Sitting of 4 June 1902

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.
UNOPPOSED PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  CITY OF LONDON (STREETS) BILL.
  Read the third time, and passed. [New Title.]
  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY BILL.
  As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  LONDON, TILBURY, AND SOUTHEND RAILWAY BILL.
  As amended, considered; A Clause added; Amendments made; Bill to be read the third time.
  SWINDON UNITED GAS BILL [LORDS].
  As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  NORTHUMBERLAND ELECTRIC TRAMWAYS BILL [LORDS].
  Read a second time, and committed.

  LAND DRAINAGE PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL,
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL,
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL,
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 6) BILL.
  Read the third time, and passed.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (HOUSING OF WORKING CLASSES) BILL.
  As amended, considered; to be read the third time tomorrow.
  IMPERIAL INSTITUTE BILL [LORDS].
  Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

  RAILWAY BILLS (GROUP 8).
  Mr. COMPTON RICKETTreported from the Committee on Group 8 of Railway Bills; That the parties promoting the

  1383
  London United Tramways lull had stated that the evidence of Mr. William Samuel Bond of Wimbledon, Surrey, 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 William Samuel Bond do attend the said Committee tomorrow, at Eleven of the clock.
  Ordered, That William Samuel Bond do attend the Committee on Group 8 of Railway Bills tomorrow, at Eleven of the clock.

  MANCHESTER CORPORATION (GENERAL POWERS) BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
PETITIONS.
  BURCH POLICE AND PUBLIC HEALTH (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Nairn, against; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCACION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petitions against; From Upper Cumberworth; White Roothing; Motherwell; Bakewell; Griffydam; Sheffield (two); Heckmondwike; and Brondes-bury; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petitions for alteration; From Armley (two); East Hunslet; Leeds; and Dundee; to lie upon the Table.
  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION.
  Petition from Halifax, for alteration of law; to lie upon the Table.
  LAND TRANSFER ACT, 1897.
  Three Petitions from London, for inquiry into the compulsory system of registration; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSING BILL.
  Petition from Manchester, in favour; to lie upon the Table.

  LONDON WATER BILL.
  Petition from Stoke Newington, in favour of the direct representation of
  1384
  the Metropolitan Boroughs upon the proposed Water Board; to lie upon the Table.

  MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER BILL.
  Petitions against; From Snelland; and, Manchester; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF IN TOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  Petition from Bethnal Green, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  VACCINATION PROSECUTIONS BILL.
  Petition from Rugby, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS REPORTS, ETC.
  EAST INDIA (INDIA OFFICE, RETIREMENT AT 65).
  Return [presented 3rd June] to be printed. [No. 200.]
  RAILWAYS ABANDONED.
  Copy presented of Report by the Board of Trade respecting the Great Northern Railway (No. 2) Bill and the objects thereof [pursuant to Standing Order 158A]; referred to the Committee on the Bill.
  INEBRIATES ACTS, 1879 to 1899 (ABSENCE UNDER LICENCE OF INMATES OF CERTIFIED INEBRIATES REFORMATORIES).
  Copy presented of Regulation made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in pursuance of Section 6 of the Inebriates Act, 1898 respecting the absence under licence of inmates of certified Inebriate Reformatories [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  DESTRUCTIVE INSECTS ACT, 1877.
  Copy presented of an Order dated the 31st May, 1902, relative to the Colorado Beetle [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS. CIRULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Poultry Breeding in the Island of Lewis.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Lord Advocate if the Congested Districts Board will make inquiries with

  1385
  a view to ascertain whether the efforts which have been made by the Board to encourage and improve the breed of poultry in the Island of Lewis have resulted in an increased number of eggs and poultry being sent to market.
  (Answer.) The Congested Districts Board cannot at present give a definite reply to the point referred to by the hon. Member, but hope to be able to deal with it in their next Annual Report.—(Scottish Office.)

Avoch Channel Lights.
MR. WEIR: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the proposed scheme for four lighted buoys and one lighted beacon for marking the channel off Avoch, Ross-shire, has yet been sanctioned; and, if so can he say when the work will be commenced.
(Answer.) I understand that it is agreed that the proposed works would be of service to the locality, and I have no doubt they will be undertaken when circumstances permit. But there is so much pressure upon the finances of the General Lighthouse Fund for payment for urgent works of more use to the shipping trade generally that I cannot promise that the expense for the lighting of this channel will be sanctioned during the present financial year.—(Board of Trade.)

Registered Telegraphic Addresses.
MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, in view of the difficulty experienced by the public in securing a registered abbreviated telegraphic address in London in consequence of most suitable words having already been appropriated, will the Postmaster General state the number of addresses now registered in London and in the provinces respectively, and, seeing that the present charge is only one guinea per annum, will he say whether he has yet decided to increase it.
(Answer) The number of telegraphic addresses registered by the Post Office is 25,048 in London and 39,267 in the provinces. The Postmaster General has not decided to increase the present charge.—(Treasury.)

Steam Engines and Boilers—Persons in charge.
MR. JOHN WILSON: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to an accident which happened at New Shildon Colliery, Durham, on the 17th instant, by which a shaftsman lost his life; whether he is aware that the coroner's jury asked the coroner to intimate to the employers that they did not consider the engineman a competent person; and whether he will take into consideration the advisability of arranging for persons in charge of engines and boilers to pass an examination, and obtain certificates of competency before they are allowed to fill such positions.
(Answer.) I have received from the inspector a report of this accident, and I find that, as stated in the Question, the coroner's jury expressed an opinion that the engineman was not competent. On the last part of the Question I must refer the hon. Member to the Report of the Select Committee of this House, which sat last session, on the Steam Engines and Boilers (Persons in Charge) Bill. That Committee, after full inquiry, came to the conclusion, for various considerations (including the fact that accidents due to the carelessness or incompetence of persons in charge of engines and boilers are few), that the legislation which would be required to carry out the hon. Member's suggestion was unnecessary.—(Home Office.)

Firing on Battleships—Captain Percy Scott's Apparatus.
MR. JOHN HUTTON: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether his attention has been directed to the efficiency of the shooting of His Majesty's Ships "Barfleur," and "Terrible," obtained under the system of instruction invented by Captain Percy Scott, C.B., of H.M.S. "Terrible": whether the Admiralty will issue Captain Scotts models and apparatus to other ships in the Navy, so as to have the system thoroughly tried and reported upon.
(Answer.) The Admiralty is fully acquainted with the excellent results of the firing on H.M.S. "Barfleur" and

1387
"Terrible," and with the still better results recently obtained on board H.M.S. "Crescent" on the North American Station. The Admiralty have recognised the desirability of extending the use of Captain Scott's system, and have taken the necessary steps to supply the apparatus to such an extent as may be necessary.—(Admiralty.)

Cooper's Hill Engineers.
SIR SEYMOUR KING: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether, since the latest dispatches relating to the case of the senior Cooper's Hills engineers presented last year, and the India Office despatch to the Government of India, P.W., 214, 9th June, 1901, any further communication on the subject has been received from the Government of India; and if so, whether he is prepared to lay a copy of it upon the Table.
(Answer.) Some correspondence on a point of procedure, connected with the subject of this Question, has passed between myself and the Government of India, since the despatches to which the hon. Member refers were presented; but this correspondence has no bearing on the merits of the case, and I do not propose to lay it on the Table.—(India Office.)
SIR SEYMOUR KING: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is now prepared to lay upon the Table of the House the following despatches relating to the case of the senior Cooper's Hill engineers, viz. : Despatch from the Government of India, No. 15, Public Works, dated 28th January, 1890; also copy of Sir George Chesney's Minute, written in 1890, referred to in that despatch; and Government of India's Despatch, No. 10, dated 30th March, 1899, covering memorials from Mr. A. S. Russell and others.
(Answer.) I laid upon the Table last year Copies of a Correspondence containing the final decision of the Secretary of State in Council upon the subject to which my hon. friend's Question refers. These Papers contain a full statement of the case of the I engineers and the decision of the
1388
Government. There has been no subsequent correspondence which in any way relates to the merits of the case, and I do not propose to lay upon the Table any papers antecedent in date to those which have been already published.—(India Office.)

Scotch and Irish Law Officers and Private Practice.
MR. DILLON: To ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland whether he can cite the precedents in Scotland and Ireland for a Law Officer of the Crown acting as counsel for one of the parties in an election petition matter where charges of corrupt and illegal practices were alleged in the petition.
(Answer.) Cases are not reported on such points as these. I could not, therefore, possibly answer the Question without having first searched the records of the Courts in both countries, since the passing of the Municipal Corporations Act of 1882. These records are as open to the hon. Member as to me, and I submit I am not, therefore, called upon to undertake the duty of obtaining the information he desires.—(Irish Office.)

Cost of Irish Police Prosecutions.
MR. DILLON: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state what was the total cost of the recent prosecutions at Ballinaford. County Roscommon, including cost of moving police; and who was responsible for ordering prosecutions under the Criminal Law and Procedure Act in these cases.
(Answer.) The prosecutions were ordered by the Executive Government acting upon the advice of the Law Officers. The expenses amounted to £24 18s.—(Irish Office.)

Roman Catholic Female Inspectors for Irish Workhouses.
CAPTAIN DONELAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the fact that a large proportion of the Roman Catholic inmates of Irish unions are females, the desirability of appointing a Roman Catholic lady inspector of workhouses in Ireland will be favourably considered.

1389
(Answer.) As at present advised, I do not consider that any necessity exists for appointing a female inspector of workhouses. The Local Government Board has recently appointed two additional medical inspectors for workhouses, both of whom, it is understood, are Roman Catholics. Of the entire inspectorate on the Board's establishment, seven are believed to belong to that religion.—(Irish Office.)

Irish Law Officers and Private Practice.
MR. DILLON: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Agriculture and Industries Department in Ireland, in opposing the Private Bill before Parliament of the Dublin Port and Docks Board, had been advised by the Solicitor General for Ireland, and that the Solicitor General afterwards was the leading counsel for the promoters of the Bill before the Committee of the House; can he explain why this was permitted; and will he take any steps to see that this is not repeated.
(Answer.) The hon. Member has been misinformed. The Solicitor-General has never advised the new Department in respect of this measure, either directly or indirectly. Nor was he at any time invited to do so.—(Irish Office.)

Epping Forest Rifle Range.
MR. D. A. THOMAS: To ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he will state the grounds upon which in 1900 the War Office, in the interests of the public safety, reported against the proposal of the Corporation to reopen the disused rifle range in Epping Forest; if he will state the length of the range and the distance at which the public roads cross the danger zone behind the stopbutt.
(Answer.) The range was not considered suitable for use, as two very much used roads crossed the danger zone, one at 600 and another at 1,000 yards behind the stopbutt. The traffic on these roads is so considerable that it was held to be impossible to stop firing while people passed. The range was originally 800 yards, but was used latterly to 600 yards.—(War Office.)

South African War—Publication of Despatches.
COLONEL LEGGE: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will publish the whole of the despatches relative to the operations in South Africa up to the 29th November, 1900, the date of the promotion of officers for service in the field under Lord Roberts.
(Answer.) I am not in a position to make a statement on this subject at present, but I hardly think the date suggested could be adopted in any case.—(War Office.)

Volunteers—Camping Accommodation.
MR. MUNTZ: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the fact that Volunteers when under canvas receive no payment, and are accommodated ten in a tent, and sleep on the ground without beds or flooring; and, seeing that Yeomanry while under canvas receive pay at the rate of 5s. per day, and have beds and flooring in their tents, and an allowance of £5 each for a horse; whether he will take steps to provide that Volunteers have the same treatment as the other branch of His Majesty's service.
(Answer.) Volunteers are accommodated eight in a tent, or ten when in camp with the regular forces, the normal period for Volunteer encampment being six days only. Yeomanry are accommodated six in a tent, their normal period of encampment being for eighteen days. As regards bedding, waterproof sheets and wooden tent bottoms, the two forces are treated alike. As regards payment, a Volunteer corps receives a minimum allowance of 2s. 6d. a day for every volunteer under canvas, out of which the Commanding Officer may make payments to the men.—(War Office.)

South African War—Transport Arrangements for Return of the Troops.
MR. LEVY: To ask the Secretary of State for War if, in making arrangements for the return of the troops from South Africa, he will invite tenders from all shipowners capable of undertaking the

1391
transport service, and impose such conditions as to accommodation and rations as will tend to secure the health and comfort of the men.
(Answer.) A number of transports are already at the disposal of the Admiralty, and can be employed on the service of bringing home troops from South Africa. Should additional ships be required, only vessels belonging to lines capable of satisfactorily carrying out transport work will be engaged. The hon. Member may rest assured that everything practicable will be done to ensure the health and comfort of the men on the voyage.—(Admiralty.)

Coronation Processions—Facilities for Provincial Volunteers.
MR. LOWE: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will explain why any Volunteers from outside London were invited to come up for the Coronation ceremonies when their services were not required; and whether, in view of the fact that many of these Volunteers have recently returned from South Africa, and have specially distinguished themselves there, he will explain why they have been asked to be present as mere spectators, and why they are to be treated in a different manner to other branches of the Service.
(Answer.) The invitation was intended as a compliment to the Volunteers, affording them an opportunity of being represented at the Coronation. The arrangements for them are practically the same as for the Yeomanry, and are in accordance with the precedent of the Jubilee.—(War Office.)

SOUTH AFRICAN WAR—GRANT TO LORD KITCHENER—MESSAGE FROM THE KING.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A J. BALFOUR,)at the Bar, acquainted the House that he had a message from His Majesty the King, signed with His Majesty's own hand, and he presented the same to the House, and it was read by Mr. Speaker (all the Members being uncovered), and is as followeth—
EDWARD REX.
His Majesty, taking into consideration the eminent services rendered by Lieutenant-General Lord Kitchener
1392
of Khartoum, G.C.B., C.C.M.G., Commander-in-Chief of His Majesty's Forces in South Africa, and being desirous, in recognition of such services, to confer upon him some signal mark of his favour, recommends to His faithful Commons that he should be enabled to grant Lord Kitchener the sum of fifty thousand pounds.
Ordered, That His Majesty's most gracious message be referred to the Committee of Supply.—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
Several cries of "No "were raised on the Nationalist Benches.
MR. SPEAKER: I have already collected the voices.
MR. DILLON: The moment you put the Question I said "No."
Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: And so did many of us.
MR. SPEAKER: No such sound reached my ear until after I had collected the opinion of the House. The Clerk will now proceed to read the Orders of the day.
MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: We will oppose it when the time comes.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Aye. tooth and nail.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  SOUTH AFRICAN SETTLEMENT—EFFECT ON NATIONAL FINANCES.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: We have been informed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is to make a statement on the financial condition of the country on the Loan Bill tonight, and I would like to suggest that, after the right hon. Gentleman has made his statement, he should adjourn the discussion on the Loan Bill, so that the House may have an opportunity of discussing that statement with its bearings on the Finance

  1393
  Bill. Not only the question of the loans, but the question of taxation also will probably be very much affected The Budget provides for the continuation of the war; but the situation has now entirely changed. It is obviously a matter that will require a great deal of consideration, and I hope, that, as the Third Beading of the Loan Bill affords the only opportunity on which the House can discuss the matter, the right hon. Gentleman will accede to my suggestion, so that the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement may be discussed, and, if necessary, an Amendment moved.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,: What I had intended to do was to put shortly before the House what the necessities of the financial situation may be on account of the termination of the war. That cannot involve the smallest change in the Loan Bill; it might involve a change in the Tax Bill. But the right hon. Gentleman will have three days to consider any effect which it has on the Tax Bill before the Tax Bill is proceeded with. Perhaps I may tell the House frankly that I propose to continue the two additional taxes still remaining in the Finance Bill. I will state my reasons for doing so this evening. I cannot, of course, on that statement argue the merits of those taxes; that will be arguable on the Finance Bill, and the time will then come for any hon. Members who object to the continuance of those taxes to give their reasons for their rejection, and for me to defend my proposals. So far as the Loan Bill is concerned, the money has been borrowed. It will be required for the service of the State for the first nine months of the year, and any surplus after the expiry of those nine months will be proposed to be devoted to the redemption of the debt. I see nothing to justify the postponement of the Loan Bill, because under no circumstances can the proposal as to increased taxation be discussed on the Loan Bill.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Can such an Amendment be moved on the Loan Bill?
  MR. SPEAKER: It would not be in order to discuss the merits of taxes which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has stated he does not intend to with draw. When the Government ask for a loan of £32,000,000, it is, of course, competent for hon. Members to use arguments to show that it is not necessary to raise that sum.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I can only just observe that the money has been raised.

  Form of "Self-Government" promised to Boers.
  MR. BLACK: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any definition of the term "self-government," as used in the Peace Agreement, was asked by or given to the Boer leaders; and what is to be the constitution of the civil government which is to follow military administration.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN, Birmingham, W.): (1.) The answer is in the negative. (2.) I am not yet in a position to make any statement on this point.

  Transvaal Mines and War Taxation.
  MR. CLAUDE LOWTHER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Clause 9 of the Agreement as to the terms of surrender precludes the imposition of special taxation upon the mineral property in the Transvaal and Orange River Colonies for the purpose of defraying the expenses of the war.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The answer is in the negative.

  Cape Colony Government.
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the extract given in Despatch No. 21 of Parliamentary Paper [Cd. 1096], as to the views of the Cape Government with respect to the treatment of British subjects of Cape Colony in the field or captured since 12th April 1901, formed part of a telegram or despatch, and what was its date; whether it represents the view of

  1395
  the Cape Ministry as a whole, or of a majority of its members; whether any of the Cape Ministers have recently resigned, and, if so, who; and of whom does the Cape Ministry now consist.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: (1.) The extract formed part of a telegram dated 4th May. The minute of the Cape Government has now been received by despatch. (2.) The Minute has been communicated to the Governor as the expression of the view of the Cape Ministry as a whole. (3). Dr. Smart, Commissioner of Public Works, resigned last week. No addition has been made to the personnel of the Ministry in consequence. It consists of Sir J. Gordon Sprigg, Treasurer and Premier; Sir P. Faure, Colonial Secretary; Mr. Dougald, Commissioner of Public Works; Mr. J. Frost, Minister for Agriculture; Mr. T. L. Graham, Attorney General.

  Revenues of the Annexed Territories.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will lay upon the Table of the House a detailed statement of the revenue for the last financial year, and the estimated revenue for the current financial year of the newly annexed territories in South Africa, distinguishing those portions of the revenue which are due to the expenditure of money voted by the House of Commons.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I expect that before the end of the Session we shall be in a position to give detailed statements on this matter, but they are not available at present, as the financial year of the Transvaal and Orange River Colony begins on July 1st, so that the accounts for this year cannot be yet completed. The only part of the revenue derived from money voted by the House of Commons would arise from such part of the grant-in-aid of last July for £1,500,000, as may be required to make up any deficiency in the local revenue. The importations of stores for military or public purposes appear to be free from Customs duties—and any Railway receipts are taken by the military who work the lines.

  South African Expenditure.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, before proceeding further with the Finance Bill or the Loan Bill, he will lay upon the Table of the House a revised estimate of the expenditure, military and civil, connected with South Africa for the current financial year.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I shall make a statement tonight on this subject.

  The Kitchener-Botha Negotiations in 1901.
  MR. BLACK: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will now print and circulate to Members the written communications received from Lord Kitchener, giving an account of his negotiations with General Botha in February and March, 1901, and commenting on the result of these negotiations.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Lord STANLEY, Lancashire, Westhoughton): My right hon. friend does not propose to add to the Papers published last year on this subject.
  MR. BLACK: Is the noble lord aware that the Secretary of State for War promised to publish these Papers on the 1st April, 1901?
  LORD STANLEY: I am only aware that my right hon. friend docs not propose to add to the Papers published last year.
  MR. BLACK: After his promise.

  Corn Duties.
  MR. M'CRAE: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, having regard to the proclamation of peace, he will now consider the advisability of not proceeding further with the proposed duties on grain.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The financial situation would not seem to justify the course suggested by the hon. Member.
  MR. M'CRAE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether his answer implies that he does not consider the corn duty a war tax?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I will make a statement upon that at a later period.

  Sale of Addington Park.
  MR. HUMPHREYS OWEN: I beg to ask the hon. Member for West Salford, as Church Estates Commissioner, what was the amount realised by the sale of Addington, and what sums the Ecclesiastical Commissioners have spent, or propose to spend, on the provision of an archiepiscopal residence at Canterbury; what was the sum expended on the, purchase of the present residence of the Bishop of Rochester; and whether the Ecclesiastical Commissioners have given their sanction to the allocation of £15,000 to the purchase and maintenance of a fresh residence for the Bishop of Rochester in the event of the creation of the Diocese of South wark; and whether they have had any correspondence with the Bishop of Rochester on the subject; and, if so, what has been the nature of such correspondence.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY CHARITY COMMISSIONER (Mr. LEES KNOWLES,): Addington Park was sold for £45,000. With the interest on the sums from time to time remaining in the Commissioners' hands, and the addition of the amount paid over by the Archbishop of Canterbury in respect of dilapidations accrued at the time of the sale, and after deducting the amount of mortgage upon the property which had to be discharged, the amount available for the provision of a new archiepiscopal residence has been about £49,000. On the acquisition of the site at Canterbury and the erection of the new residence, there has been expended nearly £27,000, and the outstanding accounts amount to some £3,000. The sum expended out of the proceeds of the sale of Danbury Palace upon the provision of the present house of residence at Kensington for the See of Rochester, was £17,718. The Commissioners have approved the terms of the Bishopric of Southwark Bill which recently passed its Second Reading, including the direction contained therein for the allocation of a sum of £15,000 towards making provision for a new residence for the
  1398
  Bishop of Rochester, upon the constitution of the Bishopric of Southward There has been no correspondence upon the subject.

