amendment, was, therefore, one to be sympathised with. But one had to consider what was practicable. The question was a very great one, and he hoped

401
before long it would be the subject of a separate Bill. A proposal to give the compulsory powers suggested in the Amendment required serious consideration, because they might be compelling a boy to attend who was unable to do so, and putting the boy or his parents under a penalty in consequence. From an abstract point of view it would be a good thing if children could be compelled up to the age of seventeen to attend continuation schools or classes to the extent of sixty evenings a year, but it was a really grave question which required to be dealt with from a practical point of view after the most careful consideration.
THK EARL OF CREWEcould quite conceive that at the present stage of the Bill it would be impossible for the Government to insert provisions giving such large powers as those suggested in the second part of the Amendment, but he appealed to the noble Duke as to whether it would not be possible as an encouraging direction to the local authorities to accept the proposal of the Bishop of Hereford as far as the words "or otherwise." Although not meeting the views of the right rev. Prelate to the full extent, it would, at any rate, show the sympathy of the Government with this important matter. There was no educational question of greater importance than that of the continuation schools, and if the Government accepted the first part of the Amendment their action would be received with satisfaction both in Parliament and in the country.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I do not thind your Lordships can for a moment doubt that the Board of Education realises the great importance of doing its utmost in regard to this question of contiuation shools. I have no hesitation in saying that if an Amend ment of a practical character had been placed on the Paper the noble Duke would have authorised me to accept it. But I think the remarks of the noble Earl opposite, and of my noble friend behind me, are sufficient justification of the decision of the Government to decline to accept the Amendment. They consider the proposition to be absolutely
402
impracticable at present. I do not think we should be justified in compelling a local authority, while it is, so to speak, feeling its feet in regard to the administration of the details of this Bill, to take upon itself this great additional responsibility. The Amendment would force every local authority, whether local circumstances required it or not, to provide continuation schools within its area, and it would also comple children up to a certain age to take advantage of those schools. It would not matter wheter the children were rich or poor, well-educated or ill-educated—
THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORD: I am afraid my Amendment has been misunderstood. It is limited by the words, "if no longer attending school or under equivalent instruction."
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: But it does not in the least matter whether the children are educated or uneducated; by this Amendment, unless attending other schools, they would be forced to attend the continuation schools. Such a measure of compulsion is absolutely impossible. I have heard it said that such a system exists in Germany.
THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORD: It has existed for at least eighteen years, and I believe it is described in one of the Yellow-books issued by the noble Marquess's own Department, giving an account of education in Saxony.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: Of course, if the right rev. Prelate makes the statement I accept it, but if anybody else had made it I should have denied It. Under the circumstances, I think your Lordships will see that the Amendment is absolutely impossible.
LORD RIBBLESDALEcould not agree that the Amendment was "absolutely impossible." The noble Marquess had rested the whole of his case on the word "shall"; apparently he did not like the compulsory character of the proposal. But he also stated that if anyone had adumbrated a reasonable Amendment he would have asked the noble Duke to accept it.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: To consider it.
LORD RIBBLESDALEasked whether the Government would give the House some idea as to what they would consider a "reasonable Amendment." The utterances of the noble Marquess in the course of the debate had tended to whittle away his own responsibility as President of the Board of Education, and also the little virility remaining to that Department under the Bill. Judging by the attitude of the Government, those who opposed the Bill had not yet been able to devise any reasonable Amendments, but there was a Report stage coming on, and, if they could only get at the mind of the noble Marquess, they might be able, after consultation outside, to make proposals by which something could be done. He was really surprised that the proposal of the Bishop of Hereford had not met with more sympathy on the part of the Government.
LORD REAYsuggested that, before the Report stage, the President of the Board of Education should consult the Secretary for Scotland as to the conditions under which attendance at continuation schools might be made compulsory in Scotland, and as to the conditions under which labour certificates were granted. He would then be able to introduce a Clause which would have some effect in the direction aimed at by the Amendment. The question was of the greatest importance. Unless arrangements were made so that the labour certificate should not be the end of all things, but that some continuity of education should be secured, the capital invested in the day elementary schools would give an insufficient return. He hoped the noble Marquess would look into the matter, especially as Lord Balfour of Burleigh, in the Second Reading debate, had expressed the opinion that the Bill would secure to England all the benefits already secured to Scotland by the excellent continuation Code.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I sympathise entirely with the desire of the noble Lord that continuation schools should exercise the same benefit in this
404
country as in Scotland, but the Amendment, as proposed, insists on the local authority making arrangements which I believe are absolutely impracticable. I believe that, if time is given to the local authorities to feel their feet in the administration of the duties devolved upon them by this Bill, they will see the great advantage of maintaining continuation schools, but I do not think it would be advisable to hamper them in the way suggested. I wish to give them an absolutely free hand in the discharge of their duties. I believe they will be as anxious as we are to promote the cause of education, but that they will advance, as they ought, cautiously. To impose upon them at the present moment a duty such as that suggested in the Amendment would not only be absolutely unfair to them, but it would hamper them with a charge for which they are not at present prepared. I have no doubt that eventually they will realise the importance of doing their utmost to support continuation schools, and in so doing they will receive my heartiest co-operation and assistance.
VISCOUNT GOSCHENagreed that it would be impossible at present to force upon the local authorities a system of continuation schools. As the noble Marquess had stated, these authorities had to feel their feet; a great burden had been placed on their shoulders, and it would not be wise to rely upon them to carry out such a proposal as that suggested by the right rev. Prelate. On the other hand he could not agree with the noble Marquess that it was so likely that the local authorities would be able to develop a scheme of continuation schools; it was rather the Board of Education that should develop such a scheme, and he failed to see in his noble friend's remarks any indication that there existed in that Department the germ of a system which they would like the local authorities to carry out. He might be wrong in that view.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: You are.
VISCOUNT GOSCHENsaid that possibly the Board had some plan before them by which, without the compulsory

