Sitting of 6 May 1902

Preamble
The House met at Two of the clock.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  BEDFORD CORPORATION WATER BILL,

    HULL, BARNSLEY, AND WEST RIDING JUNCTION RAILWAY AND DOCK (SOUTH YORKSHIRE EXTENSION LINES) BILL,
    KNARESBOROUGH IMPROVEMENT BILL,
    PRESTON CORPORATION BILL.
    As amended, considered; to be read the third time.

DONEGAL RAILWAY BILL [LORDS],
  WATERFORD AND BISHOP FOY ENDOWED SCHOOLS BILL [LORDS].
  Read a second time, and committed.
DUBLIN PORT AND DOCKS BOARD BILL (BY ORDER).
As amended, considered; A Clause added; Bill to be read the third time.
MILITARY LANDS PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 2) BILL.
As amended, considered; to be read the third time tomorrow.
DRAINAGE AND IMPROVEMENT OF LANDS (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL,
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (GAS) BILL.
  Read a second time, and committed.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (HOUSING OF WORKING CLASSES).
Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board for Ireland relating to the urban districts of Birr and Blackrock, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Attorney General for Ireland and Mr. Wyndham.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2).
Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board for Ireland relating to the urban districts of Dungarvan, Fermoy, Kilkenny (two), and Templemore, and the rural district of Dungarvan, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Attorney General for Ireland and Mr. Wyndham.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3.)
Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board for Ireland relating to the Dungar Joint Burial Board and the Portadown and Banbridge Joint Waterworks Board, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Attorney General for Ireland and Mr. Wyndham.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (HOUSING OF WORKING CLASSES) BILL.
"To confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board for Ireland relating to the urban districts of Birr and Blackrock," presented, and read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 191.]
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
"To confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board for Ireland relating to the urban districts of Dungarvan, Fermoy, Kilkenny (two), and Templemore, and the rural district of Dungarvan," presented, and read the first time: to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 192.]
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) RILL.
"To confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board for Ireland relating to the Dungar Joint Burial Board and the Portadown and Banbridge Joint Waterworks Board," presented, and read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 193.]

PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP G).
Mr. Bill reported from the Committee on Group G of Private Bills, That the parties promoting the Liverpool Corporation Bill had stated that the evidence of Harcourt Everard Clare, Clerk of the Peace for the county of Lancaster, 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 Harcourt Everard Glare do attend the said Committee to-morrow, at half-past Eleven of the clock.
Ordered, That Harcourt Everard Clare do attend the Committee on Group G of I Private Bills tomorrow, at half-past Eleven of the clock.

PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP G).
Mr. Bill reported from the Committee on Group G of Private Bills, That the parties opposing the Liverpool Corporation Bill had stated that the evidence of Dr. Edward Sergeant, Medical Officer of Health, Preston, 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 Dr. Edward Sergeant do attend the said Committee tomorrow, at half-past Eleven of the clock.
Ordered, That Dr. Edward Sergeant do attend the Committee on Group G of Private Bills tomorrow, at half-past Eleven of the clock.

PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP H).
Leave given to the Committeeto make a Special Report.—[Mr. Heywood Johnstone.)
Special Report brought up, and read as followeth:—
Mr. Heywood Johnstone reported from the Committee on Group H of Private Bills; That in the case of the Huddersfield Corporation Bill they had agreed to the following Special Report:—
That the Bill had become unopposed since the last meeting of the Committee yesterday, but the Committee had taken the responsibility of treating it as an opposed Bill to avoid delay, inconvenience, and expense which the parties would incur if the Bill was referred back to the Committee of Selection under Standing Order 136.
Special Report to lie upon the Table.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to.—
Higham Ferrers and Rushden Water Board Bill,
Brighton and Rottingdean Seashore Electric Tramroad Bill,
Reading Gas Bill,
Grand Junction Water Bill,
Bromley Gas Bill, without Amendment.
North Warwickshire Water Bill, with Amendments.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act for incorporating and conferring powers upon the Bradford-on-Avon Gas Company; and for other purposes." [Bradford-on Avon Gas Bill [Lords.]
And also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to empower the Great Northern Railway Company to construct an underground railway in Islington, and to lease the same to the Great Northern and City Railway Company; and for other purposes." [Great Northern Railway (No. 2) Bill [Lords.]

BRADFORD-ON-AVON GAS BILL [LORDS],
  GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY (No. 2) BILL [LORDS].
  Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills
PETITIONS.
  BANK HOLIDAYS ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
  Petition from Walsall, against; to lie upon the Table.
  CANAL TRAFFIC BILL.
  Petition from Walsall, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  COUNTY COURTS BILL.
  Petition from Walsall, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petitions against: From Faversham; Grange Moor; Heworth; Mirfield; and Romford; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petitions for alteration: From Ulverston; Wellingborough; and Leyton; to lie upon the Table.
  FINANCE BILL.
  Petition from Grange Moor, against; to lie upon the Table.
  GROCERS' LICENCES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Edinburgh and Leith, against; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSING BILL.
  Petitions in favour: From Hey wood; Worthing; and Exeter; to lie upon the Table.
  PATENT LAW AMENDMENT BILL.
  Petitions for alteration: From Walsall and Edinburgh; to lie upon the Table.
  PLUMBERS' REGISTRATION BILL.
  Petitions in favour: From the Sanitary Association of Scotland; and New-townards; to lie upon the Table.
  PUBLIC HOUSES (HOURS OF CLOSING) (SCOTLAND) ACT (1887) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Petitions in favour: From Stewarton and Edinburgh; to lie upon the Table.
  RATING OF MACHINERY BILL.
  Petition from Berwick-upon-Tweed, against; to lie upon the Table.
  REGISTRATION OF FIRMS BILL.
  Petitions in favour: From Walsall and Edinburgh; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTO ICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  Petition in favour: From St. Austell; Sheffield (four); Leeds; Barnoldswick; Grangetown; Bassingham; Chester; Kentish Town; Coventry; Saltney; and Trowbridge; to lie upon the Table.
  SHOP CLUBS BILL.
  Petition from Walsall, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  SUNDAY TRADING (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Edinburgh, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE MARKS BILL.
  Petition from Walsall, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  WAGES BOARDS BILL.
  Petition from Walsall, against; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) (CONTINUATION CLASSES).
  Copy presented, of Code of Regulations for Continuation Classes providing further instruction for those who have left school, 1902; [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  CUSTOMS IMPORT DUTIES.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 24th April; Mr. John Ellis]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed [No. 173.]
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 2783 to 2785 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  BARBADOS.
  Copy presented, of Leave Regulations for Prison Officers and Amendments to Prison Rules, dated, 6th February, 1902 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
QUESTIONS & ANSWERS CHRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Bengal Nagpur Railway—Assault on a Hindu Clerk.
  MR. CAINE: To ask the Secretary of State for India if his attention has been called to a recent case of assault tried at Karagpore, in which an official of the Bengal Nagpur Railway beat a Hindu clerk with his own slippers for having come into his presence with the suppers on his feet, the magistrate dismissing the case on the ground that it was more a lesson in politeness than an assault; is he aware that beating with a man's own slippers is considered by the Hindu communities to be the greatest insult that can be offered to then, especially when, as in the present case, the person assaulted is a Brahmin; and will he make some inquiry with a view to the removal of the repeated assaults of this character which are brought into the Indian Courts.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord G. HAMILTON,): I have no official information on the subject, but I understand from the newspapers that the occurrence referred to has formed the subject of an inquiry in court. I see no necessity for interfering in the matter, which is entirely within the competence of the local authorities. I am also aware that the attention of the Government of India has been specially directed to the recurrence of assaults of this kind.

  Army Forage—Irish Supplies.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he will state the money value of the foreign forage imported into Ireland to supply the troop horses stationed there; and whether the Government will reconsider the policy of importing produce into an agricultural country and utilise instead native productions.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE AVAR OFFICE (Lord STANLEY,): I cannot undertake to obtain the information required by the first part of the Question, which would involve considerable
  798
  labour. As the hon. Member has been frequently informed, every effort is made to utilise native produce so far as the quality and the quantity available permit.

  H.M.S. "Suffolk."
  MR. REGINALD LUCAS: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the Admiralty have considered that H.M.S. "Suffolk" will shortly be finished in Portsmouth dockyard, and that there is apparently no provision for a new ship to be laid down in the vacant slip; and whether he can give any information on the subject.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIR-ALTY (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER,): As is stated on page 232 of the Navy Estimates, one of the two new battleships included in the programme for 1902–3 is to be built at Portsmouth. This vessel will be laid down on the slip from which H.M.S. "Suffolk" will shortly be launched.

  Arrangement of the Order Paper.
  COLONEL LEGGE: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the business of the day can be arranged on the Order Paper in the order in which it is to be taken.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): The business is arranged in the order in which it will be taken, so far as this can be foreseen, with this exception: that, under a Resolution passed early in the session, the Rules of Procedure must stand first if placed on the Order Paper. Every effort will be made to prevent this causing unnecessary confusion.

  (2.15.) QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    South Africa—Extension of Natal Boundaries.
    Mr. MARKHAM: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether His Majesty's Government has made any definite proposals to the Natal Government with a view to transferring to Natal a portion of Transvaal territory; whether

    799
    these proposals have already been debated in the Natal House of Assembly; and, if so, why these negotiations and proposals were not first communicated to the House of Commons before they were submitted for the consideration of the Natal House of Assembly.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): Proposals have been made which have been approved by His Majesty's Government and the subject has been discussed in the Natal Parliament. The proposals have been made public in Natal because that Colony is directly interested. I have laid Papers on the Table on the subject.
    MR. MARKHAM: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Government of Natal sought for Transvaal territory from His Majesty's Government, or whether the proposal to transfer such territory was in the first instance made by him or Lord Milner, directly or indirectly, to the Natal Government; and whether he will state the date when these proposals were first made either by himself, Lord Milner, or by the Government of Natal.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I have to refer the hon. Member to the Papers which will be in the hands of hon. Members in a day or so.
    MR. MARKHAM: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the white population of Natal before the outbreak of war was approximately 50,000; and whether he will state the area of Transvaal territory proposed to be transferred to Natal, as also the Dutch population in such territory.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The population of Natal is 53,000. The area of the new territory is 7,000 square miles, and the population about 8,000, mostly Dutch.

    Enteric Fever among the Corps.
    SIR WALTER FOSTER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state the number of cases of enteric fever and the number of deaths from that disease which have occurred among the troops in
    800
    South Africa in December, 1901, and in January and February, 1902; whether he is able to give any particulars as to the incidence of the disease upon camps and moving columns respectively; and whether any special precautions are being taken to prevent the occurrence of the disease in the columns and in the camps.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,): The figures for the three months are as follows—

    Admissions.

    Deaths.

    December

    1,507

    224

    January

    2,750

    396

    February

    2,122

    333

    The Principal Medical Officer reports that the enteric cases mostly come from the columns, but it is not possible to obtain figures from the statistics to show this clearly. In the camps and stationary garrisons steps have been taken to have the water boiled and special officers selected to deal with the sanitary work of districts and the outbreak of disease. For mobile columns a scheme of providing safe water to fill the soldiers' water-bottles at all times has been prepared, involving an increase in the water carts, and measures are being taken to carry this out. Officers have been specially instructed as regards the necessity of preventing the men from drinking water from unsafe sources; but it is not too much to say that no instructions will prevent thirsty men committing such indiscretion, and many soldiers when in hospital have admitted that they preferred the risk to the otherwise unavoidable delay.

    Railway Construction in British Central Africa.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any arrangements have been made under which the railway which is about to be constructed between Chiromo and Blantyre, in the British Central Africa Protectorate, will receive a Government subsidy; and, if so will he state the amount of the subsidy.
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord CRAN-BORNE,): No arrangements have been made under which a Government subsidy will be given to any railway

    801
    in the British Central Africa Protectorate. But a preliminary contract was made in September last with the Shire Highlands Railway Company under which they have acquired for a limited time the exclusive right to construct a railway between the points mentioned subject to specified conditions.

    Indian Labourers in East Africa.
    SIR MANCHERJEE BHOWNAG-GREE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will state how many labourers from India have been employed on the construction of the Uganda Railway; whether he is aware that a number of them are natives of Kattywar, Gujurat, and other districts seriously affected by the famines of recent years; if it is intended to offer them any encouragement to settle permanently in the territory of the East African Protectorate; and if so, will he state what special facilities and help it is proposed to give them for that purpose.
    LORDCRANBORNE: 35,700 labourers from India have been employed on the construction of the Uganda Railway of whom all have been Punjabees with the exception of 350 who came from the Kattywar and Gujurat districts. It is proposed as an experiment to select from these labourers a few not exceeding 100 in number, and as an inducement to them to settle with their families in East Africa, to offer them special facilities for obtaining cattle, provisions for the first year, seeds, etc., together with travelling expenses from India. The actual conditions are not finally fixed, but the outlay is in the first instance to be limited to £1,000.

    Maharajah of Panna.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether Papers will be laid upon the Table of the House relative to the recent deposition of the Maharajah of Panna.
    LORD G. HAMILTON: I have not yet received these Papers. When I do, I will consider whether they should be published.

    Imperial Institute.
    MR. JOHN ELLIS: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the proposed transfer of the Imperial Institute to a Government Department will entail any financial charge on the Exchequer; and, if so, what will be its probable amount, and in what manner will the sanction of the House thereto be asked.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EX-CHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): The proposed transfer of the Institute, together with its Endowment Fund valued at £140,000, to a Government Department, will entail no financial charge on the Exchequer, unless further duties not at present contemplated should be imposed on the Commercial Department of the Board of Trade.

    Metropolitan Police and the Coronation.
    CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can say what steps he proposes to take with a view to the temporary increase of the police force within the area of the county of London, during the period of the Coronation festivities, in order that no undue strain may be placed upon the men nor any undue proportion of them be withdrawn from the protection of property for the performance of special duties.
    THE SECRETAR Y OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. RITCHIE,): I have given the Commissioner of Police my sanction for the strengthening of the force by enrolling as many suitable Metropolitan police pensioners—all of whom will be well acquainted with their respective districts, and the required duties—as he may deem necessary to prevent undue strain on the men serving, and to afford due protection to the whole Metropolis.

    Hackney Lamp Fatality.
    SIR MANCHERJEE BHOWNAC-GREE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he he has seen the Report of the coroner's inquest held on the bodies of seven

    803
    young persons and children who perished in the fire at Hackney Road on the 19th April last; if he has noticed the evidence given at the inquest by the inspector appointed under the Petroleum Act that the catastrophe, which was caused by the tilting of a lamp, occurred owing to the flash point of the oil which escaped being as low as 88 degrees. If his attention has been drawn to the inspector's statement that such oil was largely sold in the East End, and that it was the cause of twenty-six fatal accidents last year; and whether he contemplates taking any steps to prevent the sale of petroleum, the Hash point of which is dangerously low.
    MR. RITCHIE: Yes, Sir, and I have caused the Report of the case to be very carefully considered. From the evidence it would appear that the accident was caused by the fall of a lamp and the escape of the oil, both lamp and oil being in a highly heated condition. I am advised that in these circumstances a conflagration is likely to occur with any form of petroleum used in ordinary lamps. I do not find that the inspector stated that the oil used in this instance I was the cause of the twenty-six fatal accidents last year. As a matter of fact, in twelve of those cases the flash point of the oil was not known, and in two cases it was over 100 degrees. As regards the present case it is impossible to ascertain the exact cause of the heating of the lamp; but if this was in any way due to the oil it can only have been on account of its sluggish or slow-burning nature, and these qualities, I am advised, go rather with a high flash than with a low flash oil.

    Workmen's Compensation Act.
    MR. MARKHAM: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to a recent decision of the House of Lords, where it was held that in the case of an engineer erecting a fly-wheel for his employers outside the shop and meeting with a fatal accident, his widow was not entitled to compensation under the Act of 1897; and whether he proposes to introduce fresh legislation to meet such cases.
    MR. RITCHIE: Yes, Sir, and the case will be duly noted amongst the collection which, as I have stated before, I am having made for the guidance of the Government as to the eventual amendment of the Workmen's Compensation Act.

    Extra Leave in the Post Office.
    CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether, seeing that by an Order in Council of August, 1890, an additional daily attendance was imposed on all officers in the Civil Service above the second division class, extra leave being granted as part compensation for such additional attendance, and seeing that exception was made in the case of those employed in the Post Office as regards the leave, he will consider the advisability of extending the extra leave privilege to that Department.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): The arrangements in the Post Office as regards leave differ from those in force in most of the public Departments; and the Postmaster General is not at present prepared to make any alteration in them.

    Scottish Deer Forests.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, in view of the fact that the Deer Forest Return issued in 1899 is in many respects inaccurate in regard to the Deer Forest area, will he consider the expediency of requiring the assessor for each crofting county to correct the Return with a view to the issue of an amended Return up to the end of 1901.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY,): As already explained, the Return of 1899 was compiled with as much accuracy as circumstances permitted. Short of an actual survey it would be impossible to make up a really accurate Return, and as its usefulness when made would be quite incommensurate with its cost, the Secretary for Scotland is not prepared to grant any Return such as asked.

    Port of Ness Harbour.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the Secretary for Scotland has received a petition from the fishermen of Port Ness, Island of Lewis, pointing out that they are unable to use the harbour on account of the accumulation of sand; and will be say what action he proposes to take in the matter.
    MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: Yes, and the petition is at present under the consideration of the Congested Districts Board. But, as the Harbour Trustees are bankrupt and the harbour works are under the charge of a Judicial Factor appointed by the Court, the Secretary for Scotland is unable at present to say that he can do anything.

    Arms (Ireland) Act.
    MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, on the night of the 6th March Sergeant Sullivan and another constable forcibly detained Patrick Meany, of Ballymaclune, Quin, County Clare, and held his arms while searching his pockets; can he state under what authority this was done; and whether directions will be given that the police abstain in future from such conduct towards this man.
    THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,): Late on the night mentioned Meany was suspected of having concealed about his person unlicensed firearms. In order to satisfy themselves on the point he quietly allowed the constables to examine him. They used no force whatever on the occasion. It is the duty of the police to arrest persons reasonably suspected of having arms in contravention of the Peace Preservation Act, and no further instructions to the police on this point are necessary.

    White Estate, Bantry.
    MR. GILHOOLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can now state approximately when the sale of the White estate, near Bantry, to the tenants will take place.
    MR. ATKINSON: No, Sir; it is not possible to give the information asked for. The estate is a large one comprising over 250 holdings. The Land Commission are now considering their Report, and will present it to the Land Judge as soon as this can conveniently be done, having regard to their other unties.
    MR GILHOOLY: The answer given me to this Question several months ago was that the Report had already been sent to the Land Commission.
    MR. ATKINSON: The hon. Member must be in error.

    Agrarian Offences in Ireland.
    MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, in reference to the number of agrarian offences in Ireland reported for the year 1901, is he aware that of the total number reported, 245, 173, or 70 per cent. of the entire, are classified under the headings of threatening letters and incendiary fires; whether he can state what special sources of information are possessed by the Inspector General of Constabulary to enable him to determine how many of the alleged burnings should be classified as incendiary and how many under the heading of arson; and whether he has any official information showing how many of the alleged threatening letters are proved to be genuine cases of intimidatory notice and how many are not genuine.
    MR. ATKINSON: The reply to the first paragraph is in the affirmative. The second paragraph is unintelligible, as arson is a species of incendiary fire, namely the setting fire to a house, building, or goods contained in it. With respect to the third paragraph, the inspector General in preparing these Returns is guided by the circumstances of every case and by the information he can obtain from all sources. If any doubt is entertained respecting the genuineness of a threatening letter the case is excluded from the returns.
    CAPTAIN DONELAN: Is there an expert in handwriting at the castle?
    MR. ATKINSON: It is difficult to see how an expert could be usefully employed unless the writer of the letter was known.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: "Pigott."

    Schull Postal Service.
    MR. GILHOOLY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he has received a memorial several months ago from the inhabitants of schull, County Cork, praying for a better postal service; whether he is aware that the mails are taken from Skibbereen to Schull by mail car, though the service of the light railway between Kibbereen and Schull could be availed of for their transit; and whether, in view of the importance of Schull as a fishing station and mining centre, he will provide a better mail and postal service for that district.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member, no doubt, refers to the memorial from residents at Schull, Ballydehob, and other places, which he forwarded in August of last year. After full consideration of the matter an answer was sent in the following month to the effect that in view of the high cost of the postal service in the district, the additional expenditure involved in the alteration advocated by the memorialists was not warranted. The Post master General does not expect to find that any material alteration of the circumstances has taken place since August last, but he will have inquiry made on this subject and will communicate further with the hon. Member.

    Dublin Sorting Office.
    MR. NANNETTI: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that recently a sorting clerk and telegraphist attached to the Dublin Sorting Office was ordered to proceed from thence to Amiens Street Railway Station to see if he would be required as an extra travelling post office hand on the journey to Belfast; that the assistant superintendent in charge of the
    808
    sorting office on the occasion, and responsible for the issuing of these instructions, followed this officer to the railway station; and that, while awaiting instructions from the officer in charge of the travelling post office, he was accused by the superintendent of loitering; and seeing that the sorting clerk so treated was an officer of long service and good character, will the Postmaster General cause an inquiry into all the circumstances of this case.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The visit of the assistant superintendent to the railway station had no connection with the instructions given to the officer in question. He went there for another purpose in accordance with directions given him the previous evening; but it is the case that the officer in question was called upon to explain why he did not take up the duty in the sorting carriage more promptly. The Postmaster General does not consider it necessary to take any further steps in the matter.

Business of the House.
MR. JOHN REDMOND: Can the Leader of the House give us any definite information with reference to the business for next week; will any other than the Budget Bill be taken, and when will the House rise for the holidays.
Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: I can make no forecast of business for next week until I know the amount of time that will he likely to be occupied with debate upon the Finance Bill. That Bill and the Second Reading of the Loan Bill will be the first business next week, and it will be a great disappointment to me if we do not get both.
MR. JOHN REDMOND: One of my hon. friends has a Notice on the Paper raising the question of Irish financial relations with this country. It may be impossible to bring it on on the Second Reading of the Finance Bill, as it may be ousted by an Amendment from the Front Opposition Bench. Can the right hon. Gentleman give some assurance that during the close of the session we shall have an opportunity of discussing it?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I will consider the suggestion that opportunity should be afforded to discuss the financial relations between England and Ireland. I hope the hon. Member does not desire to make it an annual ceremony. I do not desire to minimise the importance of the subject, but in the limited time at our disposal it surely is not necessary to discuss it every year.
MR. JOHN REDMOND: It is in the power of the right hon. Gentleman to put an end to this "annual ceremony" as he calls it. Hut I would remind him that the facts vary from year to year, and there is a great increase with the burden put on Ireland by the pursuance of a policy of which she disapproves.
MR. JAMES LOWTHER: Will the Finance Bill be taken day by day next week?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes, Sir.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Do the Government propose to make any modification of the clause relating to the cheque stamp duty?
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I am now in communication with the Bankers' Association on the subject, and, if I have any statement to make on the matter, it will be made on the Second Reading of the Finance Bill.
SIR ALBERT ROLLIT: Can the First Lord of the Treasury say anything about the Whitsuntide recess?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: My forecast—and it must not be taken as more than a forecast—is that the House will rise on Friday in next week and will reassemble on the Thursday following.

EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
(SECOND DAY'S DEBATE.)
Order read, for resuming adjourned debate on Amendment proposed to Question [5th May], "That the Bill be now read a second time."
Which Amendment was—
"To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the question to add the words 'upon this day six months.' "—(Mr. Bryce.)
Question again proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
SIR WILLIAM HART DYKE: I am extremely desirous of making some observations, not only with regard to the merits, but also as to the possible demerits of the measure now before the House, and on the general educational position as we find it. Surely, so far as the present situation is concerned, there is little enough of novelty to commend it to our notice. We find ourselves face to face with an old and time worn dilemma, which has successfully blocked the way of our educational advance for some thirty years, during which time the critics have held undisturbed possession of the field. Today we find them as busy and lively as ever in their desire to denounce, attack and destroy, and it is noteworthy that they offer nothing whatever of a constructive character or as an alternative to the proposals of the Government. So far as my humble experience goes there is nothing so simple as to attack and destroy an Educational Bill. Indeed, I believe that if this Bill were placed before any sharp London lad who has passed the seventh standard, he could, in the course of half an hour, pick it all to pieces. I have long since discovered how easy it is to criticise ameasure of this kind. No educational reformer, no Party or section of a Party in this House, could frame a measure which would adequately meet all their ambitions and aspirations, for the pitfalls and traps which surround the question are innumerable. If six Members were appointed from each side of the House, six moderate minded men determined to put education first, and Party second, and were to meet in a Committee Room upstairs, directly they left generalties and came face to face with the real businesss aspect of the question, with the difficulties which surround the rating question, the religious question, and the School Board question, they would find themselves in the same

811
dilemma and be utterly helpless to deal with it in a manner satisfactory to all parties.
I know it has been asserted on the other side of the House that the Government have taken up this measure for the purpose of upsetting the School Board system. But surely they have had opportunity enough to do that, if it had been their desire to deal with the educational question solely with the object of up-holding the Church schools. From 1874 to 1880 they were in power; again from 1887 to 1892 they were in a majority; and in 1895 they came in again with a very large majority. And yet it is only at the eleventh hour, and under pressure of circumstances, that they are dealing with the subject. The question we really have to ask ourselves is, how long is this grievous stigma to rest upon our shoulders, this confession of impotence before the whole world, this confession of inability to proceed on safe and secure lines towards the end we all have in view. So far as my study of the question during many years has gone, I have long since come to the conclusion that the real kernel of the solution of our difficulty rests in the appointment of a single local authority to supply and supervise education, and Committees and Commissions of Inquiry which have closely investigated the question have all come to a like conclusion. I am strongly of opinion that when once these authorities are established, and have been at work some time, a vast percentage of the evil prophecies and maledictions levelled against the measure will gradually be falsified and fade away in the far distance. I acknowledge at once that directly we accept that proposition in regard to local authorities we are brought face to face with the question "Aye" or "No," should we, as a matter of high educational policy, sweep away the School Board system as such. I wish to deal with this question in no Party or controversial spirit. I wish to see the best possible measure passed for the benefit of the children. I have never been one of those who have attacked the School Board system I have always freely recognised it by my presence at prize distributions and similar gatherings. I have recognised to the full the work it is doing, and I have racked my brain for many years in an
812
earnest endeavour to try and arrange some educational system that would cover the ground in front of us, and yet keep the very best of our School Boards as they are today. Although I fully appreciate the good work which the School Boards have done in the past, I think it is almost impossible even for supporters of the School Board system to expect that such a system, which was only established to fill up a gap in elementary education, should be made the only basis of a great educational advance all along the line. Besides the difficulty as regards the multiplicity of rating authorities, it must be borne in mind that so far as higher education is concerned, the ground is more than occupied already by the very county authorities who will be the leading spirits under this measure. I am well aware we are just entering upon a difficult and lengthened campaign with regard to this Bill, and I say it is essential it should be thoroughly understood both in this House and in the country what position these county authorities occupy today in regard to technical, secondary, and higher education. The strides which have been made since the Technical Education Act was passed, have been marvellous, although the work has been carried out under unexampled difficulties. In the first place, certain customs and excise receipts were suddenly handed over to these authorities with a bare intimation that they were to be used for a certain purpose, and surely that was not a very practical commencement of the task which has devolved upon them ever since.
I should like to give the House one or two instances to show what the counties are actually doing in the matter of higher education. No man in this House, or indeed, out of it, has had more experience in visiting the various schools in our large centres of industry than I have. I have also been closely connected with the Association of Technical Education, I have been Chairman of the Committee which had to deal with agricultural education; and I am, therefore, I think, well qualified to form a judgment upon the work which those county authorities have been doing. I say advisedly it is utterly hopeless for those who support School Boards in this country to expect that they can look forward in the future to occupying identically the same position as they now do. I am not going to weary the House by many quotations, but I could mention

813
several counties where splendid work has been done by the authorities. Mention has been made of the county of Cambridgeshire. There practically the whole of the supply of education between the elementary schools and the university has been completed through the action of the county authority during the past ten years. In addition to that, sterling and most useful work has been done in connection with evening continuation schools. The number of evening continuation schools has been increased, and there are now twelve times as many in the county as there were ten years, ago. In the field of secondary education existing permanent schools (including the higher grade schools) have been so re-organised as to fit into a harmonious system. The curricula have been adjusted, and the fees revised to suit the circumstances of scholars. That is the great educational work which has been carried out by an authority which, we are now told, will be utterly incapable so far as the task imposed upon them by this Bill is concerned. I will only allude to the case of one other county, that of Wiltshire. A striking comparison may be made of the general position of affairs in that county now and ten years ago. The evening continuation schools number 105, with an attendance of 7,477, as against twenty schools and an attendance of 500 scholars eight or nine years ago. There are 229 science and art classes with an attendance of 3,200, and there are 303 technical classes with an attendance of 6,987, whereas in 1891 practically nothing of the kind existed in the county. Vast sums are being spent upon higher education, and one of the latest examples of local initiative deserves special mention. Towards the cost of the new buildings for a combined technical institute and secondary school at Malmesbury the Town Council are voting the proceeds of a penny rate and the Rural District Council is contributing a lump sum of £1,800. In fact, all the local Councils in the Parliamentary Division of North-West Wilts have agreed to support the undertaking financially. Educational work has been accomplished at a cost of over £58,000, of which nearly £11,000 has been found by the County Council. £3,200 by the Rural Councils, £16,500 by the Urban Councils, and
814
£25,000 has come from local charities Government grants, and subscriptions. I am perfectly aware that it is tedious to quote these things, but I am doing so because they afford ample proof of the great educational work now being done, and when my right hon. friend the Member for South Aberdeen speaks of the terrors and alarms that are to ensue if this Bill is passed, and when he tells us that these authorities are to be so helpless, I venture to assert in reply that in a vast number of counties in England a great educational work is already going on to the great benefit of the inhabitants.
One word before I leave that branch of the question. I find that in the Report on Technical and Secondary Schools for the year 1900 there has been a capital expenditure of £3,407,621, of which 58 per cent. has been supplied by the local authorities from Imperial funds or local rates. There are now only seventeen out of 110 County and County Borough Councils who do not directly provide scholarships in one form or another. The total number and value of scholarships in force during the year 1899–1900, under the schemes of ninety of the Councils, were respectively 19,971 and £156,793—I quote this as another illustration of educational activity. Then, in regard to secondary schools, although we are told from the other side of the House that this new authority will be incapable of dealing with them, I have to point out that there is a vast movement going on in favour of them. The action of County Councils and other local authorities in respect of the provision of secondary day schools and of rate aid for their support is worthy of particular attention. In sixty-two towns or districts such schools have been established by or transferred to local authorities, or action of the kind is impending. I do not wish to labour this point or to weary the House with it, But I do wish to observe how ridiculous and absurd it is to denounce beforehand the authority which this Bill proposes to create on the ground that it will be unable to deal with the questions of elementary and higher education. What are the difficulties which these county authorities have surmounted? They are vast in

