Sitting of 3 June 1902

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.
UNOPPOSED PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  BEXHILL AND ROTHERFIELD RAILWAY (ABANDONMENT) BILL.
  Read the third time, and passed.
  CHIGWELL, LOUGHTON, AND WOODFORD GAS BILL [LORDS].
  Read the third time, and passed with Amendments.
  CROYDON AND DISTRICT ELECTRIC TRAMWAYS BILL.
  Read the third time, and passed.
  SCOTTISH EQUITABLE LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY BILL [LORDS].
  Read the third time, and passed with Amendments.
  CITY AND BRIXTON RAILWAY BILL.
  As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  MEDWAY AND THAMES CANAL BILL [LORDS].
  Read a second time, and committed.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL,
    PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL,
      PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 4) BILL.
      Read a second time, and committed.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 6) BILL.
  Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill to be read the third time tomorrow.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (HOUSING OF WORKING CLASSES) BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill, as amended, to be considered tomorrow.

  FINUHLEY IMPROVEMENT BILL.
    ABERTILLERY URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL [LORDS],
      BRADFORD-ON-AVON GAS BILL [LORDS].
      Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
  Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed].
  Bill to be read the third time tomorrow.

  PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP K).
  Sir JOHN BRUNNER reported from the Committee on Croup K of Private Bills, That the parties promoting the Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill had stated that the evidence of Mr. John Allingham, Junior, of the Harbour Offices, Waterford, was essential to their case, and, it having been proved that his attendance could not be procured without the intervention of the House, he had been instructed to move that the said John Allingham, Junior, do attend the said Committee on Friday, at half-past Eleven of the clock.
  Ordered, that John Allingham, Junior, do attend the said Committee on Group K of Private Bills on Friday, at half-past Eleven of the clock.

  PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP K).
  Sir JOHN BRUNNER reported from the Committee on Group K of Private Bills, That, for the convenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned till Thursday next, at half-past Eleven of the clock.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

  STANDING ORDERS.
  Resolution reported from the Committee,
  "That, in the case of the Barrow Hæmatite Steel Company, Limited, Bill [Lords], the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with. That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."
  Resolution agreed to.

  UNIVERSITY OF WALES (GRADUATES) BILL.
  Reported, without Amendment, from I the Standing Committee on Law, etc.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 199.]
  Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 199.]
  Bill [not amended] to be taken into consideration tomorrow.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to :—
  Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order (No. 1) Bill without Amendment. Amendments to—
  London and South Western Railway Bill [Lords].
  Street Urban District Council Water Bill [Lords].
  Tyne Improvement Commission Bill [Lords], without Amendment.
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to provide for placing the Imperial Institute under the management of the Board of Trade; and for other purposes." (Imperial Institute Bill)—[Lords.]
  And also a Bill, intituled, "An Act for reviving and extending the period limited by the Hastings Harbour District Railway Act, 1897, for the compulsory purchase of lands, and for extending the period limited by that Act for the construction of the Railways and works by that Act authorised." Hastings Harbour District Railway. (Extension of Time) Bill—[lords.]

  HASTINGS HARBOUR DISTRICT RAILWAY (EXTENSION OF TIME) BILL [LORDS].
  Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

  LAND DRAINAGE PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill to be read the third time tomorrow.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL.
  Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill to be read the third time tomorrow.

PETITIONS.
  BOROUGH FUNDS ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  Petition from Woolwich, in favour, to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petitions against: Prom Fordsham; Bedford; Oughtibridge; Measborough Dyke; North Shields; Rotherham; Leeds; and, Pocklington; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petitions for alteration: From Leeds (five); and Durham; to lie upon the Table.
  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION.
  Petition from Merthyr Tydvil, for alteration of law; to lie upon the Table.
  FINANCE BILL.
  Petitions for alteration: From East Ham (two); Stoke Newington; and Barking; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSING BILL.
  Petitions in favour: From Whitby; Moss Side; East Drayton; Blackburn (two); and Northampton; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION BILL.
  Petition from London, in favour; to lie upon the Table
  MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER BILL.
  Petitions against: From Cheltenham; Southampton; Plymouth; Lewes (three); St. Albans; Walthamstow; Carlisle (three); Horsleydown; Ashton-under-Lyne; and Wokingham; to lie upon the Table.
  PLUMBERS' REGISTRATION BILL.
  Petition from Strabane, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  LIGHT RAILWAYS ACT, 1896.
  Copy presented, of Order made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and modified and confirmed by the Board of Trade, authorising the construction of Light Rai ways from Tenterden to Headcorn, in the county of Kent, and at Roberts-bridge, in the county of Sussex, and for other purposes (Rother Valley Light Railway (Extensions) Order, 1902) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  LIGHT RAILWAYS ACT, 1896.
  Copy presented, of Order made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and confirmed by the Board of Trade, amending The Lizard Light Railway Order, 1898 (Lizard Light Railway (Amendment) Order, 1902) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  LIGHT RAILWAYS ACT, 1896.
  Copy presented, of Order made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and modified and confirmed by the Board of Trade, authorising the construction of a Light Railway in the county of East Suffolk, between Southwold and Kessing-land, and the conversion of the gauge of the existing Southwold Railway and the working thereof as a Light Railway under The Light Railways Act, 1896 (Southwold Light Railway Order, 1902) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  LIGHT RAILWAYS ACT, 1896.
  Copy presented, of Order made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and modi-
  1262
  fied and confirmed by the Board of Trade, authorising the construction of a Light Railway in the county of York, from Stainland with old Lindley to Greetland (Deanhead Light Railway Order, 1902) [by Command]; to he upon the Table.

  LIGHT RAILWAYS ACT, 1896.
  Copy presented, of Order made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and modified and confirmed by the Board of Trade, amending the Gower Light Railway Order, 1897 (Gower Light Railway (Amendment) Order, 1902) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  LIGHT RAILWAYS ACT, 1896.
  Copy presented, of Order made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and modified and confirmed by the Board of Trade, authorising the construction of light railways in the borough of Swansea and in the rural district of Llangyfelach, in the county of Glamorgan (Swansea and District Light Railways Order, 1902) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  LIGHT RAILWAYS ACT, 1896.
  Copy presented, of Order made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and modified and confirmed by the Board of Trade, amending the Grimsby and Salt-fleetby Light Railway Order, 1898 (Grimsby and Salt fleet by Light Railway (Amendment) Order, 1902) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  LIGHT RAILWAYS ACT, 1896.
  Copy presented, of Report of the Proceedings of the Board of Trade up to the 31st December, 1901, and of the proceedings of the Light Railway Commissioners up to the same date [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 198.]
  EAST INDIA (INDIA OFFICE, RETIREMENT AT SIXTY-FIVE).
  Return presented, relative thereto [Address 30th May; Lord G. Hamilton]; to lie upon the Table.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Alleged Unnecessary Inquest.
  SIR JOHN LENG: To ask Mr. Attorney General whether his attention has been called to the holding of an inquest on a man aged seventy who died lately in his own home at Mapplewell, after being ill for more than three years of cancer; if he will explain why an inquest was held in this case; and whether he will promote legislation to prevent inquests being necessary in such cases.
  (Answer.) I find, on inquiry, that an inquest was held in this case to explain the reason of the deceased man's having a dislocation of the hip, complicated by fracture of the thigh bone; and that it was only after very careful attention to the medical evidence at the inquest that the jury were enabled to return a verdict to the effect that the death was purely natural, and that the injuries to the; bones were the result of the cancerous growth, and were not due, as had appeared possible, to a fall or external violence of some kind. Under these circumstances, it seems impossible to say that the coroner did not properly exercise the discretion given him by the Act.—(Home Office.)

Deaths from Use of Electricity in Mines.
MR. MARKHAM: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will state the number of deaths due to the use of electricity in mines or shafts from 1st January, 1902, to 29th May.
(Answer.) I am unable to give the figures asked for without special reference to every inspector, to whom, and not to the Home Office direct, the accidents are reported. The particulars of such accidents as those in question are given in the annual Reports and Returns; and, unless some special object is to be attained, I do not think it desirable to call for special Returns from the inspectors at irregular intervals.—(Home Office.)

Scottish Congested Districts Board—Inverlael Farm.
MR. WEIR: To ask the Lord Advocate, seeing that the farm of Inverlael, in the parish of Loch broom, Ross-shire, formerly supported many crofter families, and is now vacant, will the Secretary for Scotland consider the expediency of communicating with the proprietor with a view to the acquisition of the farm by the Congested Districts Board for the creation of new holdings.
(Answer.) The Secretary for Scotland is informed that no part of the farm of Inverlael is now vacant. Some ten or twelve years ago a part of it was taken from the farmer and given by the proprietor in extension of crofter holdings. The transference of the remainder, after buying out the farm tenant, is now a completed transaction.—(Scottish Office.)

Telegraphic Communication with the Orkney Islands.
MR. CATHCART WASON: To ask the Lord Advocate if his attention has been called to the fact that a petition from the island of North Ronaldshay, praying that telegraphic communication should be-established with the mainland, was refused consideration by the Post Office owing to the extensive nature of the work; and whether, seeing that the population of the island is over 400, that there is no medical officer there, and that medical or surgical attendance can only be procured after considerable delay, he will consult with the Northern Lighthouse Commission, the Scotch Fishery Board, and the Congested Districts Board as to the establishment of communication by heliograph, semaphore, or pigeon post.
(Answer.) The Secretary for Scotland-is not prepared to initiate action in the direction indicated by the hon. Member. He will, however, be happy to consider any scheme for facilitating communication that may be laid before him by those interested.—(Scottish Office.)

Judicial Arrangements in Ayrshire.
MR COCHRANE: To ask the Lord Advocate whether, in view

1265
of the fact that there is now a vacancy in the offices of sheriff and commissary clerk at Ayr, he will, in any re-arrangement, consider the claims of Kilmarnock as a convenient business centre for the county.
(Answer.) The new arrangements rendered necessary by the death of the commissary clerk of Ayrshire are at present under the consideration of the Treasury, and the whole matter will be duly considered by the Secretary for Scotland and myself, but I do not think it is at all probable that the commissariat of Ayrshire will be treated in a different manner from that of all the other Scottish counties.—(Scottish Office.)

Afghan Subjects in Persia.
MR WEIR: To ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state why British consulate protection is no longer afforded to Afghan subjects in Persia.
(Answer.) It was arranged between His Majesty's Government and the Persian Government in 1890 that the Persian authorities would receive in a friendly spirit representations made by British diplomatic and consular agents on behalf of Afghan subjects who might appeal to them. There has been no departure from this arrangement.—(Foreign Office.)

Overcrowding of 'Buses and Trams.
MR. WEIR: To ask the President of the Board of Trade, seeing that the overcrowding of omnibuses and tram cars is prohibited, and that the overcrowding of railway carriages causes inconvenience to passengers, and has resulted in accidents, will he consider the expediency of introducing legislation such as will render railway companies liable to penalties in cases of overcrowding.
(Answer.) It is not the intention of the Board of Trade to propose such legislation.—(Board of Trade.)

Vaccination—Exemption Certificates.
MR. CORRIE GRANT: To ask the Secretary of State for the Horns Department whether he is aware that Mr. E. Dew made applica-
1266
tion to the Spelthorne sessions, Staines, on Monday, 5th May, for an exemption certificate on the ground of conscientious objection to vaccination; that, four of the magistrates being in favour of granting the certificate and four against, it was refused; and, seeing that under the circumstances two of the magistrates who were in favour of granting the certificate could have signed the certificate, whether he will state what action he proposes to take.
(Answer.) I am advised that where a majority of the justices sitting in petty sessions are not in favour of granting a certificate of exemption from vaccination, it would not be proper for any minority to grant the certificate unless the other justices present abstained from adjudicating in the case. There is no action which I can take in the matter.—(Home Office).

Notification of Accidents in Mines—Departmental Committee.
MR. MARKHAM: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will state the names of the Departmental Committee he has nominated to inquire into the matter of accidents in mines; whether any of these gentlemen have any practical experience of coal mining or electricity, and whether any of them hold a first-class certificate; and, if not, whether he will forthwith appoint representatives of both the coal-owners and workmen to advise him on this inquiry.
(Answer.) I have not appointed any Committee to inquire into accidents in mines. That subject was fully investigated a few years ago by a Royal Commission. The Committee to which I referred, in answer to a Question some days ago, was appointed to report on the system of notification of accidents, not in mines only, but in all industries.—(Home Office.)

Deaths from use of Electricity in Mines.
MR MARK HAM: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, having regard to the fact that Mr. A. H. Stokes, His Majesty's Inspector of Mines in the Midland District, has stated that the two fatal accidents due to electricity

1267
occurring in his district during the year 1901 could have been avoided if, in the first case, an earth return had not been employed; and, in the second case, if the motor terminals had been properly protected, whether be will explain why, under these circumstances, he did not forthwith order an inquiry into these two cases, and why his Department made no request to the companies in question, to grant facilities for such an inquiry.
(Answer) Only one fatal accident due to electricity occurred in the Midland District in the year 1901. Another, which is perhaps alluded to, occurred at Wyken Colliery in September 1900. In both cases full inquiry was made by the inspector with the result shown in his report. Every facility appears to have been afforded him to ascertain the facts, which were also given in evidence at the coroner's inquest held in each case.—(Home Office.)

Civil Service—Abstractor Clerks.
SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Order in Council of 15th August 1S90 applied to the abstractor, class of clerks on 20th October 1894, on 27th January 1897, or even on 14th September 1899, on which date an efficient established abstractor formally protested against being compelled to come under Clause 10 of that Order.
(Answer.) Clause 10 of the Order of August 1890—as extended by Clause 18 of the Order of November 1898—became applicable to the Abstractor Class for the first time on 29th November 1899. But apart from Orders in Council there is a right inherent in every head of Department to retire an officer at any time at which he considers that the interests of the service make it desirable.—(Treasury.)
MR. NANNETTI: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that officials known as abstractors perform precisely similar duties as second division clerks, and seeing that the latter class of Civil Servant receives an initial salary of £70
1268
a year, rising rapidly to £250 and higher, while it takes an abstractor twelve years to reach £100 a year and twenty-two years to reach the maximum of £150; will he take steps to obtain from the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury their sanction to an improvement in the prospects of abstractors, considering that abstractors have had training in Government duties as boys.
(Answer.) The scale of salary for abstractors is not peculiar to the Post Office but is general for the various public departments in which abstractors are employed, and the Postmaster General sees no reason to make any representation on the subject so far as the officers of the abstractor's class in the employment of the Post Office Department are concerned.—(Post Office.)

Grimsby Post Office.
SIR WALTER POSTER: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is prepared to give an answer to the petition, forwarded to him in February, from the indoor staff of the Grimsby post office, asking that a Home Office inspector might inspect and report upon the sanitary conditions of the office.
(Answer.) The Postmaster General has received reports upon the head telegraph office at Grimsby, which is presumably the office referred to. These do not lead to the conclusion that the conditions of the building are insanitary; but he has called for a further report from the local medical officer of the post office; and when that has been received he will decide what further measures, if any, are necessary. There is no reason to suppose that the requirements of the Factory Acts, if they were applicable to such a building, are not fulfilled—(Post. Office.)

Coronation Processions—Facilities for Members.
MR. JOSEPH A. PEASE: To ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he can now state the position of the seats to be provided for Members of Parliament, and their friends, on the 26th and 27th June; and whether, in the event of

1269
the Coronation procession not passing in front of such seats on the 27th, seats can be provided on the Speaker's Green.
(Answer.) The stands for Members of this House, and their friends, to view the Royal processions on the 26th and 27th of June, will be on either side of the road leading past New Palace Yard from Bridge Street to St. Margaret's Church. A plan can be seen at Mr. Speaker's Secretary's Office. The pro cession will on both days pass in front of these stands.—(Office of Works.)

Coronation Processions—Allowances to Provincial Volunteers.
MR. LOWE: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will explain why any allowance whatever is made to Volunteers from outside London, attending the Coronation ceremonies, seeing that their attendance is purely voluntary, and simply as spectators.
(Answer.) An allowance is given as a concession in and of food for the men on a great public occasion, as was done at the Jubilee of the late Queen. It should be clearly understood that these Volunteers are in excess of the numbers required from a military standpoint.—(War Office.)

Labuan.
SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state what decision has been come to by the Colonial Office with regard to the matters referred to in the Petition of the inhabitants of Labuan concerning the British North Borneo Company.
(Answer.) A great many points are raised in the petition, and I have not yet had time to come to a decision upon them.—(Colonial Office.)

Coronation—Colonial Representatives—Boer Representatives.
MR. HARMSWORTH: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can state whether any representatives from the two new colonies are to be invited to the Coronation of
1270
His Majesty; and, if so, if he can give the names of such representatives, and whether any of the Boer leaders will be included in the invitation.
(Answer.) It is not proposed to take any steps as regards the representation of the new Colonies at the Coronation. Representatives from those Colonies could hardly reach this country in time for the Coronation.—(Colonial Office.)

Church Discipline—Funeral of Reverend R. Dolling—Service at St. Saviour's, Poplar.
MR. BRAND: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is aware that the services held at St. Saviour's Church, Poplar, in connection with the decease of the Reverend R. Dolling, including vespers for the dead, the celebration of a requiem mass, the censing and aspersing of the coffin, and the pronouncement of absolution; and that at subsequent funeral service the Bishop of London and the Bishop of Stepney were copes; and, whether, in view of the prevalence among a section of the clergy of such practices, the Government will, by legislation or otherwise, take steps for facilitating the enforcement of the ecclesiastical law.
(Answer.) I am informed that the hon. Member is incorrect in stating that the bishops mentioned were present at the services described in the Question. On the contrary, the only service at which they were present was in strict conformity with the Prayer Book and was of the simplest possible kind. I understand that in wearing a cope on this occasion the bishops were acting legally. I have no information as to the character of any other services in this church of which the hon. Member complains.—(Treasury.)

(2.15.) QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  South African War—Boer Orphans in the Concentration Camps.
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can state the number of orphan children

  1271
  in the concentration camps in South Africa; has any offer been made by responsible persons through a channel representative of the Dutch Reformed Church in Cape Colony to provide good homes for such orphans; and, in that case, what reply has been given thereto.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN.): I have no information as to the number of orphans in the concentration camps, and I have heard nothing of any such offer as is referred to in the Question, but Lord Milner has informed me that orphan ages are being established in all the camps in the Transvaal.
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire if such an offer has been received from responsible persons?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I can only say I have received no information to that effect.

  Loyalists' War Losses.
  MR BARTLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the Compensation Board, established in the Colony of Natal to consider the claims of loyal subjects, has been sitting for six months and has divided the claims into five classes, the first of which are still under consideration; and whether any steps can be taken to expedite the action so that the bulk of the English farmers affected may, with the least possible delay, be able to make a start on their farms.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The. Natal Invasion Losses Inquiry Commission has been sitting since. December 1899. All classes of claims, for direct losses by individuals have been considered and assessed; 75 per cent. of the sum assessed has been advanced to the clamants by the. Natal Government, and it is under stood that; the work of the Commission is nearing completion.

  Indian Coolies in South Africa.
  MR MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the fact that cab drivers have been fined 5s. each at Johannesburg for carrying Indian coolies as fares; whether this judgment is in accordance with the regulations at present in force in Johannesburg; and whether it is intended to take steps to secure equality of treatment for all races in South Africa.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I have heard nothing of the facts alleged in the Question. If the hon. Gentleman will send me any detailed information he has received on the subject I shall be happy to make inquiry.
  MR. MACVEAGH: Has not the right bon. Gentleman heard that it was reported in the Daily Mail?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir.

  Boer Prisoners of War—Statistics.
  MR JOHN ELLIS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what is the total number of prisoners of, war in South Africa and elsewhere; at what places are they confined, and what is the number at each place; and can he state how many boys under the age of sixteen years and men over sixty are included in the total.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK, Surrey, Guildford): The figures on Saturday, 3rd May, 1902, the latest date for which returns have been received, were as follows :—

  Burghers.

  1. Cape Colony

  1,055

  2. Natal

  855

  3. St. Helena

  5,679

  4. Bermuda

  4,543

  5. Celyon

  4,939

  6 India.

  8,484

  Total.

  25,555

  The number of boys under sixteen is 783, and of men over sixty 1,025.

  Commandant Kritzinger.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary, of State for War whether he will state on what

  1273
  grounds he withheld the particulars of the trial of Commandant Kritzinger, having regard to the fact that particulars of the trial of Commandant Scheepers have been given to the public; and will he say whether Scheepers was tried and convicted on the same charges as the charges on which Kritzinger was tried and acquitted; and was the evidence at both trials in the main identical.
  MR. BRODRICK: I have nothing to add to the answer which I gave the hon. Member on Wednesday last.†
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: The right hon. Gentleman has not said on what grounds he withholds the evidence in one case and publishes it in another.
  MR. BRODRICK: There was nothing which rendered it necessary to publish the evidence in that trial more than any other.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: But was not the evidence identical in the two cases?

  War Office Establishment.
  MR CHARLES HOBHOUSE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will state what is the number of civilian clerks displaced, or who have retired, and whose places are now occupied by ex-officers and noncommissioned officers and privates.
  MR. BRODRICK: The places of five higher division and staff clerks have been filled by retired officers and those of fifty-seven second division clerks, assistant clerks, and boy copyists by a similar number of pensioner clerks. In addition to this, forty-six pensioners have been employed in positions which would otherwise have necessitated the appointment of temporary civilian clerks to meet pressure of work.

  Armour Plate Contracts for the Navy.
  MR. JAMES HOPE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is in a position to state when invitations to tender are likely to be issued in respect of the armour plate required for the first class cruisers included in the Naval programme of last financial year.
  † See page 781.
  THE CIVIL LORD OF the ADMIRALTY (Mr. PRETYMAN, Suffolk, Woodbridge): The recent decision to increase the thickness of armour of the new vessels of the "County" class involved an alteration in the size of the ships, and consequently necessitated the preparation of a new set of detailed particulars, on which to invite tenders. These figures have now been received, and it is hoped that invitations to tender will be issued within a fortnight from the present date.

  Navy Boilers.
  LORD CHARLES BERESFORD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the proposed new circular boilers for the County class of ships are to be designed for forced or natural draught; and whether he has any objection to make the specification of these boilers public.
  MR. PRETYMAN: The proposed cylindrical boilers for the new ships of the County class will be designed for use with closed stokeholes in the case of one half of the ships, and for use with closed ashpits in the other half. It is not usual to publish the further details asked for in the Question.
  MR. WILLIAM ALLAN: Are the boilers designed for forced or natural draught?
  MR. PRETYMAN: I have said they are designed for use with closed stokeholes and ashpits.
  MR. WILLIAM ALLAN: But is it to be forced draught?
  MR. PRETYMAN: The answer implies that.
  MR. WILLIAM ALLAN: With the circular boilers?
  MR. PRETYMAN: Yes.
  MR. WILLIAM ALLAN: Then I beg to state that they are very badly designed.

  Military Outposts on the British Indian Frontier.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he will state what is the strength and total number of the several corps on military employment in those portions of the new province lying beyond the frontiers of British India, and whether he can state what troops compose this force; what is the number of British officers in charge of these trans-frontier troops; what is the estimated annual cost of these garrisons employed outside India; and from what revenue will the cost be defrayed.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord G. HAMILTON.): My answer is that which I gave to the question asked by the hon. Member on 15th March, 1901," viz., that there are no military outposts beyond the external frontier of British India.

  Natu Brothers.
  MR WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the claims of Sirdar Balvant Ramchandra Natu, of Poona which were sent to the Secretary of the Government of Bombay on 25th August last have yet been considered; and, if not, will he explain the cause of the delay.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: I have received no further information regarding this matter, and have nothing to add to my answer to the hon. Member's question of the 20th March last.
  MR. WEIR: I will put another Question.

  Newchwang.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will state what is the present position of negotiations as to Newchwang.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord CRANBORNE,): By the Convention between Russia and China
  1276
  signed on the 8th April, Russia has agreed to evacuate, within six months from that date, the south - western portion of the province of Mukden up to the River Liao, and to hand the railways over to China; and within a further period of six months to evacuate the remainder of the province of Mukden which includes Newchwang and the province of Kirin.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: Can the noble Lord say whether there has been a hitch since that time in regard to the railway?
  LORD CRANBORNE: I am afraid I must ask for notice of that Question.

  Select Committee on Savings Bank Funds.
  MR CHANNING: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether he is aware of the application now being made under the German and Belgian Governments of savings banks deposits for the building of working class dwellings, and of the recent statement made by the Prussian Minister of the Interior, that by this, application the Prussian Government expect to effect a complete solution of the problem; whether he has any official information showing that the use of the savings banks deposits for such purposes, and the widening of the area of investments, have made it possible in these and other Foreign countries to give a higher rate of interest to depositors than in Great Britain; and whether he will arrange that evidence and returns on these points be laid before the Select Committee on Savings Banks Funds.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF the EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH, Bristol, W.): I have seen statements of the kind alluded to in the first part of the Question, but I cannot vouch for their accuracy, and I think that the statement attributed to the Prussian Minister of the Interior must have been made more than a year ago. If the Committee should desire information on the matter, I understand that the Foreign Office would be prepared to furnish it. But I do not myself think that the Belgian system, for example,

  1277
  which includes ordinary commercial bills and promissory notes among the modes of investment of savings bank deposits, would be suitable for imitation here.

  Corn Duty.
  MR NANNETTI: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether he has received a copy of a resolution passed at the Irish Trades Congress held at Cork recently, protesting against the proposed tax on corn, and stating that it falls exclusively on the working classes; and whether, in view of similar resolutions from the workers generally, he will consider the advisability of substituting some other article which will not have such an effect on the circumstances of the poor of the whole country.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I have received this resolution, but I do not think that the description of the duty as falling exclusively on the working classes is at all correct, and I am not prepared to take the course suggested in the Question.

  Penrhyn Quarry Fatality.
  MR WILLIAM JONES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that on the 28th of April last, a workman at the Penrhyn Quarry fell down a shaft and died from the effects of the accident; and, having regard to the fact that the attention of the chief manager had been called some time back to the state of the shaft, also that the attention of the present acting manager had been called to it on the 24th February last.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. RITCHIE, Croydon): The facts of the case differ in one or two details from the terms of the Question. The workman did not fall down the shaft, but, when working at the bottom of it, fell down the sump, ten feet deep. The inspector had recommended the erection of fencing at the bottom of the shaft; and, though this is not required by the Quarries Act, the owners had partly erected the fencing, and were about to complete it, when the accident occurred. The inspector reports that the managers were not guilty of negligence, and that no proceedings can be taken.

  Railway Rates on Agricultural Produce.
  MR MANSFIELD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will arrange an inquiry into the question of railway rates for agricultural produce, with a view to the rates for home produce being reduced to those charged for similar traffic from abroad.
  THE PRESIDENT OF the BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR, Leeds, Central): I can not undertake to arrange for such an Inquiry until I have evidence of the existence of the grievance suggested. At present, I have no evidence that higher charges for the same or similar services are made by railway-companies for home produce as compared with imported produce. Such charges would be in direct contravention of the provisions of Section 27 of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1886. Any evidence as to specific cases that may be produced to me, either directly, or through my right hon. friend the President of the Board of Agriculture, would, of course, receive careful consideration.

  Dublin Post Office—Dual System.
  MR. NANNETTI: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware of the manner in which the dual system is carried on in the Dublin post office; that some 14 months ago a number of officers who had been up to that time employed in both the telegraph and sorting branches were withdrawn altogether from the telegraph branch and employed solely in the sorting office; and that these officers have recently been ordered to take up duty as telegraph operators; and whether, in the interest of the public, he will consider the advisability of preventing such officers from being called upon to transmit, receive, and transcribe messages under such circumstances, and, with a view to efficiency in the Dublin office, will he see his way to have the practice discontinued.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN, Worcestershire, E.): The Postmaster General is aware of the practice

  1279
  referred to. The officers in question are efficient telegraphists, and therefore the service does not suffer in any way by their being employed upon telegraph work. As I have already informed the House, inquiry is now being made into the working of the dual system, but I can make no statement as to the result.