  St. Luke's, Chelsea.
  MR. HUMPHREYS-OWEN: I leg to ask the hon. Member for West Salford, as Church Estates Commissioner, whether he will say what was the approximate annual value (gross or net) of the Rectory of St. Luke's, Chelsea, at the time of the death of the late incumbent; what is the annual income to be received by the new incumbent; whether such income is that originally proposed by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners : whether he will state briefly what communications have passed between the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and Earl Cadogan as patron of the living, and if the Ecclesiastical Commissioners have sanctioned the arrangements which have resulted from those communications; and whether the Ecclesiastical Commissioners have considered the necessity for futher legislation, in order that they may have wider powers to deal with the incomes of benefices on the voidance thereof.
  MR. LEES KNOWLES: The Ecclesiastical Commissioners have no knowledge of the annual value, gross or net, of the Rectory of St. Luke's, Chelsea, either at the date of the death of the late incumbent or at the present time. The income of the Rectory is derived from ancient endowments and was not settled by the Commissioners. There have been no communications upon the subject between the Commissioners and the Patron; but the Commissioners have expressed their readiness to consider any proposal which may be made to them, with the necessary consents, for effecting an apportionment of the income of the Rectory.

  Postal Arrangements on Coronation Day.
  MR. DAVID MORGAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if, looking to the occasion and to the fact that the 26th and 27th June will be public holidays, he will direct there shall only be one delivery of letters on each of those days.
  MR. SUAMES: At the same time may I ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is now able to state what arrangements have been made with regard to a holiday for the employees of the Post Office on the day of His Majesty's Coronation.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN, Worcestershire, E.): The arrangements on Coronation Day will be as follows : All Post Offices will be open to the public during the same hours as on Sundays and at offices (not being Town Sub Offices) which do not ordinarily open on Sundays attendance will be given from 8 a.m. to 10 a.m. for the sale of stamps and registration of letters, and in the case of Telegraph Offices, for telegraph business. Town Sub Offices will be closed. There will be be only one delivery and collection of letters in the day. Friday the 27th June will be observed exactly as an ordinary Bank Holiday. In London some special arrangements will be made and these will be duly notified.

  Post Office Buildings—Sanitary Inspection.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he will state whether local sanitary inspectors have free access to all Post Office buildings for the purpose of inspection whether the property of the Crown or otherwise; and will he say whether the sorting office at St. Martin's-le-Grand has been inspected by the local sanitary inspector during the present year. And, are the offices in which the clerical or other staff of the Post Office employed in all instances so arranged as to conform to the regulations in force in the case of buildings liable to inspection under the Factories Acts, so far as the question of space allotted to each person is concerned.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Local sanitary inspectors are not allowed free access to Post Office buildings belonging to the Crown; and the Sorting Office in the General Post Office at
  1400
  St. Martin's-le-Grand has not been inspected by the Public Sanitary Inspector during the present year. The building has, however, been recently inspected by a Factory Inspector, and there is no reason to suppose that the requirements of the Factory Acts are contravened in any respect, either in this or in any other building belonging to the Department.

  Gaelic Instruction in Scotch Schools.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether he can state what is the special encouragement offered to the use of Gaelic as a means of instruction in Scotland, to which reference is made at page 27 of the Report of the Committee of Council on Education lately issued; what special facilities are given to the training of Gaelic-speaking teachers : and can he state in what year the recommendations embodied in the Minute of 1884 with reference to these subjects were first adopted.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY,): In the Highland Counties an additional grant of one shilling a head is made if a Gaelic-speaking pupil teacher is employed for the instruction of the infants and junior division. Payment is also made for a Gaelic-speaking pupil teacher required for this work, even although the average attendance does not otherwise warrant his employment. In order to encourage teachers who speak Gaelic, additional marks are given for Gaelic at the King's Scholarship Examination. The recommendations referred to were first adopted in 1885.

  National Gallery—Precautions against Fire.
  MR. BALDWIN: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works what special precautions, if any, have been taken to safeguard the National Gallery from the increased risk of fire which will arise during the next few weeks in consequence of the masses of woodwork which are being erected against and adjoining the buildings in Trafalgar Square.
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. AKERS DOUGLAS,): The stands are watched and inspected by the police at night.

  1401
  The hose is connected at six points, and all is ready for immediate use. Hand pumps will also be supplied. I arranged a few weeks ago, by the courtesy of the County Council, that all the stands should be visited by firemen periodically; and that Captain Wells should advise as to any steps which he might consider necessary, having regard to the adjacent buildings. His recommendations will in all cases be carried out. In the National Gallery, fire buckets, hose, and every appliance are kept in the utmost readiness, and the staff' is on the alert.

  Trinity College, Dublin.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if the Government will take steps to enable the tenants of Trinity College, Dublin, and their sub-tenants to become the owners of their holdings upon equitable terms.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,): Almost all the lands belonging to Trinity College are held under perpetuity leases, by lessees who have sub-let their holdings. The Land Purchase Acts would not apply to these lessees. The question raised by the hon. Baronet is part of the very wide question whether Corporations should be empowered to alienate property held by them in trust. I could not undertake to consider legislation dealing with this matter.

  Irish Local Taxation Licences.
  MR. M'GOVERN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland can he state the amount received by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue on account of the local taxation licences specified in the third schedule of the Local Government (Ireland) Act, for the years ending 31st March, 1900, 1901, and 1902 respectively; how much was paid in each year to the respective County Councils in Ireland in addition to the £79,000 provided for under the fifty-eighth section of the Act : is there any balance in the Consolidated Fund to the credit of this account; and, if so, will he state how much, and in what way the Government intend to dispose of it.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The net receipts, as shown by the Local Taxation (Ireland) Account, in respect of the three years mentioned, inclusive of the annual sum of £79,000, were £284,836 2s. 2d.; £324,116 4s. 5d.; and £288,271 5s. 11d. respectively. The payments to County Councils, County Boroughs, and Urban District Councils in each of the same years amounted to £251,528 13s.; £270,041 8s.; and £282,573, 16s. 2d. The unexpended balance amounted to £94,072 8s. 10d. at the end of March last. Of this, £47,094 is in a deposit account, bearing interest, and the remainder is at present in the current account. The disposal of this balance is governed by Sub-section 5, Section 58, of the Act. I should add that the receipts for the year 1900–1901 included a sum of £37,029 16s. 6d. voted by Supplementary Estimate to recoup to the account expenditure on pauper lunatics in respect of the quarter ended 31st March, 1898.

  Arterial Drainage and Afforestry in Ireland.
  MR. M'GOVERN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland is he aware that the Council of Agriculture for Ireland, at its annual meeting held in Dublin in May, 1901, passed a resolution unanimously asking the Government to have the Local Government (Ireland) Act amended so as to enable County Councils in Ireland to execute arterial drainage works and afforest waste lands, and to simplify the procedure necessary for acquiring lands for these and other public purposes; and is it the intention of the Government to take any steps to amend the Local Government Act as suggested.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The question of arterial drainage is undoubtedly one of importance, but also of considerable magnitude. I see no immediate prospect of being in a position to deal with it. With respect to re-afforestation, a Committee has been appointed to investigate the matter in Great Britain, and the question whether a special inquiry shall also be held in Ireland will be decided when the evidence taken before that Committee is available. As at present

  1403
  advised, it is not proposed to amend the Local Government Act in the direction suggested.

  Loughglynn Police Barracks.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the fact that the office of the Congested Districts Board in Loughglynn, county Roscommon, has been given to the police to be used as a barrack; and whether he can state who is responsible for this action.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The building formerly used as a rent office at Loughglynn is no longer required by the Congested Districts Board for that purpose. It has been let by the Board to the constabulary, as a temporary measure, for the accommodation of police.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state on what grounds the police at Loughglynn, county Roscommon, have been removed from the barracks which they have occupied for some years.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The house is not habitable.

  Questions on Fridays.
  MR. MACVEAGH: I beg-to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the interval between Thursday and Monday, it is intended to make arrangements, and, if so, what arrangements, to ensure that Questions addressed to Ministers on matters of urgent public importance shall be answered by Ministers on Fridays.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, Friday now takes the place of Wednesday under the old system, and there are no disabilities attaching to Friday which did not affect Wednesday under the old system, with this very important exception—that Questions which are not starred cannot be answered on Friday. Of course, there is the old method of asking a Question on the adjournment of the House, if there be any occasion for so doing.

  Education Bill Finance.
  MR. HERBERT LEWIS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether it is the intention of the Government to make any, and, if so, what modification of the financial proposals contained in the Education Bill.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think I have stated in answer to other Questions all I can at present state on the subject. I shall have to make a further statement.
  MR. GEORGE LAMBERT: When does the right hon. Gentleman expect to be able to make the statement?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I hope to be able to make the statement before the debate on the Education Bill is resumed, after the Budget Bill has been dealt with.
  MR. BRYCE: When do we resume the Committee stage of the Education Bill?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: After tomorrow afternoon I do not propose to resume the Education Bill till the Committee on the Budget has been disposed of. After that interval I hope to communicate to the House what the views of the Government are.
  DR. MACNAMARA: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to put the Education Bill down for tomorrow?
  SIR H. CAMPBELL BANNERMAN: I should like to emphasise the objection to that, because, owing to the general forecast of business previously given, a great many hon. Members who are deeply interested in the Education Bill may be absent tomorrow.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Business of the first importance is to be taken at the beginning of the afternoon sitting tomorrow. I had conceived that after that was over the House might go on with the Education Bill, but from my point of view the matter is relatively unimportant. I will have to consider what other business can be put down.

EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
MR. JAMES LOWTHERin the chair.
Clause 1 :—
DR. MACNAMARA: moved an Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Swansea Districts making it necessary that boroughs as well as urban districts should have a population of over 20,000, in order to be qualified to act as the local education authority for the purpose of Part III. of the Act (Elementary Education). The Government Bill of 1898 provided that only county boroughs should have paramount local authority, but after considerable pressure autonomy was given to municipal boroughs with 20,000 population. In the original scheme of the Bill of 1896 there were 128 different local authorities, and the Vice president in the course of the debates expressed an opinion that that was too many. He strongly opposed the conclusion of anything short of county or county boroughs, but under pressure municipal boroughs with a population of 20,000 were included. That let in sixty-nine new autonomous bodies. The right hon. Gentleman very strongly expressed his objection to that increase to 197. But what was the position in the present Bill. They had 128 county and county borough authorities, 130 municipal boroughs with a population of 10,000, and sixty-three urban districts with a population of 20,000; in all 329 authorities. If in 1896, 128 were too many, and 197 meant the ruin of the Pill what did the Vice-President think of a scheme which provided 329. The right hon. Gentleman was their educational guide, philosopher and friend, and by reason of the position he held they were entitled to look to him for advice. How-did he reconcile his attitude in 1896 with his support of the present proposal. They had now given up the farce of endeavouring to secure one authority for all grades of education. At one time he did think the Government were sincere in endeavouring to obtain that,
1406
but they had apparently given the idea up altogether. He commended this Amendment to the consideration of the First Lord. It embodied the scheme he accepted very reluctantly no doubt in 1896, on the suggestion of the hon. Member for South Islington, and if it were adopted it would reduce the total number of authorities to 276. The great bulk of the Members who sat on the Opposition Benches were against him yesterday in his endeavour to strike out the proviso altogether. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Aberdeen made an appeal for popular control of education, and he was bound to sympathise with him in that, but he would point out that the Bill did not provide popular control in any way whatever. It was vitiated in that matter from its very fountainhead. The right hon. Gentleman objected to striking out the proviso because he wanted to get as near popular control as possible. But the Bill as he had said did not secure that. For instance, Municipal Councils would not control education : they would have to appoint an Education Committee, the members of which would not necessarily be members of the Municipal Council. Then he came to the question of finance. Under that proviso they would have the county levying a 2d. rate for secondary education, and even more if it could get the authority of the Municipal Council; then they would get the excluded districts levying a Id. rate for technical instruction; thirdly, there would be the county or residue of the county levying a, county rate for elementary education; and fourthly, the autonomous districts would be levying their own rate for their own education. Thus there would be four systems of rating, which would only tend to make confusion worse confounded. He sympathised with those who desired to secure popular control, but under this Bill the narrower the area the less popular control they had. The people for whom he was pleading did not want exactly what they wanted. They did not want autonomy in the matter of rating, they did not want the right to rate themselves, but they did want the definity of an independent local authority. At a meeting at the Westminster Palace Hotel on

1407
the previous day of representatives of the authorities proposed to be constituted under the Bill a Resolution was passed which indicated that while they wished to control their our affairs in their own areas they were not prepared to pay for the privilege. They, in fact, passed a Resolution protesting against legislation which did not provide for a grant for education purposes from the Imperial Exchequer. The Government would probably have to find the money for this Bill from Imperial sources, and unless they agreed to do that these people would doubtless decline to rate themselves. He again appealed to the Vice President to state the grounds on which he supported this part of the Bill.
Amendment proposed—
"In page I, line 10, to leave out the word 'Ten,' and insert the word 'Twenty.'"—(Dr. Macnamara.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'Ten' stand part of the Clause."
MR. DILLONstrongly supported the Amendment. On the previous day he expressed his views on this matter, and he now noted that his opinions were those also of the teachers of voluntary schools. While he adhered to the view that there should be one local education authority, he thought the Government might make a concession on this particular point by raising the population limit of the boroughs to that of the urban districts. What was the logical ground upon which a distinction was made between an urban district and a borough? Upon historical grounds he could understand the distinction, but not where education was concerned. What was the difference between an urban population, which happened to be called an urban district, of 20,000, and an urban population which happened to be called a borough, of 20,000? He thought if there was any argument at all for this distinction it would be in the opposite direction, because the urban district would be more likely to be progressive than the boroughs, which, from the fact of their being boroughs, were often moribund (they must be so or else their population would not remain so low), whilst urban districts on the other hand were virile bodies, set up in the
1408
midst of large growing centres of industrial life. In the course of the debate on the previous night it had been said by an hon. Member in support of the Government proposal that they were not going to force upon these borough councils the duty of becoming the educational authority; they had the opportunity of adopting the Bill or not. But he thought the time had come when in order to discuss the question of "the authority "with full knowledge, the Committee ought to know what was the policy of the Government and what were really to be the future districts of the country for this educational scheme, and whether this was to be an optional or a compulsory Bill. There was a very strong argument in support of postponing Clause 1 until they knew what was the meaning of Clause 5. He asked for some indication on the part of the Government as to what was their policy with regard to Clause 5, because the decision of the Government if stated to the Committee now with regard to that clause might entirely change the views of the Committee with regard to Clause 1.
MR. BRYNMOK JONESsaid an Amendment on the same lines as that which now occupied the attention of the Committee stood in his name, and it was put on the Paper mainly but not entirely for the reasons which his hon. friend behind had stated when moving this Amendment. He did not think the Government recognised the meaning of the Amendment as it now stood, neither had he gathered from the debate what the object of this preference was. The First Lord of the Treasury when introducing the Bill had said its first principle was the creation of one educational authority, but that there would be certain exemptions made with regard to boroughs of a certain size. But no explanation had been given for the limit of 10,000. If it was the intention to maintain the existing privileges of the boroughs, then the limit of 10,000 was too high. On the other hand, if the object was simply educational efficiency, then the limit of 10,000 was too low, and the proviso would, in his opinion, produce results which would be detrimental in education. Take the

1409
case of Swansea He sat for about half of Swansea and for two contributory boroughs, Neath and Aberavon. Neath had a population of nearly 20,000; it had a School Board of its own, and, under the Intermediate Education Act of 1889, a separate board for the management of secondary education. If this Bill passed, the result would be that the Neath Borough Council would become the authority for elementary education, but not for the intermediate education. But in the case of Aberavon, the population of which was only 5,000, and which also had its own School Board and its own intermediate school under the Act of 1889, the proviso did not apply; the County Council became the authority and the rights and privileges of the Borough Council were lost. What sound argument could be adduced for such a principle as that? He submitted that if educational efficiency was the aim of the Government, this proposal could only have a detrimental effect upon the education of the country.
MR. WALTER PALMERsaid he represented a constituency of 19,000 people, and in his opinion, if the Amendment of the hon. Member was carried, it would very prejudicially affect that constituency. He thought there was considerable difference between a borough of 10,000 and an urban district of 20,000 population. In the borough there was a close community of local feeling, which did not exist in a larger and more scattered community. It was for that reason that he ventured to raise a protest against the Amendment, and he hoped the First Lord of the Treasury would resist it.
MR. GEORGE WHITEexpressed regret that he could not agree with the hon. Member for North Camber-well with regard to boroughs of 10,000 inhabitants. It was quite true that under the Bill they would not have direct local control, but at the same time in the appointment of the educational authority they would appoint those whom they knew would be efficient for the purpose, and certainly those within their own area, and they would be more intimately acquainted with the capabilities of those they appointed than the
1410
County Councils. If he had thought for a moment that this provision would militate against the educational efficiency of the district he should have supported the hon. Member for North Camberwell, but he was certain that it would not have that effect. It was quite true that there would be four systems of rating under this Bill, but there were four systems of rating under the present scheme. There was no increase at all. Many boroughs had admirable School Boards and admirable schools under those Boards : schools which were far more efficient than schools in larger areas. He therefore asked the First Lord of the Treasury to resist the Amendment, being in his own mind convinced that the smaller area would manage its educational interest better than a large area.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that from the speech or the hon. Member for North Camberwell one would imagine the Government had wholly changed the character of the Bill, and that the Committee were dealing with a measure entirely different from that introduced two or three months ago, and which received its Second Reading just before Whitsuntide. The Government had never attempted to minimise or to conceal the character of the Bill or the particular object it sought to achieve. It was stated in the most explicit terms in his own introductory speech, and it must have been present in the mind of everybody who voted for the Second Reading. There had never been the slightest suggestion on the part of any Member of the Government that they were prepared to make the Bill the thing of symmetrical beauty desired by the hon. Member. The Bill was introduced as one to co-ordinate the various forms of education in the different districts, and the Government had always said that that object would be carried out by the measure as presented. He did not deny that the Bill would be more logical and symmetrical if no exceptions were made in favour of non county boroughs. But, after all, the Committee must not approach the subject as if the history of England began last year. They had to deal with authorities and facts as they found them, and there had never been a Government fit to carry on

1411
the affairs of the country which had not taken into account in the measures they presented to the House the actual and historic forces at work. The question before the Committee was simply whether the 10,000 should be raised to 20,000. One hon. Member had thought to advance the cause of the 20,000 by pointing-out that in his own constituency there was a borough with a population of just under 10,000 quite as fit to exercise the powers under the Bill as a neighbouring borough of over 10,000. No doubt that was absolutely true, but it would be equally true whether the limit was fixed at 15,000, 20,000, or 25,000. If the Amendment were accepted, and the limit fixed at 20,000, he had not the slightest doubt there were plenty of Gentlemen in the House sufficiently ingenious to find cases of boroughs of 19,999 inhabitants just as qualified to carry out the work under this Bill a other boroughs with 20,000. That course of argument could be followed whatever line of demarcation was adopted. The subject might very well lie left there, but there was one point it was worth while to bring to the recollection of the Committee. Parliament had already by its legislation emphasised the distinction between boroughs of 10,000 and those with smaller populations. A great many duties were exercisable and exercised by boroughs of over 10,000; and as the Government found that line had already been drawn, and apparently worked satisfactorily, they embodied it in the present Bill. He trusted the Committee would decide that this limitation, which he did not deny was more or less of a compromise, should be adhered to.
MR. CORBIE GRANTsaid the Leader of the House had been asked to explain why the limitation of 10,000 was now adopted, when in 1896 the limitation of 20,000 was taken.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he had not been asked, and if he had been he would have said that the 1896 measure was quite a different Bill.
MR. CORRIE GRANTsaid that, in that case, he would ask the right hon. Gentleman now, and through him the Education Department—as apparently
1412
the Vice-President had disappeared from the debate, although a point was being discussed on which it was most important they should have the view of the Education Department—why the policy of 1896 was not the policy of 1902. Whatever limitation was fixed, isolated cases could be found in which it would apply somewhat harshly; but they asked the Government to say upon what general evidence they had determined in favour of 10,000. That was information which the Government ought to have, which was not at the general disposal of the Committee, and for which Members were entitled to ask. The right hon. Gentleman accused the hon. Member for North Camberwell of having charged the Government with concealment. It was putting the matter rather strongly. But there was such a thing as masquerading, and if he was describing what had been done he should say that the right hon. Gentleman and his supporters had masqueraded in the country under the guise of one authority, while the Bill they were putting forward was not a "one authority" measure at all. The Government had gone on the same principle as that on which people went ostrich shooting in South Africa. If a man approached an ostrich undisguised the ostrich ran away, but if the man covered himself with the feathers of a dead ostrich he was enabled to approach sufficiently near to the living ostrich to shoot it. The Government had apprdached the electors wearing the garb of a single authority, and the ordinary electors, having neither the time nor opportunity to work through the elaborate details of the Bill, were content to accept the assertions made by the supporters of the measure. That was the position the Opposition had had to meet. They were told the Bill gave direct control and direct authority, and what more could they want? They were accused of being false to all their pledges and principles, simply because the Bill was brought forward by a Tory Government. If that was not masquerading, he did not know what was. The Bill did not establish a direct authority, and when the Government had the opportunity of amending the measure to secure that object they refused to take it. The horn Member for Salisbury had said