405
system suggested by the Amendment, they would be able to introduce continuation schools. Personally, he thought it very difficult, but it was distinctly the duty of the Board of Education to consider this matter. That Department, instead of waiting for the action of the new local authorities, only now being initiated into educational duties, ought to give them a lead by framing at an early date such a system as would enable the education given in the elementary schools to be carried on. All who were acquainted with agricultural districts would agree that there was no subject to which the Government could apply their minds with more advantage. They might work out a national system. The matter was one which went to the root of our prosperity, and he associated himself with the views of the noble Lords who maintained that if we were to hold our own in this country it was essential that education should not stop at the age of fourteen or fifteen years, but should be developed, organised, and systematised beyond the limits at present existing.
EARL SPENCER: After the appeal of the noble Viscount. I do not know that it is necessary for me to say anything on this subject. I entirely endorse all that he was said as to the great importance of endeavouring to get some fixed, good, and sound system of continuation schools, and I would appeal to the noble Duke—not because the Minister for Education was unfriendly to this proposal; in fact, he held out a hope that if a practical suggestion were made, the Government would favourably consider it—but I would appeal to the noble Duke to see whether he cannot, in the Bill itself, introduce some indication that it will be the duty of the Board of Education to deal with this matter, and, if they have not already got it, give them the authority to do so. There are plenty of opportunities, before the Bill leaves this House, of introducing a Clause dealing with the subject.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: Some noble Lords seem not to be aware, or to ignore the fact, that local authorities, especially county authorities, are already doing a great deal in the direction of assising and maintaining continuation schools. They do not all do it in the
406
same way, and probably it would not be desirable that they should. This is a matter which a large number of County Councils have taken up very warmly since funds were placed at their disposal by the money which my noble friend Viscount Goschen thinks ought to be known by his name rather than under its ordinary cognomen of the whisky money. They had received a certain amount of guidance from the Board of Education in the Code, but if it is a matter upon which it is possible for the Board to give them greater guidance, more assistance, and a clearer indication as to what they ought to do than is at present given, I think the question could be dealt with far better on the Code than by the introduction of a hard and fast provision into this Bill.
THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORDsaid that after the interesting discussion and the general expressions of sympathy with the general principle of the Amendment to which they had listened, though he could have wished the sympathy had been of a less platonic character, he was prepared to withdraw his proposal, in the hope that something would accrue from the consideration of the subject.
Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
Clause 5:—
EARL BEAUCHAMP, in moving an Amendment providing that the local education authorities should have the "control and management" instead of merely the "control" of all secular instrucion in non-provided schools, said the principle on which he placed the Amendment on the Paper was that the popular control over the elementary education of the country, which was said to be one of the objects of the Bill, should be properly secured. The word "control" was some what vague, and he would be glad to know the exact character of the control to be exercised by the local authority. It was to make that control constant and efficient that he moved this Amendment, the effect of which would be to put the local Church of England managers merely in the position of delegates administering the Act under the local authority,

407
the local authority being paramount. He thought the system a bad one, but it was at any rate desirable that the arrangement should be clear, so that they might know exactly which authority had the paramount control over the school. Under the Bill as it stood there would be two statutory authorities, one having the control and the other the management. It was obvious that considerable friction and jealousy might arise between the two, as the inferior body was not elected or nominated by the superior body. The idea of the Bill was that the Church of England should dominate, not only the religious instruction of Church of England children, but also the secular instruction given in voluntary schools. The Amendment would secure some management on the part of the local authority, and therefore he begged to move.
Amendment moved—
"In page 3, line 3, after ' control ' insert ' management.' "—(Earl Beauchamp.)
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: As the noble Earl has said, this Amendment introduces a very important principle; it, in fact, practically deals with the whole Bill. If the Amendment were carried its effect would be completely to alter the character of the measure. It must be taken in conjunction with another Amendment standing lower on the Paper in the name ot the noble Earl. The present Amendment invests the local authority with not only the control, but the management of schools, and his subsequent Amendment says—
" The managers of public elementary schools shall exercise such of the powers of the local education authority in relation to the control and management of the schools, with or without any restrictions, as the local authority may from time to time determine."
The scheme of the Bill is that the voluntary schools are hereafter to be managed by managers, four of whom shall be appointed under the trust and two by the local authority, and that these shall exercise the duties of the managers of the schools, the most important of which is the appointment of the teacher. The Bill also provides that the managers shall conform to
408
the directions and instructions of the local authority as regards secular education. The Amendments of the noble Earl completely reverse this procedure; they provide that the schools shall be managed, not by the body of managers, but that every power in connection with the school, including that of the appointment of the teacher, shall be exercised by the local authority. That was one of the subjects we were chiefly engaged in discussing during the two nights devoted to the Second Reading of the Bill. The Amendment entirely alters the framework; and structure of the Bill, and at this stage of the proceedings I think it hardly necessary seriously to discuss it.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6:—
THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORDmoved to provide that the foundation managers of the non-provided schools should be two, instead of four, as provided by the Bill. He said that this matter had been much discussed, not only in another place, but also on the platform andin the country generally. He believed, however, that if this Amendment, and a consequential Amendment enacting that two managers should be appointed by the major and two by the minor authority, were agreed to, they would practically get rid of the Nonconformist opposition to the Bill. They would secure popular control, and it would be perfectly easy to safeguard every legitimate interest of the denomination.
Amendment moved—
" In page 3,line 19, to leave out 'four'and insert 'two.'"—(The Lord Bishop of Hereford.)
THE EARL OF CREWEsaid he had no desire to enter into the general controversy on this subject; the matter had been discussed at great length in another place and in the country, and had also monopolised a considerable portion of the Second Reading debate. He merely wished to comment on the explanation given on this subject of the management of voluntary schools by the