  Irish Privy Council.
  MR MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he will state the number of members of the Privy Council in Ireland, and how many of them are Roman Catholics and Presbyterians respectively.
  THIS CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRE-LAND (Mr. WYNDHAM, Dover): The number is 54. I cannot say to what religious denomination they may belong.

  Irish Agrarian Crime Returns.
  MR MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he is now prepared to discontinue the Returns of Agrarian Crime in Ireland periodically issued for Ireland.
  MR. WYNDHAM: No, Sir.
  MR. MACVEAGH: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Home Secretary has refused to issue a similar Return for England? What is the object of issuing one for Ireland?
  MR. WYNDHAM: These Returns have been published for a great many years, and it has never been contemplated to discontinue them.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Will the right hon. Gentleman add a schedule showing how many of the crimes were manufactured by the Royal Irish Constabulary?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The Question on the Paper has been answered fully.

  Irish Local Government Act.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he
  1280
  will state when he proposes to introduce his Bill for the Amendment of the Local Government (Ireland) Act.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I hope to see the Vice-President of the Local Government Board in the course of the week. After that I shall, I think, be able to name a day. Various questions have arisen which have demanded more time for their consideration than I originally anticipated.

  Committals for Contempt of Court in Ireland.
  MR. P. A. M'HUGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to Returns issued by order of this House in regard to committals for Contempt of Court in Ireland; and whether, in view of the facts disclosed in these Returns, he will use his influence with the Government to give facilities this session for a discussion of the Contempt of Court Bill which stands for Second Reading on the Order Book of the House.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The reply to the first paragraph is, yes. The reply to the second is in the negative. The Government have already stated that there is no necessity for legislation in this matter, the rules which govern questions of contempt being well understood.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that as far back as 1882 legislation on this matter was promised positively from that bench?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I can only speak for the Government of which I am a member.

  Technical Education in Sligo.
  MR P. A. M'HUGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Department of Agriculture and Technical Education has not yet paid to the Sligo County Committee for Technical Education the equipment grants promised to that Committee in November last; and, seeing that the Sligo Committee, at its meeting on the 6th May, expressed its dissatisfaction at the delay

  1281
  of the Department in paying over to the 'County Council the amount of the equipment grants, can he explain the cause of the delay.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The delay in payment is primarily due to the fact that the accounts in respect to which the grants were approved were only received by the Department in the first week of April, and then in such a manner that they could not be dealt with until one of the inspectors had visited Sligo. The Report of the inspector is now before the Department, and the matter is being pushed forward as expeditiously as possible.

  Technical Education Grants for Cavan.
  MR. M'GOVERN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, is he aware that Professor Blair, of the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction in Ireland, gave an assurance to the Cavan County Council that, if the County Council raised a rate of one penny per pound, the Council would be given a similar amount by the Department of Agriculture and the Treasury, and that the County Council, acting on this assurance, raised a rate of one penny per pound; can he state whether the assurance of Professor Blair has been carried out, and what is the amount received by the County Council from the Department of Agriculture, and how much from the Treasury, for the years ending 31st March, 1901, and 31st March, 1902.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Mr. Blair gave an assurance that if a sum of £400 was contributed from the rates raised under the Technical Instruction Acts of 1889 and 1891, an equivalent amount would be available from the funds administered by the Board of Education, South Kensington, in addition to whatever might be available from the funds administered by the new Department. The county, however, contributed nothing in respect of the year ended 31st March, 1901, since which date the moneys administered by the South Kensington authorities have ceased to be available except in places which previously enjoyed them. There were no schemes in operation in Cavan in the year 1901, and no moneys were
  1282
  applied from State sources or, as I have stated, from the rates. In respect of 1902, a sum estimated at £1,810 has been allocated for purposes of agricultural instruction. One half of this is contributed from the funds of the new Department, and the remaining half from local rates. For the purposes of technical instruction, a further sum of £920 has been allocated, of which the Department contributes £720.

  Irish Fairs—Price Reports.
  MR DELANY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state who are the department reporters whose duty it is to attend the fairs in King's and Queen's Counties, and also the fairs they are supposed to attend; and what method those gentlemen adopt in collecting the information which they supply to the Department.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Mr. A. J. Owen reports on the selected fairs at Ballinakill, Maryborough, and Rathdowney, in Queen's County; and Mr. W. H. Atkinson on those at Banagher and Birr, in King's County. The method of collecting and compiling the prices is fully described by the new Department in a Report recently presented to Parliament. (Command Paper No. 1,057).
  MR. DELANY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how it is that, although I constantly attend these fairs, I never see any of these gentlemen?

  Portarlington Tenancy Dispute.
  MR DELANY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the proceedings of the Portarlington petty session on the 7th May in the case of R. Warburton and M. H. Franks v. John M'Gowan, in which the Bench gave an order for possession against the tenant under the 7th section of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1887; whether he is aware that this estate is in the Land Judges' Court since June, 1885, and that the tenants have repeatedly made offers for the purchase of their holdings, which have been declined by the Judge; and whether,

  1283
  pending the passing of the Land Bill, he will consider the advisability of taking steps to suspend evictions by registered letter in Ireland.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The late tenant owed three years rent. He was generously dealt with by the landlord, who offered to give a clear receipt on payment of one year's rent. I have already stated the reasons of the Land Judge for refusing to sell to the tenants under the Land Purchase Acts. The reply to the last inquiry is in the negative.

  Education Bill Finance.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can state when he hopes to be able to give notice of the arrangements which the Government will submit to the Committee on the Education Bill with regard to necessitous School Board districts.
  THE FIRST LORD OF the TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.): I hope to make the House acquainted with the proposals of the Government at an early date—in any case, before the House resumes the discussion of the Education Bill, after we have disposed of the Budget Bill; but I hope it will be before that.
  DR. MACNAMARA: I have to ask the First Lord of the Treasury a Question of which I have given him private notice, viz., what changes, if any, the Government propose to move in the scheme of financial administration contained in the Education Bill, as the result of the discussion in the country.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have answered that Question, as far as I think it can be answered, in my reply to the right hon. baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean.
  DR. MACNAMARA: Does the statement cover more than the cases of necessitous School Boards?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I did no promise to limit myself to necessitous
  1284
  School Boards, neither did I promise to make any statement. I said our proposals should be placed in the hands of hon. Members.

  Navy Estimates.
  MR EDMUND ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he will arrange for the postponement of the Report of Vote 8, Navy Estimates, until the Report of the Boiler Committee is in the hands of Members.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I shall certainly not put the Report down for an early date; indeed, it may not be put down at all, unless the House specially desires further discussion on the subject.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: Does the right hon. Gentleman know when the Boiler Committee's Report will be laid?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am afraid not, but I will make inquiry.

  Working Hours of Railway Servants.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will postpone taking the Vote for the Board of Trade until the Return of the hours worked by railway servants, promised in consequence of the Resolution of this House of 25th February last, has been presented and circulated.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not know when the Return in question is likely to be in the hands of Members, so that I can give no pledge on the subject. I will keep the Question in mind in fixing the date for the Board of Trade Vote.
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly press this Return forward, as it is very important in view of the discussion which took place.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I imagine that the date depends largely on how soon the particulars can be embodied in a Return.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I have to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can inform the House as to his proposals for the course of business.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: As the House is aware, there has been some difficulty in arranging public business, owing to events which are present to the minds of all of us. On carefully considering our, position. I think it will probably be for the convenience of the House that the discussion in Committee upon the Finance Fill should be taken as far as possible in a block, and I think it would be the best plan to begin that discussion on Monday next. Further, I ought to say, in regard to financial business, that my right hon. friend is under a pledge to give an opportunity for a discussion of the Loan Bill at an early date, and I think the evening sitting tomorrow would be a convenient opportunity for taking that. At the evening sitting on Thursday there is private business of some importance, which will probably limit greatly any time available for public business. At the morning sitting tomorrow we intend to proceed with the Education Bill. On Thursday I should not propose to take Supply, but to move a vote of thanks in connexion with the troops in South Africa, and I may possibly be able to present some other subsidiary resolution upon a closely-allied subject. That would occupy part, at all events, of the morning sitting. So the course of business will be, the Education Bill today and at the afternoon sitting tomorrow; the Loan Bill at the evening sitting tomorrow; the vote of thanks on Thursday; private business and, perhaps, some other small matters at the evening sitting on Thursday; Friday is allocated to private Members this week; and on Monday, under those circumstances, I hope to begin discussion in Committee of the Finance Bill.
MR LOUGHMight not the discussion of the Loan Bill be left to a rather later date than is proposed, so as to allow of longer notice?
THE CHANCELLOR OF the EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH, Bristol, W.): My right hon. friend bas been simply
1286
fulfilling a pledge that I gave in regard to the Loan Bill. The evening sitting tomorrow is not only the most convenient, but the only possible, occasion when I could make a statement, which, I think, ought to be made to the House as to the, present financial situation.

EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
Considered in Committee :—
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. J. W. LOWTHERin the chair.]
Clause 1 :—
MR. EDWARDSsaid he wished to move the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Anglesey. Its object was to secure the simplification of authority and the efficiency of the management as regarded the schools. He knew it was professed that the Bill was drafted with the same intent, but in his opinion it was very far from effecting it. Some time ago they were told that the Government had an open mind on certain questions, and he hoped they would show that to be the case in this instance. They were all agreed that simplification was very desirable, but he maintained that the Bill would not give them what they wanted. There were now two authorities dealing with education—the School Board and voluntary managers. But the Bill would give them in addition the education Committee appointed by the County Council, while local managers were to be appointed by the Education Committee, in addition to the ex officio members such as the local clergy. Thus the actual management of the schools was three removes away from the education authority, and he consequently failed to see where the simplicity came in. In fact the authority would have practically no control over the local management of the schools, and that he submitted was a very great defect. The position was very complicated in another way. There were three authorities, one to raise the rate, another to receive it, and the third to spend it. Could that be called simplicity of administration? The Amendment, however, would secure

1287
simplicity. It would make the local education authority and the local managers one and the same body, and it would secure the necessary local knowledge. County councillors were drawn from a very wide area and if parish councillors were substituted for them as the authority, the hon. Gentleman would get on the school management men living on the spot and interested in the success of the schools. They would be the best possible persons to place in control.
Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 7, after the second word "the," to insert the word "parish. "—(Mr. Edwards.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'parish' be there inserted"
THE VICE - PRESIDENT OF the BOARD OF EDUCATION (Sir JOHN GORST, Cambridge University)said he scarcely thought the Amendment was proposed in earnest. Could it really be intended to be suggested that the Parish Councils should be the authority for both primary and secondary education? He would point out that Parish Councils did not exist in every district, and that the Amendment would consequently leave some districts without any education authority. He thought that, in these circumstances, it was hardly worth while to discuss the Amendment further. No one would suggest that a Parish Council would be a proper authority to deal with secondary education.
Mr. HERBERT ROBERTSsuggested that the right hon. Gentleman was under a misapprehension. The power of the Parish Councils would be confined to elementary education, and there was no idea of setting them up as authorities to deal with secondary education. In his opinion, it would be impossible to establish a thoroughly efficient system of education unless they secured in some way the co-operation and sympathy of all the people in a locality, not that of mere sections. He could not believe that with the present divergence of authority the Bill would secure that end, unless they brought the Parish Councils into a position of being able to share in the management
1288
of the schools of a locality. Speaking as a Welsh Member, he would like to make it clear that they had no lack of confidence in their County Councils, but, at the same time, there was a great deal to be said in favour of setting up the proposed machinery in the Bill. They believed that the Amendment would, have the effect of bringing into play on behalf of elementary education the interests most concerned and the people best fitted by local knowledge to deal with it.
SIR WALTER FOSTERthought the right hon. Gentleman had hardly given the arguments of the mover of the Amendment the consideration they deserved. It was quite true that in many portions of the country there were no Parish Councils, but there were Parish Meetings which could arrange to undertake the work. He would like to point out that the Amendment moved in the direction of popular representation, and he would be very glad to see some Amendment accepted whereby people in every locality could, through their duly elected representative, have some control over the schools. That was the object of the Amendment, and it raised a question of the most vital importance in connection with educational work. It was desirable to bring it into harmony with the local organisations of the people in every district, and he hoped that in the transformation which the Bill would undergo, the Parish Councils would be given some share in the management of parish schools, and that the elected representatives of the people would have some control over the education of the children. He could conceive no object more worthy of the sympathy and support of the right hon. Gentleman.
MR. TREVELYANquite agreed as to the importance of bringing the parish into our educational system, but that was not the, proposition embodied in the Amendment. That proposed to make the parish the sole educational authority for all purposes. He did not think they could rely on small local authorities to provide all that they wanted. They desired to improve the education in their villages, and to do that they required more than

1289
the mere local interest which that proposal would bring into co - operation. First, money was needed and that was best obtained by means of a county rate. Next they wanted to receive the services of men of ability, and the wider the area of the choice the better chance of getting them, and the last thing necessary was local interest which the Amendment would alone provide. There should be some central authority over and above the parish, and he hoped that later on it would be possible to give under the Bill the Parish Councils a share in the local management. This proposal went a great deal further, and, under the circumstances, he could not support it. Some of his friends on that side of the House were rather uneasy about making the County Councils the authority for controlling education. They seemed to fear that the Councils would be too reactionary. It was, however, necessary to adopt progressive instincts in the matter of education, and they could not rely upon so small a local authority as the Parish Council providing that progressive, or on having that breadth of view, that largeness of mind, and that bigness of opportunity which was essential to a progressive policy. He, therefore, hoped that the Amendment would be rejected.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid he perfectly; understood the object of the Amendment, and he had considerable sympathy with the views which had been expressed by the mover, but he did not think it was a very practical proposal taken in connection with other parts of the Bill. It was supported by many of his hon. friends on the ground that they ought to use almost any means of introducing popular control over elementary education, a view with which he heartily sympathised. He hoped that when they came to the question of the schools themselves and their managers they would be able to induce the Government to allow the Parish Council, or, at all events, the ratepayers, the parents, to have a much larger voice in the matter than was given under the Bill. There were several considerations which made this Amendment inadvisable, and among others there was this—that there was a
1290
large number of parishes throughout England, parishes restricted in area, in which the Parish Councils would not approach the ideal authority to which the power proposed by this Amendment should be entrusted. He hoped, therefore, having obtained the satisfaction of a considerable amount of sympathy for his Amendment, the hon. Member would not trouble the House to go to a division.
MR. LAMBERTsaid he did not quite agree with his right hon. friend who had just spoken that the Parish Council would be a good authority for educational purposes.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I did not say so.
MR. LAMBERTsaid it would be an infinitely better authority than that proposed in the Bill. It had been suggested that the Parish Council lacked breadth of view and bigness of opportunity. He, as a parish councillor, entirely repudiated those charges, and he did think that the right hon. Gentleman the Vice-President of the Board of Education, instead of dealing with the Amendment in so perfunctory a manner, should have told them what the Government intended to do in regard to bringing in the Parish Councils, which certainly had some local interest in the matter. How did the right hon. Gentleman expect the schools to be managed if the Bill were carried in its present form? There were something like 560 schools in Devonshire. How could a county educational authority possibly manage them all? Did the Government intend to give the parish any sort of direct responsibility in a matter in which they ought to have some voice? The Parish Councils after all were a directly elected authority. In many parishes, no doubt, they had very little to do; but the proposal in the Amendment would enable them to usefully utilise their energies, and the Government might very well give them power of supervision over the local managers.
THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The hon. Member is rather anticipating

1291
a discussion which is to come on at a later stage, as to what is to be the authority.
MR. LAMBERTsaid he would only add that, in his opinion, they ought to know what were the intentions of the Government with regard to giving the Parish Councils a direct popular interest in education.
MR HERBERT LEWISsaid he too thought that the Government would have taken this opportunity of bringing the Parish Councils into more direct connection with educational work. They were the representatives of the people in the parish, and, therefore, ought to have a controlling voice in the management of the schools. There was no intention of making them the authority for secondary education, but if the representatives of the people in the locality were given a direct interest in the schools of the parish, many injustices which were now constantly heard of would soon be got rid of. The had received a letter from a teacher stating that he had played the church organ for twelve years, and had never been a single Sunday out of the parish during that period, and that if he wrote a history of the grievances of teachers it would fill a volume. Supposing the Parish Council had a direct official connection with the school, such grievances would be entirely impossible; the moral sense of the community would be brought to bear on the schools, and their management; and if the parents or the teachers had grievances they would be brought to the knowledge of the Parish Council. Moreover, it would bring the public in the locality into direct living interest with the schools. What was the secret of the success of the American school system? Was it not that in every district the people were associated, either directly or through their representatives, with the management of the schools, and they were willing to subscribe to objects in connection with the schools. At present a large number of people in England and Wales entirely withheld their subscriptions, simply and solely because neither as ratepayers nor through their representatives had they any say in the management of the schools. So far as
1292
secondary education was concerned, such a proposal would, he admitted, be entirely impracticable. In order to carry out the supervision of technical education, a certain number of parishes should be associated together, and the county was the best unit. But so far as elementary education was concerned the representatives of the locality ought to have some voice in its management. The Parish Council ought to be able to obtain some measure of control, and thereby promote the higher interests of education.
MR. JOSEPH A. PEASEsaid he wished to point out to his hon. friends how thoroughly impracticable the Amendment was. He himself represented a constituency which contained eighty-five parishes, many of them only containing from fifty to seventy electors. Many parishes had Parish Councils, but a large number had not; and further there was not a school in every parish. Therefore, if the Amendment were to be practical there should be some proposal to group parishes. Feeling on that side of the House was in favour of some kind of parish representation on the management on the lines suggested by the hon. Baronet the Member for Berwick in his speech on the Second Reading. He thought it would facilitate the progress of the Bill if the First Lord of the Treasury would indicate that he was prepared to make some concession in the matter at a later stage of the Bill.
MR. LLOYD-GFORGEsaid he thought there was some misapprehension in reference to the object of the Amendment. He did not understand that its object was to make the Parish Council the supreme educational authority. His hon. friend had an Amendment later providing that the County Council should be the supreme authority as far as education was concerned, and, therefore, his object was not to make the Parish Council supreme, but to carry out the suggestion of the hon. Baronet the Member for Berwick which had found support among educational experts, and which was that the Parish Council should be utilised in the management of the schools. That was an object which would commend

1293
itself to every hon. Member on that side of the House. He thought his hon. friend had served his purpose by having a discussion on the Amendment, though it would not be possible to have a fair and square division on it at that particular stage. He would there fore suggest to his hon. friend to withdraw the Amendment and move it later, when the question of the management of the schools arose.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I entirely agree with what has been said by my hon. friend the Member for the Carnarvon Boroughs, and I entirely sympathise with the view expressed by my right hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition that the Parish Councils should be introduced into the management of the schools. That is a perfectly sound principle, and I hope it will be carried out when we come to the question as to how the authorities should be constituted. That being so, I hope my hon. friend will withdraw his Amendment, until we come to deal with the management of the schools.
MR. EDWARDSsaid that after what had been stated he would withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE CHAIRMAN: The next Amendment, in the name of the hon. Member for North Camberwell, is, in page 1, line 8, to leave out "and of every county borough." That was disposed of last night.
DR. MACNAMARAsaid that the Amendment disposed of last night dealt with a number of authorities besides county boroughs, and he then ventured to express the hope that he would have an opportunity of raising in a definite form the question that county boroughs, and the county boroughs only, should be taken out of the scheme.
THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member evidently thought from his speech last night that the Amendment he then supported covered the Amendment on the Paper. That was the point on which he
1294
addressed the Committee. If the hon. Member will look at his Amendment in page 16, he will see that the first words are, "In every county borough." Yesterday the Committee decided that in every county borough the School Board was not to be the authority, and the greater includes the less. That seems to me to dispose of the hon. Gentleman's Amendment.
DR. MACNAMARAsaid that he used the words "School Board," but he did not imagine that School Boards would be elected in the future on the basis they were elected at present, and in speaking on the general proposition he said he hoped he would have an opportunity of dealing with the exclusion of the county boroughs from the scheme.
THE CHAIRMAN: I must attach to the words "School Board" the meaning ordinarily attaching to them. In the future the words may mean something else, but at present I consider the Committee have disposed of the hon. Gentleman's Amendment.
MR. CORRIE GRANTsaid he desired to move the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for the Loughborough Division. Its effect would be to postpone until the County Councils had been reelected the consideration of the matters entrusted to them under the Act. He submitted that that was a very important and perfectly fair proposition, The present County Councils were elected to discharge duties imposed on them under the present statutes. When they were elected no one imagined that they would have to deal with schemes for education, and that they would be called on to undertake the very important duties to be committed to them under the Bill before the Committee. If the county electors knew that large questions affecting elementary and secondary education would have to be dealt with, they might have re-considered their decision. He admitted that the Amendment would require a great deal of consequential alteration, but he submitted that the Committee should have regard for the principle of the Amendment, which was that the electors

1295
should have the right to choose men who would have, for a considerable period, the management of both elementary and secondary education. If the Bill passed as it stood, the present County Councils would be called upon to frame schemes which would afterwards have the affect of an Act of Parliament, and which could only be altered by a Provisional Order. It was, therefore, only right that the county electors should have the opportunity of choosing men for that particular purpose. He begged to move.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 8, after the word 'borough,' to insert the words 'elected after the passing of this Act.'"—(Mr. Corrie Grant.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR A. J. BALFOURhoped the hon. Gentleman would not press this Amendment, because it would be seen on consideration that it was in applicable to many of our local authorities, and was quite unexampled in our legislative methods. The hon. Gentleman proposed that the County Councils should be re-elected before having thrown on them the duties under this Act. That was clear and definite as regards counties, but not as regards boroughs. Under the Amendment, three years must elapse before the Bill became operative in boroughs. But he had no wish to rest his case on the Amendment alone; he rested it on a broader ground. He thought it was inconvenient in itself to delay the question for three years; he saw no object in differentiating between the counties and the boroughs. He went further; this was an entire innovation in dealing with great assemblies of this character. The House must necessarily, in the course of time, throw entirely new duties on these bodies, such as were never contemplated when they were elected, and it was an entire innovation to suggest that when new duties were thrown upon them they should require re-election before they undertook the duties. No precedent existed for such a suggestion. Were the duties given to local authorities under the Bill so absolutely novel that a change in the constitution of
1296
those authorities was absolutely necessary? After all, it must be remembered that these bodies carried out this great educational work, of not indeed primary education, but what was believed to be-primary education, before the Cockerton judgment was delivered. Those duties were thrown upon these bodies without requiring the re-election of the whole body, and he trusted the House would not think it necessary, for so elementary a provision of the Bill, to adopt the unprecedented course suggested by the right hon. Gentleman.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTurged that there was much to be said in favour of giving the ratepayers time to consider whether their elected representatives were to undertake these duties. What educational work the local authorities now discharged was a mere trifle compared with the work they were to be asked to undertake with regard to secondary and technical education, and the instruction of the teachers, and, above all, primary education all over the country. He thought the right of the ratepayers to an opportunity for considering so great a subject as this should be safeguarded.
MR. McKENNApointed out that if the First Lord of the Treasury looked at Clause 20 of the Bill he would see that it gave the Board of Education liberty to do things which, up to now, the right hon. Gentleman had said was an innovation of the law. The right hon. Gentleman could not have understood the purport of Clause 20. Why was the Board of Education to have power to defer the operation of the Bill until twelve months after March 26th, 1903? Was it not intended by that that there should be an election? This was a matter that would have to be explained. He had no doubt in his mind that the intention of not allowing the Act to come into force until then was that there should be an election. The right hon. Gentleman had said this was an innovation, but he thought it was essentially a matter upon which the ratepayers should express an opinion as to whether these bodies should take over the duties of elementary education or not.
MR HENRY HOBHOUSEsaid that the delay provided for in Cause 20 was simply to enable the scheme to be prepared. It would be impossible to administer this Bill until the central authority was formed, and that must take some time. The date chosen was probably that which marked the close of the financial year. The result of the Amendment would be to put off the operation of the Bill for two years.
MR.MAURICE LEVYsaid he felt compelled to take a division on this Amendment, unless the First Lord of the Treasury would accept it. The persons who would form the new educational authority had never been elected for the particular purpose prescribed by this Bill. The First Lord of the Treasury said that these authorities had heretofore had some educational work to carry out. That was so in certain districts, but the County Councils had certainly had no educational work to perform so far as primary education was concerned, and it was only fair that the ratepayers should decide who should be their representatives on the Educational Board. If they took the Borough Councils as at present constituted, they would probably eliminate from the Education Committee some of the most expert educationists in the country. Of course, the Opposition were not at all pleased with the principle of the Bill, believing that as drafted it would not conduce to a good, moral and intellectual education, but this Amendment did not affect the principle. It was simply an Amendment dealing with a detail of the Bill, viz., giving to rate-payers the right they demanded, and the opportunity of saying who should be their representatives in arranging for the education of their children in the near future. He, therefore, appealed to the First Lord of the Treasury to accept the Amendment.
COLONEL KENYON-SLANEYsaid as he understood it was intended by the Bill to have new County Councils elected. With the experience which they had already had, the existing County Councils were quite competent to deal with this matter. The Shropshire County Council had spent £10,000 on
1298
the purposes of education, and he failed to see any reason for postponing the operation of the Bill until the new Council had been formed to carry out another portion of the educational scheme. He saw no reason whatever for postponing the bringing into force of the scheme of the Government on the ground which had been suggested.
SIR EDWARD STRACHEYsaid the hon. and gallant Gentleman had omitted to notice that the £10,000 administered by the County Council of Shropshire to the satisfaction of the ratepayers was not raised out of the rates of the county, but came out of the "whisky money." When the ratepayers of a County Council district were asked to rate themselves to the extent of 8d. or 10d. in the £—which many believed would be the result of the Bill—it was only right and fair that they should have an opportunity of saying whether or not they desired the Bill to be adopted. If the Government changed their mind with regard to optional principle, it might be a different matter, but, so long as the original intention of the Government was adhered to, it was obvious that such an opportunity as the Amendment suggested should be given to the people of the district concerned.
MR. GEORGE WHITEpointed out that while the County Council would have to frame a scheme by which the education authority would be selected, he could discover no provision in the Bill by which that authority could be removed. Possibly it would go out of office with the County Council, but at any rate, the nominated portion would apparently be a permanent body. From that point of view, it was desirable that the ratepayers should have some voice in the election of the body. It had also to be borne in mind that the duties were of an altogether different character from those connected with, technical education. It was impossible to make any such comparison as that suggested by the First Lord of the Treasury and the hon. Member for Newport, between the work of the Technical Education Committee and the management of both primary and secondary education. The argument