815
comparison with the simplicity of dealing with elementary schools. They had no Department to guide their destinies. What is this fearful bogey that is placed before the House and the country as to the difficulty that these men and women, who have been carrying on a magnificent educational work already, will have to face when they are called upon to perfect and systematise the educational system? The elementary system is good enough; the teachers and the managers are there; and the object of this Bill is, by placing the schools under the new authority, to help the weaker ones and to bring them up to a uniform standard. It is ridiculous and absurd to pretend that authorities which have done and are doing great educational work will be unable to cope with these difficulties that will accrue with regard to elementary education.
One word more before I leave the question of the local authorities. I should like to refer to some criticisms made by my right hon. friend the Member for South Aberdeen with regard to there being two rating authorities under this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman passed some rather severe remarks on this point. Not only is there to be a County Council authority, but there are other authorities to be established in non county boroughs with a population of 10,000, and in urban districts where the population exceeds 20,000. It is obvious why these other authorities are established. It would be a very heavy burden to place on counties if they had to undertake the educational responsibility for the whole area, and therefore this Bill proposes, in the case of very large towns, to give these authorities power to levy a rate up to one penny in the pound, so as to enable them to deal with what is called the border line of education. It would be an enormous educational advantage, not only in urban districts but in very large towns, to enable these local authorities to deal with that special kind of education which borders between elementary and secondary education by the establishment of evening continuation classes, which can easily be done under a penny rate. So far as I know, the establishment of these schools has never
816
cost even a penny rate in any district. There has been another very severe criticism with regard to the machinery which will be set up by these authorities. It is suggested that there will be a weakness at headquarters, and I think Mr. Lyulph Stanley has said that so far as the Board of Education is concerned they will not have equal power in the future to that which they have enjoyed in the past. But that arises from a misdraughting of the Bill. I do not wish to go into details, as that can be more usefully done in Committee; but when we are told that the Bill will be utterly useless as regards education, and that the County Councils, which are now doing such splendid work, are to be helpless in the future, and that there is to be a general weakening all along the line, it is only right to point out that the misconception arises from a mistake in the draughting of a clause by which part of Section 18 of the Act of 1870 has been repealed, and it is left to the local authority to proceed by mandamus where there is any default in setting up a new school, instead of the power being exercised from headquarters. I have no doubt that in Committee that will be set right, and that the Board of Education will be placed in the same position as regards penal powers as it is at present.
With respect to the Nonconformist objections to this Bill, I shall perhaps be treading on rather dangerous grounds. My right hon. friend the Vice-President said he wished to avoid the religious difficulty. I, too, wish we could do so; and I hope I shall say no word which can give hon. Members opposite umbrage. I have always taken a wide view of this question. I have endeavoured to approach it from a wide point of view, so far as its grave difficulties are concerned. With regard to the pupil teachers' question, I admit that Nonconformists have laboured under a very grievous difficulty; but when I come to deal with that, I hope to be able to show that under this Hill that difficulty will be swept away. But in regard to the question which, after all, has stood in the way of educational reform for thirty-two years, I would ask hon. Gentlemen opposite how they propose to deal in it. Supposing the Party opposite were in office with a majority of 100, and they had to carry a Bill dealing with the whole educational problem, how would they proceed? I might ask

817
them another question. If they were about to appeal to the country tomorrow, would they appeal with the policy: "The abolition of the voluntary system" inscribed on their banners. For myself, I think they would fare very badly indeed if they did that, and that it would be far better for them to raise some other cry. On this side of the House we have been asking for many years for some concrete examples of the religious difficulty, but we have not had them. I hiring the six years that I occupied a position at the education office, I endeavoured, to the utmost of my power, to find some concrete cases of the difficulty of Nonconformist parents, but I admit that I was unable to discover any real disability or difficulty in respect to this system. That is what we want to get at; but, instead, we have been treated to too much vague assertion and abstract principle. I admit altogether the difficulty which Nonconformists, in the abstract, suffer. I admit that fully, so far as the principle is concerned. I remember the debates of 1870, and the passing of Mr. Forster's Bill. I am old enough to remember Clause 25, which it was said lost the general election of 1874 to the Radical party. I remember these things, and it would be foolish of me, even it I wished, to ignore them. Due of the greatest principles of the Nonconformists is opposition to the payment of rates to denominationalism. I admit that very fully. I do not intend to minimise it; I do not even criticise it; and I do not complain of it. But I have never been able to find out these great difficulties in concrete cases. Do the parents object? That is a very fair question to put. Surely if we are to produce evidence we cannot go for better evidence than to the teachers of these elementary schools. They are in the thick of the work, and they are constantly in the schools. Surely if any difficulty existed, the teachers would know something about it. What does the President of the National Union of Elementary Teachers say on the subject? He delivered a very able address in reference to the Bill, which was followed by an excellent debate, and he said—
"He could not regard as in any way serious the suggestion that there would arise immoderate discontent because some portion of the money raised from persons of one sect
818
might be utilised for the continuance of the denominational teaching of another. Such had been the case in this country since public moneys were voted for education at all; and' although the politicians would make a fuss and possibly revive ancient war cries and flyblown phylacteries, the vital interests of the children must be no longer sacrificed. The fancy schemes for meeting the supposed religious difficulty did infinite credit to the intellects of their propounders; but his experience of twenty years teaching in both Church and board schools convinced him that they were quite unnecessary. Neither in Church nor board schools had he known of any children, excepting those of the Jewish religion, being withdrawn from religious instruction; and despite the agitation of both clerics and Nonconformists, parents would continue to send their children to denominational or board schools, regardless, in the great majority of eases, of all except the convenience of the efficiency of the education provided."
That is the opinion of the President of the National Union of Elementary Teachers.
Now, we are told every day, not only in the Press, but on every platform on which the question is discussed, that the addition of a third to the management of these elementary schools under the Bill is a farce, is utterly useless, and means nothing. I deny that altogether. In the first place, the introduction of this new element will have the effect of proclaiming from the house tops any grievance or difficulty, or any case of high high handed treatment, and instead of being discussed with closed doors as might be when the school management was composed entirely of the Church party; such cases, if they occur, will be advertised in the local Press, and will be brought to the immediate notice of the local authority, and if necessary to the Board of Education. With reference to this addition to the management of the schools, I should like to qnote an authority which I hope hon. Gentlemen opposite will recognise as of some weight and importance. On November 11th, 1896, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife made a very excellent speech, characterised by his usual ability, on the education question. Dealing with the religious question, he admitted that the voluntary schools had a clear right to a majority of the managers and to maintain their denominational character. These are thoroughly Liberal views, and I am delighted to find, in the midst of all this storm and turmoil, that at all events

819
one statesman on the opposite side takes a practical and commonsense view of this difficulty. This question of the payment out of the rates to denominational schools has been going on for many years in the case of secondary schools and other educational institutions in the country. There is no doubt that our Technical Education Committees have been giving, and do give, not only out of the Customs and Excise Fund, but out of the rates, payments to secondary schools of a denominational character. That is being done every day. Then, again, if hon. Members choose to look at the Home Office Blue-book for 1901 they will see that a number of industrial schools throughout the country, which, many of them, are strictly denominational in their character, receive the large sum of £160,000 per annum. I am afraid I am wearying the House, but these are important matters, and I take a deep interest in them. I do not often trespass on the attention of the House, and I trust I may be allowed to refer to one or two further points.
There is one criticism levelled against this Bill which I think of great importance, namely, the training of our teachers. The very essence of the success of the educational future of the country lies in the training of our teachers. There is no doubt that every farthing expended on the better equipment of the schools, every farthing spent in the improvement of the teaching element in the schools is certain to meet with the surest possible return. It is simply an investment of money. A well equipped school, with bright intelligent teachers thoroughly up in their work, and in methods of teaching, at once commands a larger attendance and a larger grant. This Bill has been denounced hip and thigh because it does nothing towards the training of teachers. But the Bill, as I understand it, establishes local authorities which will have to deal with the whole question of education, and to assume that these local authorities will ignore the question of the training of teachers would be just as reasonable as if I let 300 acres of agricultural land to a tenant, and insisted that he should lay out no capital whatever. The first obvious duty of these authorities will be to deal
820
with this very question of the training of teachers. Let me deal for a moment with the pupil teacher system. In a few years after this Bill is passed. I hope the present pupil teacher system will be abolished. It is not a good system. The teachers brought up in those centres established by the authorities must always be far superior to those brought up as pupil teachers solely in the schools. I admit to the full what has been said of the grievance that up to this date it has been impossible for the child of a Nonconformist to enter the elementary Church schools as a teacher. That is a want of system against which my mind revolts. It is not just or fair, and from an educational point of view it is absurd. The Board of Education will be able to bring strong pressure to bear upon the local authority to train the teachers in the first place, and in the second, the local authority will have to go to the root of this matter and establish some system by which children between the ages of thirteen and seventeen can attend these centres of instruction, or can be taken into the secondary schools to learn their trade in life. I believe there will be no difficulty whatever, and, as a matter of fact, some schools have already been started by local authorities in this direction. The First Lord has stated how very keen in some parts is the desire for the training of teachers, and what can easily be done as regards pupil teachers can be done equally easily as regards the higher training of teachers. I am quite aware that for many years in this country the only training colleges were Church of England training colleges, but during the last few years there has been a considerable extension of the facilities for the training of teachers. No less than sixteen day colleges have been started for that purpose, and those colleges are now teaching 1,358 students. Therefore a considerable advance has already been; made during the last few years.
With regard to the higher training of teachers, surely no difficulty whatever would be found, because the new authorities are filling up the gaps, and establishing a complete system of day and other training colleges, and by that

821
system the whole ground will be covered, and children of Nonconformists as well as children of Church of England parents can be trained. That is only fair. So far as this Bill is concerned, all the criticisms as to the training of teachers are absolutely unfair, because under its provisions a complete system of training of teachers can be carried out, and the grievances of the Nonconformists swept away entirely and for ever.
Now a word as to what I consider is the weakest portion of the Bill—that is, where the, money is to come from. I think Parliament will fully and frankly admit that there can be no possible doubt that there was no more unfortunate time to bring forward a Bill for Education than the present, when the people are so heavily taxed and rated. But I, for one, hold that nothing could be more lamentable and destructive to the cause of education than that this question should be further postponed. The position of many of the elementary schools in this country, not only in the rural districts, but in some of the poorer districts of our towns, is simply deplorable. Every day, every hour, that this Act is postponed means an increase of rates. This question must be dealt with at once, and some sacrifices must be made. I have heard it argued that this Bill is weak, but, weak as it may be, as regards secondary education it gives a mandate to those bodies and those authorities who carry out secondary education as well as technical education, and they will not shirk the task imposed upon them. That they will assist this scheme and launch this vessel on her way as soon as the Bill is passed I am quite certain. An old friend of mine, Mr. Acland, criticised this Bill, especially as far as secondary education is concerned. I join issue with him in all friendliness in all the matters he criticised, for I believe when once this Bill is passed and in working order all those phantoms will disappear into thin air. But Mr. Acland attacked this Bill because of the feebleness with which it has approached the question of secondary education. In 1892 Mr. Acland himself introduced a Bill for secondary education, and that Bill put no compulsory powers
822
on the authorities. That Bill established the local authorities, and those local authorities were to form certain Committees which were to go into the question of education in all their districts and report to the local authorities as to whether they should employ the halfpenny rate to which that Bill was limited—there was no compulsion. I do not blame the Bill, but I think that when one who was an Educational Minister criticises this measure, with unlimited rating powers, in the way he has done, considering the change that has come over the local authorities, it is hardly fair, especially when it is compared with his own effort on education. The Bill, so far as the elementary portion of it is concerned, must be strengthened. I cannot say I agree with that part of the Bill as it now stands. It must be made compulsory so far as elementary education is concerned, and my vote in that regard will be for compulsion. In regard to the measure itself, we cannot expect that all our wishes and aspirations should be carried out, but, knowing as I do the vast difficulties that surround this question, I accept this Bill as the only solution which, under all the circumstances of the ease, will at all events start a system of secondary education, and fill up the gaps in our present system and give us in its place one worthy of a great nation.
SIR EDWARD GREY: The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down claimed for himself, in one portion of his speech, that he approached educational questions from a wide, Parliamentary, and impartial point of view. I think there is no Member of the House to whom that claim would be more readily and fully conceded than the right hon. Gentleman, and in his speech tonight he never once departed from that fair and reasonable spirit which we have become accustomed to associate with his utterances. I can give considerable assent to, and have considerable sympathy with, some of his remarks. I agree with him in the feeling of shame which I think he said was felt at the long time for which we have had to confess our inability in this country to establish a thorough and satisfactory

823
system of education. The United States have passed us. The United States have had almost boundless resources at their disposal; but other countries with smaller resources than our own have passed us. Germany and Switzerland are far ahead of us. We have been getting mote and more behind every year, and the question has been getting more and more in arrears. I sympathise with the right hon. Gentleman in the sense of shame—which I think has spread—that we have not had more energy, resource, and courage in reforming our educational system. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the time is unfortunate. What we want, and what we ought to have, is a Bill giving more liberty, and with a more comprehensive feeling running throughout its length.
I would demur in approaching this subject to the premise laid down by the Vice-President of the Council. I understood him to say that this debate and division were critical and decisive with regard to the principle on which the educational system would be founded. No doubt the discussion of the principle is a most important part in the matter of our debates on education. We have got, I think, rather into the habit of talking about differences of principle; whereas it seems to me that in recent years the difference in abstract principle is becoming among us less and less, while the difference as to the application of that principle is becoming more and more, important. It is not the principle that is in doubt; what is in doubt and dispute is the application of the principle. It does seem to me just now that in the speech of the Vice-President he was attempting to do what the Government has done so often with regard to other questions—the weaker their case on the merits, the more they throw into it this question of principle. It is not with the merits of the principle that I find fault; it is the merits of the Bill of which we complain. To a great deal of the speech of the Vice-President when he was dealing with this question of principle I gave my assent. I heard some parts of the speech with regard to principle with satisfaction, with approbation, and even with admiration. I thought that part of his speech strong; but when he
824
came to the application of the principle of this Pill, I thought his position on the whole question was very much weaker. Now, what is the point of view in which we should approach this educational question? I think we are all agreed that the public should be interested in the subject of education, although not interested, perhaps, in the administration of education. I want to get the energy and intelligence of the country concentrated on education. You can only get the life and energy of popular opinion brought to bear effectively upon education through the local authorities working in suitable areas. Until you get those powers established, all the zealous efforts of the Education Department to level up education are so much beating of the air, and you cannot look to this House to put that life and energy into the question which is so much needed from the country.
We cannot look to this House. This House is already overloaded, weighed down, crushed, and suffocated by the amount of work concentrated upon it, to the despair of every one. [An HON. MEMBER: No, no!] Well, is every one satisfied with the working of the House—with the present state of business of this House? ["No, no!"] Why it is not so long ago since I heard the First Lord of the Treasury speak in a tone of great depression as to the possibility of getting a big Education Bill through the House. Why? Because the House is so overloaded that it could not address itself to the question in a business-like spirit. The only way in which the House of Commons can get rid of what is a public danger is by more and mote devolution. We cannot look at this question solely from the point of view of the education question. You must keep in view the development of local government as well as education. I will begin by saying that I will take no step, in education or anything else, which does not, in my view, facilitate further devolution. I do not myself like the word. I prefer the term Home Rule. To get that, you have to stimulate local life; and I agree with the Vice-President that, you cannot stimulate local life—and I give it a

825
wider application. I think, than the right hon. Gentleman—you cannot do that by scattering powers among different co-ordinate rating authorities. You dissipate local interests until you get central local authorities. You want to make the existing local authorities much greater than they are. You want to give them some more megalomania, a greater view of their own importance, provided it coincides with the work they have to perform.
I contend that, not only for education, but for all purposes in large county or borough areas, we should have one local budget, to be distributed by a central authority. If you get that, you may have some real progress in local affairs. You will then get some real public spirit introduced into local work of the locality, instead of apathy, indifference, and confusion. Smaller local authorities there must be, but let them be subordinate under the central local authority. Now, if the Government were making for that end, which I call the Home Rule end, in our local affairs, then I should be prepared to sacrifice even something of what I may think are the immediate needs of education to see that end furthered. But the Government seem to me certainly to be reactionary in this matter. The one great institution where a local authority has risen to a high position and importance—I refer to the London County Council—there the Government seem to recoil with horror from the thing which they have created. It follows from what I have said that in your ultimate educational system it must be the County and Borough Councils that must be the authorities charged with the central local control of education. That, I think, must be; and if this is to be regarded as setting up a separate ad hoc authority and making it permanent, or working up to Borough and County Council control, I should vote for the control of the Borough and County Council.
I do not understand the question of principle to be raised in the speech of my right hon. friend the Member for South Aberdeen. He dealt with the merits of the Bill, as I wish to do. I wish to develop the future powers of these local authorities, the County and Borough Councils, and I will not begin
826
by taking any step to shut them off from the ultimate control of education. One authority is the thing towards which I should work in each locality; but I do recognise great force in what my hon. friend the Member for Oldham said when he referred to the danger of attempting to do by one step—by one span, across the bridge which is to grow up—I think you will have to have two spans; to advance by two steps; but, assuming that to be the object, does the Bill establish one authority? Does it proceed on the principle of one authority?
Now we come to the weaker part of the speech of the Vice-President of the Council. He admitted that there are exceptions in the Bill, and he defended them by saying that, though they were illogical, something of the illogical was always to be found in all British legislation. He regards illogicality as unavoidable. But how did this illogicality get into this Bill? I think it got into the Bill from the force of logic, and not from the want of logic. It is a fact that the areas suitable for secondary education are not always suitable for elementary education. It was, after all, making logic felt in the Bill, but it did not recognise it. I admit that we want different areas for secondary and elementary education, and that you want a plan suitable and consistent for each district in your educational system. You do not want to do it under the rigid exceptions made in this Bill. Under this Bill you do not give County Councils a fair chance. You set up a rigid system, and these rigid exceptions will sometimes facilitate and sometimes obstruct the system in any given area. Could any one have listened last night to the speech of the hon. Member without realising to the full extent all the confusion which will be introduced into such a parish as Whalley in Lancashire, to which the hon. Member referred, where you are to have at least nine different authorities without being subordinate? If you add to this confusion which is inseparable from these exceptions in the Bill, these separate arbitrary authorities, the separate rate with respect to higher and elementary education, and separate systems of management for different classes of schools, you cannot expect to have an

827
effective and harmonious system. If you are to have one separate authority for education you must trust it. You must make it draw up a scheme and give it a fair start and a fair field, but do not discourage it from the first by these rigid exceptions which we see in the present Bill.
As to the optional clauses. The Bill is not compulsory as to one part, and so we have got, I think, great difficulty as to this option. I notice some hesitation as to whether option should be withdrawn by taking away the choice or by making the choice compulsory, but everybody seems to agree that the option remaining in the Bill is intolerable. If you leave option in the Bill as it is, if it is not exercised, no doubt higher education may make progress under those Borough and County Councils which would be free to devote themselves to the question of higher education: but while they are doing this the option still remaining would paralyse the existing authorities, and the School Boards will never know at what time the option may be exercised. If, on the other hand, the local authority does exercise this option, then I venture to say, as my hon. friend the Member for Oldham pointed out, you discourage and overweight the education authority. What is wanted in our educational system is not the relief of elementary, but to make up arrears in higher education, with regard to which we have fallen back. We have believed in our prosperity, and in our raw material being so much better than other countries, but we have not been making the best of it by higher education. We have fallen into arrears as to that. What we want is higher education, not higher education for everybody. You cannot give it to everybody as you give elementary education—not a complete scheme as in elementary education. I admit that. There is in education a law of increasing and diminishing returns, and it differs with individuals. The more you spend on the education of one individual up to higher university education the greater the return, but with another individual you will get little or no return beyond elementary education. But how much is wanted, even to discriminate or provide a system of scholarships, to take those who are most worthy? I quite agree
828
that your provision for higher education cannot be complete and comprehensive to the same extent as elementary education, but that is no reason for putting the limit of 2d. on the rate. Even accepting the limit for higher education, which I have described, there is no reason why the local authorities should not be free to spend what they will in developing the material which is under them. I would go further than that, I would lay upon them the duty of making provision for this.
It was said last night that Wales afforded no precedent in this matter. What has been done in Wales has, I believe, been eminently successful; and its success alone makes it a precedent, and a most valuable precedent. It is the only one we have; why should we not take it as a precedent? "Oh, because," it was said, "Wales had no endowments to start with, and we have endowments." But, Sir, a partial system of endowments may be a curse and a snare. If you have not endowments enough to cover the whole field and to give yon a complete system, but only endowments enough to make you think it is not necessary to follow the Welsh precedent and to set up a complete system, then endowments are a snare. This Bill lays no duty upon County Councils; it gives them no mandate. The right hon. Gentleman said a mandate was given to them. I can find no mandate in the Bill to do anything more for higher education. The County and Borough Councils have no mandate and have no duty laid upon them. But they have a permissive power, and the right hon. Gentleman opposite spoke, deservedly, with great praise of the use that many of them have hitherto made of that permissive power. Yes, but they did not make use of it out of the rates: it was money supplied out of the Exchequer under the Technical Instruction Act; and whatever they have done with that permissive power does not affect the question of what they may do with the permissive powers under this Bill. I admit that they have taken what is called the whisky money and have in a most public-spirited way devoted it to education when they had the power to devote it to the rates. Yes; but under this Bill, while you are giving permissive

829
powers in regard to higher education, you are laying upon them—if you take away the option clause, as I assume it is to be taken away—you are going to lay a compulsory duty on them with regard to elementary education, that is to levy a new rate to relieve elementary education.
That compulsory obligation will sterilise and destroy the permissive power. If you are going to lay simultaneously, side by side, upon the local authority—which will have to face great opposition to any new rate—that compulsory obligation and that permissive power, both of which will make demands upon the rates, the permissive power is bound to go to the wall. In this Bill you not only do not lay a duty upon them, but you positively discourage the exercise of the power with regard to higher education. It is from this point of view that this is positively a reactionary Bill; for by the obligation of levying a new rate you are encouraging and doubling the temptation to the local authority to apply the whisky money, which now goes to higher education, in reduction of the rates. I trust that the public spirit of the local authorities will have so far developed their schemes of education that the whisky money cannot be withdrawn. They may withdraw it, but if it is not withdrawn it will only be because they have resisted the pressure which this Bill puts upon them. Take counties such as Worcestershire and Northumberland, face to face with an extraordinary rate of fourpence to sixpence already. They must levy a new rate for elementary education; how is it possible that higher education, even if it is maintained, can progress when it is handed over to them under these conditions? What should have been done in the Bill? I agree nothing should have been done to conflict with the ultimate power of one authority—and that a great central and local authority. But still I would have laid the duty on the County and Borough Councils of reporting as to the provisions in their district for higher education existing now. Secondly, I would have laid upon them the duty of drawing up a scheme to make provision where provision was necessary, and that is everywhere, to meet the requirements of
830
higher enducation. Then, I would have encouraged them to make their scheme liberal and generous by offering them from the national exchequer a contribution at least equal to anything that they were willing to raise from the rates. If that had been done we should have been told—Well, but then you are not putting secondary and primary education under the same authority, and you cannot distinguish between them. "You cannot," said the Vice-President of the Council, "distinguish between secondary and primary education." Sir, this Bill does distinguish between secondary and primary education. The Cockerton judgment has distinguished between them. You have the Cockerton judgment still in operation, and the distinction exists in this Bill. But I do not see the great need at this moment of distinguishing between secondary and primary education. I distrust this fear of overlapping; we talk about overlapping in education as if it was the greatest danger from which this country suffered—as if we were suffering from a surfeit and repletion of education. "School Boards," said the Vice-President of the Council, "have invaded the domain of higher education." Invaded! As if they had some aggressive jingo educational tendency! What has actuated the School Boards has not been an aggressive tendency; it has been their zeal to cover ground not covered by anything else. In some cases no doubt we have had overlapping; but I am so convinced still that the great danger to this country in education at present is not overlapping but a hiatus that I am not very much concerned to draw a hard and fast line. I would rather run the risk of over lapping here and there by giving these local authorities a few years to establish a good scheme of higher education than run the far greater risk of having nothing further done for higher education than we shall have under this Bill. In a few years time, if that had been done, you would have made one uniform and harmonious system with an easy passage upwards for clever children to cheap but efficient local schools. If you had made this Bill a Bill for secondary education, you could easily have added the elementary part. As the Bill is now drawn, you will secure the elementary part, but you will not add the higher to it.

831
Now as to elementary education. Here, again, it is not a question of the principle involved; it is the application of the principle. Our elementary education was never based on principle; it was based on a compromise, which, I believe, is a negation of principle. I am not sanguine of being able to deal with this question without blowing still further into flame the fire of religious controversy—the flame has been kindled already. I will not dwell on such speeches as that of the Dean of St. Paul's, because I welcome such a repudiation as was given last night by the hon. Baronet the Member for Wigan. He repudiated that speech in a tone and in terms which convinced me that, differing as he does from us on many points of education, at any rate the method of expressing his sentiments adopted by the Dean of St. Paul's has caused at least as much pain to him as to us, and with that I willingly rest content. I would go further than that, and I would say that there are other utterances to set against that of the Dean of St. Paul's. There are the utterances of teaching of their own creed. That was men like the Bishop of Winchester and the position in 1870; but the compromise, the Bishop of Rochester, so reasonable, so temperate, so anxious to be fair, that I am sure they must make everyone who reads them—who does not belong to their own Church—differ from them with regret. I am not quite so satisfied with the utterances of the House of Laymen on the subject. I noticed a more Jesuitical tone in some of the laymen than I did in the ecclesiastics. They are highly pleased with the Bill. They have had some little difficulty in finding fault with the Bill; but I gather that, at any rate, one speaker thought it would, perhaps, be desirable to express some dissatisfaction, because it would be in the interests of the Government for this to be done.
I have to look at this question simply from one point of view. Is it a fair bargain between the nation and the Church schools? The right hon Gentleman who preceded me spoke, I think, of the Government's being talked about in some quarters as if they had the purpose of attacking the Nonconformists. I do not accuse the Government of any animus in the matter; but I do think the Bill shows bias. The word "animus" implies
832
a repulsive charge, and I do not think it will be approved of; but bias, I think, there is in the Bill. It is too late seriously to raise the question of abstract principle as to what we should do with regard to denominational education, and I am so little wedded to principle in this matter that I freely admit I should be prepared, where a large majority of the inhabitants desired it—as I believe is the case in Ireland—to see that education should progress on denominational lines, rather than it should make no progress at all. But when we come to this country, we have to consider what is suitable and what is fair for us. The hon. Member for Leamington spoke last night, with some earnestness, of the position of Churchmen under our present educational system; how keen they had been to make sacrifices to secure that their own denominational religion was taught to their children; what a hardship it had been that Nonconformists should have a religion suitable to their children taught in the board schools at the public expense, while Churchmen had to make large sacrifices to secure the as I understand it, was that if Churchmen, or any denomination, would make such substantial contribution to the great public purpose of education as really to be a guarantee that out of their private pockets a considerable part of the expense would be forthcoming, then the State would step in, recognise their schools, and give them further help. And even now, if you could give me evidence, in towns at any rate, that really substantial contributions are being made by groups of parents, or groups of persons, to Church schools, and alternative schools are available in the district, I would not press objections to giving aid to these denominational schools.
But this is a Bill to do without contributions from denominational schools. Some words from my right hon. and learned friend the Member for East Fife were quoted just now. But they were spoken some time ago. When he used those words in favour of maintaining the denominational system, there was no question of giving rate aid. At the time when he spoke, there were conditions relating to the 17s. 6d. limit which have now disappeared, and that large grant

833
in aid of 5s. had not yet been given. Well, the conditions have changed entirely since my right hon. friend spoke. Under this Bill, it seems to me, you miss your contributions; it cannot be other-wise. I admit it has been said, in answer to questions, that no owners of schools will be allowed to charge rent on school buildings to the public authority, either for an old school or a new one, because clearly, if they could charge a rent, it would be devoted to the repairs of the fabric Even as we are, our contributions must greatly diminish. I see no answer to the letter from the Duke of Northumberland published in The Times. A large number of people have been subscribing to voluntary schools because they understood those subscriptions were in lieu of a rate, but, now you impose a rate, to a considerable number of people it will seem a reason why subscriptions should cease. I have no fault to find with the doctrine of the inalienable right of parents to choose the religious education to be given to their children. It would revolt one's sense of common sense and fairness, it would revolt our religious tolerance and our Liberalism, to place any obstacle in the way of such education being given. I would go further, and give every facility, even in school buildings, for their getting that teaching at their own expense. But it is sheer cant to say that this inalienable right of parents to have their children educated in the religion they desire them to be educated exists under the present system, or would exist under this Bill. It does not exist under the present system, and it will not exist under this Bill. Take the; rural districts in which there is, as a rule, one school, and one school only—or that is so in thousands of parishes—and that a Church school. Are we really to believe that the Church school is the choice of all the parents, or even of a majority of the parents? Consider what it means! Not merely is there denominational teaching in that school—it means something more: that they are separated for ever from all say in the management of that school. Does anybody believe that that is the kind of school that parents in rural districts desire? In towns there is an ample choice, but in rural districts it is incredible that this is the real choice of
834
the people, that there should be voluntary schools in the management of which they shall have no control. It is not attachment to voluntary systems that has been the great upholder of these schools, but the fear of a school rate.
The Vice-President said that the religious difficulty is seldom heard of in the schools. I admit that, and I do not see in any section of the population that horror of creed and catechism one would be led to suppose, but neither is there such an extreme desire for denominational teaching. It is not heard of, because not only is there no excess of religious zeal, but because there is comparatively little desire for exclusive denominational teaching. People have supported voluntary schools, especially in country districts, largely because they prefer to have the voluntary system to having the rating system. That is common knowledge. Over and over again, as Members representing rural constituencies know, dissatisfaction is expressed at being separate from the management of the voluntary schools. What answer can he give to the question, "Are you prepared to pay?" The answer is generally that they prefer to be as they are rather than run the risk of having an education rate. But now they are to be called upon to pay a rate and yet not get control. This matter, I admit, is a grave obstacle to progress in education, and it lies upon all of us who are Churchmen to try to understand the Nonconformist view, though we cannot speak as Nonconformists. What must be that view, especially in rural villages? The Church of England has a privileged position; it is recognised by the State, it has great endowments, the whole land being laid under large contribution to it; in addition, the Church has control of schools in thousands of parishes. In the ordinary village the buildings of a public character are usually the church, the school, and the public-house, and, in the more fortunate, perhaps, a village hall. Now, with respect to these, there is no popular control and no popular representation whatever in the matter. With regard to the Church, of course it must be so. Whether the Church is established or not, it will still be common ground that the churches are

835
great evidences of the historic unity of the English Church, and will remain the property of the denominations to which they belong. But has it not occurred to Members sometimes to wonder at the prevalence of dissent, and consider how much is due not to dislike of the Church of England, or difference of Church creed, but solely to the desire of the people to have some share in the management of the great department, perhaps the greatest department of their life's affairs? If that is so in religious matters, does it not more apply to the schools which are secular in character where their children receive education? In schools you have what you cannot have in churches—the right to interfere; and where you have only one school, and the people are shut off from all share or say in the management, you shut the people off from one of the most important departments of civic life and local government. I would have no small School Boards in country districts, but I would make the Parish Councils partners in the management of education—subordinate, but partners. I think a fair compromise would be that, say, two members should represent the Parish Council, that two should represent the local education authority, and that the denomination should appoint the other two. I would practically invert the arrangement in the Bill, giving a third to the parish representation, and a third to the local education authority. We are told that this is a matter of small importance, for managers have very little power; but in the country they have a great deal of power. It means a great deal that in a village this is the one visible, palpable, daily evidence of authority and control. While I think that should have been done in this Bill, I would have added guarantees that religious teaching should be given according to the denomination to which the building belongs, when the parents of the children desire it.
On the general question of control by local authority I may say at once that I dislike the constitution of this Education Committee. I am all for having a Committee, but to give life and interest and closeness of touch to the work of education the majority should be actual members of the Council. This
836
will have the greatest possible effect on the rates. There has been suggested one general rate for all purposes, but how much shall be devoted to education? That is a question for every Council. Let us assume that the Education Committee does not levy the rate, but reports how much is required. Assume, as one may under the Bill, that they are not in the majority, or perhaps not at all members of the Council. The Council will get a largo demand—and I hope they will—for expenditure on education. Then the Council will say. "This Committee is very zealous about education. We honour their zeal, but they are not aware of all the other demands upon us. They have not the sense of proportion we have. We are sorry, but we must cut down this demand, because we have so many other claims." But if the majority of the Committee are members of the Council they will be at first hand in touch with the Council, and able to say, "Yes, we know of all these other demands and have a due sense of proportion, and we consider the interests of education so paramount that other things must wait for a time." Now, if the option goes under the Bill, the position of voluntary schools will be made more secure, but I see nothing else certain in the Bill; all the rest is uncertain and roblematical.
The Bill has the appearance of being an educational Bill, it has captured the adhesion of many of those who are well known for their interest in education. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University, who spoke last night, has been captured, though I think he is not an unwilling captive; but what appeals to me still more is the fact that the attractive appearance of the Bill has caused my hon. and learned friend the Member for Haddingtonshire to sheathe his sword. He says he is not going to vote against the Government. Now I venture to say that anyone who knows the penetrating zeal, the single-mindedness, the great knowledge, the hard work spent on education by my hon. and learned friend will differ from any course he takes on an educational matter with the greatest regret. I will go so far as to say, were he in charge of the Bill as First Lord of the Treasury, and were the great majority of the Party opposite absent, and some of us on this side left to move

