Sitting of 30 July 1903

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.

UNOPPOSED PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Great Western Railway Bill; Lancashire and Yorkshire and London and North Western Railways (Steam Vessels) Bill; Neath, Pontardawe, and Brynaman Railway Bill. Lords' Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Chard Corporation Gas and Electricity Bill [Lords]; Gosport and Fareham Tramways Bill [Lords]. Read the third time, and passed, with Amedments.
Gas and Water Orders Confirmation Bill [Lords]. Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed); Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill, as amended, to be considered to-morrow.
Education Board Provisional Order Confirmation (London) Bill [Lords]. Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill, as amended, to be considered to-morrow.
Bury and District Joint Water Board Bill [Lords]. Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Rochester Corporation Tramways and Improvements Bill [Lords]. Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
South Eastern and London, Chatham, and Dover Railways Bill [Lords]. To be read the third time to-morrow.
Manchester Corporation Bill [Lords]; Somerset and District Electric Power Bill [Lords]. As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
Wood Green Urban District Council Bill (by Order). Consideration of Lords' Amendments deferred till Monday next.
Birmingham District Tramways Bill [Lords] (by Order). Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Bill [Lords]; Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Bill [Lords]. Read the third time, and passed, with amendments.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to—Alexandra Park and Palace Bill, without Amendment.
Baker Street and Waterloo Railway (Extension of Time) Bill, with Amendments.
Amendments to—Gas Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Bill [Lords]; Bournemouth Corporation Tramways Bill [Lords]; Chatham and District Light Railways Bill [Lords]; Willesden Urban District Council Bill [Lords], without Amendment.
Lanarkshire Tramways Order Confirmation Bill [Lords] (by Order), considered.
And it being a quarter past Two of the Clock, further consideration was postponed under Standing Order No. 6 until Tuesday next, at the Evening Sitting.

PETITION.
  DETENTION OF POOR PERSONS (SCOTLAND)
  Petition from Lesmahagow, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
RETURN, REPORTS, ETC.
  COTTON FACTORIES.
  Return presented, relative thereto [Address 7th April—Sir William Holland]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No 289.]
  MERCHANT SHIPPING, 1902.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 27 th July—Mr Gerald Balfour]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 290.]
  COMPANIES (WINDING UP).
  Copy presented, of Twelfth General Annual Report by the Board of Trade by Act; to lie upon the Table and to be printed. [No. 291.]
  BANKRUPTCY.
  Copy presented, of Twentieth General Annual Report by the Board of Trade under The Bankruptcy Act, 1883 by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed [No. 292.]
  TRANSVAAL (BRITISH INDIANS).
  Copy presented, of Despatch from the Governor of the Transvaal respecting the position of British Indians in that colony [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  POST OFEICE
  Copy presented, of Forty-ninth Report of the Postmaster-General [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL TAXATION LICENCES, 1902–3.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 23rd July—Mr. Grant Lawson]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 293.]

  POOR RELIEF (ENGLAND AND WALES).
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 27th July—Mr. Grant Lawson]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 294.]
  Papers laid upon the Table by the Clerk of the House.

  INQUIRY INTO CHARITIES (ADMINIS-TRATIVE COUNTY OF DURHAM).
  Further Return relative thereto [ordered 14th February, 1900; Mr. Grant Lawson]; to be printed. [No. 295]
  INQUIRY INTO CHARITIES (COUNTY OF LANCASTER).
  Further Return relative thereto [ordered 8th August, 1898; Mr. Grant Lawson]; to be printed. [No. 296.]
  SUGAR.
  Return ordered, "of the price of Sugar in the markets of Calcutta, Bombay, Madras, Kurrachee, and Rangoon on the 30th day of June 1899, 1900, 1901, 1902, and 1903, with the duties chargeable on each of these dates."—(Colonel Denny.)
  IMPERIAL DEFENCE AND CONSULAR SERVICE.
  Return ordered, "of the total Cost of Imperial Defence, including India and the Crown Colonies, and of the total Cost of the Diplomatic and Consular Service to Great Britain and Ireland."—(Mr. Cathcart Wason.)
  SUGAR CONVENTION (EXPENSES AND DUTIES.)
  Committee to consider of authorising the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of certain expenses of the Permanent Commission in pursuance of any Act of the present session to make provision for giving effect to a Convention signed the 5th day of March, 1902, in relation to sugar, and of imposing certain duties in pursuance of such Act (King's Recommendation signified), To-morrow. —(Mr. Austen Chamberlain.)
  COAL TABLES, 1902.
  Copy ordered, "of Statistical Tables relating to the production, consumption, and imports and exports of coal in the British Empire and the principal foreign countries in each year from 1883 to 1902, as far as the particulars can be stated; together with statements showing the production of lignite and petroleum in the principal producing countries for a series of years (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 328, of Session 1902)."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  International Currency.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether he is aware that an American Commission on International Exchange

  895
  is visiting the different Governments of Europe with the view of discussing monetary matters and the means of establishing stable ratio between gold and silver; and whether an opportunity will he given to the House to discuss the question of international currency upon a sound basis acceptable to gold and silver using countries.
  (Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour.) The hon. Member will see that in the present state of public business and at this period of the session it is not possible to find time for the discussion of currency relations beeween gold and silver using countries. The question is doubtless important; but since the arrangement for closing the mints in India its importance to the British Empire has diminished.

  Northern Transvaal Railway.
  SIR ROBERT HERMON-HODGE: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Government intend to take over the bonds of the Northern Railway of the South African Republic, as recommended by the Transvaal Concessions Commission; and if so, at what date.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Chamberlain.) I am not yet prepared to make a definite statement on this subject pending the conclusion of certain litigation now proceeding in this country.

  Exaction of Tolls by Native Chiefs at Ibadan.
  MR. BUCHANAN: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has declined to sanction the proposal of the Governor of Lagos to permit under regulation the exaction of tolls by native chiefs at Ibadan and elsewhere in the colony; and if so, will he state by what other method he proposes to maintain in the future the system of local government under the chiefs.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Chamberlain.) The proposals, which relate only to Abrokuta and Ibadan, have been sanctioned.

  Improvements of Transvaal Central Railway.
  MR. BUCHANAN: To ask they Secretary of State for the Colonies whether an arrangement has been come to between the Transvaal Government and the military authorities as to the run aunt to be paid by the former for repairs and improvements to the Central African Railways; and, if so, what is the amount to be paid to the military authorities out of the loan.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Chamberlain.) No arrangement has yet been arrived at. The matter is under discussion between the Colonial Office and the War Office.

  Canadian Duty on English Wool.
  MR. DUNCAN: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware that the Dominion of Canada by, their present tariff imposed an import duty equal to 12 per cent. ad valorem on English wool, but admits foreign wools free; and, if so, if he will make representations to the Canadian Government for the removal of this preference.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Chamberlain.) The Canadian tariff imposes on wools such as are grown in Canada a duty of 3 cents per pound if the produce of foreign countries, and of 2 cents per pound when the produce of the United Kingdom. Wool and the hair of the camel, alpaca goat, and other like animals, not further prepared than washed, with the exception stated are admitted free.

  Pensions for Widows of Soldiers killed in time of Peace
  MR. KEARLEY: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the widows and children of soldiers who lose their lives by accident whilst on duty will receive a similar recognition as regards pension to that recently conceded to sailors and marines.
  (Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour.) The answer is in the affirmative.

  Situation of Proposed Victoria Memorial.
  MR. LAWRENCE: To ask the hon. Member for West Derbyshire, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that in the proposed Victoria Memorial there are planned five turns or corners within a very short space for all vehicular traffic to pass; and whether having regard to the present traffic and that in future to come direct from Charing Cross, it is in contemplation to open to the public the main avenue of the Mall.
  (Answered by Mr. Viet or Cavendish.) The First Commissioner is aware that the road as now being temporarily laid out necessitates more turns than is desirable. It is in contemplation, when the extension of the Mall to Charing Cross is completed, to open the main avenue to the public, when the greater width of the road will provide for such increase of traffic as may be expected.

  Repatriation of Coolies Exported for Labour.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary of State for India, in view of the fact that in the contracts made with coolies for labour in Assam there is no stipulation for repatriation, and that few are ever able to return to their homes at the end of the term of contract for want of funds, will he consider the expediency of recommending the Government of India to take such steps as may be necessary to secure arrangements for repatriation in all labour contracts of this character.
  (Answered by Secretary Lord George Hamilton.) I do not admit that coolies who emigrate to Assam are ordinarily unable to return home for want of funds, and I see no necessity for making the recommendation suggested to the Government of India.

  Coolies in Assam.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary of State for India if he will state the number of coolies recruited for labour in Assam for each year from 1898 to 1902, inclusive.
  898
  (Answered by Secretary Lord George Hamilton.) The Report for 1902 has not yet been received. The following are the figures of coolies imported into Assam for labour on tea and other estates for the other years mentioned:—

  1898.

  1899.

  1900.

  1901.

  Adults

  35,516

  25,872

  45,044

  19,887

  Children

  13,653

  6,036

  17,689

  6,336

  Total

  49,169

  31,908

  62,733

  26,223

  Detention of Sirdar and Coolies on Eastern Bengal Railway.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary of State for India if he will ask the Government of India to ascertain from the local authorities under what circumstances a sirdar with fifty coolies, when travelling to a labour contractor in February, 1902, was stopped by the native police at Parbatipur Junction, on the Eastern Bengal Railway, detained two and a half days, and required to pay money to the native police before he could proceed on his journey; and will steps be taken to stop this system on the part of native police at railway stations in India.
  (Answered by Secretary Lord George Hamilton.) I have nothing to add to my answer to the hon. Member's Question on this subject given on the 22nd instant.† The matter should be represented to the local authorities direct by the person or persons aggrieved.

  Publication of Mr. Robertson's Report on Indian Railways.
  MR. ASHTON: To ask the Secretary of State for India if it is his intention to publish in this country the Report of Mr. Thomas Robertson, the Special Commissioner sent to India to report on the Indian railways; and if so, when it will be procurable.
  (Answered by Secretary Lord George Hamilton.) I stated on the 2nd instant, in reply to a Question,‡ that I hoped that copies of Mr. Robertson's Report would shortly be distributed. A considerable number of copies have now been received from India, and they will be distributed without delay.

  Outbreak of Cholera and Typhus at Quetta
  SCHWANN: To ask the Secretary of State for India, has any report been received from the chief medical officer at Quetta, or through the political department at Simla, regarding the outbreak of typhus fever amongst the workmen on the NushkiSeistan Railway route, and cases of cholera at Quetta; and can some report be presented showing what progress has been made with the earthwork on that desert route, describing the sanitary conditions and the question as to water supply that is likely to affect the construction of the line and the future facilities for traffic such as the Nushki-Seistan Railway is intended to offer.
  (Answered by Secretary Lord George Hamilton.) A railway is being constructed from Quetta to Nushki, but no proposal for its extension from Nushki towards Seistan has been made or sanctioned. I have no information as to the prevalence of epidemics among the workers on the Quetta-Nushki Railway, but I have heard that there is an epidemic of typhus at Quetta and in other parts of Baluchistan. Cholera is also reported near Quetta and at Nushki.

  Durbhanga Case.
  MR. SCHWANN: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to the Durbhanga case, in which Babu Chandi Persad, a Rajput gentleman of high caste and social position, was cast into prison on the information of a certain Mr. Miller that Chandi Persad had threatened to assault him, by Mr. M. B. Heycock district magistrate, who asked the prisoner for fifty sureties of 1,000 rupees, and ref used those offered by the most respectable men in the neighbourhood; and whether, seeing that Chandi Persad was only released on the order of the High Court, he will cause Mr. Heycock to be removed to some other district.
  (Answered by Secretary Lord George Hamilton.) I have no information as to the circumstances referred to in the Question, but I have no doubt that the local government and the Viceroy will take any action that may seem to be called for.