1299
that there was no precedent for waiting for an election before fresh duties were devolved on these local authorities was not a good one, because there was no case in which duties of so opposite a nature to those ordinarily discharged by the County Council had been so devolved. As the Bill provided an option, the electorate surely had a right to instruct the representatives as to whether or not they desired them to take over the duties in question. This being only a detail, though an important one, the Government would do well to yield to the strong reeling which had been expressed in regard to the matter.
MR. H. J. WILSONagreed that the electors ought to be consulted before a Council saddled itself and its successors with duties and responsibilities which there was no idea of their having to undertake at the time they were elected. If the Government really believed the Bill would be acceptable to the ratepayers, why should they be afraid of allowing them an opportunity to make up their minds on this point?
MR. BOUSFIELDsaid that, if the option was to be preserved, the manner in which that option should be exercised would be a matter for the serious consideration of the Government. It might be desirable for the Government to consider whether there should not be some opportunity for the people definitely to express their opinion on the point before the Council exercised the option. But the proper time to discuss that matter would be when Schedule I. was before the Committee. In that schedule it provided for a calendar month's notice being given of the meeting, and so on, and it might also be provided that the meeting should not be held until after such and such an election had taken place. The present, however, was not the proper time for discussing such a proposal.
MR BRYCEthought the hon. Member had candidly admitted that there was a great deal to be said for the Amendment on the basis of the retention of the option. Having regard to the statement of the First Lord in introducing the Bill, there was
1300
no reason to suppose that option was to be dropped; on the contrary, he believed the Government would retain it. The right hon. Gentleman had referred to the practice of Parliament when devolving new duties upon local authorities, but he had given no instance of duties being devolved in which the authorities had an option as was now proposed. When local authorities had to undertake new duties nolens volens, the case was entirely different from that in which they had an option. That fact gave strength to the contention that the electors should have an opportunity of saying whether or not their local authority should undertake these duties, and such an opportunity was all the more necessary in view of the great difference of opinion which existed on the part of the local authorities themselves. The electors had a right to choose the persons who should start this machinery. The first two or three years would be the vital and determining period, and it was most important that the electors should have the opportunity of putting on the Councils men whom they knew to be competent to deal with educational questions. Moreover, if the School Boards were to go, the men who had served on those bodies ought to have a chance of getting on the Borough Councils.
MR. CHARLES ALLENcontended that, as the Bill would effect a complete revolution in our educational system, they ought certainly to have an opportunity of consulting the electorate in order that the ratepayers might say who should be the men to form the first authority. That was a matter of principle, but there was a practical matter also which had not yet been referred to very much, and which was important. Hitherto the County Council election had been exceedingly slack. In his own constituency at the election before last there was only one contest, whereas at the last election there was no contest at all. If they had known that an Education Bill such as this was going to be brought forward there would have been a contest in every district. They had a right before this Rill was put into force to have a contest in order to settle certain questions.
DR. MACNAMARAsaid he deplored the backward condition of this country in regard to education as much as any one, but the Committee must remember that rash haste was half-sister to delay, and if there was delay here, it was upon the stubborn head of the Government, because they had not allowed the county boroughs to have any voice in this matter. There was only one precedent for this proposal, and that was the Metropolitan Board of Works, which very rapidly went to pieces because of the powers thrust upon it. It was physically impossible in the county boroughs for this work to be taken on by the councils, and it would all end in muddle. The Members of the Government belonged to an aristocratic class. [Ministerial cries of "Oh, oh!"] That was not his view, but the opinion of the Vice President of the Council, who, on the 23rd of December, 1897, said at Bristol that the members of the Government belonged to an aristocratic class who believed that certain functions in modern civilised life were best performed by ignorant people.
SIR JOHN GORST: I wish the hon. Member, when he does me the honour of quoting my words, would quote them correctly.
DR. MACNAMARAasked if the right hon. Gentleman had corrected the newspaper report.
SIR JOHN GORST: No.
DR. MACNAMARAsaid it was about time he did. He did not believe that the Government desired to put back the education of the country to the extent that was adumbrated in the quotation he had just made. The First Lord of the Treasury talked about the small amount of work which the councils did now, and it had been said that the Shropshire County Council were now spending £10,000 a year upon education. Take Leeds, Birmingham, Manchester and Liverpool. Each of these cities had 100,000 elementary school children to attend to, and 2,000 or 3,000 school teachers in their service. Each of these cities annually expended not £10,000, but £250,000, upon education without
1302
the voluntary schools, and the work, both financially and administratively, was much more detailed than the municipal work, and in all its bearings it was equal to the work which the councils now carried out. Was it conceivable that those cities could have all this extra educational work transferred to them, and not have a breakdown? This educational leap in the dark was the most portentous this country had ever taken without consulting the localities concerned. He wished the Government to go back to the position which they took up on this question in 1896. What he asked for was that the great county boroughs should be consulted. Already a member of these boroughs had said that they did not want this Bill. Naturally the School Boards would say that they did not want the measure because they did not wish to be deprived of their present functions. The Cardiff City Council, by thirteen votes to six, passed a resolution to the effect that any new legislation should create a single authority popularly elected, solely for educational purposes, to control the work of elementary, technical, and secondary education. The Gloucester City Council, by nineteen votes to twelve, passed a resolution welcoming the principle contained in the Bill, that all elementary education should be maintained out of the public funds lent, declared the measure unsatisfactory, because amongst other things it did not vest the control for education both primary, secondary, and technical, in a local authority, directly representing the ratepayers. Cardiff and Gloucester were dead against the Bill, and Manchester modified the Government scheme to such an extent, that they could hardly recognise it. If this scheme were thrust upon these great municipalities, it would have to be repealed, and so far from promoting education the Government would have materially put back the cause of education. Because he wished county boroughs to have the option of deciding this matter he was driven to support this Amendment.
MR. ABEL THOMASpointed out that if this Bill became law, borough councils would

1303
have double as much work to do, and much of the work would be of an entirely different character to that which they were elected to carry out. During the debate on the Second Reading of this Bill, it was stated more than once that if only County Councils were given the power to deal with education, they would get much better and more able men to join them, and they would be able to do better work than the School Boards did now. What was the use of passing this Bill without this Amendment? By the proposals of this Bill the Councils would start their work in a false position. Men would start this educational work who were not elected for the purpose, and who would never have been elected for that purpose, if the ratepayers bad had the opportunity of deciding. Under this Amendment the work would not be delayed for more than a year, and they would start fairly, instead of extremely unfairly, without giving the ratepayers the opportunity of electing the men they would prefer to start the new machinery under this Act.
SIR ALBERT ROLLITsaid he had no word to say against School Boards, whose work, so far from undervaluing, he held in the highest estimation. They had done admirable work; and though in some cases they might have acted illegally, he was glad they did so. He was possibly the only Member on the Ministerial side of the House who had spoken in favour of the optional or adoptive Clause. He did so on the Second Reading; and when they came to deal with it in Committee, he thought there was a good deal to be said in favour of the principle embodied in the Bill. Before any attempt to withdraw this Clause was made, he thought that at least there ought to be an expression of the general opinion of the House, in order to hear what might be said on both sides of the question. The hon. Member for North Camberwell had stated that the great county boroughs were unequal to the work, but he did not think that there would be any overloading of the corporations, because the work would devolve upon committees. The hon. Member opposite said that the boroughs objected to this work being thrust upon
1304
them, and he quoted three instances. He had in his hand figures which were wider than the Member for North Camber-well had quoted, and which would speak for the borough councils themselves. He thought the matter of the capabilities of county and borough councils for this work should receive some consideration from the House. With regard to the proposals in the Bill for secondary or higher education, they were unanimously in favour of assuming the duties. They had done their work in connection both with technical education and secondary education, not in the very narrow way which had been suggested, but in a manner which was extremely surprising, considering the way in which those duties were thrust upon them. Moneys were thrown at them which could not be used for other purposes, and without any preliminary training or experience they were called upon to perform duties in connection with education which they; had done extremely well. The development of technical and secondary education under the Technical Education Act had been of vast advantage to the country and most creditable to the authorities both of the counties and towns which had undertaken them. Judging by that experience and the value of that work, the Committee might feel assured that the Councils were able to undertake the duties now proposed to be placed upon them. He thought all the large county boroughs had rated themselves. [Opposition cries of "No."] He thought they had all rated themselves for this purpose with the exception of Preston. [Cries of "No."] In regard to primary education, two years ago a representative body of the municipalities voted unanimously that they desired to undertake the control of preliminary instruction in all those cases in which there were no School Boards. The various boroughs had been consulted within the last month by their association, and the replies which he held in his hand showed that they supported the general principle of the Bill without any reservation whatever.
DR. MACNAMARA: There is an option clause by which they can leave themselves out.
SIR ALBERT ROLLITsaid he was assuming that, but his hon. friend would permit him to say that the boroughs were almost unanimously against it. He, however, held a strong opinion on that clause, and he would take his own course when the time came.
DR. MACNAMARA: May I ask whether the Councils have been consulted and whether this is the result of a vote?
SIR ALBERT ROLLITsaid the association had discussed the matter and they referred it to the Councils. The Councils were consulted, and they deliberated on the matter. These were the replies from the Councils which had sent replies. [Cries of "Ah!"] He would give the figures. The county boroughs in favour of the Bill generally were twelve.
DR. MACNAMARA: Out of sixty-three.
SIR ALBERT ROLLIT: There were against the Bill, three; against taking over elementary education, one; in favour of Part III being made compulsory, fifteen; four offered no opinion; while the opinion of sixteen Councils had not yet been obtained.
DR. MACNAMARA: May I ask whether that represents thirty-five opinions? I did not quite gather whether the replies were from thirty-five different County Borough Councils.
SIR ALBERT ROLLIT: Certainly. The Committee had heard of one case where the Council was opposed to the proposal in the Bill, and he thought he was justified in making a much larger deduction, so that the Committee might not be misled by expressions, quite bona fide, of course, but which were calculated to mislead. The feeling of the boroughs was that the best plan for local government—the best means, as they believed, of promoting education and other subjects, and even of dealing with the poor law, was to concentrate upon the Councils all the work which was possible, and thus attract into them the best men, and the men of the widest experience in matters of local government. He firmly believed that
1306
if the proposed educational duties were added to those the Councils already had, they would be performed well.
SIR WALTER FOSTERsaid the hon. Gentleman had referred to the desirability of attracting into the Councils the best men to perform the duties which Were now to be placed upon them. In order to obtain the best men, the Councils ought to have the opportunity of selecting in particular areas those citizens who had specially devoted their attention to educational work. He and his hon. friends, therefore, wanted those disbanded experts in education who had been connected with the School Boards to have an opportunity of going into the Town Councils in order to carry on the educational work efficiently. All in this House believed that a body elected, ad hoc, for a purpose like education was better than one which was not elected specially for that purpose. They wanted in the County Councils and the Borough Councils members elected specially for the purpose of looking after education. The First Lord had raised the objection that only one-third of the members were elected annually, but any one who had any acquaintance with Borough Council elections knew that the election of one-third was always taken as an indication of the opinion of the ratepayers. It was not necessary to delay for the full three years in order to obtain the opinion of the ratepayers as to the type of men they wanted to administer education. In this Hill, as it stood, they had still the optional clause; and, in view, of that it was just and fair that the ratepayers should have an opportunity of deciding what line of action the Borough Council should take with reference to the adoption of educational duties, and also what line of action they should take with reference to the election of suitable persons for carrying on the educational work.
MR JOSEPH A. PEASEsaid it was very well known that Town Councils had a very good idea of their own importance, and he was sure many Councils would be prepared to undertake elementary as well as secondary education, even although there might be no educational experts on those bodies. It was right

1307
that the ratepayers should have some voice as to who should represent them in conducting a matter of such importance as elementary and secondary education. In 1888 a large number of County Councils were formed, and their duties consisted of little else than attending to roads and bridges. The personnel of the County Councils had remained almost identical since that time, but now that they were to be entrusted with additional work in connection with education, which would cost hundreds of thousands of pounds, the people should have some voice in saying who were to represent them. The position would be very much aggravated if the Committee which was to be appointed by the County Council was to be a permanent Committee. What he specially wished to ask the Vice-President was this: In the event of the present County Council electing an Education Committee to manage their school system in the rural districts of the county, would that Committee be a permanent standing Committee of the County Council, or would it be re-elected year after year in the same way as the ordinary Committees of the County Council were elected? He also asked for information as to the tenure of office of the co-opted Members.
SIR JOHN GORSTsaid it had been decided to discuss this matter when Clause 12 came before the Committee for consideration, and he should prefer to deal with the hon. Member's questions when it would be in order to do so.
MR. CHAININGsaid he represented a county which took a great interest in this Bill, and wanted to make it a real local government measure. It seemed to him that the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman had only strengthened the case for the Amendment. It was obvious that the County Borough Councils had not been elected with a view to the administration of education, and their opinion would be only in point in regard to technical and secondary education. It would be of no practical value as regards elementary education. The great majority of the county boroughs had had School Boards which had carried out most effective and progressive educational work. These Boards had imposed enormous and increasing rates, with the entire approval of their constituents, and they had been
1308
elected over and over again with the intention of carrying out their educational system. To get a real, broad, and comprehensive opinion of the county boroughs on the education question, they must look to the sentiments of those gentlemen who had been elected on the School Boards—quite a different class, chosen, by an intelligent electorate, from those who would be elected to a County Council.
MR. BROADHURSTsaid that, as a member of the County Council of his own county, he could say that the last thing thought of was having a measure of this kind thrust upon them to deal with the administration of elementary education. They never had, hitherto, any Party questions in his County Council; and there were seldom any contested elections. In fact, there were only two or three contests in the whole county at the last election. But if they had to administer a Bill like the present, there would be a contest in nearly every division in the county. It was only just that the operation of the Bill should be postponed until the people had an opportunity of putting forward their views on the educational question. He was sure that the Bill, as it stood, would create divergencies, which would have been better left out of them.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that this was an Amendment which a Government with an open mind would have readily accepted. It was not destructive to the principle of the Bill. Surely, from the Government's own point of view, it was desirable that they should get the best possible men elected to the County Councils. The First Lord of the Treasury said that there was no precedent for postponing the operation of the Bill; but could he find a precedent for entrusting large and important powers such as these to a body elected for quite a different purpose? Of course, there were precedents in which new powers were given to local authorities, in regard to licensing pawnbrokers and hawkers, or to the registration of common lodging houses; but could the First Lord of the Treasury produce a single case in which enormous powers of this kind were entrusted to

1309
even a representative body, without a new election? The First Lord of the Treasury said that even now the administration of technical education was entrusted to the County Councils. But what sort of administration was that? By this Bill the revenue which the County Council would have to administer would be trebled, and the staff which they would have to look after would have to be doubled or trebled. In fact, it was proposed by this Bill to transform the whole future of the County Councils, and make them the great educational authorities throughout the country. Suppose that it had been proposed to hand over to the County Council all powers in regard to licensing in the district without a previous re-election—it might have been found that the men to administer the Act were the local publicans The Bill proposed that new powers should be given to men who had been elected for a totally different purpose. The best men could not sit on School Boards and County Councils as well. As a matter of fact, the best men for educational purposes could not afford to join the County Councils. There were rural counties, like Radnorshire, where, in order to attend a meeting of the County Council in the county town, it took a man practically three days away from his business. But if education were to be made the real question at issue in an election to the County Council, a totally different type of men than now would compete for a seat, and be elected. They would be elected purely and solely for their educational experience. He, therefore, thought the Government should accept the Amendment.
MR GODDARDsaid if this Amendment was carried it would entirely alter the personnel of the Councils. The figures of the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Islington had left a rather misleading impression on the House. The hon. Member had quoted some figures to show that the County Boroughs were in favour of these new powers, but, as a matter of fact, he had only given the replies of twelve out of fifty-seven County Boroughs. Some County Boroughs had not had the question put to them at all. He had been a member of a County
1310
Borough Council for fifteen years, and he had seen how the work of that Council accrued, necessitating the appointment of fresh Committees year by year. At the present time it was difficult to get men to serve on the Councils because of the extremely hard work it entailed. If the County Borough Councils were compelled to take over the work of primary education, it would be impossible for them to administer it themselves, and they would be compelled to delegate the work to outside Committees which would not be responsible to the ratepayers. The right hon. Gentleman the Vice-President had told the Committee that many members of the School Boards were also members of the County Councils, but so far as his information went that was not the case. The School Boards and Borough Councils in Ipswich found it was quite impossible for men to be members of both bodies at the same time. He was perfectly sure that if the work of primary education was to be put upon the Borough Councils they would have to delegate that duty to others. This was an Amendment which the Government might reasonably accept. He thought the ratepayers should have an opportunity of considering this matter. To talk of the work done by the Committees of the County and Borough Councils as comparable with that done by the School Boards was nonsense.
SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid the hon. Member who had just spoken had addressed himself to the question from the point of view of the Borough Councils. The question, however, concerned the County Council far more than the Borough Council. In the case of rural districts, many gentlemen were returned unopposed by the electorate to the County Council, but the electorate had no idea that these new duties would be thrown upon the County Councillors. If the case was strong for the Borough Councils it was stronger in the case of the County Councils. When the elections took place it never entered into the minds of the electors or the elected that these educational powers would be given to them. To pretend that there was popular representation when they handed the

1311
matter over to a Committee of gentlemen elected for a wholly different purpose was one of the greatest delusions as to popular representation which could be conceived.
(4.38.) Question put.
The Committee divided :—Ayes, 119; Noes, 272. (Division List No. 193.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Grant, Corrie

Price, Robert John

Allen, Charles P. (Glouc., Stroud

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Rea, Russell

Asher, Alexander

Haldane, Richard Burdon

Rickett, J. Compton

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William

Rigg, Richard

Banes, Major George Edward

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

Roberts, John H. (Denbigh.)

Barlow, John Emmott

Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Helme, Norval Watson

Russell, T. W.

Black, Alexander William

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

Schwann, Charles E.

Brand, Hon. Arthur G.

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

Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

Broadhurst, Henry

Holland, William Henry

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

Horniman, Frederick. John

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Jacoby, James Alfred

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Joicey, Sir James

Soares, Ernest J.

Caine, William Sproston

Jones, Dav. Brynmor (Swansea

Spencer, Rt.Hn. C.R (Northants

Caldwell, James

Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)

Stevenson, Francis S.

Cameron, Robert

Kitson, Sir James

Strachey, Sir Edward

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Labouchere, Henry

Taylor, Theodore Cooke

Causton, Richard Knight

Lambert, George

Tennant, Harold John

Cawley, Frederick

Langley, Batty

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

Channing, Francis Allston

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan,E.)

Craig, Robert Hunter

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

Crombie, John William

Leng, Sir John

Thomas, J. A (Glamorgan, Gower

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Levy, Maurice

Toulmin, George

Davies M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

Lewis, John Herbert

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

Lloyd-George, David

Wallace, Robert

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Lough, Thomas

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Duncan, J. Hastings

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

White, George (Norfolk)

Dunn, Sir William

M'Crae, George

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Edwards, Frank

M'Kenna, Reginald

Whittaker Thomas Palmer

Elibank, Master of

Mansfield, Horace Rendall

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Emmott, Alfred

Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

Wilson, Chas. Henry (Hull, W.)

Evans, Sir Francis H. (Maidst'ne

Markham, Arthur Basil

Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid.

Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

Mather, William

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

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

Mellor, Rt. Hon. John William

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

Fenwick, Charles

Morley, Rt. Hn. John (Montrose

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

Newnes, Sir George

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

Nussey, Thomas Willans

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Partington, Oswald

Mr. Herbert Gladstone and Mr. William M'Arthur.

Fuller, J. M. F.

Paulton, James Mellor

Furness, Sir Christopher

Pease, Alfred E. (Cleveland)

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.

Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor)

Carew, James Laurence

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

Bartley, George C. T.

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

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

Allhusen, Augustus Hry. Eden

Beach, Rt Hn. Sir Michael Hicks

Cavendish, V. C. W (Derbyshire

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Bignold, Arthur

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Arrol, Sir William

Boland, John

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Bond, Edward

Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

Austin, Sir John

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

Chamberlayne, T. (S'thampton

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Boulnois, Edmund

Chapman, Edward

Bain, Colonel James Robert.

Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex

Clive, Captain Percy A.

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

Bowles T. Gibson (King's Lynn

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

Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

Brassey, Albert

Coddington, Sir William

Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds

Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

Bullard, Sir Harry

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Banbury, Frederick George

Campbell, Rt Hn. J. A. (Glasgow

Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

Power, Patrick Joseph

Cranborne, Viscount

Kennedy, Patrick James

Pretyman, Ernest George

Crean, Eugene

Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

Purvis, Robert

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop

Randles, John S.

Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

Kimber, Henry

Rankin, Sir James

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Knowles, Lees

Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

Cust, Henry John C.

Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.

Ratcliff, R. F.

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

Rattigan, Sir William Henry

Delany, William

Lawson, John Grant

Redmond, William (Clare)

Denny, Colonel

Leamy, Edmund

Reid, James (Greenock)

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Lecky, Rt. Hn. William Edw. H.

Renshaw, Charles Bine

Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

Lee, Arthur H (Hants., Fareham

Renwick, George

Donelan, Captain A.

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge)

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Leveson-Cower, Frederick N. S.

Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Llewellyn, Evan Henry

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Duke, Henry Edward

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Long, Rt Hn. Walter (Bristol, S.

Ropner, Colonel Robert

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Round, James

Fardell, Sir T. George

Lowe, Francis William

Rutherford, John

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

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

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Ffrench, Peter

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

Finch, George H.

Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Lundon, W.

Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

Fisher, William Hayes

Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

Sharpe, William Edward T.

FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

Macdona, John Cumming

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Fitzroy, Hon. Ed ward Algernon

MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Flower, Ernest

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Flynn, James Christopher

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

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

Galloway, William Johnson

M Govern, T.

Spear, John Ward

Gardner, Ernest

M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W

Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

Garfit, William

M'Kean, John

Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)

Gibbs, Hn. Vicary (St. Albans)

M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset

Gilhooly, James

Manners, Lord Cecil

Stewart, Sir Mark J. M 'Taggart

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

Max well, Rt Hn Sir H. E (Wigt'n

Stock, James Henry

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

Maxwell, W J H (Dumfriesshire

Stone, Sir Benjamin

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

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Stroyan, John

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

Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

Middlemore, Jn Throgmorton

Sullivan, Donal

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Mitchell, William

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

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

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

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

Grenfell, William Henry

Molesworth, Sir Lewis

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Thornton, Percy M.

Gunter, Sir Robert

Mooney, John J.

Tomlinson, Win. Edw. Murray

Guthrie, Walter Murray

More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Hain, Edward

Morgan, Hn. Fred. (Monm'thsh.

Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

Hall, Edward Marshall

Morrison, James Archibald

Hamillon, Rt Hn L'rd G (Midd'x

Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford

Valentia, Viscount

Hammond, John

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

Warr, Augustus Frederick

Hardy, Laurence (K'nt, Ashford

Murray, Rt Hn. A. Grah'm (Bute

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

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

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Welb'y, Sir Charles G E (Notts.)

Hayden, John Patrick

Myers, William Henry

Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

Heath, James (Staffords. N. W.)

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Whiteley, H (Ashton und. Lyne

Heaton, John Henniker

Newdigate, Francis Alexander

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Helder, Augustus

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

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

Hickman, Sir Alfred

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

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

Higginbottom, S. W.

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipp'rary Mid

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Hoare, Sir Samuel

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.

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

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

Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

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

Hornby, Sir William Henry

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

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

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Hoult, Joseph

O'Malley, William

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham

Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H

Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

Parker, Gilbert

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Peel, Hn. Wm. Robt. Wellesley

Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)

Pemberton, John S. G.

Young, Samuel

Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

Penn, John

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Percy, Earl

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Johnstone, Hey wood (Sussex)

Plummer, Walter R.

Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

Joyce, Michael

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

MR. JOSEPH A. PEASEsaid the Amendment which he now proposed to move he had put down upon the Paper for the purpose of drawing attention to the fact that the powers given to the County Councils were almost exclusively those of rating. As he read the provisions of the Bill, the Councils would not have the control of education, and therefore it was a misnomer for them to be termed the education authority. The main powers granted by this Bill were conferred by Clause 12 upon a Committee, the character of which they did not yet fully understand. They ought to be informed whether this Committee would be obliged to submit a report of its proceedings to the Council for confirmation, or whether it was a; permanent statutory Committee independent of the Council. If the Committee was a permanent statutory authority, independent of the Council, then the Council should be called, not the local education authority, but the rating authority; but if the Committee was to be responsible to the Council he would withdraw his Amendment.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 8, to leave out the word 'education,' and insert the word 'rating.'"—(Mr. Joseph A. Pease.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'education' stand part of the clause."
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he thought the hon. Gentleman had mistaken the effect of the Bill as it stood. He seemed to suppose that the County Council had no other function whatever than to take the advice given them by the Committee, and vote the money which the Committee asked for to carry out their scheme. That was not the case. No doubt the Committee would have great weight with the Council, but the ultimate control would be in the hands of the Council, and not of the Committees of the Council. The Council would decide whether the rate was to be levied; there was no subject on which they could not refuse the money; they could refer back to the Committee any element in the policy of the Committee of which they disapproved; and they would be in a true and real sense the arbiters of education in the area over which they had control.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid the right hon. Gentleman had made a most important statement as to the intention of the framers of the Bill, but that intention was not apparent in Clause 12. He was very glad to hear what the right hon. Gentleman had said, because he thought his hon. friend behind him was perfectly right in his statement. The County Councils had no power to do anything but rate, and therefore it was a misnomer to call them the educational authority. Clause 12 stated that—
"Any Council, in the exercise of powers under this Act, shall, except as respects the raising of a rate or borrowing money for the purposes of this Act, or the adoption by them of Part III. of this Act, act through an education committee."
There was no power given to the Council to act except through a committee.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not deny that.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid if that were so, then the committee was the education authority.
MR. A J. BALFOUR: Not at all.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid that the clause was so drawn that there need not be a single member of the elected Council on the Education Committee. The whole of the work might be so delegated as to leave it entirely to people who represented nobody. But it was now understood—and it was a very important point—that the revision of all the work of the Education Committee was to be undertaken by the Council. Let there be no mistake about that. The County Council itself was to transact this business of looking after the 14,000 voluntary schools of the country, and to see that the Committee was doing what it ought to do in each one of those schools. He hoped the County Councils understood what they were expected to do, but it was perfectly ridiculous to suppose that they could attempt to do anything of the kind. It was absurd to suggest that County Councils, which in most cases met but once a month, could undertake the supervision of 14,000 voluntary schools. A more ridiculous proposition was never put before the country. The County Councils had had no idea that such a task was to be imposed upon them, or that

1317
they would be expected to undertake it, and it was simply impossible for it to be carried out.
SIR JOHN DORINGTONthought the right hon. Gentleman had made an immense mountain out of a very small molehill. In connection with the Technical Education Committees of the County Councils—which had now been in existence for some years—the very thing proposed by the Bill was being done. The Technical Education Committee was not a statutable Committee, but it was a practical Committee, just as he hoped the Committee under the present Bill would be. There would not be much difference between the positions of the two bodies. The former body exercised its powers with immense freedom from interference by the County Council, but any serious question which arose was referred to the County Council. It was a Commiteee of the County Council, although it included members from outside the County Council. They, the County Council, settled the amount of money to be disposed of by the Committee, and generally accepted the conclusions at which the Committee arrived. He could see no greater difficulty in regard to the Education Committee created under this Bill than in regard to the Technical Education Committee. As to knowing the conditions of the schools, in the Council Chamber at Gloucester, through the working of the Aid Grant, they already had a considerable knowledge of every elementary school in the county.
LORD EDMUND FITZMAURICEsaid the hon. Baronet had apparently forgotten that the state of things he had accurately described was carried on under an Act of Parliament, which a schedule of the present Bill proposed to repeal. That made a very material difference. The state of things described by the hon. Baronet existed because under the Technical Instruction Acts there was a power of delegation to a Committee, which power, with the rest of the statute, was now to be repealed. It would be quite natural to imagine that somewhere in the Bill before the Committee there would be a similar power of delegation. That, however, was not the case, and the Bill had to be discussed as it stood. He was disposed
1318
to think that those who originally drafted the Bill intended the position of the Committee to be the same as under the Technical Instruction Acts, and it was exceedingly likely that before the Committee stage concluded it would be so provided. But that was not the case at present, and they were perfectly justified in calling attention at the earliest opportunity to the great uncertainty which would exist if Clause 12 remained unaltered. When the Bill was introduced, the Leader of the House, in reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Aberdeen, said the Committee would be like any other Committee of the County Council; and no doubt, from the remarks he had just made, that was still his intention. But the opinion of some of the most experienced clerks of County Councils and large boroughs of England was that the words in Clause 12 were so vague and new that it was exceedingly difficult to attach any definite meaning to them. He had on the Paper an Amendment, drawn by the clerk of a most experienced County Council, with a view to placing the matter beyond all doubt. The right hon. Gentleman had now clearly stated that this Committee was intended to be like any other Committee of the County Council, and that, when it reported to the Council, all its decisions would be subject to revision. That being the intention, it was necessary either to extend to matters of this kind, the powers of delegation possessed by County Councils under the Act of 1888, or to restore the clause of the Act of 1889 which gave a similar power of delegation in regard to education.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he would not argue whether the noble Lord was right or wrong in his contention as to the ambiguity in Clause 12. It would surely be more convenient to deal with that matter when the clause was reached. The question raised by the Amendment was quite a different one. If the proposal were carried it would destroy not only the purpose of the Government, but also the plan approved, as far as any part of the scheme was approved by them, by hon. Gentlemen opposite. No one wished to reduce the County Councils to the position of mere rating authorities, but that was what the Amendment