837
Amendments, I would vote for the Second Reading. If I thought this Bill were likely in practice and administrative effect to make a good start for education, I would follow my hon. and learned friend and abstain from voting. But I think the Bill makes a bad start, that it will make certain of nothing but aid to voluntary schools, and not that unless the option clause is withdrawn; that it gives tentative powers under conditions which impose no duties, give no stimulus, and in some respects positively discourage the use of those powers; that it lays a burden on the local authority too heavy to be borne by local finance alone, without promise of national aid. I do not believe this Bill, without much larger amendment than the Government are willing to introduce, will make up the arrears of time the country has lost in the matter of education, or put life into education by giving us a system, or prepare the way for a system, of education which shall be effective, thorough vigorous, and national.
LORD HUGH CECIL: The hon. Baronet who has just sat down, if I may be permitted to say so, is one of the most delightful speakers, if not the most delightful speaker the House can listen to. But his speech lad him very little open to retort, and, without trenching much more largely on the time of the House than would be at all becoming in me, it is difficult to give an elaborate and reasoned answer to the detailed criticisms he made on the Bill. But I confess I was surprised that the hon. Gentleman began his speech by enlarging on—of all subjects in the world—the merits of Home Rule and devolution. Then he proceeded to show in great detail that he had not the slightest confidence in the local authorities proposed to be set up in almost any matter connected with education. What, then, becomes of his zeal for Home Rule? I think the present discussion may really be divided into four great controversies. There is, in the first place, the controversy which turns around the question of local government, with which the hon. Baronet dealt, and then there is the closely allied controversy of how far this Bill really adjusts the varying claims of economy and efficiency in the
838
matter of rates and education. Perhaps I may be permitted to point out that the catchword which goes with the local government part of the subject that we do not have an ad hoc authority, but another authority, is only partially accurate. The Education Committee will be an ad hoc authority. The real difference is, of course, that the authority is not to be elected by the electors straight away. It is the product of a secondary election, and I was surprised to notice that the hon. Baronet objected that it was not to have a majority of County Councillors. It may have. It is entirely for the County Council to choose whether they will appoint a majority of County Councillors on the body or not. It will be an educational body which will be able to represent all the educational interests which ought to be represented. The hon. Baronet talked of rigidity, I think, in some connection of this kind, but nothing can be less characteristic of this Bill than rigidity, for it leaves all these questions to be determined by the local authority by its wisdom and capacity. The distinction between this proposal and the existing system, so far as local government goes, is that the finance is to be in one hand. I notice the hon. Gentleman opposite was in favour of that. That is really the only great distinction—that you are to have an ad hoc authority upon a secondary instead of a direct election, and the finance in one hand. Whatever may be said about the respective merits of primary and secondary election, it is quite clear that, if the electors will not come to the poll in a primary election, any system of appointment is better than that. Experience has shown that the electors will not come in any numbers which are at all respectable to vote at a School Board election, and therefore you must have an education authority appointed in some other way; and I defy anybody to point out a method less open to criticism than that of allowing the County Council to appoint the authority.
I now turn to the financial part of the Bill, and here we come to the large issue between those who desire to economise the rates and those who desire to develop education. It is to be observed that criticisms of a really contradictory character have been made against this part of the Bill. We

839
are told that we must improve education a very great deal, and at the same time the objection is made that in raising the voluntary schools to the level of the board schools you spend a great deal of money. Of course you do. You cannot have a great educational improvement and at the same time a great economy of money. If you are going in for a policy of educational reform you will have to pay for it. We are told by those gentlemen who have so little confidence in the elected representatives of the people that if you get the County Councils to spend a great deal of money on elementary education they will not spend money on secondary education. Why should we assume anything of the kind? Why should we not have confidence in the wisdom of the County Council? Why should the importance of education, which is so clear to us on this side of the House and is equally recognised by hon. Gentlemen opposite, be entirely veiled from the eyes of the County Council? Why are they not to see that the greatness of the country is identified with educational progress, and why should not they spend money as liberally as we desire both on elementary and secondary education? If they are not willing, is anything gained by your distrusting the locality and compelling them to take a course which does not excite an interest in education, but nauseates them with the whole subject? In that respect we have often made the mistake in the past that we have tried to rush backward localities ahead of their own views, and, consequently, we have produced a real reaction against education. If they had been allowed to go on in their own way, if they had not been hustled forward, they would have found that public money could be usefully spent in the interests of the locality and of the nation, and they would not have shrunk from the necessary expenditure. At any rate, you have to choose whether you are going to adopt the democratic principle of trusting the representatives of the people, or whether you are going to fall back on what is really the aristocratic principle, the principle of trusting an aristocracy of educationists and allowing them to dictate what is and what is not to be the standard of education. Any one
840
who really admits the principle of democratic self-government must accept the doctrine that the local authority is entitled to judge of what degree of education is fitting and to spend the necessary money on that standard of education.
Now, I pass from these comparatively non-inflammable topics to the other great twin branch into which this subject falls. And here I find that we encounter a great body of Nonconformist opposition, for the earnestness and zeal and profound conviction of which I have the utmost respect, and of which I desire to speak with the utmost courtesy. I think this opposition falls into two classes. There is the moderate class, who may be called "the controllers." They do not actually dissent from the proposition that public money should be given to denominational schools, but they say that the control given under the Bill is inadequate and ought to be enlarged. Undoubtedly those speakers—I think the hon. Baronet may be numbered amongst this class of critics—have produced much more effect on the supporters of the Bill than the more extreme and irreconcilable censors of the Bill. What is the degree of control which is established under the Bill? I say that, apart from such a control as would destroy the denominational character of the schools concerned, you could not, I believe, in any respect whatever, increase the character of the control given under the Bill. I really believe that in this I respect the Bill suffers from a certain diplomatic skill which has been exhibited in its drafting. It seems to me that the Bill has been drafted by a very delicately-minded person—a person who dislikes using phrases of a certain character, and who has much of that elegant mind of the man who, for example, likes to call trousers "inexpressibles." The phrase "voluntary school" is not used from the beginning to the end of the Bill. The phrase is "schools not provided out of public funds," a refinement of expression which I hope we all appreciate. In like manner, when you come to deal with the question of control and management, it is not said in so many words that the Bill does give control to the public authority in everything except religious education. But that is, in fact, what the Bill does. I

841
believe that to the superficial reader, therefore, the degree of control is largely hidden.
People do not understand—I think even several Conservative supporters of the Bill do not understand—how far-reaching is the control which, as a matter of fact, is given under the Bill to the public authority; and I confess I think that when it dawns on those long-suffering and much abused people, the clergy, they will find they have much more cause to exercise the grace of resignation than the grace of joy. It has been pointed out in the course of these debates that subsection (a), Clause 8, enables the local authority to give any direction it pleases in regard to secular education; that the teacher may be dismissed if he is inefficient; but, apart from this, there is a point of very substantial importance which seems to me to have escaped notice altogether, and that is that by Clause 15—
"A local education authority may make arangements With the Council of any county, borough, district, or parish, whether a local education authority or not, for the exercise by the Council, on such terms and subject to such conditions as may be agreed on, of any powers of the authority in respect of the control or management of any school or college within the area of the Council."
That is to say, it will be perfectly competent for a county authority to go to a Parish Council and say, "We do not like this Church school; we do not like its tendency; we do not think it is raising secular education to a proper height; we do not trust the parson. You shall be the education authority of this parish; you shall have all these powers, you shall appoint your Chairman to be the representative manager of this voluntary school, you shall, if you like, meet once a week and control every detail, down to the smallest feature, of the management which relates to secular education." I have given an extreme case, perhaps; but does anybody say that that is not effective and efficient popular control, as far as it can possibly be pressed, over the secular education? I invite anybody who disputes that to say whether there is anything relating to secular education which cannot be done under this Bill. The local authority has a veto on educational grounds over the appointment of
842
the teacher, and, of course, "on educational grounds" includes everything except the religious question. As far as secular instruction goes, the local authority has absolute discretion. If you go further, and give control over the religious instruction as well, that amounts to a measure no less revolutionary than the suppression by law of all the denominational schools in the country. The struggle has been going on thirty years in order to maintain denominational schools in which the religious instruction should be in the hands of the denomination. You might as well close the doors of the voluntary schools altogether. I can conceive a settlement which should proceed on different lines altogether; but as far as maintaining the settlement of 1870 is concerned, control over the religious instruction goes to the very root of it, and would, in my opinion, destroy the value and utility of the Bill altogether, and the idea of maintaining denominational educational. It would destroy the very principle of it. Observe how far it might go. If you put a majority of representative managers on the schools, they might, if they had a mind, obstruct and hamper religious instruction at every turn, and they might even close the schools. And of what value would a statutory instruction be that the teaching of the Church of England should be given, unless the Department said what was and what was not the teaching of the Church of England? What an endless controversy you might have as to what was and what was not consistent with the teaching of the Church of England. [Opposition cheers.] The hon. Member for Oldham said last night that the differences of the Church of England are almost as irreconcilable as the differences of the Liberal Party; and, if so, how would you like schools for which there was a statutory enactment to teach Liberalism, with the Front Bench as a board of managers?
The control of the religious instruction must still be in the hands of the denomination if you are to keep up the principle. That brings us to the threshold of the controversy with the more irreconcilable section, who frankly say that their objection to the Bill is that it perpetuates denominational education. I think that was a phrase used by a very distinguished Nonconformist minister of great ability—Mr. Hugh Price Hughes.

843
I think he said—and I was surprised at his statement—that the Bill brought in by the present Government perpetuated denominational education. I should have thought that was the known conviction of the Unionist Party. [Opposition cheers.] I gather that there are a great many hon. Members opposite, though not all, who do desire the eradication of denominational teaching, and that is the object they set before themselves. First let me dismiss, not with censure, but with an answer, the suggestion that is made that Nonconformists ought to refuse to pay the rate which would be exacted under this Bill to support the schools. I see no objection to that course in point of principle, but it seems to me absurd to say that it is a matter of conscience, because, as the hon. Member for Haddington said, you cannot have a conscience about paying rates which is not also a conscience about paying taxes. It is a revolutionary method which has, I believe, a very august precedent, when Lord Milton told the tax-gatherer to call again at the time of the great Reform Bill. But it is a revolutionary method which any number of people who pay rates could adopt with equal effect, and the richer and more numerous the body of persons the more effective would be the strike against rates. I can assure hon. Members with very great confidence that, if Noncomformists refuse to pay their educational rates, Churchmen will refuse to pay theirs. Therefore I do not think that that is likely to be a successful method of agitation, although I think it might perhaps produce a revisal of the whole educational question. That might not be a bad thing, and I will try to show how I should like to see it ultimately settled. I know the House is most reluctant to enter upon anything approaching theological ground, but let us consider why to have a universal undenominational system would be intolerable to the Members of the English Church. First of all, there is this objection. It is quite true, now, that the majority of board schools give a careful and reverent Bible instruction, and some of them a very good Bible instruction indeed; yet there is no security by law that that should be so, and actually there are a considerable number who teach the Bible merely by
844
reading it without comment, and a smaller number give no religious instruction at all. If you abolished the denominational system altogether, do not you think the existing tendency to keep up board school religious instruction would be swept away? The sense that there is what might be called a competitive system, if the phrase be not too frivolous, prevents board schools from neglecting the importance of such teaching, and even from dispensing with it altogether.
The next objection is one which is of a more subtle character, and I do not think has ever been stated to this House in its full aspect, and it really deserves attention. Although it is quite true to say that an undenominational school does not give Nonconformist teaching strictly so called, and although I can appreciate and sympathise with the resentment Nonconformists feel when it is said that they receive Nonconformist education out of the rates already, it is also true that undenominational education—what is called Bible instruction—does settle in effect one great controversy between the Church and Nonconformity in the sense that Nonconformists desire. I do not want to go into details, but if the Church Catechism is considered, it will be seen that the whole fabric of Christianity is made to start with the idea of membership, which originates in baptism. That is taught by the Church of England, and rejected with the greatest possible vehemence by the greater number of Nonconformists. Supposing you give a religious instruction which does not begin, as the Church Catechism does, with those ideas, but which starts with general Bible instruction and makes Christian morality—such as that you must speak the truth, be honest, and the like—as it were, self-evident, not arising out of the idea of membership in any way, the effect on the mind of the child is evidently to incline it to the Nonconformist position as against the Church position. That is what makes a great many of the clergy and others say that board school education is Nonconformist education, not that it teaches the whole mass of Nonconformist teaching and the precise views that might be set out

845
in a Nonconformist Catechism, but because on a point on which Nonconformists fundamentally differ from the Church the undenominational system teaches their view and not that of the Church.
The third objection is the most important one in the arguments against undenominational education as a universal system. A great many things are said as to the carefulness and reverence of board school education, and of how much trouble teachers take. And it has been pointed out that you may teach really very advanced religious teaching in a board school without in the least infringing the law, and that is doubtless often done by teachers, most of whom have been trained in Church colleges. It is very good religious instruction, possibly, as far as it goes, but there is evidently this fundamental objection—that it cannot attach the child to a denomination. It has been said, allegorically, that a board school is a school with only one door; the child goes in, learns a great deal that is valuable, and goes out again into the street. A Church school, a Wesleyan school, or a Roman Catholic school are schools with two doors, and the other door leads on into the Church or Chapel, and brings the child into contact with, and under the influences of this or that denomination. Now, what is it you want to do in regard to children? It is often said against us that we desire to instruct them in the details of theology. In the sense in which those words are used that is unfair, and an entire misconception; no one desires, for example, to enable the children in the elementary schools of this country to distinguish between a Eutychian and a Nestorian. It is not theology at all that we desire to teach children, except so far as all religious teaching implies a theological substratum. But what is desired is a religious habit of mind and religious customs. If a Nonconformist father wishes his child to be religiously brought up, he wishes the child to go regularly to Chapel, to fall in with the denominational system to which he belongs, to go to Bible-classes and the like. Now, under the board school that cannot obtain. The child may, of course, and often does, fall under other influences. I do not in the least desire
846
to say that if we abolished religious instruction tomorrow we should immediately become a Pagan country. The point is, what is the tendency? It is obvious that in many instances other organisations may take the place of the school, yet unless you have a school that does attach to the denominational machinery of the country, you lose a; great chance, and the children may get away from you altogether.
The question is, how does that bear on the Nonconformist grievance? If the complaint is that Nonconformist children are proselytised in schools receiving public money to which their parents have contributed, that is a great abuse, and any suggestion made to remedy that will be listened to with the greatest attention. The Government in 1896 put forward a proposal designed to meet that very difficulty. But the danger is not in giving an advantage to one denomination or another. That can be met and adjusted by an understanding between the different denominations. The danger is in throwing down all the educational machinery which really attaches children of any way of thinking to the beliefs of their parents, and so giving a clear field to the negative movement which we say is the real peril of the future, and of which Nonconformists have as much reason to be afraid as we have Unless a child is attached to one denomination or another, he passes out of the school unattached to all of them. I said earlier that this Bill is not my ideal. This Bill is a measure for maintaining the status quo between denominationalists and undenominationalists. The same number of children that were brought up in denominational schools will continue to be brought up in them still, and the same-number in undenominational schools. There is no gain of territory on one side or the other. But that is certainly not my ideal. I remember speaking with very great warmth five years ago on the Bill of 1897 in answer, I think, to the present Attorney General, who used the familiar argument that, because under the compromise of 1870, Church people had a certain advantage in some districts, it was quite reasonable that they should be ill-treated in other districts. I thought then, and I think now, that nothing could be less satisfactory than the method of 1870, which is prolonged

847
in this Bill, of treating people with a kind of compensating unfairness, saying to Nonconformists in one district, "Don't complain, because the Church people are treated equally badly in another district." That is a system which is not fair, but unfair all round, or rather it does not succeed completely even in that, because it is rather more unfair to Church people than it is to Nonconformists. This Bill is, in this respect, an opportunist measure, a measure to carry on education irrespective of this religious controversy, and in the meantime make advance in secular education which we all consider to be necessary, and I should have thought it would have appealed to Members on both sides who desire educational reform.
But, Sir, I confess I turn to quite another ideal for the ultimate settlement of this question. We must look for that to an amicable understanding between the Church and Nonconformity. I am quite certain that they are natural allies, and I am not at all consoled for the opposition of earnest and zealous Nonconformists by the support of politicians, even of the great ability and eloquence of the hon. and learned Member for Haddington. I would barter the hon. Member for Haddington for Dr. Clifford or Mr. Hugh Price Hughes any day, because I am convinced, as a matter of political dynamics, that the people who are red-hot in earnest are much more formidable politicians than those who take a cool view of the situation, and also because I think that Nonconformity is the natural ally of the Church of England. I am sure that in the future the Nonconformists will come to see, as we see already, that there is a great contest ahead of us in which we shall have to fight shoulder to shoulder, and that we are foolishly weakening ourselves by fighting each other. Even in regard to this Bill, if there are Amendments dealing with such a question as that of the supply of pupil-teachers—Amendments that can really be put forward on the ground that Nonconformists suffer an injustice which can be easily removed, and the alteration of which does not in any way involve an injury to the Church system of teaching of which we are supporters—I am sure they will be most respectfully listened to; and, if we can see our way to settle the question through their
848
means, I have no doubt the great majority of Members on this side will be very glad to do so.
It is an entire misconception to suppose that those who support the Church schools look upon Nonconformists as their enemies. On the contrary, they regard them as their misguided and mistaken allies. They think this education controversy is lamentable, because it divides Christian people one from the other, and they would most gladly see friendly negotiation over it which would settle the question on the only basis which it can be settled—the basis that every child should be brought up in the belief of its parents. It matters not what that belief may be. I can go so far as to say, although I should regret to see it, that the most violent atheist has the most absolute right to have his child brought up in his beliefs in the public schools of the country. I would acknowledge to the utmost extent the parental right in these questions as a matter of deference to the principle of religious liberty, not only because I think it is right, but also because it is highly expedient. Supposing you had a system of education which made the Wesleyan child a better Wesleyan, the Congregationalist a better Congregationalist, the Churchman a better Churchman, the Roman Catholic a better Roman Catholic, an overwhelming majority of the English people would be attached to one form or another of the Christian religion, and the effect would be to make much more stable the religious convictions of the country. That seems to me to be an object of policy of statesmanlike wisdom, the importance of which it is impossible to exaggerate.
I have no patience, I confess, with the kind of criticism which you sometimes see in the newspapers, and which is more rarely heard in this House, which would treat religious controversies as if they were beneath the consideration of serious politicians. Nothing could be more absurd. Look at the pages of history, even of recent history. What ruined the French Constitution of 1791 but the dispute on the civil constitution of the clergy? What has been the sheet-anchor of the civil stability of France but the concordat established by Napoleon; not that Napoleon had any religious

849
convictions, but because he knew the immense importance of settling the religious life of the country on a non-controversial basis. Look at Italy and see how the conflict over the temporal power of the Pope is a weakness, a sore, and a danger to the country. Look at the East and see how controversies, turning on the differences between Christians and Mahommedans, are a constant menace to the peace of Europe. Look at Germany, where the only failure in Prince Bismarck's triumphal career occurred when he came into conflict with the difference of religious opinion. Look over the water, and note the conflicts that take place between Roman Catholics and Orangemen. Let us be sure of it; that politician who despises religious difficulties does not understand his business. Therefore I would venture to appeal not only to Churchmen and Roman Catholics, but also to Nonconformists, who might, I think, trace in many of the things which go most home to their hearts the dangers which threaten us all. We hear sometimes most truly of a growing materialism in politics. We see a growing love for material well-being, a growing indifference to the non-material welfare of the country. We see a disposition to found our greatness on trade and territory and not on national character. I am in favour of Imperialism, but I do not blind my eyes to the fact that mixed up with Imperialism there is a great deal that is very sordid and unworthy. There are, indeed, two Imperialisms. There is the Imperialism that wishes to see this country great and powerful because it carries Christian civilisation over the face of the globe. That is a noble and splendid ambition for our country. But there is also an Imperialism which thinks of nothing but studying trade returns and considering whether we can get a little more money into the country than before. That, I think, is not the noble Imperialism which we ought to support. You can trace the same influence in domestic questions in this House. You see a great desire to improve the well-being of the people and the housing of the working classes; but, of course, right as those causes are, we make the greatest possible mistake if we suppose that they solve the problems of life. One vicious propensity, one serious fault of character, will undo all the
850
happiness produced by model dwellings and tube railways. We ought to do all we can to improve the national character, and we ought to enlist in that task the educational resources of the country. That is my ideal, which I hope Nonconformists will support. I hope also that it will obtain support from that other class who may be described as adopting the position of Christianity in everything except its theology, who possess the morality of Christianity, its sense of right and wrong, its delicate sensitiveness of con science, though they are unable them-selves to accept its theological basis. These men, it may be said, erect in the mansions of their hearts a splendid throne-room, in which they place objects revered and beautiful. There are laid the sceptre of righteousness and the swords of justice and mercy. There is the purple robe that speaks of the unity of love and power, and there is the throne that teaches the supreme moral governance of the world. And that room is decorated by all that is most beautiful in art and literature. It is gemmed by all the jewels of imagination and knowledge. Yet that noble chamber, with all its beauty, its glorious regalia, its solitary throne, is still an empty room. But these men, with all the imperfection of their point of view, must still be reckoned with as part of the forces that are waging war against materialism. And to that school of thought I would appeal to second the efforts of those who desire to make national education fulfil its noblest purpose, who desire to make the schools of the country not only schools where the people will learn to be successful, to make wealth rapidly, to be learned, and to cultivate their intellect, but schools where they will also learn to serve the right, with a knowledge of the supreme powers that lie beyond the region of the senses. So we may maintain, both in our Imperial function, both in the many problems that crowd upon us in every quarter of the world, and also in those domestic matters that are not less anxious and important, the supreme law as governing our national policy, the law of trying to do that which is right and that which is noble, and not merely following that which is sordid, and that which is profitable.
MR. ELLIS GRIFFITH: I have listened with regret, but without surprise, to the speech of my "mistaken and misguided ally." For my own part, if the leader of the reigning dynasty offers us an alliance, I shall ask him to prove his sympathy by deed, not by words; by performance, not by peroration. The noble Lord speaks not only on his own behalf, but also in a representative capacity as leader of the Church Party, and there can be no doubt as to the underlying difference of opinion between us. He has admitted it quite candidly. He says the object of elementary schools is to turn out Churchmen; we think it is to turn out citizens. That, in a sentence, is the difference between the noble Lord and ourselves upon this important point. I think we are entitled to ask whether the Government has a mandate from the country to introduce a Bill of this kind. Was there anything said at the last general election, or even in 1895, about the Government introducing such a Bill as this? I am not quite sure what was before the country at the last two elections. In 1895 the war had not begun; in 1900 the war was over. It is, therefore, exceedingly difficult to find out what really was the point upon which the country voted. But if we go back as far as 1895, I think we get from Lord Salisbury a prophecy concerning this Bill. Speaking on June 13th, he said—
"It is your business to capture the board schools—to capture them in the first instance under the existing law, and then to capture them under a better law."
This is the "better law" that we are now discussing. We are nearly all agreed that the religious instruction in the voluntary schools is far better than the secular instruction. There is a proper recognised religion being taught, but there is only "a sort of" education going on. It appears to me that the noble Lord and his friends are not I placing enough emphasis on the ordinary; instruction in elementary schools. In fact, writing to The Guardian on April 2nd, the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich said—
"If, for instance, a teacher is not satisfactory from a religious point of view, who cares what his teaching may nominally be? "
852
What does that mean except that the secular instruction is merely the nominal, instruction that goes on, for which nobody cares, while the real object of the school is the religious instruction for which he contends?
I am not going into the details of the Bill. There are only two points I desire to put before the House. I do not know what the principle or lack of principle of this Bill may be, but I believe that, under it, in the long run we should find that the Church schools, 14,000 in number, will be absolutely in clerical hands. The principle which, in my opinion, ought to govern these schools is that it should depend upon the contribution given. If there is a school supported entirely by voluntary effort, I would give the whole government of that school into voluntary hands. If, on the other hand, there is a school supported entirely out of Government funds, the control of that school should be wholly in Government hands. In this Bill and in these schools, we are dealing with a mid-position between those two, and we have to determine as best we can the fair and righteous way of dealing with the government of these schools. We have on the one hand the voluntary managers, who naturally, and rightly from their own point of view, are trying to get as much power as they can; and on the other hand we have the Vice-President of the Council, who is trustee to the State, and who will try to get for the State as much representation as he can in the management of these schools. Under the Bill the voluntary management will subscribe the equivalent of rent and repairs, and some amount of voluntary subscriptions. That seems to be a fair way of putting it. The real point we have to consider, therefore, is what proportion to the whole budget of the school the rent, repairs, and voluntary subscriptions form. The First Lord of the Treasury, when introducing the Bill, estimated that the cost of building the schools would amount to about £26,000,000. I think he was calculating on 14,000 schools at about £2,000 each. If you put a rent on that sum, it would come to nearly £1,000,000, and the whole of the voluntary subscriptions and repairs may he put at £500,000, or £1,500,000 in all. The sum spent by the State on

853
these schools is about £5,000,000, so that the amount subscribed by the voluntary management comes to about one-fifth, or loss. I submit that when the State contributes four-fifths of the expenditure it ought not to be satisfied with one-third of the control. It has been taken for granted that one-third of the representation on this authority will be some guarantee that the voluntary managers will not have their own way completely. There is no reason at all for that supposition. If a reactionary Committee is appointed by a reactionary County Council, there is no guarantee at all that the added man will not be a churchwarden or some one on the vicar's side. There ought to be a representative not merely of the Educational Committee which meets at a distance, but also of the Parish Council or the local authority which knows the actualities on the spot.
There is one other point. This Bill appears to me to place in perpetuity these 14,000 schools under the domination of the clerical party. I would not mind so much if it were only to last during the life of one Parliament, but when the Bill proposes that the power over these schools should be placed for ever and ever in clerical hands, I think that is a measure to which Parliament ought not to give its assent. For these reasons, although the Bill be amended in Committee, as long as it puts the predominating power in the hands of the voluntary managers of these schools, I, for one, shall vote against it at every stage.
SIR FRANCIS POWELL: As one who is not a novice in the work of education, I hope the House will permit me to express my views on this Bill. An additional reason for desiring to take part in this debate is the fact that, although I was not a Member of the House in 1870, I was associated with Mr. Forster by the closest bonds of personal friendship. Moreover, I was hon. secretary of the National Education Union, an institution brought into existence in antagonism to the Birmingham Education League. It is a somewhat remarkable incident in a prolonged political life that, while in 1870 I was strongly opposed to my right hon. friend the Member for West Birmingham, I am today, thirty years after, supporting
854
him in an educational measure touching an important branch of our national life.
Reference has been made to the urgency of the question. I would venture to repeat the sentiment which has been so often urged, because I believe it lies at the very root of the matter. If this were not a day of national emergency, it might be unfair to ask Members on either side of the House to surrender their predilections or even their prejudices. But this is a day of national emergency, and it is only right that Members should be willing to make some sacrifice of personal convictions, in order to attain a great national end. The question of our deficiency in technical education has been brought closely home to me as a native and a representative of Lancashire. In former days, as I watched the fire in my room, I have thought what a pity it was that the brilliant colours I then saw should not be made use of for manufacturing. England discovered the application, and invented the aniline dyes. But the importance of the discovery was not appreciated, and it was left to the Gentians to derive the greatest advantage from the industry, the development of which was entirely at the command of England. I do not think it is known in this country how great is the loss we have sustained. I have seen on the banks of the Rhine some of those large establishments for the manufacture of aniline dyes. The works themselves are gigantic, but they are the least part of the institutions. They are in neighbourhoods which are the dwellings of a thriving population. I have one in my mind where every workman has a beautiful garden round his house, where the houses increase in size according to the importance of the inmate, where the leading partners in the concern dwell under pleasant circumstances in the midst of the workpeople, and where there are admirable schools, beautiful churches, and every provision for the comfort with which we desire to surround the habitations of working men. When I saw all that in Germany, I could not help thinking

855
what a pity it was that we had not the same advantages for our Lancashire population.
I desire to make one or two fragmentary observations before going more fully into the Bill. References have been made to the pupil teachers. It has not been sufficiently noticed that the pupil teacher of to-day is the result of accident. He was devised by Sir James Kay-Shuttleworth, I think, as an improvement on the monitorial system. I do not look upon the pupil teacher system as anything more than a temporary expedient. It was examined into a few years ago by a Commission, and the Report of that Commission led to an inquiry by the National Society. I had the honour of sitting on that Committee, and the impression produced on my mind was that, although for a few years the system might continue, it was a condemned system, and could not form a permanent part of our national system of education.
With regard to training colleges, we are terribly behind the Continent. In foreign capitals, and towns of any magnitude, we cannot help being struck by the large size of the buildings devoted to the training of teachers. Within those noble structures the education is prolonged and complete, and the teachers go into active life thoroughly equipped with all the intellectual, moral, and physical advantages which they require. Across the Atlantic, our American relations have adopted the same system, and it is on the basis of that system that they have built up, in large measure, their most successful scheme of national education.
Then I should like to refer to what I may call the overgrown school. I do not believe that schools containing 1,000 or 1,200 children are popular amongst parents, or that they are valuable educational agencies. They seem to turn out children just as a manufacturer turns out pieces of cloth. The mechanical side of education is too dominant, and the loss of sympathy, tenderness, and what I may term "humanity," is very great. Schools in which each individual child can be better known tend far more effectively to the cultivation of those higher qualities which it is the imperative endeavour of every educationist to produce.
856
Coming more closely to the Bill, I venture to express my great satisfaction at the measure the Government have introduced. I do not say it is perfect, I do not think it will pass through Committee without alteration; but it does meet the main condition which we have been endeavouring, during many years, to force on the Government—viz., that it should be a complete system covering the whole ground, that it should be a permanent system, so far as any system can be permanent, and that the educational world should be able to look forward to many years during which this system—with modifications, no doubt, and some improvement as time goes on—would be the central feature in the education of the country. That condition is very necessary. We have wasted much time in these controversie. If we can once establish a system which is the basis of a permanent arrangements, we shall learn from experience day by day and year by year, and it will be for a future rather than the present generation to reap the wholesome fruit. The work of education must necessarily be slow. It is to the sons and daughters of those who are now children that we must look for the diffusion through the whole of the community of that sound education which will really, for the first time, give that which we so greatly desire to sec in this country.
The question of area has always been one of great importance. When we deal with areas, we require one of large size; and I am sure that no area less than the county or county borough is equal to the duties which the authority must have imposed upon it. Without a large area you cannot have any security for an enlightened public opinion, the necessary resources, or that staff of teachers without which no system of education can be effective.
There is one blot on the Bill which has made its appearance at this early stage—viz., as regards the small local authority. If that part of the Bill remains, it can be rendered effective and useful only if the power of combination is freely exercised. We have an example in the borough which I have the honour to represent. We are building a technical school at a cost of £50,000, and are receiving assistance from, the surrounding authorities by means of combination. That great technical school, in the centre of the largest mining