409
Duke of Devonshire in concluding the debate on the Second Reading. On that occasion the noble Duke explained the proportion of the managers allotted by the Bill to the different contributing parties. He pointed out that the Church would now contribute a small portion of the expenses, and one which entitled them to one manager, it being obviously impossible to dinvide a manager into fractions. The ratepayers were provided with two managers, and the remaining three, according to the noble Duke, belonged to the State and were appointed by them, the argument being that those three could not be appointed directly by the State, but were appointed by the Board of Education as a part of His Majesty's Government, representing the majority in Parliament. That was a somewhat singular admission, for if those managers represented the present majority in Parliament, what was to be their fate in the event of that majority being some day turned into a minority? It seemed that it would be absolutely the duty of them majority to appoint three out of the managers in some other way. In making this admission the noble Duke seemed to him to have once for all destroyed the contention that the Bill was in any sense a final measure.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I do not quite recognise my argument as represented by the noble Earl opposite. As far as I recollect it, it was that if anybody had a right to appoint a majority of the managers it was the State, acting through the Education Department or the Treasury.
THE EARL OF CREWE: Through "the majority in Parliament," I think, were the words used by the noble Duke.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: If that is so, I really do not know how the words, "majority in Parliament" got in. I think my argument was and it is a fair argument—that, on the whole, the equities, if we take into account the relative contributions, are not very unequally distributed. To begin with the founders; the trustees to whom the school belongs, and in whom the school is vested, have a right to some representation in respect of the great
410
contributions they have made in times past, and the more limited contributions they will be called upon to make in the future. The ratepayers, who are in future to contribute a portion of the expense of maintenance will be represented, not only by the managers whom they will be able to appoint, but by the direct control over secular education which will be exercised under the Bill by the local authority. The State which contributes the greater proportion cannot be represented by the control which it exercises over the school through the Code and through its inspectors. I do not think it is possible to distribute these responsiblities by any arithmetical arrangement as to the managers, but I believe that, on the whole, as between the three parties who have contributed to the foundation, and will contribute to the maintenance of these schools, the matter is not inequitably divided. The right rev. Prelate who moved the Amendment is, I think, perfectly aware that it is one the framers of the Bill cannot possibly accept. The effect of it would be that instead of the voluntary managers being in a majority of two-thirds, as we intend them to be, they would be in a minority of one-third. We have proposed the best compromise we could suggest under which the continuance of the voluntary schools is possible. We have asked Parliament to make a very large and liberal pecuniary grant to the managers of these schools, and we have asked the managers, on the other hand, to surrender a large proportion of the privileges they have hitherto enjoyed. We have put this scheme before Parliament, not as an absolutely perfect or ideal arrangement, but as the best compromise we could suggest. To alter the terms of that compromise in such a way as to convert what we think ought to be a majority on the management into a minority, would fundamentally subvert the compromise, and, in our opinion, would have the effect of closing, if not every one, at any rate the great majority of the voluntary schools which have been founded for the purpose of giving distinctive religious education, and for the observance of which purpose in the future there would be no security whatever

411
if this Amendment were carried. The principal—I do not say the sole—but the principal duty of the managers in future will be the appointment of the teachers and the control of religious education. If you place that control in the hands of a majority, which need not be of a denominational character, I do not see where you can obtain any security that the religious character of the schools should be in any degree preserved.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: I do not know any speech to which I have listened which has so well illustrated the allusion of the Bishop of Hereford, in which he likened the noble Duke to Laocoon, as the speech we have just heard, because when the noble Duke said, with emphasis, that this was the best compromise he could offer on this subject I seemed to see the insidious snakes twining round his limbs, and preventing him from offering anything more. Of course to call this a compromise is a play upon words, a sarcasm, indeed, a stroke of humour, but it is in no sense any description of the scheme of management offered to this House by the Government. If the noble Duke had considered the matter a little more, he would have seen that the word "compromise" was hardly applicable. The noble Duke said that the four managers who represented the foundation were to represent the considerable in the past, though no doubt less in the future, contributions they have made to the schools; but he knows perfectly well that the contributions of the managers, past, present or future, bear no relation whatever to the contributions of the State or the public, and, therefore, when he speaks of a compromise it is an abuse of language to an extent, which I think is hardly justifiable, even in a Committee of this kind—I mean a Committee in which the efforts of the minority must necessarily be sterile. But the point I wish to call attention to is not the long thrashed out principle of management, because if I spoke with the tongues of men and of angels I should not have power to alter the proposed arrangement, but the extraordinary argument of the noble Duke, which is, I think, by far the most original which has been addressed no either House of Parliament on this Bill, advanced in the short speech with he closed the
412
Second Reading debate, and to which therefore, noreply was possible at the time. I will not go into the fractions and subdivisions of fractions into which the noble Duke divided the managers on these new Boards. The noble Duke defended the arrangement in the Bill by saying that the proportions were in the main just; there were to be four managers representing the indefinite contributions of subscribers past and present, then there were to be two more managers, one, he allowed, represented the ratepayers—I am not sure that in his original speech the noble Duke did not say that both of these represented the ratepayers, and that, I am disposed to think, was his real meaning.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: Two are appointed by the local authority.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: The ratepayers.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: The local authority.
THE EARl OF ROSEBERY: Well, I will take the local authority—that is, the ratepayers. The noble Duke said that the ratepayers had no right to more representation. But, sweeping away the insignificant contribution of the subscribers which is to entitle them to two-thirds of the Board of Management, the main contribution to the expenses of the schools is one-third by the ratepayers and two-thirds by the State. It is to the last contribution that I wish to call attention. Sir Robert Peel once asked, "What is a pound?" I wish to ask, "What is the State, which is to contribute two-thirds to this Board of Management on which it is not to be represented?" It is the great body of taxpayers of the country. The noble Duke speaks as if the State had a private income of its own from which it made its contributions to these schools, and which, therefore, entiled it to a general control or representation quite apart from its representation of the taxpayers of the country. I am not going to deliver a consitutional treatise on the King and the estates of the country, but the State in this connection is merely the great body of contributors to the Imperial taxation.