1319
would do. As all were agreed that such an Amendment should not be accepted, and as the proper time to discuss the other point—the importance of which he fully recognised—was on Clause 12, he thought it was not too much to ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the Amendment.
MR. ASQUITH: I cannot agree that the discussion has been inconvenient. It has enabled the Committee to elicit, with more definiteness than has been attained before, what are the intentions of the Government, and it is impossible to postpone until Clause 12 a consideration which vitally affects the whole structure of the Bill on this particular point. The Amendment raises the definite point whether the function of the County Council is to be a rating authority or something else. Upon this point I share the surprise expressed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire. I do not conceive that the function of this Committee is to be the same as that of an ordinary Committee of the County Council chosen from the County Council alone, but when we look at Clause 12 it is stated that the County Council is to act through the Committee, though there is no provision that the Committee shall report to the County Council, and its proceedings do not require to be approved. According to the ordinary principles of drafting and interpretation I think that the provision gives the Committee a quasi-independent position, and that it is not in the position of an ordinary Committee. Now the right hon. Gentleman says that this is not the case. I quite agree that it would be out of order to discuss the merits of the two Committees, but I think it is of the highest importance, and it would be more convenient to the Committee that we should know authoritatively that this is the scheme of the Government.
SIR ALBERT ROLLITsaid he agreed that this was a very important point, and he spoke of it upon the Second Reading, when he expressly asked for a more definite reply as to the status of the Committee. The discussion had produced extreme and exaggerated
1320
expressions of opinion. The mover of this Amendment said that the powers of the Council would be nothing else except rating. If this Amendment were carried that would be so, but even under the Bill as it stood the powers of the Council could not be so limited as the hon. Member had stated. The speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire indicated a desire to frighten County Councils and Borough Councils. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the Councils would have 14,000 cases to deal with every year, and he expressed the opinion that they would not be able to deal with them. But the existing system was just the same as the right hon. Gentleman had expressed, not only in regard to technical education but with reference to other matters. In the ordinary work there was an infinity of detail which no County Council was equal to discuss. Reference had been made to the way Town Councils did their work, but if that was the impression as to the mode in which Town Councils performing their duties—and he did not think that view was exaggerated with regard to the House of Commons—the wonder was that they got through their work at all. The hon. Baronet the Member for the Tewkesbury Division said the County Councils would have power to revise acts and decisions, but he was not quite so sure that under the Bill as it stood this would be the case. Under the Municipal Corporation Act every Committee was bound to report for the approval, or otherwise, of the Council, and in such a case the statement made of the position would be absolutely accurate. The noble Lord opposite said the question was whether there was any delegation, but in his opinion the question was whether there was not too much delegation or whether the power of the local authority was only to be exercised in a particular way. It might be almost a total delegation to a body which might consist absolutely of non-Members of the Council. What was the real position? In relation to Borough Councils, the position was perfectly clear under the Municipal Corporations Act. There were two classes of Committees under the Municipal

1321
Corporations Act. The ordinary Committee of a Town Council reported upon its minutes, and had to obtain the approval of the Council for its acts. Then there was the statutory Committee—the Watch Committee—which neither reported nor had its acts confirmed. There was this striking coincidence which he called to the notice of the First Lord of the Treasury. The word "act" through a Committee was the word used in the Municipal Corporations Act in relation to the Watch Committee; and he thought that a serious question might arise whether the Committee suggested would have to report at all. That was a question of status of vital importance, and he was glad to hear from the reply of the First Lord of the Treasury that this could not be what was intended, He took it that the Borough was to be the local authority, and he had an Amendment on page 50 which raised that point and which contained words taken from the Municipal Corporations Act which he proposed to insert in clause 12. The words he proposed to insert wore—
"The minutes and acts of which shall be reported from time to time to the Council for its approval."
In the Bill as it stood there was a grave doubt as to whether there need be any confirmation of the acts of the Committee. This was a point of extreme importance, which ought to be determined, and he was glad the right hon. Gentleman had indicated the opinion which was entertained generally by the Committee with regard to it.
MR. CORRIE GRANTasked the right hon. Gentleman to state what was the present intention of the Government upon this point, and how they interpreted their own Bill.
MR A. J. BALFOUR: I do not think there can be any doubt as to the intentions of the Government. I said in introducing the Bill—
"From this long preface I draw the following conclusions. Our reform, if it is to be adequate, must, in the first place, establish one authority for education—technical, secondary, primary—possessed of powers which may enable it to provide for the adequate training of teachers, and for the welding of higher technical and higher secondary education on to the university system. In the second place, I conclude that
1322
this one authority for education, being, as it is, responsible for a heavy cost to the ratepayers, should be the rating authority of the district."
No words could be more absolutely clear, and the statement which I made then I now repeat. If it was said, as many speakers had now said, that Clause 12 did not carry out that object, then let the Committee modify Clause 12 so that it should be carried out; but as this was not the place in which the Committee could remedy the defect in the Bill, he thought that they might conclude this part of the discussion.
SIR HENRY FOWLERsaid it was necessary that they should perfectly understand this point. The hon. Member for South Islington had clearly pointed out that the boroughs had two classes of Committees, one which was bound to report everything to the Council and could do nothing without the Council's consent, and the other was a Committee which was actually independent of the Council. A Town Council in, one of the great cities in the North of England tried to get complete control of the police, and for this purpose they appointed every member of the Council upon the Watch Committee, but the law had laid it down that the Watch Committee could not consist of more than one-third of the members of the Corporation. Then there was the Statutory Committee in the shape of a Joint Committee. He wished to know whether the Committee was to understand that the proposed local Committee was to be an absolutely independent authority.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have stated as distinctly as I can that it is not. There is to be one authority responsible for education and responsible for rating—responsible for both sections of the duty of raising the money and administering it.
SIR HENRY FOWLERsaid he had one suggestion, and it was that the right hon. Gentleman should throw a little more light upon this point. He could not interfere in the administration of the police, or the amount of money spent on the police. Was that what the right hon. Gentleman meant?

1323
Was the County Council to have sole power of the purse, and was there to be an appeal on every question of local management and local administration which came before it? The right hon. Gentleman said the House was agreed upon that. It was one of the greatest questions which could be raised. It went to the very root of the question as to who should be the educational authority. If the Committee was to act through this body, what was to be the relation between the two bodies? Were they to understand that these local Committees were to be the absolute servants of the local authority without the power of deciding anything, and that there was to be the power of appeal to the Council on everything?
SIR WILLIAM HARGOURTsaid there was one other point to which the right hon. Gentleman had not referred. This Committee was not a Committee which the County Council had the light to appoint upon its own responsibility.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Is that raised by this Amendment?
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Certainly it was raised on the question as to what was to be the character of this Committee The Council could not appoint the Committee except with the approval of the Board of Education. Of course the very essence of what the right hon. Gentleman had stated was that it was to be the mere agent of the County Council. It was nothing of the kind. The person who really and finally appointed was the Vice-President. Under the scheme as proposed in Clause 12 of the Bill the Council might propose, but the Board of Education would appoint, the Committee. He wished the right hon. Gentleman to solve this which everybody, who had considered the question, knew was the vital point of the Bill. It was not a Committee over which the Borough Council or the County Council had any authority. That made the whole difference. If they would be at liberty to convert this Committee into an ordinary Committee of the County Council or the Borough Council then the thing might be entirely-different;
1324
but when the right hon. Gentleman said, or imputed, to hon. Members that they had not conceived what was the scheme of the Bill, he ventured to say that no one had conceived what the hon. Member for South Islington had conceived.
SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid they were now discussing matters which they would have to discuss again on Clause 12. The object of the Amendment before the Committee was to ascertain what was the rating authority. The First Lord of the Treasury, in introducing the Bill, had stated most clearly that it was to be the County Council, and that had been stated again and again this evening. Under the Bill, as it stood, the Education Committee was not in the position of the Standing Joint Committee of a County Council. The Council was to be the rating and education authority, acting for education purposes through a Committee. That being so, they had to consider at a later stage what was to be the precise relation of that Committee to the Council. He submitted that, having ascertained that the County Council was to be the rating authority, this discussion should be dropped and revived again on Clause 12.
MR. JOSEPH A. PEASEsaid he was the last Member in the House who would wish to limit the County Council or the Borough Council merely to the function of rating. He understood from the First Lord of the Treasury that they were going to have a Committee somewhat on the lines of the Technical Education Committee, who; would report their proceedings from time to time for confirmation, and that, there fore, the ratepayers would have some direct control. On that understanding he asked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR STEVENSONmoved an Amendment to provide that the School Board should be the local authority "in an existing united school district or in a parish with a population of more than 500 inhabitants

1325
already possessing a School Board." His object, he said, was to emphasise the fact that in country districts, despite statements to the contrary, there were School Boards which were doing really useful work, and were specially qualified to continue to do the work which had been entrusted to them in the past. A good deal had been said in regard to the importance of the School Board work in large towns, but after all the effects of what was proposed by the Bill would be really greater in the country districts than in the boroughs in the event of the total abolition of the School Boards. The reason was that, owing to the distance of the county town from particular parishes, those interested in the localities would find it more difficult to take a lively interest in their own educational affairs. He admitted that there were cases in which the country School Boards had not worked well, and that there were some cases in which they had been failures. He ventured to assert that in every case where a country School Board had been a failure, that had been due to the fact that the area had been too limited, and that it had not been possible to find in the area a sufficient number of persons to take the intelligent interest in the affairs which they ought to take. On the other hand, in the larger parishes and also in cases where a number of parishes had been combined for educational purposes, that difficulty had not been found to exist. The hon. Member, in referring to his own experience in connection with a combination School Board which included four parishes, said the schools had worked well, and the reports had been excellent, both in regard to secular and religious instruction. There had not only been efficiency, but economy, the rate being only 3d. The effect of passing this Bill in its present form would be that this School Board would be superseded by a local Committee nominated by the County Council. No doubt at first the members of the existing School Board might possibly be nominated as members of the Committee, but that would only be for a short time, and the Committee, not being responsible to the body of the electors, there would not be the same local life and interest in the educational work of the parishes
1326
which could be exhibited at the present time. His Amendment was not inconsistent with the main lines of the scheme proposed by the Bill. He urged that it would be for the educational advantage of the districts concerned to retain the School Boards where a certain number of parishes were united, because he believed it would be impossible for the County Council or the Committee to exercise adequate supervision over the localities. Under the scheme proposed there would be less economy and efficiency, because it would be absolutely impossible for those sitting in the county town to take the same interest in the educational work of the different localities as could be taken by those who resided in them. In the eastern counties the clergy of the Church of England were remarkably well represented on the School Boards, and certainly in those cases religious instruction was very well looked after. There was no prejudice against these schools from the Church of England point of view. He was convinced that if the Government made a concession on this point and accepted the Amendment, they would expedite the progress of the Bill. The introduction into the clause of the words he proposed would not be inconsistent with the principle of the measure, and he ventured to ask the Government to accept his Amendment.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 8, after the word 'authority,' to insert the words 'except in an existing united school district, or in a parish with a population of more than live hundred inhabitants already possessing a School Board, in which case the School Board shall be the local authority.' "—(Mr. Stevenson.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid he wished to raise the point as to the way in which this Amendment was to be put. If put as it appeared on the Paper, it would have the effect of cutting out a large number of Amendments which ought to be discussed separately.
THE CHAIRMANsaid that the mover of the Amendment could frame it so as to allow discussion on subsequent Amendments.
SIR CHARLES DILKEappealed to his hon. friend the Member for Eye to omit from his Amendment the middle, words—" Or in a parish with a population of more than 500 inhabitants already possessing a School Board."
THE CHAIRMANsaid that the right hon. Baronet was entitled to move an Amendment on the Amendment.
SIR JOHN GORSTsaid that the hon. Member could not, of course, expect the Government to accept his Amendment, It had already been decided by the Committee that the County Councils and the county boroughs should be the educational authority. A very strong appeal had been made in behalf of the School Boards in the great towns and urban districts, but the hon. Member now proposed to preserve the small School Boards in the small rural districts. That would be quite contrary to the spirit of the decision of the Committee and to the principles of the Bill. If there was one thing on which almost everybody was agreed, it was on the expediency of transferring to some other authority the powers now exercised by the small rural School Boards. Their area was too small even for elementary education, but the Amendment as moved would make these small Boards the authority for secondary education as well.
MR. CHANNINGsupported the Amendment. In his county the School Board area was not so small as the right hon. Gentleman seemed to imagine. In his division were five School Boards, representing populations of from 1,000 to 4,000; and he ventured to think that the service rendered by all of them was most admirable. They had, indeed, created a number of educational experts, and aroused among the people a real, interest in education, and were doing good and effective work. He was not in favour of isolation of authorities, or of giving secondary education to small authorities, and he wished to see a complete co-ordination of the school authorities. He would not accept the Amendment if it handed over the higher education to small School Boards, but
1328
he thought it was a matter of vital importance to have direct control over the elementary education vested in these directly elected local bodies.
SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid he was in favour of School Boards generally, and he believed that small School Boards would be better educational authorities than rural County Councils. The case of large united districts was infinitely stronger than that of the small School Boards, as some of them had a population considerably over 20,000. The Vice-President had stated that the House was not likely to make any concession, because the Committee had already destroyed the School Boards in the great county boroughs. But the case was not the same; there was an option clause, although the Vice-President had spoken as if that option clause had already been withdrawn. There were many places where the unanimous opinion of the district was in favour of retaining the School Boards; and there had been no such work done for education in the rural counties as by the united Boards.
COLONEL BOWLESsaid that if this Amendment was carried it would hand over to the School Boards greater powers than they already held. It would give to those bodies the powers now exercised by the County Councils, which, in his opinion, would not be at all desirable. He thought the House should not assent to the Amendment.
MR. COURTENAY WARNERexpressed the opinion that, though the small School Boards in the country districts might not have done their work very carefully, the large School Boards had done most excellent work. Large working-class districts had grown up in places where there was no School Board to undertake the work of education, and it had been undertkan by the larger School Boards, which had been most useful in this respect. These bodies were now to be swept away, and nobody could say that the authority which was to take their place would do the work in the future as well as the School Boards had done it in the past. He certainly hoped they

1329
would not sweep away these useful bodies. It was quite true that if there, was nothing put into the Bill to restrict their authority they would have a great many more powers than they exercised in the past; but there was no reason for not restricting, and he did not see any difficulty in restricting the powers of the School Board so that they could continue to administer elementary education, and leave the secondary education in the hands of the County Council. But even if that was not done, he thought the large School Boards would do the work just as well as the County Councils. It was not reasonable that these School Boards should be swept away, having regard to the good work they had done, and that there should be substituted for them a new authority which was not likely to do this work so well. He hoped the School Boards would be allowed to continue in their good work.
MR. DUNCANsaid that in the West Hiding of Yorkshire the entire destruction of the School Board system would be a very great educational loss. If the Government went to the country with "Down with the School Boards" inscribed on their banner, they would return from the North of England with a very ragged regiment indeed. The position of the West Biding was that if this Bill passed into law it would dissolve 140 School Boards, which had the entire confidence of the people of the country, and which were doing and had done admirable work. If the School Boards were abolished, it would be impossible for the local education authority to supervise the vast number of schools which would come under its control, and committees would have to be appointed to take the place of the School Boards which were to be abolished. These committees would simply be school attendance committees, and it would be impossible to get the same class of men to serve upon them as upon bodies possessing practical control and initiative. In the end the whole thing would be placed in the hands of officials. The distinctive character of English self-government was its popular representation. He, therefore, supported the Amendment.
MR. BAULTONsaid he was not entirely in
1330
accord with the Amendment of his hon. friend, but, if he was in order, he would like to move an Amendment to it—
"To omit the words, 'or in parishes with a population of five hundred inhabitants already possessing School Boards.'"
The object of his moving that Amendment was to discuss the merits of the whole question. In the North of England they had large districts comprising populations considerably over 20,000, and the argument he desired to advance in favour of the School Boards as they now existed was that the scheme of the Bill, which was to diminish the number of educational authorities, would, unless this Amendment were carried, result in multiplying them, because County Councils would have to appoint committees to administer education in these large and populous districts, which were now managed by the School Board. There was a rising feeling on this matter, and it was with the object of carrying out the wishes of his constituents that he moved the Amendment.
MR. A. J. BALFOURthought perhaps it would be more convenient to make the Amendment to the Amendment part of the Amendment itself.
DR. MACNAMARAobjected, because he desired to speak upon both. Both the Amendment and the Amendment to the Amendment were proposals to retain the School Boards in the rural districts.
MR. BAULTONsaid that if his Amendment were carried, he should propose to add the words "twenty thousand."
MR. BRYCEsaid the case for dealing with these united districts was an exceedingly strong one, and he appealed to the Government to give a fair consideration to the proposal as to these districts.
MR. SAMUEL EVANSsuggested that the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment to the Amendment should withdraw his Amendment, and that the hon. Member for the Eye Division of Suffolk should move his Amendment down to the words "school districts," which could then be discussed. If the Amendment to the Amendment were carried, it would cut out all discussion on the Amendment.
MR BOUSFIELDthought that the hon. Member who had just spoken could not be aware that there had been a discussion on both the Amendment and the Amendment to the Amendment, and that the matter was now ripe for division.
MR. STEVENSONsaid his views coincided with those of the hon. Member for Mid Glamorganshire, and asked whether he would be allowed to move his Amendment down to the words "school districts."
THE CHAIRMAN: Yes.
MR. SAMUEL EVANS,on a point of order, suggested that the Question to be put now was whether leave should not be given to withdraw the Amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN: Leave has not been asked.
MR. HERBERT LEWISsaid the question was of great importance to his county, where the new authority under this Bill would have a most prejudicial effect. If it had such an effect in so small a county, what would be the effect in a large one. The effect of the Bill was to remove by three removes the control of the people over education. In the first place, the authority was to be the County Council, which was only partly elective; in the second the management of the schools was to be delegated to a Committee, only partly nominated by the County Council, who were, in the third place, to delegate their authority to another Committee, only partly nominated by them. They were by this Bill departing from the principle which for the last thirty years had worked with great success. In his opinion, the policy of the present Bill was most reactionary, and would not conduce to educational progress in the future. Before they swept away these bodies, which had done so much good in the; past for the country, they should have; an opportunity of fully discussing the matter.
Amendment made to the proposed Amendment—
"By leaving out the words 'or in a parish with a population of more than five hundred inhabitants already possessing a School Board.'"—(Mr. Paulton.)
MR PAULTONsaid, his Amendment having been carried, he desired to fulfil the pledge given by him to the hon. Member for North Camberwell. He therefore begged to move after the word "district" to insert "with a population of over twenty thousand." He thought he ought also, at the end of the Amendment, to move to insert words confining it to Part 3.
THE CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member intends to limit his Amendment to Part 3 of the Bill the Amendment now before the Committee is in the wrong place.
MR. SAMUEL EVANSsuggested that the last words moved by the hon. Gentleman should be omitted; they could be discussed at the proper time. The present Amendment was to insert the words—
"With a population of over twenty thousand."
That was an intelligible Amendment, which could, be discussed.
MR. BOUSFIELDsaid that under the Bill, as it stood, the object sought by the Amendment was already nearly if not quite obtained. All agreed on the importance of having a supreme local authority, but as regards utilising in the united districts the School Board as it existed, that was possible under Clause 12.
MR. CHARLES ALLENsaid it was absolutely absurd to suggest that the School Boards tinder Clause 12 might be appointed by the County Councils as local Committees. They should have direct control.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid this was an extremely simple point, which he thought had been already discussed, but, however that might be, they had got to the pond at last. He quite agreed with his hon. friend that there was sufficient elasticity in the Bill to enable the educational work of these areas to be performed by Committees of the County Councils. It was also-true that that was not what was asked for by hon. Gentlemen opposite. They were asking, after all, for their old friend an ad hoc authority in certain areas. That was against the whole principle

1333
of the Bill. That question had been discussed over and over again, and he thought the House had made up its mind on the subject, and he hoped a decision would be taken without further debate.
Amendment further amended, by inserting, at the end of the last Amend-
ment, the words "with a population of over twenty thousand."—[Mr. Paulton.)
(6.30.) Question put. "That the Amendment, as amended, be there inserted."
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 121; Noes, 306. (Division List No. 194.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Reckitt, Harold James

Allan, William (Gateshead)

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William

Reed, Sir Edw. James (Cardiff

Allen, Charles P. (Glouc, Stroud

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries

Asher, Alexander

Harmsworth, R. Leicester

Rickett, J. Compton

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

Rigg, Richard

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

Roberts, John H. (Denbigbs

Banes, Major George Edward

Helme, Norval Watson

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Barlow, John Emmott

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

Robson, William Snowdon

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Horniman, Frederick John

Russell, T. W.

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Bell, Richard

Jacoby, James Alfred

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

Black, Alexander William

Joicey, Sir James

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Broadhurst, Henry

Jones, David Brynmor(Swans'a

Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

Brown, George M. (Edinburgh

Jones, William (Carnarvonsh'e

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

Kearly, Hudson E.

Soares, Ernest J.

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Kitson, Sir James

Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R, (N'thants

Burns, John

Labouchere, Henry

Strachey, Sir Edward

Buxton, Svdney Charles

Lambert, George

Taylor, Theodore Cooke

Caine, William Sproston

Langley, Batty

Tennant, Harold John

Caldwell, James

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.

Cameron, Robert

Leng, Sir. John

Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Levy, Maurice

Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, Gow'r

Causton, Richard Knight

Lewis, John Herbert

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

Cawley, Frederick

Lloyd-George, David

Tomkinson, James

Channing, Francis Allston

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall

Toulmin, George

Crombie, John William

M'Crae, George

Wallace, Robert

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

M'Kenna, Reginald

Walton, John Lawson (Leeds, S.

Davies M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

Mansfield, Horace Rendall

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

Warner, Thomas Courtney T.

Duncan, J. Hastings

Markham, Arthur Basil

Weir, James Galloway

Dunn, Sir William

Mather, William

White, Luke (York. E. R.)

Edwards, Frank

Mellor, Rt. Hon. John William

Whitley, J. H. Halifax)

Elibank, Master of

Newnes, Sir George

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Emmott, Alfred

Norman, Henry

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth

Evans, Sir Francis H (Maidstone

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mad.

Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan

Partington, Oswald

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

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

Pease, Alfred E. (Cleveland

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

Fenwick, Charles

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

Foster Sir Walter (Derby Co.

Perks, Robert William

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Pickard, Benjamin

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Fuller, J. M. F.

Price, Robert John

Mr. Stevenson and Mr. Paulton.

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Rea, Russell

NOES.

Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N. E.)

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

Big wood, James

Acland-Hood. Capt. Sir Alex. F.

Balfour, Capt. C B. (Hornsey)

Bill, Charles

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds

Blake, Edward

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Banbury, Frederick George

Boland, John

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Barry, E. (Cork, S,)

Bond, Edward

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Barry, Sir Francis T (Windsor

Boscawen, Arthur Griffiths-

Arrol, Sir William

Hartley, George G T.

Blulnois, Edmund

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Bathurst, Hn Allen Benjamin

Bousfield, William Robert

Austin, Sir John

Beach, Rt Hn Sir Michael Hicks

Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex

Balcarres, Lord

Bignold, Arthur

Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn

Brassey, Albert

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Majendie, James A. H.

Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Martin, Richard Biddulph

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Greene, Sir E W (B'rySEdm'nds

Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh

Brown, Alexander H. (Shropsh

Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury

Meysey-Thompson; Sir H. M.

Bull, William James

Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.

Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

Bullard, Sir Hurry

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Butcher, John George

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Mitchell, William

Campbell, Rt Hn J. A. (Glasgow

Gunter, Sir Robert

Molesworth, Sir Lewis

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.

Guthrie, Walter Murray

Montagu, G (Huntingdon)

Carew, James Laurence

Hain, Edward

Moon, Edward Robert, Pacy

Carlile, William Walter

Hamilton, Rt Hn L'rd G (Midd'x

Mooney, John J.

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Hammond, John

More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire

Cautley, Henry Strother

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd

Morgan, David J (Waltham st'w

Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lanes.

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Morgan, Hn. Fred (Monm'thsh

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derby shire

Hatch, Ernest Frederick George

Morrison, James Archibald

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Hayden, John Patrick

Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Heath, James (Staffords. N. W.

Montz, Philip A.

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Henderson, Alexander

Murray, Rt Hn A. Grah'm (Bute

Chamberlain, J. A (Worcester

Hermon, Hodge Robert Trotter

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Chamberlayne, T. (S'thampton

Higginbottom, S. AV.

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath

Chapman, Edward

Hoare, Sir Samuel

Myers, William Henry

Charrington, Spencer

Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Clive, Captain Percy A.

Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Bright. side

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Cochrane, Hon. Thes. H. A. E.

Hornby, Sir William Henry

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Hoult, Joseph

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

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)

O' Brien, Kendal (Tippera'y Mid

Colomb, Sir. John Charles Ready

Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Hudson, George Bickersteth

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

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow

Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)

Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Jackson, Rt. Hon. Wm Lawies

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

Cox, Irwin Edward Bain bridge

Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

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

Cranborne, Viscount

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

O'Malley, William

Crean, Eugene

Johnston, William (Belfast)

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

Joyce, Michael

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton

Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

Parkes Ebenezer

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Kennedy, Patrick James

Peel, Hn Wm. Robert Wellesley

Dalkeith, Earl of

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop

Percy, Earl

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Keswick, William

Pierpoint, Robert

Davenport, William Bromley

Kimber, Henry

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Delany, William

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Plummer, Walter R.

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Digby, John K. D. Wingfield

Laurie, Lieut.-General

Power, Patrick Joseph

Dillon, John

Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.)

Pretyman, Ernest George

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Lawrence, Joseph (Monmouth)

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Dixon-Hartland. Sir Fr'd Dixon

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

Purvis, Robert

Donelan, Captain A.

Lawson, John Grant

Randles, John S.

Dorington, Sir John Edward

Leamy, Edmund

Rankin, Sir James

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Lecky, Rt. Hn. William Ed w. II.

Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Lee, Arthur H (Hants., Fareham

Ratcliff, R. F.

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Rattigan, Sir William Henry

Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Carrie

Redmond, John E. (Waterford

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

Redmond, William (Clare)

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Llewellyn, Evan Henry

Reid, James (Greenock)

Fardell, Sir T. George

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

Renshaw, Charles Bine

Fellowes, Hn, Ailwyn Edward

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Renwick, George

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

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge

Ffrench, Peter

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

Ridley, S Forde (Bethnal Green

Finch, George H.

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Fisher, William Hayes

Lowe, Francis William

Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose

Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Fitzroy, Hon Edward Algernon

Lowther, Rt. Hon. James (Kent)

Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

Flower, Ernest

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Rollitt, Sir Albert Kaye

Flynn, James Christopher

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

Ropner, Colonel Robert

Forster, Henry William

Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

Round, James

Foster, Sir Michael (Lon. Univ.

Lundon, W.

Runciman, Walter

Foster, PhilipS (Warwick, S. W.

Macdona, John Cumming

Rutherford, John

Galloway, William Johnson

MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Gardner, Ernest

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Garfit, William

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Gilhooly, James

M'Govern, T.

Seely, charles Hilton (Lincoln

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

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Seton-Karr, Henry

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

M' Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinbugh, W

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

1336

1337

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East

Thornton, Percy M.

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Smith, H C (North'mb. Tyneside

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks

Tritton, Charles Ernest

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

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

Tufnell, Liet.-Colonel Edward

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

Spear, John Ward

Tube, Sir John Batty

Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich

Valentia, Viscount

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

Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

Vincent, Col. Sir C E H (Sheffield

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset

Walker, Col. William Hall

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)

Warr, Augustus Frederick

Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

Stewart, Sir Mark J. M' Taggart

Welby, Lt.-Col. ACE (Taunton

Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

Stock, James Henry

Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.