857
population in the country, will thus derive much financial support. That plan has been followed in other districts; and I believe, if it is carried out, it will be found to be of as much benefit in other places as in South Lancashire. I certainly hope that every facility will be given to the formation of these combinations, and that the objection to the small district will be entirely removed by the free, and, if necessary, compulsory use of such powers of combination.
Now we come to the constitution of the authority. The Government are adopting a plan in which there are many points of similarity to that mentioned by Mr. Forster on the introduction of his Bill in 1870. The first scheme was that the elective body in the towns should be the Town Council. He said—
"The electoral body we have chosen for the towns is the Town Council. I do not think there can be much dispute upon that point. In the country we have taken the best model we can find—the selected vestry where there is one, and the vestry where there is no selected vestry. Whom are they to elect here? We thought the most simple provision, after all, the best. We allow them to elect whom they think fit."
That is really the first clause of the Bill, carrying out the original idea of Mr. Forster.
Then comes the question of direct or indirect election. It is a circumstance worthy of note that the most successful institutions in connection with education in this country are the Technical Instruction Committees. Every county, I believe, except two, has elected such a Committee, and their success proves the wisdom of that mode of constitution. It is the custom of the House to refer to America. I read today an interesting report published in March of this year giving the constitution of the educational authority in the city of Toronto. Toronto is one of the most progressive communities in the whole of Ontario. It has a population of 220,000, with a university, and also another college of great magnitude and importance. The constitution of these authorities in Toronto is as follows: The High School Board is appointed by the Council, and the public School Board, the Public Library Board, and the Technical School
858
Board by the Council and other representative bodies such as the Board of Trade and the Trades and Labour Council. This is on exactly the same system of administration as is suggested by the Government in this Bill.
As regards School Boards, I have but a few words to say. I have never joined in the language of denunciation in which some of my friends have indulged. I have seen too much of School Board work, and I value it too highly, to use any such language respecting its work. It so happens that one of the most impressive addresses which I ever heard respecting the greatest tragedy which this world ever saw was delivered in a pupil teachers' centre under School Board auspices. I can never forget that address, and I do not desire to conceal the indignation which I feel when language is used respecting School Board teaching which I believe to be eminently unjust in regard to their work. Some reference has been made to my right reverend friend the Bishop of Rochester. He has spoken in terms of friendship respecting the School Board system. One of the greatest works which he did while at Leeds was the part he took in the election of the School Board shortly before he became Bishop. He described the School Board system at that time as being a good working Christian system. That was the term he used in the controversy, and it is a phrase by which, I believe, he is willing to abide. At any rate, I am expressing his sentiment, and I think I am giving the exact text.
There is one objection to the School Board election which I think has scarcely been mentioned in these debates. I refer to election by the cumulative vote. No one who has taken any part in School Board elections can fail to know the impossibility of accurately gauging public sentiment by an election conducted on the principle of the cumulative vote. I speak from experience in this matter, having been called upon to take part on more than one occasion in the School Board election of the city of Bradford. But if there is a difficulty with regard to the cumulative vote, there is still a greater difficulty with regard to the voters. It is not known how few take part in these elections, and how difficult it is to induce voters to take the trouble of approaching

859
the poll. The time, I am sure, is fully ripe, looking to the apathy of the electoral body, when there should be a change in the nature of that suggested in the Bill. Some are of opinion, judging from their speeches, that this country is enamoured of the School Board system, and that there is a great desire to have School Boards throughout the whole country. There is disappointment on their part that there is any place where a School Board is not in operation. In the report last year of the Education Department there is a statement showing the number of School Boards and the circumstances under which they were constituted. It is an instructive document. In the counties and municipal boroughs, excluding London, there were 197 School Boards, and of these fifty-seven were compulsory, and 140 voluntary. In unincorporated towns and rural districts there were 2,347 School Boards, and of these 1,093 were compulsory, 205 were created by the necessity of meeting deficiencies by closing, and only 1,049 were constituted on the application of the people. The net result is that of 2,544 School Boards, 1,150 have been constituted by the compulsory action of the Central Department. I think that is a circumstance worthy of mention, and it goes far to show that the School Board system does not enjoy that popularity which some friends of it would desire us to believe. I am not speaking in depreciation of School Boards and their work, but I do say that the figures I have ventured to cite go to show that they do not enjoy that universal popularity of which we hear so much on the platform and in the House of Commons.
There is one provision in the Bill which I think is admirable, and that is the elasticity and the variety which will be possible in education should the Bill become law. We cannot have a system of rigid uniformity. The country will not endure a drastic code, but at the same time the system, which forms part of the Bill, that there shall be schemes constituted to meet the wants of different places, will give power to the central authority to sea that there is some uniformity of idea running through the whole system, and will prevent that falling away from want
860
of zeal in some cases which may be injurious to the work of education. The analogy of Wales, I am sure, is very encouraging. There has been success in Wales. I believe there will be like success in England, too. If I read the Bill rightly, it is a mistake to say that there is no compulsion. There is, I think, the same compulsion in this Bill as now exists in Wales. There is compulsion to frame a scheme under the Bill, and there is compulsion to frame schemes in Wales; but when a scheme is once in operation, it depends on the free will of the authorities to carry it out or let it languish. We must rely on public opinion in all these matters. It is totally impossible in education to force the pace. You can only advance by having public opinion at your back, and by gradually advancing as public opinion advances with you. In that way you ensure a safe and sure passage to the goal which you desire to reach.
I shall not make remarks on the religious aspect of the question. That has been, I think, sufficiently discussed already. I think I have already seen signs of agreement as regards religion. I believe that we all feel the necessity of advancing religious teaching in our schools. Something has been said about conscientious, conviction. I believe there is nothing so hurtful to conscientious conviction as a purely secular system. I am quite sure, when you come to deal, as you must deal, with tender consciences, there is less injury done to susceptibilities and convictions by the plan of the Government than by adopting any method which would practically lead to secular education, pure and simple, among the people of this country.
There is one difficulty in this Bill which has been spoken of by previous speakers, and to which I must make some reference, and that is the optional clause. I believe the optional clause has no friends. I have heard no commendation of that clause in the course of the debate in this House. I have had the honour of receiving a communication from the Technical Instruction Committee of the borough I represent, in which they commend the Bill, and desire that I should do what I can in the House to pass it through Parliament. But, while speaking in these terms of the Bill, they

861
condemn the optional clause, and I do most sincerely hope that before this debate reaches a conclusion we shall hear that the optional clause has been withdrawn. I wish to say one or two words with reference to Clause 8, which deals with control. I confess I am greatly surprised to hear objections to that clause from so many quarters. It appears to me that the control which remains to the managers of local schools is little indeed. There is control in Whitehall, and there is another control in the County Council, the only constituted local authority, and I think what remains of Clause 8 in the hands of managers is far less than the critics of that clause have fully realised or believe. On the other hand, I do not think that those with whom I act in some of those matters with reference to religious education have sufficiently appreciated the enormous burden which they are undertaking in regard to the buildings. The great difficulty we have before us, as the friends of the voluntary schools, is the condition of our buildings. They are very inferior in plan to those which are now prevalent, and, being inferior in plan, the wear and tear of twenty years has rendered them unfit to play their part in education. We have before us in connection with this clause enormous expense in the erection of new buildings. The cost must be very considerable. We know what the cost of schools is in great towns, but even in manufacturing villages the figures reach a large amount. I have in my mind at this moment a manufacturing village where the number of children is about 500, and the school has cost £15,000. The voluntary schools are asked to erect schools on the same lines as the school in Yorkshire to which I refer. I certainly do think that the bargain—if I may call it a bargain—under Clause 8 is a severe bargain with the friends of voluntary schools, and I feel the greatest surprise that it has not been more cordially welcomed by those who take a different view from ourselves on this subject. As regards the nomination on the managing body of one-third only, it must not be forgotten that this third necessarily holds the power of the purse. They represent those who have to pay out the money, and therefore they have an authority far in excess of the other
862
members of the Committee. Some remarks have been made by previous speakers in regard to the small schools. I confess that that part of the Bill relating to small schools will require considerable amendment. As regards public control, I may be allowed to call public attention to a passage in the Report of the Royal Commission on Secondary Education. That Commission deprecate too much control. They think that secondary schools ought to be allowed considerable freedom, that they ought to be allowed to try experiments based on experience of the locality, and that the cause of education will be greatly advanced by these experiments.
There is one remark I wish to make before I resume my seat, and as to which I do not wish to be misunderstood. I believe I am as good a friend of education as any Member of this House, but I am by no means certain that much of the money spent on education has been wisely spent. It does not, however, follow that, because money has been spent freely, it has been spent usefully. I believe that much money spent on buildings might have been more usefully spent in the cause of education. If the managers had been more modest in their policy as regards construction there might have been more comfort to the pupils, the work of education might have been more satisfactory both to the teachers and those who received the instruction. I think it would be an advantage to the friends of education if a different system of construction of the school buildings were adopted. Something has been said, and well said, as regards overlapping. Overlapping very often means redundancy. I know of cases where a technical school has been erected in the immediate neighbourhood of an endowed school which was doing good work, and where the endowed school has been greatly injured by the rivalry of a school which was doing exactly the same work as the endowed school. I have already said that the work of education cannot be completed in this country in one generation. We are only laying the foundation now. The work will be carried on generation after generation, and it will only be at the end of half a century that we shall have attained the goal reached either by Germany or America. We

863
are only beginning the work of which a future generation will see the end, and it is our duty to insist that the foundation is well and truly laid and that our successors shall reap the benefit of our labours under conditions which to us of this day are a vision and a dream.
MR. MATHER: I feel that the debate on this great question has been conducted in a manner worthy of the House of Commons. The spirit exhibited on both sides has been most conciliatory, so far as the Bill before us enables this great question to be discussed. I think there has been a fair appreciation on both sides of the House of the motives which led the Government to bring the Bill before the House and the purposes they had in view. But I cannot forbear expressing the opinion that neither the Government nor those who, up till now, have addressed the House are sufficiently aware of the great magnitude and the far-reaching issues involved in the measure now under consideration. The last speaker, the hon. Member for Wigan, stated that the educational status of Germany and America had not been attained in a day. That is true, and it is because it is true, that we must realise that we have long years to make up educationally before we can place our people—the finest people in the world—on the same educational plane as is enjoyed by those nations with whom we rank in extending the civilisation of the world.
I think it may not be lost time if I endeavour to place before the House, for a few minutes, the position we have to face in England, especially in competition with that nation—our own kith and kin across the Atlantic—whose progressive development during the last twenty years has astonished the world, and whose standard we have to aspire to by very much the same process they have had to go through. I had the honour of visiting the United States on the invitation of the late Mr. Mundella, and of spending the greater part of a year in inquiring into technical education there, for the purpose of reporting to the Royal Commission on the subject in 1883. I was therefore enabled to see the enormous difference between ourselves and America, and even Germany, in the application of a cultured intelligence to all the purposes
864
of life. I do not wish to deal with sordid interests and material gain. I sympathise with the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich, who reminded us that life was not all compounded of money-grubbing or even of sensual comfort, but that its true issuesare highandnoble ideals; and that it is the duty of the country to inculcate in our youths and maidens the highest truths of Christianity. I have no issue with the noble Lord on that subject, nor, I am sure, has any Member on this side of the House. The quality of religious training, however, with us, as it has always been in America, is deficient in the view of those who consider dogmatic and theological teaching of more value than the simple old commandments and the teaching of our Lord Himself—which every child can understand. In America they have no sectarian religious instruction, but education in the public schools is associated from the very beginning with a high moral training. And it has been discovered that, in order to develop the highest religious as well as the intellectual faculties of their people, it was necessary to have a system of secular instruction of the most perfect and complete character. I would remind the House that the position we have to face is that in America there are 16,000,000 children in daily attendance at public, primary, and high schools, and that instruction is given free to all sorts and conditions and classes of children at an annual cost of 43 millions sterling from public taxation. There are 5,000 high schools, with property amounting to £20,000,000 sterling; and 2,000 private schools, with property amounting to £11,000,000 sterling. In these institutions there were, in 1890, 280,000 students from whom no payment was required, while in 189G there were 480,000 students. In all the public and private educational institutions below the colleges there was a daily attendance of 646,000 students of from fourteen to eighteen years of age, all being trained for industrial, professional, or educational life. In addition to that, there are 484 colleges and universities, provided by State funds and private beneficence, besides 162 women's colleges and 48 technological schools, the total value of which amounts to 57 millions sterling. That is what is being done in a

865
country with which we shall have to compete in the future not only in industrial enterprise, but also in the intellectual, and probably in the moral, sphere. In the State of Massachusetts alone there are 262 high schools. I have myself visited towns in America, with only a population of 5,000 inhabitants, which have a high school for boys and another for girls, or a mixed high school. Now, in my own division of Rossendale, in Lancashire, there is a population of 70,000, and there is only one high school—a Grammar school capable of receiving 100 boys—a school partially endowed, no thanks to the present generation. The girls in that division have to travel by rail to a neighbouring town at great inconvenience and considerable expense in order to enjoy the advantages of a high school training. In America children have an enormous advantage. They have at their very doors, associated with the elementary schools, high schools through which all the children can pass absolutely free. It is one of the characteristics of these American schools that they are all conducted on such principles and under such a system that the scholars or students, whether in the primary or in the high schools, regard school life as the happiest and most joyous time of their existence. They have apparently only one desire, and that is, in some degree, to excel. The teachers are devoted to their occupation; thousands upon thousands of them are trained in the normal colleges, and, therefore, the entire system is one organic whole, leading the humblest boy and girl to the highest position to which education can take them, if they are able to avail themselves of the opportunity.
That, roughly, is the system which exists in the nation nearest to ourselves in characteristics, and the nation which is likely to compete with us intellectually as well as commercially in the future. I ask—Is it fair to the children of the United Kingdom that their opportunities should be so few as compared with the opportunities given to the children of the great nation across the Atlantic? I can imagine everyone saying, "No, it is not fair." The Government have, in consequence, brought in
866
a Bill ostensibly to place the educational system of England on a proper basis. I will admit to the Vice-President that this Bill is a very large Bill in the sense that it is comprehensive; but it is so attenuated that it seems; to be almost impossible to build up a national system of education out of it worthy of this country, capable of maintaining this country in the position it has held in the past, or of, in any degree, competing with the intellectual life and power of America and Germany. Considered from that point of view, is it not the duty of this House, is it not a solemn obligation on Parliament, that we should face this question with large minds? Beware of this, that no limited expenditure of money can have any relation to the object proposed. Money is the last thing that should be considered in relation to education. It is useless to tell us, who have, in this House and out of it, for so many years advocated a better national system of instruction, capable of giving our people the advantages enjoyed by the people of other nations, that it would cost a great deal of money. I know it would cost a great deal of money; and I know that under present conditions the Government have shrunk from encountering the cost of a thoroughly national system of education based on the lines of education in other countries with which we will have in future to compete. But the great crux in the situation, of course, has been the eternal religious difficulty.
I can understand the adherents of the Church of England, and those who believe in voluntary denominational education, saying that if the Liberal Party or the Nonconformist Party can suggest a scheme by which the children of this country can be trained efficiently and well, other than partly through the voluntary schools that exist today, they might be inclined to listen to them. We all know perfectly well that our voluntary and denominational schools are providing, under Government inspection, more than half the elementary education of the country. Those schools cannot be removed without making provision of a far-reaching character, which would cost a vast sum of money. For my own part, I do not believe it would be possible in this country to have a system of instruction worthy of our history, capable of carrying it on to future ages of more

867
intellectual requirements and achievements, retaining the same priority we have enjoyed in the past, unless we have a national system from top to bottom under public control, leaving out altogether the question of voluntary or denominational schools in our reckoning of what we should provide for the people. The Leader of the House very truly said that we have today half the children of the country in such schools. Those schools cannot be immediately replaced. They have cost a great deal of money, and, owing to the gifts of their owners, and partial assistance from the State, they are now performing a work which we cannot immediately provide for. I am quite willing to accept that view. We cannot immediately replace these schools; we must make use of them, until Parliament is determined to spend £50,000,000 in order to build training colleges for teachers, a sufficient number of high schools, so that every locality in the country with a population of 5,000 shall have one, and also technical schools and secondary schools of all grades; and, underlying all these, an extension of primary board schools under popular control, to gradually replace the voluntary and denominational schools. I would be quite prepared to spend that money if I had it in my own pocket; but I admit that, considering the demands on the Chancellor of the Exchequer owing to the war, I cannot now urge a scheme of that kind. Meantime, we have to make use of what we possess, namely, the board schools and the denominational schools.
I do not know whether I am right, but, judging from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House on the First Reading of this Bill, and also by what has been said by the Vice-President, I have come to the conclusion that voluntary schools will, ipso facto, cease to exist as such if this Bill passes. The noble Lord the Member; for Greenwich, in his extremely able and delightful speech, alluded indirectly to the same point, perhaps not desiring to make of it what I should like to make of it. I understand that, when the voluntary schools receive from the State and from the rates the whole cost of the education they supply, ipso facto they cease to be voluntary schools. The only reason for their existence today is because they are partially supported by the subscriptions
868
of their owners. They receive State grants by the will of Parliament, but these grants do not cover the whole expenditure of the schools. These grants are given in order that the schools may still continue to give denominational teaching during a certain hour of the day, but the balance of the expenditure must be obtained from their own resources. Under this Bill though I know it is not actually declared in words, the whole cost of the voluntary schools now in existence will be paid out of the rates and by Treasury grants. We all know, taking human nature as it is, that as soon as this Bill passes with such a provision, the subscriptions will cease, and that the contribution which the owners of voluntary schools will make will consist of the use of the buildings, which they undertake to keep painted and papered and in decent order. That will be inevitable. Why-should it be anything else? If we pass this Bill, why should the owners of voluntary schools give a farthing for any other purpose except for the upkeep of the buildings?
Under these circumstances, I cannot arrive at any other conclusion than that the voluntary schools will cease on the passing of this Bill. What rights will they then have left? They will have the right of denominational teaching. That is to say, the owners of the schools, be they Roman Catholic or Church schools, will, for a certain prescribed limit daily, have the right of teaching their own creeds by catechism or by any other means. Why is that right to be retained? On what ground of justice is it to be retained? It is retained on the ground of the bargain involved in the clauses of this Bill which imply that the Government says, "We will not take from you your schools at a rental. You shall give us the use of the buildings and maintain them in good repair for secular instruction, and we will allow you to continue denominational teaching in them in return for this contribution." I think the voluntary schools for secular teaching will be abolished, so soon as the whole cost is borne by public funds, by an automatic process; for then they will have become public schools. But the denominational principle of teaching

869
in the schools is purchased by the owners of these schools through the accommodation they offer by their buildings. This Bill presents this thin partition between the absolute suppression of all denominational teaching, and when that partition is swept away, denominational teaching ceases. That may be undesirable, but I am not going to argue the religious question now. I belong to all denominations. I can worship in any Church. I see good in every Church. The Church of England and all denominations receive my humble contributions. I am always glad to support any religion that has anything of good in it. If I see a Church, of any kind, teaching the duty of religion in relation to life, then, in an indirect degree, I think I am a member of that Church.
In this matter of denominational school buildings supplying accommodation for three millions of children I think the circumstances of today are so difficult that if we had the power we should not be justified in denying the rights which these schools have had for thirty years past under the Act of 1870. But if they are to enjoy those rights, under what conditions must they enjoy them when they are no longer voluntary schools? We ought to say: You can enjoy the control in the management of these schools to the extent which your contribution to the object of the school represents. If you take a denominational school for 500 children, an excellent school, provided with all the accessories, will cost about £5,000. Supposing the rent of that school was £250, with another £50 added for repairs, then you get £300 a year, which might be the rent that would be charged if the school were given over to the local authorities altogether. To the extent of that sum, contributed to the total cost of education in that form, the denominationalists deserve representation. The representation which the local authority ought to have must also be in proportion to what they contribute. If they contribute £1,200 from public funds to maintain that school as a highly efficient and excellent school, the proportion would be as four to one between the local educational authority proposed under the Bill and the owners of the school buildings. The denominational
870
owners cannot ask for more than one-quarter of the representation. That is logically correct and true. But I do not know that we ought to be so nice about the proportion as to say that we should have the proportion of four to one, or any exact proportion; but in the Amendment which I hope to move on this Bill, if I may be allowed to say so, at a subsequent stage, I would claim, under these circumstances, that at least half of the local school management committees, appointed by the local education authority, plus one, must be the least majority, in order to deal justly with the public control of the school. That may destroy the voluntary character of the schools, but it does not interfere with nor destroy the privileges allowed to them by Parliament of teaching, within proper limits, the tenets of the Church to which the school buildings belong. This public control covers a great principle, which many Members of this House cannot see violated without much vehement opposition.
Now, another part of the Bill deals with what, in my opinion, is by far the most important part of this matter—the question of the local education authority. During my absence in Egypt, my right hon. friend, if I may call him so, in the lucid and admirable speech in which he introduced the Bill, made a very kindly allusion to the great interest I take in education. He then traversed the statement which I had made in this House last year about America, and said it was not quite in accordance with the facts. I have looked up the statements in the short speech which he referred to, and I certainly find that, while the words I used might bear the interpretation which my right hon. friend placed upon them, they are absolutely true for the purposes for which I used them. I said that all schools in America were under the control of School Boards. I should have said School Boards and School Committees. The School Board is elected in the United States, or, at least, in the majority of the States, though in some cases it is appointed by nomination of the Councils; but, when once formed, it is absolutely responsible. When once elected, the Boards have absolute control over all grades of education except the colleges; nor can authorities who

871
may have appointed them interfere with their action during the period of time for which they have to serve. They design, construct, and erect schools I under what is called in America an "appropriation." The Town Council, the city authority, or the State Legislature will appropriate money in a lump sum every year for education, and this sum is placed in the hands of these Boards, who are responsible to the country, as well as to those who appoint them, for the work they do. I do not believe that there is a case in recent years on record where a presentation of those School Boards has been denied or has ever been the subject of argument by the Town Councils who give the money which the Boards represent as necessary. It has become equal to our precept for education. The spread of education in America causes people to give freely, no matter how heavy may be their taxation. There are many places where one-fifth or one-sixth of the whole amount at which the town is taxed is paid over to these educational authorities.
Now let us look at this Bill from a business point of view. I should think it would be difficult for any business man to conceive such a scheme to work out well as this Bill lays down for the management of our schools in future. It seems to me that the framers of this Bill have gone all the way round by circumlocutory methods in order to arrive at a stage of indetermination. If they had provided for the School Committees being absolutely responsible after they were formed I should not have minded, for in that case you would have had a body of men giving as much time to education as a member of a School Board gives today. But I agree entirely with my hon. friend the Member for Berwickshire that affecting this question is the supersession of the School Boards now existing, which is a very important—which is a vital point. Why should we have any discussion in this House as to what School Boards have done, or what they have not done, when we know that as a whole they have done their work remarkably well? The Leader of the House has said so; the Vice-President of the Council has said so. There have been innumerable references made to the good work that has been done by the School Boards. But the proposal in the Bill is to suppress
872
School Boards and to give their duties to the Borough and City Councils. If you are going to deal with such an important and complex matter as secondary education, and keep primary education up to the same high condition in which it is at the present time under the School Boards, you are going to place a task on the Borough and City Councils, who are to undertake this duty, impossible for them to perform. They would have no special knowledge or experience, and in a large measure owing to their composition, no will and no interest in education, having regard to their other duties. They would, of course, be glad to see schools in their towns; but to take the conduct of the work on themselves, without some years' practice, would be to take on something of which they are not capable.
Why not adopt the simple plan in relation to this matter? Leave the School Boards as they are today in the larger towns and areas, with certain additional obligations which you could place upon them by this Bill, and let them continue in their task of providing for the whole of the primary education both in board schools and in the voluntary schools now to be cast upon the public funds. There would be equality then for all the children; the children of the denominational schools would have the same advantages as the children of the board school. That is the first consideration in respect to education from this time forward—that all the children of the country shall have equality of opportunity in every school supported by public money. This is a simple plan. Let a statutory obligation be placed on the School Board in future, and upon the secondary education authority, to prepare a scheme under which there should be absolute unity of administration. Such a system already exists in some of the large towns of the country. We must look at the expression "one authority" more from the point of view of securing one aim and purpose than that of having simply one set of persons. You will secure all that you can possibly secure by one authority if you compel the School Board and the local authority, under a statutory obligation, to draw up a scheme to secure perfect harmony, unity, and economy between the two sets of schools.

873
Look at what an immense relief that would give to the work of the new authorities. They would be able to devote themselves to what, after all, is the most important and vital of all the work that is to be done, viz., the establishment of a large and comprehensive system of secondary education. I think the local authorities may, by degrees, be trained to a position of that kind. They have made a beginning under the Technical Instruction Act of 1889. In 1889, when the Technical Instruction Bill was before the House, all sorts of charges were levelled against my party allegiance and my views of education, because I ventured to say that for technical instruction purposes the Town Council would be as good a body as you could get. But the result has shown that I was correct in my view. In the question of technical instruction there is a trade and commercial element involved. Town Councils think it will pay to have technical instruction schools, which, in a sense, are trade schools, and they have gone heartily into the work of administration, with a considerable amount of success. The whiskey money naturally gave an impetus to the work, and large benefits have accrued to the country therefrom. I would take this authority as the secondary education authority under our present conditions. But, in the first instance, they must be encouraged to spend large sums of money to make the work satisfactory, and to secure the establishment of the system within the shortest possible time. In addition to that, the right hon. Gentleman would do well, when in Committee, to put down a clause pledging Parliament to give £1,000,000 throughout the country, in the same way as the whiskey money was distributed, for the purpose of starting and improving secondary education. By that means an enormous encouragement would be given to the people sympathising with and engaged in this work, and they would be bound to levy rates to an equal or greater amount. There should be no limit placed in this matter, so that there might be provided a system of secondary instruction such as would be worthy of our country in the next generation.
874
I would appeal to the House to rise to the height of its intelligence, magnanimity, and patriotism, in order that this Bill should not be allowed to emerge from Committee until it has been made into a thoroughly efficient and lasting measure of primary and secondary education. Now is the golden time. There should be no question of the war having any influence in this matter. England is so wealthy that we are told we can put £50,000,000 there, and £10,000,000 here, and another £10,000,000 somewhere else, and yet recover ourselves in a few years. It would be quite worth while to borrow money on good terms and have the repayment spread over a long period of years—which it might well be in the matter of education. At any rate, the matter should be taken in hand at once. Do not postpone this great work to a future generation. Do justice to the children of the day, and so prepare them that the country may be equal to the obligations and great possibilities of the future. This is a matter in regard to which we ought to put aside all our prejudices, selfish interests, and partial affections. I believe in the House of Commons. I believe it worthily represents the people of England as a whole, and that in this matter of education it is capable of doing that which the people require. I believe that its patriotism does not run only in the direction of finding money for war purposes, but that it is able to see that there are other questions which cannot wait. We are losing the golden hours; what is more, we are losing a portion of the value which lies in the brain, the spirit, and the character of so many of our young people. From this point of view I regard the matter as one of the utmost gravity and importance. I am ashamed, when I go abroad, that I cannot boast of my country having equal opportunities for its young people as other countries possess and, so far as my humble voice has any weight, I raise it on this occasion to urge that this matter should be so dealt with in Committee as to broaden this Bill, and courageously and patriotically face the duty before us.
MR. PEEL: I find myself in agreement with many statements made by the hon. Gentleman opposite. I agree that the competitor

875
we have to fear in our commercial contests is much more the American than the German. Having some knowledge of both countries, I have no hesitation in saying that our real danger comes from America. I was rather astonished at certain observations which fell from the hon. Baronet opposite. He seemed anxious to split the Bill into two parts, and, while dealing with the elementary portion of it, to postpone the secondary portion.
SIR EDWARD GREY: The other way about.
MR. PEEL: As I understand, he wanted us to ask the local authorities to make some investigations into the supply of secondary education, and then, those inquiries having been made, some other lengthy process was to take place. I wonder he did not propose a Royal Commission, or some other equally successful method of shelving the question for a few years. I think his speech in that respect is sufficiently answered by the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Haddingtonshire, who dwelt upon the immediate necessity of a great improvement in secondary education in this country, and showed that the last thing we have to do is to potter about with such suggestions, instead of giving the local authorities power to deal with the matter at once.
Much has been said on the other side as to the inability of Town or Borough Councils to deal properly with the subject of elementary education. In fact, the last speaker spoke of the Town and County Councils in a somewhat patronising manner, and suggested that after some time they might be trained properly to perform these duties. I have never been able to see much difference between the kind of ability which manages ordinary local affairs and that which is necessary for the conduct of educational matters. I have sat on Main Drainage Committees and on Education Committees, but I have never found that I exercised any very different portions of my brain when dealing with the work of the one or the other, or that when I went from the consideration of matters affecting the one to that of matters affecting the other I had to perform any extraordinary mental gymnastics.
876
From the point of view of local government generally, I welcome this Bill very heartily. It is of the utmost importance that we should, as far as possible, concentrate the whole of our local government. We want to be as economical as we can of our ability. In many of our great boroughs there is a great waste of ability, because men have to sit on one Council and on another, whereas if the whole of the work was concentrated they would be able to give their attention to the varied work of the one Council. I am utterly opposed to an ad hoc, authority for education. However possible it may be to have such an authority in the large towns, it would be not only impossible, but almost absurd, to set up such a thing in the counties. The great mass of the governing ability of the counties is already on the County Councils. In certain counties that I know it would be quite impossible to get another body of anything like the same ability or force as the County Council. The whole life, so to speak, of some of these small counties is centred in the present local bodies. To dissociate these men from the great work of education, and set up another body to do that work, would be one of the worst things that could possibly be done.
It has been said that religious controversy will be introduced into these local bodies, but I think those local bodies will show far greater wisdom than the prophets who have prophesied concerning them in this House. I am pretty well convinced myself that this religious controversy will be so diluted that it will filter down, and that fresher air and more vigorous intellect of these bodies will entirely do away with any danger of that kind, and will present a far broader field of intelligence than any special ad hoc authority that can possibly be provided. I sympathise with those who have dwelt upon the loss of power that will result if we rapidly exchange our School Boards for another authority, but I think that this Bill provides the means by which we can minimise any of that loss. When hon. Members speak of the loss of power, they seem to forget that a great deal of the work of management is carried on by the permanent officials, and who will merely be transferred to

877
the new authority. Under the Bill you have this allowance: These new bodies are able to select and co-operate with the best authorities upon education which they can find in the county and town, and I have no doubt that the best ability on these School Boards will find its way on to these authorities. You may probably make a very good selection. The members of School Boards are not all gems of the first water, and probably the pick of them will find their way on to the new authority. The new experiment which is to be tried is in many ways an interesting one. We have a considerable objection to experts in this country. We regard experts, as a rule, as rather tiresome persons, who know a great deal too much on certain subjects, and whose veracity, even in the Law Courts, is not always above suspicion. We are making a fresh attempt with these new authorities, and, although I share some of the dislike and suspicion which have been attributed to them, I feel we must in the future far more than in the past, and forced thereto by the necessity of competition, make much more use of the trained and expert intellect of the nation than we have done before amongst the representatives on these new authorities. I hope the utmost use will be made of the university colleges in different pans of the country. I have had some little experience myself in Manchester, and I have seen the enormous influence which can be exercised by a single university college in great towns where you find, perhaps, that the general run of opinion and the general ambition is set upon the making of money. It is wonderful to observe the great effect produced on the society of a town like that by having another set of men living side by side with these men in a great city whose ambitions, aims, and principles are of an entirely different nature, who are bent upon educating the young and those connected with culture and learning. I should be glad if these university authorities were to have a more definite position assigned to them. I should like the whole country to be so divided that the university authorities would have the right of appointing a member to the different authorities within certain areas so that you might connect not only your
878
primary and secondary, but your secondary with what the hon. and learned Member for Haddingtonshire calls the tertiary system. The hon. Member for Oldham rather laughed at the one authority, but the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Aberdeen attacked the Bill rather on different grounds. He attacked it because it did not sufficiently carry out the idea of a single authority, and because we do not retain all through this one idea of a single authority. This is a matter for criticism in the Bill, and I should have preferred not quite so much freedom given to some of the smaller Borough Councils and urban districts to conduct the education themselves. I am one of those who cannot quite understand the marked distinction in the Bill between a Borough Council and an Urban District Council, and I do not see why a difference in numbers should make such a curious distinction in the powers they are to enjoy.
There is one point about the Bill which I must give my hearty assent to, and that is the great freedom that is allowed for combination between the different authorities. Reference has been made to Lancashire and Yorkshire. In these counties you have continuous districts of houses, and a man can scarcely tell whether he is in an urban district or in a borough. In such cases the power of combination between different urban districts and the parishes in the country, so as to form one authority, will be greatly appreciated. Even in connection with the great county boroughs, it is most important that some of the urban districts closely adjoining—so close that there is absolutely no physical distinction between them—should be able to join together and disregard to some extent the mere local government areas which have been set up and thus give a real attention to the educational necessities of the educational centre which naturally forms itself in those districts. The adoptive clause has been so generally attacked, and its friends have been so few, that I hardly like myself to strike a man who is down; and as the adoptive part is likely to fall through, it would be ungracious on my part to make any further attack upon it. I think almost an excess of freedom has been allowed to local authorities, and it is quite possible,