1413
there was a closer unity between the population of boroughs than between the population of urban districts. What authority had he for that statement Taking the test of enterprise in local affairs, better administration would be found in the District Councils than in the Borough Councils. What distinction could be drawn to justify a limit of 10,000 in boroughs and 20,000 in urban districts? So far as he knew, very few distinctions could be drawn, and those that did appear made in favour of the urban districts rather than of the boroughs. He was not arguing as to the particular figure to be adopted; that was a matter upon which information would have subsequently to be asked from the Government. No reason had been put forward for making a distinction between the boroughs and District Councils, and the population ought to be the same in both. This Amendment was to make the number 20,000 instead of 10,000, and he supported this proposal because they would get better administration and better work for education when the areas were large rather than small. This would make a larger area, and therefore a wider area to draw educational experts from. There was another reason which ought to appeal to all hon. Members, and it was that this proposal would give a wider field for promotion amongst teachers, and that was a matter which was well worthy of consideration. In a small borough of 10,000 they would probably not have a scale of salaries for teachers, and they would be got as cheaply as possible. If they established large areas the education authorities would have to fix a scale upon definite progressive lines, and they would have a better chance of promotion to offer to the teachers. All those were arguments in favour of having the county as the unit of administration, and he admitted that they were not so strong when applied to a district of 20,000. There was no real distinction to be drawn in these matters between boroughs and urban district authorities. This proposal would give a better area for administration and for the promotion of teachers, and for those reasons he should support the Amendment.
MR. ERNEST GRAYsaid he supported this Amendment for two reasons. In the first place
1414
he did not think that a population of 10,000 was satisfactory, even for elementary education. Take as an example his own county. Amongst the small authorities was the town of Harwich, with a population of 10,019. They usually estimated that one-sixth of the population would be in public elementary schools, so that in the town of Harwich they had less, upon that calculation, than 2,000 children in the elementary schools, and only some three or four schools could make provision for that number. Was that a satisfactory area? What opportunity was there in Harwich for the teaching profession, or for establishing a higher elementary school? For elementary purposes alone, the population of 10,000 was far too small. Another reason why he supported this Amendment to keep up the level to 20,000 was because he wished to see the principle of the Bill carried through so that they would also become the authorities for secondary education, and 20,000 was quite small enough. As far as he could understand the question, the only argument brought forward in favour of the 10,000 limit was that it was a compromise. A compromise with whom? With whom had the arrangement been made? Had the Government pledged itself upon this point to the Non-County Boroughs Association?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No.
MR. ERNEST GRAY: If not, why were the Government now insisting upon a particular figure of 10,000 for boroughs and yet taking 20,000 as the area for urban districts? He agreed that there were a few cases where sentimental objections had very great force. Their ancient history and the fact that they had in the past done their work well was worthy of consideration, although from his own personal knowledge he knew the right hon. Gentleman would not find upon investigation that elementary education is at all satisfactory in some of the areas which he now proposed as the authorities in the future. What was to be the position of the administrative counties with the best areas taken out? He would put this question to the hon. and gallant Member for the Chelmsford Division, who usually supported the agricultural interest in the House. What would be

1415
the position of the agricultural county of Essex with all those districts cut out? What money would that county have at its disposal for elementary education? There would be nothing but the agricultural districts left, and on them the whole rate would press for educational purposes. If the Bill was retained in its present form, it would have only one advantage, and that was an irresistible claim for the whole cost of education being placed upon the national exchequer, because, such counties as Essex could never satisfactorily discharge their duty with every available piece of wealthy rateable value taken out, and only the agricultural land to depend upon. For all those reasons he had no alternative, but to support the Amendment. He quite agreed that the account the right hon. Gentleman gave of the attitude of the Government upon this Bill was perfectly correct and fair, and nobody accused him of having pretended that this provision was anything but what it really was. But certainly be took it on the Second Reading that this was a detail for amendment. He looked upon this proposal as an attempt to secure the support of the representatives of those non-county boroughs. Had he regarded this point as vital on the Second Reading, he would have attacked it, but he looked upon it then as a detail which might be left to the judgment of the House without any guidance from the Treasury Bench. They protested against those small areas in 1896, and he believed their introduction killed the Bill of that year. He greatly feared that the Government were committing now, not as great an error, but something approaching it, as they did in 1896 by introducing these small areas and marking them out as fit authorities to exercise the powers under this Bill. If the right hon. Gentleman would give them his own private opinion, he felt sure he would favour county boroughs if he could get them, and if not as near county boroughs as the necessities of the case would compel him to adopt.
SIR ALBERT ROLLITsaid he desired to say a word against the Amendment on the ground that he thought all boroughs
1416
might be entrusted with at least primary education. He knew of one borough with a small population, which, from the first, had used the whisky money with excellent educational results, where that work would under this Bill be more or less destroyed. His hon. friend who had just sat down said he thought 20,000 should be the limit with the view of giving secondary as well as primary education. The Report of the Royal Commission distinctly had down that the areas for secondary instruction should be larger than for primary and elementary instruction, was distinctly a local matter. It had not been sufficiently realised that borough and urban life was distinctive in its character. A borough was generally more or less a manufacturing place, while the surrounding country was generally agricultural. His hon. friend the Member for North Camber-well had stated that the proposal in the Bill would have the effect of taking the rating plum away from the country districts, but the truth was that the educational work done in the boroughs was inevitably participated in by the surrounding district, and no differential charge was made in the boroughs for the education of children who came from the country districts. In dealing with these matters their object should be never to destroy but to build upon the existing work. He appreciated the work of the School Boards, and far be it from him to say a word against that work, but when a change was to be made in pursuance of a policy which some of them approved, that work should not be dissipated by the adoption of methods which would have that effect.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The speech of my hon. friend who has just sat down has come to me, I confess, like a refreshing breeze. Probably the reason of its refreshing quality is that he expressed the views which I have myself formed on the subject, and that is always a first necessary qualification of a pleasant speech. The hon. Gentleman has said, and I agree with him, that we should preserve as far as possible the existing educational machinery.
SIR ALBERT ROLLIT: The existing work.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: For primary education that exists in those localities, however small they may be; and, therefore, because that was my strong feeling, I voted for the Amendment yesterday which proposed to except all those small communities. Having been disappointed in obtaining that, we have before us on the Paper an Amendment that the limit should be 5,000 instead of 10,000. I was prepared to support that Amendment as the next best thing; but now another hon. Member has stepped in and moved to omit the word "ten "in order to insert "twenty." I should be sorry to omit the word "ten" with the view of inserting "twenty," and, on the whole, I think I had better look upon "ten" as my sheet anchor. As the Government are prepared to give us ten, out of fear of twenty, and lest a worse thing should happen to us, I think I may support the Government in this matter.
MR. A. H. BROWNsaid the Committee would do well to take "ten," which was now in the Bill, and rely on the provision in the clause whereby, if local circumstances made any change desirable, it could be negotiated between the County Council and the Borough Council.
MR. LAMBERTasked whether he was to understand that, in the event of the proposal of the Government being carried, as against the Amendment now before the Committee, they would not be able to move further Amendments on the proposal.
THE CHAIRMAN: If the Committee decide in favour of ten, that will be the decision of the Committee.
MR. LAMBERT: Should I be in order in moving an Amendment to the Amendment?
THE CHAIRMAN: I do not see how that is possible. The question is that
1418
the word "ten" stand part of the Bill. When the hon. Member has got rid of "ten" it will be open to him to move to insert another figure.
MR. LAMBERTsaid they should not have much opportunity of getting rid of "ten" if the Government were still in favour of it. There was one point on which he would support the Government. He wanted to keep the boroughs in the matter of education as vigorous as possible. The hon. Member opposite had said that in boroughs of 10,000 inhabitants they did not have good education. He begged to differ from him. In his" own constituency there were excellent educational institutions, and the inspector's reports which he had in his possession testified to the satisfactory condition of education in the boroughs. He would follow the leader of the Opposition, and support the Government in this matter.
MR. NUSSEYsaid he represented a constituency which would be closely affected by the Amendment. He should like to congratulate the Leader of the House on his opposition to it. He was glad the Vice-President had resisted the eloquent appeal which had been made to him to take part in this debate. They always enjoyed listening to him, but on this occasion, well—knowing how consistent he always was, and remembering the line he took in 1896, he was afraid that if he had spoken he would have accepted the Amendment. Boroughs, including small ones, had a complete and separate entity, and as such they were entitled to manage their own affairs. They elected their own local men to do so, and it was wished they had more power to have truer representative Government in this particular matter. County bodies having too large an area, did not know the wants of every local borough.
(3.53.) Question put.
The Committee divided :—Ayes, 277; Noes, 81. (Division List No. 197.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

Lawrence, Joseph (Monmouth)

Acland Hood, Capt.SirAlex.F.

Ellis, John Edward

Lawson, John Grant

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Emmott, Alfred

Layland Barratt, Francis

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Evans, Sir Francis H. (Maidst' ne

Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham

Allen, Charles P. (Glouc., Stroud

Fardell, Sir T. George

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

Allhusen, August's Henry Eden

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Fenwick, Charles

Leng, Sir John

Arkwright, John Stanhope

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

Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Finch, George H.

Levy, Maurice

Arrol, Sir William

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Lewis, John Herbert

Asher, Alexander

Fisher, William Hayes

Llewellyn, Evan Henry

Ashton, Thomas Gair

FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

Lockwood, Lt. Col. A. R.

Atherley-Jones, L.

Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Flower, Ernest

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Forster, Henry William

Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Foster, Philip S (Warwick, S. W.

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Balcarres, Lord

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

Lowe, Francis William

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

Galloway, William Johnson

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

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

Garfit, William

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

Banbury, Frederick George

Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)

Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

Barlow, John Emmott

Gladstone, Rt Hn. Herbert John

Macdona, John Cumming

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

Goddard, Daniel Ford

MacIver, David, Liverpool

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Micha Hicks

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

M'Crae, George

Black, Alexander William

Gore, Hn. S. F. Ormsby-(Line.)

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

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

M'Kenna, Reginald

Bond, Edward

Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

Manners, Lord Cecil

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Green, Walford D. (W'dnesbury

Markham, Arthur Basil

Bowles, T. Gibson,(King's Lynn)

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

Martin, Richard Biddulph

Brown, Alexander H. (Shropsh.

Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.)

Mather, William

Brown, George M. (Edinburgh.

Groves, James Grimble

Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Bullard, Sir Harry

Gunter, Sir Robert

Middlemore, John Throgmort'n

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Caldwell, James

Hamilton, Rt Hn Ld. G. (Midd'x

Milvain, Thomas

Cameron, Robert

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

Mitchell, William

Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Gl'sgow

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Campbell Bannerman, Sir H.

Harris, Frederick, Leverton

Morgan, Hn. Fred (Monm'thsh.

Carlile, William Walter

Harwood, George

Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale-

Morrell, George Herbert

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

Hayter, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur D.

Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford

Cavendish, V. C. W (Derbyshire

Heaton, John Henniker

Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Helme, Norval Watson

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.

Hemphill, Rt. Hn. Charles H.

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath

Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

Higginbottom, S. W.

Myers, William Henry

Channing, Francis Allston

Hoare, Sir Samuel

Newdigate, Francis Alexander

Chapman, Edward

Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.

Nicholson, William Graham

Clive, Captain Percy A.

Hogg, Lindsay

Nicol Donald Ninian

Coddington, Sir William

Holland, William Henry

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

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

Norman, Henry

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Hoult, Joseph

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow

Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

Craig, Robert Hunter

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlingt'n

Cranborne, Viseount

Hutton, John, Yorks. N. R.)

Perks, Robert William

Crombie, John William

Jacoby, James Alfred

Pierpoint, Robert

Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

Jebb, Sir Richard Claver house

Pilkington, Lieut.-Col. Richard

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Davenport, William Bromley

Johnston, William, (Belfast)

Plummer, Walter R.

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

Joicey, Sir James

Pretyman, Ernest George

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Dickinson, Robert Edmond

Kenyon, Hn. George T. (D'nbigh

Purvis, Robert

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop)

Pym, C. Guy

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Kinloch, Sir John George Smyth

Randles, John S.

Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

Kitson, Sir James

Rankin, Sir James

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Knowles, Lees

Ratcliff R. F.

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

Labouchere, Henry

Rea, Russell

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Lambert, George

Reed, Sir Edwd. James (Cardiff

Duncan, J. Hastings

Langley, Batty

Reid, James (Greenock)

Durning,-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

Renshaw Charles Bine

1420

1421

Renwick, George

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Wanklyn, James Leslie

Rickett, J. Compton

Soares, Ernest J.

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green

Spear, John Ward

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

Ritchie, Rt. tin. Chas. Thomson

Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich

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

Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

Wharton, Rt. Hn. John Lloyd

Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset

White, George (Norfolk)

Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)

Whiteley, H. (Asht'nund. Lyne

Ropner, Colonel Robert

Stevenson, Francis S.

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Saunderson, Rt Hn. Col. Edw. J.

Strachey, Sir Edward

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Schwann, Charles E.

Stroyan, John

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

Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

Seton-Karr, Henry

Talbot, Rt Hn J. G. (Oxfrd Univ

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Tennant, Harold John

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew

Thomas, J. A. (Grm'rg'n, Gower

Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Younger, William

Simeon, Sir Harrington

Thornton, Percy M.

Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford. East

Tritton, Charles Ernest

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Smith, HC (N'rth'mb. Tyne side

Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

Sir William Walrond and

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

Valentia, Viscount

Mr. Anstruther

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E)

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William

O'Kelly, James (R'scomm'n, N.

Allan, William (Gateshead)

Hayden, John Patrick

O'Mara, James

Austin, Sir John

Horniman, Frederick John

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Banes, Major George Edward

Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

Paulton, James Mellor

Barry, E. (Cork, S)

Jones, David Brynmor (Sw'nsea

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

Blake, Edward

Joyce, Michael

Percy, Earl

Roland, John

Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.

Power, Patrick Joseph

Brand, Hon. Arthur G.

Leamy, Edmund

Reddy, M.

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

Lough, Thomas

Redmond, John E. (Waterford

Burke, E. Haviland-

Lundon, W.

Redmond William (Clare)

Burns, John

MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Shaw Charles Edwd. (Stafford)

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Crean, Eugene

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

Sullivan, Donal

Delany, William

M'Govern, T.

Taylor, Theodore, Cooke

Denny, Colonel

M'Hugh, patrick A.

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

Dillon, John

M'Kean, John

Tomkinson, James

Donelan, Captain A.

Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

Walton, Joseph, Barnsley

Dunn, Sir William

Mooney, John J.

Whitley, J. H. Halifax

Edwards, Frank

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Wilson, Chas. Henry (Hull, W.

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Newnes, Sir George

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

Ffrench, Peter

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Young, Samuel

Elynn, James Christopher

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

Yoxall, James Henry

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

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

Fuller, J. M. F.

O' Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Gilhooly, James

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

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Gray, Ernest, (West Ham)

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

Dr. Macnamara and Mr.

Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Corrie Grant.

Hammond, John

O'Dounell T. (Kerry, W.)

MR. BRYNMOR JONESsaid that the point he wished to raise by the Amendment he now proposed to move was whether there was any sound reason to draw a distinction between education in urban and rural districts. Many of the urban districts were, in substance, suburbs of large towns. The district represented by his hon. friend near him was not a borough, but had all the characteristics of a great town, and except that it had no mayor, aldermen, or councillors, it was in effect a borough. There were some urban districts that had been constituted boroughs by local Acts of Parliament. While it
1422
was easy to distinguish, as a matter of law, between an urban and a rural district, it was quite clear that if one went from one part of the country to the other it would be impossible to tell where the urban districts ceased and the rural districts began. Why should a hard and fast line be drawn between the rural and the urban districts? He asked himself very often what could be the reason. He knew, of course, in regard to a largo part of England a rural district would hardly have a population of 20,000. But if a rural district in England or Wales had such a population, why were they to

1423
be treated in a different way to that in which they would be treated if they came under the technical term of "urban district?" The Government had deserted the principle which he thought underlay the Bill, and it was for them to justify this arbitary distinction.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 10, after the word 'urban,' to insert the words 'or rural.' "—(Mr. Brynmor Jones.)
Question proposed, "That the words 'or rural' be there inserted."
THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD.;(Mr. WALTER LONG,)was unable to accede to the suggestion that rural districts with a population of 20,000 should be given the same powers as were given to urban districts. He said it was perfectly true that in the endeavour to make a distinction between the urban and rural districts, they were confronted with many difficulties. They were told the rural districts should have the same facilities, rights, and privileges, as urban districts. But though the population of urban districts varied in many ways in its character, those districts were centres of urban life. Rural districts were more often than not composed of scattered villages which had not the community of interest in local life and government that the urban districts had. He did not think the Amendment would be found practicable if adopted. Another objection was that it would destroy the work of the County Councils.
SIR EDWARD STRACHEYthought there were many cases in which there was no difference between an urban and a rural district. In the case of Croydon, for instance, which was a rural district, that was a larger and more important district than many urban districts. And no doubt there were many other rural districts in the same position which would be damnified by this Bill. The population of the Croydon rural district was 40,000. As the Committee well knew, there were an enormous number of Urban District Councils for districts of under 20,000 population who were doing good work, who would now have their powers and
1424
privileges taken from them. But the argument used by the Government on this occasion was precisely the same as that used by them on other occasions in exactly opposite directions. It was one of the difficulties of the Committee that they did not know how to meet the Government. Another difficulty was that the Government would not tell the Committee whether the Act was to be adoptive or not. If it were to be adoptive, that would take away a great many of the objections now urged against the Amendment. If it was to be permissive, there could be no objection to giving rural districts of over 20,000 population power to become their own education authority, and he thought such an opportunity should be given to rural districts like Croydon and others. It had been said by the right hon. Gentleman that this would take the work away from the County Councils, but it was quite exceptional to find persons like the hon. Gentleman opposite, who was willing to become the Educational Minister for Somersetshire, to take over this work. Why should this work be forced on the County Councils when there was another body willing to undertake it? The Rural District Councils Association approved the Amendment. It would in some cases be very hard that a body should be obliged to become an Urban District Council in order to be entitled to act as an authority under this Bill. He believed that the majority of County Councils did not desire the enormous amount of work it was proposed to force upon them.
MR. CHANGINGsupported the Amendment, although he was not in full sympathy with all its objects. He supported it because it asserted once more the principle of something like local control over elementary schools, and a retention of the local interest in the management and the administration of the schools in their particular areas. He objected strongly to the whole administrative and constructive part of this Bill, and submitted that the scheme would be unworkable unless there was some form of local control. He was strongly of opinion that the local authorities should, so far as possible, not be isolated, but ought to

1425
be fused in a stronger co-ordination. In the rural districts there should be directly elected local authorities everywhere, but there should be correlated with the central authority dealing with education as a whole in the county. He thought the progress of education would be little or nothing unless something of this kind was done. He supported the Amendment.
MR. HUMPHREYS-OWENsaid he also wished to support the Amendment, not because he was in favour of breaking up the country into small areas, but because he thought it was grossly unfair that under the scheme the rural districts should not have the same facilities given to them as the urban districts. There was much mistrust of education in the rural districts, because the people thought their children were not taught anything likely to be of use to them. He was apprehensive that if the urban district authority were made the only authority for education, that authority would do nothing to mend the matter; but if the rural district authorities retained control, they would so direct and mould the school as to create an atmosphere of usefulnesss. They would find out what the people required, and what was a help to them, and make the time spent by the children on education a great help to them rather than the useless waste of time they now considered it was. The rural districts were quite as eager for education as the urban districts. The complaint of the rural districts was not against education, but against the kind of education they got, and if the Amendment was accepted, it would remove this evil to some extent. He emphatically denied the suggestion that there was no corporate local life in the rural districts. He believed it was just as vigorous as in the urban districts.
SIR W. HART DYKEsaid that surely the hon. Gentleman opposite would not be sanguine enough to believe that those who supported the Second Reading of this Bill would accept any such Amendment as this. The acceptance of the Amendment would simply rend the Bill to pieces and make it an absurdity. The whole drift
1426
of the Amendment was in the direction of School Boards, and he was glad the Government had refused to accept it.
DR. MACNAMARAsaid the process of absurdity had already been completed. He felt it would serve the Government very well right if the Amendment were carried. It would make the Bill an absurdity, of course, but not much more absurd than it was at present in giving autonomy to municipal boroughs of 10,000 and refusing it to villages of 20,000. These villages had not been put in, not for educational reasons, but because there was no large organised backing behind their claim for autonomy. If there had been, the Committee would have found the same treatment meted out to them as was being meted out by this Bill to the urban districts. At the same time, he was bound to point out to his hon. friend that his Amendment was financially impossible. They could not have a rural area of 20,000 population which would have such a rateable value as would enable it, with a reasonable rate, to meet its elementary school needs. He must therefore oppose the Amendment.
MR. BRYCEsaid what they had to consider was whether the authorities which this Amendment proposed were useful authorities. He was bound to say he had not been convinced, even by the arguments of ids hon. friend the Member for South Somersetshire that they were bodies or areas which were suitable for this work.
MR. J. ACRON THOMASpointed out that if the Bill was carried as it stood the western portion of Glamorganshire would be practically disfranchised so far as having any effective representation was concerned. Cardiff, where all the Committees were held, was forty or fifty miles away from his constituency, there were 50,000 or 60,000 inhabitants in the district, and the train accommodation was such that it was a day's journey to Cardiff. Under these circumstances there would not be any representation in the sense of of taking an active interest in the administration of education. Nearly a I these districts had School Boards. They