Young, Samuel

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

Younger, William

Stroyan, John

Whiteley, H (Ashtonund. Lyne

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Sullivan, Donal

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Williams, Rt Hn J Powell-(Birm

Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

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

Wills, Sir Frederick

Thorburn, Sir Walter

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

DR. MACNAMARAmoved an Amendment to leave out of Clause 1 lines 9 to 15. When he asked that the county boroughs should have their School Boards, he was told that he was a two-authority man, and that they must have only one authority. Here was a proposal to give a separate authority for elementary education to boroughs, with a population of 10,001 and to all urban districts, with a population of 20,000. Under such circumstances, how were they going to ensure efficiency, avoid waste, and at the same time provide that the schools should be linked together? He should like to know upon what principle the Government were giving an independent authority for elementary education to a municipal borough of 10,001 inhabitants, while they refused the same autonomy to an urban district of 20,000 people. Perhaps they would have some explanation upon that point. There was a very remarkable contrast between this proposal now put forward by the Government and the attitude which the Government took up in 1396. In that year a proposal was made by the hon. Member for South Islington, to give autonomy to the smaller municipal authorities, and he moved that municipal boroughs with over 20,000 inhabitants should have autonomy. Upon that occasion the Vice-President of the Council said—
"Under the Bill, as it stood, there would be 128 authorities of the kind. He thought that number already too large, and hoped that it would he reduced by the exercise of the power of combination. One hundred and twenty-eight being the maximum number of independent education authorities under the Bill, the effect of accepting the Amendment would be
1338
to add to that number 241 more authorities of the kind. But they would not he able to stop there, for populous urban districts would claim to be treated like municipal boroughs, and he calculated that at least forty-nine of these districts would have to be added to the number. The total number of separate authorities with whom the Education Department would have to deal would then be 418."
The First Lord of the Treasury acceded to the proposition that municipal boroughs of 20,000 inhabitants should have autonomy. Upon the following night a proposition came forward to give the same authority to urban districts of 20,000 inhabitants, and in opposing this the Vice-President of the Council said—
"I laid all these reasons before the Committee on Thursday last, but I am afraid that, even when dealing with Education Bills, political considerations have often as great a force as educational, and, although no one, I think, doubted the correctness of my arguments from the educational point of view, the great desire for independence and separation which animates—perhaps properly animates the smaller municipal communities of this country made it necessary that sixty-nine fresh authorities should be let in, and sixty-nine fresh authorities were let in on Thursday last. Now the present Amendment proposes to let in forty-nine more, and there are other proposals behind to still further increase the number. This is all very well for those who are enemies of this Bill and who desire to see it brought to ruin. I can understand their motives. But I must ask those who are the friends of this Bill, and who desire to see it carried into law to support me in declining to admit any more local authorities. It is quite obvious that what was a difficulty becomes, in such circumtances, an impossibility, and hard as the task may be to carry out the Bill with the number of authorities that have already been put in, if forty-nine more are to be brought in, and another dozen or so by subsequent Amendments. I think that difficulty becomes an impossibility; therefore I must ask the Committee to support me in trying to find reasons and distinctions for rejecting this Amendment."

1339
All those propositions were contained in the Bill which they were now considering, and if those solemn assurances that they would ruin the Bill in 1896 were true why were they not true now? The Bill of 1890 was "with drawn on this very issue und the Member for South Islington was afterwards spoken of as the wrecker of that measure. If 222 authorities killed the measure of 1896 he would like to know what was going to happen when they were letting in 327 boroughs and urban districts. Nevertheless there was a much more serious matter than gibing at the Government for what they did in 1896. What became of their protests that they must have only one authority. Personally he had all sorts of sacrifices in order to get one authority, but the Government were now throwing at them 327 authorities. Sometime ago the Vice-President of the Council advocated the case of the rural school and he told them that the village school was in such a condition that the managers could not get money enough even to buy a window blind.
SIR JOHN GORST: No. no.
DR. MACNAMARAsaid that at any rate the statement was that they could not get money to provide some small article of ordinary necessity. This Bill 'would take out of the rural area the "fat" rating districts for the purposes of elementary education and it would leave the residue of the counties with a large number of children and with a large number of small schools with practically no rateable value at all. How were they going to improve the rural schools. If they left those poverty-stricken rural areas with very little rateable value. Take the case of Kent as an example. First of all they proposed to take out the County Borough of Canter-bury which would be autonomous. Then they proposed to take out sixteen other areas which meant more than half the rateable value of the county of Kent, and this would leave considerably more than half the children in very small schools with a very small residue of rateable value. In the case of Staffordshire they took out fourteen of the fattest urban plums and left the other poverty-
1340
stricken areas to look after themselves. Lancashire had always been treated considerately by this Government. There the county borough would he taken out, and also thirty-one of the urban areas which were the fat rating plums as he ventured to call them. What would the rural schools in Lancashire do in that case with a small rating value? In the county of Middlesex thirteen of the fattest rating areas would be taken out, and in the West Riding of Yorkshire there would be thirteen such districts taken out. He hoped the Vice-President would tell the Committee frankly his private view upon this. He hoped also the Government would allow him to be absolutely unmuzzled on this matter. By this scheme what they practically did was to deprive the poor rural areas of their fair share of the contribution raised by the urban areas. He begged to move.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 9, to leave out lines 9 to 15, both inclusive."—(Dr. Macnamara.)
Question proposed, "That the words 'Provided that' stand part of the clause."
MR A. J. BALFOURsaid the hon. Gentleman had attacked the Government because the proposal in this Bill was different from that in the Bill of 1896. The Bill of 1896 was an entirely different one, and in regard to that it, was sufficient to say to the House that the modification to which the hon. Member objected did not in the least lessen the value of the proposal introduced into this Bill.
DR. MACNAMARA: It makes it worse.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that at all events it made it different. He did not think there was much to be gained by elaborating references to what took place in this House seven years ago. The next argument of the hon. Gentleman was based upon the alleged divorce between primary and secondary education that would occur if this paragraph were retained in the clause. It was said that the proposal was absolutely destructive of the one authority theory. He did

1341
not deny that the clause to a certain extent, and a not unimportant extent, militated against the development of the principle of one authority for education. But the hon. Gentleman had forgotten that the boroughs were left with the expenditure of the penny rate on secondary education which they already possessed, and they would be, if the Bill were passed, the authorities for primary education within their limits. That might not be a perfect system, but it was a better system than the present, under which there were in boroughs a School Board and an isolated voluntary school on one side, and on the other side a municipal authority with the power of expending a penny rate on secondary education. By the Bill this great reform would be secured: that the municipal authority of a borough would be in a position to co-ordinate primary education, and a, considerable portion at all events of secondary education, within their limits. It the hon. Member had the great anxiety to pass the Bill which he said he had——
DR. MACNAMARA: To improve it.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid if that was the hon. Member's way of trying to improve Bills, he differed from him as to the method by which that object was to be gained. He would be perfectly fair in this matter. He thought it was true, up to a certain point, that the full benefits of the one authority principle were diminished by the scheme of the Bill, but to nothing like the extent represented by the hon. Gentleman. He thought the system which the Government had suggested would work perfectly. There must be harmony between the administration of primary and secondary education within the boroughs; and that harmony, which was absolutely impossible under the system from which the country now suffered, would be secured by the Bill. The bon. Gentleman had also argued that one result of the exclusion of boroughs of over 10,000 inhabitants and urban districts of over 20,000 inhabitants from the third part of the Bill would be to deprive the counties of the most valuable areas within their limits for the raising of rates necessary
1342
to carry on the work of primary education. He had found, on examination of the counties, that no general law could be laid down. There were cases in which the exclusion of the urban districts would militate against the finances of the county. On the other hand, there were many cases in which the position was exactly reversed, for the rateable value of an urban district, taken in relation to the number of children it would have to educate, would throw a greater hurden on it than if it were merged in the county. In these circumstances, he thought the Committee would adopt the most practical course by accepting the scheme of the Bill. He had dealt with the general view of the case presented by the hon. Gentleman, but he did not pretend to have exhausted everything that could be said for or against the particular numbers, 10,000 and 20,000, proposed in the Bill.
LORD EDMUND FITZ-MAURICEsaid they must all agree that the argument of the hon. Member for North Camberwell seemed logically unanswerable as a ground for the deletion of the parargaph which he proposed to omit, but at the same time a Bill of this kind could not be based on strict rules of logic, and he thought if his hon. friend would consider the general position of local government in relation to education, he would see that the County Councils must make some concession to the feeling of the boroughs with regard to independence. He did not think an Amendment of this kind should receive the support of County Councils, because it would only be regarded by the boroughs as an attempt on the part of the County Councils to-intrude upon the legitimate sphere of borough independence. One of the difficult questions in connection with this Bill was as to the amount of independence which should be left to the boroughs in the matter of county administration, but when his County Council told him that the adoption of the words proposed to be deleted completely destroyed the idea of county administration and put an end to the hope of co-ordination, he must respectfully beg to differ. He regarded this as

1343
a matter where the county authority must make some concession, and the only question was at what line the concession was to be made. Though they approved of the proposal so far as the principle was concerned, they were not in the least precluded from having any opinion they liked on the question whether the number should be 10,000, 20,000, or 30,000; or whether it should be the same or a different number in boroughs and urban districts. Therefore his belief was that if the Amendment were adopted, it would be regarded by the boroughs as an attempt by the County Council to strike a blow at their independence.
MR. EMMOTTsaid that personally he was not a fanatic for one authority; but what he 'wanted to see was an authority which would be most suited to carry on the work of education. There was great danger of the County Council being overweighted, and it was just because this clause would get rid of some of the detailed work of elementary education that he would vote against the Amendment.
SIR EDWARD GREYsaid that he quite agreed with the right hon. Member for North Camberwell, and would vote for his Amendment. The Committee had decided the previous night that the County Council was to be the educational authority, both for elementary and higher education. There was a great deal to be said for that, but at the same time Parliament must not run the risk of crippling the County Councils by cutting these great holes in their areas of administration. If the County Councils were to be the educational authority, then let them trust the County Councils. They would retain the power to delegate authority, and to make separate areas under their own supervision. The clause would impose a number of rigid exceptions which would be most disadvantageous to some Councils. He should say that if the County Councils were to be the one educational authority, let them start fair and give them a fair chance.
SIR JOHN BRUNNERsaid he should certainly support the Amendment. It would, in his opinion, be inadvisable to divide the county, and take out the large urban areas, leaving a very large, and almost desert, district to be worked by itself.
MR. NUSSEYsaid that it seemed to him that the hon. Member for North Camberwell was inconsistent. The hon. Gentleman first complained that they were giving the County Councils too much work to do, and then he complained that it was proposed by the Bill to set up local authorities for education in 327 boroughs and urban districts.
MR. CORRIE GRANTsaid that the Amendment raised a broad question of principle. All through these educational discussions he had been an ad hoc, man. To get their educational work efficiently done, they must have men and women chosen to do it who had devoted their lives to the cause.
It being half-past Seven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
Committee report progress; to sit again this evening.

EVENING SITTING.

  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  (In the Committee.)
  Debate resumed.
  MR CORRIEGRANT,resuming his speech, said he had always been in favour of a single franchise for Parliamentary, educational, and other purposes. What he also wanted was one authority entrusted with the control of education, but instead of that, they had under the Bill something like eight authorities introduced. The other day he came across a petition from Atherton, with a population of 16,211—a place which according to the Bill as it stood, would not be entitled to be the local education authority. The petitioners pointed out that under the Technical Instruction Act they, in the year 1892, erected certain

  1345
  buildings at a cost of £3,000 for technical education purposes, and had since carried on the instruction there at considerable expense. They objected to transferring their schools to another authority, and appealed to be allowed to retain at any rate the control of higher education. But surely a small place which had done so much for higher education ought to be entrusted with the management of elementary education. He had some knowledge of the friction which arose in connection with the transfer of children from elementary into secondary schools, and that was another reason wiry he favoured the single authority principle. Differences of opinion occasionally arose as to when a child should pass from the elementary into the secondary schools, and the tendency was to keep promising children so long in the elementary schools, that when transfer absolutely became necessary the parent thought the time had arrived for the child to go to work, and he too often lost his chances of higher education. In the Rugby Division they bad a secondary school, and if the Bill passed as it stood the Rugby Urban District Council, which had a population under it of less than 20,000, would have no power of control, which would pass into the hands of the Warwickshire County Council, whose headquarters were thirteen miles off. The Bill as it stood afforded opportunity for never-ending disputes and friction, and that was one of its greatest blots. If they were to have an Education Bill at all, it should tend in the direction of unity of government, and should attract the best possible men to take part in the management.
  SIR ALBERT ROLLITsaid the object of the Amendment was to strike out from Clause 1 the proviso which enabled boroughs of 10,000 population and urban districts of £0,000 to remain the local authority for educational work—the authority for elementary education only. Reference had been made to what took place in 1896. The Bill of that year dealt with both primary and secondary education, but the discussion to which previous speakers had referred took place in respect of secondary education, the question of primary education being treated sub silentio. With regard to secondary schools, the
  1346
  decision then come to was accepted by the boroughs. So far as he remembered, these boroughs were, without exception, School Board areas; many of them had rated themselves for educational work, and had expended whisky money in the cause of education. Their educational efforts had been most successful, and he asked the Committee not to destroy the work they had done under the Bill of 1896. At Dewsbury the grammar school had been subsidised, and a technical school established, the whole educational needs of the borough having been adequately provided for.
  DR. MACNAMARA: What is the population?
  SIR ALBERT ROLLIT: About 45,000 In the borough of Accrington there was a science and technical school, with a central class for pupil teachers, and in Cambridge and other boroughs equally good educational work had been carried on. These boroughs had had a long existence, there was in them a great continuity of experience and tradition, and there was a distinctive character in borough urban life which differentiated it from the surrounding county. As the Vice-President had well said, in education it was necessary to consider variety of circumstance and condition. Let them take the case of Luton. That small borough lost the whole of its trade in competition with Italy and Switzerland, but it rose to the occasion. It engaged teachers and established schools, and it in time recovered the whole of its trade and brought about an increase of wages to the extent of 100 per cent. That was an instance of distinctive borough life and industry which ought not to be disregarded in educational matters, and he therefore appealed strongly for the maintenance of this provision in the Bill. How could the County Council, which in some cases would be fifty or sixty miles away, properly superintend the infinite detail of primary education? That was a matter dependent on local judgment, experience, needs, and opportunity; and the retention of this proviso would enable the good work already done to be developed and extended. Its omission would raise a feeling of resentment which might go far to endanger the Bill. By transferring the existing elementary education system from the present areas

  1347
  and establishing it in a central place they would, in his opinion, be departing from the cardinal principles of the Bill.
  MR DILLONsaid the hon. Member had pointed out the impossibility of a central county authority managing education throughout its area, and had declared that to take away powers now possessed by boroughs in whose autonomy he was interested would be a departure from the principle of the Bill. But was not his argument itself a condemnation of the whole principle of the Bill? He had noticed the extraordinary fact that every case quoted by the hon. Member against the Amendment dealt not with elementary education but with secondary education. He alluded to one or two boroughs which had rated themselves. But for what? For technical and secondary education, which was not the point involved in the Amendment.
  SIR ALBERT ROLLITsaid they had a School Board rate.
  MR. DILLONsaid that was not what the hon. Member had alluded to. He pointed to a secondary education rate, and did not allude to the School Board rate at all. As he understood the Bill, it proposed to limit local authorities as regarded secondary education, and to invest them with fresh powers as regarded primary education. Therefore, the cases quoted by the hon. Member were not applicable. Take the case of Liverpool. That was a very striking case, but what had it to do with elementary education?
  SIR ALBERT ROLLLTsaid he had pointed out that the places he had mentioned had given evidence of educational effort. The funds for primary education were provided differently.
  MR. DILLONsaid all the cases quoted by the hon. Members were evidence of educational zeal for secondary education, but they were now dealing with primary education. If the mere fact of having given evidence of educational zeal were to be accepted as a sufficient argument for the preservation of existing bodies, what about the School Boards? Therefore, he maintained that the cases quoted by the hon. Member did not apply at all.
  1348
  He confessed he found very great difficulty in dealing with the Amendment, and he admitted that when he saw it on the Amendment Paper he was astonished that it should have been put down by no less than four Radical Members. It rather commended itself to him when he first saw it. Looking at the matter from the point of view of denominational schools, especially Catholic schools, he should be more afraid of harsh and unfair treatment in small urban districts than in other parts of the country. What were they asked to consent to by the proviso? Under the law at present, if the small urban districts adopted a School Board, Catholics would have a look in, and so would every other Church party under the cumulative vote. They had a chance of getting one or two of their friends on the Board whenever they had a sufficient body of electors. He did not say that if there were only ten or twelve children Catholics were entitled to the denominational school. They should be a moderately numerous body, and when they were, they were almost sure of getting a seat on the School Board. Under the Bill, however, in all human probability, they would not have the least chance of getting a voice at all, and they were asked by the proviso to make a large number of urban districts and boroughs the autonomous authority in regard to elementary education, and to part with the cumulative Vote. He was amazed to find himself supporting an Amendment put down by four Radical Members, and he was really somewhat bewildered at the position in which he found himself. It was perfectly plain to him that their chance of getting fair treatment would be far greater from the County Councils than from the bodies to be exempted under this proviso. On what principle was the proviso recommended to the Committee? He; voted with some reluctance against the previous Amendment, with the idea that the essential principle of the Bill was that there should be one authority, and that if that authority were broken up, the very life of the Bill would be struck at. On what principle, therefore, was the proviso which broke up the whole principle of one authority recommended? From an educational point of view, he was not an enthusiast for one authority,

  1349
  and he was not convinced that it was such a valuable thing as the hon. Member for North Camberwell supposed it to be; but the Government recommended the Bill to the House on the principle of one authority, whereas the proviso introduced two separate authorities for the same area—one for primary, and the other for secondary education. He confessed he failed to understand exactly where they were, because, not only were they to have in the urban districts and boroughs two separate and distinct authorities, which was a principle condemned by the Government, but they would further have the authority dealing with primary education, with power to nibble at secondary education in conjunction with the County Council. But there was no explanation as to how far that authority might go. If they adopted the great principle of one authority in each district, then they ought to stick to it. He believed that the voluntary schools would have a bettor chance of fair play in urban districts and non-county borough, if they were placed under the central authority of the County Council, and, therefore, he was a strong supporter of the Amendment, and awaited with considerable curiosity to hear the grounds on which the Government would attempt to justify such an extraordinary departure from the principle of the Bill. There was no reason in argument or logic for the proviso. He could conceive only one reason, and that was that the Government were afraid of the urban districts, but he did not think that was a good position to take up.
  SIR MICHAEL FOSTERsaid he desired to express the hope that the First Lord of the Treasury would see his way to accept the Amendment. The essential principle of the Bill was the one authority, and it went to the very root of the whole business. The Vice-President, on the Second Reading, said that a philosopher sitting in his chair might make a distinction between primary and secondary education. He ventured with deference to differ from the Vice-President, for the man who attempted that would cease to be a philosopher. There was no difierence between primary and secondary education. The apparent difference was the outcome of the political exigencies of 1870, and the sooner it
  1350
  was done away with the better for England. He was convinced that they were suffering, not so much from the want of secondary education on the part of those who could afford to pay for it, as from the want of a broader primary education, not only as regarded those who were taught, but even more those who taught. He had been looking for some time past at the disastrous influence upon the teachers of the absolutely fictitious distinction between primary and secondary education, and it was because he could not but see that the proviso contravened the first principle of the Bill that he trusted the Amendment of the hon. Member for North Camberwell would be accepted. He could conceive that there was a difficulty in the way of the retention of large populous districts with many active centres, and he ventured to suggest that that difficulty might be overcome by some arrangement under Clause 12, continuing the principle of the one authority, rather than by—if he might venture to say so—the imperfect suggestion contained in the proviso, which would only partially secure its object, and secure it by contravening what he regarded as the very essence of the Bill. It was that which chiefly stirred him to support the Amendment as far as he could, because he was not looking at next year or the year after. He was looking at many years hence. If the one authority were established, it could never be taken away, whereas the minor difficulty which confronted them at present might be removed by legislation, even at no very distant date.
  SIR JOSEPH LEESEsaid he regretted he could not support the Amendment. As the Bill stood, this proviso was one of the very best parts of it. He was bound, like every other hon. Member, to draw upon his own experience, and his own experience had been gathered in his own constituency. The hon. Member for South Islington specially referred to Acerington. It was a town of 45,000 inhabitants, and they themselves had raised and spent no less than £13,000 on technical schools, and they bad been so successful that they had, he thought, established their right to autonomy with regard to education. The proviso would give them, at any rate, a large step in advance as regarded that autonomy. A great deal of strong and bitter feeling

  1351
  had been aroused with reference to the "whiskey money" they had received, and that bitterness would be increased tenfold if they were placed under the County Council with regard to elementary education. What the hon. Member had just said with reference to Clause 12 might be true, but he was content with the proviso as it stood, and, therefore, could not support the Amendment.
  CAPTAIN BALFOURsaid that for him, a simple man, to join issue with great educational authorities was a very hard task. But his constituency felt strongly in regard to the proviso, and he congratulated the right hon. Gentleman on the stand he was making in retaining it. He represented an urban district with a population of 75,000, and the reason they wanted the proviso retained was that they had been the most forward of any part of Middlesex in the work of education. The School Board of Hornsey occupied a very strong position, and it would not go down "unwept, unhonoured, and unsung." It would be very much regretted. The reason why the urban district of Hornsey wished to retain the power in their own hands was that, as regarded primary education, they considered they knew the requirements of the district very much better than the County Council. The hon. Member for East Mayo said that there was no reason why a County Council should not know the condition of the area it administered. He ventured to differ from that. Where there was a very crowded population, there was great cohesion and sentiment, and the district knew its own wants. Where there was a large, scattered population, it was quite possible for the County Council to understand the condition of the district, but that was not so easy in a crowded population; and, therefore, his constituents were very anxious that the work of education should be retained in the hands of the Urban Council, rather than it should be handed over to the County Council. He, therefore, hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would not give way, but would stick to the proviso.
  MR. KcKENNAsaid there could not be a better illustration than was afforded by the Amendment, of the essential contradictions of the Bill. He
  1352
  wondered whether the hon. Member who had just spoken had voted for the killing of the School Boards. If he had, the principle on which the hon. Member voted was good enough for killing the School Boards, which, on his own testimony, had done admirable work; although now, in flat contradiction of that very principle, it was proposed to set up another education authority, different from the central authority. He would quote what the First Lord said on the 2nd of June, 1902, and he would show, out of the right hon. Gentleman's own mouth, how he was frustrating the principle he himself had laid down. The right hon. Gentleman said—
  "It is impossible for any authority properly to weigh and to decide upon the course it ought to pursue with regard to primary education without having secondary education in view; and, conversely, it is impossible for any authority to consider what it ought to do with regard to secondary education without considering the needs of primary education. These are, I think, indivisible halves of one great whole. I do not believe that any secondary education authority could carry out its work to the fullest advantage unless it not only had under its control or supervision the secondary education, which is the crown of the work of primary education short of the Universities, but unless it had also under its control the whole apparatus by which citizens are to be fitted to take advantage of the money spent on secondary education. If that were not so, the money spent on secondary education was thrown into the sea."
  Now, the right hon. Gentleman proposed to throw into the sea all the money spent on secondary education in boroughs of over 10,000 inhabitants, and in urban districts of over 20,000 inhabitants. Out of his own mouth the right hon. Gentleman was convicted. Either the principle which was good enough for killing the School Boards was a sham, or else it was sound; and if it were sound, the right hon. Gentleman was bound to accept the Amendment of his hon. friend. They could not, after their experience of that evening, shut their eyes to the fact that the Bill was not founded on principle, but on those electoral considerations which the Committee had heard from the hon. Member who had just sat down. His hon. friend who moved the Amendment observed, with great truth, that if it were not accepted every fat urban district would be taken out of the county. It was optional for

  1353
  the boroughs and urban districts to adopt Part III. They would adopt it when they could effect a saving in the rates and when they would secure financial relief, but they would not adopt it otherwise. The language used by his hon. friend was absolutely true in substance and detail. Under the clause as it stood, every fat urban district would be shut out of the county, and the county would be left not only with the poor rural districts, but with the poor urban districts as well. If the Amendment were not accepted, on the principle of the First Lord of the Treasury himself, the Bill was a failure, and, moreover, injustice would be done, to the ratepayers. He thought that the Committee was entitled to some explanation from the right hon. Gentleman as to why he had abandoned his principle.
  MR. W. D. GREENsaid the hon. Member who had just spoken talked about killing the School Boards, but the Amendment proposed to kill the Town Councils in boroughs. He could not conceive how the Party opposite could possibly support the Amendment, because one of their principal points on the Second Reading was that the authority of the County Councils was so remote that it practically did not exist at all. The Amendment proposed to destroy the much nearer and closer control of the Town Councils in non county boroughs. If they were to have local control over all elementary schools which should be really practical and active he thought it was wiser that they should trust the Town Councils than leave the control wholly in the hands of what had been called the remote County Councils. The hon. Member for the Loudon University, in his most interesting speech, said that what he was anxious about was that elementary education should be put on a broader basis. He would ask the hon. Member, as a practical man, whether he would not be likely to get more efficiency in elementary education from a Town Council than from a County Council. It would be a great slight on the smaller towns if they were not permitted to continue the control of their own primary
  1354
  education, and he certainly hoped that the Government would not accept the Amendment.
  SIR WALTER FOSTERsaid that the hon. Member for South Islington had given examples of the admirable work of many of the smaller boroughs in connection with secondary education. He himself believed that it would be one of the most fatal things possible for the education of the country if they were to check and discourage the interest which the smaller boroughs now took in the education of children; and nothing would discourage educational work in such places more than that it should be placed under the control of the County Councils. He maintained that in all cases where good educational work had been done, and where the local authorities deserved consideration for that work, they should not be subjected to the authority of the County Council. The principle of one authority was a very good one, but the best principle might sometimes be ridden too hard, and he thought in that case his hon. friend was riding it too hard when he suggested interference with these smaller boroughs, which had done so much good work. The proviso was one of the most popular portions of the Bill. He believed it was regarded throughout the country, especially in active educational centres, as the only redeeming feature of the Bill, and he hoped the Government would not be led by any pedantic desire to maintain the one authority principle to sacrifice these boroughs.
  MR. ERNEST GRAYsaid it would be in the recollection of the House that that was the rock on which the Bill of 1896 was shipwrecked. The matter was a complicated one and was still more complicated because they did not know what course the Government proposed to take on the question of option. If they knew definitely that every authority which would be charged with the duty of higher education would also be charged with the duty of primary education the consideration of the question would be simplified. But it was in this proviso that the question of

  1355
  option appeared in its most objectionable form. He wished to ask for some enlightenment as to the real meaning of the proviso. It was laid down that these smaller areas should be the authority under Part III. These authorities were, under the proviso, to be the authorities for elementary education, but in the first clause of Part III. it was stated that it should only apply where it had been formally adopted, so that he took it that although these smaller areas were to have the right to become, authorities for elementary education they need not exercise that right. A peculiar position would then arise. A non-county borough which had the right to become an authority for elementary education might allow that right to remain in abeyance, but it would not forfeit it, and could keep it in its hands, and it could be the concurrent authority for secondary education, without teaching elementary education at all. He wished to ask who would then be responsible for the education in the voluntary schools of these non-county boroughs where the right remained in abeyance. Obviously, a County Council could not take over a duty which a non-county borough might wish to discharge itself. Did it mean that until the right was exercised by the urban district or by the council of the non-county borough the School Board would continue in these areas. On the face of it, that was the position; and if that were the position, then he would draw attention to the fact that the voluntary schools in these districts would be left out in the cold altogether. In such eases the School Boards would not be abolished, because they were only to disappear when the new authorities became responsible for elementary education. Therefore, there might be an extraordinary complication. There might be a School Board, with the voluntary schools left out entirely, and a local authority possessing, but not exercising, the right of elementary education, while being the concurrent authority for secondary education. He had always felt that there was no logical argument to be adduced for drawing the line sharply at the county borough. There were districts in the country quite as much entitled to local autonomy as the
  1356
  county boroughs through population, strong local sentiment, and special history. Their geographical distribution might demand that they should be specially dealt with, but that was not the way to deal with them. To treat non-county boroughs and urban districts in the manner proposed destroyed, to his mind, the whole principle of the Bill. He thought that the compromise which should be adopted was to make the area sufficiently large in order that it might satisfactorily discharge its obligations. If these large towns were to be entirely autonomous, if they were to levy their own rate, and to be their own authority for higher as well as for elementary education, he foresaw the perpetuation of the muddle they now had, and the perpetuation of friction in these areas between the two authorities for higher education; and before the Committee stage of the Bill was over there would be a demand from the representatives of non-county boroughs that they should have their part of the grant for higher education placed in their own hands and cut clean away from the control of the County Councils. As an illustration of the practical difficulty, he would cite the case of North Staffordshire, to which the proviso would apply. He understood that the feeling in the Pottery districts was that the towns should be amalgamated, that they should not act independently for elementary or secondary education, but that they should act as one county borough having a population of about 300,000. But if the great Pottery towns were cut out as non-county boroughs, or urban districts, then he would ask the Government to picture to themselves the position which would prevail in the narrow straggling area of rural districts. Were there no village schools, were there no small towns, below the level of population, which ought to have some provision made for them in respect of secondary education? Where did the children in these rural districts go? The railway lines naturally carried them into the large towns, but the large towns would be simply the concurrent authority with the penny rate, and would have no control over the county rate, which would be in the hands of the County Council. During the recess it was his fortune to be wandering about the Pottery district, and he