879
while allowing them the, freest liberty in matters of detail, to give them some more general directions as to the line in which they should go in the matter of secondary education.
We have been reminded that a large number of schools which used to be elementary have now become secondary, and these schools will now be thrown upon the secondary rate, so that the twopenny rate will have a great strain upon it. We should also remember that throwing this burden upon the secondary education rate will lighten the rate for elementary education, and so we need not be so much afraid of throwing a greater burden upon the secondary education rate. I was in hopes that the distinction between primary and secondary education would have been done away with altogether.
The Vice-President of the Council has alluded to the fact that it is impossible to see any difference between the two in administration, and even the philosopher in his arm-chair would be about the only person who would be able to draw a distinction. I do not know that I can call myself a philosopher, but I have tried the arm-chair, and I have not been able to see the difference. A great deal has been said about the question of expense and the extra burdens which will be put upon the country by this Bill. That is perfectly true; but what we have to compare that charge with is the greater burden which would have been laid upon the country if another system had been adopted by sweeping away the whole of the voluntary schools and replacing them by new secular schools under these authorities. I approach the subject of the compromise that has been arrived at with some trepidation, because the hon. Baronet the Member for the Berwick Division told us that a compromise was a negation of principle. I have always beenled to believe that the framework of our constitution is based on compromise; and if that is so, I am quite ready to do away with a little more principle and have a little more compromise on this question. It has been urged by hon. Members opposite that the voluntary schools are giving up nothing in the way of control under this Hill. It seems hardly possible for anyone who has read the Bill through to make such a statement, and some of the criticisms
880
I have read which have been passed by keen educationists have confirmed in my mind the opinion that they have not read the whole Bill. How can it be said that they give up nothing when they have practically lost the control over their schools, when in regard to the minutest matter they are absolutely under the control of the local authorities, when public criticism and interest has burst through the portals of their schools, when they cannot even appoint a single teacher without the consent of the local authority, and when at any moment they may have not only the rate aid, but the Government grant as well, withdrawn?
There is one point I should like to be made perfectly clear upon in connection with the representation upon the local authority. I suppose they will have the power of reporting directly to their governing body, because it is obvious that, unless they have a direct channel to report to the local authority, the majority of managers will be able to do what they please. There ought to be a clear means of reporting directly to the local authority. Subject to that—and that is the only thing we have got to look at—there is absolute security for the secular portion of the education of those people. I do not see myself that it matters one bit whether you have, for the purpose of securing secular education, one-third or two-thirds of the managers you appoint; but I do say this with perfect certainty; that it is quite impossible that any kind of control should still be maintained by the managers unless they have this majority, and so have the power to let these teachers see that the religious feeling and tendency is entirely in sympathy with their own. I should like to know what is the precise organic connection of the Education Committee with the local authority itself, because I think that has not been made clear. I should like to know, for instance, whether the complete command of all the details and the settlement of all those matters is to be left to it, or whether it has to report, as other Committees have to report, to the authority itself, because that makes a difference in the kind of control the authority has over it. The Bill is perfectly clear as to the control the local authority has over finance, but if the local authority merely has to vote money, and if it does not scrutinise to some extent details and

881
have reports made co it, there is a possibility of some kind of friction between a Committee so constituted and the local authority itself.
Subject to some details of that kind. I feel that this Bill in its main lines is a great advance on anything we have yet had. It allows immense freedom to those local authorities—a freedom which many speakers on the other side of the House have been led to believe will not always be well used and which will sometimes be abused. The hon. Baronet was afraid that the improvement of secondary education would be postponed, and in that respect I should like to stiffen the Bill and make it compulsory both for secondary and elementary education. If you lay that duty on the local authorities, I believe they will vigorously respond to it. Give them the order, and though they may in some eases grumble, they will, obey. You may rely fully and confidently on the growing interest and enthusiasm in education which are shown in the country. I hear sometimes in this House that little interest and enthusiasm are shown for education. I can only say that in the district which sent me to Parliament—a portion of Manchester, and a, portion of the county of Manchester—I find no coldness or want of enthusiasm whatever. I find rather that, next to the war, there is no subject—and it is admitted that the details of the matter are somewhat dry—there is no subject which arouses the enthusiasm even of a popularaudience more than the education question, and the opportunities given to young men and women to make the best of whatever ability has been bestowed upon them. Knowing that feeling, and with the experience I have gained in Lancashire of the enthusiasm for education, I myself am prepared to trust those new local authorities. They have got the enthusiasm, and where they have not got the experience they can, by this system of co-option, which has been condemned in some quarters, but which I believe as a starting point is most admirable, obtain the assistance of exports, and I believe they will set our primary and secondary education, together with all our education, on a far higher, more satisfactory, and suitable position than we have ever had it before.
MR. ALFRED BUTTON: The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down began his speech with a very well-timed compliment to the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich, whose speech greatly interested the House. But I was astonished to find in that speech a reference which the noble Lord made to the Nonconformists. According to that statement, I am one of the allies of the Church of England, but a mistaken and misguided one. I do not think there can be so very much hope of unity of action if one of the allies calls the other one "mistaken and misguided" at the beginning. But the fact of the matter is that the noble Lord based his peroration, eloquent as it was, on what seemed to me, and to many who think like me, a mistaken idea of the duty and the attitude which Parliament must have in relation to religious denominations. I would point out to the noble Lord that Churchmen and Nonconformists must work together if they are to achieve much in regard to the evils of the world; but the noble Lord must climb down a little bit from the attitude he and his friends always take up with respect to the relation between this House and the Church, and you cannot hope for any effective alliance so long as the basis of their action is a close connection with the State and assistance from the Exchequer. He may believe that it is of the utmost importance to the welfare of this country that denominational teaching shall continue in order to keep hold of the rising generation: but there are others, just as anxious as he is to have the continued growth of religious teaching, who believe that that connection is just the one barrier to success, and that the State alliance with the Church is one of the things which prevents that vitality and force which religion ought to have from one end of the country to the other, and I believe it would be very much more efficacious and powerful if left an entirely voluntary agency, rather than that it should receive public money from the Exchequer for its maintenance. The whole of his speech depended upon his ability to secure the assistance of the Government in maintaining this position. I would agree with him in giving all the denominational teaching he may desire in his own schools, but I think that provision for that can be devised perfectly well without its being provided at the expense

883
of the public, and by means of the State. If the proposition which was made as to the control of the schools which was made by the hon. Baronet the Member for the Berwick Division were accepted by the noble Lord and his friends, it would only mean that he would secure secondary education. Surely he does not think that religious education would be given in that way. I know that he and his friends would say that there must be a religious atmosphere in the school, and that the teaching even of secular subjects must be under the religious control of the Church. There I join issue with him. That would be utterly impossible to consent to. But we have learned from him what is the meaning of the "absolute control." It is an entire misnomer.
The Vice-President, throughout the whole of his speech, spoke of the County Council as being the authority established under the Bill. I think that is rather a misrepresentation of the proposal in the Bill. The County Council is really only the nominal authority. [An HON MEMBER: No.] Well, it has to act through this Committee, and the Committee is to be com-posed under a scheme which is to meet with the approval of the Department. I do not think it is at all likely to get any scheme which will give a representative Committee. The Colonial Secretary in his letter spoke of this Committee as a representative Committee. It will only be representative of those various interests brought into it, and it is only through that Committee that the local authority can have a voice in the work of the school. Who will go on to those Committees? They will be formed of those who have objects of their own to serve—the representatives of diocesan associations, Roman Catholics, technical schools, mechanics' institutes, or other corporate agencies of that kind; and I do not think a single representative will go on but to push some particular fad of his own. The right hon. Gentleman told us that what was wanted in these local districts was a plan. What hope is there of getting a plan through this representative Committee, who will have to appease those various agencies? This scheme means intrigue. Why, it has already begun. There was an important meeting
884
of the various diocesan Committees at Truro the other day, and the following resolution was passed—
"That this meeting is of opinion that no time should be lost in preparing to meet the new conditions which will arise if the Bill becomes law, both with regard to the various bodies intending to apply to the local authority and the choice of tit persons to represent them."
You can never hope to have under this Bill the public opinion which the hon. Member for Haddington desires to see. How are you going to rouse public opinion in regard to this authority when you have taken care under the scheme to shut out public opinion? How is it possible to rouse, in regard to these new authorities, that public opinion which the hon. and learned Member for Haddingtonshire declares to be necessary for their success? Care has been taken to shut out public opinion from these new bodies. I quite agree with the hon. and learned Member for Haddingtonshire that public opinion and interest are vital to the improvement of the education of this country. If all the most important experts in the world were represented on the educational authority, and if the best schools that could be devised were established, I do not believe that there would be a satisfactory result unless we could get the people to be interested in the efficiency and maintenance of the schools. That is the reason why I am in favour of that much despised authority called the ad hoc authority. The Vice-President of the Council says that the ad hoc authority is an anachronism. Well, I have been sitting in this House for the past ten years, and it is not the first time I have been told that I was a century out of date. I do not know whether that century is in front or behind; but I do hope that the right hon. Gentleman's ideas as to providing one authority to take charge over all the education in all the schools will be realised even before the next generation. If it be impossible to conceive, as the Leader of the House put it, that Parliament should consent to uproot the denominational schools of the country at one fell swoop, it is equally impossible to conceive that the country will agree to the School Board schools being so uprooted. I could read quotations from the speeches both of Mr. Forster and the Duke of Devonshire in which they express the view that the

885
time would come when School Board schools would cover the whole country. That a County Council should be enabled, merely by a resolution, and without any referendum to the people, to abolish the School Boards in their area and take over the control of all the School Board and voluntary schools, seems to me an action far more revolutionary than the country is likely to accept. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that those who are opposed to this Bill, and who form so important a part of the community, do so because they will not have their interests entirely neglected. I cannot see what the denominational schools are giving up. They are asked to maintain their buildings in repair. Is that a gnat matter? For, after all, they are subsidised schools. But the Bishop of Chester and the Bishop of London have already begun to say that that is a charge which they cannot be expected to bear long; that it is an intolerable strain upon them. We shall next be told, therefore, that we must take over the whole of the voluntary schools and keep them in repair. Then the Bill provides that the Managing Committee of the voluntary schools must consent to have one-third of its members nominated by the Education Committee of the County or Borough Councils, but it is asking too much from the vicar and his friends to consent to be guided by this one-third representation of the public. To call that control, is absurd.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL ON EDUCATION (Sir JOHN GORST,): If the hon. Member will read Sub-section (a) of Clause 8, he will see that there is another very important condition.
MR. ALFRED HUTTON: They are to have a control of the teachers.
SIR JOHN GORST: What I was referring to was that the managers of the schools shall carry out any directions of the local education authority as to the secular instruction to be given in the schools.
MR. ALFRED HUTTON: I suppose the Department of Education, which provides most of the funds, will see to that; but who is to be punished if the new Committee refuse to consent to the proposal? As to the appointment of the teachers, the right hon. Gentleman says that Nonconformists cannot bring forward any case in which a religious test has been imposed; but in the very next village to that in which I live I know of two girls whose family were Nonconformists, who regularly attended a Nonconformist place of worship, who were asked to join the Anglican Church as a term of their engagement as teachers. It is impossible to give names, because they are earning their living, and it is a question of bread and butter with them. Such a temptation ought not to be put in the way of young men and young women. One of the provisions of the Bill to remove Nonconformist's grievances is that if the Nonconformists are dissatisfied with the Church schools they may build schools for themselves, which will be afterwards maintained by the educational authority. But I say that that scheme is unsound educationally and economically, because it will double the rates. The remedy is, in fact, worse than the grievance. Again, if new accommodation is to be provided, and if the local authority considers economy to the rates, they will always decide in favour of denominational schools, because these would be entitled to 5s. per child more than undenominational schools, and that is a bribe which no local authority could resist. The noble Lord the Member for Greenwich says that this is simply a Bill to maintain the status quo, but that will only occur in a few special cases in fast-growing towns. I conclude by saying that this Bill seems to be most injurious, because it interferes with great principles—first, with the idea of religious equality in regard to the use of public money; and second, with the old principle of public control in regard to the distribution of public money. The Government will find the opposition to the Bill is so deep-seated that they cannot afford to neglect it.
It being half-past Seven of the clock, the debate was suspended until the evening sitting.

EVENING SITTING.

  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  [SECOND READING.]
  Adjourned debate on Amendment to Second Reading continued.
  SIR ALBERT ROLLIT: This Bill may be open to many of the criticisms which have been levelled against it by hon. Gentlemen opposite, and I do not doubt that considerable amendment will have to be made in its provisions. At the same time, it is an attempt to deal with our greatest national need, and, as I regard it, at least one step in the right direction. The only right hon. Gentleman who appears to have any doubt about this point is the Vice-President of the Council, who seems to think that no Act of Parliament and no legislation can achieve anything. We know that when the battle of Jena occurred a century ago one Minister said to his Sovereign, "We must make up intellectually what we have lost materially," and that is the sentence upon which has been built up the Government system of education which Germany now possesses, while our State system of education has not lasted a third so long. Hinc lachrymce! The chief recommendation of this scheme to rue is its municipal basis. It gives us one educational authority, the councils of the counties and boroughs, which are directly representative. It gives us the one and the same rating and spending authority, which is most desirable, which at least will be far better than the system which enables precepts to be levied and payments must be made without any one knowing whether the payment is desirable or not. And it strikes at the root of the system of the cumulative vote, which is not representative of the feeling of the people, but only representative of the feeling of faddists and of factions. The Bill will have one other advantage. It will re-act on local government itself. I believe knowledge and favour of local government to be of paramount importance. It will be one more incentive to the performance of public duty. I regard the concentration of public duty, and with it honour and responsibility, as likely to be attractive to the best men of all classes; and I could hope that, instead of having to co-opt
  888
  educational experts, the time is coming when those experts will come into our Councils by the ordinary channel and give us the education which some of our Councils undoubtedly need. This will also be good for these so-called educational experts, who are chiefly responsible for the present lamentable state of our education, for elections and the like will improve their own education. I have reason to know that our Councils are unanimous in their desire to assume the control of secondary education; and, while I am one who has no desire to supersede the School Boards, and while, as an old chairman of one, I know and appreciate their work, in some cases I feel that the municipalities have the stronger claim to the conduct of secondary education, great and long as have been the services of the Board, and valuable even when illegal.
  It has been asked where the moneys for this are coming from; they cannot come more surely or more liberally from anywhere than from the municipal authorities who have the power to rate. The Councils are in possession of and working for secondary education no less than technical instruction, and the wonder is that they have done the work of technical education so well as they have. The funds were thrown at them suddenly and without any direction, and yet we have the fact that of the £980,000 per annum contributed by the whiskey moneys, the Councils have applied £900,000 to technical education. Again, of sixty-four county boroughs no less than sixty-one have applied the whole of this money to education, and many boroughs, most county boroughs, if not all, have rated themselves for the purposes of education. It is only fair to add that most of the non-county boroughs have done the same, while no English county, save, perhaps, one partially, has done the same. By these means we have covered the whole of the country with technical education schools.
  I have one criticism to make upon the Bill from a municipal point of view, and that is that, while I have every faith in the principle of the Bill and the general action of the Councils, though there will be some new authorities, e.g., urban district Councils, I cannot agree with the right hon. Member for Dartford. There is nothing mandatory in it—at any rate so far as secondary instruction is concerned. The previous Bills have been mandatory, but the

  889
  words in this Bill are: "The Council I may aid secondary education," "may use the whiskey moneys," "may spend further sums." I think it would have been well to have put into the Bill at least some general directions by which these whiskey moneys would be earmarked, and it ought to be obligatory on the Councils to apply them to education. The Bill confers many powers, but it carries with it too many limitations and reservations. There is too great a multiplicity of appeals and the like, and I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Vice-President to remember his speech at Bradford, the one principle of which was trust in the municipalities and the firm belief that they knew best what their own interests were, and were prepared to follow them in an enlightened spirit.
  The second, and probably the more debatable, element of the Bill is one on which I shall speak simply as an educationist, and view it from that standpoint only. That is what may be called the principle of the utilisation of all our schools for educational purposes. The point is not to destroy any work that is in being—not to waste it—for we need all our educational resources. And the question is, when we have done all, whether we can retain our place in the great race. Now, there is undoubtedly some difference of opinion among municipalities as to whether the duties of directing primary education should be at present undertaken by them. The question is also complicated by Party feeling and some religious rancour; and it is sad to think that some religious people will work for religion, will fight for religion, will die for religion, and, in short, do anything but live for it. One of the best features of our debate today, as when I also took part in the First Reading, is that there has been a better tone, more disposition to live for religion, and to show a more enlightened spirit in carrying out religion; because educational debates ought to be for education and also for religion. I believe the majority of the municipal Borough Councils, at any rate, desire to undertake elementary education as well as secondary education; but some ask "Have we time for it, and are we educationally quite ripe for taking that responsibility?" I am, therefore, going to say a word in favour of the adoptive or
  890
  optional clause of the Bill, winch has been so much denounced, but which marks and has worked well in other educational statutes, e.g., the Library and Museums &c, Acts. I venture to say that coercion and force, even for a good object like education, are contradictory terms; and I am going to ask: Is it wise to say to a municipality which may doubt its own powers or its time that it must undertake elementary instruction? If incapability or incompetence be pleaded, it seems to me it would be most unwise to apply compulsion in the interest of education itself. At any rate, an education force is no remedy. Therefore, I think that those Councils who desire to retain the School Board system for temporary or for transition purposes, and there are some great Corporations much attached to their Boards, and with reason and justice, should be allowed to do so without interference, even if it should cause some anomalies, and that the optional clause should be retained, in which case the schedule must be altered by making one year the limit for renewing the Motion to adopt the act in boroughs, which are annually and not triennially like County Councils, and after any election such a Motion ought to be possible. With regard to the rebuilding and replacing of voluntary schools, if the municipalities are to undertake elementary instruction, it seems to me that the voluntary schools are an absolutely indispensable part of the machinery. We cannot do without them if we would; and when an hon. Member (Mr. Mather) put the cost of replacing them at £50,000,000, of money, he put the problem in a concrete form and at once showed the difficulty. There are in these schools 3,000,000 children, or more than half our scholars; the schools number 14,000, which means in itself a capital of many millions; no rent is to be charged, and they are to be kept in repair. Are we to attempt to replace all these schools? Such a question answers itself. And, lastly, we have the fact, so characteristic of the country, that many insist on distinctive religious teaching. It may be that such early teaching may not be very fertile; it may now and again produce such a young-theological scholar as the one who defined faith as a belief in things which can't happen, hope as a belief in things that don't happen, and charity as a belief in things which never will happen; but we

  891
  have such an assurance of religious convictions that there are a number of people who have subscribed £1,000,000 a year to carry on the voluntary schools as they exist. And to fix the responsibility of replacing them on the ratepayers will be to lay so great a burden upon them as to create a fatal reaction against all education owing to its cost. It has been said that farmers and others will grudge the money for education, and such a policy would give them a pretext if not an excuse.
  I, therefore, think the voluntary schools are a necessary element of the Bill, and of any Bill dealing at this moment with education. But we have not to search far for principles or precedents for aiding institutions where distinctive religious doctrinal instruction is given. That has been the policy of Parliament. There is no distinction; there cannot be any distinction, between the Parliamentary grants which are given to our voluntary schools and rates. Much has been said of the work of our university colleges, and in one of them—King's College—there is most distinctive religious teaching and Church tests, to which objection has been taken by myself and others of its own Council, but we have been outweighed, and yet an annual grant is made by Parliament to King's College. What we have to aim at is, while respecting opposite opinions, to see, as far as possible, that efficient secular instruction in a reasonable and proper form is secured on terms and conditions which are fair and not illusory, and which may commend themselves to the ratepayers and the taxpayers of the country, and as to this part of the Bill, I entirely reserve my opinion until the Committee stage.
  My hon. friend the Member for Rossendale doubted whether the Town Councils would be willing to provide the necessary funds. In answer to that suggestion, I think it will be admitted that the Borough Councils have been liberal and enterprising in the work of technical and secondary education. They are proud of the work they have accomplished, and you will find in them not parsimony but patriotism in this matter. There are some here who hope and believe that by superseding School Boards, and putting municipalities in their places, they will stem the work of
  892
  education, but they will find they are greatly mistaken. I think a broader spirit will arise. I am of the opinion of the American statesman who said, "Our largest rate is the education rate, and the municipalities themselves already pay it most cheerfully, because it brings the greatest return to the country."
  Education is a source of saving to the State, and as such economical. Now, why in this Bill is there a limit of 2d.? Why not act on the principle expressed by the Vice-President at Bradford and here, and trust to the local knowledge, experience, and judgment of the municipalities? Let them do what they think is best for their own community. They have the check of the ratepayers upon them, and the municipalities have unanimously agreed that there ought not to be this limitation. The municipality of Huddersfield is at this moment desirous of acquiring its technical schools, but what is the use of such oil and 2d.? A rate of 8d. will be required to do that. I thank the Government for one concession to us—they have inserted a power, by way of Provisional Order, to remove the limitation, but it seems to me that the recognition of local knowledge ought to have been sufficient to have obtained its removal, and that the municipalities should not be put to the expense of coming to Parliament to obtain it. Then I would ask the President of the Local Government Board why the Provisional Order should be through his Department, and why his Department should say what the limitation should be. This is an educational matter, and I do not see the necessity for this change from the Board of Education.
  There are some other concessions in the Bill, which I desire to acknowledge, as compared with the previous Bills. It leaves the non-county boroughs the right and privilege of rating themselves concurrently with the county to the extent of the present 1d. in the £1. Many of them also desire to know why they are to be limited to 1d. Many have done, in many respects, all that the county boroughs have done, and a great deal more than the County Councils have done, for the County Councils have never rated themselves. They have applied the whiskey moneys to education and have made a contribution from

  893
  their rates, and I ask for them this concession: that their work should not be destroyed, or themselves be subordinated or submerged, as they fear, in rural educational apathy. At the proper time I shall give evidence of the work they have done as a justification for the appeal I make to the Government to say that where a non-county borough has rated itself for the purposes of education, where it has shown the will and the means to do its own education, and when it is in the interest of education in its district it should on its own initiative be, not only a committee, but should have a right to be its own educational authority, while its right to be the authority for elementary instruction, as in the Bill, is beyond question,. Distances and want of local knowledge, and the analogy of present school board areas prevent any different arrangement.
  I shall deal practically with only one other matter, but I venture to say it is a municipal point of very considerable importance. I speak of Clause 12 of the Bill. It is declared by that clause that the Council is to act through a Committee; to devolve these additional duties to a Committee. That is a perfectly proper arrangement, which could not be objected to; but when the constitution of this Committee is compared with the Committees under the previous Bills, there is a most important change, which is certainly not in the direction of municipal control. As we have heard so much of municipal control, I invite attention to this point: that in the constitution of this Committee there need not be a single member of the Council; they may be all external members, and there must be such external members compulsorily. I merely point out this to urge that the provision of a former Bill of 1900, which was purely permissive, qua external experts, followed the right line, because it followed the Technical Instruction Act, which also was purely permissive, and has worked well. Then comes another departure from the former Bills, which is also most important, and that is that instead of the municipal element of the Committee co-opting the additional members from within, those external members may be nominated by external bodies from
  894
  without, so that you have a composite instead of a Municipal Committee.
  Now, it is said that the Councils will have the control. I think that control ought to be real. The municipal principle is the very basis of the Bill, and, to my mind, the chief recommendation of the measure. I should like to ask what is to be the status of this Committee quâ the Council; what are to be the relations between the Council and the Committee? This is not an unthought-out problem, because in their Bill of 1900 the Government stated that the Scheme should define the relationship between them. That is a most important point. Now, there is nothing whatever in the Bill, and no definition of the relations of this Committee with the Council. The Vice-President only used of it the term "statutory." But I notice—and this leads me to a certain conclusion—the word "act"—"The Council shall act through a Committee." That is exactly the same as the word in the Municipal Corporations Act in constituting the Watch Committee, and it may be used in the same way; and I should like the House to remember that the better legal view of the relation of the Watch Committee to the Council is that it need neither submit its resolutions for confirmation, nor report to the Council. Now, if this Committee be the parallel of the Watch Committee, it seems to me that, if the Council is to act through its Committee, and that Committee has power to act for the Council, the Committee can commit the Council, not only educationally, but even financially. Therefore, there is legally no financial control. I would, therefore, ask the Government to tell us distinctly what these relations are. I would ask whether these words are to be used as they are in the Municipal Corporations Act, or whether the Committee is to report to the Council for approval and submit its Minutes to be confirmed or otherwise. If not, it seems to me that we may have an indirectly elected School Board instead of the present directly elected one, with power to levy precepts which could not be dealt with even from a financial standpoint. For these reasons, I hope we shall learn something more of these important details of

  895
  the Bill. I have also to suggest the omission of the compulsory election of experts from nominated bodies, as the Committee may become too academic, and too little practical and modern in its educational views. While I believe the advice of experts is valuable, I think the sound common sense of the practical business men of our Corporations is a greater security that the education shall be modern, and not of too academic a character, especially in its application to our industrial undertakings. And, from the financial point of view, it is impossible for the Councils to do justice to the educational proposals of this Bill unless they are so recast in Committee as to create a close and constant connection between the Committees on the one hand and the Councils as the controlling authority on the other. Therefore, I hope that point will not be lost sight of, and that the majority of the Committee will not only be appointed by, but also from, the members of the Councils.
  I have only one other point, and that is with regard to the appointment of managers. By the Bill, the representation of the Councils is not to exceed one-third, but I can only say I think the more representation of parents and the public authority there is, the better for the voluntary schools themselves. I have said for years, both here and in my constituency, and as a regular supporter of the voluntary schools, that public and parental representation on the management is in their own best interests, and to save them from decay and decadence and death, which this Bill may even bring about, which would be injurious to both the Churches and the State. And now is one more opportunity of making their growth not exotic, as in the past, but of grafting it on the public life of the country, and so making the schools permanent educational institutions, or, at any rate, of preserving them for a long time from decay by making them efficicient educational instruments. I have only to say in conclusion, that I think the Government has, on the whole, devised a Bill which is a step towards that education which the country so urgently requires in order to compete with nations which are in this matter better equipped than ourselves; and, while
  896
  reserving much for amendment in Committee, I cannot take the responsibility of rejecting what may be made a practical and useful measure for public education.
  DR. MACNAMARA: I shall venture to assume that the Government will strike out the permissive clause, and I shall venture to assume that they will make it compulsory on local authorities to take over elementary education; because if that is not intended by the Government, then the scheme is absolutely grotesque, and scarcely worth discussing. Starting, then, with this assumption, I should like to examine the two main principles that the authors of the Bill say they desire to establish. The first is the creation in every area of one authority capable of controlling alb grades of education within its area. That, of course, is a most desirable end to attain. I doubt whether, in the course of this debate, sufficient attention has been paid to the state of affairs in regard to the local control over this country. For the last fifty or seventy years we have had scattered all over the country a large number of bodies of voluntary school managers. In the last thirty years you have had following them a public authority for elementary education in the School Boards. At the present moment two-thirds of the urban districts, and one-half of the rural areas, are covered by School Boards. There are 2,544 School Boards in all. Fourteen years ago the Chancellor of the Exchequer put some money into his Budget which could not be applied to the extinction of public-house licences, as was originally intended; so it was determined to send the money down to the various localities in relief of local taxation, and a hint was given that if that money was to be continued to be sent, it should be spent on technical instruction. From that moment, Technical Instruction Committees have been at work spending that money on technical instruction, and raising a penny-rate in contribution to it.
  What is the result of all this hotchpotch of local government and education? First, we waste a considerable amount of money devoted to

  897
  education in the duplication of educational machinery. Let me give an example. We of the London School Board have six industrial schools under our charge, accommodating 1,020 children; a Standing Committee of seventeen members: sub-Committees; and a large establishment on the Embankment. At the same time, the County Council have two industrial schools, accommodating 420 children. They have a Committee of fifteen members, and also an establishment at Spring Gardens. Now, my point is that either of these Committees could supervise the whole of these schools and all the children in them. Not only is there a great waste of money by the duplication of machinery, but there is a great deal of friction and irritation between the local authorities in regard to disputed territory. But, worse than all this, there is the fact that so long as each grade school is under a separate authority you cannot have the schools linked together; you cannot have that community of aim and purpose, that dovetailing of the curricula of various schools, which will enable a child of capacity but of humble parentage to move from one school to another without hindrance. From the point of view of the working classes that is the most serious problem of this time. You can never get the educational ladder a reality until all grades of schools and their curricula are under one and the same authority in each district. Therefore, I say at once the desire to secure one authority is admirable. But what does the Government do? It goes to the municipal Councils for this one authority. That was part of the scheme of the Bill of 1870. That Bill originally provided that the Town Council of the urban districts should select a number of persons to become a School Board; in the rural districts the vestry or select vestry was to select. The ad hoc scheme of election for School Boards was the result of a radical amendment that was moved. It is curious to notice that the first speaker in favour of the ad hoc scheme a against the municipalisation scheme of Mr. Gladstone's Cabinet was Lord Robert Montagu, who was leading the Ton opposition to the Bill. It is also curious to notice that the hon. Member in this House who told with my right hon. friend the Member for the Forest of Dean in
  898
  favour of the ad hoc proposals, was no less a gentleman than the hon. Member for the Dartford Division, while the most strenuous opponents of the ad hoc scheme in place of municipal control were all the leading men of the Liberal administration. They were all strongly opposed to the ad hoc proposals. I will venture to read only one extract, which sounds very curious now from the speech of Mr. Mundella, the Vice-President of the Council at that time. Mr. Mundella said—
  "He was satisfied that no greater mistake could be committed than that of leaving the School Boards to be elected by the popular vote. He contended that the best men would shrink from becoming candidates for a seat at such Boards, owing to the turmoil, abuse, and trouble they would have to endure during the election."
  The present Government has distinguished sanction for its scheme of municipalisation, as I have just endeavoured to show, and if it is content to know that it is now by this Bill where the Liberal Government was thirty years ago, I am content that it shall take that credit. But I hope it will not endeavour to push its scheme of municipalisation too far, and that it will not push it into the great county boroughs. The great county boroughs have had for the last thirty years these great ad hoc bodies, which bodies are deeply implanted in the affections of the labouring classes, and I feel if the Government persists in its intention of upsetting these great School Boards, especially in the great northern boroughs, it will find it has, to use a well-known American adage, "bitten off a good deal more than it can chew." I do not ask the Government to take my view of these great School Boards, the experience of which for the last thirty years is an educational asset, and should not be recklessly thrown on one side. But I venture to make an appeal to the Vice-President to modify the Government scheme of municipalisation so as to exempt these great borough School Boards from the operation of this. Bill. Nobody could be a more eloquent witness on behalf of them than the Vice-President. In the North American Review in October, 1896. he said these School Boards had greatly raised the level of education. I quote this because yesterday he said they were an anachronism.
  SIR JOHN GORST: What I said was that the system of electing ad hoc authorities was an anachronism.
  DR. MACNAMAEA: Well, I suppose the greater includes the less. The right hon. Gentleman said the effect of the School Board system was to raise the level of elementary education. Well, let us go on raising the level of elementary education. In the speech he made at Bradford on 11th January, 1899, the Vice-President said—
  "It would be a most unfortunate tiling if the work of these Boards in the higher grade schools was interfered with."
  I want to know why we are interfering with it. But that is not all; in the same speech the Vice-President made the following comments—
  "There was very much to he said for making the educational authority for all purposes such School Boards as now exist in many large cities."
  I will not plead for all purposes, because I doubt whether you could take away their educational work from the Municipal Councils. What I will plead for is this: that, with the view of getting something this session, these great School Boards should be continued as the authority for elementary education and re-instated in the position of ante- Cockerton which they occupied in 1870, that the School Boards should be continued in their functions, and that they and the municipal Councils should together form a Joint Committee for higher education. By that amalgamation, a Committee which could co-ordinate in the work of education so as to give all that could be required for the moment by the one authority, could be found.
  Now let me examine a little more closely the so-called municipal scheme of this Bill. What are the functions of the authority spoken of so much today, and insisted upon as the one authority for all educational purposes? It has two things to do. First of all, it has to raise the money; and after, it has to select a number of persons to form the nucleus of the Committee. From that time forward the municipal authority has nothing whatever to do with education. The number of persons selected to form the Committee meet together and select a smaller number of persons who are to form the Educational Committee. We have heard tonight
  900
  that there need not be on the Educational Committee a single member of the municipal body. I do not call that municipalisation. I call it spurious municipalisation, not genuine municipalisation. I speak all the more strongly because the right hon. Gentleman will remember that the Bill of 1896 and the Bill of 1901 both provided that the Education Committee should consist, as to a majority of its members, of the members of the Municipal Council in each case. There are some of us on this side of the House who are prepared to make very considerable sacrifices for the "one authority" idea, for the sake of the linkage of the schools, for the sake of the co-ordination of educational effort; but in the present form the Government are asking us to pay a very long price for these sacrifices. I do venture to appeal to the Government to revert to their earlier scheme—the scheme of 1896 and of 1901—and provide that a majority of the members of the Education Committee should be members of the Municipal Council. The Education Committee, as it stands under the terms of the Bill, is one remove from the ratepayers who find the money. But the Education Committee is not permitted to manage any schools at all. That is to be done by the existing managers, who are to add, if the Education Committee desire it, a number not more than one-third of their existing number. When you get down to the schools, therefore, you are two removes from the representatives of the people who find the money for this educational work. I do not like to be uncharitable about these proposals, but it looks suspiciously to me as if the design has been to keep the hand of the man who finds the money as far away from the schools as possible.
  I make these two appeals to the Government. The first is that in this matter of the constitution of the local authority the majority of the members shall be members of the Municipal Council, and the second is that the managers of each school shall admit, if it is desired, at least a majority of the representatives of the Municipal Council. I see no fear involved in that. When I speak to the people who plead for rate aid for voluntary