  Secondary Schools—Superficial Area per Scholar.
  COLONEL BOWLES: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education on what grounds the Board of Education now require a superficial space of 18 square feet per pupil as regards secondary schools, in view of the fact that in the case of elementary schools 15 feet was allowed.
  (Answered by Sir William Anson.) The requirement referred to is the result of careful investigation, and is made on the recommendation of the best authorities. The requirements of elementary schools and of secondary schools cannot properly be treated as being on the same basis.

  Imports and Exports of United Kingdom, United States, Germany and France.
  MR. MANSFIELD: To ask the President of the Board mf Trade will he give the total valve of the exports and imports of the United Kingdom, the United States of America, Germany, and France for each year from 1892 to 1902, showing separately the value of foods, raw materials, and manufactured or partly manufactured articles, together with the amount of shipping (tonnage), and the population of each country during the same period.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) The particulars which the hon. Member I squires, so far as they are available, will be found in the latest issue of the Statistical Abstract for Foreign Countries [Cd. 1237], in Tables 18, 4 and 1. A new issue of the Abstract is in preparation.

  Irish National School Teachers' Pensions—Capital Sum in lieu of Pension.
  MR. DEVLIN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state if a retired national teacher in receipt of a disablement pension elects to accept a capital sum in lieu of pension, the Superintendent of the Teachers' Pension Fund will pay him the capital sum (their other conditions being fulfilled) immediately on the expiration of one year from the date of his retirement,

  901
  even though such retirement takes place other than the last day of a quarter; and whether he will arrange to have the capital sum paid as soon as the Lord Lieutenant and the Treasury sanction the pension, and the teacher agrees to commute it, instead of delaying it for a year.
  (Answered by Mr. Elliot.) The superintendent of the National School Teachers' Superannuation Office has been advised that it would be illegal to commute a disablement pension until a year has elapsed from the date of the teacher's first receipt of the pension. The suggested abolition of the interval of a year would require the abrogation of No. 10 (3) of the Irish Teachers' Pension Rules, 1897, and I am unable to recommend this change.

  Fishery Rights in Limerick.
  MR. JOYCE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state how much money was paid to owners of fishery rights since the year 1834, between Castleconnell and the Lax Weir, Corbally, Limerick; can he state the parts of the river claimed for, and the names of the claimants; whether such claims were for total or partial loss, and the amount given in each case; whether any claims were disallowed, and, if so, what was the cause; can he give the names of those who were compensated for salmon fisheries, and those who were compensated for eel fisheries.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) I will endeavour to procure this information if it is practicable to do so. An examination of transactions over a period of seventy years will be necessary, and some time must elapse before I shall be in a position to communicate with the hon. Member.

  Irish Education—Case of William Boyle.
  Mg. MACVEAGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state if the letter addressed to the Secretaries of the National Board of Education on let July, by the manager of the school, Roll No 11,829, District No. 11, has ever been submitted to the
  902
  Board, and, if so, on what date; and whether he can state what allowance has been made by the Board in view of the exceptional circumstances of the case.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) I am informed that the letter is a repetition of letters which had been already fully considered. So far back as April, 1901, the manager was told, after a special investigation of the complaints of the teacher (William Boyle), that the Board had no power to make good out of the public funds loss of income which the teacher alleged he sustained through local causes. It is not intended to submit the letter of the 1st instant specially to the Board.

  Maryborough Heath Rifle Range.
  MR. KENNEDY: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that on the 25th instant an officer attached to the Westmeath Militia was dangerously wounded during target practice at the butts on Maryborough Heath; and whether he will cause steps to be taken to protect those there engaged.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) A Court of Inquiry on this matter is now sitting. Special instructions had been issued and notices posted warning persons concerned that the earth wall connecting the butts was not bullet proof.

  Accommodation at Whale Island Naval Barracks.
  SIR JOHN COLOMB: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what is the accommodation for officers, petty officers, and men in the naval barracks at Whale Island, and what was the number of officers, petty officers, and men sleeping in the barracks on the night of 27th July this year.
  (Answered by Mr. Arnold-Forster.) The accommodation for officers and men at Whale Island Naval Barracks is as follows:—Officers 74, warrant officers 39, petty officers and men 1,279, total, 1,392. The number who were actually victualled on the 27th inst., and who could have slept on the island that night, were:—Officers 29, petty officers and men 629, total, 658. The numbers actually sleeping on the island on the night of the 27th

  903
  inst. were: —Officers 7, warrant officers 3, petty officers and men 403, total, 413. The small numbers are accounted for by the fact that the Naval Manœuvres were about to commence.

  Gosport Water Supply.
  MR. ARTHUR LEE: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, in view of the fact that the Gosport water supply has been condemned as unfit for domestic use, and on that account forbidden to be used as formerly on board His Majesty's ships, he will state what steps are now being taken to procure a proper supply for the naval establishments situated in the Gosport district, including the barracks occupied by the Gosport Division of the Royal Marines.
  (Answered by Mr. Arnold-Forster.) The Admiralty have for some time past been pressing the local authority (the Gosport and Alverstoke Urban District Council) to take action in this matter. The Council have now appointed a special Committee to deal with the question, and it is understood that action will be taken, if necessary, under the Public Health Act of 1875. It is thought desirable to await the result of these proceedings before considering the advisability of taking independent action.

  QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    Cork Harbour—Soldiers' Fatigue Duties.
    GENKRAL LAURIE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the almost continuous employment of a large portion of the troops stationed at Cork Harbour as working parties or on fatigue duties; and whether, seeing that these troops are mostly young soldiers serving a three years' engagement, during which period continuous military training is required to make them efficient soldiers, he can see his way either to raise additional garrison regiments composed of thoroughly trained soldiers, to be utilised at this and similar stations, and who can undertake such duties, or to employ civilian labour on this work, and thus allow young soldiers to receive a proper training.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Lord STANLEY, Lancashire, Westhoughton): Administrative duties such as fatigues necessarily form part of a soldier's duties but the military authorities are quite alive to the necessity of ensuring that the utmost possible of a soldier's time is given up to the study of his profession, and instructions have been issued to reduce such duties to a minimum I am afraid that the alterations, suggested in the Question would prove too expensive.

    Special Pay Warrant or 26th March, 1902.
    MR. WEIR (Ross and Cromarty): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state whether the words "after five year service in the rank of captain, £1,000; gratuity," which appear in paragraph 556 of the Special Pay Warrant issued 26th March 1902, apply to all captains of the Royal Army Medical Corps, irrespective of whether they were commissioned before the date of this warrant
    LORD STATEMENT:Yes, Sir.

    Australian Squadron.
    MR. CATHCART WASONI beg to ask the Secretary to the Admivalty if he will state the cost of the shipment are to comprise the Australian Squadron and the sum which must be added actually for depreciation.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. AANOLD-FORSTER, Belfast, W.): I am informed that the agreement with reference to the Australian Squadron has not yet been ratified by the Commonwealth Senate, and it is therefore impossible to say what will be the precise constitution of the squadron on the station. I am consequently not in a position at present to give the details for which the hon. Member asks.

    The Colonies and Preferential Tariffs.
    SIR M. HICKS BEACHI beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in the discussion of preferential tariffs at the Colonial Conference in 1902, the representatives of Australia, New Zealand, the Cape, and Natal expressed the opinion that the preferential treatment of British goods which they were prepared to

    905
    recommend to their respective Parliaments might be given without any reciprocal concession of the same kind by the mother country, while the representative of Canada admitted that it would be most difficult for the mother country to impose new duties in order to make such concessions, and merely asked whether they could not be made on duties already existing in the British tariff if the preference already given by Canada were made more complete and effective.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN, Birmingham, W.): So far as the discussions at the Conference are concerned the statement in the Question is correct, but the Resolutions ultimately passed went much further, and urged on His Majesty's Government the expediency of granting in the United Kingdom preferential treatment to the produce and manufactures of the colonies either by, exemption from or reduction of duties now or hereafter imposed. The Finance Minister of Canada, in introducing his Budget into the Dominion, has since stated, "If, after further consideration, they come to the conclusion that our request is not a reasonable one; if, owing to their adherence to certain views, they cannot grant us a preference, we shall be free to take our own course. Whether in such a case it would be wise in the interests of Canada to modify or change the preferential tariff would be a question to he considered But putting aside other considerations, if the British Government and people do not show any appreciation of the value of the preference, then so far as the British Government and people are concerned, they cannot complain if we see fit to modify or change that preferential tariff." In the Memorandum laid before the Conference by the Canadian Ministers, they stated that if they could be assured that the Imperial Government would accept the principle of preferential trade generally, and particularly grant to the food products of Canada in the United Kingdom exemption from duties now levied or herein after imposed they, the Canadian Ministers, would be prepared to go further into the subject and endeavour
    906
    to give to the British manufacturer some increased advantage over his foreign competitors in the markets of Canada.
    SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I wish to ask Question arising out of that Answer. I think the House will see that there is a very important difference between the statements made by the representatives of the colonies in the discussion at the Conference and both the Canadian Memorandum and the Resolution finally agreed to, and what I would ask my right hon. Friend is whether he does not think it would be almost necessary for the proper discussion of this matter that the public should be in possession of the report of the discussion on this subject at the Conference. My right hon. Friend has already stated to the House that he is unable to present that report, not because he himself objects, but because, I think, only one colony has objected to its publication. Will he not endeavour to remove that objection and give us the report?
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not agree with the statement of my right hon friend that there is any substantial difference between what was published as to what took place at the Conference and what was understood to be private. My right hon. Friend, however, is entirely right in saying that no objection whatever has come from me in regard to the publication of everything that took place in our discussions. The objection came from the representatives of the colonies, and, in spite of my suggestion that the whole of the proceedings should be published, some of them declined to give assent to what, after all, was apparently a reasonable consideration. This was, that at the outset it had been stated that these discussions would be private unless subsequently it was desired to publish them, and that they had expressed themselves perhaps more freely and with less reserve than they would have done if they had known that everything was hereafter to be published. That is the present position, and I am bound in good faith—in fact, I have absolutely no alternative—not to publish what any of the colonial representatives desire to remain secret. If my right hon. Friend desires it, I have no objection

    907
    to state his wish to the Prime Ministers of the colonies who were present, and ask them if they are now ready to withdraw their objection.

    Hone-Kong Plague.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state on what date the system of inoculation with Haffkine's plague prophylactic was brought into operation in Hone-Kong, the number of persons inoculated, and how many have since succumbed to plague.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I have no information on the point, but will ask the Governor for a report.

    Trinidad Disturbances.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that in the Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the recent. Water Ordinance disturbances at Port of Spain, Trinidad, it is stated that there is not, as in India and the colonies in the East, a preliminary inquiry through the executive officers of the Government as to the merits of a Bill, or consultation with members of the public likely be interested in a Bill as to how the proposed law will work; and, in view of this statement, will he say whether he proposes to consider the desirability of introducing some alteration in the legislative procedure in Trinidad.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I have already instructed the Governor to introduce the necessary changes.