1427
had not Urban District Councils, because they had not applied for the powers, but I they were go ahead progressive places, and carried on a great deal of useful work. The School Board areas were too small, but the Government were now going to the other extreme, and education would practically be thrown into the hands of the officials of the County Council, inasmuch, as in consequence of the district being so large, it would be impossible to get representatives from the small scattered parts to attend at the central place.
MR. ABELTHOMASsaid he should vote for the Amendment because he had always believed in School Boards, and the nearest approach to them they would now be able to get would be the Rural District Council when it became the education authority. He agreed that gentlemen at present elected to those bodies had not much to do. But if they were given the power of managing the schools in their districts they would have much more to do, and the elections from that time forth would take place very much in the same way and on the same principle as at present prevailed in regard to School Board elections. He did not believe that any authority under the Bill would ever be nearly as useful as even a country School Board, but in the hope of getting something as nearly useful as possible as the old School Boards he should support the Amendment.
MR. CORRIE GRANTthought the fact that rural School Board areas were usually restricted to a single parish had tremendously hampered the work of the rural School Boards. He did not say that the work of the rural School Boards had been universally satisfactory. He was prepared to admit that there was no worse education authority than a rural School Board composed entirely of small farmers, who hated only one thing more than education and that was a rate. He knew of a rural School Board, which, when threatened with the withdrawal of the grant unless their schools were made more efficient, said privately amongst themselves, after the Inspector's visit "Let us wait until the grant is actually withdrawn, and then we will
1428
be able to see how little we need do to improve the education and get the grant." But while there could be no general argument in favour of rural School Boards, there, were many such Boards which, especially when elected in comparatively large parishes and by labourers who took an interest in education, had done work every whit as good as that done in the big towns. Was it wise of the Government to kill the educational efficiency they already had in these rural districts? Ought they not rather to encourage it? When these localities passed under the control of the County Councils the difficulty would be that in the great agricultural districts there would not be that local control which was so essential to the success of education. A much more effective control would be exercised if the Government gave the rural District Councils a direct interest in the work. At present these councils had very little work to do; what they had was largely of a routine character and it would be an advantage to give them something which would stir them up. The Amendment as it stood was doubtless a difficult one to accept, because it needed much more to make it really effective. But the Government ought to have taken these poor rural districts into consideration when framing the Bill. One of the problems in rural districts was to find education for the higher standards. In an ordinary village with 100 children, there would not be more than three or four in the sixth and seventh standards, and there was no possible chance of those children getting the sort of competitive examination to be obtained in a big school. If parishes could be combined, and the children carried from the village to the school, as was done in America, really effective education in the higher standards might be given. The Government had not attempted to make any arrangement of educational machinery which would give a really effective area for rural districts, and enable them to get managers or I committees who would have a real interest in the education of their respective districts.
SIR WALTER FOSTERwas sorry the Bill did not make

1429
it possible to group together small villages for the purposes of forming a good educational authority. The rural District Councils, as a rule, were not the kind of body to which one would like to entrust the education of rural districts, their strongest feeling being that they must keep down the rates. He hoped that, in the course of the discussion on that Bill, there might be an opportunity afforded for bringing into the authority for educational purposes local representatives such as members of Parish Councils. The rural districts consisted of areas separated from one another, and in themselves were not very well suited to the work. They were areas in which local government had received a very small impetus in a progressive sense. He should be sorry to leave to those bodies a question of such vital interest as education. While he could not support this Amendment, he hoped they would have the rural district areas placed on a better footing.
MR. PERKSsaid he represented a large agricultural Division, and he disagreed with some of the remarks made on the Opposition side of the House in reference to the administrative work of rural School Boards. In his Division there were some eight or ten School Boards managed by farmers who were excellent men of great administrative ability, and he could assure the. Committee that it was often an intellectual treat to address and be present at meetings in the little progressive villages. He disagreed also with what had been said by some preceding speakers, as to the inefficiency of education in small villages. The public spirit of the villages in parts of Lincolnshire to which he alluded, where the education had for the last thirty years been in the hands of the School Board, was clearly distinct from villages where the education during that long period had been under the control of one or two voluntary school managers. While he regretted that there was no power for grouping the villages together he should vote for the Amendment, on the ground that a rural District Council was in its constitution the nearest approach that they could get under the Bill to the body
1430
which had hitherto, particularly in his own division, managed the educational interests in some of the villages so admirably, viz., the rural School Boards.
MR. GEORGE WHITE, drew attention to his own county, which contained a population of 500,000 with two county boroughs, and one borough above 10,000, which would be taken out of the population. Therefore the County Council had to administer over an area extending perhaps seventy miles, and containing 150 School Boards and 350 voluntary schools. His contention was that it would be utterly impossible to administer with anything like efficiency the educational wants of so large an area. They were not told in the Bill whether there were to be more than one education authority for the whole county. Of course, if the educational authorities were to be multiplied in the form of district authorities the difficulty would be partially removed, although even then the County Council itself would have to deal with the confirmation of the acts of the educational authority. But he felt that the work in the hands of the County Council, unless it were centred in much smaller bodies, would be quite impossible for them to deal with. It was said that the district councillors were not well suited for the work of education. With that he largely agreed, but he submitted that they were very much the same individuals who composed the County Councils in many instances; and, therefore, if one was un-suited for carrying on educational work it was also a charge brought against the other. But if the District Councils were made education authorities, they might perhaps have different persons on them—people more interested in education, and he saw in this a means of getting representatives from different classes from those who at present composed the County Councils. The direct representatives of the working classes, whose children mainly attended these schools, were not likely to get upon the education authorities which would be formed under the Bill, whereas in the District Council they might possibly get some representatives on those bodies. While there were many difficulties from the education point of view, there was very much to be said for a change in the Bill such as was now proposed, and even if it "ere inconsistent with some further

1431
parts of the Bill, if it were felt to be a I desirable change, then the Bill could be made consistent with the Amendment.
MR. SAMUEL EVANS, in supporting the Amendment, said he had never been able to see why one district had been put down as an urban district and another as a rural district. There was simply a hard and fast line. The Local Government Board, under the public Health Act of 1875, had a right to give the powers of urban districts to rural districts where desired; they were constantly giving that right and it was very seldom that the Local Government Board refused to grant urban districts that right when they asked for it. That was a sufficient reason for voting for the Amendment. They had urged that the proper plan would be to take their country districts generally and say what should be the educational districts without reference to what the boundaries were now. He desired to give some instances from the county of Glamorgan to show that he was entirely sound in his argument in support of the Amendment. There was the urban district of Neath with a considerable population and the rural district of Neath with a population of 27,000. Everybody who knew that district knew that there was no proper distinction that could be made between the Neath rural district and Neath urban
district so far as size and rateable value were concerned. How could the Government expect them to assent to the proposition when they were going on the one hand, merely because they happen to be called an urban district, to make them the educational authority, whereas on the other hand, in the case of the rural district, they deprived them of this local autonomy with regard to education. There was another point to which he wished to call attention. There was an urban district in Pontardawe, which had an acreage of 57,000, a population of 26,000 and a rateable value of £92,000. They had also the rural district of Pontardawe, with an acreage of 34,000, a population of 20,000, and a rateable value of £73,000. There were also various other instances of the same kind and he defied anybody to urge any definite or even a plausible reason why, in the one case they were giving autonomy to the urban council, and refusing it to the rural council. The Government bad taken haphazard these areas and drawn a hard-and-fast line, and therefore he should be happy to go into the lobby in favour of the Amendment of his hon. friend.
(5.13.) Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 86; Noes, 306. (Division List No. 198.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Fenwick, Charles

Mather, William

Allan, William (Gateshead)

Fuller, J. M. F.

Mellor, Ft. Hon. J. William

Allen, Chas. P. (Glouc, Stroud)

Furness, Sir Christopher

Morley, Charles (Breconahire)

Asher, Alexander

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. H'rb't John

Newnes, Sir George

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Paulton, James Mellor

Athedey-Jones, L.

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

Banes, Major George Edward

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

Perks, Robert William

Barlow, John Emmott

Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

Price, Robert John

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Helme, Norval Watson

Rea, Russell

Black, Alexander William

Horniman, Frederick John

Reckitt, Harold James

Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

Rickett, J. Compton

Burns, John

Button, Alfred E. (Morley)

Schwann, Charles E.

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Jacoby, James Alfred

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Caldwell, James

Joicey, Sir. James

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

Cameron, Robert

Kinloch, Sir John G. Smyth

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Channing, Francis Allston

Kitson, Sir James

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Craig, Robert Hunter

Lambert, George

Soares, Ernest J.

Crombie, John William

Layland Barratt, Francis

Stevenson, Francis S.

Davies, M. Vaughan -(Cardig'n

Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)

Taylor, Theodore Cooke

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Leng, Sir John

Tennant, Harold John

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

Levy, Maurice

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.

Duncan, J. Hastings

Lewis, John Herbert

Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

Dunn, Sir William

Lough, Thomas

Thomas, J. A. (Gl'morgn. G'w'r

Edwards, Frank

M'Arthur, Wm. (Cornwall)

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

Emmott, Alfred

M'Crae, George

Tomkinson, James

Evans, Sir Frs. H. (Maidstone)

Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

Wallace, Robert

Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

Markham, Arthur Basil

Walton, J. Lawson (Leeds, S.)

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

Wilson, Chas. H. (Hull, W.)

Mr. Brynmor Jones and

White, George (Norfolk)

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

Sir Edward Strachey.

NOES.

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

Delany, William

Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.)

Acland, Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

Denny, Colonel

Hogg, Lindsay

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Dickinson, Robert Edmond

Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

Allhusen, Angustus H'nry Eden

Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

Hoult, Joseph

Allsopp, Hon. George

Dillon, John

Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cockfield

Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fr'd Dixon

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Arnold Forster, Hugh O.

Donelan, Captain A.

Hutton, John, (Yorks, N. R.

Arrol, Sir William

Dorington, Sir John Edward

Jebb, Sir Richard Claver house

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Doughty, George

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Austin, Sir John

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Bagot, Capt. J. FitzRoy

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Duke, Henry Edward

Joyce, Michael

Balcarles, Lord

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

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

Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop

Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W (Leeds

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Kimber, Henry

Banbury, Frederick George

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Faber, George Denison (York)

Knowles, Lees

Bartley, George C. T.

Fardell, Sir T. George

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Bathurst, Hon. Allen B.

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal W

Beach, Rt. Hn Sir Michael Hicks

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

Lawrence, Joseph (Monmouth)

Bigwood, James

Ffrench, Peter

Lawson, John Grant

Bill, Charles

Finch, George H.

Loamy, Edmund

Blake, Edward

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Lecky, Rt. Hon. William Ed. H

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Fisher, William Hayes

Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham

Boland, John

Fison, Frederick William

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Bond, Edward

Fitz Gerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Llewellyn, Evan Henry

Bowles, Capt. H. P. Middlesex

Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

Bowles T. Gibson (King's Lynn

Flynn, James Christopher

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Brand, Hon. Arthur G.

Forster, Henry William

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

Brown, Alexander H. (Shropsh.

Foster, Philip S (Warwick, S. W

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

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Brymer, William Ernest

Galloway, William Johnson

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Bull, William James

Garfit, William

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

Bullare, Sir Harry

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

Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth)

Burke, E. Haviland-

Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)

Lundon, W.

Butcher, John George

Gilhooly, James

Macdona, John Gumming

Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Gl'sg'w

Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

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

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Garble, William Walter

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

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Gorst, Rt Hon. Sir John Eldon

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

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

Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

Maeonochie, A. W.

Cavendish, V. C. W (Derbyshire

Goulding, Edward Alfred

MacVeagh Jeremiah

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

M'Govern, T.

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Green, Walford D (Wednesbury

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.

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

M' Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W

Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)

M'Kean, John

Chamberlayne, T. (S'thampton

Gretton, John

Manners, Lord Cecil

Chapman, Edward

Groves, James Grimble

Martin, Richard Biddulph

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Gunter, Sir Robert

Maxwell, W. J. H. (D'mfrssh're

Clive, Capt. Perev A.

Guthrie, Walter Murray

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Coddington, Sir William

Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x

Middlemore, Jno. Throgmorton

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Hamilton, Marq of (L'nd'nd'rry

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Hammond, John

Milvain, Thomas

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Han bury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

Mitchell, William

Colomb, Sir. John Charles Ready

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Mooney, John J.

Corbett, A. Cameron,(Glasgow

Harwood, George

More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire

Cranborne, Viscount

Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

Morgan, Hn. Fred. (Monm'thsh

Crean, Eugene

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Morrell, George Herbert

Gripps, Charles Alfred

Hayden, John Patrick

Morrison, James Archibald

Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

Heath, James (Staffords. N. W.)

Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford

Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

Heaton, John Henniker

Murray, Rt Hn A Graham (Bute

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Henderson, Alexander

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Davenport, William Bromley-

Hoare, Sir Samuel

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

1434

1435

Myers, William Henry

Ratcliff, R. F.

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

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Reddy, M.

Thornburn, Sir Walter

Newdigate, Francis Alexander

Redmond, John E. (Waterford

Thornton, Percy M.

Nicholson, William Graham

Redmond, William (Clare)

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Reed, Sir Edw. James (Cardiff)

Tritton, Charles Ernest

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

Renshaw, Charles Bine

Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Renwick, George

Valentia, Viscount

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Ritchie, Ht. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Wanklyn, James Leslie

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

Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

Warr, Augustus Frederick

O'Brien, Kendal, (T'pp'rary Md

Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

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

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

Ropner, Col. Robert

Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

Round, James

Whiteley H (Asht'n-und.-Lyne

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

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

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

O'Kelly, James (Roscomm'n, N.

Samuel, Harry S. (Lime house)

Wills, Sir Frederick

O'Mara, James

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

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

O'Neill, hon. Robert Torrens

Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col. Ed. J.

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

Seton-Karr, Henry

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N)

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew

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

Penn, John

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Worsley-Taylor Herny Wilson

Percy, Earl

Simeon, Sir Barrington

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

Pierpoint, Robert

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Pilkington, Lieut.-Col. Richard

Smith, H. C (North'mb Tyn'side

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

Plummer, Walter R.

Spear, John Ward

Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich

Young, Samuel

Power, Patrick Joseph

Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)

Younger, William

Pretyman, Ernest George

Stanley, Lord (Lanes)

Yoxall, James Henry

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

Purvis, Robert

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Pym, C. Guy

Stroyan, John

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Sir William Walrond and

Randles, John S.

Sullivan, Donal

Mr. Anstruther.

Rankin, Sir James

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

MR. CHAININGsaid that the Amendment he had on the Paper was to leave out "twenty" and insert "ten." There might be, he said, certain technical and administrative points in which boroughs required more consideration than urban districts; but for the purposes of education it seemed to him that the urban districts stood on precisely the same footing as the boroughs. The Bill as it stood gave to every municipal borough containing 10,000 inhabitants the right to decide its own educational future. If that was just he failed to see why similar considerations ought not to be accorded to urban districts with numerically the same population. In his own constituency there was the urban district of Wellingborough with a population of 19,000, and another urban district with a population of 13,000. rapidly growing. Why should these places not have local autonomy in regard to education as well as municipal boroughs? In these towns there were highly efficient School Boards, there was a strongly progressive educational spirit, and splendid schools had been built at great cost to the rates,
1436
and the Progressive School Boards had again and again been re-elected to carry out this policy. He had himself been called on to fill the place of the Vice-President on opening, in Wellingborough, one of the most admirably designed and splendidly equipped Board Schools in the Midlands. Yet such towns were called upon to surrender their local independence. At Wellingborough there was a technical institute, a grammar school, and a third grade modern school. He entirely agreed that the town and the county should be co-ordinated in regard to education, and especially as regards secondary education; but he maintained that if such towns were refused local educational autonomy, the highest interests of education would not be served. In the county of Kent, represented so worthily by his right hon. friend the Member for Dartford, there were urban districts like Dartford itself, with nearly 19,000 inhabitants, Bexley, North fleet, with nearly the same population, and Sheerness, with nearly 19,000, an important seaport town, all of which had highly efficient School Boards and had always shown a disposition to equip

1437
themselves for the development of education; and yet the Bill as it stood would exclude them from having local educational autonomy, while the little borough of Faversham, which had never formed a School Board or shown the slightest wish to make sacrifices for education would be a separate authority. The same argument applied to many urban districts in the West Riding of Yorkshire, in the counties of Durham, Warwick, Stafford, and Derby, in many of which there; were at present School Boards, and where the population took a very active interest in education. In many of these the population was just under 20,000, but they were excluded, while small boroughs like Durham would be left autonomous. There was one point of supreme interest to which he wished to allude and which it was most important to clear up. The Urban District Councils which had powers as to Part III under this Bill would change their rating basis from the poor law rating basis, the basis on which their present School Board rates were levied to the rating basis under the Public Health Act under which there were heavy exemptions. He would ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he could deal with this question and make the basis of rating uniform.
THE CHAIRMANsaid that the question of rating was not then under discussion, and the hon. Gentleman was therefore not in order.
MR. CHANNINGsaid he hoped to have another opportunity of expressing an opinion on that point. He would merely ask the right hon. Gentleman, in view of the absolute impossibility of drawing a distinction between the urban districts and the municipal boroughs, whether he would give favourable consideration to the Amendment. He begged to move.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 11, to leave out the word 'twenty,' and insert the word 'ten.'"—(Mr. Channing.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'twenty' stand part of the clause."
MR. WALTER LONGsaid there was no doubt it was largely
1438
true, as had been said by the hon. Gentleman, that it was difficult in the case of this Amendment to distinguish between many of these boroughs and urban districts, and if it had been possible to deal with the matter by way of selection in these particular cases, it would have been a more just method. But that was impossible. All that the Government could do was to follow precedents, and deal with this matter on the general lines of the policy proposed in the Bill. The object of the Government had been to avoid, as far as possible, the multiplication of separate areas, and leave the question in the hands of the County Councils, except in the case of specific boroughs. He did not agree that Urban District Councils were more progressive in this matter than Borough Councils. He did not hesitate to say that in the majority of the boroughs there was a keener and more active interest in local life and a more general feeling of responsibility than would be found in an urban district governed by an Urban District Council. But the Committee must remember that there was a very great difference between a borough and an urban district. The corporation of a borough represented the whole of the local life of the borough, an Urban. District Council only dealt with the sanitary requirements of the district. There was all the difference in the world, between the local position and the responsibility of a chairman of an Urban District Council, and that of the mayor of a borough and the corporation over which he presided. If the Government were going to put an entirely new law on the country with regard to this matter, such a suggestion as that made by the hon. Gentlemen in his Amendment would perhaps be practicable; but in this case they had to take the boroughs as they found them. In the Act of 1888 certain exceptions were made in favour of boroughs which were not made in the case of other councils. He did not suggest that the distinction was one which could be defended on general logical grounds, but, on general policy, it was very desirable that this distinction should be made.
SIR WALTER FOSTERsaid he was sorry to hear the announcement just made by the President of the Local Government Board. He regretted the

1439
right hon. Gentleman had not had the courage in this case to create a precedent. He did not agree with the view the right hon. Gentleman had taken as to the progressiveness of the boroughs; he believed the Urban District Councils were infinitely more progressive, and it was only natural that they should be. The boroughs were, as a rule, communities which had not increased with the times, but the Urban District Councils were young and vigorous communities which had been created in growing industrial and other localities. He knew instances where the Urban District Councils were so interested in the question of education and had such efficient secondary schools that the people of the neighbouring boroughs sent their children there for the purposes of higher education. These urban districts of over 10,000 population were in many instances not only good administrators of primary education and paid high school rates, but paid for and administered secondary and technical education, which showed they were excellent administrators of public work. He did not think the right hon. Gentleman should suggest that they did nothing else except look after the sanitary condition of the district.
MR. WALTER LONGsaid he did not suggest anything of the sort. What he said was that they were the sanitary authority and had no general powers. They did their work admirably. He only disputed the fact of their being better local bodies than the Borough Councils. They could not do this work, because they had not the power, unless it was given to them by fresh legislation.
SIR WALTER FOSTERpointed out that in many cases Urban District Councils had come to the House for special powers, and having obtained them had used them well. Many lighted their districts better than the great city of London was lighted, for instance. Surely these local bodies for which he was now pleading as educational bodies deserved sympathy. Many of the School Boards in the small urban districts were as efficient as any in the country, and when there was educational enthusiasm of that kind
1440
among those who administered education, and were anxious to promote the educational efficiency of the country, this power should not be taken from them. He thought it was retrograde to take away from them the authority to promote education in their locality.
MR. HENRY HOBHOUSEsaid it was easy to pick out cases of progressive Urban District Councils, and argue from those that the number controlling the education of the district should be smaller than that mentioned in the Bill. But it was equally easy to pick out backward boroughs, and argue that they should make the number not lower, but considerably higher. It was not surprising that the hon. Gentleman, who had opposed everything that was done by the County Councils, should now contend that Urban District Councils would make far better local authorities than the County Councils. But he would be surprised if the Government further whittled away the principle of their Bill by assenting to this Amendment. He thought that they had gone far enough already. After all, the local authorities must delegate the management and control of their schools. To his knowledge, wherever County Councils saw local enthusiasm in education, they were, only too happy to encourage it, and to put as much power as they possibly could into the hands of the local authorities. Where these bodies had rated themselves highly for local education, there the wise County Councils had met them with an equal grant out of the whisky money to show their appreciation of the excellent work they had done. The whole position of education would be far better surveyed by the larger authority in the interests both of the urban and the country districts.
MR. TREVELYAN, as one who agreed with the general principle of the Government's scheme, municipalising education, urged that as the Bill stood it would destroy the present keenness for education which existed under the School Boards in many urban districts. There was only one urban district in the