413
Owing to the care of the present Government the taxpayers of the country are absolutely the same as any consumer of bread: there is no person in the country who consumes bread, tea, or tobacco who is not a taxpayer. How is it then that this body is only to be represented by the occasional visit of an inspector? I confess I did not catch that part of the argument referred to by our noble friend as to three managers representing the State. I took the noble Duke to say that the State was to be represented by the occasional visit of an inspector.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: And the Code.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: And said that the State, as at present constituted because he apparently identified the State with the present Government wished denominational education to prevail in these schools. Well, if the State is identical with the present Government, there has never been anything so autocratic said since Louis XIV, declared, " B'Etat, c'est moi," | have never heard of such a definition of the State for generations past. Surely I am not presumptuous in thinking the noble Duke had some constitutional confusion in his mind. What we claim is that the public, ratepayers and taxpayers, have a right to the control where the State contributes the funds, whether they are contributed as taxes or rates. Idefy anybody, however noble and however learned he may be, to prove that there is an abstract entity called the State which has some fund at its disposal, not contributed by the public which entitles the State to some sort of privileged position and to arrange the Boards of these schools without any reference whatever to the contributing elements. What is the State in the mind of the noble Duke? I hope he will give us some explanation before this discussion closes. Sure I am of this, that in its financial aspect the State is the body of taxpayers, and surely the House of Commons, at any rate in its control of taxation, represents the body of taxpayers. I know of no other State in this connection. When I am told that the ratepayers have, almost as a matter of privilege, granted them by the Government the timid and questionable
414
right to appoint one-third of these boards of management, and, on the other hand, that the State, which was entitled to contribute two-thirds to these Boards, generously stands aside and only sends an inspector now and then, I really wonder whether the Constitution remains where it was and under what regime we are living. I hope that this debate will not pass away without some clear pronouncement by the Government as to the views they hold on the constitutional aspect of this question.
LORD HERRIES, speaking as a Roman Catholic, declared that the line taken by the Opposition upon this Bill would not be merely adverse, but absolutely destructive to Roman Catholic schools. Those schools had been kept up ever since 1870, chiefly at the expense of Roman Catholics, who at the same time had paid rates in support of schools suitable to Nonconformists, and if they were now to be asked to allow a body, two-thirds of which might consist of Nonconformists. Unitarians, or Agnostics, to take charge of the religious instruction in those schools, he could assure their Lordships that not a single school would be handed over. Roman Catholics were ratepayers and members of the State; they expected to be treated by their fellow countrymen in the manner in which the latter would be treated by Roman Catholics. The threat recently made that as soon as another Party came into power they would take every step possible to alter this legislation and to give a majority of the ratepayers, power over these schools, would make Roman Catholics use every endeavour to prevent that Party coming into power, and so to guard the religion of the next generation against the attacks proposed to be made upon it. If there was one idea to which Roman Catholics clung more earnestly than another, it was that the religion of their Church should be taught to the children in their schools. In former years their ancestors had to send their children to foreign countries to get an education in agreement with their religious principles. In Ireland they had the "hedge schoolmaster," who taught the children their catechism, and kept alive the faith of the Irish. Was it to be supposed, then, that in this century they were to go back on the idea of

415
having their children educated in accordance with their religion? Not a single Roman Catholic school would come on the public charge if this Amendment were insisted upon. Roman Catholics were determined that the religious instruction in their schools should be in agreement with the religion they professed, and he protested most determinedly against the attitude of the Opposition, who declared that, because a certain amount of sujpport was to be given out of the rates, Roman Catholics—who also paid their share of the rates—were not to have charge of the religious instruction in their schools.
THE DIKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I am not going to enter into a constitutional discussion with the noble Earl, but I am afraid I must attempt to restate the argument I placed before the House on Friday last, and of which the noble Earl has apparently failed to grasp the meaning. My contention was that inasmuch as the larger proportion of the cost of the maintenance of schools would be paid, not by the school, but by the taxpayers, it was the taxpayer and not the ratepayer who had the right to the majortity of the representation on the board of management, if anybody. But, inasmuch as it was impossible that the taxpayer should be directly represented on the management of these schools—
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: Why?
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: Who is to appoint the representative in the name of the taxpayers?
THE EARL Of ROSEBERY: The taxpayers of the country, I suppose; the taxpayers of the locality.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: What taxpayers? The income-tax payers?
THE EARL OK ROSEBERY: I did not say the income-tax payers only. I said the taxpayers.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: Does the noble Earl mean the income-tax payers?
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: No.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: Then whom does he mean?
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: I mean the taxpayers. Is the noble Duke so little conversant with the finance of this country as to suppose that the revenue is derived from income tax only?
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I am under the impression that a considerable portion of it is. But what I maintain is that there is no constituency to elect a representative of the taxpayers on the managing bodies of the schools. The only local representation that can be the ratepayers, and my argument is that the ratepayers have no right to represent the taxpayers. In the course of my argument I may have used the word "State" in a sense which has led to the criticisms of the noble Earl, but I presume he will not deny that the taxpayers—he has admitted that the taxpayers are entitled to the largest share in the control over the education to which they contribute—
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: From the financial point of view.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I presume he will not deny that the taxpayers are represented by the Parliament; and I maintain that Parliament has a right, not only legally, but morally, to express its opinion as to the form of local government which should be on the schools which it so materially assists to maintain. The other House of Parliament has, and I believe this House ultimately will express its approval of the suggested form of government. I maintain that Parliament has a perfect right to do that, not only as the supreme authority in the country, but as representing the largest body of contributors. I do not deny that it would be competent for another Parliament, representing another set of opinions among the taxpayers, to upset the present arrangement; and the speech delivered by the noble Earl yesterday seemed to indicate an intention on his part to spare no effort to induce Parliament to do so. But Parliament, as representing the largest contribution to the schools from any source, has a perfect moral right to express its opinion as to the compromise which it has thought right to impose upon those who have hitherto had the sole management of these schools.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: I am sorry to trouble the House again, but the noble Duke has considerably shifted his ground. His original ground was that the State was an abstract entity, which ought to nominate the largest number of the managers.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I never admitted that the managers were the only essential element in the control of the schools. They have only a limited control. The State cannot be represented by any number of managers on the schools. It is represented by the influence which it exercises over national education through the Code annually submitted to Parliament, and by the inspectors who report to the Board of Education. It has nothing whatever to do with the constitution of the Board of Management with very limited functions.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: I am more perplexed than ever to know what the State is. It now seems to be the permanent Civil Government of the country. Neither of the propositions which the noble Duke controverted has been advanced by me. What I maintain is that when the taxpayers have, on the financial basis, according to the noble Duke's own contention, the right to the preponderating position on the Board of Management, it is not fair that they should be supplanted by foundation managers, who are, after all, a close and often an ecclesiastical corporation. The noble Duke talked of the moral right of Parliament to make any arrangement it chose. I think he unduly limited himself there. Might is right. Parliament, according to the old definition, can do anything it likes, except turn a man into a woman; and the noble Duke was therefore pleading a platitude to which no one has ever offered exception. But the noble Duke must have sufficient reminiscences of the past to be aware that it is not according to Liberal doctrine, or even constitutional doctrine, to admit that, where the greater part of the revenue is contributed by the public, two-thirds of the control should be given to a close corporation.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: Not to the managers.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: What is given to the managers?
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: Only certain details are given to them.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: One of the details being the choice of the teachers, to which the majority behind the Government cling with such persistence as to show that it is not an unimportant detail.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: Subject to the control of the County Council.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: I am obliged for the interruption, but it does not materially alter the point. The managers will be on the spot, and the local authorities will be a long way off. I do not agree that it is impossible for the taxpayers to be represented on the Board. Financially, the taxpayers have a right to a preponderating influence on the board of management, but there is another element which has as great a right to representation, and that is the parents. We on this side of the House are always asking what means the Government have taken to elicit the views of the parents as to the control of the parents over these Boards. Is it wonderful, when we do not differ, I think, in the main with those who wish for real religious instruction to be given in these schools, when we are as solicitous about that in reality as noble Lords opposite, that we also should wish to have some effect given to the wishes of the parents, and that we should deplore the fact that the Government has given no such representation on these Boards? Is it wonderful, then, that noble Lords on this side of the House should say that if the power ever comes to them—which is, perhaps, not very likely—they will endeavour to reverse the Bill in some of these respects. My noble friend, Lord Herries, has said, with great passion, that he and those who agree with him will endeavour to prevent such a consummation coming about as the return of noble Lords on this side of the House to the Ministerial side.
LORD HERRIES: Unless you change your opinions on this question.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: You need not address that to me. So far as I know, my noble friend and those who