    Fiji.
    MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if the Governor of Fiji will inquire into the circumstances which led to the deportation of six high chiefs of Fiji, namely, Ratu Ambrose, Tin Suva, Ratu Savenca, Vere Balavu, Emori Turaga Vakacava, and Alwale; and will he state also upon what grounds the Administrator wrote that during his administration he had not found it necessary to deport any high chiefs.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I have already received full reports on the circumstances which led to the deportation of the chiefs to whom the hon. Member refers. They were deported on the grounds that they were active in hampering the work of the local native officials, advising the natives to cases paying taxes and spreading disaffection. I am informed by Sir H. Jackson that these six men are petty chiefs, not to be compared with the chiefs of the leading Provinces.
    MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if the Government of Fiji will inquire into the reasons for the imprisonment of Fijian natives other than for haying signed a respectful petition to His Majesty praying for redress of their wrongs.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: If the hon. Member will specify any case in which Fijian natives have been imprisoned on the teal or ostensible ground that they signed a petition to His Majesty, I will inquire into them.
    MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if the Governor of Fiji will inquire into the flogging of a native named Josephata, and if he will state upon what grounds the Administrator suspended the medical officer who reported the circumstance; and, seeing that it is strictly laid down that no native shall be flogged except in the presence of a Government medical officer, what circumstances have been reported to justify an exception in the case of the said Josephata.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The Commissioner of Lomaiviti and the Chiefs forming the Court were censured by the Administrator for the irregularity of the proceedings in this case. Dr. Hallen, the medical officer, to whom the hon. Member refers, was suspended upon grounds entirely unconnected with the flogging of Josephata—viz., for being absent from ditty without have, and for engaging in business contrary to the express instructions of the Government.

    Faroe Islands.
    MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been directed to the Report issued by the Foreign Office on the Trade and Laws of the Faroe Islands; and, if so, if he will consider the advisability of subsidising an occasional steamer from Lerwick with the view of developing trade with the islands.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR, Leeds, Central): I have seen the Report referred to, but I am not able to concur in the suggestion of a subsidised service made in the latter part of the hon. Member's Question.

    Certificated Pilots of Foreign Nationality.
    MR. ORR-EWING: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state the number of foreign subjects who hold certificates as pilots at ports in Great Britain and Ireland, and the number at each portp; and whether he can say if any foreign country grants certificates as pilots to British subjects
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: From in formation received by the Board of Trade last year from pilotage authorities it appears that at that time there were seventy-three masters and mates holding pilotage certificates who were foreign subjects; of these forty tour were in the London district, ten in the Trinity House outport districts, seventeen at Hull, one at King's Lynn and one in the Clyde. I am informed by the Foreign Office that in France, Marseilles is the only place where pilotage certificates are granted to British maters of vessels. I have no information as to the practice in other countries.
    GENERAL LAURIE: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to take any action on this matter?
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Not as at present advised.

    Glasgow Railway Accident.
    MR. ORR EWING: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether his attention has been called to the fact
    910
    that in the railway accident at St. Enoch Station, Glasgow, on 27th July, by which fifteen persons were killed and twenty seriously injured, all these casualties took place in two carriages next the engine, only a shred of the framework of the second carriage being left, whereas the rest of the train escaped without damage; and whether he will consider issuing a regulation that the two carriages next the engine must be luggage vans or dummy carriages.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have not yet received the Report of the officer appointed to hold an inquiry as to this accident. His attention shall be directed to the terms of my hon. friend's Question.

    Government Motor-Car Drivers.
    GENERAL LAURIE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Government employees are exempt from the provisions of the law relative to the use of motor-cars; and, if they are so exempt, whether the individual employee will be held personally responsible for any injury he may cause to life or limb or property; or whether the head of the Department to which he belongs will assume all responsibility to meet any claims for such injury.
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE Foil THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. COCHRANE, Ayrshire, N.): I apprehend that the general rule that the Crown is not bound by the provisions of a statute unless named therein would not extend to exempt a Government employee from personal liability for damage caused by his own negligence. But any claim for compensation out of public funds in any such case could only be met as an act of grace and favour, and the decision would depend upon the circumstances of the particular case.
    GENERAL LAURIE: In the ease of such damage, who will he the person to be sued? Will it be the head of the Department?
    MR. COCHRANE: I am afraid I can add nothing to my answer.

    Metropolitan Police Fund.
    MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of

    911
    State for the Home Department, what was the balance of moneys in hand shown in the Estimates on which the police precepts dated 1st July, 1903, were based; what rate in the upon the Metropolitan Police District is represented by such working balance; and what proportion such working balance bears to the whole estimated expenditure for the purposes of the police shown in the Estimate.
    MR. COCHRANE: The balance of moneys in the hands of the Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District on the 1st July, 1903, amounted to £114,694, 4s. 6d. This amount is equivalent to a rate of 567d. in the £; and it represents about 21/365 of the estimated expenditure for the year.

    Ecclesiastical Grants.
    MR. BRYNMOR JONES: I beg to ask the hon. Member for West Salford, as Church Estates Commissioner, whether the Ecclesiastical Commissioners make any inquiries, before assigning any grant or benefaction to a parish, as to the conformity by the incumbent thereof to the Ecclesiastical Law; and whether, in view of alleged illegal practices among a section of the clergy, he is prepared to give, on behalf of the Commissioners, assurances to this House that grants and benefactions of whatever kind will be restricted by them to those clergy who render obedience to the Book of Common Prayer, the Articles of Religion, and the Law as determined by the Courts having statutory jurisdiction in matters ecclesiastical.
    THE PARLIAMENTARY CHARITY COMMISSIONER (Mr. LEES KNOWLES, Salford, W.): The Ecclesiastical Commissioners make no such inquiries as are suggested in this Question. Grants out of their Common Fund are (with the exception of some curate grants) of a permanent nature, and not made on the ground of the personal claims or merits of the particular incumbent who happens to hold the benefice for the time being.

    Hyde Park Ambulances.
    MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask the hon. Member for West Derbyshire, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether the St. John's ambulances in Hyde Park have been decided upon as being as satisfactory as the Metropolitan Police ambulances in Hyde Park; and whether he will state the result of the promised inquiry as to the number of and positions in which ambulances are placed in Hyde Park, having regard to recent accidents to horsemen and others.
    MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: The St. John's ambulances in Hyde Park have been inspected by Sir William Bennett, who reports that they are not only quite as satisfactory as the Metropolitan Police ambulances, but, owing to their lightness and simplicity, best suited for the purposes of work in Hyde Park. There are now ambulances at Alexandra Gate, Hyde Park Corner, the Marble Arch, and the Police Station.

    Achonry (Sligo) Schools.
    MR. O'DOWD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, in view of the fact that the former teacher of Achonry National School, county Sligo. was dismissed for incompetence by the National Board in June, 1899; that the manager neglected to appoint another teacher, with the result that the school was struck off the rolls, and the boys of the neighbourhood were obliged to go to the girls' school, against the wishes of parents and clergy; that a new school was opened by the parish priest in June, 1902, to which a qualified teacher was appointed, and at which, since that period, the average attendance has been about forty-five; if he will explain why this school has not yet been recognised by the National Board, in view of the resolution from the managers of the diocese of Achonry protesting against the action of the Board, and demanding that the school be recognised.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAN, Dover): The teacher was not dismissed. Grants to the male school were withdrawn because

    913
    it failed to maintain an average of twenty pupils. The female school was thereupon recognised as a mixed school. The application made by the parish priest in respect of the school recently opened by him was considered by the Commissioners in April. They decided to withhold aid to this school on the ground that it was unsuitable, and that the existing mixed school had satisfied the educational requirements of the locality for some years

    Fitzmaurice Estates.
    MR. LUNDON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if any negotiations are at present pending as between the representatives of the Fitzmaurice property and the tenants on the lands of Coolnadown and Cloghaready, county Limerick; and whether the part of the property in Queen's County has as yet been totally disposed of.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The Land Judge has no knowledge of any negotiations such as are suggested in the Question. On the 23rd of March † I stated that the Queen's County portion of this estate had been inspected pursuant to Section 40 of the Act of 1896. The report of the inspection cannot be considered by the Land Judge until after the long vacation.

    Killan Dispensary Doctor.
    MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chef Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Deland whether he is aware that the Ballinasloe Board of Guardians failed to procure a medical officer for the Kilian dispensary district at the salary of £120 per annum; and if so, can he say whether any medical men stated to that Board in writing at what salary they would be willing to accept office, and, if so, at what amount; and whether he can say how many vacancies exist at present in the Irish dispensary service, and for what period has each district been vacant; what fees are being paid per week to the temporary medical officers in charge of these districts; how lunch per week is paid in advertising the vacancies in each union;
    † See (4) Debates, cxix., 1469.
    914
    and how much of the total cost of locum tenens fees and advertisements is refunded by the Treasury to the guardians in each case.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The vacancy in Baliinasloe Union was created on the 20th June, The guardians advertised for a medical officer at a salary of £120 a year. Two gentlemen offered their services at £200 a year. The guardians, however, decided to re-advertise at the former salary. There are eight other vacancies; two occurred in November last, the remaining six are of very recent occurrence. Temporary medical officers are usually paid £4 4s. a week. The cost of advertisements is not officially known. Recoupment is made in respect only of approved salary.
    MR. DELANYasked whether the right hon. Gentleman was able to say whether these vacancies continued in consequence of the action of the Irish Medical Association using intimidation against medical practitioners in Ireland and preventing them from taking up appointments?
    MR. WYNDHAMdid not know that intimidation was the proper word to use in this matter There had been speeches made and resolutions passed suggestion that no medical officer should accept any of these appointment without a salary of £200 a year. He knew that medical officers in Ireland had a good deal to do, and that their salaries were not high. He thought, however, that their claims would be more deserving of recognition if they abandoned the practice, and awaited the result of the Viceregal Commission which was now inquiring into the amalgamation of Unions and Poor Law questions.

    Licences to sell Arms in North Tipperary.
    MR. P. J. O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Mr. James Harkness, of Nenagh, North Tipperary, by trade a gunsmith, made application recently to the resident magistrate there for a licence to sell arms and ammunition, and that such application was refused; and whether, in view of the fact that there are only

    915
    two licences for the sale of arms and ammunition in the district, and practically no one engaged in the repairing of arms, he will explain why this man has been prohibited from carrying on his trade, at which up to this he has been engaged as manager for his mother, lately deceased.
    MR. WYNDHAM: I have already given this matter my personal consideration in consequence of communications privately received from the hon. Member. The authority to issue a licence to sell arms and ammunition is vested by law in the resident magistrate of the district. There are already two licensed vendors of arms in Nenagh, one of whom executes repairs, and these in his opinion, confirmed as it is by the local police, are ample for the requirements of the district.
    MR. P. J. O'BRIEN: Why is not this man permitted to carry on his legitimate trade?
    MR. WYNDHAM: I have said that the police think two licensed vendors in Nenagh to be sufficient.
    P J. O'BRIEN: I do not think so, and shall take an earl opportunity of calling attention to this scandalous state of affairs.

    Clergy Discipline Bill.
    MR. CHARLES M`ARTHUR: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government will introduce next session a Bill to make further provision for enforcing discipline in cases of offences committed by clerymen against the laws ecclesiastical.
    THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.): I am not in a position to make any statement on this subject to my hon. friend at the present moment.

    St. Jude's Birmingham.
    MR. BRYNMOR JONES: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether any correspondence has taken place between him and the Bishop of Worcester in
    916
    regard to the alleged illegal practices of the incumbent of St. Jude's, Birmingham; and, if so, whether he will lay the correspondence upon the Table of the House.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think the hon. and learned Gentleman somewhat mistakes my functions in this matter. I do my best, in recommending clergymen for preferment in the gift of the Crown, to make the selection which will be in the best interest, of the parishes in which they have to work. But, once appointed, I have no control over them. No duty lies upon me, nor is it possible that any duty should lie upon me, to investigate their subsequent behaviour or to hold any official correspondence either with the Bishop or anybody else in their regard.