1441
West Riding of over 20,000 population, but there were twenty-six with less than 20,000, and many of those twenty-six urban districts were extremely important places. With regard to these important authorities, he desired to ask what the effect would be. The managers would be exclusively chosen in future by the grace of the County Council, and consequently all local interest would fade. There were many on the Liberal side of the House who were in favour of the general control by the municipalities as against an ad hoc authority, but they were not satisfied with the provisions of this Bill as it stood. If, however, the Government were to say that, while keeping the County Council as the controlling authority, they would allow the local authority to select the greater part of the managers of the schools, and so maintain local keenness, then many Members on his side would refuse to support the Amendment, and would be ready to bring even the whole of the non-county boroughs and the whole of the urban districts under the county authority.
MR. ASHTONsaid the President of the Local Government Board had informed the Committee that there was greater local life in boroughs than in urban districts. The right hon. Gentleman did not state the reason for it, but the reason was not far to seek. Greater responsibility was placed on the shoulders of the boroughs, and people took greater interest in local affairs because of the greater responsibility placed upon them. He supported the Amendment on that ground, and because he thought that in the matter of elementary education they wanted the support of the people. Nobody would take any interest in. elementary education until they had some interest in the control of it, and this Amendment was to take the responsibility off the County Councils and place it in the hands of these small borough and District Councils. As a County Councillor, he felt that a great burden was going to be placed on the County Councils. Every County Councillor was not such a whale for work as the hon. Member for East Somerset seemed to be, and he thought this burden should not be cast upon them against their will.
1442
At the present moment the most important thing for the country was secondary education, which had rightly been placed on the County Councils, and if this burden of elementary education was cast upon them he felt the secondary education would go to the wall.
THE CHAIRMANsaid the hon. Member was taking a general view; he must confine his remarks strictly to the Amendment.
MR. ASHTONsaid he was only anxious to shew the reason why in his opinion these local authorities should be reduced to a size consistent with efficient work. There was another reason why the authorities should be smaller than those proposed by the Bill. He believed if they were to have local interest in education they must give the people of the locality control over education. Instead of that, they were giving the control to the County Councils, which would delegate the elementary education in districts to a Committee which had no knowledge whatever of the needs of the various districts. The result would be either that they would nominate some of their own body, men not elected for educational purposes, or they would be selected on sectarian grounds. It was more especially on the ground of the necessity of local interest that he pressed his case for the smaller local authorities. People could not be driven into taking an interest in education; they must be led; and the great need of the country was that they should be led to take that interest. Under the voluntary school system the interest in education had been very small. He could quote two boroughs; in one there was nothing but voluntary schools, and the interest taken in elementary education was practically nil. The inhabitants had been accustomed to a few people keeping up the schools, and they had never taken that active interest which an appeal to the pocket always aroused. The other was the borough of Luton, where, with a most excellent School Board, the interest of the people in education was quite phenomenal, simply because they had the control of their own educational system. For the

1443
reason that he desired to see the local areas reduced he should support the Amendment.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid the question here was not whether or not they were in favour of one authority. That principle had been thrown over by the Government, and they ought now to proceed on some logical, reasonable, and practical system. Why should not a man be considered just as fit to manage his own school whether he lived in one district or in another with half the population? The President of the Local Government Board had said that the Town Councils had had greater experience, that they had more important functions to discharge, and were therefore better equipped for the purpose. It was not necessary to point to individual or exceptional cases; the question for the Committee was whether as a rule the urban districts of 15,000 were not more progressive and enterprising and prepared to spend more money on the developement of local institutions than the sleepy old boroughs of 10,000 inhabitants. Reference had been made to four districts in Kent—one of which was Faversham. Who ever heard of anything Faversham had done for technical or even primary education which had been quoted as an example for other boroughs to follow I In the same county there were progressive little towns of 15,000 which were not incorporated, doing their best for education, and yet Faversham, which did nothing, was to be an autonomous district, while these others were not.
MR. BARTLEY: Faversham has a complete system.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that might be, but it was a defective system. Then there was the case of Penarth, a very intelligent and progressive suburb of Cardiff. It had a population of about 15,000, but it would not be autonomous, whereas, other boroughs in the same county, which could not be compared with it in the sacrifices they made for municipal institutions, would be allowed to control their own schools under this Bill. The provision also made a difference in rating between the man in a
1444
town of 10,000 and the man in an urban district of 15,000. In the town he would be rated on the basis of the public health, and in the urban district on the basis of the county rate. He objected altogether to that distinction, and would be glad to know on what ground it was defended by the Government.
MR. H. J. WILSONdesired to support the position taken by the hon. Member for the Elland Division with regard to the schools in the West Riding of Yorkshire. He knew some of the districts extremely-well, and fully agreed as to the zeal for education shown by the School Boards, and the excellent work they were doing in those places. There was no reason why they should be put at a disadvantage, as compared with such boroughs as those to which the hon. Member for Carnarvon had referred. In the West Riding, at all events, a cruel wrong and injustice would be done if these thriving, vigorous districts were not given a fair chance to carry on the excellent work they had been doing so well in the past.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTasked what was the real distinction drawn by the Government between the capacity and incapacity of a community because it happened to be incorporated? A sort of theological element was being introduced in the matter. The sacred principle of the one authority had been abandoned, so that what might be called the moral character of the Bill was entirely changed. Every day some new authority was being discovered, and each one tended to crib, cabin, and confine the single authority. But why among this multitude of authorities should these inviduous distinctions be introduced? The right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that his ingenious statements were answers.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have not spoken on this Amendment.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid there was a difference between an answer and a statement which evaded the point. Why should a community, simply because it was incorporated, be more

1445
capable of discharging the duties under this Bill than one which was not incorporated? If the right hon. Gentleman would give them an answer, and also give the grounds for arriving at that conclusion, he would be throwing more light upon the subject than it had yet received.
MR. CORRIE GRANTthought the question before the Committee at the present moment seemed to be a very narrow one. It was not now a question as to what was the best area for educational administration, but simply a question between boroughs and district councils. Why where district councils to be treated 100 per cent. worse than boroughs? The President of the Local Government Board said that in his wide experience he found that boroughs were better for the work of administration than Urban District Councils. He also stated that boroughs had wider powers than Urban District Councils. He wished to know what were the powers which ordinary boroughs possessed which were not possessed by Urban District Councils? The main distinctions were that the boroughs had a mayor and aldermen, and that women could not be elected on a Town Council, while they were eligible for election to an Urban District Council. The only power that some boroughs had was the control of their police, but the small boroughs almost invariably had their police controlled by the counties.
MR. WALTER LONG: There is no limitation practically to the expenditure by a Corporation, but an Urban District Council is limited by statute, and every penny it spends is subjected to the audit of the Local Government Board. Boroughs above 10,000 inhabitants have the right, and in many cases exercise that right, to employ their own police, and make their own police arrangements, while Urban District Councils have not that right.
MR. CORRIE GRANTthought the right hon. Gentleman had strengthened his argument. Those boroughs, according to him, were competent to do their own work, and ought to be distinguished from the Urban District Councils. The
1446
general proposition made by the right hon. Gentleman was not supported by the cases he had given. The point of the audit was distinctly against the right hon. Gentleman. Surely he did not maintain that the audit of the boroughs was better than the audit of the Local Government Board?
MR. WALTER LONG: The audit of the boroughs is a totally different thing altogether. In the urban districts the audit is held to ascertain whether the expenditure has been according to law.
MR. CORRIE GRANTsaid the right hon. Gentleman's contention again supported his argument. The audit in a borough was made by auditors appointed by the Town Council of the borough, and he would appeal to any hon. Member who had had any experience of the administration of public bodies, to confirm his statement that an audit in an urban district council was a better audit than in the boroughs. He challenged the right hon. Gentleman for an illustration of powers. What the right hon. Gentleman said was that these small boroughs had wider powers than the Urban District Councils. In cases where Urban District Councils had been asking for a Charter of Incorporation, the answer given to them was, as a rule, that they could do everything as an Urban District Council which they would be able to do as a borough, the difference being merely that in the case of a borough they would have a mayor, aldermen, and councillors, but they would not have any additional effective instruments of administration. The right hon. Gentleman's experience in matters of this kind was far wider than that of any other person in the House. The Local Government Board was constantly having experience of authorities who would not act up to their powers, and they had to be forced on by the Local Government Board, more especially in sanitary matters. He should like to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he found the boroughs more ready and progressive in sanitary administration than urban districts? Then there was the further argument that Urban District Councils were, not entirely, but very largely, the natural extensions of the big towns. Often they fringed round the big cities,

1447
and got a great deal of effective work from men whose business was in the city, but who lived in the surrounding district. In this ease, surely there could be no argument for putting a higher limit to population in urban districts than in boroughs. The hon. Member for South Somerset did not justify the distinction made between the two. Now that the Committee had accepted 10,000 for boroughs, he thought they ought to accept the same number for Urban District Councils.
SIR EDWARD GREY: I do not propose to elaborate the points which have been already put to the Committee, with considerable force, on behalf of this Amendment, but one cannot have listened to the debate for the last few hours without drawing one or two morals. I should think that the Government must be rather disheartened now about the provisions of their own clause. If this proviso is to work the same mischief in practice as it has done in debate, the worst apprehensions of those who dislike it will be more than realised. The hon. Member for East Somerset spoke of this as a compromise made in the interests of peace. All I can say is that it has not brought peace hitherto. It is quite true, as my hon. friend behind me has said, that this is a narrow point. But it is really the fault of the Government for taking such a narrow view in resisting this Amendment. It is the resistance which they are offering to this Amendment that has introduced this narrowness into the debate. The right hon. Gentleman says that the Government have not abandoned their principle of one authority. They may not have abandoned it, but they have made a breach in it, and have opened it to attack. Personally, I do not like the proviso, and the Amendment, I think, will make it worse. But the real authors of the Amendment are the Government themselves, for they are responsible for having got themselves into this narrow position. Unless the Government are prepared to reconsider their position with regard to the whole of the proviso, they cannot be surprised that attempts will be made to force upon their attention the logical conclusion of their own action.
COLONEL PRYCE-JONESsaid he did not
1448
see why urban districts should not be equally protected with municipal boroughs. He thought it could not be denied by any Member of the House that it was perfectly absurd that an Urban District Council representing 19,000 should not have the powers in the matter of education which were possessed by a borough of 10,000 because it happened to have a Charter dating back to the time of Charles I. Hon. Members were aware that it was very difficult for urban districts to get a Charter. As representing urban rural districts, he was bound to support an Amendment which would place Urban Districts Councils upon the same footing as Municipal Councils.
MR. M'KENNAsaid the President of the Local Government Board had brought procedent into the question in supporting the proposal in the Bill. He challenged the right hon. Gentleman to name a single precedent in any Act of Parliament for what was proposed in regard to urban districts of 20,000 inhabitants. So far as he knew there was not a jot or tittle of foundation for the statement that there was precedent for the proposal. The Gentleman at the head of the Local Government Board ought to be more qualified than others to distinguish between the duties of Borough Councils and Urban District Councils. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that the Urban District Councils had only sanitary duties. He was entirely mistaken. If he would take the trouble to look up the Public Health Act, he would find that they had powers far beyond mere sanitary matters. He would find that in all essential particulars the modern Urban District Council had identically the same powers and duties as a Municipal Corporation. There was no reason for making this distinction between boroughs and urban districts.
MR. KEARLEYsaid the proposal in the Bill would have a peculiar effect in his own constituency. The township of Stonehouse, which was an urban district, with a population of 15,000, had educational facilities in the way of board schools. The inhabitants took great interest in the school board elections, but what would happen under this Bill? The

1449
educational interests of this urban district would be turned over to the management of gentlemen at some distance from the place, and he did not think that would be for the advantage of the schools. He gave this particular illustration to show what would be the effect in his own constituency, but it should be borne in mind that this case was not singular, and that there were anomalies of a similar character in other places. He would support the Amendment.
MR. BRYCEsaid he desired to put a single point to the Committee before they
divided. Under the Technical Instruction Act, 1889, an urban authority was in the same position as a Borough Council. What reason could be suggested for departing from the policy of Parliament in 1889, and drawing this distinction between a borough with a population of 10,000 and an urban district with a population of 10,000? The argument appeared to him to have gone in favour of abolishing that distinction, and he should vote for the Amendment.
(6 58.) Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 284; Noes, 101. (Division List No. 199.)

AYES

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.

Chamberlayne, T. (S'thampton

Foster, Philip S. (Warwick. S. W

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

Chapman, Edward

Galloway, William Johnson

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Garfit, William

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Clive, Captain Percy A.

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

Allhusen, August's Henry Eden

Coddington, Sir William

Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)

Allsopp, Hon. George

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Gilhooly, James

Ambrose, Robert

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

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

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

Arkwright, Joseph Stanhope

Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready

Gosehen, Hon. George Joachim

Arnold Forster, Hugh O.

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Arrol, Sir William

Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Atkinson, Right Hon. John

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

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

Austin, Sir John

Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Cranborne, Viscount

Gretton, John

Balcarres, Lord

Crean, Eugene

Groves, James Grimble

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

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey

Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

Guthrie, Walter Murray

Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds

Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

Ban bury, Frederick George

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Hamilton, Rt Hn Lrd G. (Midd'x

Barry, E.

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Hammond, John

Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor)

Davenport, William Bromley

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

Bartley, George C. T.

Delany, William

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashfrd

Bathurst Hon. Allen Benjamin

Dickinson, Robert Edmond

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Beach, Rt Hn. Sir Michael Hicks

Dickson-Poynder, Sir J. P.

Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

Bignold, Arthur

Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Bigwood, James

Dillon, John

Hayden, John Patrick

Bill, Charles

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Heath, James (Staffords. N. W.

Blake, Edward

Donelan, Captain A.

Heaton, John Henniker

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Dorington, Sir John Edward

Henderson, Alexander

Roland, John

Doughty, George

Hoare, Sir Samuel

Bond, Edward

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset. E.

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Hogg, Lindsay

Bousfield, William Robert

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brights'de

Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex

Dyke, Rt Hon. Sir William Hart

Houlds worth, Sir Wm. Henry

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Elliot, Hon A. Ralph Douglas

Hoult, Joseph

Brown, Alexander H. (Shrops.

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)

Brymer, William Ernest

Faber, George Denison (York)

Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

Bullard, Sir Harry

Fardell, Sir T. George

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Campbell, Rt Hn. J. A (Glasgow

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Hutton, John (Yorks. N. R.)

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Ffrench, Peter

Jackson, Rt. Hon. Wm. Lawies

Carlile, William Walter

Finch, George H.

Jebb, Sir Richard Claver house

Cautley, Henry Strother

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Cautley, Henry Strother

Fisher, William Hayes

Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

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

Fison, Frederick William

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Cavendish, V. C. W (Derbyshire

Fitz Gerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

Joyce, Michael

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Flynn, James Christopher

Keswick, William

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.

Forster, Henry William

Kimber, Henry

Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

Foster, Sir Michael (Lond. Univ.

Knowles, Lees

Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.)

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Lawrence, Joseph (Monmouth)

Myers, William Henry

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Lawson, John Grant

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Leamy, Edmund

Newdigate, Francis Alexander

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Lecky, Rt. Hn. William Edw. H.

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Lee, Arthur H, (Hants., Fareh'm

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

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Smith, HC (North'mb. Tyneside

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

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

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

Leveson-Gower, Fredk. N. S.

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipp'rary Mid

Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich

Llewellyn, Evan Henry

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

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

Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

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

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Lowe, Francis William

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

Strait, Hon. Charles Hedley

Lucas, Col. Eras. (Lowestoft)

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.

Sullivan, Donal

Lucas, Regd. J. (Portsmouth)

O'Malley, William

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Lundon, W.

O'Mara, James

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

Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Macdona, John Cumming

Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

Thornton, Percy M.

MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

Tritton, Charles Ernest

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Parkes, Ebenezer

Valentia, Viscount

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Peel, Hon. Wm. R. Wellesley

Vincent, Col. Sir CEH (Sheffield

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Penn, John

Walker, Col. William Hall

M'Govern, T.

Percy, Earl

Wanklyn, James Leslie

M'cIver, Sir Lewis (E'inburgh, W

Pierpoint, Robert

Warr, Augustus Frederick

M'Kean, John

Plummer, Walter R.

Webb, Colonel William George

M'Killop, Jas. (Stirlingshire)

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E. (T'nton

Manners, Lord Cecil

Power, Patrick Joseph

Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

Martin, Richard Biddulph

Pretyman, Ernest George

Whiteley, H (Ashton-und-Lyne

Maxwell, W J. H (Dumfriesshire

Purvis, Robert

Wills, Sir Frederick

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Pym, C. Guy

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

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

Wilson, J. W. (Wo'rcestersh. N.)

Mitchell, William

Reddy, M.

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

Molesworth, Sir Lewis

Redmond, John E (Waterford)

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B Stuart-

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Redmond, William (Clare)

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Reid, James (Greenock)

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Mooney, John J.

Renshaw, Charles Bine

Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

Renwick, George

Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

Morgan, David J. (Walth' stow)

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Young, Samuel

Morgan, Hn. Fred. (Monm'thsh.

Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

Younger, William

Morrell, George Herbert

Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

Yoxall, James Henry

Morrison, James Archibald

Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

Morton, Ar. H. A. (Deptford)

Ropner, Colonel Robert

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Sir William Walrond and

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Mr. Anstruther.

NOES.

Allan, William (Gateshead)

Duncan, J. Hastings

Lambert, George

Allen, Charles P. (Glouc, Stroud

Dunn, Sir William

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Asher, Alexander

Edwards, Frank

Leng, Sir John

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Evans, Sir Francis H (Maidstone

Levy, Maurice

Asquith, Rt. Hn Herbert Henry

Fenwick, Charles

Lewis, John Herbert

Banes, Major George Edward

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

Lloyd-George, David

Barlow, John Emmott

Furness, Sir Christopher

Lough, Thomas

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Gladstone, Rt Hn. Herbert John

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall;

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Goddard, Daniel Ford

M'Crae, George

Bell, Richard

Grant, Corrie

M'Kenna, Reginald

Black, Alexander William

Green, Walford D (Wednesbury

Markham, Arthur Basil

Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Mather, William

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William

Milner, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Harmsworth, R. Leicester

Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Harwood, George

Newnes, Sir George

Caldwell, James

Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale-

Norman, Henry

Cameron, Robert

Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Helme, Norval Watson

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Causton, Richard Knight

Holland, William Henry

Paulton, James Mellor

Craig, Robert Hunter

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

Cremer, William Bandai

Jacoby, James Alfred

Perks, Robert William

Crombie, John William

Joicey, Sir James

Philipps, John Wynford

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

Kearley, Hudson, E.

Price, Robert John

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Kinloch, Sir John George Smyth

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

Kitson, Sir James

Rea, Russell

1452

1453

Reid, Sir R. Thresbie (Dumfries

Soares, Ernest J.

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Rickett, J. Compton

Spear, John Ward

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Robson, William Snowdon

Strachey, Sir Edward

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth

Runciman, Walter

Taylor, Theodore Cooke

Wilson, Chas. Henry (Hull, W.)

Russell, T. W.

Tennant, Harold John

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

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford

Thomas David Alfred (Merthyr

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

Thomas, JA (Glamorg'n Gower)

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Tomkinson, James

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

Walton, John Lawson (Leeds, S.

Mr. Charming and Mr.

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

Trevelyan.

SIR EDWARD GREYsaid he wished to move an Amendment to omit the word "shall" in order to insert "may with the consent of the council of the county," which, he admitted, would affect the operation of the entire proviso, because instead of its being absolute it would be conditional. It was decided in the first part of the clause that the authority for education should be the County Council. His hon. friend the Member for North Camberwell preferred an ad hoc authority altogether, but he did not agree with him. However, he would rather have an absolutely ad hoc authority supreme in its area than the compromise which was now proposed. What he wished to ensure was that the County Council should have a fair chance if it was to be the educational authority, and that holes should not be made in its area without its consent. The First Lord of the Treasury admitted that the proviso would operate differently in different areas, and that in some areas it would impoverish the County Council because it would detach the richer districts out; but if it were to operate like that the County Council ought to be the judge. He was quite prepared to admit that in some areas the proviso might work well, but some elasticity should be introduced. It might be argued that without the proviso the County Council would be overburdened and not fit to manage education, but, in his opinion, the County Council would be far more competent than the authority in a borough or an urban district. At any rate the County Council should have power to delegate its authority as much as it pleased. Even if this proviso were eliminated altogether, the County Council would still have ample power to delegate authority, and set up machinery wherever it pleased. The hon. Member for South Islington argued that the Committee should be most careful to preserve any authorities which
1454
were doing good work, and he defended the proviso on the ground that it would ensure the continuance of such work. The hon. Member was willing that the machinery should go, but he thought that the good work which was being done should be preserved by the proviso. Why? Because in some of the urban districts there were men who were trained in educational matters and who were efficient, active and zealous. He maintained that the County Council should not be deprived of the assistance of perhaps the most intelligent and keenest men in the country. He wished that the County Council should have a wide choice, and he appealed to the First Lord of the Treasury as to whether he would not consider the introduction of some amount of elasticity into the proviso in order to enable it to be accommodated to different districts. The County Council should be given the option as to whether the proviso should be put into operation or not. He himself dreaded its operation from the point of view of education, and he was speaking solely from that point of view and was not considering any particular area. He had heard no answer as to the mischief which the proviso would work in certain districts if it were left absolutely as it stood. It would be some relief if the Vice-President of the Council, who had not yet said a word on behalf of the proviso—he trusted the right hon. Gentleman's attitude of reserve was limited to the proviso—would, speaking from the point of view of an educationalist, say something which would lessen the apprehension which was felt regarding it.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 11, to leave out the word 'shall,' and insert the words 'may, with the consent of the Council of the county.'"—(Sir Edward Grey.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'shall' stand part of the clause."
EARL PERCYsaid that the Amendment of the hon. Baronet was undoubtedly of very great importance, and a great deal might be said in favour of it. If they had been regarding the Bill simply and solely from an educational standpoint and no other, personally he should have voted against the proviso, but he did not vote against it because, as practical people, they knew very well that if the proviso were cut out the chances of the measure becoming law would be very seriously endangered. He thought there was a great deal of reason in the argument that if they cut out the proviso they would lay themselves open to the charge of ignoring the valuable work which had been done in urban districts and boroughs in the past, which constituted one of the greatest guarantees for the elasticity and variation in the educational system of the country which it was so eminently desirable to maintain. On the other hand, by keeping the proviso in, everyone would admit that they very seriously diminished the authority, the power of co-ordinating education, and the financial resources of the central authority; and it seemed to him that the compromise suggested by the hon. Baronet opposite afforded a very reasonable basis on which they might agree. It laid down the assumption that, other things being equal, the smaller areas should have a certain claim to autonomy, and on the other hand it left the absolute decision of that question to the central authority. He hoped, therefore, that if the Government could not see their way off hand to accept the Amendment, they would, at all events, consent to postpone their decision until the Report stage.
DR. MACNAMARAsaid he had voted against the proviso because it cut clean across the face of the one authority scheme, and gave no fewer than 327 authorities. The Amendment, however, as the noble Lord had said, provided a compromise which might enable them to agree. The longer the discussion went on the fewer appeared to be wedded to the one authority scheme, and he believed that in the end,
1456

he himself would be its sole active supporter. He thought, however, he had the Vice-President with him, though the right hon. Gentleman would not admit it. The aim of the Vice-President in 1896 and of many hon. Members at present was that the County Council should be paramount. It could consider the general educational needs of the county, and decide whether a particular borough or urban district should, or should not, have autonomy. The Amendment provided a compromise between the supporters of the one authority scheme and hon. Members who considered that political expediency required the inclusion of the proviso. They could not allow, particularly with the option in the Bill, a very wealthy small district, which might be an old municipal borough with a large number of endowments, to contract itself out of its obligations towards the whole of the county. If the County Council had a general controlling power it would be in a position to have regard for educational efficiency rather for political expediency. The acceptance of the Amendment would involve no particular sacrifice on the part of the Government. In 1896 municipal boroughs of 20,000 inhabitants were only admitted under great pressure, and the Government then flatly refused urban districts of 20,000 inhabitants. He did not know whether the Government were rather afraid to face the urban districts and non-county boroughs if the control were given to the County Council. He did not know that the urban districts or the non-county boroughs would have any reason to complain. Why should they have absolute autonomy in a matter for which they were not prepared to pay. He strongly objected to the smaller boroughs being allowed to contract themselves out of their obligations to the county, and he appealed to the Government to accept the Amendment as a compromise.
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.