419
agree with him need no such stimulus as that for any action they might think fit to take part in with that object in view. One word more. The noble Duke, I think, alluded to some remarks that were attributed to me yesterday, and rightly attributed; and his allusion to them was received with loud cheers on the Episcopal Bench. I stand by every word I said yesterday, but not to every word that has been read into them from prejudiced sources. It is hard enough in these days for men to make speeches every day and all day, but it will be much harder if it is the practice of faction to read into those speeches expressions which their authors did not use, and opinions which they absolutely repudiate. This I will say—I will repeat in this House what I said to the Nonconformists. I believe that of late the Nonconformists of this country have been strangely passive in regard to politics; they have been indifferent to their own Liberal alliances, and they have even, positively or negatively, supported the cause of Toryism. What I said, and what I implied, and all that I said or implied to the Nonconformists was that, if they desired to have justice done to them in the matter of education—which they certainly have not had done to them by this Bill—they must shake of this insidious sloth and resume the active political agitation which was in their old days the strength of the Liberal party.
VISCOUNT GOSCHENsaid he trusted the importance they all attributed to the words that fell from the noble Lord would excuse him for saying a few words in reply. The noble Lord had said that much had been read into his speech to the Free Churches which he never said.
LORD ROSEBERY: Hear, hear !
VISCOUNT GOSCHENsaid he thought the noble Lord alluded to the nonpayment of rates. He did not think the noble Lord told the deputation, having been Prime Minister of this country, that nothing would more prejudice their cause, that nothing would more shake his own confidence in their statesmanship, than if they were to adopt such a
420
course. If the noble Lord alluded to the non-payment of rates at all, he should have thought he would have deprecated any such action.
LORD ROSEBERY: I did deprecate it, in absolute and precise terms.
VISCOUNT GOSCHENsaid he did not wish to impute any words to the noble Lord which he did not use. The noble Lord said he deprecated such action, but he also said, ''But I am not a Nonconformist."
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: This is rather important. I said, I myself am averse to the non-payment of rates, but I am not a Nonconformist, and I am therefore not in a position to judge of the sense of intolerable wrong which has driven many just, and God-fearing, and law-abiding citizens to intimate such a course as that.
VISCOUNT GOSCHENsaid he did not misrepresent the spirit of the noble Lord's speech. He was averse to the non-payment of rates, "but he was not a Nonconformist." If the noble Lord was not a Nonconformist, ho was a tax-payer. What was likely to be the attitude of the Nonconformists after the speech which the noble Lord had made tonight in reference to their contribution to the taxes? He had never been able to understand why those who had a conscientious objection to paying a rate to a school had a conscientious objection to paying a tax to a school. Or, if they had conscientious objections to both, why they should propose to take different action as regarded a rate from that which they took in regard to a tax. He should like to know from the noble Lord whether the next step in the agitation with which they were threatened would not be that the Nonconformists would refuse to pay their taxes? He should like to put a question to the noble Lord. When he was in office, and guided the affairs of the State, were there not Nonconformists who paid taxes, and made, therefore, contributions towards the maintenance of denominational schools? Did he do anything in those years to remedy what he now called "the intolerable wrong" being done to Dissenters? The noble Lord in a passionate peroration appealed to this intolerable wrong that was being done.