    Licencing Legislation.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether it is proposed to give special facilities for either of the Bills on the Order Paper interfering with the discretion of the justices in the granting o licences for the sale of intoxicating liquors.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have explained to the House on many occasions that it would be impossible for me to give facilities to any private Member's Bill which was of a controversial character. There is no doubt that the two Bills, to which my hon. friend refers, whatever their other merits may be, are of a controversial character, and therefore it would be quite impossible or me to violate the well-understood Rule, on the maintenance of which depends a great deal of the dignity and expedition of our proceedings at the end of the session.
    SIR WILLIAM LAWSON: When will the right hon. Gentleman make his promised statement on this subject?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If the hon. Baronet will put down a Question next week I will answer it.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman indicate the course of business next week? Will he state the general order in which he proposes to take the Bills that remain to be dealt with?
MR. LOUGH: And will he also kindly state when he pro-noses to take the Committee stage of the Sugar Convention Bill, in which great interest is felt?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: To-night, after 12 o'clock, I hope to take the Report. Of the Public Offices Resolution and the Second Readings of the Public Works Loans, Public Buildings Expenses, and Sheep Scab Bills. None of these are likely to give rise to serious discussion. The Committee stage of the Irish Development Grant Bill, in regard to which an arrangement has been come to which meets the views of all parties, the Military Works Bi1l, and the Naval Works Bill, will be the principal work of to-morrow. I understand the last Bill will not take any time, but the Militant Works Bill will no doubt lead to debate. The South African Loan Bill, the Employ-anent of Children Bill, and the Patriotic Fund Bill will also be put down. On Monday, in Supply, I propose to take the Army Estimates, the Civil Services and Supplementary Estimates. It will be necessary to introduce two new Supplementary Votes; one in connection with President Loubet's visit to this country, and the other in connection with the Irish Development Grant Bill, which has been taken off the Consolidated Fund and put on the Estimates. These Supplementary Estimates cannot be taken within the hours of an allotted day. They must be put clown for after twelve o'clock, and I shall have to move a Resolution to that effect. On Tuesday, as at present advised. I shall take the Second Reading of the Motor-Car Bill and the Committee stage of the Sugar Convention Bill. I think there is a general agreement that the motor-car question should be dealt with before the House rises, and, though there may be a lengthened discussion in Committee, I do not think the Second Reading ought to take long. Perhaps I may be allowed
918
to leave the latter part of the week for a subsequent statement.
MR. LOUGH: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will carry out the arrangement that the Sugar Bill shall not be taken after midnight. We want to have a fair discussion before twelve o'clock.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I hope there will be plenty of time to discuss it before midnight I am anxious that as much as possible of the debate on the Sugar Convention Bill shall take place before midnight, and, as far as lies in my power, I will see that that is done, but I cannot give any pledge on the subject.
MR. MACVEAGH: When does the right hon. Gentleman propose to take the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I hope that Bill will be taken on an early day next week.
DR. FARQUHARSONreminded the Prime Minister that on 2nd July some fifteen Votes (including the Local Government Board) were passed without debate, and expressed a hope that some Opportunity would be afforded for discussing them on Report.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: They are down for to-night.
GIBSON BOWLES: Can the First Lord of the Treasury say when the agreements with the Morgan Shipping Line and the Cunard Company, which, I understand, have been concluded, will be submitted to the House for discussion.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, Sir. My hon. friend is right in saying that the agreements have been concluded, and, therefore, they are ripe for discussion in this House, but it is not easy for me, at the present moment, to find a day for that discussion.
MR. WHITLEYasked if an opportunity would be given to discuss the Law Officers Vote, and
SIR CHARLES DILKE: asked as to the Army Votes.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I will endeavour through the ordinary channels to find out in what order it will be most convenient to take the remaining Votes.

WORKMEN'S TRAINS.
Report from the Select Committee, with Minutes of Evidence and an Appendix brought up, and read [Inquiry not completed].
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 297.]

NEW BILLS.
  BELFAST (PETTY SESSIONS COURT) BILL.
  "For the better administration of Law in the Petty Sessions Courts of Belfast, Ireland," presented by Mr. Joseph Devlin; supported by Mr. Haviland-Burke, Mr. MacVeagh, Mr. Flynn, and Mr. Kilbride; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 302.]
  CHARITABLE LOAN SOCIETIES (IRELAND) BILL.
  "To amend the Charitable Loan Societies (Ireland) Act, 1900," presented by Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland; to be read a second time upon Monday next, mid to be printed. [Bill 303.]
  PILOTAGE BILL.
  "To amend the Law relating to Pilotage, so as to terminate the granting of Pilotage Certificates to masters or mates of vessels not registered at a port in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland," presented by Sir Seymour King; supported by Mr. Runcirnan, Sir Penrose FitzGerald, Major Seely, Mr. James Reid, Sir John Colomb, Major Evans-Gordon, General Laurie, and Mr. Joyce; to be read a second time upon Thursday next, and to he printed. [Bill 304.]

  SUPPLY [20TH ALLOTTED DAY].
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1903–4,

  CLASS II.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £26,500, be granted to His Majesty to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1901, for the salaries and expenses of the Department of His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies, including a grant in aid of certain expenses connected with emigration."
  MR. MARKHAMrose to move to reduce the salary of the Secretary of State for the Colonies by £5,000. He admitted that in the critical state of South Africa at the present time considerable responsibility attached to every hon. Member who initiated a debate on South African affairs, but realising as he did how absolutely ignorant the House was of the present condition of affairs there, he felt it was his duty to tell hon. Members the truth in regard to that unhappy country. He first wished to call attention to the manner in which Lord Milner and his Government and the Colonial Secretary had dealt with the recent great discovery of diamonds in the Transvaal. He was not aware whether the Colonial Secretary had received any Report on this subject, as on two occasions the right hon. Gentleman had given evasive replies to his Questions. He should, however, assume that the right hon. Gentleman had received such a Report. He would state briefly the charges he made against Lord Milner, and would then proceed to amplify them by quotation. His first charge was that Lord Milner, on the discovery of these great diamond fields, had reserved them entirely for a syndicate of financiers, and had shut out the general public from participation, with the stated object of creating a monopoly in diamonds, and preventing a fall in their price. He had a word or two to say about the value of this discovery, because, for some reason unknown to him, the subject had been boycotted by the Press of this country. In South Africa there was only one topic, the value of this discovery; but in this

  921
  country practically, no report had appeared in any of the leading newspapers with the exception of the Daily News. Sir A. Lawley, speaking to the Transvaal Legislative Council some months ago, said—
  "Investigations have brought to light the existence of a diamond field which bids fair to rival in rainless, if not excel, any field which has hitherto been discovered. Among the most important measures which will be submitted for your consideration is an Ordinance to amend the existing Diamond Law, No. 22 of 1898, which is admitted by a general consensus of opinion to be unsatisfactory in many respects."
  And again, Sir Percy Fitzpatrick, addressing the same Council on June 29th, used these words in connection with the value of the discovery—
  "There would be in the first 50 ft. alone of the Premier Mine upwards of eight millions sterling of profit. Under the present law the owner would he entitled to one million of this and the State to seven millions. Every eighth which they gave away was worth over a million."
  Without going into detail, he would explain the provisions of the Gold Law of the late South African Republic. This law, which up to recently was the basis on which all precious stones and minerals were allocated, provided that when a discovery of diamonds was made on any farm, intimation should be given to the Government, which would proclaim the farm as public property, the owner being entitled to one-eighth and the rest being thrown open for the general public, rich and poor alike—millionaire and pauper being equally entitled to participate in the wealth of the country. What had Lord Milner done in this case? Instead of at one proclaiming this mine open, he had deliberately increased the owners' share from one-eighth to four-tenths of the whole area, and had reserved the right in his own hands of letting out the rest of the mine to the same owners, with the avowed object of keeping out the public and artificially raising the price of diamonds. In the Legislative Assembly, on June 17, when the Ordinance was introduced, the Attorney-General, Sir Richard Solomon—against whose honour and integrity he had not a word to say, except that as he had been associated all his life with the De Beers Company, and as their legal adviser was connected with the late Mr. Rhodes, and he therefore feared he had simply followed in the lines laid
  922
  down by his friend Mr. Rhodes—used the following words—
  "The late Mr. Rhodes saw perfectly well that the only way to save the diamond industry in Kimberley was to amalgamate the different companies working claims in Griqualand West, so as to bring the mines under one control, and thus regulate the out put of diamonds, seeing that the world could only take a certain amount of diamonds during the year. One of the lessons—one of the most important lessons—taught them by the diamond mining in Griqualand West was this to beep their diamond mines as much as possible under one control. That, he ventured to say, was an axiom the Government had endeavoured give effect to as far as possible in this Ordinance."
  On the 29th of the same month Sir Richard Solomon said—
  "The world could only take a certain quantity. The output must be restricted, and if they sent out all the diamonds they could produce they would bring down the price. In gold mining they could put out as much gold as they liked and they did not affect the price, but in diamond mining it was different, and any mines discovered there would have to reckon with the output in Griqualand West, and restrict their output accordingly. If they exceeded the world's demand, down would come the price, and away would go the value of their property."
  And-again, with reference to the profits of the diamond mining, Sir Richard later on the same day said—
  "The guiding principle was that the mine, as much as possible, should be under the control of one person or company. When they found that the owner of land on which diamonds were found had a large interest, it was surely better for the Government to try and make some agreement with the owner than that another person should do so, and thus destroy the principle for which they were contending."
  He hoped that hon. Members would bear those words in mind. Sir George Farrar, one of Lord Milner's nominated representatives on the Council on June 17th, said—
  "He (Sir George Farrar) was not in any way interested in diamond mining in South Africa, and therefore he thought he was entitled to express an unprejudiced opinion. He quite agreed that under Law XII. of 1898, the owner's rights in the diamond mining industry were certainly very restricted, and that more liberal treatment was necessary."
  And again—
  "Whether the Government had gone too far he was not prepared at the present moment to express an opinion, but what he did know was that diamond mining was quite different from gold mining, and the control of one monopoly must be created."