  LOAN BILL.
  [THIRD READING.]
  Order for Third Reading read.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,: At the date of the introduction of the Budget all the elements in the political situation seemed to justify a considerable addition to the Estimates for the possible continuation of the war. The conferences that have been going on for several weeks between the Boer representatives and Lord Milner and Lord Kitchener had just commenced; but on the very day before the introduction of the Budget, as hon. Members will see from the Papers circulated, a telegram was received from South Africa that the Boor representatives had made proposals based on the recognition of the independence of the Transvaal and Orange Free State, and, judging from the tenacity they had shown on a former occasion, and the numerous occasions on which our hopes of the early termination of the war had been disappointed, it was impossible for us, or our representatives in South Africa, to take a hopeful view of any satisfactory issue to the conferences that had begun. I, therefore, deemed it necessary to ask Parliament at that time to provide for an addition of nearly £17,000,000 to the expenditure on the war; and I also stated that, assuming that the war continued, I should have to come to Parliament for further borrowing powers for £12,000,000, in order to finance the Exchequer for the first nine months of the year, in addition to the £32,000,000 included in this Bill. Besides this, having in mind the condition of the money market at the time, and knowing that any hitch, and much more any rupture in the negotiations, would involve a considerable fall in the price of Consols, I felt it right, in the exercise of my judgment, at once to issue the loan authorised by the Resolution of the House, the amount of that loan being, as I may remind the House, fixed at a point which, if the war continued, would provide for our permanent borrowing to the end of the year, and if it terminated, would provide for our temporary needs also for the first nine months of the year.
  1458
  But happily the situation is now changed. I find myself able at once to dismiss from consideration £16,750,000 which I had included in the Budget Estimate, and also any idea of asking Parliament for any further borrowing powers.
  Now I will state what appears to me, as far as I can judge, the estimated expenditure of the year before us. The House will remember that in introducing the Budget I put that expenditure at £174,609,000. I need not dwell on any other items of this total except the £40,000,000 taken for the war, because all the other items remain exactly the same as they were at that time. With regard to the £40,000,000 taken for the war, I would remind the House that it provided for the maintenance of a full field force in South Africa for a period of eight months, but it did not provide for terminal charges and the maintenance of garrisons beyond that time. Now the war has lasted for two out of these eight months, but the expenditure upon the war during that time has been somewhat larger than the average of the estimate because larger reinforcements have been sent out to South Africa, both from home and from the Colonies, than were contemplated at the time the estimate was made. Therefore, we have to consider, so to speak, the saving out of the £40,000,000 by the termination of the war—I take the expenditure at £5,000,000 a month—with about £2,000,000 more on the whole time; say £28,000,000 may be considered as, so to speak, saved. But I must remind the House that it is impossible at once to commence saving in this matter; time must elapse, and it will be some weeks before anything can really be done to lessen expenditure incurred. Therefore allowance must be made for that, though, of course, as soon as we received the news on Saturday-night last, orders were sent to stop all expenditure for war purposes that could possibly be stopped. But there will still be very considerable sums to be devoted to military purposes connected with the termination of the war. Among these will be a considerable sum for the gradual demobilisation of the very large force in South Africa, and that involves

  1459
  gratuities, furlough pay, and other charges, and, of course, a large sum for the transport of troops home or to the Colonies, or India or wherever they may have to go. Besides this, large provision has to be made for horses and supplies taken by the military authorities in South Africa, payment for which was deferred to the close of the war; reservists' clothing has to be entirely replaced, and payment has to be made for stores, liability for which has been incurred nearly to the full amount included in the Estimates. Another important item besides which falls on the Army Votes, though it is not a military charge, is the maintenance of a considerable population in the concentration camps. Of course, everybody will be agreed that as soon as possible the people in these camps should be returned to their homes, but then we must remember that it is now winter in South Africa, and that in many cases homes will have to be provided afresh. The House will see that considerable sums will have to be included in addition to the Estimates, which only provided up to September next for the maintenance of the Boer population now in these camps. Finally, of course, provision will have to be made for whatever garrisons it may be considered necessary to leave in South Africa for the remainder of the year. My right hon. friend the Secretary for War will as soon as possible place a detailed statement on all these matters before the House, showing how the expenditure as allocated in the Estimates already before the House will be devoted to the several objects I have alluded to and other objects of a similar nature. It is only necessary for me on this occasion to say that all of this expenditure, with the exception of that upon the concentration camps, will be purely military; all of it will be expenditure necessitated by the war. Now we have examined this matter carefully, and I am satisfied that, in the circumstances to which I have alluded, and taking into consideration all these matters, no less a sum than the £40,000,000 provided in the original Estimate will be required for these purposes in the course of the present financial year.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOUBT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what will be the extent of the garrisons left in South Africa?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: No, Sir; it would be entirely premature to make any statement on the subject. Of course both military and civil authorities on the spot will have to be consulted, and I cannot at all say what garrisons may be necessary; but, having regard to the friendly feeling that appears to exist among the people, as we learn, towards Lord Kitchener and those who lately met as enemies in the field, I hope that a few months hence it will not be found necessary to have very large garrisons.
  MR. LOUGH: Does the £40,000,000 include the two months already gone?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: Of course the two months are included. Therefore I adhere to the figures of the Estimates already placed on the Table, making £174,609,000, and to this amount I have to add three items stated to the House in my Budget speech—£750,000 for the maintenance of a portion of the South African Constabulary; £750,000, roughly speaking, for the interest on the new debt; and £250,000 for the proposed grant to the West Indies—a total of £1,750,000; in all, £176,359,000 as the estimated expenditure for the year that is before us.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOUBT: Including the £17,000,000 for contingencies?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The £17,000,000 was never included in the £174,609,000.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: It is in the £162,000,000.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman it was not in the £174,609,000. I am not dealing with the loan at all.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I am very anxious to have this made clear. In the copy of the right hon. Gentleman's speech with which he has been

  1461
  good enough to supply us, he will find in Appendix 3 that the figure £162,901,000 includes£17,750,000 for "Supplementary provision to meet contingencies."
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The right hon. Gentleman is quite mistaken. If he will look at page 10 of the speech which he holds in his hands, under the heading "Estimated Expenditure," he will see that I estimated the expenditure of the year, before I touched on that £17,000*000, as £174,609,000. That is what I am alluding to.
  Well, Sir, we have to deal with an estimated expenditure for the year of £176,359,000. Now, I have seen suggestions, and one has been made to me today, that we should not proceed with the proposals for new taxation. Very well. Let me take for a moment the estimated yield to the revenue of the taxes on the old basis as it existed last year. That would be £147,785,000. If you deduct £147,785,000 from the expenditure of £176,359,000, you will find a deficit for the year of £28,574,000, or if the Sinking Fund is suspended in round numbers £24,000,000. If the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen will put the loan out of their minds for a moment and suppose that any Chancellor of the Exchequer had come down to this House and pro posed a Budget for the year showing a deficit of £24,000,000, and had not proposed to increase taxation at all. but had proposed to borrow the whole of that sum, I wonder what would have been said? Why. Sir, if there has been one critic who has been unsparing in his condemnation of me because I have not, as he called it, squared account, because I had borrowed for the war a larger proportion of the expenditure than he thought I ought to have borrowed, and had levied from taxation less than he thought I ought to have levied, it has been the hon. Member for East Edinburgh.
  MR. McCRAE: Hear, hear!
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I am glad the hon. Member cheers that. And yet the hon. Member suggested to me today that in such circumstances as I have stated I should give up the new taxes.
  1462
  No, Sir, he did not suggest that I should give them all up; he suggested only that I should give up that part of them to which he particularly objects. Will hon. Members do me the justice in this matter to eliminate from their minds for a moment the merits or demerits of my proposals for new taxation? Will they just consider—quite apart from the merits of these new taxes, which we shall discuss, of course, on the Finance Bill—whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be justified, in a Budget for a deficit of £24,000,000, in not proposing to increase taxation? I will venture to say that, if the hon. Member or any of my critics on that side of the House who have been in favour of increasing the income tax for this war deficit would consider the matter from the point of view of the income tax alone, they would tell me that I should be right in increasing the income tax. I will venture, on the other hand, to say that these hon. Members, mainly, I suppose, on this side of the House, who are in favour of the corn duty, would with equal unanimity say that I should be absolutely bound to raise the corn duty. And, therefore, if you look on this matter in the abstract, apart from the merits of the particular taxes, I am sure that any one who considers the rights and wrongs of sound finance will say that for me to set the example—an example, I believe, hitherto unprecedented in the financial history of this country—of a Budget for a deficit of £24,000,000 and not to increase taxation would be a thing that I never ought to have done. Sir, I will never take such a course. Of course it may be said, and it has been said, that the circumstances are changed, because under the loan which is now before the House I have borrowed more than the deficit of the year. I deny that the circumstances are changed. If the House agrees to continue to impose, as I hope it will, this additional penny on the income tax and the corn duty the deficit will still be £19,500,000. That £19,500,000 will be paid out of the loan that I have borrowed this year under this Bill, leaving a balance of some £10,500,000 surplus of the loan. Is that a necessary surplus or not? It is an absolutely necessary surplus to have borrowed for the first nine months of the year.

  1463
  Let hon. Members recollect—I have endeavoured more than once to impress it on the House—that under our system of taxation, raising as we do so large a proportion of our revenue by the income tax, which is not payable till January, the first three quarters of the year are necessarily lean quarters for the revenue; and in a year such as this, when the great bulk of the war charges must necessarily be paid in the first nine months of the year, the first nine months of the year will be extremely large in expenditure as compared with the last quarter of the year. I have calculated, and I believe it to be a fair calculation, that, putting the loan aside, the revenue receipts during the first nine months of the coming year will be less by £45,000,000 than the Exchequer expenditure during those nine months. Perhaps the House will ask how are those £45,000,000 to be provided. I hey will be provided, in the first place, by the proceeds of the loan—in round numbers £30,000,000; secondly, by a heavy draft, probably £7,000,000, on our balances; and, thirdly, by the exercise of those borrowing powers on Ways and Means with which every Chancellor of the Exchequer is invested, but which cannot be exercised beyond the suggested amount of £8,000,000—making up £45,000,000—without serious disarrangement of the money market at the time. And, therefore. Sir, for temporary purposes the borrowing of this £30,000,000 was absolutely required. Now come to the last quarter, when the bulk of the revenue falls in. What will happen then? Under the estimates of expenditure and revenue which I have placed before the House, there should be some £10,500,000 surplus from the loan. Now that ought to be devoted to the payment of Debt. If, in anticipation of a larger war expenditure than it has been necessary for us actually to incur, we have borrowed 10,500,000, or whatever the sum may be, more than we actually require, we are bound to reduce the Debt by devoting the surplus of that loan to that purpose. How is the Debt to be reduced? In the first place, I shall ask the House again to start the Sinking Fund. We have had to suspend for war purposes during the last few years the Sinking Fund of £4,640,000 a
  1464
  year, and by the simple process of omitting a clause from the Finance Bill now before the House that Sinking Fund will recommence. And, I will venture to say, in no possible way could we do more to establish the credit of the country in the present and in the future than by taking the first possible moment to reestablish the Sinking Fund at the close of the war. If that should be assented to, there will still be a margin of £6,000,000. Now, we have a very considerable floating Debt—larger than is wholesome for this country in time of peace. We have £21,000,000 of Treasury Bills. We have also a large sum of Exchequer Bonds—I think £10,000,000 are falling due in 1903. That £6,000,000, as far as it goes, should be devoted to redeeming some of that floating debt. But I would ask the House to leave me liberty in this matter, and I will tell them why. I am not talking of ordinary Supplementary Estimates, but there may be an addition to the expenditure which I have already placed before the House which I cannot foretell at present, or at any rate cannot foretell with any precise certainty of what may be required. I referred in the Budget speech to the possibility of advances being made by us to the Transvaal and the Orange River Colony for the relief and resettlement of the population, for the rebuilding and restocking of farms, and for other purposes. We may very possibly have to make temporary advances of that kind, but as soon as the civil administration is established in the colonies and the necessary arrangements can be made, we shall ask Parliament to and in this matter, not by direct advances, but by guaranteeing a loan to be raised by the colonies for the purposes I have named, and for such other objects as the conversion of their debts, or the acquisition of their railways—which seems to us to be by far the best form of assistance we can give them. I would therefore ask the House to leave my hands free in that matter, with the distinct understanding that, if it is possible, all this £6,000,000 shall be devoted to the reduction of our present debt.
  I have endeavoured, as briefly as I could, to put the facts of the case before the House, and I hope I have

  1465
  established three things. In the first place, I hope I have established the fact that we have not borrowed more than we require for the services of the year. No doubt we have borrowed the whole of this £32,000,000 by way of permanent loan, and it is true that part of it, say £20,000,000, might have been borrowed as a permanent loan, and part of it, £10,000,000, as a temporary loan, by way of Treasury Bills, but if I had done that I should have added very largely to the floating Debt in the shape of Treasury Bills, and so raised the interest on those Bills. So that the money would have been obtained at greater cost to the country than that at which it has been obtained by the course I have taken. In the second place, I think I have shown that the surplus of the loan, which may not be required in the last quarter of the year, will lie devoted to purposes of which this House will approve; and, in the third place, I hope I have given some reason for holding that we have no light in dealing with a deficit of £24,000,000 incurred for purposes in connection with the war, to throw the whole burden of that on posterity, who will have burdens of their own to bear, and to shrink from throwing a reasonable part of it on the taxpayers of the present day.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: The matter for discussion tonight is one of the deepest interest to this House and the country. The question is : How much cheaper is peace going to be than war? I am sorry to say that, at all events so far as concerns the present year, peace is going to be no cheaper than war. I am afraid that is the lesson we may have to learn from the serious consequences of the war in respect to the country with which we have to deal. We have to learn how much dearer it is to repair a dilapidated State than it is to destroy it. That is the enormous task we have before us whether or not the estimate the right hon. Gentleman has formed of the expenses which lie before him in South Africa are more adequate than those he formed at the beginning of the war I cannot say, but I suspect that in this respect the Government are as sanguine
  1466
  as they were three years ago, before they embarked the country in a war which has cost £228,000,000. I know there are members of His Majesty's Government—there is one very eminent Member, the Colonial Secretary, who thinks that is a trifle; but I have never taken that view of laying a burden of £228,000,000 on ourselves or on posterity. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has stated, in the language he has always held, that we ought to pay some regard to the generations that are to follow us, seeing that they will have burdens of their own to bear. It is certain that generations to come will have their own burdens, and those burdens will not be small. I think what we are going to cast upon them is £150,000,000 or more of Debt, and the contribution this year to that Debt is £32,000,000. What we accept for ourselves this year in additional taxation is £5,000,000.
  SIR M. HTCKS BEACH: Four and a half millions.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Yes, I know that as it stands now the loan we have raised is £32,000,000. That is for posterity. For ourselves, according to the Estimates before us, the charge is £5,000,000. That is the proportion. Six times as much is placed on those who come after us as upon ourselves. It is all very well to talk about the respect we have been showing for posterity, but in former days the burden cast on posterity was rather less than that we put on ourselves. However, I will not insist on that, because I think the language the right hon. Gentleman has held is sound language, and according to what was within his reach and the possibilities of the case he has done what he can to defend his principles. It is difficult in a statement of this kind to follow the exact figures of the surplus the right hon. Gentleman has to deal with. All I know is that when he was dealing with the £40,000,000 he contemplated for the cost of the war, he added £17,000,000 if the war was to be continued to the end of the year; and the figures given in his final statement are £188,000,000, which include £17,750,000 for "Supplementary provision to meet contingencies." That was the final estimate which the right hon.

  1467
  Gentleman laid before the House : his final table of the Budget. The right hon. Gentleman took £40,000,000 for eight months, but he said very justly at the time—
  "I will take things at their worst. I will assume that the war will last not only eight months but twelve months, and if so I must add between £16,000,000 and £17,000,000 to my estimate."
  He said—
  "I must remind the Committee that in the Army Estimates of this year there was included a sum of £40,000,000 for war expenditure. My right hon. friend the Secretary of State for War stated that that sum would permit of the maintenance of our forces in South Africa at their present strength for a period of between eight and nine months; but that included no provision for gratuities at the end of the war, for transport, or for any of those charges of great magnitude which had to be included in the similar estimate for last year, the total of which, I think, was £08,000,000, subsequently increased by a supplementary estimate of £5,000,000 to £63,000,000."
  Then he goes on to say that he thinks it right to contemplate the worst, and to include in his estimate a sum which would carry him through the whole of the year that is before us. That might necessitate a very large addition to the estimate of £40,000,000, an addition calculated at something between £16,000,000 and £17,000,000. Thus in the right hon. Gentleman's final statement, the estimate was not £40,000,000, but £57,500,000.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I think the right hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension as to that last table. If he will look at the statement, he will see that the total Consolidated Fund services were estimated at £25,560,000, and the total Supply Services at £145,159,000. The right hon. Gentleman has eliminated the cost of the South African Constabulary, and the grant to the West Indies. The expenditure of the present year, under present circumstances, was estimated at £176,359,000.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I am taking the light hon. Gentleman's statement of the final balance-sheet as estimated for 1902–3 and I find there that the total estimate of expenditure is £188,469,000, the total estimated revenue £152,935,000, and the estimated
  1468
  deficit £35,534,000. That is the final estimate he laid before the House. That being so, the estimated deficit was met principally from the loan, and what the right hon. Gentleman derived from the balances which remained from last year. I am not going to enter into any controversy with the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to his accuracy. I acknowledge that he has better means of knowing than I can possibly have. But I must say I find some difficulty in reconciling the calculations as to the surplus which he made to-night with his circular. That is one of the difficulties in which we are placed. We have not had the time to examine this statement. I assume, as I am bound to assume, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is right in the figures he has laid before us. But I maintain still, subject to explanation, that the estimated charges for the war, if it had lasted the whole year, were £58,000,000. If you have only spent on the ordinary war charges £12,000,000, you must have £28,000,000 left to account for. In my view of this balance-sheet, you ought to add to that £18,000,000 more. Then the right hon. Gentleman tells us that there will be a very large expenditure for demobilisation and for the garrison that is to be left in South Africa. I assume that we shall have particulars of that, and that Votes will be taken in this House for that which has not yet been authorised by Parliament. I should also like to mention the cost of bringing the prisoners of war back to South Africa, because when peace is restored those prisoners are entitled to return to their own country. That is a charge that must be provided for as well as the cost of bringing our own troops home. As to the garrison to be left in South Africa, of course we shall have an account of that. It will be a most material element in the cost, not only of this year, but of the years that are to come. The right hon. Gentleman also referred to the concentration camps, and to the unfortunate position of the people in them, in terms which we were glad to hear. He said the object ought to be to restore those people to their homes, but I am afraid homes must be made for them first in order that they may

  1469
  be restored to them. The right hon. Gentleman said in his Budget speech—
  "Means will have to be provided for the relief and the resettlement of the two colonies; which have been devasated by the war. Means will have to be provided for the rebuilding and the restocking of farms—farms, I should rather hope, not only of those who have been our friends in the war and who have fought on our side, but, I hope, also the farms of those who boldly and honestly have been our enemies in the war, and whom we hope to make our friends in the future. Sir, I think the House of Commons, if peace is made on terms which, in our belief, will be satisfactory, enduring, and safe, will be generous in these matters. yet do not believe that this need involve any great charge upon the taxpayers of this country."
  This charge for repairing those homes and restoring the prisoners of war to their homes, I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say, is not to be a charge upon this country. He has alluded to one of the contingencies that may happen to the £10,000,000 of which he has spoken—namely, that it may be used to make temporary advances to the colonies to enable them to meet, charges for this purpose, He said in his Budget speech—