  1357
  found that the overwhelming feeling was that the North Staffordshire district should he treated, not by giving it control over elementary education with the power to merely tinker at secondary education, but that it should have the entire control of secondary education. He would urge on the First Lord of the Treasury as strongly as he could that the village school was one of their great difficulties. Under the Bill it would be left entirely stranded. The natural drift of the children was into the large towns, and these large towns should not be cut off, but should be made to serve the necessities of the surrounding rural districts. He thought the Committee ought to have some enlightenment as to the position of the voluntary schools in these urban districts where the option was not exercised, and, unless there was a prospect of a very considerable change in the proviso, and that definitely stated now, it would be his duty, on purely educational grounds, to vote for the Amendment.
  MR. PERKSsaid it was somewhat refreshing to find an hon. Member opposite appealing to the Government for some enlightenment. As far as he was concerned, he did not for a moment intend to attempt to explain the logical sequence of the Bill, nor was it worth while to discuss whether the First Lord of the Treasury had always expressed exactly the same view. The hon. Member for East Mayo had pointed out that some of the religious I denominations, notably the one to which he belonged, were not likely to get the same friendly recognition from local authorities as they would receive from the County Councils. He could not help feeling that if the control of the sectarian schools were relegated to the proposed nominated committees, appointed by the central county authority, they would be in worse hands than if controlled by the small borough and urban district authorities, who were popularly chosen. Speaking simply from the denominational point of view, he would far more readily expect fair treatment from the local authority than from the county authority, particularly in a county such as he had the honour to represent, where the county authority would have
  1358
  upon it probably a very small proportion of Nonconformists, while the local authorities would have a very large proportion. Whether he looked at the matter from the point of view of denominational schools connected with Nonconformity, or from the more important point of view of the enormous number of children of Nonconformists, who received their education in Anglican schools, he would infinitely rather entrust the education of children to the authority proposed in this proviso, than to the tender mercies of inchoate committees, which would be sot up under the Bill. Moreover the parents of the children, who ought to be encouraged to take a greater interest in the education of their children, and local people who had hitherto taken an interest in School Board government, would have a greater opportunity of showing that interest and exercising the necessary control in connection with the small local authorities, than if the education of the children was entrusted to Committees nominated by some distant authority with which they had very little concern. He should, therefore, feel obliged to vote against the Amendment.
  MR. HENRY HOBHOUSEsaid the County Councils did not object to the proposal made in the Bill, but regarded it more in the nature of a compromise. They recognised the desire of the Government for economy, and so far as that desire was satisfied without breaking up the present county system of higher education they would be most happy to assist in the work. But there was really a great distinction from the local Government point of view between secondary and elementary education. There was already a system of secondary education in the counties, and it was much more highly developed now than six years ago when this controversy last arose. He sincerely hoped that nothing would be done under this clause which would damage the existing system of secondary education. He thought that when they came to elementary education, although the supervision of all education by one authority was desirable from an abstract

  1359
  educational point of view, there was a great deal to be said for retaining the status quo in large towns.
  MR. HUMPHREYS-OWENsaid the objections raised as to the remoteness of the local authority could be got over by Amendments which must be introduced at a later stage in the Bill giving a certain amount of independent lower to smaller bodies than County Councils. By that means the advantages both of local authorities and of central guidance would be retained. In Wales they had a complete organised system of secondary education working in comparatively small areas. In Montgomeryshire, for instance, in areas with populations of about 8,000 to 1,200 in each there were bodies which dealt with secondary education under the guidance of the central county authority. The schools in Wales were largely recruited from the elementary schools, so that there was already the nucleus of an organisation which would deal with both secondary and elementary education in the county itself. If this proviso were allowed to stand, the apple of discord would certainly be thrown into the Welsh system between the municipal authorities and the present education, authorities, and on that ground, in addition to the general reasons which had been advanced, he hoped the Committee would pass the Amendment.
  MR. LAWSON WALTONfound it hard to follow the argument which had been used to show the inconsistency of this proviso with the principle of the Bill. Whether that principle was wise or unwise, the proviso was an essential element in its application. The principle of the Bill was to take existing areas for municipal purposes, and make them areas for educational purposes, and to make existing municipal authorities the educational authorities. If that principle were true in its application to counties and county boroughs it seemed consistent that it should be applicable as well to large boroughs within the area of the county,
  1360
  and large urban districts where there were elected authorities for the discharge, of municipal duties. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire seemed to confuse the idea of educational areas with that of educational authorities. The proviso did not propose to establish any new educational authority; it simply took as the educational authority the Council elected in the area within which the Act was to apply. He failed to see anything inconsistent, confusing, or conflicting in that provision, and from the point of view from which he approached the question it was an exceedingly salutary provision, inasmuch as it was proposed to extend to what were distinctively urban populations, although they had not reached either in number or in dignity the position of county boroughs, exactly the same power of adopting the; later provisions of the Bill as was given to county boroughs. As a borough representative he was anxious to give the corporations and councils of boroughs of 10,000 and urban districts of over 20,000 the power of adopting or re ecting the sections grouped under Part III. of the Bill. If the proviso remained, the Council of an urban district with a population of over 20,000, would have the power under Part III. of deciding to leave the School Boards untouched, and that was an enormous advantage. His constituency, being a County Borough, would probably leave the School Board in control of education, and, as a believer in School Boards, he desired to see that power extended to the large urban districts. He should, therefore, vote against the Amendment.
  MR. BRYCE: No one can have listened to this debate without feeling that the mover of the Amendment is upon absolutely secure logical ground, and that the logical ground on which the right hon. Gentleman took his stand has completely crumbled under his feet. We have admired more fervently than ever the ingenuity with which the First Lord has tried to say today exactly the opposite to what he said yesterday. The "one authority" principle seems, in fact, to be a weapon which he unsheathes for

  1361
  the purpose of killing the School Boards, but which, as soon as that act has been performed he throws away. But when one is considering how to vote on this question, it is necessary to ask two questions. The first is, what is the value of this principle of one authority? If I were able to agree with the hon. Member for the University of London, in the interesting and almost pathetic appeal he made to the First Lord, I should have to vote for the Amendment, but, as I have more than once said, I think this principle is not in the least fit to bear the weight which has been laid upon it. It has become, to a great extent, a mere catch-word, and it will not produce those great advantages which my hon. friend expects from it. The second question is this, even supposing the principle to be a sound one, are there not disadvantages attending the Amendment—in other words, advantages attending this proviso—which make it desirable to retain the proviso? There I fall back on what has been common ground for all of us on this side of the House, viz., that the principle of local control is vital for elementary education. I have always felt that for secondary education you must have a large authority, but for elementary education a small authority is likely to be more effective. For reasons which have been given over and over again, we think the County Council would be a bad authority for elementary education. Feeling that, I cannot doubt that the balance of argument is in favour of retaining the proviso. Of course, an ad hoc authority would be far better, and all the arguments in favour of one authority lead to an ad hoc authority, but we have no chance of such an authority. These localities at present have the advantage of being managed by such Boards; the Bill proposes to give them not such Boards, but at any rate a local authority of their own, one which knows local needs, and which will be able to give an efficient supervision to the local schools. It has been suggested that the object proposed to be attained by the present proviso might be secured in some other way. It is conceivable that that, might be done at a later stage in the Bill, but that, after all, is a bird in the bush, and I prefer to stick to the
  1362
  bird in the hand which I have in this proviso. The hon. Member for North-West Ham pointed out quite conclusively the extreme inconveniences which would follow from the present scheme, and the moral I drew from his argument was that we want a far greater adaptation of the Bill to different circumstances and classes. That also was the moral to be drawn from the remarks of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire. There ought to be some provision for dealing with these different cases, and the hard and fast system which the Government has laid down is likely to nullify even the good effects which might be expected from their Bill. But for the reasons I have stated I am in the agreeable position of being able to give the right hon. Gentleman a cordial support.
  MR SAMUEL EVANSsaid he had had great difficulty in deciding how to vote on this Amendment. He wished to know the opinion of the Vice-President as to whether the proviso in the Bill was dictated by political or educational reasons. If it was dictated by political reasons, as he was forced to believe from the silence of the right hon. Gentleman and of the First Lord of the Treasury, he would be against it; but if he could be per suaded that it was in the Bill because they were convinced that it would work more towards educational efficiency he would be in favour of it. The hon. Member for East Somerset had urged, on the present occasion, entirely different considerations from those he put forward on the previous day. He now threw over the one authority in order to have a compromise. If one thing was certain in connection with educational Acts of Parliament, it was that compromises should be avoided, as far as possible. The compromise of 1870 was mainly responsible for the tangle they were now in. As he read that Bill, the education authority, whether in the small boroughs or the larger urban districts, would act through a Committee. If that was so, he was not sure whether they were not better off with the education authority, limited as it was

  1363
  in the proviso, than with the County Council. Inasmuch as autonomy in matters appertaining to elementary education, and concurrent authority in matters appertaining to secondary education were being given to these smaller centres, the probability was that they would not act through an outside Committee, as the larger body, the County Council, would but would act through a Committee of their own body. There was nothing in the Bill to prevent them appointing this Education Committee entirely from their own body. That was an argument in favour of this proviso. What they wanted was to get the interest of the people excited at once in favour of educational reform and efficiency. He remembered the difficulties in which the Government were placed in 1896 by the hon. Member for South Islington when they were all in favour of one authority. It was then proposed that municipal boroughs with 20,000 inhabitants should have autonomy, and that was conceded. Then the Government were asked to grant the same concession to urban districts, and, at that time, he himself pointed out that the only difference between the two cases was that in one they might have a mace and a town crier, and in the other they could not. There was no distinction at all to be made between the two cases. When that proposal was before the House in 1896. how was it met by the Government? At that time the proposal was to extend, this power to municipal boroughs of over 20,000, and what was the argument of the Vice-President of the Council then? The right hon. Gentleman was a man who understood this matter. In the discussion which took place in 1896 the Member for South Aberdeen made a remark on this point which was received with a good deal of irreverent laughter on the opposite side. What they desired at the present moment was to have the views of the Minister for Education stated in the House, and, if his views would show that the retention of this proviso would mean greater efficiency, he was ready to support him. In 1896 the right hon. Gentleman argued that already there was a sufficient number of authorities under the Bill. Did the Vice-President of the Council
  1364
  still think that the municipal boroughs and the urban councils, of which he spoke in high praise in 1896, were the natural leaders in education in the county? If they were, it was doing a wrong to some counties to take away their natural leaders in education. The right hon. Gentleman had recently stated that he had learned a great deal since 1896. That was one faculty among many others which enabled the right hon. Gentleman to fill with such ability the distinguished position he now occupied; he was willing to learn. The one complaint which he had to make was that the right hon. Gentleman was not so willing to teach. He desired to learn also, and there was no one he would like better to teach him than the right hon. Gentleman; and if be would extend to them a little more of his learning, they would feel more grateful. He wished to remind the Committee of what the right hon. Gentleman said in the course of a later discussion in the debate of 1896 upon the question of the application of the principle of this proviso to urban districts of 20,000 inhabitants. An Amendment to this effect was proposed on the 15th of June, 1896. The right hon. Gentleman had fought against the extension of educational autonomy to the boroughs, and, by reason of the concession made by the First Lord of the Treasury, against the advice of the Minister for Education, the Vice-President of the Council had something to say upon this point, and he declared himself against this proposal entirely. He thought the Committee had a right to know what had changed the mind of the Minister for Education, for the same Minister had held office from 1896 to the present time. At that time the right hon. Gentleman argued strenuously against the proposal which was now part of this Bill, and he said—
  "I laid all those reasons before the Committee on Thursday last, but I am afraid that, even when dealing with Education Bills, political considerations have often as great a force as educational, and, although no one, I think, doubted the correctness of my arguments from the educational point of view, the great desire for independence and separation which animates—perhaps properly animates—the smaller municipal committees of this country made it necessary that sixty-nine fresh

  1365
  authorities should be let in, and sixty-nine fresh authorities were let in on Thursday last. Now the present Amendment proposes to let in forty-nine more, and there are other proposals behind to still further increase the number. This is all very well for those who are enemies of this Bill, and who desire to see it brought to ruin. I can understand their motives. But I must ask those who are the friends of this Bill, and who desire to see it carried into law, to support me in declining to admit any more local authorities. It is quite obvious that what was a difficulty becomes, in such circumstances, an impossibility, and, hard as the task may be to carry out the Bill with the number of authorities that have already been put in, if forty-nine more are to be brought in, and another dozen or so by sub sequent Amendments, I think that difficulty becomes an impossibility; therefore, I must ask the Committee to support me in trying to find reasons and distinctions for rejecting this Amendment."
  That was the position in 1896, and if it was true that the right hon. Gentleman had learned a great deal since that time, he desired to know who had taught him the lesson, and was he now guided by political considerations, or had he come to the opinion that greater educational efficiency would be achieved by inserting this proviso in the Bill? Appeals had been made from the other side of the House that hon. Members should be allowed to give an open vote upon this matter. The hon. Member for North-West Ham had said that there were two opinions on the Opposition side of the House upon this matter. He would remind the right hon. Member that there were two opinions, and perhaps more, amongst hon. Gentlemen opposite, and unless, they had clean open voting, so that everybody would be able to express their own convictions, they had a right to know from the right hon. Gentleman whether he thought now that education would be made more efficient by the inclusion of this proviso. What was it that had since led him to change his mind? The hon. Member for North Camber-well had pointed out that "the plums" were being taken out of the counties. The First Lord of the Treasury had asserted that that was not true. In 1896, however, the right hon. Gentleman expressed a different opinion as to the effect of taking out those boroughs, for he was then of opinion that if they took out those boroughs they would be taking out a good deal of the ratable
  1366
  portion of the county, and to that extent they would be impoverishing the rest of the county. Under those circumstances, how were they to vote? He had listened attentively to the speech or the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Aberdeen upon this matter, and he had also listened equally carefully to the speech, of the hon. Baronet the Member for Berwick. He had a great many leaders, but upon this matter he was inclined to follow the lead of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberdeen in these educational matters, believing that the hon. Member for Berwick was less practical and more easily caught by the shibboleth of "one authority." But the one county authority for Rutland was a very different thing to the Councils of the larger counties. What they ought to do in this matter was to look to the best centre they could get for the efficient working of the educational machine. If he held the opinion that, by giving to a County Council the entire control in the matter of elementary and secondary education, they would secure a more efficient authority, he should certainly support that view. It had been said that these authorities only had a penny rate to draw upon, but if they made it compulsory to levy a twopenny rate they might expect greater efficiency. In this Bill they made it entirely optional on the part of the counties as to whether they should levy this twopenny rate, whereas in the municipalities they were much more ready to levy a penny rate than the counties would be to levy any rate at all. He had a great desire to hear the Vice-President of the Council upon this matter. [Ministerial cries of "No, no!"] It was all very well for hon. Members opposite to cry out "No, no!" but what was the Minister for Education in the House for? They had a right to expect him to speak upon this matter, more especially as they had shown in the debate that the right hon. Gentleman was now going in the teeth of every word he said in the year 1896. That being so, he thought the Committee was entitled to the educational light and leading which no one could give better than the Vice-President of the Council.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: I am covinced that those who support the Amendment attach more importance to it from an educational point of view than the Government do, and I do not know whether it is understood why so much importance is attached to it. Before a vote is taken, I would like to have a clear understanding whether, supposing the Amendment is rejected and the words remain, it will be possible that the operation of the proviso would be attended in each case by the consent of the County Council. I ask for a ruling from the Chairman on this point. The words I propose to add to some part of the proviso are: "with the consent of the County Council."
  THE CHAIRMAN: I will wait until I see the Amendment on the Paper.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I would venture to appeal to the House to come to a conclusion. The hon. Gentleman opposite said we ought to ask ourselves two questions before we divide. I dare say we ought to ask ourselves two questions, and perhaps even more; but let us, in heaven's name, ask ourselves the questions in silence.
  (11.8.) Question put.
  The Committee divided :—Ayes, 307; Noes, 88. (Division List No. 195.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex F.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Evans, Sir Francis H. (Maidst'ne

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Chamberlain, J Austen (Worc'r

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Allhusen, Augustus H'nry Eden

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Chapman, Edward

  Fenwick, Charles

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Charrington, Spencer

  Finch, George H.

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Clive, Captain, Percy A.

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Arrol, Sir William

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

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Fison, Frederick William

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

  Balcarres, Lord

  Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmund

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

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Filzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Flower, Ernest

  Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Forster, Henry William

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainhridge

  Foster, Philip S (Warwick, S W.

  Beach Rt Hn Sir Michael Hicks

  Craig, Robert Hunter

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Bell, Richard

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Bignold, Arthur

  Cremer, William Randal

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Bigwood, James

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Garfit, William

  Bill, Charles

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

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

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Gladstone, Rt Hn Herbert John

  Bond, Edward

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chath'm

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

  Brassey, Albert

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

  Gordon, Hn J. E (Elgin & Nairn)

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Denny, Colonel

  Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'H'mlets

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

  Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

  Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

  Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

  Gosehen, Hon. George Joachim

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Dorington, Sir John Edward

  Green, Walford D, (Wedn'sbury

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Doughty, George

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

  Bull, William James

  Doughts, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Gretton, John

  Butcher, John George

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Cameron, Robert

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Hain, Edward

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Dyke, Ht. Hn. Sir William Hart

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Cawley, Frederick

  Ellis, John Edward

  Harwood, George

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Emmott, Alfred

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale-

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Heath, James (Staffords. N. W.

  Middlemore, John Throgmort'n

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Helder, Augustus

  Milner, Rt. Hon. Sir Fredk. G.

  Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Mitchell, William

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Sharp, William Edward T.

  Henderson, Alexander

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Hermon-Hodge, Robert Trotter

  Morgan, David J (Walth'mstow

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Higginbottom, S. W.

  Morgan, Hn Fred. (Monm'thsh.

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.)

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Smith, H C (North'mb. Tyneside

  Holland, William Henry

  Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Muntz, Philip A.

  Spear, John Ward

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Murray, Rt Hn A Graham (Bute

  Spencer, Rt Hn C. R. (Northants

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

  Hoult, Joseph

  Myers, William Henry

  Stanley, Lord (Lancas.)

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Newdigate, Francis Alexander

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M' Taggart

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Newnes, Sir George

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Hutton, John (Yorks. N. B.)

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Stock, James Henry

  Jackson, Rt. Hon. Wm. Lawies

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Jebb, Sir Richard, Claverhouse

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Jessell, Capt. Herbert Merton

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Parker, Gilbert

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

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Taylor, Theodore Cooke

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Kitson, Sir James

  Peel Hn Wm. Robert Wellesley

  Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.

  Knowles, Lees

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Lambert, George

  Penn, John

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

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Win.

  Percy, Earl

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Perks, Robert William

  Toulmin, George

  Lawrence, Joseph (Monmouth)

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Lawson, John Grant

  Pilkington, Lt.-Col. Richard

  Tufnell, Lt-Colonel Edward

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Valentia, Viscount

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Vincent, Col. Sir C E H (Sheffield

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Legge, Colonel Hon. Heneage

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Wallace, Robert

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Price, Robert John

  Walton, John Lawson (Leeds, S.

  Leng, Sir John

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Purvis, Robert

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Levy, Maurice

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Randles, John S.

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Rankin, Sir James

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

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Went worth, Bruce C. Vernon-

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. J. Lloyd.

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

  Rattigan, Sir William Henry

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Long, Rt Hn Walter (Bristol, S.)

  Rea, Russell

  Whitely, H. (Ashton und. Lyne

  Lough, Thomas

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Wills, Sir Frederick

  Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

  Remnant, James Farquharson

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

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Renshaw, Charles Bine

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

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Renwick, George

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Richards, Henry Charles

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Macdona, John Gumming

  Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Maclver, David (Liverpool)

  Rigg, Richard

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

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomas

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

  M'Arthur, (Charles Liverpool)

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs)

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

  M'Crae, George

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinb'rgh W.

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Wyndham-Quinn, Major W. H.

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Ropner, Colonel Robert

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Runciman, Walter

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Rutherford, John

  Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

  Mather, William

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Maxwell, W J H (Dumfriesshire

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.

  Allen, Charles P. (Glouc., Stroud

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Black, Alexander William

  Allan, William (Gateshead)

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Blake, Edward

  1370

  1371

  Boland, John

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

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

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)

  O'Malley, William

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Humphreys-Owens, Arthur C.

  O'Mara, James

  Caine, William Sproston

  Joicey, Sir James

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Caldwell, James

  Jones, William (Carnarv'nshire

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Joyce, Michael

  Priestly, Arthur

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Labouchere, Henry

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Crean, Eugene

  Langley, Batty

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Leamy, Edmund

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Delany, William

  Lundon, W.

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Dillon, John

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Donelan, Captain A.

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Edwards, Frank

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Sullivan, Donal

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.

  Ffrench, Peter

  M'Govern, T.

  Thomas, J A (Glamorg'n, Gower

  Flynn, James Christopher

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Tomkinson, James

  Foster, Sir Michael (Lon. Univ.

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Ure, Alexander

  Gilhooly, James

  Mooney, John J.

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Young, Samuel

  Haldane, Richard Burdon

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Hammond, John

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipp'rary Mid

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

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

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

  Dr. Macnamara and Mr Corrie Grant.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  MR. SAMUEL EVANSmoved an Amendment with the view of omitting the population limit by which Councils of boroughs under 10,000 are prevented from becoming the local education authority. This Amendment raised a question which was raised by the hon. Member for Islington in 1896. He asked why the Government had drawn the line at 10,000 in the case of municipal boroughs. As illustrating how absolutely illogical the arrangement would be, he stated what would happen in the case of a number of towns in Wales. In the county of Denbigh, under the decision which the House had just come to, the capital town would not have autonomy, because it had under 10,000 inhabitants; while Wrexham, which had over 12,000 inhabitants, would have autonomy. Again, in Carnarvonshire there were two important towns, Carnarvon and Bangor, with just under 10,000 inhabitants. One of those towns had been chosen as one of the centres for the three University colleges of Wales, and yet it would not have autonomy for elementary education. What would happen when, as was probable in a year or two, they passed the limit of population? It was proposed at present to give to the County Council the whole control in the matter of education
  1372
  in these towns, but when the population reached 10,000 they would at once come within the limit which would qualify them to be the authority for elementary education. Pontypridd, which had a population of about 19,000, had never been a municipal borough, but it was one of the most active and enlightened towns in South Wales.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 9, to leave out the word 'the' and insert the word 'any.'"—(Mr. Samuel Evans.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'the' stand part of the clause.
  THE PRESIDENT OF the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. WALTER LONG,)said the Amendment proposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman asked the Committee to proceed in an opposite direction to the Amendment which they discussed previous to the last division.
  MR. SAMUEL EVANSsaid he voted with the Government in the last division.
  MR WALTER LONGsaid he was glad the hon. Gentleman voted with the Government in that particular case. It showed that the hon. Member held strong and decided opinions on both sides. There were over 200 boroughs and between 800 and 900 urban districts. Some of them had a population which was very small indeed—from 800 to 1,00. There was one borough with a population of only 1,000. The hon. Gentleman's suggestion was that they could not logically define and draw a line for 10,000 for boroughs, and 20,000 for urban districts. How were they to draw any line at all? In all kinds of legislation previously passed there had been concessions made in favour of old boroughs with a population of 10,000. The boroughs had autonomy now, and had a part in local government which was not occupied by urban districts, and the Government, in the Bill, were strictly following precedent in taking boroughs of 10,000 population, and in fixing a higher limit in regard to urban districts. The Amendment could not be accepted by the Government, as it would have the effect of destroying the principle of the Bill as applied to the County Councils.
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEYsaid that the Amendment moved by his hon. friend was exactly the same as one which he himself had intended to submit to the Committee. The First Lord of the Treasury had pointed out that those boroughs which had control over secondary education ought to have co-ordinate power over elementary education as well, and the Amendment would, he insisted, accomplish that object. Surely, it did not make any great difference whether a borough had a population of 10,000 or
  1374
  5,000. It seemed to him very hard indeed that, simply for the sake of enforcing a 10,000 limit, they should destroy separate entities which had enjoyed a corporate muncipal life for centuries. He very strongly supported the Amendment.
  MR. GEORGE LAMBERTsaid he had always maintained that the county authority was the best for secondary educaiton, but the best authority for elementary education was the boroughs. The Vice-President of the Council, who was one of the greatest authorities on education, had himself admitted that he was not a devotee at the shrine of one authority. Why should boroughs of 5,000 inhabitants not be given the same privileges as were granted to boroughs of 10,000 inhabitants? If some of these small boroughs lost the control of their education, the high state of efficiency to which they had brought education in the towns would probably disappear. There was a borough in his own constituency which had endowments sufficient, with the Government grant, to maintain all the elementary schools; and he asked how that borough would stand if this clause were passed. Would the borough lose its educational endowments, and at the same time he rated with the county? He strongly pressed on the Government to make the authority for elementary education smaller, especially in the case of those municipalities which had been for generations used to govern themselves. If education were to be made more efficient they must get closer to the parents, and that could better he done in the boroughs than in the counties.
  MR. HERBERT LEWISsaid that the Amendment was one which deserved the

  1375
  serious consideration of the Government. He had in his mind two boroughs—one would have an educational authority, and the other, only a few miles apart, would not, although the educational work done in the latter was at present probably better than that done in the former. He ventured to think that these smaller boroughs and urban district councils were as capable of supervising the work of elementary education as any larger authority could be, and, that if the work were entrusted to them, they could be safely relied upon to do it with a proper regard to the particular needs of the district. Why should an arbitrary line be drawn at a population of 10,000? There was no reason why a borough with 9,000 inhabitants should not have the same educational advantages as a borough with 10,000.
  MR. SAMUEL EVANSsaid he wanted to know what would happen when a borough with a population of 9,800 became a borough with 10,000 inhabitants. Was it a fact that upon such a borough gaining a population of 10,000, it would immediately become invested with autonomy.
  SIR JOHN BRUNNERsaid he wished to ask whether a borough just under 10,000, or an urban district just under 20,000, increased its population not only by natural growth, but also by taking in any neighbouring districts, it would then obtain the privileges which were now to be given to the larger boroughs and urban districts.
  MR A. J. BALFOURsaid that the Government had followed in this case the exact analogy of previous Acts, which prescribed a limit of population for certain things. They had not made it an in-and-out and varying arrangement, but had based themselves upon the census of 1901.
  MR. SAMUEL EVANS: Is that for all time?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes; that is the plan that has been sanctioned by Parliament.
  MR. BRYCEsaid there was no doubt that there would be certain disadvantages in connection with fixing a certain limit of population; but he thought that part raised by his hon. friend was of sufficient importance to be made the subject of an Amendment.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid the question would come up distinctly on a later clause, which laid down the very principle he had just explained to the Committee. That would be the proper time and place to raise the question as to whether the arrangement should be a permanent one, or should vary with a varying of the population.
  (11.52.) Question put.
  The Committee divided :—Ayes, 244; Noes, 91. (Division List No. 196).