421
He said the foundation managers were taking the place of the taxpayers in the management, but the foundation managers had been all along enjoying the contributions from the State which the representation now demanded for the taxpayers. Why was it now demanded for the first time? Because a change was being made which gave an opportunity for the demand. The noble Earl said this was not a compromise. No; many people would call it a confiscation. Dr. Clifford was reported to have said that the Government were taking away the control from the local authority, but that was not the case. They were giving control to the people.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: In what form?
VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: In the shape of two managers.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: As against four.
VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: Yes, and what are they giving to the local authority? They are giving the managers, bound hand and foot, to the elective body. I hope they will manage their affairs well—
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: If they are handed over bound hand and foot, would it not be well, for the mere appearance of the thing, to give those to whom they are bound hand and foot a majority on the Board?
VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: Certainly not, because there are certain things that are retained. I, in my turn, would ask the noble Earl a question. Does he attribute no importance to the control of the local authority over the managers?
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: Of course I do.
VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: Is not that a fresh grant of authority?
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: It is, but you are taking away the School Boards. But I think it would perhaps be convenient for the House if we dropped this "shorter catechism."
VISCOUNT GOSCHENsaid he was glad to give the noble Lord an opportunity of amplifying his facts, but had he forgotten that the managers were losing a large amount of control? That could not be denied, and with that loss of control there could be no doubt that their powers were immensely reduced. The managers were not their own masters. A strict control was exercised by the Department, and now to this control another control was added. If there was a bargain, whilst some financial advantages had no doubt accrued to the denominations, the non-denominationalists had also gained a great deal. Yet they cried out that the whole of this great change had been against them, and the noble Lord encouraged them by his eloquence in complaint of a grievance which was no grievance, and when a new power had actually been placed in their hands.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: May I have a final word? But then the noble Viscount is not a Nonconformist !
LORD RIBBLESDALEobjected to the proposed distribution of the management on the grounds so ably stated by the noble Earl. He agreed with Viscount Goschen that nobody would go to martyrdom for the difference between a rate and a tax, but it should be remembered that previous to this proposal the cup of the Nonconformists was already full. At the risk of lowering the tone of the debate, he desired to bring the House back to the practical consideration that the proposed distribution of management would not tend to the efficiency either of education or of control. Only the other day the Wiltshire County Council, a Unionist body, by a vote of thiry-two against seventeen, had passed a resolution to that effect. The managers, if they were to be efficient, had no interest in economy, and the County Council having only one representative on the management, had practically no control over efficiency, and still less over economy. The probable result of the distribution would, therefore, be inefficiency in education and waste of money.
THE LORD BISHOP OF MANCHESTERsaid the Church was accused of having an undue share of representation on the Board. In that accusation it was assumed that the managers would have all the powers they had hitherto possessed. That, however, was far from being the case. Their powers were to be very circumscribed; the name was nearly all that was left to them. They were called managers, but what had they to manage? Two things only. They had simply to appoint the master who should give the religious instruction, and to take care that instruction was given according to direction of the trust deed. All the powers they formerly possessed as to fixing the time, and the substance of the instruction, determining the salary of the teachers, and all the other matters that made management important, had been taken from them and placed in the hands of the local authority. He could quite understand that the arithmetical distribution would have been a matter of great importance if they were managers in the sense they had hitherto been, but as they were now retained in their position merely to superintend the mode of the religious instruction and nothing else, the question was simply whether it was unfair, seeing they gave up their school buildings at a peppercorn rent and nearly all the powers they formerly possessed, that the denomination should have such a majority of the nominal managers as would enable them effectually to carry out the one function remaining to them. He certainly could not see where the injustice came in.
THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORDcontended that the amount of work the managers had to do did not in any way affect the justice or injustice of the arrangement. There was one satisfaction in that line of argument, however, and

CONTENTS

Halsbury, E. (L. Chancellor.)

Bath, M.

Belmore, E.

Devonshire, D. (L. President.)

Bristol, M.

Camperdown,E.

Camden, M.

Coventry, E.

Norfolk, D. (E Marshal.)

Hertford, M.

Dartmouth, E.

Newcastle, D.

Landsdowne, M.

Denbigh, E.

Northumberland, D.

Winchester, M.

Derby, E.

Portland, D.

Zetland, M.

Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

Somerset, D.

Wellington, D.

Clarendon, E. (L. Chamberlain)

Egerton, E.

Abingdon, E.

Feversham, E.

Ailesbury, M.

Bathurst, E.

Hardwicke, E.

that was that the word "atmosphere" had disappeared. As to the statement that the managers retained the power only of appointing the teacher to give the religious instruction, he pointed out that they retained the power of appointing all the teachers in the school. After listening to Lord Herries' speech, he was afraid it had not been rightly understood that in any plan which he had submitted he included the safeguard of religious education as an essential part of it. If popular control such as he desired to see were adopted, it would be perfectly easy to introduce—and he said it as one who had some practical experience in school matters—every legitimate safeguard in regard to religious instruction. The safeguards he had suggested from time to time were, in his humble opinion, at least as agreeable in their working, both to Anglicans and to Roman Catholics, as the Kenyon-Slaney Clause was likely to be. He feared there was little hope of carrying this Amendment, and he had no desire to take up the time of the House in dividing upon it. [OPPOSITION cries of "Divide."] He was in the hands of the Committee in the matter.
On the Question being put—
EARL NELSON (speaking seated and with his hat on)said,—On a point of Order, I beg to say that some Peers, before leaving the House, particularly asked the Bishop of Hereford whether he was going to divide. He said he was not, and on that consideration they left the House.
THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORD: I have already said that I am in the hands of the Committee.
Their Lordships divided:-Contents, 158; Not-Contents, 27.

Harewood, E.

Ely, L. Bp.

Gormanston, L. (V. Gormanston.)

Hillsborough, E.(M. Downshire)

Lichfield, L. Bp.

Lincoln, L. Bp.

Harris, L.

Ilchester, E.

London, L. Bp.

Hatherton, L.

Lathom, E.

Manchester, L. Bp.

Herries, L.

Leven and Melville, E.

Newcastle, L. Bp.

Hillingdon, L.

Lichtield, E.

Norwich, L. Bp.

Hothfield, L.

Londesborough, E.

Ripon, L. Bp.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Lucan, E.

Rochester, L. Bp.

Hylton, L.

Lytton, E.

St. Asaph, L. Bp.

James, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Salisbury, L. Bp.

Kenyon, L.

Mayo, E.

Truro, L. Bp.

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

Morley, E.

Winchester, L. Bp.

Lawrence, L.

Mount Edgecumbe, E.

Addington, L.

Ludlow, L.

Nelson, E.

Allerton, L.

Macnaghten, L.

Onslow, E.

Arundell of Wardour, L.

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

Orford, E.

Ashbourne, L.

Radnor, E.

Balfour, L.

Meldrum, L. (M. Hurtly.)

Romney, E.

Barrymore, L.

Monckton, L. (V. Galway.)

Saint Germans, E.

Basing, L.

Montagu of Brandon, L.

Selborne, E.

Belper, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Shaftesbury, E.

Boston, L.

Mostyn, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Braybrooke, L.

Mount Stephen, L.

Stamford, E.

Braye, L.

Muncaster, L.

Stanhope, E.

Burton, L.

Newton, L.

Vane, E. (Lordouderry.)

Chelmsford, L.

North, L.

Verulam, E.

Cheylesmore, L.

O'Brien, L.

Waldegrave, E [Teller.]

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Redsdale, L.

Wharneliff, E.

Colehester, L.

Robertson, L.

Yarborough, E.

Congleton, L.

Rosmead, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Rowton, L.

Churchill, V. [Teller.]

Crawshaw, L.

Saltoun, L.

Cross, V.

Dawnay, L.

Seaton, L.

Falkland, V.

De Freyne, L.

Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)

Falmouth, V.

De Mauley, L.

Stalbridege, L.

Goschen, V.

Dormer, L.

Stanmore, L.

Halifax, V.

Douglas, L. (E. Home.)

Teynham, L.

Knutsford, V.

Dunmore, L. (E. Dunmore.)