  "Of this I am convinced—and anyone may see for himself, looking at the remarkable progress which has been made already, made even during the prosecution of the war, in the restoration of industrial prosperity in the gold fields and in more important centres of the Transvaal—I am convinced that it will be perfectly possible, with regard to the Transvaal and the Orange River Colony, if we were to advance to them loans for the purposes I have described and for other similar purposes—for railway extension, for enabling them to obtain, on fair terms, control over their own railways and matters of that kind—to repay such advances, both capital and interest, on terms which would be eminently satisfactory to the taxpayers of this country."
  That is a very sound principle. As I understand, the process of restoration is to be met by a charge upon the resources of the colonies themselves, and especially on the goldfield; and, that being so, the policy of temporary advances to the colonies to meet the cost of that process is one that no one can properly object to.
  Now, Sir, according to the figures of the right hon. Gentleman, he will have in hand £10,000,000 more than he wants—though I should have thought the amount would be higher—in consequence of the raising of this loan under conditions of which I do not complain. The right hon. Gentleman says he has
  1470
  got £10,000,000 at his disposal. Certainly he will not find anyone who would advocate that all the charges for the war should be laid on loan. I have always maintained that we have laid too little on ourselves and too much on posterity. However, I will not insist upon that now. As to the disposal of that £10,000,000, there was one part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech which I heard with the greatest satisfaction. That was that he was taking the earliest opportunity of restoring the Sinking Fund. I think that in the course of the long and, on the whole, the prosperous financial administration of the right hon. Gentleman there is no circumstance which I have found myself compelled more strongly to condemn than the suspension of a portion of the Sinking Fund in a period of prosperity. But when we have accumulated a Debt of £150,000,000 in less than three years, the least we can do when peace is restored is to make some effort to reduce that Debt. Those who have gone before us, and we in our time, have done much to diminish the Debt we inherited; and, if we were to make the same efforts which have been made in former times, it would take half a century before posterity was relieved of the Debt that we have accumulated in the last three years. Therefore, when I heard the Chancellor of the Exchequer make that declaration, I thought it was a declaration worthy of an English finance Minister. The old Sinking Fund of Mr. Pitt was founded on mistaken principles, but at least the financial morality of it cannot be doubted. Mr. Pitt thought that when we accumulated a great Debt we ought to make provision for its liquidation. The Sinking Fund has been placed in later times on a sounder basis; and I am bound to say that in the last generation we have made worthy efforts to reduce the debt which we inherited. Therefore I do congratulate the right hon. Gentleman upon his financial courage in coming forward in the first stage of peace to say-that the first duty of the House of Commons is to make provision to relieve posterity in a certain degree of some of the burden we have cast upon it, and to show them an example which I hope they will follow—and that is, that they

  1471
  should not entirely relieve themselves of the responsibility of the burden for a policy which they think is the right policy. Therefore for that proposition of the right hon. Gentleman with regard to a portion of the £10,000,000 which he finds himself at liberty to dispose of, I have nothing but words of the strongest congratulation and approbation. I hope that that is a policy which none of his successors will ever depart from, and that they will maintain the credit of the country. I believe that England, whatever other nations may say, still maintains her great and deserved reputation of having the soundest and best regulated finances of any country in the world. That being so, I hope we shall never depart from those sound principles of commerce and finance which have enabled us, with apparently little strain, to bear the great burden of this war. The restoration of the Sinking Fund disposes of £5,000,000 of the money the right hon. Gentleman has at his disposal.
  Now, Sir, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not think me weak-kneed upon this subject if I say that we ought now to consider what we shall do with reference to the happy condition of things attending the restoration of peace in South Africa. May I remind him that now that peace is restored the country will be hoping to learn what is the blessed difference between peace and war, and that they also shall have some share in the relief which is to follow the cessation of hostilities? It is a curious circumstance that the figure which the right hon. Gentleman has stated he has at his disposal is a figure which would allow him to say to the country, "We have restored the Sinking Fund, which will be a provision for the present and for the future by the reduction of the debt, and, therefore, we have laid the foundation, which does not mean only £5,000,000 to-day, but in the future, as in the past, will mean £5,000,000, £6,000,000, or even £7,000,000 a year to the Sinking Fund." But then there remains another £5,000,000 to be dealt with. While you are taking £5,000,000 for the Sinking Fund I think you might also relieve the country of the £5,000,000 additional taxation which you are placing upon it. That would really dispose of the right
  1472
  hon. Gentleman's surplus of £10,000,000, and it seems to me that it could not be called an unfair partition of the money at his disposal. That is a matter we shall have to deal with, of course, when the Finance Bill comes on. I uphold the principle that there ought always to be a considerable sum raised by taxation when you are increasing debt, but you ought never to rely upon that alone. I am quite prepared to take the Sinking Fund as a great and valuable contribution to the liquidation of the debt you have created, and there are taxes which, in my opinion, being of a highly objectionable character, ought not to be called for, if you find yourself in a position such as that of which the right hon. Gentleman has spoken, of having at his disposal a surplus.
  MR. BARTLEY: Is that not the surplus on borrowing?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Yes. But you have borrowed too much and now you have to give it away. I am very glad to hear this from so ardent an advocate for increased taxation as the hon. Member, and I regret that we did not have his assistance at an earlier stage. I should prefer other taxes than those to which we have a great objection, and if the right hon. Gentleman will propose other taxes I think he will find that I shall be very glad to support him. That being so we cannot discuss now the question of what is to be done with the taxes, but I cannot help thinking that, considering that we started with a Budget which assumed that there would be twelve months of war and that there have only been two months of war out of that period, there will be considerable disappointment when it is found that the amount of relief given is of the limited character stated by the right hon. Gentleman. I do not wish, of course, to bind myself, much less other people, to the view I have suggested, but I think there might fairly be some consideration of that subject, and that we ought not to be told, when we come to deal with the question of taxation, that we must impose the taxes proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget. There is some difference, apparently, in His Majesty's

  1473
  Government as to the character of these taxes, because one of them was rather indicated by the right hon. Gentleman as a permanent tax of a peace character, while a different view of it was presented two or throe days afterwards by the Colonial Secretary, who said that it was a war tax. I never like to refer to the right hon. Gentleman's speeches without having his ipsissima verba, for fear that I should be said to be inaccurate, and I will quote from the report of his remarks.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: May I say that I was rather challenged at Question time by an hon. Member behind the right hon. Gentleman on this very subject, and I refrained from touching upon it in my speech just now because I understood that it would be more in order on the discussion of the Finance Bill?
  MR. SPEAKER: I think the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouth is going somewhat beyond the scope of the Loan Bill.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I must reserve that, then, for the Finance Bill, but this tax was stated in a specific manner by the Colonial Secretary to be a war tax. I do not feel that I am able at the present moment to enter into any further criticism of the statement of the right hon. Gentleman. It is something to know that out of this expenditure of £188,459,000, as it is finally stated by the right hon. Gentleman, there is some hope at the conclusion of peace, after two months of war during the current year, there is a possibility of there being a disposable surplus of £10,000,000. I do not know that we can go farther with that matter tonight. We cannot repeal the loan, because the money has been borrowed already. It is a sort of Rhadamanthine process : you borrow the money in the market, and then afterwards you come to the House of Commons for authorisation to borrow. The only thing that we can deal with is the manner in which the loan is disposed of; and certainly, as far as the right hon. Gentleman has disposed of it, by reviving again, and I hope setting on foot for ever, the principle of the Sinking Fund, I have nothing to say, except to congratulate him upon the soundness of his financial principles and upon his courage in carrying them into effect.
  MR. COHEN: If there is one thing which is more satisfactory than another in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire, it is the manner in which he has welcomed the restoration of the Sinking Fund. When the right hon. Gentleman was Chancellor of the Exchequer, and even since that time, he was most constant in his advocacy for the maintenance of the Sinking Fund; and I shared with the right hon. Gentleman his regret when the Chancellor of the Exchequer, not at a period of financial difficulty not long ago, suspended the I Sinking Fund. But surely the House has not forgotten that it is not much more than two months ago since the Member for West Monmouthshire said in this House that he feared that there was no hon. Member of the House who would live to see the restoration of the Sinking Fund in this country. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will remember that I had the temerity to differ from him in that forecast; and I know that the right hon. Gentleman is never so happy as when he is indulging in pessimistic fore casts, so that it is quite natural that in one of these forecasts he is pleased rather than displeased to find his prognostications falsified. Speaking with some financial experience, I wish to congratulate the Chancellor of the Exchequer very cordially upon the restoration of the Sinking Fund, and I am pleased at this, not exactly because I regard it financially as the most economical arrangement, but because it is quite certain that the application of the surplus to the sinking fund will relieve the country, although it would economically have been better for the Exchequer if the whole of the funds available had been applied to the extinction of terminable Debt. I feel quite sure that the bare announcement of the restoration of the Sinking Fund, which is automatic, and which we hope will be inflexible in its permanent application, will do much, I will not say to restore, for that has never been in doubt, but to elevate the financial credit of this country. But, while I would give a preferential place to the application of this money to the Sinking Fund, because it is automatic and cannot be suspended without the consent of Parliament, I do hope—and in this I differ from the right

  1475
  hon. Gentleman opposite—that any surplus funds in the hands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be applied as far as possible to the redemption of the large floating Debt of which both my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the right hon. Gentleman opposite have always deprecated the accumulation in times of peace. We have been obliged, and properly obliged, to augment the floating Debt of this country to a level which has never before been reached, and certainly the destination of any surplus funds in the hand of the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to be to redeem the existing contracts of the State by paying off the Treasury bonds and Bills, of which a largo amount will fall due year after year. The right hon. Gentleman opposite has complained that we have cast too large a proportion of our burdens upon posterity.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: In the present year.
  MR. COHEN: I think the right hon. Gentleman could scarcely have pondered over what he said. When we raise a loan of this kind you can scarcely expect to pay off annually one-sixth of the capital. A country ought to raise taxation, so that its income will be brought up to the level of its normal expenditure, and if you redeem your capital charge in the case of an expenditure like this, in the course of ten or fifteen years, then I think you have done all that you can hope to do, and more than you can really expect. I gather from the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that, in his opinion, it is probable that the charge for this loan would not be cast upon this country, and I hope that will be the case. If it is possible, I think we ought to cast those charges on the colonies which are now part of His Majesty's dominions, and I think that those very profitable mining industries in South Africa ought to bear a fair proportion of those charges, on account of their increased solidity of tenure and probable increased prosperity. With this exception I have nothing but congratulations to offer to my right hon. friend upon his statement, and I wish in conclusion to join with my right hon. friend the Member for West Monmouthshire in congratulating the Chancellor of the
  1476
  Exchequer upon having, at the earliest possible moment, announced his intention of restoring the Sinking Fund.
  MR. BLACK: I beg to move the Motion of which I have given notice, that the order for the Third Beading be discharged, and the Bill recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House. I cannot join in the congratulations offered by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It has been the just reproach of this Government that they have invariably prepared for peace, when they ought to have prepared for war, and now the converse proposition has turned out to be equally true, for now they have prepared and estimated for war when they ought to-have prepared and estimated for peace. In the very midst of these peace negotiations, which have terminated so happily, we find the Chancellor of the Exchequer going into the market, and borrowing this huge sum of £32,000,000, and borrowing it at a very disadvantageous figure, as compared with the figure at which Consols now stand. And for what purpose? To a very large extent in order that he may buy back again those very Consols at an increased price later in the year. For these reasons I cannot join in the hearty congratulations indulged in by my right hon. friend the Member for West Monmouthshire. It is a matter of congratulation that the Sinking Fund is to be restored, but it is very much the reverse that we should be called upon to borrow in order that we may repay what we borrow at a higher price. I beg to call attention to the fact that we are still without information with regard to the disposal of a very large amount of this loan. The appetite of the Chancellor of the Exchequer seems to grow on what it feeds upon. When he introduced his Budget he set aside £17,000,000 with regard to which he said he could not give any particulars. He said that he could not say what he was going to do with it, and now he comes to the House and says there is £28,000,000 which he cannot tell us what he is going to do with.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: No, no.
  MR. BLACK: The right hon. Gentleman said there were certain things he had to look after, but he did not say in what way he was going to spend this money. He said that it would probably be spent in re-establishing government in South Africa. I support my Motion partly upon the ground that the House may have time to consider the statement which has been promised by the Secretary of State for War as to how this £28,000,000 is to be applied. In the course of the speech made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer he said nothing whatever about a very important matter which I know many hon. Members in this House consider to be very largely connected with this question. I refer to the recovery from the Transvaal itself of part of the cost of this war and more particularly from the gold mines. Not one word has been said as to how these millions are to be applied. Nothing has been said to us about an asset which formerly loomed largely : I refer to the recovery from the Transvaal, from the gold fields, of part of the cost of the war. This is a striking contrast to the declarations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in introducing the Budget. We have heard nothing about that in the statement to-night, but it is a point which will be highly relevant to a discussion in Committee of this Bill. It follows as a matter of course that the whole of the sum borrowed will not be placed upon the gold mine, and therefore we have to consider the question of the proportion which will have to be divided between taxation and borrowing. Even if £100,000,000 were to be placed upon the gold mines, we should still have to bear a large proportion of the borrowings and we should not be casting too much upon posterity, because by the continuation of the Sinking Fund we should clear it off in about ten or twelve years. But what do we find the Chancellor of the Exchequer doing here? He does not say a single word as to what he intends to do in this respect.
  I am not one of those who take a very exaggerated view as to what can be got out of the gold mines, bearing in mind what vast cost of the administration of the Transvaal is going to be. That is the judgment of Europe as well as the judgment of those sitting in this House. We know that Consols have dropped since the
  1478
  beginning of the war in the same proportion as our indebtedness has increased, and this notwithstanding the restoration of peace. Therefore, in the eyes of Europe we have lost a great amount of national credit through this war. If we had had some a set in consequence of this war the country would not have had suffered in this way, and Consols would not have fallen, but the judgment of the world is that the money spent upon this war has been thrown away. I take it that the estimate of Sir David Barbour upon this question is not very far out. He says that the ordinary civil expenditure after the war will be £2,500,000; the South African police will cost about £2,500,000, and our military occupation of South Africa will absorb at least £3,000,000, making a total of £8,000,000 which will either have to be met by the Transvaal or placed upon this country. Let us take it that the interest upon the Sinking Fund will be about £4,500,000, making a total of £12,500,000, against which I suppose the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Colonial Secretary when they conic to deal with the matter will place the estimated revenue of the new Colonies at about £6,500,000. This will leave a deficit of £0,000,000. It may be asked what does it matter whether the deficit is met by way of interest on loans or by way of expenditure upon administration. I venture to submit to the House that it matters a, great deal, because if we impose a loan upon the Transvaal, and that becomes a fixed charge, then the deficit, whatever it is, comes to be a matter of policy and will not be paid by the owners of the gold-fields. I venture to suggest that this is a very relevant consideration at the present moment. If this large charge is not to be put upon the goldfields, then it comes to be a question whether the right hon. Gentleman is not throwing an undue burden upon posterity The justification for throwing a large burden upon posterity is three-fold. In the first place it must be shown that we have obtained an asset for our expenditure, and this we have already shown to be unfounded.
  In the second place, it must be established that this expenditure has been incurred in lean years, and that

  1479
  this country may expect fat years in the future, in order to recoup itself for this expenditure. We all know that this war expenditure has been incurred in the fattest years we have ever had, or are likely to have for many years to come. Nevertheless the Chancellor of the Exchequer ignores these considerations, and raises this huge sum by loan, thus placing upon our children a burden which in a large measure ought to be borne by ourselves. In the third place the only justification of throwing this large burden upon posterity, would be that at the time the expenditure was incurred we were in great national peril. When one remembers that the capital value of this country's assets have increased threefold, and the earnings have increased in still larger proportions, there is no excuse for placing so large a burden on posterity and impairing the credit of the future, especially as we are fast reaching a point when we shall not be able to boast of a surplus population. The birth rate is continually decreasing, while the death rate is increasing, and at the close of another thirty or forty years we shall probably find that the population has ceased to grow, and if the population becomes stationary then we must look forward to rocks ahead, and this must be a strong determining factor in the financial policy of this country as well as in Is Imperial policy. 'Then again, posterity will have its own problems to deal with. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire has pointed out these difficulties, and if we are hampered by these huge loans on the one hand, and a disaffected population and huge expenses for administration in South Africa on the other hand, the strain upon this country will be very great.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out all the words after the word 'be' in order to add the word 'recommitted.' "—(Mr. Black.)
  Question proposed, "That the words words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. DILLON: I rise for the purpose of seconding this Amendment. I listened with some surprise
  1480
  and disappointment to the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer because after all the promises he has made to the House he has given us tonight no particulars whatever as to the sum which is to be recouped to this country from the new Colonies as their part of the expenses of the war. I have always held the view that this country had no right to obtain any repayment from any of the new Colonies towards the cost of the war. What I complain of is not that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not stated that we are to have £20,000,000, £30,000,000 or £40,000,000 promised from those Colonies but that he has not told the House exactly how we stand in this matter. If he would frankly say that the Government really had abandoned the idea of recovering from the Colonies any portion of the £200,000,000 spent upon the war I would heartily support the Chancellor of the Exchequer in that decision. There is an article in the terms of peace which adds a fresh interest to this question and it is one, in my opinion, which deserves the most hearty approbation. I refer to the eighth article, in which it is agreed that no special tax will be imposed on landed property in the Transvaal or the Orange River Colony for the expenses of the war. I think that is a very proper agreement. I think it would be monstrous, alter having deprived these people of their liberty, to impose a tax upon them to pay for the war. In view of this provision in the articles of peace, I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to have given us some explanation of the bearing of this article upon the promises of the Government with regard to the levying of a portion of the cost of the war upon those Colonies, and as to the bearing of this article upon the question of taxing the mines. With regard to the question of taxing the mines, I have only got a word or two to say. It appears to me that hon. Gentlemen opposite are labouring under a delusion upon this question of taxing the mines. They appear to be under the impression that taxing the mines is the same thing as taxing the mine owners or the great millonaires connected with the mines. I do not believe that is so, because you

  1481
  will never be able to tax the millionaires of South Africa by placing a tax upon mines. The only way to get at the millionaire is that which was known in the days of King John, when the rich men's teeth were drawn until they disgorged a quantity of their wealth. I do not believe it would be possible to carry out taxation on these lines. Civilisation has advanced since those days, and, even if you succeed in taxing the mines of the Transvaal, I do not believe you will succeed in reaching the pockets of the millionaire mine-owners; they are far too slippery for anything of the kind. They will get warning of your proceedings in time, and, by a series of Stock Exchange operations, completely defeat your intentions. On every occasion, during the last two and a half years on which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has spoken, we have been led to believe that the moment peace was proclaimed, this matter would be grappled with in a serious spirit. Now, for the first time, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had made a statement on the financial side of the war, without saying a single word as to the recoupment of the expenditure on the war by the new Colonies. Let me say a word as to the disposal of the sum to be raised under this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that, although peace is proclaimed, he is not able to reduce the War Estimate for the year, because of the expenses contingent upon, and necessitated by, the conclusion of the war. I rejoice that that is so. Every humane man must rejoice that some of those expenses are for objects which the Government has seen its way to take up. Rut what a commentary it is on the way this war has been carried on Three millions are to be spent in undoing the ravages of the war, and providing homes for those now in concentration camps. That is £3,000,000 lost to the taxpayers of this country for re-building farmhouses which were wantonly and uselessly destroyed—["No, no."]—yes, wantonly and uselessly destroyed, in violation of the recognised usages of war.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order! The mode and conduct of the war is not the question before the House.
  MR. DILLON: Am I not entitled to consider the causes which have led to the expenditure?
  MR. SPEAKER: That might involve the whole question of the origin of the war. The expenditure has been incurred, and the question is with reference to arranging for the money to be raised to meet that expenditure.
  MR. DILLON: Pardon me, the expenditure has not been incurred.
  MR. SPEAKER: The expenditure has been incurred in the sense that there is an undertaking in the terms of peace which involves the expenditure.
  MR. DILLON: However, I shall have another opportunity of raising that question. I desire to congratulate the Government on their Resolution to make this free grant of £3,000,000 for the purpose of rebuilding farms; and furthermore I desire to congratulate the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what he said about his intention to see that those who are in the concentration camps are taken care of, and that whatever money was necessary would be used to take care of them until they are returned to their homes. With regard to the disposition of the loan he had only this to say. The statement which had just been made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer fully justified the action of himself and others in the resistance they gave to the original proposal of taking so large a margin as that which was named. Of course, the chances of war were more uncertain than the chances of peace, but the system of producing large surpluses for the purpose of financing the Exchequer appeared to him to result in the greater part of them. I must say that I am extremely sceptical as to the fate of the £6,500,000, and if we are to judge by what happened last year I think it is exceedingly likely—and I ask hon. Members to remember this—that when we come to the end of the year a

  1483
  considerable proportion, if not all, of that sum will have been taken up by Supplementary Estimates.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I wish to appeal to the House not to pursue the debate on this Amendment, but to allow the question to be decided, and then, if necessary, take the discussion on the Motion for the Third Reading of the Bill. The mover and seconder of the Amendment have neither of them given the smallest reason why the Bill should be re-committed. The hon. Member who proposed the Amendment simply said that he desired to see the statement of the Secretary for War as to the new mode of disposing of the money estimated for war purposes, while he wanted to know something more of the intentions of the Government in imposing any part of the cost of the war on the Transvaal. Neither of these proposals can be dealt with in Committee on the Bill. The hon. Member for East Mayo, who seconded the Amendment, does not want to impose anything on the Transvaal. All he desires is that the wealthy mineowners of the Transvaal should be dealt with in a fashion which I suppose the House may be allowed to anticipate would be one of the financial methods of the Home Rule Parliament.
  MR. DILLON: The right hon. Gentle man will pardon me. What I said was that I did not believe he could tax the millionaire mineowner without resorting to the methods of King John, and that as civilisation had progressed that was impossible.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I am sure that if the hon. Gentleman had the taxing of the mineowners he would bear in mind the methods of King John, provided the mineowners were sufficiently young to have teeth of their own to be extracted. But I could assure the House that, so far from withdrawing anything I have said with regard to obtaining some of the cost of the war from the wealth of the Transvaal, the Government entertain that view as strongly as ever, and one of the first matters for consideration will
  1484
  be how definitely to carry out the suggestion, which I have made twice already in the House in the course of the present session, as to the manner in which certain of the resources of the Transvaal—those derived from its mineral wealth—should be allocated or devoted to the purposes of the Sinking Fund.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I can quite understand that the Amendment of my hon. friend behind me might have been necessary and convenient, with reference to the reduction of the debt in Committee, but after the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer I do not think we should have any hope of obtaining more by way of reduction of the debt than he has proposed. Therefore, I think the course suggested by the Chancellor of the Exchequer is convenient and reasonable, and that we should not proceed with this particular Amendment. Under these circumstances I would suggest to my hon. friend that he should not proceed with the Amendment.
  MR. JOHN WILSON: I should like, before the Amendment is withdrawn, to ask for an explicit assurance from the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to when he will lay his proposals for the taxation of the Transvaal before the House.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That is not relevant to the matter.
  MR. BLACKasked leave to withdraw' the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question again proposed.
  MR. BARTLEY: I am extremely glad that the Government have not yielded to the pressure to withdraw either of the taxes. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouth began