  AYES

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Allhusen, Augustus Hy. Eden

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans

  Milner, Rt. Hn, Sir Frederick G.

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Gilhooly, James

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Arrol, Sir William

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

  Morgan, David J (Walthamstow

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Gordon, Maj Evans-(Tr H'mlets

  Morgan, Hn. Fred (Monm'thsh.

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Gore, Hon G R C Ormsby-(Salop

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Balcarres, Lord

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Morrison, James Archibald

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

  Gosehen, Hon. George Joachim

  Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford)

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Muntz, Philip A.

  Balfour, Rt. Hon. G. W. (Leeds)

  Green, Walford D. (Wednesb'ry

  Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute

  Banbury, Frederick George

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

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

  Beach, Rt. Hon. Sir M. Hicks

  Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Bignold, Arthur

  Gretton, John

  Newdigate, Francis Alexander

  Bill, Charles

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Bluadell, Colonel Henry

  Hain, Edward

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Roland, John

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Bond, Edward

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Lord G (Mid'x

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Hammond, John

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

  Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow. W.

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Bull, William James

  Hayden, John Patrick

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

  Butcher, John George

  Heath, James (Staffords, N. W.)

  O'Malley, William

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Helder, Augustus

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Henderson, Alexander

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Hermon-Hodge, Robert Trotter

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

  Higginbottom, S. W.

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Robt. Wellesley

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.)

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Penn, John

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Hoult, Joseph

  Percy, Earl

  Chamberlain, Rt Hon. J. (Birm.

  Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)

  Pilkington, Lieut.-Col. Richard

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Chapman, Edward

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Charrington, Spencer

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Joyce, Michael

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop

  Pryce-Jones, Lt. Col. Edward

  Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

  Knowles, Lees

  Purvis, Robert

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Corbett, T. L. (Down North)

  Lawrence, Joseph (Monmouth)

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Lawson, John Grant

  Randles, John S.

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Leamy, Edmund

  Rankin, Sir James

  Crean, Eugene

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chath'm

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Renwick, George

  Delany, William

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Ridley, Hn. M. W (Stalybridge

  Digby, John K. D., Wingfield-

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Dillon, John

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

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Ropner, Colonel Robert

  Dorington, Sir John Edward

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

  Round, James

  Douglas, Right Hon. A. Akers-

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

  Rutherford, John

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Lundon, W.

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. Hart

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

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

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Ffrench, Peter

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Smith, Abel H. (Hentford, East)

  Finch, George H.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Smith, H C (North'mb. Tyneside

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Smith, James Parker(Lanarks.)

  Fisher, William Hayes

  M'Govern, T.

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

  Fison, Frederick William

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Spear, John Ward

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W

  Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

  Flynn, James Christopher

  M'Kean, John

  Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)

  Forster, Henry William

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M Taggart

  Foster, PhilipS. (Warwick, S. W

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Stock, James Henry

  Gradner, Ernest

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Garfit, William

  Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.

  Sullivan, Donal

  Middlemore, John Throgmortn'

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  1378

  1379

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

  Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

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

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

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

  Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

  Whiteley, H. Ashton-und-Lyne

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Valentia, Viscount

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Vincent, Col. Sir C E H (Sheffield

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

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  TELLERS COR THE AYES—

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther. S

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

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

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Allen, Charles P. (Glouc., Stroud

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Asher, Alexander

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Holland, William Henry

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Bell, Richard

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Black, Alexander William

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Joicey, Sir James

  Soames Arthur Wellesley

  Broadhurst, Henry.

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

  Spencer, Rt Hn. C. R (Northants

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Labouchere, Henry

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Lambert, George

  Tennant, Harold John

  Caldwell, James

  Langley, Batty

  Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.

  Cameron, Robert

  Lay land-Barratt, Francis

  Thomas, David Arthur (Merth'r

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

  Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, Gow'r

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Leng, Sir John

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

  Cawley, Frederick

  Levy, Maurice

  Tomkinson, James

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Toulmin, George

  Craig, Robert Hunter

  Lough, Thomas

  Ure, Alexander

  Cremer, William Randal

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  M'Crae, George

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Mansfield, Horace Kendall

  White, Luke (York. E. R.)

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Edwards, Frank

  Norman, Henry

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Ellis, John Edward

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

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

  Evans, Sir Francis H (Maidstone

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Price, Robert John

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Priestly, Arthur

  Gladstone, Rt Hn. Herbert John

  Rea, Russell

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Mr. Samuel Evans and Sir Edward Strachey.

  Grant, Corrie

  Rigg, Richard

  Resolution agreed to.

  It being after Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Committee report progress; to sit again tomorrow (afternoon sitting).

POST OFFICE SITES (EXPENSES)—REPORT.
Resolution reported: "That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of
1380
all sums payable by the Postmaster General under any Act of the present session to enable His Majesty's Postmaster Greneral to acquire lands in the County of London for the Public Service, and of all expenses incurred in carrying into effect the provisions of such Act."
Adjourned at ten minutes after Twelve o'clock.

LORD KENSINGTON.
Petition of Hugh Edwardes Baron Kensington, in the Peerage of Ireland, I claiming a right to vote at the elections of Representative Peers for Ireland; read, and referred to the Lord Chancellor to consider and report thereupon to the House.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The Lord Chancellor acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with :—
Dublin, Wicklow, and Wexford Railway.
Midland Railway (Steam Vessels).
West Gloucestershire Water.
Dublin Port and Docks Board.
Great Northern Railway (No. 1).
Chard Gas.
Garston and District Tramways and Electric Supply (Transfer).
Great Central Railway.
Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway (Various Powers).
London County Council (General Powers).
North Metropolitan Tramways.
York Corporation.
Barrow Hæmatite Steel Company, Limited.
Also the Certificate that no Standing Orders are applicable to the following Bill :—
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 3).
Also the Certificates that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with :—
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 1).
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 4).
Also the Certificates that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have not been complied with :—
Great Central and Midland Railways (South Yorkshire Railways).
Whitechapel and Bow Railway.
And also the Certificates that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with :—
Gas and Water Orders Confirmation (No. 1) [H.L.].
Gas and Water Orders Confirmation (No. 2) [H.L.].
Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 1) [H.L.].
Gas Orders Confirmation (No. 2) [H.L.].
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 7) [H.L.].
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 8) [H.L.].
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  WATERFORD AND BISHOP FOY ENDOWED SCHOOLS BILL [H.L.]
  Commons Amendments considered, and; agreed to.

  NORTH-EAST LONDON RAILWAY (No. 1) BILL [H.L.],
  NORTH-EAST LONDON RAILWAY (No. 2) BILL [H.L.],
  PICCADILLY AND CITY RAILWAY (No. 1) BILL [H. L.],
  PICCADILLY AND CITY RAILWAY (No. 2) BILL [H.L.].
  Report from the Select Committee, That they have consolidated the Bills under the title of Piccadilly, City, and North-East London Bill [H. L.]; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

  KNARESBOROUGH IMPROVEMENT BILL,
    BEDFORD CORPORATION WATER BILL,
    Read 2a, and committed.
    LIVERPOOL CATHEDRAL BILL [H.L.], WREXHAM DISTRICT TRAMWAYS HILL [H.L.], EDGWARE AND HAMPSTEAD RAILWAY BILL [H.L.],
    Read 3a and passed, and sent to the Commons.
  LONDON SCHOOL BOARD (SUPERANNUATION) BILL.
  Read 3a, and passed.
  MANCHESTER CORPORATION TRAMWAYS BILL.
  Read 3a, with the Amendments; a further Amendment made; Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
  PAISLEY GAS PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL [H.L.]
  House in Committee (according to order): Bill reported without Amendment: Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a on Thursday next.
  LIMPSFIELD AND OXTED WATER BILL.
  Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
  CROYDON AND DISTRICT ELECTRIC TRAMWAYS BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (GAS) BILL. (No. 81.),
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (CAS) BILL. (No. 82.)
    Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed and referred to the Examiners.
RETURNS, BEPORTS, ETC.

  LIGHT RAILWAYS ACT, 1896.
  I.—Report of the proceedings of the Board of Trade, up to the 31st December, 1901, and of the proceedings of the Light Railway Commissioners up to the same date.
  II.—(a.) Orders made by the Light Railway Commissioners and modified and confirmed by the Board of Trade, authorising the construction of—

  1. Light railways from Tenterden to Headcorn, in the county of Kent, and at Robertsbridge, in the county of Sussex, and for other purposes.

  2. Light railways in the borough of Swansea, and in the rural district of Llangyfelach, in the county of Glamorgan.

  3. A light railway in the county of York, from Stainland with Old Lindley to Greetland.

  1228

  4. A light railway in the county of East Suffolk, between South-wold and Kessingland, and the conversion of the gauge of the existing Southwold Railway, and the working thereof as a light railway under the Light Railways Act, 1896.

  (b.) Orders made by the Light Railway Commissioners and modified and confirmed by the Board of Trade, amending—

  1. The Grower Light Railway Order, 1897.

  2. The Grimsby and Salt fleet by Light Railway Order, 1898.

  3. The Lizard Light Railway Order, 1898.

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

PETITION.
  LAND VALUATION (SCOTLAND) AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
  Petition in favour of; of the County Council of Forfar.

  LANDS VALUATION (SCOTLAND) AMENDMENT BILL. [H.L.]
  House in Committee (According to Order.)
  Clause I. :—
  Formal Amendment agreed to.
  THE SECRETARY or STATE FOR SCOTLAND (Lord BALFOUR BURLEIGH): The object of the second Amendment standing in my name is to remedy a complaint which has been made by the City of Glasgow, who are afraid that if the Bill passes in its present form there may be a doubt as to the date from which the supplementary Roll is to operate. In the Clause as it now stands the provision is for the completion of the Roll. The effect of the Amendment, if your Lordships agree to it, will be to make the supplementary Roll operate from the date at which the last Roll was made up. I think the Amendment is a poor one, and I move that it be inserted.
  Amendment moved—
  "In Clause 1, line 17, to leave out 'completion of the Roll' and to insert "the Whitsunday preceding."—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Verbal Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 1, as Amendment, agreed to.
  Clause 2. :—
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Clause 2 provides that for the purposes of hearing and disposing of appeals against supplementary valuations, Courts of Appeal, as established under the Lands Valuation (Scotland) Acts shall be held between the twenty-fifth day of March and the first day of April annually. The object of this Amendment is to substitute the fifteenth of March for the twenty-fifth, the desire being to give a little more time in which to carry out the procedure necessary to make the new supplementary Roll. It is to that extent an alteration in substance, but it has been asked for by the only parties who have communicated with me with regard to the Bill. I do not think there is any objection to it, and I move that the alteration be made.
  Amendment moved—
  "In Clause 2, line 23, to leave out 'twenty, fifth' and to insert 'fifteenth.'"—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Remaining Clauses agreed to, and Bill reported.

  WATER-TUBE BOILERS IN THE NAVY.
  LORD LAMINGTON: My Lords, I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty what decision has been arrived at as to the respective merits of the different types of boilers consequent on the trials of H.M.S. "Minerva" and H.M.S "Hyacinth." Since this Question was placed on the Paper of your Lordships House, the discussion upon it has been partially anticipated in another place, where it was officially stated that the Belleville boiler had been practically condemned. However, I think that a debate on the subject here may be of some profit, as we have the advantage of having, as Members of this House, the present First Lord and several of his predecessors in office. The first point that strikes one on reading the Report of the
  1230
  Boiler Committee is the extraordinary care that was taken in these trials. Coal, water, engine-power, boiler-power—all these questions were carefully measured; the appliances were tested by which these measurements were made, and everything was done to secure accuracy.
  Without going into a long review of the Report, which is full of interesting matter, I will briefly state some of the inferences to be drawn from it. First of all, the Committee point out the serious water losses that occurred in the "Hyacinth," which was fitted with the Belleville boiler, and go on to say that in their opinion the occurrence of these leakages is "inherent to the design of boiler used." Again, the water gauges fitted to the Belleville boiler were unreliable, and there was also the greatest discrepancy in the water-levels in the boilers. The boiler efficiency of the, "Minerva "—this ship was fitted with cylindrical boilers—when retarders were placed in the tubes, was found to be quite equal to that of the "Hyacinth." Attention is also called in the Report to the fact that whereas the "Minerva," which had been in service for four years, only increased her coal consumption by 8½ per cent.—and it is understood that vessels in commission invariably increase their coal consumption—the coal consumption of the "Hyacinth," which had had no previous trial, except that by the contractors, increased by 32 per cent.; and it is further pointed out on p. 17 that her radius of action was 830 miles less than that of the "Minerva." In the concluding paragraph of their Report, the Committee call attention to the fact that on the return voyage from Gibraltar, steam was raised in the "Minerva" in about equal time to that of the "Hyacinth," without the use of any auxiliary boiler or modern appliance or improvement for the rapid raising of steam. I should like to know whether, when the Committee ascribe the leakages as being "inherent to the design of boiler used," it is to be taken as applying only to Belleville boilers, and not to water-tube boilers generally; also, whether there is anything exceptional in the rapidity with which steam was raised in the "Minerva," or was it a test which any other vessel would have come out of equally well.

  1231
  I observe that six cruisers of the County class are to be fitted with combination boilers, four-fifths water-tube and one fifth cylindrical, and I think we might well ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether that is merely by way of experiment, or whether it is intended that all ships are to be fitted with this double system of boilers. It was admitted in another place by an authority in these matters that in the case of the Belleville boiler the assistance of a great number of the deck hands is required in the stokehole, and that this difficulty can only be got rid of by having; stokers who are highly trained. It is now alleged that the intention with regard to the combination boilers is to use the cylindrical boilers for ordinary cruising purposes, and to only employ water-tube boilers on the quarterly trials and in manœuvres. This certainly strikes me as a serious disadvantage, for how will it be possible, unless the water-tube boilers are more frequently used, for the stokers to become highly trained in the working of them? Other countries are quoted as having employed this combination with great advantage, but I have always understood that the ships of no other Navy in the world are tested for sea-going purposes like our ships, and therefore other countries can hardly be quoted in regard to the successful use of this boiler until we know that their ships have been tested as severely as we test ours. I have complete confidence in the noble Earl the First Lord of the Admiralty and his expert advisers, and I am sure they will do their best to secure the most serviceable boiler; but I should like to hear stated the decision that has been arrived at as to the respective merits of the different types of boilers.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (The Earl of SELBORNE): My Lords, I confess I am glad that my noble friend has brought this question forward, and, in answering it, I shall appeal to the indulgence of your Lordships to reply in a fuller manner and at greater length than my noble friend has spoken in introducing the subject. After all, the boilers of the Navy are of the highest national importance, and not only both Houses of Parliament are, and ought to be, extremely anxious on the subject of their efficiency, but it is a
  1232
  matter which has commanded and will command increasing attention from the public out of doors. I ask your Lordships in considering this question to remember that boiler difficulties are no new trial of the Admiralty. Long before water-tube boilers were heard of, the Navy had difficulties with the various forms of boilers that preceded them. There were difficulties connected with leakages in the tubes; there were difficulties connected with the crowns of the furnaces; there were accidents ending in disastrous loss of life; but gradually by experience the Navy eliminated the obstacles that confronted the construction of an almost perfect boiler, and the cylindrical boiler was at last brought to a point that might almost be called perfection, but a perfection that had with it very distinct and serious limitations. The type of ships in which that perfection may be said to have been reached would be the "Majesties," the "Talbots," and the "Gibraltars." The cause of these limitations arose from the essential differences in the conditions of the Navy and the Mercantile Marine. In merchant vessels there is practically no limit to the space for, and weight of, machinery, but when you come to a man-of-war, all space must be carefully economised and every pound that can be saved in the weight of the machinery, is utilised in armour or armament. Pass from the engine room and stokehold of a large merchant ship to the engine room and stokehold of a man-of-war; it is like passing from the accommodation of a palace to a cottage; in the one there is ample space, in the other you are "cabin'd cribb'd, confined."
  This affects every part of the problem connected with boilers; the boilers cannot be so big, the water space between the tubes cannot be so great, and, as a consequence, the Naval boiler is more prone, if forced, to leakages owing to the changes of expansion and contraction. That was one of the most constant difficulties the Navy had to meet, but it was at last overcome by the invention of the Admiralty "ferrule," which is not, I believe, used in commercial steamers. This "ferrule" proved a complete cure, for these leakages but when an attempt was made to force the boilers, these ferrules became liable to be "bird nested," as it was called; they became gradually filled up by a hard

  1233
  substance drawn in by the hot air and the aperture gradually narrowed. Take the ease of the "Minerva," alluded to by my noble friend; in her trial with the '" Hyacinth," there was an extreme case of bird-nesting there. The "Minerva" showed herself to be a splendid ship with splendid boilers and engines, but when she got to Plymouth bird-nesting had reached that point that even if coal had not given out the vessel could not have gone any further, the tubes were partly and in many instances almost completely closed. The tubes lasted as long as the coal did, but the ship could not be said to have been ready to go to sea again when she recoaled, for the ferrules had to be withdrawn and fresh ones inserted in their place, and men could not get to the tubes to withdraw the ferrules until the furnaces were cool. It was, therefore, very unlikely that she could have been got ready to go to sea again, as soon as she recoaled. I dwell upon this, not to detract from the admirable qualities of the boilers, as exemplified in the "Minerva," but to show that the advantages of the cylindrical boiler have very distinct limitations. To such an extent is this the case that the forced draught necessary to obtain the maximum speed is now never used except in special cases, but is kept in reserve for use in time of war. Cylindrical boilers had reached this point of development when the Admiralty had to consider whether they should use the new form of boiler called the water-tube boiler.
  I would remind your Lordships of what was claimed for these water-tube boilers when this problem confronted the Admiralty. It was claimed that their military advantages were great over the cylindrical boiler for naval purposes; that steam could be more quickly raised from cold boilers; that the rate of speed could be varied with much greater ease; and that repairs could be effected with much less difficulty, because the armoured deck had to be removed to get at the cylindrical boiler, while for change or repair the water-tube boilers could be taken to pieces and removed. But the principal advantage claimed was greater horsepower with the same displacement, or, if you preferred to retain the same horse power, more weight left for armour
  1234
  and armament. After careful investigation and consideration the Board of Admiralty of that day—I think it was in the time of my noble friend opposite—decided to introduce the water-tube type of boilers and the type selected was that then most prominent and well known as the Belleville boiler. Now, I wish at once to confess that with the Belleville boilers in the Navy, we have had difficulties that apparently foreign navies have not had to contend with. I think it is not an exaggeration to say we have had much greater difficulties than foreign navies have had with these boilers. What has been the cause of this? It would be impossible to exhaust the subject without trespassing on your Lordships' time unduly, but I may summarise the causes of those difficulties under four heads—inferiority of manufacture, improper management, higher pressure, and greater use. There is no doubt the manufacture was at first inferior, and that is not surprising, for we had had no experience in this country in the making of these boilers, and as a great number were ordered at one, time, if they had all been made by skilled workmen, they would have been made without previous experience. But, as a matter of fact, these boilers wore, to a large extent, made during the period of the engineering strike, not by the best workmen, but by apprentices. As to management, no doubt—I confess it at once—it was not properly appreciated that they required much more careful management than cylindrical boilers, and much of our difficulty, certainly in cases like that of the "Hermes," was due almost entirely to mismanagement of boilers. Then, again, as to pressure. Our cylindrical boilers had been worked at 150 lbs. pressure in the boilers, but we jumped in the case of the Belleville to 300 lbs. in the boilers at once, which was considerably more than the same boilers were being worked at in France. Lastly, our cruisers, in which the difficulties specially occurred, are racketed about—properly racketed about—more than is the case with vessels in foreign navies.
  But I wish, with all emphasis, to say this after our experience of Belleville boilers—that the difficulties we met with might have been met with in any other type of water-tube boilers, and

  1235
  what we have learned from the Belleville boilers we shall turn to account with other types of boilers we use. Much anxiety was expressed in Parliament and throughout the country, about these Belleville boilers being put into so many of our ships, when there was the constant difficulty like that in the case of the "Terrible" and the absolute breakdown with the "Europa," and eventually my predecessor in office appointed a Committee to inquire and report on the subject. Now, those of your Lordships who have looked at the composition of that Committee, and have examined the personalities of its members, and know the experience represented, will endorse what has been said by my hon. friend Sir Fortescue Flannery—that the Committee commanded a large measure of public confidence. That Committee has given its verdict on the Belleville boiler in no uncertain voice. It has condemned the Belleville boiler, and that condemnation has been accepted by the Admiralty. But I should like briefly to pause and weigh that decision of the Committee practically, and from the common-sense point of view of a layman interested in the question. Experts sometimes do not see the whole question in its broadest aspect, because they are necessarily immersed in technicalities.
  Now, I agree and disagree with the verdict of the Boiler Committee. I disagree to this extent—that I do not think the absolute condemnation of the Belleville boiler by the Committee can be sustained to the extent the words they use would imply in face of the experience of other nations with the boiler, and of the experience we are now gaining with our battleships. I will quote examples presently. To this extent I disagree with the Boiler Committee—that I believe the Belleville boiler, well manufactured and well managed, will fulfil conditions that would make it a reliable boiler for the Navy for sea use in peace or war. I do not think it will ever be an economical boiler as regards coal, and it will cost more on an average of years for repairs than the cylindrical boiler. But it has not, in my opinion, under the conditions I have named, deserved the absolute
  1236
  condemnation of the Committee, Nevertheless, I have not only accepted but I agree with their advice—that we should not at present, at all events, instal any more of these boilers in our ships, because I think the other types of the water-tube boilers which we have in front of us are simpler in construction, and that they embrace all the merits—if merits there be—in the water-tube principle and are less complicated than the Belleville boilers. Therefore I prefer them to the Belleville type. But to illustrate why I said this about the Belleville boiler I will allude to two classes of battleships, one of which has wholly and the other nearly passed into commission—the "Canopuses" and the "Formidables." On the whole, I have excellent reports of their boilers, and I am very glad the "Formidables" have got Belleville boilers and not cylindrical, for this reason, that the "Formidable" in displacement is the exact repetition of the "Majestic." The general principle of armament and the armour are the same, only with the improvements that the lapse of time has given opportunity for. But the "Formidable" is a whole knot faster than the "Majestic." This is solely-due to the substitution of water-tube for cylindrical boilers. It is an interesting; fact that all our troubles with these boilers have been with the cruisers. The battleships were ordered later and came into commission later. The experience gained in the cruisers has held good, and the reports we have received about the battleships are undoubtedly, at present, satisfactory.
  If all the experts agreed, the task of the Admiralty would be simple. But they do not. There is the widest divergence of opinion, and, after all, it is not wonderful, because the situation is really a very strange one. The Mercantile Marine, as a whole, will not use the water-tube boiler; but there is not a navy in the world that is not using the water tube boilers. Why? Because the conditions are totally different in the one case and in the other. I have a friend, whose opinion I very greatly respect, who maintains that the conditions are not different, but I must beg leave to differ from him and from others who agree with him. There is the case of the weight and space which I had already

  1237
  mentioned; weight and space are comparatively of no account in a merchant vessel, but they are of great importance in a battleship. I will give you instances taken from a lecture, by a very distinguished engineer, of typical modern steamers—the "Celtic" on the one hand, belonging to the White Star Line, and the "Juno" and "Doris" of the Navy, each of which has cylindrical boilers. The indicated horse-power of the "Celtic" is 4·37 for every ton of machinery, that of the "Juno" and "Doris" being 10·88. The indicated horse-power of the great German liner, the "Deutschland," is 6·35 for every ton of machinery; that of the "King Alfred," one of our latest and most important armoured cruisers, is 12 for every ton of machinery. Therefore, you may say that in a liner the weight of machinery, in proportion to the indicated horse power, is double that in a battleship The steamer is built to cover certain distances as far as possible at one definite speed. The conditions as to speed in the Navy are totally different. A battleship will generally go at a cruising speed of about ten knots, which is possibly not more than one-fifth of her horsepower, but she must be ready to increase from one-fifth to 90 per cent. of her horse-power or, to the whole, at the shortest notice. In the one case the speed is most constant, in the other most variable. Then there are the military considerations already mentioned. In view of the diversity of opinion on the part of the experts, what the Admiralty has done has been to follow the advice of the Boiler Committee, both as to the extent to which and the manner in which the Belleville boiler has been rejected, and also as to the new type of the water-tube boiler and as to the use of the combination of the water-tube and cylindrical boiler. Now, take the first interim Report of the Boiler Committee of February, 1901. The first paragraph of that Report is this—
  "The Committee are of opinion that the advantages of water-tube boilers for naval purposes are so great, chiefly from the military point of view, that, provided a satisfactory type of water-tube boiler be adopted, it would be more suitable for use in His Majesty's Navy than the cylindrical type of boiler."
  1238
  That opinion has never been withdrawn, and that is the policy which we act upon. Then the Committee say in their second paragraph :—
  "The Committee do not consider that the Belleville boiler has any such advantage over other types of water-tube boilers as to lead them to recommend it as the best adapted to the requirements of His Majesty's Navy."
  We have accepted and followed that advice. Then the Committee recommend, (a) as regards ships which are to be ordered in the future, that Belleville boilers be not fitted in any case; (b) as regards ships recently ordered, for which the work done on the boilers is not too far advanced, that Belleville boilers be not fitted; (c) as regards ships under construction, for which the work is so far advanced that any alteration of type of boiler would delay the completion of the ships, that Belleville boilers be retained; (d) as regards completed ships, that Belleville boilers be retained as fitted. That advice has been followed literally throughout. The Committee further said :—
  "In addition to the Belleville type of boiler, the Committee have had under consideration four types of large straight-tube boilers which have been tried in war vessels, and are now being adopted on an extended scale in foreign navies. These are (a) the Babcock and Wilcox boiler; (b) the Niclausse boiler; (c) the Dürr boiler; (d) the Yarrow large-tube boiler; (a) and (b) have also been tried in our own Navy with satisfactory results and are now being adopted on a limited scale. If a type of water-tube boiler has to be decided on at once for use in the Navy, the Committee suggest that some or all of these types be taken."
  There is not one single word of that Report of February, 1901, which the Committee have withdrawn; and we have acted throughout on the general principles laid down by that Committee. Take this question of combination, one-fifth cylindrical, four-fifths water-tube, which we have adopted for the cruisers of the 1901–2 programme. That principle of combination has been acted upon on the advice of the Boiler Committee, for although the proportion of cylindrical boilers adopted by the Board was two-tenths instead of the three-elevenths suggested by the Boiler Committee, this trifling difference did not affect the principle laid down by the Committee. There is not one single Power which has a Navy that has not discarded the cylindrical boiler, but all have failed to