  901
  schools, their constant statement to me is that the Church people represent a majority of the people of this country. Then, why not trust the Church people? I think it is possible by statute, and certainly by practice, to continue denominational teaching, which I do not propose to upset at all. Let me say that at once Continue to give assurances that denominational teaching shall be continued, and yet satisfy the man who finds the money by giving his representatives or nominees in the case of the management the majority on the management committee in each case. The Education Committee is to have control of the secular instruction in all these schools. It is to have a veto over the appointment of the teachers, all questions affecting religion to be reserved and not subject to that veto. According to the Colonial Secretary, there are lots of other things involved the hours and curriculum of instruction, the salaries of the teachers, the nature of the appliances, and the arrangement of buildings, will all, according to the Colonial Secretary, be decided by the local authority, and, although the actual nomination of teachers is, in the case of the voluntary schools, reserved to the Committee of Management of such schools, the local authority will be able to veto the appointment or the dismissal of the teachers. On these points the Bill is very sketchy indeed; and, although these things are mentioned by the Colonial Secretary, they are not in the Bill. With his powerful assistance, however, I have no doubt they can be got into the Bill. But I cannot help thinking that the Colonial Secretary is wrong as to the dismissal of teachers. The Vice-President shakes his head There is a special clause which provides for the appointment of teachers, but there is no clause which deals with the dismissal of teachers.
  SIR JOHN GORST: Clause 8 (a).
  DR. MACNAMARA: That clause says that the managers of the school shall carry out any directions of the local authority as to the secular instruction to be given in chat school, but I do not read anything about
  902
  the dismissal of teachers in that clause. Of course, it may be involved, but if so, why have a special clause when it comes to the educational authority having a veto over the appointment of teachers? If you want a special clause of the Bill for the appointment, why not get dismissal in that as well; or if Clause 8 (a) covers dismissal, why not appointment? With the Vice-President's assistance, perhaps we shall get the dismissal involved. As it is, I do not think the House will take vague assurances that Clause 8 (a), with its generalities, covers dismissal, when you require a special reference to appointment in another clause. Does the Vice-President say that the matter to which I am now going to refer is covered in Clause 8 (a)? It is a common thing on the part of voluntary managers to make it a condition of the appointment to a certain school that the school teacher shall undertake, compulsorily, a, number of duties quite extraneous to his work as a school teacher. It is quite a common thing to say to a man who is seeking an appointment, "If you get this appointment, will you play the organ? Will you train the choir? or, Will you superintend the Sunday school?" Sometimes an honorarium of £5 or £10 a year is added for these services; sometimes nothing is added. I am not suggesting that, if the teacher desires to play the organ, or train the choir, or superintend the Sunday school, he should not have the opportunity of doing so if he likes. But I am saying that he ought to be free to refuse it it he likes, without prejudice to the position he is seeking as school teacher. I do not know whether the Vice-President thinks a proscription of that kind is covered by Clause 8 (a), but I shall hope to put before the House, by way of Amendment, this injunction: that it shall not be right for any manager of a denominational school to insist that a teacher, to secure an appointment in a school receiving rate aid, shall perform, or shall abstain from performing, any duties in his own private time outside the school hours.
  SIR JOHN GORST: That is in the Code now.
  DR. MACNAMARA: It is in the Code that——
  SIR JOHN GORST: The Code proscribes a form of contract, and anything beyond that is not part of the formal contract.
  DR. MACNAMARA: Does the Vice-President seriously tell me here that the managers of voluntary schools do not make it a condition of appointment that a teacher shall undertake those duties?
  SIR JOHN GORST: What I say is that it is no part of the contract of which the Board of Education takes cognizance. No Act of Parliament, and no Board of Education, can prevent extraneous agreements being made between the managers and the teachers of which they have no cognizance.
  DR. MACNAMARA: If the House may be allowed to make it part of the contract, I shall be glad to ask the House to do so. I say it is manifestly unfair to give to the manager of a school, which is now to be entirely maintained by public sources, the right, with the appointment of a teacher, to obtain also, gratuitously in many cases, an organist, a trainer of a choir, or a superintendent of a Sunday school. That is an intolerable state of things, and if it is not in the present contract, all the worse for the present contract, and I hope an opportunity will be given to us to put it into the present contract. And if it is the fact that managers have to obey the local authority, as they have to under Clause 8, I hope we will have an opportunity to make it quite specific, especially when it is borne in mind that, in some cases, men are selected for these particular functions, rather than for their work as teachers in the school.
  Now, leaving the question of the constitution and functions of the local authority, I should like to turn very briefly to the second great principle which this Bill desires to establish. I understand the second principle to be this—the frank abrogation of the endeavour to maintain education by voluntary contributions. I am very glad—I said so on the First Reading, and I say it now again—that that question has been raised. I consider it is a dangerous anachronism to endeavour to maintain education by
  904
  charitable contributions. Education is too vital a matter to leave its maintenance to the fluctuating hand of charity in this particular way. I have always thought that education should be entirely maintained from public sources, and I congratulate the Government on having placed this matter before the House. What are the essential facts with regard to this financial maintenance of elementary education? I doubt very much if the actual circumstances would be tolerated for any length of time, if they were generally known. We have at the present time five and a half millions of children in elementary schools—three millions in the voluntary schools, and two and a half millions in the board schools. Both these classes of schools get financial assistance from the Exchequer, and from the localities. The nature and amount of the Exchequer grant is pretty much the same in each case, and I may, therefore, dismiss it. The local income in the case of board schools is an essential income coming from public sources, namely, the rates; the local income in the case of voluntary schools comes from private sources, namely, voluntary contributions. What is the net result? Last year the board schools found it necessary to draw on the rates, for this essential supplement, to the extent of 25s. 6d. per child, whereas the voluntary schools could only collect, by way of essential supplement, 6s. 5d. per child. There was practically a sovereign per child difference, but it has been mitigated by the special aid grant, so that, roughly, the disability at the present time is 15s. per child. I will give the House throe very brief contrasts, which will show at once the immediate results of this disability. Take, first of all, the quality of the teaching staffs in the two separate schools, in the board schools, 51 per cent. of the teachers are fully qualified certificated adult teachers; the other teachers being ex-pupil teachers, Article 68 teachers, and pupil teachers; neither of which class is entirely qualified. In the voluntary schools, 38 per cent. of the teachers are fully certificated adult teachers. Take another contrast. If we leave on one side Article 68 teachers, pupil teachers, and ex-pupil teachers, we find that certificated teachers in board schools were in the proportion of one to every seventy-six children, and in the voluntary schools one to every 103 children. Take another contrast.

  905
  The payment for the teaching staff' per child last year—it is always the largest item in the maintenance account—was: in board schools 45s. 2d., and in voluntary schools 35s. 2d. I will give no more facts. I could give hundreds that would speak eloquently as to the lamentable condition of these voluntary schools. I am concerned about this, because these schools educate much the same class as board school children. They are the citizens of tomorrow, and I cannot shake off responsibility for these unhappy children and teachers, because of the anachronism of endeavouring to obtain education by voluntary contributions. I am very glad, therefore, that the question has been boldly raised. But why does the Government go to the rates? I read in the Report of the Royal Commission on Local Taxation that education is a national service. The Report does not go the length of saying that it should be paid for out of national resources, but if it is a national service, I cannot, for the life of me, understand why the great bulk of the cost of maintenance should not fall on the national Exchequer rather than, to such a large extent, on the local rates. I think the First Lord of the Treasury, in his election campaign of 1895, made rather a prominent feature of the fact that he believed in the nationalisation of the charge for education. I have his election card here. Paragraph 9 states:—
  "Poor Law and School Board rates to he charged on Imperial Exchequer."
  I have not heard that repudiated, but I believe it has been; and, therefore, it will go back to my pocket. But I believe it is a fact that, apart from this card altogether, the First Lord of the Treasury has, on more than one occasion, expressed his conviction that education should be viewed as a national charge, rather than, to the extent it is at present, a local charge.
  I should like to ask the Vice-President, if he will, to be so good as to follow me into the effect of throwing on the rates this new charge. I take it that the existing voluntary contributions will be absorbed in the upkeep of the fabric. I do not think managers of voluntary schools have any idea of the big task now being put upon them. Keeping up the fabric of the schools, and providing lighting, ventilation, and
  906
  heating up to the municipal standard, which is always, rightly, a very high standard, will be a very severe task. The special aid grant will be continued, and will mitigate the disability of 20s. down to 15s. To put the whole of the voluntary school children on the rates, at the very moderate estimate of 10s. a child, will increase the aggregate rate maintenance from £5,000,000 to £7,250,000. Is the educational zeal of this country sufficiently high that the mass of the people will gleefully and cheerfully contemplate such an increase in the rate maintenance as that? I confess I look with great anxiety at this particular proposal, because I am very doubtful ndeed whether the ratepayers will pay, not alone in the agricultural districts, but in the much more enlightened urban districts. There are 642 School Boards, out of a total of 2,544, which at present have a School Board rate of 1s. in the pound or more; 124 of these have a rate of 1s. 6d. in the pound or more; and twenty-nine have a rate of 2s. in the I pound and more. In many of these cases, you are now going to double the number of children who will be charged on the rates. Does the Vice-President mean to tell me that the people in these localities will find the money for children who will be placed on the rates under this Bill? Let me take one or two specific cases. Blackburn has an average attendance of 996 children in its board schools, and the rate is 3.56d. at present. That rate includes administrative charges, and I will take it that the present School Board administiation will cover the case of all children to be added. It also includes the cost of carrying out compulsory attendance, which, of course, covers the existing voluntary schools, and need not, therefore, be taken into consideration; it involves a sinking fund for the repayment of loans and interest on loans. To the 996 board school children we will add, tinder this Bill, no fewer than 18,258 voluntary school children. Worked out at the moderate estimate of 15s. per child, we get a total maintenance charge for the voluntary school children of £13,693. A penny in the pound in Blackburn brings in £2,000, so that the addition of the voluntary school children will increase the rate by 6½d. in the pound. Will the people of Blackburn view with equanimity

  907
  their rate jumping from 3½d. to 10d.? I am very doubtful about it indeed. That may be an extreme case, owing to the small number of board school children and the large number of voluntary school children. But take the case of Gloucester. The average attendance in the board schools is 2,492 children, and the rate is 10d. There are 4,077 voluntary school children, and at the estimate of 15s. per child, their addition will mean a new rate charge of £3,058. A penny in the pound represents £735, and, therefore, you will have to introduce in Gloucester at one fell swoop a new rate of 4d., which with the existing rate of 10d. will make 1s. 2d. in the pound. Will the people of Gloucester view that with equanimity? I am a School Board member; I have fought three School Board contests; and I tell the Vice-President that the ratepayers make it pretty hot for us if we raise the rate by even a halfpenny. The real danger of this is that the School Board Peter—if I may put it so—will be robbed to pay the voluntary school Paul. The same rate, or a slightly increased rate, will be made to do service for the existing board school children, and the added voluntary school children, with the result that, so far from levelling up the voluntary schools, you will take from the flower of the work of board schools that which you add to the voluntary schools. Does any supporter of voluntary schools in this House desire that? I have heard it influential stated that what we want to do is to raise the voluntary schools to the level of the board schools, and I cannot contemplate with anything like equanimity the prospect of taking a portion of the money which now goes to board school children and giving it to voluntary school children. I am all for levelling up voluntary schools, but this going on the rates will undoubtedly mean in the bulk of cases that you will rob Peter to pay Paul, and, after the statement of the First Lord and the admission of the Royal Commission on Local Taxation, I should have thought it would have been more expedient to go for the further money required to the Imperial Exchequer rather than to the local rates.
  908
  Let me now say a few words with regard to the provisions of the Bill dealing with higher education. Does the House quite realise what the Bill has brought within the definition of higher education? First of all, all secondary education—and in towns that are not endowed with ancient benefactions a lot of money will be required to give secondary education anything like a proper beginning; then, the training of pupil teachers and all training of adult teachers in training colleges, and so on; and, in the third place, curiously enough—I do not know why it should be so—all night-school work, whether elementary or advanced. Either one of those three matters would take up the proceeds of a twopenny rate in any borough in the country. That means, if the Bill remains as it is, that higher education will be starved. I appeal for the striking out of this limit of twopence, and I believe the Government must in addition make provision for generous Exchequer grants for secondary education. This proposal means that, in the great bulk of cases, secondary education will be a local charge. I cannot understand why it should be. Unless the limit of twopence is struck out, I am confident that one of the three matters mentioned must suffer.
  I now come to the last question, and I deal with it with great reluctance—the question of religious instruction in elementary schools. It is deplorable to the last degree that every time education comes under discussion in this country, the real issues are promptly obscured by theological disputants. It is a striking fact that substantially there is no religious difficulty in the schools themselves. I have been connected with elementary schools in one way or another—as pupil, pupil teacher, assistant teacher, head teacher, voluntary school manager, and School Board member—for the last twenty-five years or more, and in no capacity whatever have I ever heard of a single case of dissent on the part of a parent to any form of religious instruction. Of this I am quite certain, there are parts of the country in which the people would stand any form of religious instruction rather than pay a rate for it. The Vice-President is absolutely correct when he says there is no

  909
  difficulty whatever in the schools. I was astonished, however, to hear him say there is no difficulty in regard to teacherships, and at his flat contradiction of the statement that there is a difficulty in regard to young Nonconformists who desire to become school teachers. The Vice-President cannot have been at Whitehall for seven years with his eyes closed. If he has been there with his eyes open, the facts must have come under his notice many times. It certainly came under my notice with a much shorter experience. He must know that under the trust deeds of eight out of ten village schools it is impossible for the managers to appoint anybody but a member of the Church of England. If the Vice-President does not know that, he is singularly lacking in the knowledge of his office. But that is not all. The Vice-President must know that a great many young Nonconformists who are employed in our larger towns by the School Boards as pupil teachers, apart from their particular religious faith, when they get to the end of their apprenticeship and have won a Queen's—now a King's—scholarship, which qualifies them for admission to a training college, find the greatest difficulty in getting into a training college because of their religious faith. I fancy I heard the right hon. Gentleman say that himself in December, 1899. For three years, 1898–9–00—I was Chairman of the London School Board Committee on Pupil Teachers, and every year it was pitiable the difficulty we had in getting our pupil teachers, who passed high up in the scholarship list, in the first class, into training colleges, if they did not belong to the Church of England. I should have thought that was notorious to those who had any knowledge of the working of the system. The Vice-President is aware of these facts, I suppose, because they are issued under his seal. There are 2,000 residential college places available every year. Of those 2,000, 1,433, or 70 per cent., are Church of England places. The Church has built those colleges. I wonder the Nonconformists have, not built more training colleges than they have. But I am simply stating the facts. Then, 117 are Wesleyan places, and 136 are Roman Catholic. That makes 1,686, or 84 per cent. of the entire number, leaving 314 undenominational
  910
  places, and many of these undenominational places are occupied by persons who to my knowledge are members of the Church of England. There are, of course, 730 day training college places available every year, and I was glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman's colleague in the representation of Cambridge University not only admit this grievance, but urge that something should be done by way of providing more day training college accommodation. In 1898, to my personal knowledge, some of the Queen's scholars, who were very high in the list, had the greatest difficulty to get into a college. One girl who won a scholarship, which ought to have given her the right of admission to a training college, had to write to thirteen colleges before she could avail of her scholarship; another had to write to seventeen, and another to twenty-seven, and six first-class Queen's scholars did not get into college at all. I do not know whether that would be called a grievance——
  SIR JOHN GORST: I call it a very great grievance, and I have frequently said so.
  DR. MACNAMARA: I thought I heard something yesterday about the Psychological Society and ghosts which disappeared.
  SIR JOHN GORST: That was an entirely different case. It had been represented in this House that Nonconformist boys and girls had been prevented by their religious faith becoming pupil teachers. I offered to make an investigation into any cases that were brought to me. Three cases were brought before me: I investigated each one of them, and each one turned out to be illusory.
  DR. MACNAMARA: Again I say that the right hon. Gentleman's colleague in the representation of Cambridge University most frankly took him to task, and admitted there was a grievance. Nobody knows it better than the Whitehall officials. In the same year to which I was referring, some of the denominational colleges were taking in girls of the second class, 2,000 places down the list. I remember the Rev. Mr. Jephson, a clergyman of the Established Church, and a member of the London School Board, frankly telling the Board about this time

  911
  that young Nonconformists, having won a scholarship high in the list, had come to him to be confirmed as members of the Church of England in order that they might avail themselves of the scholarship they had won by the merit of their work in examination. Let me give one specific case. A girl passed—I think it was in 1891—in the first class, No. 237. That is a very high position. She applied for admission to the Stockwell Training College—one of the three undenominational colleges. The Stockwell list was an exceptionally good one, and they had filled their sixty or sixty-five places before they reached this girl's position. She immediately wrote to the other two undenominational colleges, but they also had completed their number. I know, as a matter of fact, that that girl could have got into any number of Church of England colleges if she had cared to become a member of the Church of England. Does any Member of this House desire that? Nobody does. I am sure these facts are not sufficiently known, or the state of things would be remedied at once. What happened in this particular case? She had the alternative of either wasting a year or changing her religion for the time being. She wasted a year. In that very year the Truro Training College, which is a very excellent Church of England training college, took in a girl of the second class, No. 2,681. Why we should spend our money on a second class girl, No. 2,681, and refuse to train a first class girl, No. 237, passes my comprehension. This Bill does nothing to mitigate that evil.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Oh!
  DR. MACNAMARA: I am very glad to hear that, and I hope that when I propose an Amendment to the clause dealing with religious instruction in places of higher education to the effect that in residential institutions there shall be a conscience clause, I shall have the support of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury. I think I heard an answer even in this House that it does not provide for the case of residential students, but that it does provide for day pupils. Let us make it apply to residential students. I am glad to see that we have practical
  912
  unanimity on the Front Bench on this point, and I have no doubt whatever that my Amendment will be accepted.
  With regard to elementary education, the scheme of the Government broadly is to leave things as they are—to leave the religious instruction in the hoard schools as it is, to leave the religious instruction in the denominational schools as it is, and to meet the objections to rate aid for denominational instruction by an offer of a separate school for the parents of thirty children if the local authority will grant it—which I think will be of very rare occurrence, having regard to the cost involved—or if the parents themselves or their Church can find the money. I have only one comment to make upon the thirty children scheme. It seems to me to be financially disastrous and educationally absurd. I cannot contemplate with equanimity a lot of little mushroom schools in any village; I would rather keep the unhappy children together in one school in childhood than separate them by denominations in this way. I admit that the question is one of extreme difficulty and delicacy; I do not know whether it is not entirely insoluble. But I do complain that the leaders of the Churches—particularly of the Free Churches never give us anything in the way of a constructive policy. We never get anything from them which will help us to solve this terribly difficult problem. They seem to me to be never happy unless they are denouncing somebody. Why the leaders of the two Protestant Churches—I leave the Roman Catholics on one side always—have not come to a concordat similar to that which they have in Scotland, passes my comprehension. In Scotland you have a universal system of public schools. In addition to that, there is religious instruction which is Biblical, plus the Shorter Catechism. Why cannot the leaders of the Protestant Churches in this country emulate the shrewd business capacity of the Scotch people? They, with all their zeal for theological disquisition, have not allowed the religious question to stand in the way of a proper educational system for their children. Why should not Dr. Temple, Dr. Clifford, Dr. Parker, and a few others, meet together and excogitate some practical working plan? At any rate, we are entitled

  913
  to ask them for a contribution of that sort—for something beyond the merely destructive criticism which they bring. I am not a theologian, and therefore, perhaps, the matter does not present the difficulties to me that it does to them; but I see no reason why there should not be some common form, such as they have in Scotland, by which you could teach the Apostles' Creed, and so on, as a general form of religious instruction. Failing such a concordat, the Government might have met this matter in a better way than they have done. In the first place, I think they might have said to the managers of voluntary schools, "The secular instruction in these schools is inefficient; it lacks money, it must have money. We will take these schools over from you, paying you a substantial rental for the time during which secular instruction is being given; we will make ourselves exclusively and entirely responsible for that; you shall have the schools for an hour every day for religious instruction in your own faith and in your own way." I think that would have been a better plan; but I do not put it dogmatically; it is a delicate matter to deal with.
  Then I would suggest another compromise. With regard to the board schools, there is an objection which this scheme does not meet at all—that the people who use the board schools cannot get exactly what they want in some cases. I have never found these people: I doubt very much whether they exist; I do not think they do exist in the case of parents who use the schools. But it is influentially stated that these people do exist. Why not give such people facilities for withdrawing their children outside the school premises to a mission hall, or a Sunday school, or a church during the hours of religious instruction, for them to be taught by their own denominational teachers, the children afterwards coming back to the school for the secular instruction? In that case voluntary schools could be met also by compromise. I venture to say that the religious instruction in voluntary schools, with the exception of the Roman Catholics, is very much more nearly undenominational than Members of this House have any idea of. It is substantially undenominational in the great bulk of cases; it has been made so because
  914
  Churchmen and Nonconformists, especially in the villages, have worn the thing down to an irreducible minimum to avoid the incubus of a School Board rate. If that is so, why not frankly make it undenominational—I put this forward as a practical scheme, and. I hope, as a practical working educationist—on Mondays, Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays, leaving the mid-day of the week for specific dogmatic and definite religious teaching?
  I only wanted to make these suggestions, because I hope that even now it is not too late for a truce of Cod to fall on this unhappy problem, so that we may get on with the education of our children, and equip them for the heritage which is falling into their hands. I confess I cannot view with satisfaction the non possumus attitude and the flat rejection represented by the Amendment which has been moved. This matter is too vital and too urgent. The whole thing is too serious for us as a great political Party to meet it by a flat rejection. I want to make four suggestions to the first Lord of the Treasury, and if in the course of the debate he is good enough to give me an answer I shall be glad.
  First, I suggest that on the Education Committee we should go back to the scheme of 1896 and 1901, and insist on a majority of the members of the Committee being members of the Municipal Council. The second suggestion is that, having taken all steps to secure that the denominational instruction shall not be interfered with, you shall give the locality through the Education Committee the right to nominate a majority of the managers of each case. The third suggestion is that, in the case of the great county boroughs, if the City Council agree that the School Board shall be continued as the authority for elementary education, the City Council and the School Board together shall form a joint authority for higher education. The fourth suggestion is that you shall concede the principle of getting more money from Imperial aid instead of from local aid. If I can get satisfactory answers to those four suggestions, the First Lord of the treasury is welcome to my vote on the Second Beading of this Bill.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. WALTER LONG,): I think we have a surer foundation of hope for the final settlement of this education question question which is dealt with in the Bill now under consideration in the speech of the hon. Member for North Camberwell than in any of the excellent speeches which have been delivered during the two days which this debate has lasted. The hon. Member who has just sat down has a right to speak as an authority upon educational questions, but I venture to say that all his remarks this evening have been mostly directed to what I may perhaps be permitted to call Committee consideration rather than Second Reading consideration. I hope in saying this that I am not making any remarks wanting in respect or appreciation of what the hon. Member has said, but I am rather indicating that the points he has raised upon which he asks for an expression of opinion from my right hon. friend the First Lord of the Treasury, are points more for the Committee than for the Second Reading stage. The hon. Gentleman said that he could not endorse the suggestion which has proceeded from the Front Bench that this Bill should be rejected wholesale, having regard to the gravity and importance of the interests to be served. I think all who have listened to this debate so far as it has proceeded, must feel that that is the spirit which is generally prevalent in the House. Members on both sides of the House have approached the consideration of this great educational problem with evident sincerity and with an evident desire to approach it in a practical spirit. The two speeches to which we have listened last, one from the hon Gentleman opposite and the other from the hon. Member for one of the Divisions of Islington, have dealt with Committee questions. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down finished his speech by making one or two suggestions. The First Lord of the Treasury has heard those suggestions, and no doubt he will say what he thinks about them when he concludes the debate. Whatever is necessary to be done in this respect may be done at a later stage. I think it has been recognised on all sides that the time has come when there ought to be a settlement of these educational difficulties, and the reception which this Bill has met with shows that in the measure before the
  916
  House there is an opportunity offered for the settlement of many of those difficulties, although this Bill may not take the precise form advocated by some hon. Gentlemen opposite. In some of the speeches we have listened to, although they have been interesting and effective, there is not the same hopefulness. In the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Aberdeen who moved the rejection of this Bill, there is very little to be found which is suggestive, or which, following the example of the hon. Gentleman opposite, would enable the Government to amend their Bill so as to make it more consistent with the ideas of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. He criticised our Bill in detail and in general, and he made very few suggestions which were consistent with the main principles of the Bill, or which would help, if carried out, to solve the difficulty. He indulged in a great many hopes, and he laid down a great many ideals as to what ought to be attained in education, but he never attempted to show that this Bill if it passes into law, will not enable those hopes to be realised and those ideals to be reached. We believe that this Bill offers an opportunity for a distinct advance in regard to education, and we believe further that those ideals, with many of which we are in deep sympathy, can be reached under the new methods which are proposed in this Bill.
  What are the main objections which have been advanced by right hon. Gentlemen and hon. Gentlemen opposite? It has boon said, in the first place, that this proposal of ours is not a real reform, that the local authorities are not fit to be entrusted with these new powers, and that they are not competent and not worthy to be made education authorities. I will examine that proposition in a moment. It seems to me that in criticising our proposals and in formulating their attack upon the Government Bill, right hon. Gentlemen and hon. Gentlemen opposite have failed altogether to realise what the real problem is with which the Government found itself confronted when it was called upon to deal with this education question. What surprises me is that one suggestion which is made oftener than any other on the opposite side of the House has been that we ought not to have dealt with elementary and secondary education at the same time, but that we ought to have dealt with secondary

  917
  education now and elementary education subsequently. Everybody on this side of the House knows that from time to time the utmost pressure has been exercised by hon. Gentlemen opposite upon the Government to produce their education scheme. They know as well as we know that in regard to both secondary and elementary education difficulties have arisen which require a solution, and it amazes me when I find hon. Gentlemen opposite saying that we ought to postpone the settlement of elementary education and deal only with secondary education. What are the existing circumstances at the present time? Is it not generally admitted that whatever may have been the results of the settlement arrived at in 1870, at the present time, in regard to elementary education, there is a breakdown in the system which the Act of 1870 brought into existence. When you come to examine the board school system or the voluntary schools system you find them both unsatisfactory because they fail to provide the educational machinery which is required, and the system has come under the condemnation which has been expressed on both sides of the House by responsible speakers. I think this goes to show that the board school system has not proved satisfactory in the smaller districts, and even in some of the larger urban districts it has produced difficulties and confusion, while in regard to the voluntary schools there can be no doubt that they are in a very grave and critical condition.
  They may be divided into three classes: (1) Those which are suffering from the poverty of the district in which they exist, and which are unable to maintain themselves in the face of modern demands; (2) those who exist in districts where there are also board schools, and who are threatened with destruction by the competition to which they are exposed; and (3) the voluntary schools which are prosperous and which exist in what may be described as the wealthy districts. In regard to the first class of these schools can anyone who has examined the question doubt for a moment that unless something is done, and done promptly, a great many of those voluntary schools must disappear? Some hon. Gentlemen opposite say that if they disappear because they cannot be maintained, let them go, and let board
  918
  schools take their place. But are those hon. Members prepared to make that recommendation, admitting, as they do, that in the rural districts and the smaller towns the board school system has broken down? If it be true that the great majority of our voluntary schools are in this condition, and if it be true that your board schools cannot replace them satisfactorily except at an enormous cost to the country, can it be urged against the Government that we ought to delay dealing with this elementary problem and deal now only with secondary education, leaving elementary education to be dealt with three or four years hence? It is evident that the demand of the voluntary schools is one that must be listened to, and whether we deal with it as the Government suggest or by some other method the plea for postponement is one which cannot be justified. There have been many predictions that as a result of the passing of this Bill all voluntary contributions would cease. The same statements were made when the special aid grant was given to the voluntary schools in 1897, but subsequent facts have shown that those suggestions were altogether groundless. On the contrary, has it not been shown conclusively that the whole of that special aid grant amounting to some £600,000 a year has gone in improvements, in increased cost of maintenance and additions to our voluntary schools. Btt although Parliament voted that sum of money in order to help the voluntary schools, the position of those schools is today, in some respects, even worse than before; because although the contributions have been maintained the additional cost has been increased by a sum far exceeding the grant made by Parliament. I am not going to say that all the voluntary contributions will be maintained after the passing of this Bill, but I am entitled to point to the fact that the same views expressed today upon this point were held five years ago as to the effect of the action of Parliament upon voluntary subscriptions, and that they have been proved to be without foundation. I believe myself that, just as patriotism and devotion on the part of the supporters of denominational schools has forced them in circumstances of great difficulty to maintain their

  919
  voluntary subscriptions during past years whatever action Parliament may take, the great majority of them will maintain their subscriptions rather than allow voluntary schools to suffer by the withdrawal of their contributions. The fact remains that voluntary schools have suffered and are suffering now. You may say that the voluntary system is a wrong system, and should be replaced, but the fact remains, which must be faced by Parliament, that unless you deal with voluntary schools in this way you will have to replace them by board schools, or some other system at the enormous cost which has been described by the hon. Member for Cambridge University; and which if you look at it from an economical point of view will mean the laying upon this country of an enormous charge amounting to many millions of money. My hon. friend the Member for the Cambridge University said it would involve some £26,000,000 to be spent in the erection of schools to take the place of existing voluntary schools, and not only this but also a very heavy rate for the maintenance of those schools. The right hon Gentleman who has just sat down dealt with this question very fully, and he told us that the Bill proposed by the Government would involve a rate of 4d. or 5d. in some places, and in the case of Blackburn a rate of 6d. in the pound. But supposing the Government proposals were not made? The hon. Gentleman admitted that the case he quoted was not quite a fair sample because in that instance there are a great number of voluntary schools. What is the alternative? The present system is a School Board rate, and therefore the choice is not between a rate of 3d., 4d., 5d., 6d., or nothing, but between the 4d. and 3d. rate and the existing rates which vary from 1s. or 1s. 1d. and the rate which will he necessary if the School Board system is to take the place of the voluntary system. I submit that the comparison which has been made is not a fair one. The comparison must be made between the rate involved by this Bill and the rate which would be inevitable if the School Board system was to take the place of voluntary schools.
  920
  There is only one class of voluntary schools where the case appeals to be a ready hard one. It is the case of a school where the existing income is sufficient through the generosity of the people who make voluntary contributions. Undoubtedly here the case is a, hard one. But bearing in mind that they will be called upon to make contributions in order that the great majority of voluntary schools may receive that assistance which they require, I do not think that they will feel that any great injustice is being done to them. One or two speakers on the opposite side have suggested that this ought not to be a rate question at all, and that the money should be taken out of the National Exchequer. Hon. Members opposite are very free with their suggestions about the public Exchequer when sitting in Opposition, but when they are sitting on the Ministerial side of the House they are not quite so ready to suggest that such burdens should be cast upon the Exchequer. Apart from any question of that kind I, at all events, speak not only in the capacity of the position which I occupy now, but from all my past experience as one keenly interested in this question of local taxation, and I do not yield to anybody in my desire that the distribution of local taxation should be, fair and just; but I have never associated myself with those who advocate a transfer to the National Exchequer of the entire cost of education. I do not think that hon. Gentlemen opposite who so lightly talk about the transfer of this educational burden to the Imperial Exchequer realise what the proposal is which they are making. My right hon. friend the Member for Dartford referred to my own county of Wiltshire, and I listened to what he said with the greatest possible pride. He was able to show the good work which had been done in connection with education by that county. But the county of Wiltshire is a poor county, with almost an entirely agricultural population, and the class of education required in Wiltshire differs from that which may be desirable in Lancashire and Yorkshire or some other of our manufacturing counties. One reason