  923
  Mr. Hull, who was a solicitor to some of the De Beers directors, used these words on the same occasion—
  "Any criticisms which were directed at this Ordinance should be in the direction that the Government had given too little to the owner, and when they got to the Committee stage he intended to move an Amendment to the effect that the owner's rights should he further increased."
  Not satisfied with giving the owners four-tenths instead of one-eighth, to which only they were entitled under the old law, Lord Milner proceeded to still further increase their rights. Mr. Bourke, a shareholder, I believe, in the mine, on June 17th, said he was unable adequately to express the satisfaction he felt from a perusal of the Ordinance and from the remarks which had fallen from the Attorney-General, and he went on to describe the creation of the monopoly in South Africa. He said—
  "The Government, immediately an area was proclaimed, would enter into possession of six-tenths of any particular area which was diamondiferous, and they proposed under the clause referred to to hand that over or leave it to the owner, or persons representing the owner, who possessed the other four-tenths. If they had live or six mines dealt with in the same way, they lost the single control that was absolutely essential to maintain the value of diamonds."
  There they had a definite statement that it was the object of the Transvaal Government to create a monopoly in diamonds. It was important to bear that in mind, for after all the House of Commons was the final arbiter on questions relating to legislation in South Africa so long as the Crown administration continued in that country. What did the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Colonies say on the previous night I He said—
  "What is the ultimate object of a bounty? It is to secure a monopoly. Was the bounty in process of securing a monopoly? Yes, was. Do you suppose the working people of this country are such fools as not to know that it would be worth almost any present sacrifice to prevent the creation of a monopoly of which ultimately they will be all victims?"
  Yet the right hon. Gentleman's lieutenant in South Africa was—no doubt with his approval—urging the creation of a monopoly in South Africa—a monopoly Which was absolutely contrary to the interests of South Africa. The Attorney-
  924
  General, speaking to the Legislative Council on June 17th, said that—
  "They had provided that, in the first place, the Crown, not working the diamond mines itself, might make an agreement with the owner of the mine, and work it for the mutual benefit of the Crown and the owner, and to work it on such terms as might be directed by the Lieutenant-Governor, who will 1;e advised by experts, and subject to statutory, conditions embodied in the Ordinance."
  There was the clear and definite issue of the intention of the Government and Lord Milner to create a monopoly, and to place the whole of this vast discovery in the hands of one syndicate.
  In March, 1901, Sir D. Barbour made a report on the Finances of the Transvaal, the consideration of which at the present time he earnestly recommended to the Colonial Secretary. In that report the following passages occurred—
  "As regards any valuable mining rights which may exist in lands that have not hitherto been proclaimed as public diggings, or which have not been granted to private persons, it seems to me that it is still possible to take measures for protecting the interests of the State. For the past failure to safeguard the State assets for the benefit of the community there is now practically no remedy. On the other hand, it is beyond question that in some cases the law was modified, strained, and even violated, with the connivance of officials of the Transvaal Government, in order to secure illegitimate advantage for mining speculator and others. The principle which I recommend for adoption is this: that as the gold-mining rights in the Transvaal belong to the State, a large share of the profit should in future be reserved for the State, in all cases where these rights are known, or believed on good grounds to be, of special value."
  Sir D. Barbour went on to say that—
  "The first measure to be adopted with this object would be the reduction of the privileges with regard to mining rights which had been granted to the owners of the land."
  Instead of that advice being followed the rights were to be increased by 300 per cent. A few months ago Lord Milner appointed a Gold Commission. That body was fairly representative, both capitalists and working people being represented. The capitalists naturally reported in favour of the owners' rights remaining as they were under the old Transvaal Government, but the Minority Report, signed by all the representatives of the people not connected with the mining industry, advocated the reduction of the rights. The action of Lord Milner was wholly dictated by the desire to create a monopoly in

  925
  diamonds. The price of diamonds to-day was approximately 50s. a carat, whereas before the amalgamation it was 10s. or 15s. The chairman of the New Jagers-fontein Company speaking in Kimberley stated, on June 6, that the price of diamonds had increased during the last five years by 75 per cent., a result which had been brought about by the De Beers Company regulating the output. The De Beers Company produced 95 per cent. of the diamonds of the world, and had bought up practically all the mines in South Africa. He could not say definitely whether they had bought the Premier Mine, but he firmly believed they had. The company did not transact their affairs on the house-tops, but the shares, which would be of little value if the Premier Mine were thrown open, had not fallen in the market. The amount of money originally put into the company was very small; its present capital value was £40,000,000, and the annual profits were £2,500,000. In addition to that, they had by an arrangement with the Chartered Company, the pre-emption of all discoveries of diamonds in Rhodesia; nearly all the mines in Brazil belonged to them; in fact, practically the whole of the diamond mining industry of the world rested in the hands of this corporation. For sixteen years Kimberley was worked by individual claims; the owners of the surface received no privileges whatever; and South Africa was never more prosperous than when that practice obtained. In many respects diamond mining was the antithesis of gold mining. For the latter a large expenditure on machinery was required; for the former no machinery whatever was necessary. The answer of the Government to all the distress, poverty and misery in South Africa was to shut out the people from all participation in this valuable discovery, and to hand it over to a syndicate of financiers in order that the State might derive a larger revenue.
  The view of the Government was absolutely illogical. Before the amalgamation of the mines in Kimberley there were, he believed, 50,000 people employed, whereas to-day the number was only 15,000. How was that state of things to be remedied? If the price of diamonds was reduced from 50s.
  926
  to 10s. a carat an enormous profit would still be yielded to individual diggers working the Premier Mine. At Kimberley the yield per load was carat and the cost of mining 10s., deep mining being very expensive. But in the Premier Mine the surface ground could be washed at a cost of 2s. a load, and the returns so far yielded not ¾, but 1¾ carats per load, so that the diamonds, if sold in the free and open market, would give an enormous profit at even 5s. a carat But supposing the price was reduced from 50s. to 10s., and only £5,000,000 worth of diamonds could be taken by the world—as argued by Lord Milner's Government—they could sell five times as many diamonds for the money. Surely that would be greatly to the benefit of the industry of South Africa, as five times as many people would need to be employed. He contended that it was outside the province of the Government to regulate monopolies, or in any way to give their assent to them. This Premier Mine would have been worked entirely by white labour, but through the action of the Government the compound system was to be established in Pretoria, and the mine worked by Kaffir labour, although there were thousands of white people out of work. Had this new discovery been thrown open it would have caused a rush to the fields, brought prosperity to those who were now suffering, and changed the whole aspect of the financial situation. No one would say a word against the honesty and integrity of Lord Milner They were above suspicion. But there were only two parties in South Africa—the party of Lord Milner, backed by the capitalist Press, and the party whom Lord Milner had described as "blubbering pro-Boers." It was quite certain that Lord Milner could not dissociate himself from those persons with whom he had worked so long. Therefore Lord Milner must necessarily by force of circumstances be influenced by them. He had to work with those people and they were his close advisers. Therefore he could not dissociate himself from their policy. A very curious position had arisen in regard to this question in the Transvaal Legislative Council. Sir P. Fitzpatrick had strongly opposed the proposals of Lord Milner. He was not going to repeat what had been said in the Press in regard to his reasons for taking this course, and

  927
  he would merely state what Sir P. Fitzpatrick said with regard to these proposals of Lord Milner. This was what Sir P. Fitzpatrick said:
  "Under the Gold Law it was specially provided that the Government should by no means proclaim any more land than was known to be mineralised. Thus the owners would have obtained under my pact not one-tenth of the farm, but one-tenth of the mine. The mine being less than 50 morgen in extent, they would have obtained one owner's claim of gold claim area, which was equal to 60 diamond claims. Hon. Members would see then that the Premier owners would have obtained one-tenth of the area of the mine, which would give them 400 claims, plus 60 owners' claims, making 460 diamond claims in all. Under the Diamond Law or 1898 they would obtain one selected eighth of the mine, plus 30 discoverer's claims, making in all 530 claims, while under the proposed new law it was suggested that they should get 1,600 claims. Now he could not see any possible justification for that."
  Continuing, Sir P. Fitzpatrick said:
  "Taking the lowest figures, lower figures than had ever been put before them, it was proposed to give away millions of money which belonged to the state."
  That was a statement coming from a gentleman whom the Government, at all events, relied upon for a written defence of their policy in South Africa. He went on to say:—
  "The strongest possible case had to be made out by them to justify them for paying away the proportion which belonged to the Government."
  What did the Government say? They declared that they did not propose to throw this mine open to the public, because they did not wish to encourage any gambling in these claims. The only people who were likely to gamble in this respect were those very financiers. He dissented absolutely from the view that individual diggers would gamble with their property. Therefore, it was idle to put forward an excuse of that character. The only possible answer the Colonial Secretary could make to this question, was that there was a danger of gambling in public assets. He did not wish to deal with what occurred under the late Transvaal Government as to public pegging, but that was not the reason why the system was altered. The real reason why the system of public pegging was altered was owing to special advantages the capitalists were able to obtain. The Government decided that each person in
  928
  the State should have an equal chance of pegging, and should be able to participate in the discoveries, but the Attorney-General under Lord Milner said that this would create gambling in public assets. Who were the men to whom they were going to give this immense wealth? They were men whose money had been made by gambling, and therefore it was idle to put forward this objection. Not satisfied, however, with this, the Government went still further, and introduced one of the most iniquitous laws which ever found its way on to the Statute-book of a British colony. They had introduced the Trapping Law of Cape Colony, which was passed through the influence of the De Beers Company. This law had been the source of great trouble in South Africa, and had been the subject of debates in the Legislative Council, and, notwithstanding that, Lord Milner had now introduced the very same Bill. He was not going to discuss this law in detail, but he would simply mention that under that Bill a Government detective was entitled to go to a man in the street whom he suspected of being engaged in diamond dealing; and he was entitled to go to that man, although he might be a perfect stranger, and offer him a stone to buy. If the man bought that stone from the Government detective he was liable to be sent to penal servitude for 15 years. To allow Government detectives to place temptations in the way of innocent men in this way was a scandal. Not only had this been done once, but it had occurred many times. He had many letters to prove this had happened quite a number of times, and many men had been trapped by this system of detectives; and yet, notwithstanding this abominable law, the Transvaal Legislative Council were putting it in force again. He would give the House one example. On the 30th of May, 1903, a report appeared in the Diamond Fields Advertiser of the trial of a Cape driver named Henry Daniels, who was discharged after having undergone a trial for an alleged contravention of Section 3 of the Diamond Trade Act. In passing sentence, the Judge said:—
  "Although they must convict the accused on this charge on the evidence, it was the sort of case he did not like. Prisoner was charged with being in the unlawful possession of two rough diamonds on a certain day, and a witness swears that he handed the diamonds to the accused for the purpose of sale—a witness who primâ facie there was no reason to discredit,

  929
  he being a guard in the employment of the De Beers Company, and whose duty if anyone approached him in regard to dealings in diamonds, was to report the matter to his superiors. As he had said he did not like this case. When they found the detective department through an agent putting diamonds in a man's hand, and then charging him with being in unlawful possession, it seemed rather like sharp practice."
  That was the law of a British Colony passed through the Cape Assembly with the aid of the money of some of the De Beers directors, which had corrupted the whole public life of South Africa There was a speech delivered by Sir Gordon Sprigg with regard to the action of the De Beers party. Be would not quote it, but he would advise the Colonial Secretary for his own information to study the Speech made by Sir Gordon Sprigg in September, 1888. He was afraid he had rather inadequately, and not very clearly, explained to the House a question of immense importance in regard to diamond discoveries in South Africa, but he had Lone his best to place the matter as clearly before the House as he possibly could. He could go on bringing case after ease against the administration of Lord Milner, acts which he was sure this House would neither sanction or approve in their individual capacity.
  It was almost incredible to believe, but it was an absolute fact, that Lord Milner and the Colonial Secretary had set up a new dynamite monopoly in South Africa. Before the war the Colonial Secretary took an active part in the agitation in this country against the late Transvaal Government on account of its dealings with the dynamite monopoly. The right hon. Gentleman then sent many cables to Lord Milner on this question, and between them they created an agitation both in South Africa and this country against the crying injustice the Transvaal Government were doing to the oppressed dynamite industry. The Colonial Secretary had now deliberately set up a new dynamite monopoly for the benefit of the De Beers Company. On January 13th, 1899, the Colonial Secretary made the following representation to Sir William Butler:—
  "The question of the importation of explosives into the South African Republic has, as von are aware, been brought to my notice by British manufacturers who complain that their manufactures are refused admittance into the Republic, and that they are thereby debarred
  930
  from carrying on their commerce within the Republic conformably to Article XIV. of the London Convention.
  "On receipt of these representations it became my duty to give the whole subject my full and careful consideration.
  "His Majesty's Government are advised that the creation of a monopoly in favour of the State is not necessarily inconsistent with Article XIV. of the London Convention even when exercised by a concessionaire, provided that the concession is intended in good faith to benefit the State generally, and not simply to favour the concessionaire."
  The De Beers Company soon after the outbreak of war commenced to erect an immense dynamite factory near Cape Town. Then there was a monopoly in dynamite, and they naturally considered that this no would be removed. When the hon. Member for Warwick took out his Commission to South Africa a great deal of evidence was tendered as to the injustice caused to the Transvaal State by the creation of a monopoly in dynamite, and the Report upon this question states:—
  "The company in our opinion should have no advantages in the competition for the manufacture of and trade in explosives in the Transvaal other than those which it has secured by the establishment there of its factories and its first occupation of the field of industry."
  Then came Mr. Qninans, the manager of De Beers' dynamite factory, and he stated before this Commission that:
  "In regard to the location of a factory, supposing that there are no determining political factors and the usual open-door policy of England is followed, the best situation is near the sea coast. The materials have to he imported and the railway freight on the raw material is saved."
  Then came Mr. A. R. Goldring, Secretary of the Chamber of Mines the De Beers directors control the majority of votes in this Chamber. He stated that the dynamite monopoly was prejudicial to the public interest and that it should be abolished. Sir P. Fitzpatrick stated that the dynamite company were "absolutely thieves at that time. The monopoly, whatever it is to-day, was a swindle." The Chairman asked, "In your judgment is this monopoly prejudicial to the public interest?" and his answer was "Certainly." In 1897, all these gentlemen connected directly or indirectly with the De Beers Company stated in evidence that free trade in dynamite was absolutely necessary. Now, what did they find? Within twelve months of the giving of that evidence, and after the hon. Member for