Tredegar, L.

Llandaff. V.

Ellenborough, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Ridley, V.

Eiphinstone, L.

Wenlock, L.

Fingall, L. (E. Fingall.)

Wentworth, L.

Bath and Wells, L. Bp.

Forester, L.

Wimborne, L.

Chester, L. Bp.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

Windsor L.

Chichester, L. Bp.

Glanusk, L.

Zonche of Haryngworth, L.

Durham, L. Bp.

Glenesk, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Northampton, M.

Hereford, L. Bp.

Kinnaird, L.

Monkswell, L.

Beauchamp, E.

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

Reay, L.

Carrington, E.

Brassey, L.

Ribblesdale, L. [Teller.]

Chesterfield, E. [Teller]

Burghelere, L.

Rosebery, L. (E. Rosebery.)

Crewe, E.

Coleridge, L.

Sandhurst, L.

Portsmouth, E.

Davey, L.

Sudley, L. (E. Arran.)

Sandwich, E.

Denman, L.

Tweedmouth, L.

Spencer, E.

Farrer, L.

Welby, L.

Headley, L.

Gordon, V. (E. Aberdeen.)

VISCOUNT HALIFAX, in moving a new sub-Section requiring trustees or managers to give the local authority six months' notice of their intention to close a school, said it was no use disguising the fact that under the conditions imposed by the Bill, and with every desire to make the best of the measure, it was probable—he believed certain—that many of those responsible for denominational schools would find themselves
in great difficulties. A certain Clause, subsequently to be discussed, simply bristled with difficulties; but, even apart from that Clause, there were many schools, privately owned or otherwise, which those responsible for them would not think it worth while to continue under the new conditions. This had nothing whatever to do with the religious question; it was simply a matter affecting the practical working of the Bill in

427
country districts. There were many schools entirely kept up, the buildings provided, and the salaries of the teachers paid by private owners or individuals, the only assistance derived from the State being the capitation grants earned by the pupils. The conditions under which some of these schools would be placed by the Bill were such that, with the appointment of managers, it would be almost impossible to carry them on. If such schools were given up, the local authority, would have to provide others to take their place, and in order that as little inconvenience as possible might be caused to the ratepayers and the local authority there should be a warning of the intention to surrender these, at present, denominational schools. The object of the Amendment was to secure such notice being given, and he would be prepared to substitute twelve for six months if that was thought desirable.
Amendment moved—
"In page 3, line 30, after 'increased' to insert '(c) If the trustees or managers of schools not provided by the local authority declare their intention to cease to conduct the school as a public elementary school, they shall be bound to give the local education authority six months' notice of such intention.'"—(Viscount Halifax.)
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I quite recognise that inconvenience might arise in the event of managers feeling unable to continue their schools under the provisions of the Act, in the circumstances contemplated by the noble Viscount, but I do not understand by what right he proposes to compel the managers or trustees or owners of a school to keep the school open against their will for even a period of six months; neither do I see what penalty could be imposed for any infringement of such a Clause.
VISCOUNT HALIFAXasked whether the remark of the noble Duke applied to schools under private ownership without trust deeds, or to schools under trust to provide education. There were two classes of schools, one under the trust deed of the National Society and bound to provide education, and the other merely private property, which might be dealt with just as the owner thought fit. He desired it to be made clear that in the event of schools of either class being compelled to close, due notice should be
428
given to the authority which might have to supply the deficiency, so that no inconvenience should be caused to the public.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: There are, no doubt, the two classes of schools mentioned by the noble Viscount, but I cannot understand by what right he would compel the owner of an elementary school to continue that school under conditions with which he felt he could not comply. The Clause would apply to such a school just as much as to a school under a trust deed. As to schools under trusts, I conceive that whether or not they couldbe closed, would depend on the nature of the particular trust. In either case, I am unable to see by what right the noble Viscount proposes to prevent the trustees or private owners from doing that which, under the trust or by virtue of their ownership, they are entitled to do, or what power there would be to enforce any such provision.
Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
EARL BEAUCHAMP, who had given notice of a new sub-Section providing that the managers of public elementary schools should exercise such powers of the local authority as that body might determine, said he did not intend to move the Amendment, but simply to ask whether the Government agreed to the definition of the duties of the managers given by the Bishop of Manchester, viz., that their sole duty would be to select the head teacher of religion.
LORD DAVEYasked what would be the position and functions of the managers of the old board schools. As originally introduced, the Bill provided that they were to be managers appointed under the powers of the Act of 1870, but that provision had since been struck out, and there was nothing in the body of the Bill which in any way defined what their functions and powers would he What they could not do their Lordships knew; they could not appoint the master or the teachers, nor could they spend a single shilling of money; but it was very difficult to see what they could do.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: They will do what the local authority directs them.
THE LORD BISHOP OF MANCHESTERsaid the noble Earl had not accurately quoted his statement. What he said was that the managers were directed to appoint the headmaster: they we re then to take care that the religious instructiongiven in the school was in accordance with the terms of ihe trust deed, and that was also included in the Kenyon-Slanoy Amendment.
EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid the right rev. Prelate had limited the power of the managers to the religious instruction, carefully saying that they had nothing to do with the secular instruction. He desired to know whether the Government accepted that definition of the duties of the managers. His Amendment was based on the definition of managers in the Act of 1870.
THE LORD BISHOP OF MAN CHESTERdid not think he had said the managers could do nothing with regard to secular education, because the local authority, if it pleased, could delegate to them certain minor functions connected with that side of the instruction. But even then they would have only a delegated authority, and would be able to do only as they were directed by the local authority.
EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid that in order to get a reply from the Government lie would formally move his Amendment. lie had purposely taken the words from the Act of 1870 so that they should be non-controversial, and he hoped the Government would accept them.
Amendment moved—
"In page 3, line 30, at the end of the Clause, insert new sub-Section: '(4.) The managers of public elementary schools shall exercise such of the powers of the local education authority in relation to the control and management of the schools, with or without any conditions or restrictions, as the local authority may from time to time determine.'"—(Earll Beacuchamp.)
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: The words which the noble Earl asks us to accept would give the managers only such powers as the local authority might from time to time determine. I conceive that under the Amendment the local authority would be able to deprive the
430
managers of the power of appointing the teachers. Is that the noble Earl's intention?
EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid that that was safeguarded by another Clause of the Bill. It was about the thousand and one other things connected with the management of schools that he was anxious to get a statement as to who was to be the authority.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: The duties of the managers are very simple. They are responsible for the religious education; they choose the teachers; and they will carry out the instructions of the local lauthority in regard to secular instruction.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: Then why not accept my Amendment?
LORD BURGHCLEREasked what was the meaning of sub-Section (3) of Clause 7, if the managers were simply to carry out the instructions of the local authority, and were, as had been stated earlier in the dabate, bound hand and foot to that authority? The sub-Section to which he referred enacted that if any questions arose between the managers and the local education authrity thay were to be determined by the Board of Education. If the Clause meant any thing, it meant there were other duties the managers would have to discharge, and that they were not bount hand and foot to the local authority. No question could possibly arise between two persons one of whom was the absolute slave of the other; therefore the managers must have some independent powers.
Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6:—
THE MARQUESS OF NORTHAMPTONdesired to ask a question with regard to schools in the possession of private individuals, and in connection with which there were no trust deeds. Many such schools had been leased or rented to managers. It would be difficult to say how those managers were elected, but they had been elected somehow, and when