  1485
  his speech by condeming the Government very strongly for proposing to pay so small a proportion of the war expenditure out of taxation, and so large a proportion out of borrowed money. I have always held that, if there has been a mistake, we have not raised a sufficient part of the current expenditure for the war from current taxation, but it is rather strange for the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouth, after he has held forth so strongly on this subject, that he should propose that the Government should take off a tax which he does not like. It shows that the right hon. Gentleman, although he is a strong financier in many ways, has the same weakness as other people when he is particularly interested in a special tax. I think we are paying now too small a proportion of the cost of the war out of current taxation, and I strongly object to any relaxation of taxes at the present moment. I am extremely glad that the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes to recommence at once the Sinking Fund. One of the best means of economy is the payment of debt. The continual growth of expenditure has been great, and, unless we concurrently with that reduce the enormous burden of debt, I am afraid that in twenty or thirty years the financial position of the country will not be so strong as it is at present, and I say, therefore, that by the resuscitation of the Sinking Fund, we shall be doing a great deal to strengthen our financial position. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his last two Budgets, has widened the basis of taxation, and I think we must look upon loans as a temporary measure. As far as possible, the cost of each year should be paid, and more than paid, out of current taxation, and a considerable sum should be paid in liquidation of debt in order to maintain the financial stability of the country.
  MR. McCRAE: I would humbly beg to congratulate the Chancellor of the Exchequer on two things—first of all on the advent of peace, because I am sure that on no one has the burden of the war rested more heavily than on the right hon. Gentleman, and I only wish that I could cherish the
  1486
  hope that the period of large expenditure, extravagant expenditure, for military purposes would cease with the termination of the war. I would also congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the statement he has made tonight. He has to a great extent, although not wholly, disarmed criticism by the position he has taken up this evening. With the principles he has enunciated I am sure that everyone who has given the slightest consideration to finance must heartily agree. But I think he is in a much better position financially than he has given the House reason to believe. My right hon. friend below me is quite accurate in saying that he has a much larger surplus at his disposal than he has stated this evening. I think there is no question that the right hon. Gentleman Budgeted to provide for an expenditure of £188,000,000, including the £17,500,000 which he excluded from the purview of his statement tonight. That is most important in considering whether we are right in sanctioning this loan of £32,000,000. I think the right hon. Gentleman has met us very fairly but we are also entitled to ask what he is going to do with that money. I had given notice of my intention of moving an Amendment to the Loans Bill in Committee, if re-committed, to the effect that at least £10,000,000 of the £32,000,000 should be devoted to the redemption of temporary borrowing. The light hon. Gentleman has anticipated me in that, and there he has taken up a sound financial position. If the right hon. Gentleman has a large surplus at his disposal—and I think I shall be able to show that he has a large surplus—I still think that, having regard to the circumstances before us, he might have seen his way to remit the corn tax. That is outside our consideration tonight, but I would like the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider that, when the Army Estimates were submitted, we provided for an expenditure in round figures of £40,000,000. He estimated for supplementary war expenditure £17,000,000. He had in all an estimate of £57,000,000, excluding the civil expenditure in South Africa and the interest on the new debt. Now, if we take the original figure in the Army Estimate

  1487
  of £40,000,000, which was to provide for the war expenditure for eight or nine months, that is the old figure of £1,250,000 per week, or £5,000,000 per month. We have already spent, according to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, £12,000,000 on the war during the first two months, and therefore he has a balance of £23,000,000 of the original £40,000,000. If to that is added the £17,000,000 in the Supplementary Estimate the right hon. Gentleman has a total surplus of £45,000,000. I think there can be no doubt about that. I will take it another way and I will exclude the £17,000,000 for the moment. On the original Budget statement the deficit was £26,824,000, and to that there have to be added the Constabulary grant and the West Indies grant, making altogether £28,574,000. To meet that deficit the right hon. Gentleman has the proceeds of the loan of, in round figures, £30,000,000, and he has in addition a sum which he has not mentioned tonight, namely, £4,000,000, the balance of the £19,000,000 margin from last year, which he has at present in Exchequer balances, which was money borrowed for the war, and which he has not taken into account in his statement this evening.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I think the hon. Member will recollect that in stating how I would provide for the financial needs of the first nine months of the year I said that I should have to draw from the balances.
  MR. McCRAE: I rather gathered that the right hon. Gentleman said that was a temporary purpose for financing the Treasury. I think I am perfectly entitled to take it into account in the debit and credit for the war expenditure.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACHassented.
  MR. McCRAE: In addition to the two sums there is the additional taxation amounting to £5,100,000.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: Four millions and a half.
  MR. McCRAE: Well, that is the reduced amount. Taking it at£4,600,000, that gives a total of £38,500,000, which, set against the deficit of £28,500,000 before mentioned, shows a balance of £10,000,000 after providing for the restoration of the Sinking Fund. I think the right hon. Gentleman must admit that we have reason to be somewhat critical as to the purposes to which the loan is to be applied. I am rather of opinion that the charges to be incurred for the maintenance of the army of occupation, now that peace has been established, are really revenue charges. I admit that charges for the war may have been incurred in excess of the Treasury disbursement. Other items arc—the terminal charges, transport of troops home, and gratuities to the troops; the right hon. Gentleman previously estimated these charges at £10,528,000.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: There are more troops now.
  MR. McCRAE: Taking that as a basis, the excess cannot be very large. Then there is the £3,000,000 under the agreement. Taking all these matters into consideration, I maintain that he ought to have, and I think he will find that he has, a balance of £45,000,000 to meet all those different charges. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his pledge, because I take it as a pledge that any balance available from this loan will be devoted to the reduction of our temporary borrowings. There is no doubt that those borrowings are far too large. In considering the real burden of the war taxation, we must exclude the realised I surplus and the sinking fund suspension for two years—£18,500,000—which would leave additional taxation for war purposes at £55,000,000. That is only about a fourth of the total war expenditure, and is a very much smaller proportion than this country met out of taxation for the Crimean War. The result is that the National

  1489
  Debt, if we take into consideration this £32,000,000 under the Loan Bill, will amount to £800,000,000. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has been wilfully obtuse in this matter. In considering the effect of the Sinking Fund on the National Debt, we are entitled to consider what the National Debt would be if we had had no war. It would be in this position. It would be minus the £155,000,000 which has been borrowed; it would also be minus the £18,500,000 the amount of the realised surpluses and the Sinking Fund, and, therefore, the National Debt would be £173,500,000 less than it is at present. That is entirely attributable to the war in South Africa. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman one question with regard to the amount borrowed for the war. We have incurred liabilities to the extent of £159,000,000. The cash proceeds of these liabilities only amounted to £152,400,000 leaving a difference of £6,500,000. I should like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether that difference has been charged to war expenditure, as it undoubtedly ought to have been, because it was a charge incurred entirely on account of the war, or whether it has been met out of borrowings or out of revenue. I' think the House would be interested to know how that liability is to be met, because when we come to repay our borrowings we will require £6,500,000 more than we have received. There is only one further point which I would like to put before the House, and it is an argument in favour of the course proposed by the right hon. Gentleman that we should resume the Sinking Fund contribution, which I am sure every hon. Member on this side of the House, and many hon. Members
  1490
  opposite, will admit to be sound finance. I only hope that when the war expenditure is finished, the amount of the Sinking Fund will be increased. But we ought also to take into consideration that the local indebtedness of this country is very great. Its estimated amount as at the end of this financial year will be £367,000,000, and that, with the. National Debt, shows an indebtedness of £1,107,000,000, which ought to make the House exceedingly careful in adding to the liabilities of the nation. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will take an early opportunity of stating whether, having regard to the fact that he has obtained £32,000,000 by loan, and also has a balance of £4,000,000 from the borrowings of last year, he can see his way to remit the proposed duty on corn. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his statement, and I am sure the House is gratified that he has taken up a position which is so financially sound.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will allow me to offer him my humble congratulations on his admirable statement and on the absolutely sound financial position he has taken up. I myself have some slight difficulty in intervening in this matter. I have rarely spoken on financial questions, because on financial questions I feel, perhaps, more than on any other question the utter hopelessness of the position of the Irish Members in this House. If all the Irish Members were to advocate a tax, our united voices would count for nothing. On the Loan Bill, however, I wish to say a few words as to the enormous increase in

  1491
  the permanent debt of the country. I object to that not only on the financial grounds, which had been abundantly stated, but also on historical grounds. We, in Ireland, have to pay our share of the interest of that debt, and I cannot forget that when we had our own Parliament, Irish statesmen magnificently kept down the National Debt, and it amounted to only £21,000,000 when it was consolidated with National Debt of England, which amounted to £446,000,000. I have a great regard for the Chancellor of the Exchequer both as a financier and as a very splendid specimen of an English gentleman, and I congratulate him on his excellent finance. When I heard the congratulations of right hon. Gentlemen on the wonderful way the war has been financed, I thought to myself what a wonderful people you English people are. You are admirable in the art of forgetting un" pleasant things; but you are living, not in a fool's, but in a Parliamentary paradise. The Chancellor of the Exchequer admitted that £150,000,000 had been added to the debt by the war; still you are getting out of it very well. Let us contrast the statement tonight with the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman on the 19th of October, 1899, when I laughed in a disorderly way. The right hon. Gentleman then said—
  "I should hope that no member of the Committee would suggest that the war expenditure should be provided for by a permanent addition to the debt of the country; no such permanent addition could be justiliable except, of course, in the case of a war with a first-class power."
  That was the time when the war was to be over at an expenditure of £10,000,000 and when the Government were telegraphing to the Colonies that they did
  1492
  not want mounted men. If you wage war in the highest interest of patriotism, why not pay for it? You are taxing yourselves only to the extent of Is. out of every 5s. expended, and you are leaving the rest to posterity. Your policy is, Let us eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die. I have never met a man labouring under such adversity and bearing it with such philosophic calm as the right hon. Gentleman. Let me, by way of variation, say something thoroughly jingoistic. Formerly, England was the wealthiest of nations, but now, as far as I can understand, a large amount of these war loans his been taken up, not by English financiers, but by German, French, and Italian financiers-England is not now a lender, but a borrower. I have a historic regard for England and a great personal affection for many Englishmen, and I hope England will not have to go hand-in-hand with the Ottoman Turk in her borrowings, and that English and Turkish bonds will not be analagous. I would not allow anyone to impute to the Chancellor of the Exchequer anything in the way of what might be called sharp practice, but my opinion is that this war was not waged for the English people, but in the interests of a small group of cosmopolitan financiers. If I am wrong, why not grab the mines to pay for the war? The Transvaal mines are of enormous wealth, and why should they not be charged for the war? The reason is plain and obvious. The mine owners are to be let off, but the working classes will have to pay. As my hon. friend has pointed out, you have received about £6,000,000 lesson loans than you will have to repay, because the loans were negotiated

  1493
  under extremely unfavourable circumstances. There is an amount of luxury in England today which has no parallel in the history of the world, except in the Roman Empire on the eve of its fall; and yet you are saddling 77 per cent. of the cost of the war on posterity. Two years ago the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouth, speaking on the first Loan Bill, referred to a celebrated speech delivered by John Stuart Mill in this House, which the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is the youthful Father of the House, probably heard. When the right hon. Gentleman referred to that speech I looked up the report, and I find that John Stuart Mill said that you had no right to contract a debt which you were not to pay yourselves, for, when you did that, you were robbing posterity and acting at the expense of others. One gentleman asked what they owed to posterity, and John Stuart Mill showed what was owed to posterity. He said that every generation received a trust which it was bound to hand down, not impaired, but strengthened. It should be the function of Parliament not to consider the present generation, but to work for the glory and honour of the generations that are to follow.
  MR. LOUGH: I am sure that the whole House will be disposed to join in congratulating the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the position in which he finds himself on the Third Reading of this Bill, as compared with that in which he stood on the Second Reading. This is a fitting opportunity for us who have criticised the Chancellor of the Exchequer during the last few years to congratulate him on the way in which
  1494
  he has discharged the very heavy responsibility which has rested upon him during this very anxious time. Many of us are not always in agreement with the methods of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but we must all admit that whatever proposals he laid before us he defended with the greatest ability, and, generally speaking, he was a great deal too strong for the batteries we were able to bring against him. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has had, as he told us, to raise £230,000,000 on the top of the heaviest normal expenditure the country has ever had to provide, and somehow or other the right hon. Gentleman managed to get all he required, and at the same time to sustain the credit of the country during a very trying period. Tomorrow we will return generous thanks to the soldiers who have served us during the war, but I do not think that the servants of the State at home should be forgotten, and not one of them has done his work better than the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Perhaps I may be permitted to express a word of thanks also to the heads of the great Departments who have given the Chancellor of the Exchequer the greatest assistance. I am sure that the permanent heads of the Treasury, the Customs and the Inland Revenue Departments, have rendered very great assistance to the State, and, having regard to the additional burden which was thrown on these servants of the State, I think this is a fitting occasion to recall what they have done.
  Having said that, I must take leave to add that I do not desire to withdraw any of the criticisms I have offered, or to abate the criticisms I have urged in regard to the Loan Bill in its earlier stages. I do not wish to trouble the House with figures, but there is a simple

  1495
  way in which we can sec what our I position now is in regard to the Loan Bill. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has told us that the normal expenditure of this country is rather less than £130,000,000. I believe that sum is sufficient to provide for the restoration of the Sinking Fund. The right hon. Gentleman has also told us that, without any new taxation, existing taxation would produce £148,000,000. There-fore, £18,000,000 has been paid out of taxation towards any addition that may be necessary to meet the expenses of the country this year. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire made an appeal in a quiet way to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the loan was too large, and that it might not be necessary. I think the one figure that I have given goes far to substantiate that case. It is not right to say that we are only providing £5,000,000 out of taxation towards the extraordinary expenditure of the year. We are providing £18,000,000 as well, or £23,000,000 altogether, in addition to normal expenditure. All through the period of the war, I joined with the critics who constantly appealed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to raise a larger sum by taxation and rather less by borrowing, but we were always met with the plea that we could not see the end of our difficulties. But tonight we see the happy ending of our difficulties; and of this very heavy expenditure, and the right hon. Gentleman ought to think seriously before he disturbs the settled basis of commerce in this country by imposing any unnecessary taxation. With regard to the loan, I think the amount is too great. The Chancellor of the Exchequer admits himself that he has taken a few millions too much, and
  1496
  my first criticism, therefore, is that the amount is too large. My second is, that it has been too costly. At a very early stage of this proceeding I and others warned the Chancellor of the Exchequer to go more slowly in regard to this loan. I remember in particular the Leader of the Opposition asking the right hon. Gentleman on the earliest rumour of peace, whether he might not pause, but that advice was entirely neglected, and through its being neglected the country has been put to considerable financial loss in connection with this loan. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer had contented himself with borrowing £10,000,000 in April, and more if he wanted it later, he might have saved four per cent. or five per cent. of the amount of the loan, and in these days, when the country is burdened with such extra taxation, a million or a million and a half ought not to be wasted. I think the right hon. Gentleman will be glad to be done with borrowing, and that he will endeavour to meet in future the charges of the year out of the revenue of the year. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will regard himself as pledged to bring the large borrowing which has gone on in recent years to an end, and that the Loan Bill now before the House will be the last with which we shall have to deal.
  MR. TOMLINSON: In the chorus of congratulation to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in which I desire to join, it may appear ungracious to offer any further criticism, but my hon. friend has alluded to the method in which the loan has been taken up, and I desire to add a few words on the point. I have always

  1497
  held that in principle, it is not sound finance to raise money at a discount. As an illustration, I will take the extreme case of the financial methods of Mr. Pitt, in the century before last, when the credit of the country had sunk so low that money could not be raised on better terms than five per cent. or six per cent. For every £100 Mr. Pitt placed on the shoulders of the country, he only obtained £50 or £60, and in this instance the Chancellor of the Exchequer
  has obtained some £94 only for every £100 of indebtedness. I agree that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was rather in too great a hurry, and that if he had waited he might have raised the money on better terms.
  (11.48.) Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 216; Noes, 49. (Division List No. 200.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Heath, James (Staffords., N. W.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Davenport, William Bromley-

  Henderson, Alexander

  Allan, William (Gateshead)

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

  Holland, William Henry

  Allhusen, Angustus H'nry Eden

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Hope, J. F. (Shellield, Brightside

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Doughty, George

  Hoult, Joseph

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Arrol, Sir William

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Asher, Alexander

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

  Joicey, Sir James

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Edwards, Frank

  Jones, William (Carn'rvonshire

  Balcarres, Lord

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.

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

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants., W.)

  Keswick, William

  Balfour, Rt Hn. Gerald W (Leeds

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Knowles, Lees

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Lawrence, Joseph (Monmouth)

  Beach, Rt Hn. Sir Michael Hicks

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

  Lawson, John Grant

  Bignold, Arthur

  Finch, George H.

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham

  Bill, Charles

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Legge, Col. Hon. Honeage

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Boscawen, Arthur Grifhth-

  Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Leng, Sir John

  Brassey, Albert

  Forster, Henry William

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Foster, Philip S (Warwick, S. W.

  Levy, Maurice

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Bull, William James

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

  Caldwell, James

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

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

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Lowe, Francis William

  Cantley, Henry Strother

  Green, Walford D (Wednesbury

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Cavendish, V. G W. (Derbyshire

  Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Gretton, John

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Croves, James Grimble

  Maclver, David (Liverpool)

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

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

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  M'Crae, George

  Chapman, Edward

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

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nd'rry

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robert Wm.

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Hardy, Lanrence (Kent, Ashf'rd

  Maxwell, Rt Hn Sir H. E (Wigt'n

  Craig, Robert Hunter

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Middlemore, Jno. Throgmorton

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Renwick, George

  Valentia, Viscount

  Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.)

  Richards, Henry Charles

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

  Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge)

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Morgan, David J (Walthamst'w

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Morgan, Hn. Fred. (Monm'thsh.

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Robson, William Snowdon

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

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Ropner, Colonel Robert

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

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

  Round, James

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Russell, T. W.

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Norman, Henry

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Wills, Sir Frederick

  Parker, Gilbert

  Seton-Karr, Henry

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

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Peel, Hn Wm. Robert Wellesley

  Smith, Abel II. (Hertford, East)

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

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)

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

  Plummer, Walter R.

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

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

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Purvis, Robert

  Stroyan, John

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Strutt, Hon Charles Hedley

  Randles, John S.

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Rea, Russell

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Reed, Sir Edw. James (Cardiff)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Sir William Walrond and

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Tomkinson, James

  Mr Anstruther.

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

  Ure, Alexander

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Ambrose, Robert

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

  Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.)

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Leamy, Edmund

  O'Malley, William

  Bell, Richard

  Lundon, W.

  O'Mara, James

  Black, Alexander William

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Boland, John

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  M'Govern, T.

  Reddy, M.

  Charming, Francis Allston

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Crean, Eugene

  M'Kean, John

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Cremer, William Randal

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Delany, William

  Mooney, John P.

  Sullivan, Donal

  Dillon, John

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Ffrench, Peter

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Gilhooly, James

  O' Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Sir Thomas Esmonde and Captain Donelan.

  Hammond, John

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

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

  Bill read the third time and passed.

  UNIVERSITY OF WALES (GRADUATES) BILL.
  Reported from the Standing Committee
  1500
  (without Amendment), considered; to be read the third time upon Friday.
  Adjourned at five minutes after Twelve o'clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  BEXHILL AND ROTHERFIELD RAILWAY (ABANDONMENT) BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
  CHIGWELL, LOUGHTON, AND WOODFORD GAS BILL [H.L.],
    SCOTTISH EQUITABLE LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY BILL [H.L.]
    Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments.
    ABERCARN URBAN DISTRICT GAS BILL [H.L.]
    Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, no parties having appeared in opposition thereto; read, and ordered to lie on the Table. The orders made on the 20th of March and the 15th of May last discharged, and Bill committed.

    SOUTH AFRICAN WAR—GRANT TO LORD KITCHENER—MESSAGE FROM THE KING.
    Delivered by the Lord Privy Seal (M. Salisbury), and read by his Lordship, as follows—
    EDWARD REX,
    His Majesty, taking into consideration the eminent services rendered by Lieutenant-General Lord Kitchener of Khartoum, G.C.B., G.C.M.G., Commander-in-Chief of His Majesty's Forces in South Africa, and being desirous, in recognition of such services, to confer upon him some signal mark of His favour, recommends to the House of Lords that they should concur in granting Lord Kitchener the sum of Fifty thousand pounds.
    Ordered, that the said Message be taken into consideration Tomorrow.
    House adjourned at half past Four o'clock, till tomorrow, a quarter-past Four o'clock.