  931
  Leamington had reported in favour of free trade in dynamite, Mr. Goldring wrote to the Colonial Secretary asking for a new monopoly in dynamite. His letter, dated 11th July, 1902, contained the following:—
  "In view of the statement made by His Excellency at the interview accorded to a deputation of my Chamber by the Government on June 16th last, 'that it was the desire of the Government to so arrange the rate of taxation (on explosives) that the dynamite company could live and make a reasonable profit, and no more,' it seemed to my Chamber that as there was a probability that this question 'night he dealt with at an early date, it would be of assistance to the Government to have before it the opinion of the mining Industry on the subject. The Chamber has hitherto advocated the establishment of free trade in explosives in order that the industry should secure the benefit which would result from competition between rival manufacturers, and was prepared, if necessary, to ensure this by erecting a factory in Europe or by making permanent arrangements with existing factories. To secure free trade and competition, either of these courses is still open to the mining industry. Certain new facts in connection with this question have, however, to be borne in mind. First the reduction in the price of explosives which has been already effected, and second, the establishment of a competing. South African Factory. And accepting His Excellency's statement, above quoted, as a final declaration of Government policy on the subject, the various points which the Chamber had to consider were:—

  "(1) That it is the intention of the Government to afford the local factory sufficient protection to enable it to carry on its business at a reasonable profit.

  "(2) That, subject to this consideration, it is to the interest of the mines to obtain their explosives at the lowest possible prices.

  "(3) That the local factory is armed and controlled by the huge monopoly known as the Nobel Trust.

  "(4) That this being so, it is essential for the maintenance of reasonable price, that there shall be competition with the local factory.

  "(5) That the establishment of the De Beers Explosives Company's factory in the Cape Colony affords an assurance of the necessary competition if the conditions are such that it is placed in a position to work at a reasonable profit.

  "(6) That it is desirable that any protection which it may be decided to grant to the local factory should not operate so as to exclude South African competition, nor yet he such as to enable the local factory and the De Beers factory to effect a monopoly or by any other arrangement to unduly raise prices.

  "To bring about the conditions which in the above considerations it is desirable to establish, the conclusion at which my Chamber have arrived is that an import duty of 5s. to 7s. 6d. per case, but not exceeding the latter, should be levied on explosives at the coast. The Chamber will further suggest that it is
  932
  inadvisable at present that there should be any re-classification of the raw material use,. in the manufacture of explosives with reference to railway rates which would give the local factory a special advantage over the De Beers factory; for, although such a reclassification might result in a reduction in the price of explosives, there would be no guarantee that it would do so; and it might merely put the local factory in a position to completely oust the De Beers factory from the trade. And in making this suggestion the Chamber would further point out that the re-classification would reduce the railway returns, which are-one important element of State revenue."
  What was a reasonable profit in the eyes of the De Beers Company? Were governor's fees of £100,000 each? Was a profit of £2,500,000 per annum made by raising the price of diamonds five tittles above the cost of production, what they would consider a reasonable profit? This same Mr. Goldring who gave evidence in favour of abolishing the old dynamite monopoly and the establishment of a factory by the De Beers Company, suggested that an import duty of 5s. to 7s. 6d. per case, but not exceeding the latter, should be levied on explosives at the coast. The Colonial Secretary granted this protection of £14 per ton on all dynamite imported into the Transvaal. He had asked many questions on the subject, and had been met with the usual evasions. The right hon. gentleman had said—
  "This matter is having my attention."
  The British dynamite manufacturers, who, hail kindly provided him with the material for this case, sent a petition to the Colonial Secretary in June a year ago, in which they pointed out that this was a great injustice to them. They pointed out that they had contributed to the cost of the war and made great sacrifices, and that if this duty of £14 per tort was placed on dynamite they would he placed outside the market of South Africa. What justification had these men who led the bogus agitation against the Transvaal Government, and against the dynamite monopoly, for asking that a monopoly should be granted in favour of the De Beers Company? The Colonial Secretary had taken twelve months to consider the question already. What was the reason for putting a coast duty on? It was because the De Beers factory was there. There was no good reason to justify such a policy. Was this to be a sample of the new policy of the Colonial Secretary

  933
  in the granting of these monopolies. Last right the right hon. Gentleman advocated a policy of broad Imperialism, lent it would appear from what was taking place in South Africa the new Imperialism was to be of the "three acres and a cow" description. The monopoly could have no justification whatever, and it was not in the interest of South Africa. There were no ingredients in the Transvaal itself from which dynamite could be manufactured. The De Beers Company made a great mistake in putting their factory on the coast, and the Chamber of Mines had brought pressure on Lord Milner not to lower railway rates. Here were some of the men who advocated the lowering of rates in Mr. Kruger's time asking that they should he maintained in order to bolster up their monopoly. The people of this country were absolutely ignorant of all that was going on in South Africa. The only journals through which information came were controlled practically by the capitalists in South Africa. They also controlled the news agencies that supplied the public in this country—some of them, not all of them.
  There was another equally monstrous thing, and that was the municipal franchise. The members of the Legislative Council were the nominees of Lord Milner directly or indirectly. In regard to the municipal franchise, he gave Lord Milner credit for the action he had taken. In the first municipal ordinance, he at all events showed his consistency, because it gave to the subjects of all Powers—French, German, Italian, and American—the right of exercising the municipal franchise. That was discussed in the Legislative Council, and all the official Members voted according to Lord Milner's instructions, with the result that the ordinance was carried by a majority of two. What happened? In view of the fact that all the capitalists had voted against the proposal, Lord Milner came down and said that the Government hail reconsidered the question, and had decided to bring a new clause restricting the franchise to British subjects only. ["Hear, hear."] An hon. Member said "Hear, hear." Why should Americans he excluded? Lord Milner said that he wished every civilised man to have a vote and to administer his own property, but the Legislative Council said "No." Lord
  934
  Milner then climbed down, and a new ordinance was brought in. Mr. Money-penny said in the Johannesburg Star—
  "Further satisfaction would be felt if the franchise were limited to British subjects."
  This gentleman formerly advocated the franchise for the Uitlander, but now he denies it him. We were regarded as hypocrites on this question. Everyone knew that we were not honest when we went to war on account of the franchise, dynamite, and other questions. Our conduct proved that, and degradation was the right name to describe the proceedings. The argument was that there. was a law which over-ruled every other law — viz., that of self-preservation. What did the Attorney-General say?—
  "Without fear of contradiction, he declared that there was not a municipality in any part thereof—in Cape Colony, in Natal, in the Orange River Colony, in Rhodesia — winch excluded aliens from the franchise."
  Passing on to deal with coloured persons, the Attorney-General said that
  "If the ease against the exclusion of aliens was a strong one, that against the exclusion of coloured British subjects who had reached a certain stage of civilisation, and who had the necessary qualifications, was still stronger. In other parts of South Africa, in Cape colony, and Natal, the municipal franchise was given to every person who held the necessary property, no matter what his colour might he. The same system prevailed in Rhodesia. In the Orange River Colony before the war the municipal franchise was based upon property a vote being given to every male person who, whether as owner or lessee, was in occupation of premises of a certain value."
  He hoped the Secretary of State for India would allow no exportation of coolies to South Africa until a very different mode of dealing with Indian subjects had been introduced. Even the most civilised members of the British Empire, of which they were all proud, were excluded from administering their own property. The Attorney-General went on—
  "What they objected to was the shutting the door entirely, and saying to these men, 'No mater what your no matter how highly educated you are, you shall not have the municipal franchise which is in no sense political." Let them take the case of a British Indian who came from India to this colony. He might be a highly cultured man, he might even belong to the profession to which he (the Attorney-General) belonged—he could not give him more credit than that. In his own country he was entitled to all the privileges of a British subject, and there was no position there to which he could not aspiire.

  935
  He ventured to say that if they took up that position they were bound to be driven from it sooner or later, and bound to be driven from it with disgrace."
  Would the right hon. Gentleman drive them from that position with disgrace? He ventured to say that the right hon. Gentleman would not.
  In conclusion, the Attorney-General said that—
  "As far back as 1857 in Cape Colony, and 1858 in Natal, an alien was entitled to hold property on exactly the same terms as a British subject. It had not been so in other countries. And in regard to naturalisation, that was granted in Natal after two years, in Canada three years, in the Transvaal five years; and in the Orange River Colony it was five years because the Transvaal Naturalisation ordinance had been taken over by the Colony."
  He did not wish to speak as an alarmist, but the information he had received from South Africa was that the condition of affairs was rapidly going from bad to worse. The people of this country had no knowledge of the state of the country. The British public were told just what the De Beers directors, who held the channels of information, chose to let them know. The Colonial Secretary was so much engaged in other matters that the question of South Africa was of minor importance to him. He had reason to believe that the fiscal policy the right hon. Gentleman had sprung upon the country was intended to hide up his miserable failure in South Africa. The right hon. Gentleman had played South Africa for all it was worth. His conviction was that we had now lost South Africa. [MINISTERIAL cries of "Nonsense,".and "No."] Hon. Members said "No," but he was not exaggerating when he said the position in South Africa was graver -to-day than it had been either before or during the war. Sooner or later it would Ire impossible to hide from the House and the people of this country the fact that there was a great revolution—not a revolution in arms, but a social revolution, taking place which would shake South Africa to its foundation, and therefore we ought to introduce a far-seeing policy into that country.
  MR. LAWRENCEsaid he was sure the Committee would thank him if he took them away to the cooler waters of Sierra Leone, and so check the ardour aroused by the hon. Gentleman opposite. He
  936
  hoped he might be able to elicit a sympathetic response from the Colonial Secretary to a request that for some two years he had waited for. A rebellion in Sierra Leone occurred in the spring of 1898, and it would be in the cognizance of the Committee, that at that period there was a change in the fiscal system of the country—in his opinion, a very wise and proper one. The taxation put upon huts naturally created, in the first instance, an exhibition of feeling which took the form of nothing less than a rebellion. Long before this, certain merchants in Liverpool, people of the strictest honesty and of good position, who had for years engaged in important ventures in Africa, had started stores, and by their energy had helped to promote the civilisation of what were really at the time outlandish districts. When this exhibition of popular feeling arose their whole enterprise was in serious jeopardy. There were risings all round them, and their up-country stores were promptly destroyed by irritated natives. Happily they were able to send to headquarters and beg the assistance of one of His Majesty's gunboats to defend their property. They told the captain if he could only spare a modest squad or bluejackets they would be able to hold their own and keep the natives off. As a matter of fact, for many years this district had been subject to the amenities of a celebrated chief named Samory, and they were confident that with the friendly assistance and a mere handful of troops they would be able, as he had said, to hold their own. The captain of the gunboat said he could not spare any troops and he must take the merchants to Sierra Leone. This was disappointing to the merchants, because they had a considerable stock of goods lying close by, which they were told they would have to abandon. The captain said he could not leave the store buildings, as they might possibly become a stockade, and without more ado kerosene was thrown over the goods, and they were set on fire. He was aware that they had no legal claim or right to expect any compensation from the Government for any action of His Majesty's forces, but he hoped the Committee would show such sympathy as to enable the right hon. Gentleman to be a little more benevolent towards the claim put before him, a claim for some special consideration.