431
one passed away another was elected to take his place. They had, however, done their duties extremely well, and he desired to know what would happen in such cases. Many Church schools were having trust deeds prepared, but certain private owners might not desire to have such a trust, preferring to rent or sell the buildings to the local authority. He could find no provision in the Bill enabling that to lie done. A further question was whether, in a case of such letting or selling, the control of the private owner would pass completely from him. If the private owner disappeared from the scene, in many cases the up-keep also would go, and a certain amount of expense would fall on poor localities.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I am not at all sorry the noble Marquess has asked this question, because there are many people in the position of owning private voluntary schools of which they have hitherto had more or less entire control. Undoubtedly the position is not thoroughly understood at present, and we are preparing a long memorandum on the subject, a copy of which I should be glad to supply to the noble Marquess, or to any other noble Lord interested in the matter. The position at present is that an owner may, if he likes, have a trust deed created, subject to any restrictions there may be as to rights in tail. That can be done whether this Bill passes or not. If he does not choose to do that, he may make arrangements to let the school at a peppercorn rent from year to year. In each of those cases he is the owner of the school, and has a perfect right to nominate the managers.
THE MARQUESS OF NORTHAMPTONsaid that what he desired to know was whether the owner, if he received from the local authority a rent for the school, would have the same control as in the past, or whether he would lose all such control.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: If the noble Marquess means a case in which a private school is handed over to a local authority and is converted into a provided school, the school undoubtedly ceases to be a voluntary school, and becomes what is now called a board school. In all probability the owner
432
then would be simply a ratepayer, and would not have the control of the school in the apartment of managers; the managers would be appointed by the local authority.
THE MARQUESS OF NORTHAMPTONpointed out that the memorandum to which the noble Marquess had referred would not have the force of an Act of Parliament. Would it be attached as a I schedule to the Bill?
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: The memorandum will be issued to instruct individual owners as to what they can do if they wish, so that they may I understand what is the real position with regard to trust deeds at the present time. The whole position is extremely hazy, and our great object at the Board of Education when this Bill is passed and before it is administered will be to remove as far as possible all msapprehension or want of understanding with regard to the matter. That is the reason we propose to issue this memorandum.
THE MARQUESS OF NORTHAMPTON, in thanking the noble Marquess for his reply, said he understood from him that there was no provision in the Bill by which a private owner would be prevented from leasing buildings belonging to him to the local authority for the purposes of a public elementary school, and receiving all the advantages given under the Bill.
THE EARL OF SELBORNEsaid there was no mystery about the matter at all. A voluntary school was either subject to a trust deed or it was not. Both cases were covered by the Bill. If the private owner of a school chose to take advantage of the Clauses of the Bill by which the school could be maintained as a denominational school, it would become a maintained school. If, on the other hand, he preferred to hand it over entirely to the local authority, it would become a provided school, the equivalent of a board school. Both courses were open to owners.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I would suggest that noble Lords should read the Clauses of the Act of 1870 relating to transfers, and which are not repealed by this Bill.
Clause 6 agreed to.
House resumed; to be again in Committee Tomorrow.

ORDNANCE SURVEY IN IRELAND.
THE EARL OF BELMORE, in rising to ask "Whether anything can be done to hasten the progress of the Ordnance Survey in Ireland on the 25-inch scale," said he used to put the Question to Lord Cadogan ten or fifteen years ago, but recently, when he had occasion to apply to the head of the Ordnance Survey in Ireland for a particular map, he was told it would not be ready for seven or eight years more, or about twenty years from the time he first took an interest in the matter, when the survey had already been begun. Next year it was understood a Bill would be introduced by which land purchase in Ireland would be largely accelerated. The first essential of land purchase was a correct map, so that he thought both landlords and tenants had a strong case in asking Parliament to put it in the power of the Ordnance Survey Department to undertake at once the survey of the counties yet remaining to be surveyed, and to bring the matter to as speedy a conclusion as possible.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I am informed that much has been done to accelerate the re-survey of Ireland during the last three years. The out-turn of the surveyors is fully 75 per cent, greater than it was three years ago, and the out-turn of publication, although it has not yet increased in proportion, will eventually keep pace with the survey unless kept back by want of buildings. The provisions made for the work of the Ordnance Survey in Ireland has been steadily increased in recent years, and amounts this year to as much as £84,000, or more than 37 per cent, of the whole Vote for the United Kingdom. It is expected that the re-survey of Ireland and the publication of the maps will be completed well before the appointed date, viz., the 31st December, 1915. five years earlier than was expected when the programme of the survey was originally arranged. Re-survey on the
434
25-inch scale is proceeding in Antrim, Cork, Donegal, Down, Limerick, Tipperary, and Waterford, and it is complete in Clare, Galway, Kerry, Kilkenny, Mayo, and the south half of Roscommon. The special revision of the 1-inch map of Ireland will also be completed during the present financial year. The President of the Board of Agriculture would be glad to see his way to further the progress of the survey both in Ireland and elsewhere, but the charge upon the Exchequer is a very heavy one, amounting in all to some £282,000, and there is no probability that an application to the Treasury for further funds would be successful.
House adjourned at a quarter past Twelve o'clock a.m. till Three o'clock p.m.