  921
  why I believe this Bill will effect a valuable and salutary reform is that it will put into the hands of local authorities a power and control they have never yet enjoyed—to supply an educational system fitted to their needs. How does that apply to this question? It is said that you are to throw the cost of education on the Exchequer and not upon the local rates. [An HON. MEMBER: Mainly.] As the hon. Member knows, at the present time a very large proportion of the cost of education falls upon the Exchequer, and the suggestion now made is that you are to throw a very much larger proportion of the cost of education upon it. Sec what the effect would be. Under the present system you are going to give to the rating authority a very large share in deciding what shall be the system and standard of education in its own county. The cost of that will fall upon that particular county, but under the Exchequer system the poorer counties will have to share in the cost of providing the more expensive education required and desired in the richer manufacturing districts as well as to provide for the cost of education in their own county. I think it is worthy of consideration by all local taxation reformers to consider whether in matters of this kind where the standard differs and where the cost varies it might not be desirable to leave the greater part of the burden, at all events, to be borne by the locality. Hut there is this further difficulty. If there is to be an Exchequer grant made, is that grant to be so arranged as to vary from year to year with the variations in the expenditure. You have already your Exchequer grant. You have given this 5s. to voluntary schools, and it has been swallowed up by the additional cost of maintenance. If you increase your Exchequer grant you will still be in some difficulty. I believe the true solution is to be found in the change which the Government propose to make giving the local authorities the power to control education, and leaving it to them to find the funds necessary for the education which they desire to give. The right hon. Gentleman the Member
  922
  for the Forest of Dean said the other evening, and I was very sorry to hear it, that these local authorities, manned largely as they were by farmers, would not be likely to take a, friendly view of education. I do not think that is a fair or a just description of the attitude of agricultural communities towards education. Why is it that agricultural communities have laid themselves open to this charge? It is because hitherto they have had forced upon them rightly or wrongly standards of efficiency which they believe to be unsuitable and unfitted to their needs. [A laugh.] The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean laughs.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: My complaint was that they forced their standards down.
  MR. WALTER LONG: Their objection has not been against education itself, but against a system which did not suit their localities, and against standards which were unsuited to their requirements. I say that if you give them the power to exercise control and to provide what they think is needed in their particular district I think you will find them as liberal with their ideas, and as ready to approach this question in a wide spirit as any other class of the community. If hon. Members doubt this statement I refer them to the practical evidence adduced by my right hon. friend the Member for Dartford and others. If this statement is doubted look at the action of the County Councils all over the country in regard to secondary and technical education and see what they have done. It is not correct to say that they have only spent the whisky money. But supposing this statement it correct—I put on one side that portion of the expenditure which has been found out of the rates. Under the existing law the County Councils have a discretionary power as to the application of what is called the whisky money. In the vast majority of cases they have exercised that discretion in applying it to an excellent system of education, although they might have devoted it to

  923
  the relief of rates. They have not done so, and I share the view of the hon. Member for South Islington that you ought not to change that discretion into compulsion now. This is a discretionary power which has been well exercised by the County Councils, and they have shown themselves both competent and willing to spend their money in the promotion of technical and secondary education. I believe you will find that if you give them, as this Hill proposes, the power of control not only over the expenditure, but over the standard, and the system of education, and the method to be adopted, they will be found to be as progressive and as liberal as any other governing body that can be chosen.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Aberdeen, when moving the rejection of the Bill, was severe on the local authorities, and in passing, I may say that he criticised very much the Government proposals in regard to unification. He said "Where is your single authority? You have given the smaller boroughs and the urban district councils autonomy." I would have liked very much to know what he would have said if the Government had proposed to take away this autonomy. I think the Government are entitled to ask the Opposition to tell them what is the meaning of this criticism as to the want of unification. Do they mean that we take away from the boroughs and the urban districts powers which they now possess in regard both to secondary and elementary education? Because if they do not mean it their criticism of the Government proposals is neither candid nor honest. [Cries of "Oh!"] I adhere to what I say. If they do not mean by their criticism that we are wrong, and that they would do differently in our place, they admit the fact that it must be dealt with in this way. They fail to realise that in dealing with these questions of local government, whether education or other matters you cannot deal with this country as if it were a new country with our old institutions already in existence. They have already their own School Boards and other educational arrangements, and
  924
  I do not believe that if the Opposition were in our place they would have ventured to try to take away those powers, and if they did I do not hesitate to say that their proposals would not have held water up to the Second Beading or after. What we have done is to provide what we believe to be the best system consistent with that we already find in existence, tearing up as little as possible by the roots, and aiding as much as we can existing institutions, so as to enable them to do their work.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Aberdeen said these local authorities are not fit for the work they have to do. I confess it has been astonishing to me to listen to the speeches of hon. Gentlemen opposite. When I first came into Parliament they were always advocating the giving of fresh powers to popularly elected bodies. They never could say enough for the Borough Councils of this country because they were popularly elected. Where is all that confidence gone now I Before this debate closes there will not be a shred of confidence left in the popularly elected municipal authorities of this country. [Opposition cries of "Oh."] I know that the truth is always unpalatable. Hon. Members opposite do not like this description of their own statements; perhaps they do not even recognise it. But the Bill proposes that these authorities shall appoint Committees to administer the educational work of their areas. I should have thought it a natural inference from the views of hon. Members that this duty should be left to them. But hon. Gentlemen opposite say, "No, you cannot trust them; you must force them to have on that body a majority of their own members." We have been taunted that this Hill is retrogressive because in the Hill of 1896 it was proposed that there should be a majority elected from the municipal body on these Committees, whereas now it is thought better to leave something to the discretion of the municipal authority. Further, we have realised that the municipal body or the County Council may require more than one Committee to deal with these educational questions, and have felt that there may be some difficulty in securing more than one Committee if it is obligatory that every Council should appoint a majority

  925
  of its Members, and, therefore, with absolute confidence in the municipal bodies and the County Councils, and with certainty that they will exercise their discretion wisely, we have given them wide powers. We are told by hon. Gentlemen opposite that those powers ought not to be given to them, and that these bodies are not fit to be entrusted with educational matters. But what is there in the Borough Councillor, the County Councillor, or the Urban District Councillor which makes him so utterly different from the member of one of our School Boards? I venture to say that if you are going effectually and satisfactorily to reform local government, you can only do it by concentrating the authority in single hands. It is all very well for hon. Gentlemen to denounce their fellow countrymen for not taking part in local affairs, but if local bodies are multiplied, and elections also, the electors are mystified, and you render it practically impossible to secure good management. Concentrate your duties in the hands of one or two bodies and enable your electors to know the men they are electing to undertake the management of local affairs, and you will make it easy for those who have to elect, and attractive for those who are to be elected. It is only by methods of that kind that you will receive the good administration you desire. What is it that everybody desires? It is not that the administrative work of the country shall be progressive? And are we less likely to get improved facilities and advantages of education if we put the power in the hands of the local authority charged with the main conduct of affairs in the locality, who know the difficulties and what is wanted? I admit that County Councils have been but a short time in existence, but an impartial examination of their history shows that they have done their work well. But the great Town Councils have had better opportunities, and I am astounded to hear hon. Gentlemen opposite, who generally, I do not quite know why, claim specially to represent the great towns, express a want of confidence in the ability of these municipal authorities to discharge educational work. [Opposition cries of "No."] It is all very well
  926
  for hon. Gentlemen to cry no, but they have made speech after speech against this Bill because it proposes to transfer educational powers from the School Boards to municipal authorities. The history of these bodies shows that they can be entrusted with the work of education, and that they can provide men as competent to deal with it as have been found on our School Boards. Do hon Gentlemen opposite not believe that the men who form the municipal authorities are as a rule well qualified to deal with the work of education? [An HON. MEMBER: And water.] I do not quite understand the hon. Gentleman's interruption. He forgets that in connection with the subject on which he interrupts me the Government proposal is that the Metropolitan boroughs of London are suggested as those who ought to form the authority to deal with water, and therefore we have carried out in that case the identical principle I am advocating.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberdeen said that the local authorities were unwilling to accept these duties, and he quoted one or two that passed resolutions before the Bill was introduced. I do not think it worth while to stop to examine resolutions passed before the Bill was introduced. Obviously since the introduction of the Bill, the local authorities have had little opportunity to examine the question, but already some local authorities have spoken out, and if the right hon. Gentleman is entitled to quote one Riding of Yorkshire we are entitled to turn to the great county of Lancashire, where education has formed a leading subject for many years both in town and country. There the County Council is presided over by a gentleman who was once a distinguished Member of this House and who sat on the Liberal Front Bench—Sir John Hibbert. It has passed a resolution expressing not only its willingness to take over the work both of elementary and secondary education, but further than that their determination and willingness to provide for the cost out of the rates. That at all events is a declaration more explicit and more modern than those of the right hon. Gentleman. We have been taunted because we have omitted Loudon from the Bill, and we are told that this is another instance of our hostility to London. I

  927
  was immensely amused at the way in which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Aberdeen dragged the question of the London Water Bill into his speech. It was singularly mal à propos, and in no way illustrated the point he was seeking to make; but no one could blame him for it, because we know that it is the one subject on which he can secure the cheers and the united support of hon. Gentlemen behind him. The right hon. Gentleman and the House generally know that in nearly all these questions of local government London has always been dealt with separately, I do not think the Government has any reason to complain of the attitude which the House has taken towards the Bill in this discussion. The gravity of the question has been recognised by most hon. Members who have taken part in the debate. We hold as strongly as any one opposite that this question of education, both secondary and elementary, is one of surpassing importance; we believe that we are giving the local authorities powers which they are both competent and willing to exercise; and we believe that in this measure will be found a real and solid step towards the development of education. We believe that it gives to the local authorities what they are entitled to have, not merely the power of spending money but the power of exercising control and of laying down conditions. We are not afraid that they will be unwilling to bear this responsibility. We are not doubtful that they will do the duty with credit to themselves and advantage to the country. Holding these views we ask the House to accept the Bill which we have laid before it. We are confident, not only that the House will pass the Bill, but that the country will approve of it, and that it will be productive of advantage to the people of this country today and hereafter.
  SIR BRAMPTON GUEDON: In discussing the Bill now before the House, I must leave to others who are more capable the question of higher education. Nor do I wish to enlarge upon the religious question, although I look with dismay upon the blow dealt to the simple plain Bible teaching which has been so successful in Board Schools, and in some Voluntary Schools. I do not pretend to know any thing of the work of Town Councils or Borough School Boards, but I should like to say a word in regard to the rural schools which have received more abuse than attention in the course of the present debate. I have served on County Councils since they came into existence, and I have had considerable experience of rural schools, both board and voluntary; a happy, successful, and economical (for efficiency and economy generally go hand-in-hand) experience of Board Schools, and an unhappy, unsuccessful, and costly experience of Voluntary Schools. I have never met any one who has really served on a School Board who did not prefer the business-like government of School Boards to the necessarily hap-hazard administration of the Voluntary School; and I wish to accentuate the loss of efficiency and economy which must necessarily result in parish schools if the Bill were passed in its present form. In the small rural schools there would be a waste of money without any corresponding gain of efficiency. As the county rate increases, efficiency will decrease. The same carelessness which will induce the managers to spend money because the cost comes out of the county rate, will induce them to say that it does not signify about the efficiency of the school, because their grants go into a common fund. I have

  929
  no objection to the County Council as the authority for technical instruction. I believe it is the right authority. I think a great deal may be done to improve technical education, to frame schemes of secondary education, and to get together in one comprehensive useful scheme, those small scholarships which the charity and benevolence of our ancestors have scattered about the country. I do hope that in dealing with secondary education, the county authority will take care not to turn the good, intelligent, hard-working, high class artisan or mechanic, into an inferior second class clerk. I have seen so much in my own parish and neighbourhood of men who had only had an elementary school training, getting into high and responsible positions, that I rather dread what might happen. I think that secondary education must be carefully managed, so that the class of men to whom I refer will not go into situations as clerks in small country towns to struggle with a salary of £70 or £80 a year. I should prefer that the County Council Committee should be appointed from inside the Council. The difficulty with an outside Committee is that they cannot be responsible to the County Council and that they cannot be through the County Council responsible to the electors who are in fact the parents of the children. I think the right hon. Baronet the Member for Forest of Dean instanced the Standing Joint Committee as having the same fault. Being a mixed body it is not responsible to quarter sessions, and it cannot be responsible to the County Council. The Vice-President mentioned that the County Councils are elected on a less restricted franchise than this House. It is less restricted because it includes women, but it is more
  930
  restricted because there is no service franchise. I regret that men who by their brains and industry become foremen, bailiffs, and headmen are deprived of the vote because there is no service franchise for the County Council.
  The fault we find with the Bill is that we cannot understand how the County Council can undertake the management of rural schools. The right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench are naturally so occupied in the high affairs of State that they have not the same opportunity as humble county Members of knowing everyday rural life, and I do not think they thoroughly understand what the work of the School Board is. Part of the work of the School Board is to look after attendances, and if it is a competent Board they divide the cases and go and reason with the parents and endeavour to show them the folly of not sending their children to school. The School Board orders books and stationery, fuel and light, and necessary repairs of the building; it decides when the use of the school may be granted for meetings or entertainments. Over such matters the County Council can have no control whatever. The County Council might pay salaries, and fix holidays, though at some inconvenience, but all the details of management must necessarily be left to the school managers. The proposal to pay all the grants into a common fund will leave no incentive whatever for efficiency, and the County Council will have no control whatever over the managers, because the highest punishment which can be inflicted on them is the entire withdrawal of the grant. The managers will care nothing for that, and the county will suffer. There will be no incentive for economy whatever. Hon. Members who have not had official experience cannot

  931
  know what an enormous amount you can spend on petty expenses such as copy books and slate pencils. We all know that coal is cheap in summer and dear in winter, and under efficient management care is taken to buy at a favourable time, but managers will have no incentive to economy of that kind in future. These things may seem small, but if hon. Members do not think that small sums mount up to enormous totals let them look at the, Vote for Stationery and Printing on which the State spends hundreds of thousands of pounds. We, on the Public Accounts Committee, are examining the accounts of the South African War, and the House will be astonished to learn the waste of money on small items, such as damaged saddlery, rotten putties, condemned meat tins, mounting up to hundreds of thousands of pounds, if not millions. It will be the same with the schools. Take the case of a charwoman. A respectable widow is engaged to look after a school. The squire will give her half a ton of coals, and the parson will give her some soup, and some other kind person will pay her rent, while the Board will give her 3s. a week. But if this Bill becomes law, the local authority, which will consist of the parson, the squire, and the other kind person, will say, "We must give this poor respectable widow a better salary than 3s. a week; let us pay her 7s. 6d. a week; then she will be able to pay for her own coals and rent, and do without the parson's soup." And so the rates rise year after year. The County Council can never exercise control over these incidental expenses. The only item they can control is the salary of the teachers, and that is the worst form of economy possible.
  932
  What I regret most in this Bill is its retrograde tendency. We gave the parents of the children in 1870 the management of their own education, and now we are taking it away from them. I saw a letter in the papers the other day in which it was stated that the School Boards were inefficient because Tom, Dick, and Harry were elected; but it must be remembered that Tom, Dick, and Harry are the parents of the children. I do not wish to use the old familiar arguments against the squire and the parson; I never knew a parson or a squire who was of the slightest use who had any trouble whatever in getting elected on to a School Board, or who did not welcome the assistance of their parishioners. Tom, Dick, and Harry. There is a sub-section to Clause 12 which provides that the County Council may hand over education to Parish Councils. If that were done I should not complain. We in small parishes do not like the cumulative vote. We know that in the very large School Boards the elections are carried on on religious lines; but in our small country School Boards we have no religious difficulty. I have had the honour of being a Chairman of a large rural School Board, and we have always had two Church of England clergymen and the foremost Nonconformists upon it, and we have never had a dispute. My hon. and learned friend the Member for Warwick stated that the education in towns is good, in the country bad. I entirely traverse the statement that the education in rural parishes is bad I believe it is with some few exceptions excellent. I knew my learned friend when he was 12 years old; he was just as amusing as he is now; I never knew a boy with a

  933
  keener sense of humour; but as to high and dry education, I believe I could produce boys from the parish schools who are just as well educated at twelve years of age as he was himself. Since that time he has bad the advantage of an Eton education, the best in the world, and he has become an ornament to this House and to the Bar. I quite agree that in many cases the parish is too small an area, but, on the other hand, a union is too large an area. I should like to see the county divided into educational districts of from 1,000 to 2,000 population, the educational authority to consist of representatives from each Parish Council. There is no reason, of course, why, if there were five or six schools in the district area, one of them should not provide a higher grade education. I know that His Majesty's Government are sure to pass this Bill, but I am inclined to think that after it has been working for two or three years, and when the people find that their rates are increasing, and that the efficiency of the education is decreasing, the present Government will not carry a single county seat in East Anglia, except, perhaps, that of my hon. and gallant friend the Member for Chelmsford, who has given notice of an Amendment against the Bill. I should be sorry to miss my hon. friend from this House, as I have now taken part in a debate which so much showed the necessity of his short Speech Rule, and as I wish to come within that Rule, I will only say that I view with great alarm the increase of expense, and what is still worse, the decrease of efficiency which I am sure will follow in rural schemes if representation is taken away, and if management is not co-incedent with
  934
  the area of taxation. It is because I see no hope of the Bill being amended so as to give efficiency and economy that I am compelled to vote for the Amendment.
  MAJOR RASCH: I am not a Chairman of a School Board, or a fanatic on higher education in the agricultural districts, and therefore I have not the right to address the House for three-quarters of an hour as so many hon. Members have done during the last few days. I am an agricultural Member, and am sent here by my constituents who, I think, pace the hon. Member for North Camberwell, are quite as intelligent as the voters in the Old Kent Road. Under the circumstances, I do not imagine that hon Members will expect me to build an opulent shrine to the First Lord of the Treasury. We are not grateful to him for scourging us with scorpions instead of with whips. I venture to say that in the agricultural districts we have no objection to education. We are as well able to talk platitudes about it as any bon. Member. What we resent very much is the statement made by an hon. Member of this House that we are Tony Lumpkins sheltering behind the President of the Council. We deny that. We do not object to education. We can stand a certain amount of it. We read a speech delivered at Bristol by the hon. Member for North Camberwell, in which he said that agricultural Members maintained that if all the money spent on education had been spent on artificial manures it would have been better for the country. Now that is not what we say. That is what is said for us;

  935
  but we draw the line somewhere. We draw the line where education ceases to be of the slightest use to the children, and imposes a heavy burden on the rates. The common sense of the matter is that we know that large areas of land have gone out of cultivation in East Anglia in consequence of low prices and high taxes, and the First Lord of the Treasury is going to impose an additional tax on the land of something like £3,000,000 a year. What is the sense of this megalomania for teaching, in Shakesperian phrase, the musical glasses to agricultural labourers' children and cramming them with useless knowledge with the one hand, and taking the bread and cheese out of their mouths with the other? What do hon. Members think of agricultural labourers' children? Do they imagine that when they leave school they turn into professors or Members of Parliament? They do not want your higher education; they do not want your curriculum, or whatever hon. Members choose to call it. I have my philosophic doubts as to whether it is possible to improve this Bill, because from my point of view, viz., that of the agricultural districts, the Bill is so bad that it cannot be improved. If the right hon. Gentleman had taken one or two agricultural Members of common sense into his confidence—I do not myself move in his exalted circles—I think he might have made a better job of it. What we agricultural Members want is to give security of tenure to the teacher; that secular education alone should be given in State-aided schools; and that the education imparted to agricultural children should be such that they would
  936
  profit by it in after life. But the Government do not accept our advice, and are now likely to take away the only ewe lamb left in the Bill, and that is the permissive clause. It is useless for an agricultural Member to speak against the Bill, which, of course, will be carried by the enormous majority. Having represented an agricultural district in South-East Essex for fourteen years, I think I may consider myself as an epitome and incarnation of agricultural distress, but I am aware that nothing I can say will have much effect on the fortunes of the Bill, although I have my vote against the Second Reading. The right hon. Gentleman has introduced three education Bills. Two of them have joined the majority, and, as Lord Curzon used to say, we may have an intelligent anticipation of events before they come off, and I hope and believe that my anticipation in regard to this third Bill will come off. I must say that we do not object to education; what we object to is placing the whole crushing cost of it upon the rates. If the right hon. Gentlemen were to put the expense of education on the broad shoulders of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, rustic Members, as The Times calls them, would not have much to say against the Second Reading of this Bill.

  ADJOURNMENT.
  Motion made and Question, "That this House do now adjourn"—(Mr. Austen Chamberlain)—put, and agreed to.
  Adjourned at five minutes before Twelve o'clock.

OFFICE OF LORD GREAT CHAMBERLAIN.
Committee for Privileges met; claims of Gilbert Henry Heathcote-Drummond-Willough by Earl of Ancaster, of Sir John James Hugh Henry Stewart Murray Duke of Atholl, K.T., of George Henry Hugh Marquess of Cholmondeley, and of Charles Robert Earl Carrington, G.C.M.G., considered: Then it was resolved that it is the opinion of the Committee that the rights of the coheiresses who have inherited this office are in the Earl of Ancaster, the Marquess of Cholmondeley, and the Earl Carrington, in whom, therefore, the right of selection of a deputy vests, subject to His Majesty's approval; that in the event of the said Lords not all agreeing, His Majesty may appoint whom he will for the performance of the duties of the office until they shall agree; and that, according to the precedents, the person appointed must not be of inferior degree to a Knight; report thereof to be made to the House.
OFFICE OF LORD GREAT CHAMBERLAIN.
Report from the Committee for Privileges that the rights of the co-heiresses who have inherited this office are in the Earl of Ancaster, the Marquess of Cholmondeley, and the Earl Carrington, in whom, therefore, the right of selection of a deputy vests, subject to His Majesty's approval; that, in the event of the said Lords not all agreeing, His Majesty may appoint whom he will for the performance of the duties of the office until they shall agree; and that, according to the precedents, the person appointed must not be of inferior degree to a Knight; made and agreed to; and resolved and adjudged accordingly; and Resolution and Judgment to be laid before His Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the
766
Certificates from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:—
Kent Electric Power.
Southport and Lytham Tramroad.
South Metropolitan Gas.
And also the certificates that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:—
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 5.) [H.L.].
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 6.) [H.L.].
The same to lie on the Table.

NORTH-EAST LONDON RAILWAY (No. 2.) BILL [H.L.]
A witness ordered to attend the Select Committee.
NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE CORPORATION TRAMWAYS BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
WEARDALE AND SHILDON DISTRICT WATER BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
NORTHUMBERLAND ELECTRIC TRAMWAYS BILL [H.L.]
The King's consent signified; and Bill reported, with Amendments.
GREAT EASTERN RAILWAY BILL.
The King's consent signified and Bill reported, without Amendment.
BARKING GAS BILL.
Reported, without Amendment.
NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE ELECTRIC SUPPLY BILL.
Reported, without Amendment.
BIRMINGHAM CORPORATION WATER BILL [H.L.]
Commons Amendments considered, and agreed to.
LEICESTER CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Order for commitment, discharged; and Bill re-committed to the same Select Committee to which the Bill was previously referred.
ISLINGTON AND EUSTON RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
Report from the Select Committee, That it is not expedient to proceed further with the Bill; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
WARRINGTON CORPORATION (EDUCATION) BILL [H.L.]
The Chairman of Committees informed the House. That the promoters do not intend to proceed further with the Bill: Order of the day for Second Reading read, and discharged: Ordered, that the Bill be not further proceded with.
BRADFORD CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
BELFAST CORPORATION BILL,
  LANCASHIRE AND YORKSHIRE RAILWAY (STEAM VESSELS) BILL,
    RATHMINES AND RATHGAR URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
    Brought from the Commons read 1a and referred to the Examiners.
    CATERHAM AND DISTRICT GAS BILL [H.L.]
    Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments.
    GAS AND WATER ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 1) BILL [H.L.] (No. 66.)
    A Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the authority of the Gas and Water Works Facilities Act, 1870, relating to Bridgend (Glamorganshire) Gas and Water, Goring and Streatley District Gas and Water, Marlow Water, Mid-Kent Water, and Pinxton Water.
    GAS AND WATER ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 2) BILL [H.L.] (No. 67.)
    A Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the Gas and Water Works Facilities Act, 1870, relating to Knutsford Gas and Water, Staines and Egham Gas, Syston and Thurmaston Gas, Uck field Water, and Worksop Water.

    ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 7) BILL [H.L.] (No. 68.)
    A Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the Electric Lighting Acts, 1882
    768
    and 1888, relating to Bedlingtonshire, Chepstow (Urban and Rural), Cowes, Hitchin, Morpeth, Ashington, New-biggen-by-the-Sea, and Morpeth (Rural), Pokesdown, Slough and Datchet, Stevenage, Tadcaster and District, Trefriw, and certain districts and parishes in the West Riding in the County of York; and

    ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 8) BILL [H.L.] (No. 69.)
    A Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the Electric Lighting Acts, 1882 and 1888, relating to Bermondsey (Extension), Stoke Newington, and Woolwich. Were presented by the Earl of Dudley; read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND).
  Code of Regulations for Continuation Classes, 1902: Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.
  BARBADOS.
  Leave regulations for prison officers and amendments to prison rules, dated 6th February 1902: Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.
  AGRICULTURE AND TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION (IRELAND) BILL.
  Reported from the Standing Committee, without amendment, and to be read 3a on Friday next.

  LANDS VALUATION (SCOTLAND) AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Lord BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH): My Lords, the Bill which I ask your Lordships to read a second time today will, if passed, effect a slight but somewhat important, alteration in the law of valuation in Scotland, As your Lordships are probably aware, our rolls of valuations for assessment purposes are made up once every year on August 15th, the properties entered upon them being those

  769
  in actual occupancy on May 15th previous. It has been found in the past that after May 15th, properties come into occupation, but there is no machinery by which they can be put on the roll, and therefore they escape rating for the year. The object of this Bill is to confer on the valuation authorities in Scotland, the power, which only one or two have at present by special Act, to make up supplementary rolls at the end of six months from August 15th, in order that these properties may not escape rating for the whole year. I do not anticipate that there can be any opposition to the proposal, which was unanimously recommended by the Royal Commission over which I had the honour to preside. The Commission reported thus—
  "In order that some contribution may be obtained from the properties we have mentioned, we think that similar powers should be given to the Scottish Valuation Authorities, though, if prepared at all, the Supplementary Valuation Roll should be made up before 15th March in each year, and be subject to the same conditions as in the case of the Annual Valuation Roll, the parties interested being entitled to the same notices and rights of appeal.
  That is really the provision of this Bill. Since the Bill has been introduced I have received representations in favour of laying the duty compulsorily upon all authorities of making a Supplementary Valuation Roll. That matter is open to consideration, but at present I am disposed to think that the proposal in the Bill is the better one. I think it would be absurd to lay on all authorities, some of whom might have only a very small area to deal with in which only one or two houses might come into occupation after the term named, the duty of preparing a supplementary valuation roll. But that may be a matter worth while discussing at the Committee stage. In the meantime, I ask your Lordships to give the Bill a Second Reading.
  Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

  LIGHT LOAD LINE BILL, [H.L.]
  [Second Reading.]
  Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD MUSKERRY: My Lords, this Bill, which I ask your Lordships to read a second time today, is similar to the one which was brought before your Lordships last year, except that two clauses have been added which have been found to be absolutely necessary owing to the serious loss of life that has occurred through ballast not being efficiently secured. The noble Lord who moved the Amendment to the Bill last year seemed to have an idea that the fact of a steamer carrying a spare propeller was an element of safety, but he did not inform us how this mass of metal, weighing from five to eight tons, was to be got on deck, over the side, and shipped in its place when the crew would have all they could do to hold on to save themselves from being dashed about the decks. The noble Lord also said, on behalf of the shipowners, that there was no need for such a Bill; but, if that is the case why do they oppose it, for if it is not needed they will be put to no extra expense. But as to its not being needed, last year I gave your Lordships instances of ten ships that were lost. The Courts of Inquiry held by the Board of Trade found that those ships went to sea without sufficient ballast, and 165 lives were lost in those ships. My noble friend the Earl of Dudley said that as far as he knew there was not the loss of one single life to be attributed to want of sufficient ballast. Well, that may be the interpretation that the Board of Trade place on the findings of their own Courts of Inquiry, but I ask your Lordships to judge what those findings mean in plain English. The Courts stated that these ten ships went to sea in an unseaworthy condition for want of sufficient ballast, and I think that any one outside the Board of Trade or a lunatic asylum would say that in all human probability it was due to want of ballast that they and their crews were lost. I have received many further letters from shipmasters trusting that this Bill would still be persevered with. One who holds a very prominent position in the Mercantile Marine writes—
  "We had one forcible example of the need of a light load line on our recent passage here. In the Bay of Biscay we had a strong northeasterly wind which, by the greatest of stretching could not be called a gal-of wind. It was too much for a ship in such light trim, with