  937
  Laws, even though based on public policy, should be subject to legitimate exceptions. A few years ago, there was a similar, though not quite such a strong case as he was now submitting; and he thought that the merchants for whom he was speaking, and who had lost their all in this matter, might fairly claim some special consideration. All they desired was that his right hon. friend should be a little kinder to them in respect of the property which was destroyed by His Majesty's gunboat. Only last week this House guaranteed a loan to compensate for the losses sustained hi the great Boer war; and the Committee would allow that what was right and fair in South Africa was not wrong or unfair in Sierra Leone. It required a great deal of enterprise and patience to open up these inhospitable regions, where the climate was very trying and where the death rate was quite extraordinary, although it was now being reduced by the recent discoveries of Dr. Ross and others. He was Trite certain that the Committee would sanction the action of his right hon. friend if he compensated these merchants, who had lost altogether a sum of £12,500. They did not ask that the whole of that sum should be recouped to them, but only such part of it as represented property destroyed by the gunboat; and they were prepared to submit the matter to any arbitrator or valuer appointed by the Colonial Office. He had been informed, although he could not give chapter and verse for the case, that when a factory was destroyed by His Majesty's ships in New Guinea, compensation was paid. If there was, as he had no doubt there was, a law which exempted public authorities from liability for acts taken in the public interest, there ought to be exceptions to it in certain cases such as the present.
  SIR ROBERT REIDsaid he wished to say a few words on a. particular point connected with the Transvaal. There was an ordinance published last year relating to the criminal law, which was of unusual strictness and severity. Among other things, it empowered a magistrate or police officer to arrest without a warrant any person who was reasonably suspected of any of a lumber of offences, including the use of language calculated to promote ill feeling and hostility between different classes. In case of arrest, no accusation need be
  938
  preferred before any Court for twenty-one days, and, accordingly, there might be arbitrary imprisonment for that period attire discretion of a magistrate or police officer. Then again, the ordinance empowered officials in charge of post offices to intercept letters, which the resident magistrate might open if he had reasonable suspicion that they contained treasonable or seditious matter. There was also power to order any person to quit the colony who had not a permit, and to order any person who, in the opinion of the Governor, was dangerous, to quit the colony within fourteen days. There were various other provisions, one of which referred to the circulating of false intelligence calculated to create panic. The ordinance undoubtedly resembled the regulations which were enforced in a state of siege, when personal liberty was, of course, greatly restricted. Powers of this character were exceptional, and, however carefully administered, experience always showed them to be dangerous and liable to abuse—he did not mean abuse by reason of malevolence or tyrannical disposition. but abuse because of the essentially arbitrary character of restrictions which did not require any preliminary proof, and in which the person responsible acted on suspicion. Of course, it was impossible, while such regulations existed, that persons could be considered as in any sense secure from arbitrary arrest, and very often from unfounded arrest. In fact, common law was by means of this ordinance suspended, and instead of it there was a short, summary, and most unsatisfactory proceeding. He was under the impression that about two months ago a supplementary ordinance was passed increasing the penalties. At all events, the ordinance was now, a year and a half after the termination of the war, in existence. He wished to ask the Colonial Secretary how long it was contemplated to continue an ordinance which it would be admitted very seriously affected personal liberty. He thought it would be much to be deprecated if it were continued one day longer than was absolutely necessary. He should like to ask how many persons had been arrested under this ordinance, and kept in prison for a period not exceeding twenty-one days without being tried; to what extent letters had been opened; and how many persons had been deported.

  939
  The reason he asked these questions was that information was quite inaccessible with regard to a great deal that happened in South Africa. The greater part of the Press had at no time during the last three or four years been accurate with regard to South Africa. They had been silent very often, no doubt from the absence of information, and it was therefore all the more necessary that the Committee should be given information. He said that all the more because information, which he himself did not regard as absolutely reliable, had reached him to the effect that there had been a very considerable exercise of these powers. He was not prepared to accept that information; but undoubtedly there was a very uneasy feeling abroad that there had been a very considerable use of these powers. If that were so, it meant one of two things. It meant either that there had been an improper exercise of this arbitrary authority; or, what was even still more serious, that there was a state of discontent and serious social and political disturbance in South Africa, of which they would all deeply regret to hear_ He would also wish, and it was a matter of great moment, that the right hon. Gentleman would tell the Committee what was the condition of the country. He would not ask it it was in a condition of loyalty, because a nation which had been fighting in the field could not be expected to immediately accept the position, and assume an attitude of loyalty towards this country. There was a time after the war was concluded when there was a great deal of friendly feeling displayed by the Boers who had fought against this country; and he himself heartily cherished the hope that that well-affected disposition towards this country might grow up. He would like to know now if the right hon. Gentleman could give the Committee any information as to that. If the ordinance to which he referred was necessary, it could only be necessary on very serious grounds. What were these grounds; and how long did the right hon. Gentleman anticipate they would last? Did he expect to be able to restore the ordinary common law at an early date in the Transvaal; and when, in the
  940
  opinion of the right hon. Gentleman, would the state of society permit that? The right hon. Gentleman had said in respect to the native question that there would be no importation of coolies or Asiatics into the country unless the general sense of the population was expressed in a way favourable to it. If the general feeling of the population was to be considered on such a subject as that, then it ought also to be regarded in other matters, such as the government of the country itself. And as to how far that could be done was the question he desired to ask.
  SIR BRAMPTON GURDONcalled attention to the recruiting of natives from Central and East Africa for work in the Johannesburg mines. These men were brought from a tropical climate and were quite unsuited to mining work, and their being unaccustomed to the climate, the food which was provided for them, and the work, resulted in a considerable amount of sickness and mortality. As he had before said it was no use ever to bring: these men to Johannesburg to work in the mines unless the matter was perfectly explained to them, and he did not think it was possible to explain the conditions under which they would have to work to so ignorant a people. In the' first, place they were recruited at a wage of 45s. a month, which was far less than the miners' wage, which was 60s. a month, and it was a great pity that they should be taken away from Central Africa just at the time when their services were required for railway construction. He could not conclude his remarks without calling attention to, the excellent report of Mr. Munson. He-was glad there was a British officer who was not afraid to place before the Government the difficulties of recruiting in Central Africa, and the danger that might be caused to men transferred from a. tropical climate to o her parts of South Africa. He begged to move the reduction of the Vote by £100.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £26,400, be granted for the said Service."—(Sir Brampton Gurdon)
  MR. CAWLEYcalled attention to the dismissal of a large portion of the South African Constabulary. He pointed out that at the end of 1891 a great many men were enlisted in this country for this force, that they went to South Africa and fought for their country as long as the war lasted, and they naturally hoped that some of the inducements which had been held out to them would be realised. Seventy-five per cent. of them however had been discharged, and all the compensation they haft received had been their passage money to Cape Town, and even that had been very meagre; and in many cases when they arrived at Cape Town they had no money to go on with. He had brought the matter before the Colonial Secretary as to whether a breach of agreement had not been committed by the authorities, and whether compensation could not be given. In the negative reply that he had received from the Colonial Secretary the right hon. Gentleman had evidently relied on Clause 11 of the Memorandum of Enlistment. The first part of the agreement treated of the formation of the force, the second with the qualifications, and the third, and this was rather important, stated that the term of enlistment was three years. It seemed to him quite plain from that clause that under the terms of the Memorandum of Enlistment these men had enlisted for three years. No suggestion was made in that that they could be dismissed. Paragraph 2 said that a non-commissioned officer or man could be discharged at any time by order of the officer commanding the division. with or without a gratuity, and if that was the paragraph the right hon. Gentleman relied on it was not quite fair, because the paragraph obviously applied to the dismissal of a man for a dereliction of duty or for some particular cause, and not to the dismissal of a considerable portion of the force. No recruit, looking at the conditions, would have supposed for a moment that, after serving in South Africa for some time, 75 per cent. of the force would be dismissed without compensation. They ought at least to have their passage paid home. That was done in the case of the men found medically unfit. The conditions of service were supposed to offer a career to enterprising young men, and a first-class force was brought together. They were promised
  942
  employment for at least three years, a chance of settlement, promotion, and higher pay; now, through no fault of their own, they were sent away with only their fare to Cape Town paid, and they would come home penniless, although many of them in order to go to South Africa had given up careers which it would be very difficult to resume. Unless something was done for these men he considered it would be a disgrace to the country.
  MR. FULLERsaid that a short time ago, by an unstarred Question, he asked the Colonial Secretary if he would make a statement with regard to the practically unanimous request of the inhabitants of the island of Tristan da Cunha to be deported to South Africa. The island contained a population of 32 children and 44 adults: it had no Government, no clergyman, no schoolmaster, no disease, and no crime; its only drawback was that it was infested with rats. He suggested that the right hon. Gentleman might well give the matter his serious consideration; the expense would be infinitesimal, and the population of the new colonies world be increased.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid the able speech of the right hon. Member for the Mansfield Division with regard to the diamond concession—unless there was some complete answer to it—went to show that the public interest in these mining rights had not been properly safeguarded, and that certain persons had been greatly advantaged at the expense of the general public. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to put a different complexion, on the matter; otherwise the confidence of the country in the management of the affairs of these Crown colonies would be considerably diminished. With regard to the important point raised by his hon. friend in regard to the still existing deportation ordinance, he asked whether the right hon. Gentleman did trot think the time had come when some relaxation might be made. All were anxious that at the earliest possible moment the feeling which naturally existed at the close of a war should be allayed, but the existence of this ordinance was a source of irritation to a large body of people, and if it could be amended or dispensed with a step