  1239
  agree on the type of water-tube boiler which suits naval requirements best. Therefore, I think the advice of the Boiler Committee to fix on four types and to combine them with a small proportion of cylindrical boilers, formulated a wise interim policy, and a policy which I should not be surprised to find ceasing to be an interim and becoming a perpetual policy. What are the advantages of the combination? The one-fifth cylindrical gives all the power for all work of auxiliary engines, and it gives power also for ordinary cruising speeds, and so gives the old economy of coal for all the ordinary work of the ship, and that without any serious addition of weight or space. In this one-fifth also every trial can be made of appliances for the improvement of the cylindrical boilers not hitherto adopted in the Navy. I allude to Howden's system of forced draught with closed ashpits, retarders, which, if a short experience in the Channel Squadron is any test, are certainly destined to be of great importance, and to the use of circulators for rapidly heating the water.
  As regards the type of water tube boilers selected, there is not one of them that is not in use, either in a foreign navy or in the Mercantile Marino, or in both. Owing to the courtesy of the authorities in foreign countries and of the owners of steamship lines, the Boiler Committee have been able carefully to inspect all these types of boilers in the ships where they have been in constant use, and their original opinion in favour of these types has only been confirmed by what they have seen. I see it was stated, in a commentary in one of the leading papers on what was said in another place, that the experience of the personnel with the Belleville boilers would be of no use with the other types of water-tube boilers. That is not the case. The experience of the personnel, in which I include the stokers as well as the engineers, which they have gained with the Belleville will be applicable to all these types of boilers; and, indeed, in one case at least, the stoking appears to be a very simple matter. I will give you a curious instance. There is a ship called the "Martello," belonging to the Wilson Line, which has Babcock and Wilcox
  1240
  boilers, and the verdict on those boilers in one respect is unfavourable. They certainly are not so economical in coal as the cylindrical. On the other hand, by the end of last year this ship had run, with these boilers, over 70,000 miles in ten voyages between Hull and New York, and her firemen had been changed every voyage, but with the exception of two tubes injured, which could easily be repaired, her defects after doing 70,000 miles were practically nil, and no trouble whatever has been experienced in working the boilers.
  Now, my Lords, there is not one of those advisers on whom the Board of Admiralty has to depend who will take the responsibility of advising the Board to return to the cylindrical boiler—not the Engineer-in-Chief, not Sir William White, the old Director of Naval Construction, not Mr. Watts, the new Director of Naval Construction who has come from one of the greatest private yards in the country and can have no personal interest in the matter, not the Boiler Committee; and yet I am urged by the advocates of cylindrical boilers, including some hon. friends of mine in the House of Commons, for whose disinterested patriotism I have the most profound respect, to disregard all this advice and to return to the cylindrical boiler. Well, I look about me and what do I see? I see that not one single foreign nation has taken that course. The Americans, the French, the Germans, the Russians, the Italians, the Japanese, not to mention minor naval Powers, without exception have adopted the water tube boiler as the type of naval boiler; and though it may be argued that it is quite possible that they may all be wrong and that in these matters we should frame our own policy, yet it must be admitted that this, at any rate, is very strong presumptive evidence that there is a great deal to be said in favour of the water-tube boiler.
  But I will turn to our own admirals who command squadrons in which are ships with these water-tube boilers. There are four of such squadrons—the Channel Squadron, the Mediterranean Squadron, the East Indian Squadron, and the China Squadron I cannot extract from the commander-in-chief of one of these squadrons a condemnation

  1241
  of the water-tube principle. So anxious have I been that the Admiralty should know the exact opinion of those gallant officers, who have had actual experience of these boilers with the responsibility of command, that I have endeavoured to extract from them a condemnation of the water tube principle, and I have absolutely failed to do so. In the case of the Channel and Mediterranean Squadrons, it may, no doubt, be said that the gallant commanders-in-chief had a personal responsibility for these water-tube boilers, but they had upon them the knowledge of the responsibility that would rest upon them when they were called upon to use vessels fitted with these boilers in time of war, and yet they have not condemned them. In the case of the other commanders-in-chief, they have had no connection whatever with the adoption of the water-tube principle, and yet I cannot extract from them any such condemnation. There are twelve ships on the China Station with water-tube boilers, four of them battleships and the others large and small cruisers. I have been reading only today a private letter from the Inspector of Machinery at Hong Kong, and he speaks in the highest terms of the state of efficiency of the machinery of all of them with the exception of the "Glory" which, though it has given a good deal of trouble is now absolutely efficient. Tint that again was a case of mismanagement on the part of the personnel. Therefore, as a humble layman, and not making any pretence to expert knowledge, I do say that my judgment goes with the judgment of the Boiler Committee—that so far as we can see at present the water-tube principle has come to stay, and that, although the Belleville may probably not be the type which will suit our needs the best, yet we shall work up to a thoroughly satisfactory standard water-tube boiler, just as we did work up to a thoroughly satisfactory standard cylindrical boiler.
  Now, my Lords, let me summarise how the balance-sheet stands at the present moment with respect to the water-tube boiler. I told you the original advantages claimed for it. Of these what now remain? As to the quicker raising of steam from all-cold boilers and engines, I do not think very mach of that remains, for two reasons. In the
  1242
  first place, the "Minerva" has shown that the cylindrical boiler can sometimes raise steam quicker than was supposed, though I think no engineer would advise its being done very often. But in neither case can you raise, steam quickly with cold engines. As to easier changes of speed, I think there is something in that. As to facility for repairs, I think there is no doubt that is a claim of greater convenience which must be allowed still fully to stand. As to lesser risk in action. I think that is a claim on behalf of the water-tube boiler the importance of which is greater and not less than it was. I may say that the Admiralty are having this question very carefully examined by high authorities; but have we had any experience? Does anyone know what the effect of a fracture by a fragment of shell in a cylindrical boiler at over 200 lb. pre sure would be Remember, the quantity of water to be flashed into steam in the case of a cylindrical boiler is ten times more than in the case of the Belleville, which has the least water of all types of water-tube boilers. It is more than likely that steam would only escape from the fracture in any case, but if there was an explosion with something like three tons of water flashing into steam at the fracture, it would be a very different story from the flashing into steam of the amount that would be liberated by the fracture of a water-tube boiler. I do not wish to dogmatise on this, I merely indicate it as of real importance, and to tell the House that the point is now being examined by experts.
  It may be said, and fairly, that that danger would exist to a certain extent in a combination of boilers. Yes, that is quite true; but in the case of the boilers, as in the case of every other part of a battleship, the best you can hope for is a compromise. But the most important advantage of all remains, and that is the saving of weight will give you an instance which I think will strike your Lordships forcibly. The other day I asked the Director of Naval Construction for a rough sketch design for a cruiser that would have 25,000 horse power. I asked for alternative designs, one with water-tube and the other with cylindrical boilers, everything

  1243
  else being the same. What was the difference in tonnage? The design for the vessel with cylindrical boilers showed 1,500 tons more displacement than the other, and when I remonstrated and said it was impossible to go beyond the displacement fixed, the answer was, "If you insist on the displacement being the same, the ship with cylindrical boilers will have to be a knot slower." That advantage, then, remains, with this deduction—that there is a greater consumption of coal in the case of the water-tube boiler. It is quite clear that if you have two types of boiler in similar ships, each carrying 2,000 tons of coal, if one set of boilers consumes a higher percentage of coal than the other, of course it follows that that must be a set-off against the advantages of the water-tube type. What that excess of consumption is it is difficult to ascertain. I would not put it down at less than 10 per cent. I think it is probably higher; but as ships go on in their commission these drawbacks are partly overcome, and the extra consumption of coal decreases.
  I will give your Lordships a striking instance of that. I take the case of the "Canopus" which has now been in commission in the Mediterranean for over two years. The average coal consumption of the "Canopus"—the auxiliary coal consumption in harbour—for the six months ended December 31, 1900, was 172 tons per day. The same coal consumption for the six months ended December 31, 1901, was 10·2 tons per day. The lowest daily record during the first period of six months was 9·1, 11·5, and 12·6 tons, and during the second period of six months, 6·8, 6·9, and 6·85 tons, and so on. I could give other instances where the assiduous attention of the engineers, the better understanding of the machinery, the detection of weak points in manufacture, and their gradual elimination have slowly worked down the consumption of coal to a more reasonable figure. But the fact remains, and it must never be lost sight of in weighing the advantages and disadvantages of these two types of boilers, that water-tube ships will never be so economical in coal as cylindrical ships. There is this further disadvantage,
  1244
  which was dealt with by Lord Charles Beresford in another place, that the deck hands have to be called upon to work in the stoke holes and in trimming coal on water-tube ships. But the deck hands are called upon to do similar work in cylindrical ships also, but not to so large an extent as in water-tube ships. That, however, does not mean that in action the deck hands on water-tube boilers would be taken away from attending to the guns in order to work in the bunkers or as stokers, for in time of peace stokers work in three, or not less than two watches, whereas in action all the stokers would be available. Still, I do not want to blur the fact that that is a real evil or difficulty. There is also extravagance in the use of water. That, however, is more a question of coal than a question of water, for this excessive consumption of water leads to the use of more coal for the purpose of condensation. Nor does it mean that water-tube ships carry more water than cylindrical ships. A ship can only carry the amount of water for which she has accommodation, and none of these water-tube ships are designed with more tanks than cylindrical ships.
  But the greatest disadvantage of all still remains, and that is the waste of time and money in repairs. Our difficulties in that respect have been with cruisers rather than with battleships. A return is being prepared for Parliament which will show what the cost has been to the country, both in the loss of efficiency and money in the repairs of these water-tube cruisers. The results are startling. The cost in money has been very great, and the loss of efficiency, owing to the time the ships have been in dockyard hands, has also been very considerable. I do not wish to minimise that. But if I did not think this evil was in the course of cure I should not be so sure as I am about the future of water-tube boilers. This evil has arisen from two causes which I have already mentioned—imperfect manufacture and bad management. By far the greater part of the repairs has been owing to the decay of the tubes. That has for eighteen months past been absolutely arrested by the use of a process which ought to have been used three years ago and not eighteen months ago. Still, this question of repair and the extra

  1245
  cost to the country must be written down as a real disadvantage on the side of the water-tube ships. But, my Lords, when you come to examine the return you must remember that it includes the complete breakdown of the "Europa" and "Hermes," which of course makes the cost much greater than if the repairs had been merely for the ordinary wear and tear of the ships. The breakdown has been accounted for after the most exhaustive inquiries, and I may say—so far as it is wise or safe for a man in my position to prophesy—I do not believe it is going to occur again.
  The Boiler Committee has for the time practically done its work, and I think the Admiralty and the country and the Navy ought to be most grateful to these gentlemen, naval officers and civilians, who have given their services to the country in this matter. The President of the Committee, the new Commander-in-Chief in the Mediterranean, has already left this country, but not before the final report of the Committee had been drawn up for presentation to the Admiralty. As I have not myself seen or read the report yet, your Lordships will not expect me to say anything about it. But, in concluding their labours up to the point at which they could be concluded, the Committee have made provision for the completion of their experiments by retaining a certain number of their members under the vice-presidency of the Chief Inspector of Machinery, B.N., who is also a member of the Committee, to carry out the trials of the "Medea" and the "Medusa." The final results of the work of the Committee cannot, of course, be seen, nor can the final policy of the Admiralty be formulated, until we have had full trials in commission of all the ships that are now being built; but, subject to that consideration, what is in my mind now, and in the minds of my colleagues, is that we should strengthen the Admiralty in respect to the question of boilers in future, just as the Admiralty and the War Office have previously strengthened their hands in the matter of ordnance.
  It has been of the greatest possible advantage to the Admiralty, and I believe also to the War Office, to have some of the highest authorities in the country, like Sir Andrew Noble, at their service to be called on for advice on special points and
  1246
  on special occasions in connection with ordnance. That is a principle which I think will be applied to the boilers, machinery, and engines of the Navy, and I hope we shall be able to find gentlemen who will give us their services in the matter. In conclusion, let me say a word with respect to a distinguished officer who has been the subject of much criticism in connection with the boiler, question. I mean the Engineer-in-Chief of the Navy. The criticism which has been levied against him has been misplaced. He is responsible only for the advice he gives the Board of Admiralty, and not for the decisions of the Board—each Board must bear the responsibility of its own decisions—and I desire to bear testimony to the devotion to duty, the ability, and the rare courage which he has displayed. With respect to the action of previous Boards, I think I may say if I may, with great deference in the presence of my two predecessors in office—that the same results might have been achieved, at a less cost by a more gradual process of experiment. But I admire their courageous reception of a new idea, and would ask Parliament and the public to contrast it with that deplorable prejudice which for years left this country alone among the nations with a Navy and an Army armed with muzzle loading guns.
  LORD LAMINGTON: The noble Earl referred to water-tube boilers wearing out and becoming inefficient by decay, but I would point out that the "Hyacinth" was a new ship. Are these defects liable in all water-tube boilers, or was the case of the "Hyacinth" an exceptional one? The noble Earl made no remark with regard to my contention that if the water-tube boilers are not used except on special occasions the stokers will not receive that training in the firing of these boilers which I understand it is most necessary they should have.
  THE EARL OF SELBOBNE: That is quite a misapprehension. It will be the duty of the officers to train the; staff most thoroughly in their use. There is no intention of tying them up in cotton wool. As regards the "Hyacinth," what happened was an extreme loss of water owing to leakages. That was not due to the decay of the

  1247
  tubes, it was caused by the state of the joints, and the evil is in process of being remedied. The defect was one of workmanship, not of management.
  EARL SPENCER: My Lords, I feel it my duty to say a few words on this important matter, but first of all I must I congratulate the First Lord on the very able and clear statement which he has made. He said that he almost wished that his two predecessors in office had more gradually introduced these tubulous boilers into the Navy. I do not know whether I ought to be included in that not very serious charge. The Board for which I was responsible, no doubt, took the first step in the matter, and in that perhaps I have a larger responsibility than the noble Viscount opposite, who followed me at the Admiralty. We acted on the Report of a Committee, presided over by that distinguished Admiral Sir Alexander killer, which recommended that these boilers should be introduced for experimental purposes, and we placed them in two of the largest cruisers then building, the "Powerful" and the "Terrible."' The noble Viscount who followed me at the Admiralty did a great deal more. If I am not mistaken there are at present about sixty-one ships of the Navy with tubulous boilers. As to the Committee, we have had from them an interim report, but many think that it is rather vague on certain points. They gave a general support to water-tube boilers, and recommended that the Belleville boilers should be left in the vessels in which they had already been fitted, and in vessels that were so nearly finished that the replacement of them by another system of boilers would be extremely difficult, it is certainly rather startling to find that, although they condemn Belleville boilers in one sentence, they do not wish to alter them in ships in which they have already been placed. I rather deprecate raising a discussion on this extremely important matter at present; it would have been much more satisfactory to have waited until this report had been considered by the Admiralty and presented to Parliament, which I presume will be soon. I am glad to find from what the noble Earl has said that the tubulous boilers are still considered to be
  1248
  right ones for the Navy, as we were responsible for their introduction. We know too, that they have been adopted in nearly every other Navy in the world. Whether the adoption of the Belleville boiler is justified remains more doubtful. As to that, the noble Earl seemed to be a little uncertain, and said that in certain respects, he did not agree with the Committee. The noble Earl used a somewhat curious expression; he paused, and then said he thought they were not to be adopted in the future, at all events at the present moment. I do not know exactly what the noble Earl meant by that.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: There may be improvements in the Belleville, or any other type of boiler, in the future which I cannot foresee.
  EARL SPENCER: I heard what the noble Earl said with some satisfaction, because I am somewhat inclined to support the Belleville boiler. I understood that the officers of the "Powerful" did not condemn the Belleville boilers, but said that any defects that had occurred during her commission were defects in the engines.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: There has been no trouble with the "Powerful" since I have been First Lord.
  EARL SPENCER: When water-tube boilers were introduced, it was done on what we considered very strong arguments in their favour. The noble Earl rather disposed of the argument as to the rapidity of raising steam, but he only quoted the case of the "Minerva." I should rather like to know whether general experience supports the theory that with cylindrical boilers you can raise steam as rapidly as you can with tubulous boilers. If so, I am rather surprised, for the greater rapidity in raising steam was one of the strongest arguments in favour of the tubulous boilers. I was glad to hear what was said as to the reduction to a minimum of the danger to boilers from shot and shell, and also as to the possibility of rapidly replacing a damaged boiler. There are other matters to which we attached importance. There is the question of

  1249
  weight, which seems to be of enormous importance. I should have thought that this question of space and weight was also of great importance to the merchant service. There can be no question but that the lesser weight of tubulous boilers is of very great value to a man-of-war, and enables much heavier gun fire to be given to the ship.
  The accidents on ships with tubulous boilers, as is shown by an interesting report, are not greater than those which unfortunately must always occur with cylindrical boilers. There are, no doubt, certain drawbacks, such as the large coal consumption, and the expense of repair; but, in my opinion, judging by the arguments I heard while at the Admiralty, the advantages of the tubulous boilers greatly outweigh the disadvantages. It must be remembered, too, that there is a great difference in the skill displayed by the men who manage the stokehold, and these men are generally the least trained of any in the service. It depends a great deal too, on the artificers, a class not too numerous but very efficient in the Navy. I understand that in the French Navy they are now training a special and skilful class of stokers. If we are to have these water-tube boilers the question of how they are to be handled by the men becomes of very great importance indeed, and I should be rather glad to hear that the Admiralty are considering whether any particular training should be given to the stokers, or even whether a different class of men should be raised. The noble Earl said that the system of mixed boilers has been tried experimentally in other navies, and, as far as I could gather, he defended it a good deal on the ground that the use of one class of boiler or the other depends on the wisdom and discretion of the commanding officer. I think there may be some danger that when this mixed system is in vogue they will he using the cylindrical boiler in time of peace, and not practising sufficiently with the tubulous boiler, and that when the time of war comes they will not have obtained the practice and experience which are necessary. That is one difficulty which I think ought to be considered in the proposal that has
  1250
  lately been made by the Admiralty. I repeat that I regret this debate arose before the final Report of the Boiler Committee has been laid on the Table of the House, and though, probably, the subject is rather a dry one to any one who has not been actually at the Admiralty, the question of the boilers in His Majesty's Fleet is one of the greatest possible importance. If they are not efficient, not only in the manufacture, but also in regard to the men who are put in charge of them, serious disasters may come in the future, and I am sure we all wish to see this part of the splendid service of the Navy carried out with the utmost success and efficiency.
  VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: I would echo what fell from my noble friend opposite with regard to the extreme lucidity of the speech of my noble friend the First Lord of the Admiralty. I should like to add that, from the first day he accepted office, I have been extremely struck by the manner in which he is able to place the most complicated naval question before this House. That is a great advantage, because it, enables our debates to be conducted on much more satisfactory lines, while, at the same time, it informs the public in a most authoritative manner of matters of vital importance to the interest of the country. I do not propose to occupy your Lordships' time many minutes with reference to any connection which I myself have had with this question or with a defence of the action which I thought it necessary to take. My noble friend, in one phrase at the end of his speech, suggested, but not without adding a compliment to his criticism, that possibly we went too fast at the beginning when tubulous boilers were first introduced. I will not entirely deny, judging ex post facto, that it might have been better if we had confined tubulous boilers to fewer ships, but I I doubt whether that condemnation of the boilers which has existed in some quarters would at all have occurred, and whether our action would not have been the subject of praise rather than of censure, but for those circumstances to which my noble friend alluded, and which damaged most seriously, if I may use the word, the prestige, of the tubulous boilers on their first introduction.

  1251
  Those were the drawbacks to which he alluded, of inferior manufacture, and the insufficient training of those who were put in charge of those engines.
  With reference to the imperfect manufacture, of course, that is a matter entirely beyond the control of the Admiralty, though, so far as could be discovered by inspection, the work came up to the standard which was imposed. But I presume it is possible, in, the new developments which have taken place, to detect slight but most important imperfections, when the inspectors and every one connected with the management of these boilers have so much larger experience of them. With reference to the sending of men to sea in charge of these boilers who had not sufficient experience, it is possible that the extraordinary complication was not sufficiently realised. It was important, looking to the great advantages which the tubulous boilers presented, that they should be introduced, and it was difficult to manage the transition from the trained men whom I trust we shall have in the future to the necessarily untrained men we had in the past. My noble friend the First Lord of the Admiralty has explained how cases like those of the "Hermes," the "Europa," and many others which especially affected the public mind with reference to water-tube boilers were simply due to the want of management on the part of the engineers. The difficulty lay, not only with the stokers, but with the whole of the engineers of the Navy, who had to unlearn something they had learned before, and to learn afresh something they had not learned before.
  But what is really important now is to look to the present situation, and I must say that I think there was a great deal of force in the comment which fell from my noble friend opposite that we are at some disadvantage in debating this subject without having the Report of the Boiler Committee before us. I would almost go so far as to say that my noble friend himself is at a disadvantage in not having the Report before him, and I should wish to say that I think he has been at a disadvantage in coming to a conclusion as to the course to be adopted in regard to the cruisers which are now
  1252
  being built without having the authoritative view of the Boiler Committee, upon which, practically, he rests the policy he is pursuing with regard to the boilering of the new ships. I think my noble friend is resting his case mainly on the Boiler Committee—in fact, he said so more than once. But we do not know what evidence the Boiler Committee had, nor do we know—at least, I do not know—what witnesses they have called with reference, for instance, to this combination of the tubulous boiler and the cylindrical boiler in the same ship. Have the Boiler Committee examined naval engineers and asked whether such a system could be managed conveniently? Has evidence been heard from naval officers as to the new departure? or has my noble friend been compelled to go to what I may call the recommendation of the Committee without the evidence which they have collected on this very important subject? My noble friend, as I have said, rests on the Boiler Committee. But then the Belleville boiler is condemned by the Boiler Committee, and the Dürr and Niclausse boilers are recommended for adoption.
  While we have the Report of the evidence against the Belleville boiler, I myself have not seen any evidence or any arguments yet produced in favour of the Dürr and Niclausse boilers. I do not know whether my noble friend has had any evidence on that subject, but I can scarcely think he has. I do not know whether he has had access to the officers, at all events, who may have given evidence in favour of this combination. With reference to the condemnation of the Belleville boilers, my noble friend produced, if I may say so, evidence on the other side, though he did not mention the actual fact, from the commanders of all our squadrons. He stated very emphatically that he attempted to extract condemnation of the water-tube boilers, and that he had not been able to extract such condemnation. They were all in favour of what boilers? Of the Belleville boilers which have been condemned by the Boiler Committee, and which condemnation, subject to some modifications my noble friend accepts, and accepts to this degree, that he does not give a place to the Belleville boiler in

  1253
  the combination with the cylindrical boilers as he has given it to the others. That is the situation as far as the Belleville boiler is concerned. As regards the cylindrical boiler generally, my noble friend was, as I think he always is, most candid in summing up the pros and cons, but he gave a great deal of authority. He stated the authority of Sir William White and of others, and he pointed out how, beyond the Boiler Committee, there was a great deal of evidence to be adduced in favour of the tabulons boiler.
  I feel quite certain, both with my noble friend the First Lord of the Admiralty and my noble friend opposite, that the case of the tabulons boilers apart from the question of the particular boiler in use, is absolutely concluded, and that no Admiralty would go back again entirely from tabulons boilers. My noble friend has gone back from tubulous boilers so far as to assent to a combination, but I refrain from arguing in favour of the water-tube boiler, because I consider the case is concluded in its favour. My feeling about the present situation is really this, that it is impossible on the data before us, to found any just criticism upon the course which His Majesty's Government, has adopted. I do not think we know enough with reference to this combination between water-tube boilers and cylindrical boilers, to be able to form an adequate opinion. I do not know how soon my noble friend will be able to put evidence before us. I sympathise in the wish that no long lime may elapse before we have that evidence. My noble friend has had to take his decision on the authority of the Committee, without submitting to public criticism, the evidence upon which that conclusion is founded. I gather that the Boiler Committee have distinctly recommended the combination.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Yes.
  VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: I should also like to know the facts and experience as to the double training in management and stoking, and whether that knowledge is sufficiently interchangeable to make this combination wise. We know that the combination system is in use in the German Navy, and so far that is primâ facie evidence in its favour. I am most anxious not to prejudge the question,
  1254
  but so far my noble friend has only the authority of the Committee for the serious departure he is taking.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: With the indulgence of your Lordships I will deal briefly with the more important points raised in the discussion. When this Question was put down there was no prospect, that I knew of, of the final Report of the Committee being so shortly received, and I do not know now how soon it will be possible for the Admiralty thoroughly to study it, and form its final conclusions so as to present the fullest possible information to Parliament. I am glad, however, of the opportunity of discussing the subject before the presentation of the Final Report. The question of training stokers has not been neglected. A large number are becoming trained with the Belleville in the ships in commission, and apart from that there is a tender now attached to each depôt for the training of stokers in water-tube boilers. The experience of the use of the combination system in the German Navy—the system is reported on highly by the Germans—and in the American Navy is, that there is economy of coal effected, and I have not even heard it suggested that there is any difficulty in managing the two types in one ship. The Admiralty will certainly take care that the stokers of these ships are properly trained in the use of both water-tube and cylindrical boilers. I have been in constant communication with the Boiler Committee, but it was impossible to wait for their Final Report, because that would have involved delay in finishing the cruisers. We have acted on the Committee's advice, and we have been cognisant of the evidence and experience which led the Committee to the conclusion they arrived at. As soon as possible the Final Report, and the evidence will be presented to Parliament.
  LORD LAMINGTON: Is the only advantage derived from the combination system of boilers that of economy of coal consumption?
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I would not say that was the only advantage, but it is by far the greatest.
  VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: Is it not to I avoid the wear and tear of the water-tube boilers that for ordinary purposes the cylindrical boilers are preferred?
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I would not go so far as to say that that is so. I hope that in future the wear and tear will be so reduced that I should not present that as one of the reasons.

  CORONATION CEREMONIES—ACCOMODATION FOR PEERS &c.
  LORD NEWTONinquired whether Earl Carrington could give the House any information with regard to the arrangements which had been made for the convenience of peers, peeresses, and their friends on the day of the Coronation.
  EARL CARRINGTON (in the absence of Lord JAMES of HEREFORD, Chairman of the Committee)said everything would be done by the Earl Marshal and the Chief Commissioner of Police to promote the comfort of their Lordships on Coronation day. As far as he had been able to gather, the peers and peeresses would be required to enter the Abbey by the west door, and some peers had expressed an opinion in favour of having breakfast at the House of Lords before attending the Coronation ceremony. It was found, however, that the peers and peeresses would be required to be in their places in the Abbey by half-past eight o'clock in the morning, and it was therefore impossible to provide breakfast in the House. But as all peers, peeresses, peeresses in their own right, dowager peeresses, the lords spiritual, the eldest daughters of peers, and the eldest sons of peers, together with their wives, would be, by the courtesy of the Earl Marshal, enabled to pass through the Poet's Corner door, and walk across to the peers' entrance to the House of Lords, confusion in finding carriages would be avoided. The expense attending various arrangements that would have to be made was not matter for discussion in the House. There was the supply of awnings, cloak-rooms, and attendants, and the estimate for all details would not be below £200. That would fall on their Lordships. Luncheon at £1 10s. 0d. would be served in the Loyal Gallery, and a buffet would be erected in the
  1256
  peers' dining-room, where light refreshments would be served at a charge of something like 15s. The Committee were trying not to give a Belshazzar-like feast, but only hoping to give a comfortable luncheon to the peers and peeresses; and if anything went wrong he hoped the House would see that it would not be the fault of the small Committee, but its great misfortune.
  LORD RIBBLESDALEsaid all the information they had heard seemed delightful—but he had not yet decided whether he should take his chance at the 15s. buffet or the Belshazzar feast. What he wanted to know was whether there would be any chance of getting a sandwich and whiskey and soda somewhere in the background while the Belshazzar feast was going on.
  EARL CARRINGTONsaid the noble Lord's suggestion and any other would be gladly received and considered by the committee.
  LORD LAMINGTONasked if it were the case that the Members of the House of Commons were to have their food in Westminster Hall, and whether they were to have an awning for which they would have to pay£2.
  EARL CARRINGTONsaid he believed that the House of Commons luncheon would be 12s. 6d. a head, but that House had a well-organized system of food supply in daily working, with a large staff of servants, whereas the circumstances in the House of Lords were entirely different.

  THE KING'S MESSAGE.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (the Earl of HALSBURY): My Lords, I have to make a Motion of an unusual character, which is that the House at its rising do meet tomorrow at 4.15. The ground for making that Motion and asking your Lordships to assent to it is that it is confidently anticipated that His Majesty will send a Message to his Parliament tomorrow, and it is thought desirable that your Lordships should be in attendance to receive His Majesty's gracious Message.
  EARL SPENCER: I do not know whether the noble Earl on the Woolsack can give us any idea whether there is likely to be any discussion on the Message. It might be a merely formal Message, or one concerning which we might have to give notice of Motion on some future day, and it would be for the convenience of some noble Lords, who might have arranged to be elsewhere, to know.
  THE EARL OF HALSBURY: I am hardly in a position to answer that question. I have no doubt that if there were an expression of opinion that the Message required to be discussed your Lordships would agree to adjourn the debate.
  House adjourned at Twenty Minutes before Seven o'clock, till Tomorrow, a quarter-past Four o'clock.