  771
  the boss of the propeller barely immersed in smooth water. Fortunately the whole of the Atlantic was to leeward of us, and we had to content ourselves watching the ship drive to leeward for two days."
  If it had been a rocky coast to leeward there would have been another vessel lost and in all probability many lives. Another master of long experience in the service writes that—
  "Seeing that several good steamers have blown ashore lately through being too late, I hope that every effort will be made to aid and abet the Light Load Line Bill. For my part this is all I dread about the sea. I have just ended a voyage by bringing a too light tramp across from the Continent short of coals. I have many instances on record regarding my experiences with insufficient ballast."
  It is the opinion of practical men that a light load line is even more needed than a deep load line, for the very simple reason that if a ship is overloaded she is at least manageable, whereas an insufficiently ballasted ship is both a danger to herself and to other vessels in the vicinity. Replying to a question in another place, the President of the Board of Trade stated that during the year 1900, no less than seven British sailing vessels which left foreign ports in ballast had not since been heard of, the number of officers and men carried by them being 188. During the year 1901, there were six large sailing vessels in ballast posted at Lloyd's as missing. This means the loss of at least another 150 lives, or 338 in all. I think, my Lords, that this further loss of life is sufficient justification for bringing the Bill forward again. As proving my case, I will simply refer to four later inquiries which were officially held by the Board of Trade, each of them directly attributing the casualties to insufficient ballasting. The first is the case of the "Moel Tryvan," which capsized in the English Channel, eleven lives being lost. The Board of Trade inquiry was conducted by the Stipendiary Magistrate of Liverpool, with Captains R. C. Dyer, R.N., T. T. Edwards, and W. H. Sinclair as nautical assessors. The clear opinion of the Court, in their judgment, was "that the vessel was not sufficiently ballasted." Then, again, there is the case of the "Kaisari" which struck on the rocks of the Island of Reunion. A Court of Inquiry was held at Port Louis, Mauritius,
  772
  and this Court deliberately stated in their judgment that—
  "The ballast carried by this steamer was quite inadequate to enable a vessel to steam against tad weather,"
  and that—
  "It is almost certain that if the 'Kaisari' had been properly ballasted she would not have been lost."
  They found that for two whole days the ship drifted bodily to leeward until she struck on the rocks. Twenty-three lives, including those of the captain, chief and third officers, and chief engineer, were sacrificed to insufficient ballasting. Therefore, in these two cases there is no doubt on the subject, but it is absolutely certain that these thirty-four lives were lost owing to the vessels being under-ballasted. Then, again, there is the case of the "Trefusis," the Board of Trade Inquiry in connection with which was held at West Hartlepool. Although being in sight of a light which was ten miles off, the Court found that the vessel was then unmanageable, and that she drove on shore with her port anchor down, her engines all the time going full speed ahead. The Court definitely stated that—
  "the serious damage to the vessel was not caused by wrongful act or default of the master or officers, but by an error of judgment on the part of the master by attempting to make the voyage with too little ballast."
  Then there was the wreck of the "Sylviana." The Board of Trade Inquiry, with expert nautical assessors, was held at Middlesbrough, and the Court found that—
  "when fifteen miles oft' Whitby Light, this vessel became unmanageable, land although every effort was made to keep the vessel off the shore, she gradually but surely drifted there."
  The Court declared that the serious damage to the "Sylviana" was not caused by the wrongful act or default of the officers, the owners alone being I responsible for the ballasting of the vessel, and the master not being consulted about it. Another steamer has lately gone ashore for want of ballast, but for some reason the Board of Trade have held no Inquiry.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (The Earl of DUDLEY): What ship was that?
  LORD MUSKERRY: The "Zannetta," which, in November last, drove ashore whilst steaming in ballast from London to the Tyne. The argument which is advanced by the shipowners is that this Bill would unduly harass them, owing to the fact that it would not apply to foreign ships, which would be enabled to trade at an advantage over British ships, in consequence of their not being required by law to have either a deep or a light load line. I would point out, however, that a very great number of foreign ships have a deep load line marked upon their sides owing to the fact that they are heavily insured in this country and the underwriters require that the load line should be placed upon them. We constantly pride ourselves on the advanced state of the Mercantile Marine, more especially in regard to the immunity from loss of life at sea compared with the Mercantile Marine of other nations. Within the past few years other nations have made gigantic strides in shipping, and, consequently, they themselves are now seriously considering the advisability of introducing measures similar to our own for the protection of life. I would just quote one or two opinions to prove this statement. The correspondents at Hamburg Lloyd's Shipping Gazette states that from his own observations the masters, officers, engineers, and crews generally would heartily welcome the introduction of Government control as is the case in England. He added—
  "It is notorious that many German vessels have been brought to destruction, if not wholly, at least partially, by the absence of all regulations with regard to the amount of cargo permissible."
  The Paris correspondents of this leading shipping journal, reporting the discussion in the French Chamber on the Merchant Shipping Bill, stated that Count D'Agoult proposed an additional article with the object of requiring a load line on all ships. Count D'Agoult admitted that most French ships bore a load line, but said it was imposed by the English Board of Trade. He thought it inconsistent with the dignity of France that her merchant ships should be subject to foreign legislation, and that a national law should be passed on the subject. M. Brindeau replied that a Commission at the Ministry of Marine
  774
  had the matter under consideration, and the Chamber referred the question to that body. A Bill has been introduced by the Norwegian Government and referred to a Committee, providing for a load line, for the limitation of deck loads all the year round, and other matters. Serious attention is also being given to this matter in Germany. As to the new clauses introduced into this Bill providing for the proper securing of loose ballast, there is a consensus of opinion that this is equally necessary with the light load line itself. In a letter to the Merchant Service Guild the secretary of the Liverpool Underwriters Association, which is one of the largest associations of its kind in the world, states that—
  "The necessity for ballast being efficiently secured from shifting is of such importance that it would be desirable that this should also be provided for in the Bill."
  But to come to stronger arguments, I will quote again from the judgments of the Board of Trade's own Courts. The British ship "Cape Wrath," which sailed from Callao in ballast, has disappeared with all her crew, numbering thirty. The Board of Trade Court, with expert nautical assessors, stated that—
  "The ballast shipped at Callao was shingle and very liable to shift. Accordingly, with such a dangerous description of ballast as this, special measures should have been taken to secure it. Central shifting boards should invariably be used, also wing shifting boards when practicable. All shifting boards should be thoroughly well secured in position; bulkheads should be fixed at the forward and after ends of the ballast and be brought up to the same height as the ballast in order to prevent the ballast shifting forward or aft. Finally, the ballast should be securely tommed down."
  To refer once more to the "Moel Tryvan" Court, the judgment in that case was that—
  "Although it is stated in evidence that it is neither usual nor necessary to take any special precautions to secure the ballast from shifting, we cannot too strongly condemn such practices, and nothing can justify ships being sent to sea under such dangerous conditions."
  Also, in the cases of the "Limache" and "Mides" the Court expressed a strong opinion as to the danger arising from proper measures not being adopted for the prevention of the shifting of the ballast. In these cases both vessels also disappeared with all hands. I contend that measures could very easily be adopted by the Board of Trade for the proper securing of ballast, in the same

  775
  way as they make regulations in the matter of the carriage of grain cargoes. Mr. E. C. Chaston read a paper recently before the North-east Coast Institution of Engineers and Shipbuilders on the "Ballasting of Merchant Tramp Steamers," in which he referred to the short-sighted policy of sending ships to sea in an unseaworthy condition, due to want of sufficient ballast. Going back to January 1897, and taking the salvage cases due to broken shafts, loss of rudders, etc., up to the present time, he could, he said, only express surprise that such a state of things was allowed to exist. He had come to the conclusion that insufficient ballast was, and is, the cause of three-fourths of the whole trouble, and that it is imperative, if the shipowner will not, and the under-writer does not, insist upon a vessel being sent to sea in proper ballast trim, that there should be an under load line fixed by the Board of Trade or the authorised free-board assigning authorities. He quoted several cases in his own experience, one being where a 5,000 or 6,000-ton steamer left Trieste for Cardiff in ordinary water ballast trim, and lost eight days on the passage through not being able to make headway. Captain W. R. Lord, a representative of the Shipping Federation at Newcastle-on-Tyne, stated, from his own experience as a commander, that steamers of today went to sea seriously handicapped from want of sufficient ballast. Therefore all shipowners cannot be averse to this Bill when their own representative expresses such an opinion as this. At the last annual meeting of the Sunderland Shipowners Society, the Chairman, Captain T. Pinkney, a very large shipowner on the east coast of England, declared that—
  "The light load line was sure to come, and they would have to adopt it."
  Which was tantamount to an admission that the arguments in favour of it were unanswerable and bound to carry the day sooner or later. It has been pointed out that in these cases the only person who is blamed by the Board of Trade is the unfortunate master. If he had the good fortune to be saved, his position was not a happy one, for the Court of Inquiry would, in all probability, suspend his certificate. On the other hand, if he had
  776
  acted as his judgment dictated and had gone to the expense of providing ballast, he stood the best of chances of being superseded in his command. The leading official of the Marine Department of the Board of Trade, speaking at the centenary of the Liverpool Underwriters Association, referred to the way in which the underwriters had co-operated with the Board of Trade in the way of promoting the safety of life at sea. If, therefore, the Board of Trade is consistent, they will accept the advice of the Underwriters Association, who are strongly in favour of the principle of this Bill for the protection of life and property at sea. Now, my Lords, who are the people who are opposed to this Bill? They are the shipowners—but not all of them—who naturally do not wish to have any more trouble than they can possibly help, and who have never, I venture to say, been at sea in a light ship in bad weather, and the Board of Trade, whose members also have never had the experience of going to sea in a light ship, and who therefore know nothing about the risk, not only to the ship, but to the limbs and lives of those on board. That is one side of the question. I will now toll your Lordships who are in favour of the Bill. This Bill, I may say, was not prepared by me. It has been prepared and placed in my hands by the Merchant Service Guild. They, and the whole of the Mercantile Marine—captains, officers, engineers, seamen and firemen—are most strongly and unanimously in favour of this Measure. Of course, my Lords you must remember that these people are prejudiced, as they are liable at any time to find themselves risking their lives in one of these unseaworthy and unmanageable vessels. You have there, in all, 200,000 men. Then, as I had the honour of pointing out last year, the insurance companies are in favour of it. Of course, they are also prejudiced, as they have had to pay out considerable sums of money through the loss of ships which have been insufficiently ballasted.
  I come now to the experts, and it is impossible to say that they are prejudiced. I read to your Lordships last year the opinion of Sir Edward Reid, late Chief Constructor to the Navy, and the opinions of other expert naval architects. They strongly condemn the practice of sending ships to sea insufficiently ballasted.

  777
  Then, my Lords, we have the opinions of His Majesty's Judges, who cannot, in any way, be called prejudiced. The Judges have most strongly condemned the practice of sending ships to sea without sufficient ballast on board. These gentlemen have had every opportunity of judging the question, as they have received sworn testimony as to the behaviour of insufficiently ballasted vessels, and I think that their opinions should receive the greatest consideration at your Lordships' hands. You have, my Lords, against the Bill the ship owners—I do not count the Board of Trade, for if the shipowners did not oppose, they would not—and for the Bill you have all the captains, officers, engineers, seamen and firemen in the Mercantile Marine, the insurance companies, experts, both nautical and engineering, and also His Majesty's Judges. The facts that I have stated in favour of the Bill both this year and last year cannot be denied. Against the Bill no acts have been given or can be given. I think that the strongest arguments of all in favour of the Bill are the lives that have been sacrificed for the want of such a regulation. I have said nothing as to the terrible discomforts of the crew; men are dashed about the decks, and firemen are thrown against the furnaces through the terrible rolling of these under ballasted ships. The unavoidable dangers that a sailor must run are many and great, but this particular danger can be guarded against, and I think it is our duty to guard against it. It is a disgrace to the nation that more care and attention should be devoted to the comforts and the lives of our criminals than are given to the comfort and safety of those on whom the nation mainly depends for its prosperity. I beg to move the Second Reading of this Bill.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Muskerry.)
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: My Lords, it is with great reluctance that I venture to obtrude in this debate and to oppose the Motion of my noble friend. I am not a shipowner, and not even a yachtsman, but I love the sea—that is I love to look upon it from the land.
  778
  But I have the strongest possible feeling that we ought not to touch so great an interest without full knowledge of all the facts. I have been asked by the Shipowners Parliamentary Committee to move the rejection of this Bill in the absence of Lord Heneage, who last year successfully opposed the Bill of my noble friend. The Shipowners' Parliamentary Committee, of which I am the mouthpiece, represents nine-tenths of the registered tonnage of the merchant shipping of the United Kingdom. They point out that the Board of Trade has already power to deal with improper loading, under the Merchant Shipping Act of 1894. As regards casualties, the Committee inform me that the casualties in 1900 were 185, of whom 95 were foreigners, and that last year the total casualties were reduced to 140, of whom 75 were foreigners. That is to say, the casualties last year only represented ½ per cent of the whole tonnage of the shipping of the United Kingdom, and it is unjust to compel 99½ per cent. to submit to further restrictions on account of casualties representing only ½ per cent. I am informed that there have been two cases in which ships have been lost in extremely bad weather through under ballasting, but those have been exceptional cases. Further, the Shipowners Parliamentary Committee say that builders and shipowners are paying great attention to the question of ballasting, and also to the construction of shafts with a view to preventing accidents. The tendency with regard to shafts is to increase their size, to improve the material of which they are made, and to have frequent examinations, and the shipowners ask that Parliament should wait to see the results of these changes before passing a Bill of this kind. They suggest, further, that before legislation takes place there should be a full inquiry by the Board of Trade, and that, if legislation should be found necessary, it should be introduced by the responsible Government Department and not by an individual member. That appears to me to be only right and reasonable. When my noble friend introduced his Bill last year Lord Heneage moved that it be read a second time that day six months, and the Bill was rejected by a

  779
  large majority. I do not know what course my noble friend who represents the Board of Trade proposes to take on this occasion, but I would remind him of what he said last year. In the course of his speech last session the noble Earl said—
  "I may say at once that those who have looked into this matter are of opinion that at the present time there is no necessity for legislation on the lines of the Bill."
  If there was no necessity last year there can be no necessity this year, for, as I have shown your Lordships, the casualties are fewer in number. The noble Earl went on to say—
  "I venture to say, as a general principle, that legislation of this kind, which seeks to impose arbitrary restrictions upon a great industry like the shipping industry, can only be justified if a strong case is made out in its favour, and if it is shown that considerable loss of life has occurred from the present state of things."
  There has not been any considerable loss of life, for the casualties are diminishing instead of increasing, and I heartily endorse the sound principle contained in the quotation which I have just read from the speech of the noble Earl who represents the Board of Trade. I think it is a sound argument that if legislation is required it should be undertaken by the Government and not by a private individual, and I move that the Bill be read a second time this day six months.
  LORD NORTON: My Lords, I do not know that I should have risen to take part in the discussion on this Bill except for the observations that have just fallen from the noble Earl on the Cross Benches. I naturally take an interest in this subject, inasmuch as when I was at the Board of Trade I had to conduct the Merchant Shipping Act through the House of Commons—not the Act of 1894, but the principal Act which enacted the deep load line, commonly called the Plimsoll line from the extraordinary zeal with which Mr. Plimsoll defended the interests of the sailors. There cannot be the slightest doubt that the risks of too light ballasting are as great as those arising from too deep loading. The one is as dangerous as the other, and as many lives are lost by the one as were lost by the other. What objection can there be to the fixing of a light load line?
  780
  We have just heard from the noble Earl the reasons given by the highest authority why this legislation should not be passed. The Shipowners Parliamentary Committee state that there is power to deal with this matter without an Act of Parliament, and that legislation is not necessary. There could hardly be, I think, a worse reason than that for opposing the Bill. The noble Lord told us that the Board of Trade could deal with this matter. Why don't they? The fact that they can do it and do not should not prevent us passing this Bill. The second reason given for opposing the Bill was that the casualties were not so great as was stated, and that they were as great among foreigners as among Englishmen. The circumstance that the number of casualties is not great is no argument for doing nothing. Is it necessary to satisfy the Board of Trade of the value of human life before they will take this step? I am perfectly satisfied that if we save the reckless and needless loss of one sailor's life, that alone would be enough to balance all the objections which have been brought against the Bill. It has further been stated that at the present time there is no necessity for legislation. I should like to know when will be the proper time to deal with this matter. The noble Earl said that the proposal contained in the Bill would be a great restriction on Merchant shipping. I cannot admit that the painting of this small white line on the sides of ships would constitute a great restriction on shipowners. It is not denied that the deep load line has saved thousands of lives. The placing of a light load line on ships would cause no trouble at all. It is well known where the line should be, and there is no difficulty in the matter. The shipowners have not found the fixing a deep load line any hardship whatever, and we are entitled to infer that the marking of a light load line would be as easy. The object of the Bill is to prevent ships going to sea so light ballasted as to be in a positively dangerous and unmanageable condition, and the reasons which the noble Earl has assigned against the Bill are absolutely valueless. The whole thing is very much of a gambling transaction—the calculation of insurance on the loss of the ship on one side, against the loss of a few lives on the other.
  LORD STANMORE: My Lords, I had not the slightest intention of interposing in this debate, but I should like to remind the House of a fact which may possibly have been overlooked. My recollection does not go back quite so far as that of my noble friend near me, but it goes back to the time of the Plimsoll Bill, and if my memory is not at fault, the shipowners in the time of Mr. Plimsoll put forward objections to the deep load line which were practically identical with those put forward this afternoon to the light load line. I wish to remind the House of that fact, because I think it discounts a good deal from the weight of the objections urged by my noble friend. Everyone now admits that the Plimsoll line has been an enormous benefit to the British merchant service; and anyone who has seen, as I have, the light-loaded English, American, and German ships which used to swarm in the Pacific Ocean, will give his hearty support to the Bill now before your Lordships.
  LORD INVERCLYDE: My Lords, I rise to briefly supplement the remarks which have been made by the noble Earl on the Cross Benches against this Bill, and to emphasise the position which shipowners take with regard to the matter. I hope the House will not be carried away by the rather alarmist statements that have been made in connection with this matter. To a great extent those statements are largely exaggerated. The objections of the shipowners are not so much directed to the principles involved in this measure, as to a large question like this being dealt with in a Bill promoted by a private Member. There should first of all be a Committee of Inquiry instituted, and then any measure dealing with a matter of such importance should be brought in by the Board of Trade. Shipbuilders, shipowners, and experts have for many years past devoted much attention to the question of the breaking of propeller shafts, which is not due in many cases, as alleged, to underloading. From the statement made by the noble Lord who moved this Bill one would imagine that it was in the interest of shipowners to send their ships to sea under ballasted and in a dangerous condition, but
  782
  nothing more unfortunate could happen to a shipowner than to have his ship drifting about at sea with a broken shaft. Again it might be thought that shipowners had no other object in view but to make money, and were regardless of the lives of the men in their ships. Nothing could be further from the truth. If it could be proved that by legislation a means could be devised whereby the breaking of shafts would be less frequent, shipowners would not be opposed to it. It has been stated that one of the objections which shipowners entertain to the measure is that it would interfere with their competition with foreign nations. Of course, that is a factor which must be taken into consideration. It must be remembered that our competition with foreign nations is becoming more severe every day, but, at the same time, if it can be shown that any great advantage will arise from the adoption of a Bill of this kind, I am confident that the shipowners of this country would not object to such a measure, but the shipowners feel that the matter is one requiring very careful consideration and one which is of such importance that it should be dealt with by the Board of Trade.
  THE EARL OF DUDLEY: My Lords, I really have little, if anything, that is new to add to the observations which I have already made to your Lordships upon this subject on the previous occasions on which my noble friend behind me has introduced a Bill of a similar kind. It is quite true, as my noble friend has said, that this Bill differs to some extent in detail from his previous measure, but in principle it is exactly the same. Therefore the arguments that have been urged in opposition to it on previous occasions could, it seems to me, be applied with equal force now; and the considerations which have induced your Lordships on two or three occasions to reject a Bill of this kind may again weigh with the House this afternoon. But if this should not be so, and if your Lordships are of opinion that this measure is one that should not be rejected summarily on Second Reading, I venture to suggest that, at any rate, it is a question which should be most carefully considered by a Select Committee before it is allowed to proceed to a further stage. If this

  783
  measure is to become a hardy annual, if it is to be produced session after session with the same arguments, it seems to me that in order to settle the question once for all it would be far better to refer the Bill to a Select Committee and to take the evidence of experts upon it. Let me just remind the House what this Bill proposes to do. It proposes to enact that under a regulation of the Board of Trade every British ship shall carry a mark upon her side to which she must under all conditions be immersed. No doubt in due time an arrangement of that sort could be carried out, but it would not be easy of achievement, nor would it be a thing that could be done speedily. It would be necessary that a Committee of Inquiry should be held in the same way as was done before the deep load line was decided upon, for if this thing is to be done by regulation of the Board of Trade, there must be an inquiry of that kind to enable them to decide where the line is to be placed. The decision as to the position of a line of that kind is far more difficult than appears to my noble friend Lord Norton. Lord Norton has been President of the Board of Trade, and I am a little surprised to hear him say that every shipbuilder knows perfectly well where a light load line should be placed. I totally differ from him. Before a line can be drawn, the whole circumstances and nature of the voyage, and the time of year at which it is undertaken, must be considered. Therefore I go so far as to say that, not only would the actual fixing of a light load line be a difficult matter, but it would be a far more difficult matter than the fixing of a heavy load line. As this is a technical matter I will, if the House will allow me, read the opinion of an experienced sailor whom I have consulted on that point. This is what he says—
  "It would be much more difficult to fix a minimum load line, for the reason that every individual ship would have to he dealt with on a basis of its own, as the governing factors in sailing ships would be fineness of form, height of spars, and spread of sail, and the governing factors in steam ships would be fineness of form, extent of superstructure, position of shaft, whether twin or single screw, ml diameter of propeller. This renders the assignment of a minimum load line much more complicated than that of the maximum."
  784
  There is no doubt that after a certain, amount of trouble, the position of a minimum load line could be fixed if Parliament desired it; but such an operation would be of a very drastic character, and would undoubtedly create a good deal of inconvenience and ill-feeling among the shipping community. I think the House must have been impressed by the very reasonable speech of Lord Inverclyde who, as representative of the shipowners, has expressed his willingness to co-operate in the wishes of Parliament; but I do hope that without sufficient grounds Parliament will not impose upon shipowners restrictions of this kind, which might be regarded as a meddlesome interference with a great industry, and which would produce a minimum amount of good. What is the evil which my noble friend thinks this Bill will cheek? The noble Lord tells us that a great many vessels go to sea insufficiently ballasted and are wrecked, in consequence, accompanied by the loss of a number of lives; but where does my noble friend get his figures from?
  LORDMUSKERRY: From the Reports of your own Courts of Inquiry.
  THE EARL OF DUDLEY: That is the statement which my noble friend made last year. I have several times looked through the reports of those Courts, and I can find no record of such a loss of life as is alleged. I cannot help thinking that the noble Lord attributes to under ballasting the loss of those vessels which go to sea and are never heard of again. But in those cases it is impossible to say what is the cause of the loss. In many of these wreck inquiries it has been found that while under ballasting is a partial cause of wreck, it is not the whole cause. I do not think, therefore, that in cases of that kind my noble friend is justified in saying that these men have lost their lives owing to under ballasting The cases in which loss of life has been occasioned solely by under ballasting are extremely few. I think the noble Lord misapplies the arguments used by Mr. Plimsoll and others in regard to the maximum load line. Those arguments cannot be used in this case at all. It seems to me that this

  785
  case is entirely different from the case of the necessity for a maximum load line, because in that case there was a great temptation to the worst class of shipowners to risk the lives of their seamen by overloading because the extra cargo carried more than compensated for the risk of loss. But in the case of underloading, there is no temptation at all. No shipowner, unless he were insane, would send his ship to sea in an unsafe condition if there was nothing to be gained by doing so. Therefore, it seems to be absolutely ridiculous to suggest that the same arguments that were used in regard to the maximum load line can be used in reference to the light load line. My noble friend Lord Norton stated that the risks and dangers of underloading or underballasting are quite as great as they used to be in the case of overloading. I again differ from him, and will quote the opinion of a naval expert, who says:—
  "From the nature of the ease the danger to life was much greater in the case of overloading, for, apart from the undue risk to the structure, which might end in dangerous weakness or eventual foundering, there was also the imminent danger to life by the washing overboard of the crew while at their work on deck, or the injury to them through being swept off their feet by heavy seas and maimed for life. In the case of a large sailing vessel, the whole watch, consisting of seven or eight men, was swept overboard and drowned, although the hull of the vessel received comparatively little damage, and eventually arrived home safely."
  I think that is an obvious argument. What happens occasionally is that a vessel discharges her cargo in a foreign port and has to come to this country in ballast. The master of the vessel, tempted by a high glass and the prospect of fine weather, avoids the delay of shipping extra ballast and makes a "dash for it." The weather changes, a gale springs up, the ship is driven on the shore, and lives are lost. But how often does that occur? Very rarely indeed. I assure the House that occurrences of this kind, instead of being very frequent, are very rare indeed. I think that can be proved by a reference to the wreck inquiries. When the causes of a wreck are at all doubtful or suspicious, a very careful inquiry is held by qualified people; and I find that between 1892 and 1900, as it appears from the reports of those inquiries, there
  786
  were only twenty cases in which the question of under ballasting was raised; and in only ten of those cases was it proved that the ballasting was insufficient. From 1900 to the present time there have been twelve cases in which a question of under ballasting has been raised, and in five—two steamers-and three sailing vessels—it has been proved that there was under ballasting.
  LORDSTANMORE: Does that include inquiries held in Australia?
  THE EARL OF DUDLEY: It includes inquiries held ail over the world. Therefore it comes to this, that in the last ten years there have been altogether thirty-two cases in which questions of under ballasting have been raised at all, and in only fifteen cases in ten years has it been proved by competent people that there has been insufficient ballasting. I am not able to tell the House how many lives have been lost in these fifteen cases, but I believe I was right when I told my noble friend on the last occasion that up to last year not a single case of a man losing his life had been proved to be due solely to insufficient ballasting. That is the evil with which we have got to deal. I cannot help thinking that it is too small an evil to justify legislation. At any rate, whether it is considered small or great there is certainly no cause for proceeding with the Bill without at least a very close and careful inquiry by some committee or another. When you take into-consideration the thousands of British vessels which sail to all parts of the world every year, in all kinds of weather, I do not think that fifteen accidents due to insufficient ballasting can be made any great basis upon which to found legislation of this kind. I agree with what one noble Lord said tonight, that the evil is one which is likely to diminish without legislation. The attention of the shipowners is really anxiously directed to this question. They do realise the importance of it, and there is a marked tendency to construct vessels with a greater ballasting capacity than has been the case heretofore. I will read to your Lordships an extract from the Shipping Gazette of February 27th last, withregard to a vessel of

  787
  this character which had been put into the water from a Tyne dockyard during the week—
  "As to the 'Monadnock,' her chief feature is that she has been specially provided with deep water ballast tanks of unusual size, in order to ensure proper trim when going across the Atlantic light. She thereby anticipates Lord Muskerry's Underloading Hill, and it is certainly to the credit of her American owners that they have of their own accord made a provision against underloading, the necessity of which is fully recognised, and the value of which has already been demonstrated in one or two of their previous steamers. The tanks, which are so constructed that their space can be conveniently utilised for cargo purposes—made, in fact, a continuous part of the hold—are so capacious that, together with the double bottom, they provide for 3500 tons of water-ballast, which, for a ship whose total carrying capacity is 7500 tons, ought to be amply sufficient to secure a proper draught and trim."
  That is merely one illustration of many ships of that character which have recently been constructed. Moreover, the House may be quite sure that if this evil is likely to be a great one the underwriters may be depended upon to take very quick steps to provide against it in their insurance regulations. It seems to me extremely bad policy to impose restrictions upon British vessels which cannot be effectively imposed on foreign vessels. In these days of fierce commercial competition our commercial community have quite sufficient to do to maintain their position without being additionally and unnecessarily handicapped by Parliament. I am perfectly aware that my noble friend makes an effort in this Bill to bring foreign vessels under the same regulations, but I cannot help thinking that these can only be very partially, if at all, operative. In the first place, we cannot touch a foreign vessel which comes into our ports unless she takes cargo on board. Therefore, a foreign vessel in ballast can come into our ports for water and provisions and can sail out as lightly as she pleases without anybody being able to detain her or impose upon her our unballasting regulations. Then, again, take the case of English vessels trading between ports abroad. Once you have placed upon English ships the light load line those ships abroad will be subject to your regulations, and, if they do not abide by them, the masters are sueable in this country, but no foreign ships trading between these ports would be subject to the same conditions. Therefore, no matter how much my noble friend
  788
  endeavours to prevent it by clauses of this character, in cases such as those which I have mentioned the English ships will be at a considerable disadvantage as compared with their foreign competitors. I wish to say, in conclusion, that although speaking personally, I do not think that there is yet sufficient case for legislation, I can assure the House that the Board of Trade are anxiously watching the matter, and are losing no opportunity of bringing its importance before the shipping community. It is not the case, as Lord Norton seems to think, that since he left the Board of Trade the people there have become strangely callous of the lives of British sailors and the safety of British ships. We are as ready as my noble friend behind me to take what steps we can to check even this small evil; but we believe that if you hold your hands for the moment, and allow this evil to cure itself by voluntary methods, you will hear no more of this complaint. We have been in communication only recently with the superintendents around our coasts and also with the Chamber of Shipping, and I am glad to be able to inform your Lordships that only the other day the President of the Chamber of Shipping issued a circular to all the societies affiliated to that Chamber drawing their attention to these occurrences and pointing out the necessity for taking steps to prevent them. I assure your Lordships that we shall see that this is done. We have written to the shipping community urging them to take such steps as may be necessary, and pointing out that unless they do so we cannot resist what would then be a perfectly justifiable demand for legislation of this character.
  THE DUKE OF RUTLAND: I confess that I am lather puzzled to know what is the issue before us. The speech which we have just heard from the noble Earl, who represents the Board of Trade, has been one of unmitigated hostility to the provisions of the Bill; but, at the same time, in the earlier part of his remarks, he appeared to me to throw out a very broad hint that if a Select Committee was moved for, he would support it. I wish to ask the noble Earl—for I am sure the votes of many noble Lords will be influenced by a clear statement on this point—whether, if the Bill is withdrawn,

  789
  the noble Earl proposes to move for a Select Committee, or does he intend to leave it to some Member of the House to do so?
  EARL SPENCER: My Lords, it is always extremely difficult for those who are not experts on a subject like this to make up their minds on hearing a case brought before your Lordships in the way this case has been presented. The noble Lord who introduced the subject made a very clear statement, and I confess that in listening to it I thought he had made a prima facie case for what he was proposing. At the same time, we must feel, with the noble Lords who have spoken on the other side, that this is a matter which ought to be dealt with by the Government rather than by a private Member. On the other hand, there is this fact which comes before my mind. The Board of Trade was a long while before it moved in the old days in the matter of the maximum load line, and it was only through the devotion and remarkable self-sacrifice of a Member of the other House that the matter was dealt with at all. I do not for a moment accuse the Board of Trade of being callous in the matter, but Government offices are sometimes surrounded with a good deal of official prejudice, and the same difficulty might happen with regard to a minimum load line. The noble Lord who spoke on behalf of the Government used a good many arguments to disprove the necessity for the action of Parliament in this matter, but, as the noble Duke behind him has truly said, in other parts of his speech he seemed to admit the case of the noble Lord who moved this Bill, though he said he preferred it should be met by voluntary action. No doubt, we are all anxious to see voluntary means adopted rather than compulsory means, but the question is whether the necessary improvements which the noble Earl admits is necessary on the part of shipowners can be obtained by leaving the matter to voluntary action on their part. I should like to ask the noble Earl if he has received an answer to the question which he was expecting last year as to whether the Board of Trade have power to deal with ships of this kind. I am quite sure that all your Lordships feel that, whether the loss of
  790
  life from this cause is great or comparatively small, if the danger can by any possibility be overcome, steps should be taken to overcome it. The noble Earl seemed inclined to agree to the matter being made the subject of inquiry by the House, and I would like to ask whether a distinct pledge could be given that it will be inquired into. If the noble Earl will give such a pledge, I would strongly advise the noble Lord who moved the Second Reading of the Bill to be content with the appointment of a Committee to withdraw the Bill. The measure proposed has on previous occasions received the support of distinguished naval Lords. I therefore hope that the Government, through the noble Earl, will be ready to promise this Committee.
  THE EARL OF DUDLEY: With regard to the question of the noble Earl who has just sat down, the Board of Trade undoubtedly have power under the Merchant Shipping Act to detain a vessel that is so improperly loaded as to be unsafe. There is no question about that, but, as my noble friend will readily understand, it is not always very easy for those who have to exercise the power of detention to decide, without any definite data, how far a vessel is unsafe through being insufficiently ballasted. It seems to me that there is a decided feeling in the House that this question should be further inquired into, and, that being so, I do not wish, on behalf of the Board of Trade, to take up a non possumus attitude. If, therefore, my noble friend is willing to withdraw his Motion for the Second Reading, and allow the Bill to be referred to a Select Committee, I shall be only too happy to accede to that.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: I am simply acting on behalf of the Shipowners Parliamentary Committee, but I do not imagine that they would have any objection to the course proposed. There-fore, as far as I am concerned, I with-draw my Motion.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I am not sure that it would be wise that the reference to the Committee should be on this Bill. The best course would be that the Bill should not be

  791
  proceeded with, and that on a subsequent day a reference to a Select Committee might be suggested which, while covering the scope of the Bill, would be of a more general nature. That was really the suggestion of the noble Duke, which was also advocated by the noble Earl opposite, and I support it now as, on the whole, the better course to follow.
  LORD MUSKERRY: I am prepared to withdraw my Bill on the understanding that the question is considered by a Select Committee.
  Motion, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
  Bill, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
  House adjourned at ten minutes past Six o'clock, to Friday next, half-past Ten o'clock.