  943
  would have been taken in the right direction. He further asked whether the right hon. Gentleman could give any information—a Return would perhaps be the best form in which to give it—as to the manner in which the money already voted for compensation and repatriation had been expended. There appeared to be considerable uneasiness as to whether the money promised had been expended, and, if expended, whether it had been spent in the proper direction. He wished it to be distinctly understood that he made no insinuation of any kind; he did not suggest that the money had not been properly expended; but it would be very satisfactory, both here and in South Africa, if the right hon. Gentleman would give some information in regard to the matter, especially as to who had been responsible for the carrying out of the repatriation, the direction and extent of the assistance in stocks, farms, and rebuilding of houses, and the general lines on which repatriation had been carried out.
  The recent speech of the Colonial Secretary, confirmed as it was by the dispatch of May 23rd to Lord Milner, regarding the conditions under which Asiatic labour might be introduced into these colonies, had given great satisfaction. In the dispatch the right hon. Gentleman, referring especially to the labour question, stated—
  "In adopting any important line of policy in the new colonies, His Majesty's Government would need to satisfy themselves that the essential features were acceptable to the general opinion of the white population. The new colonies must be regarded as destined, at some day not far distant, to enter upon the privileges of self-government, and in anticipation of the event no such serious step should be taken as would be likely to be reversed by any autonomous legislature."
  He was glad the Colonial Secretary had expressed his views on the matter so clearly, as the pressure put upon the right hon. Gentleman by Lord Milner and others—according to the despatech—had been very great indeed. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would say whether he had any anticipations as to further steps being taken in the direction of self-government. The difficulty was that until representative institutions were given to these Crown colonies it would be practically impossible to discover what the real public opinion was, as the decisions of the Legislative Council would not
  944
  necessarily represent the views of the people at all. The right hon. Gentleman had had strong pressure put upon him by Lord Milner. Lord Milner used the very greatest possible pressure to induce the Colonial Secretary to agree to the immediate importation of Asiatic labour, and he said that they might be landed into financial embarrassment if Asiatic labour was not imported. That was the view of the present Governor of the Transvaal, who declared that unless he was enabled to go to India for additional labour the Transvaal would soon be landed in financial embarrassment. The Colonial Secretary had declined to give Lord Milner power to go to India for native labour, and his refusal was dependent upon the state of public opinion in the Transvaal, which was hostile to Asiatic labour. He thought it would be some time before that opinion altered, even if it altered at all. That opinion, however, was totally different to what they heard the other day in the debate upon the South African Loan. Lord Milner took a very rosy view of the financial position of the Transvaal, and estimates had been given them which seemed almost incredible. It had been stated that the revenue would be sufficient in a year or two to cover, not only the ordinary expenditure, but also the interest which would have to be paid upon the £35,000,000 loan and the £30,000,000 loan. That did not seem consistent with the statement that if Asiatic labour was not imported the country would be landed in financial embarrassment. He should like from the right hon. Gentleman some explanation of the present financial position of the Transvall.
  MR. BOLANDsaid that, in view of the fact that one of the British colonies had recently had its constitution suspended, he did not think the House of Commons could do better than discuss for a short time the reason for that suspension. He wished to make his position clear with regard to the teaching of the English and Italian languages in Malta. His whole contention about the language question was as to whether the Italian or the English language was to have the uppermost position in Malta. In spite of the withdrawal of the proclamation by the Colonial Secretary on the 28th of January, 1902, the elected members of the Council of Malta resigned in

  945
  a body on the 15th of February. Although they resigned, they were reelected a short time afterwards absolutely unanimously. No opposition was offered to their re-election, and for years they had been elected on the understanding that they would continue to press forward the Italian language as against the English. The Colonial Secretary claimed that they did not represent the wishes of the people, but nevertheless he had always refused to extend the franchise. If it were true that the elected members did not represent anyone except a small fraction of the people, why not extend the franchise; He had always felt that one of the great difficulties in Malta arose from the position which Sir G. Strickland occupied, and when he was transferred to another post he thought that difficulty would have disappeared. That, however, had not been the case, and the state of affairs had been just as bitter as before. He agreed that the right hon. Gentleman had made some substantial concessions with regard to the position of the Italian language. Those concessions had been made since last year, and he only pointed to them as a reason and justification for the determined attitude of the people of Malta in bringing this question to the front. The contention of the right hon. Gentleman had always been that the substitution of English for Italian was desired by the people of Malta themselves; that nothing in the way of coercion had been used; and that they had accepted it of their own free choice, but this contention was not borne out by the Report of Mr. Tagro, one of the inspectors of schools in Malta. Directions were given, on page 29 of the recent Blue-book, that very important matters mentioned in the Report should be taught, but the language was to be English, and no mention was made that at least an equal opportunity should be given to have Italian taught at the same time.
  Reference had been made to the figures in the Official Returns for the year 1902. In the first and second standards it was found that the percentage was 81·4 English and 18·6 Italian. In the case of secondary instruction in the third standard the percentage for English was 85·4, and Italian 14·6. These figures showed that the over-whelming voice of the parents in Malta was in favour of the English language,
  946
  but he did not think the Committee could accept them as absolutely final. This inquiry was instituted by direction of the right hon. Gentleman, and certainly throughout there had been an effort on the part of people in Malta to have the figures come up to the desire expressed by him. The Legislative Council applied to be represented on the inquiry, with the view of having the witnesses tested, and they suggested that the witnesses should he examined on oath. That permission was refused, and the whole inquiry had been conducted by Government officials only. The Colonial Secretary himself demanded that there was to be a free choice in Malta between English and Italian. There were many cases still, and certainly one important instance, in which a free choice did not really exist. If they were to have a free choice given to the parents and their children, there must be equal facilities for both languages right through the education ladder. He took it that the Lyceum in Malta was a secondary school. Seven of the Professors there were Italian, and eleven were English. He had seen it stated, and believed it was correct, that only two subjects in the course at the Lyceum—Italian and Latin—were transacted in Italian. In all the other subjects, including mathematics, physics, and, of course, English history and English literature, English was the language in which the instruction was given. That was not giving the people a free choice. If English was the language of instruction in the majority of the subjects at the Lyceum, that was putting a premium on English. It was telling the people practically that in the lower standards English should also be the language taught to their children. It would probably be said by the Colonial Secretary that the Italian-speaking population in Malta was very small comparatively speaking, and he would probably include in English-speaking communities British subjects connected with the fleet and garrison, and also the English officials. That was not a fair test. English Malteseborn British subjects who spoke English numbered 18,922 according to last Census, while the Italian - speaking population numbered 21,027. It was only by adding in the number of those connected with the fleet and the garrison and English officials that the right hon. Gentleman would be able to show that there was a

  947
  greater number of English than Italian speakers in Malta. The right hon. Gentleman might say that Italian was not the language of Malta. It was, however, the language of culture and of literature, and he held that the removal of it, or supercession of it, would be detrimental to the interests of Malta. What was being done was an attempt to Anglicise the people, which he believed would never succeed. It had always been the contention of the Colonial Secretary that this agitation in Malta was of a purely temporary character, and that the people against the English language were only a small clique, the representatives of which saw reason for keeping it out. If it was only a temporary agitation, what necessity was there for suspending the constitution? If the English language was gaining ground, and the Maltese people wanted it, why not leave the old constitution as it stood?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN, Birmingham, W.): It was unworkable.
  MR. BOLANDasked if the right hon. Gentleman meant that it was unworkable because of the attitude of the elected members on the language question or on ether questions? He might at least have given it a few years' trial. It was not fair or statesmanlike to say that the constitution must be suspended because there was a temporary agitation going on which had not the people behind it. He was conviriced that although the Maltese people might he beaten and the constitution abolished, their strength was so great that they would go on with this agitation for the revival of the Italian language, and in this they would have the sympathy not merely of the Italian people, but also of everyone, even in this country, who desires to see a small people retain its own nationality, and who would regret to see a small people have forced upon them in any way, anything which would tend to remove that special quality of nationality which frequently found expression in the national language. By the national language he meant that it was the literary and cultured language of the Country.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE (Carnarvon Burghs)said he wanted information on e neater with regard to which he put, last Thursday, a Question to the Under-
  948
  Secretary for Foreign Affairs—namely, the Canadian Papers on the dispute between Canada and Germany on the tariff matter. He understood that the right hon. Gentleman was prepared to submit the Papers to the House. The Papers which had been submitted to the House by the Foreign Office related solely to the correspondence between the Foreign Office and Germany, and he could understand that this was outside the Colonial Secretary's Department. But the Paper; which he thought ought to be submitted to the House, and on which the right hon. Gentleman alone could give information, were letters written to his Department by Lord Strathcona. There was one letter of which he had obtained a copy in the official Hansard of the Canadian Parliament.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAINsaid that he should, of course, be most happy to communicate to this House anything already communicated to the Canadian Parliament. If it had been puldished in Canada there could he no difficulty in communicating it to the House here.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he thought the best plan would be to state what, according to the report of the Canadian Parliament, was said in the speech of the Minister of Finance. The first letter read by the Minister of Finance, dated 11th July, 1898, was from Lord Strathcona to the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies. The other document Which he thought ought to be in the possession of the House was one submitted by the Canadian Minister of Finance to the German Consul of Montreal, Herr Bopp. This was also placed before the Canadian Parliament. It was a Memorandum stating the whole ease of Canada in the controversy, and he must say that it seemed to him to place a totally different aspect on the case from the one communicated to the House of Commons. He did not understand that the right hon. Gentleman would object to that Paper being communicated to the House. The only other paint he should like to put to the right hon. Gentleman was this. He thought it would be for the convenience of hon. Members to have these Papers before the House separated, and he believed that would be possible if the

  949
  right hon. Gentleman would communicate with Canada on the subject by cable. The House would not separate until the 14th or 15th of August and there would be plenty of time to get the documents from Toronto or Montreal if they were not already here. He would like to suggest also that as colonial matters were coining very much to the from in regard to fiscal affairs, it was important that their information regarding the colonies should be more complete than it was at the present moment. He submitted that it was really of first class importance that they should have in the library copies of the Hansard of the self-governing colonies, and all the Colonial Blue-books on questions bearing on the trade and industries of those countries. If they had had copies of the Debates in the Canadian Parliament they would have had all the speeches of the Minister of Finance and the Leader of the Opposition, which presented the whole of the Canadian case in its relation to Germany. He did not think it would be unfair to ask the Colonial Secretary to include among the Papers he was going to present to Parliament on the tariff question some of these Canadian Papers He had in his hand a Paper which showed that the Leaders in Canada were quite disinclined to enter into the question of international free trade, and he would read a very brief extract from it. The Canadian Minister said—
  "As between British and Canadian manufactures, we thought we had gone as far in the way of reduction as we could."
  And then the Minister went on—
  "What we have got to do is, first, to protect our own industries."
  He asked the Colonial Secretary to present the House with all the documents showing what had transpired between Germany and Canada.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: As the discussion is so very miscellaneous, perhaps I had better deal with it so far as it has gone, lest any of the points should be missed. In reply to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon, I have no possible objection to give any information in my power which bears on this great subject. Any Papers which have been published or laid by the Canadian Parliament I shall certainly be
  950
  happy to obtain and lay upon the Table of the House, or place in the library, according to their importance. I am under the impression that I have already telegraphed for these Papers; but I cannot say whether they will be laid before the House rises. There is no record of these Papers in the Colonial Office at present. As regards the Debates, there is no precedent for publishing as Parliamentary Papers speeches delivered in the Dominion Parliament; but, of course, it is open to everybody to consult the Canadian Hansard which is in the library of the House. The hon. Gentleman was, I think, a little hazardous in quoting the opinions of Members of the Dominion House. That makes it absolutely necessary for me to say that the question whether the Canadian Government will or will not be willing to give further reductions upon those goods which are or may be manufactured in Canada—in other words, whether they will give us a nearer approach to free trade as far as Canadian manufacturers are concerned—is not concluded by anything which has been said up to the present time. I imagine that the answer will depend on the offer we can make to Canada. This, at all events, I can say—that when we were discussing the matter with the Prime Ministers we had many conversations, not carried on in the Conference, but carried on between the Board of Trade, as representing British trade, and the Minister representing Canadian trade, to see whether it might not be possible so to rearrange Canadian tariffs without ruining—which was the word used—Canadian industries, and yet give considerable advantages to British industries. But, no doubt, all that will be definitely decided when we are in the position to make anything in the nature of a definite offer.
  The hon. Gentleman the Member for Wiltshire asked about Tristan da Cunha. There is a small population there, upon whom, like other small populations under similar circumstances, their lonesome lives and the fact that they are shut out from the rest of the world has had an injurious effect. It might be desirable to deport the population to South Africa; but the question is one which cannot be answered

  951
  without communication with the Government of South Africa, and until we have had such communication I cannot give a definite reply. The hon. Member for Devonport raised a question about the treatment of certain members of the South African Constabulary, but, without notice of the particular cases in writing for the purposes of inquiry, I am unable to give any answer. Since the close of the war the force has been reduced from 10,000 to 6,000, but the reduction has been made carefully and cautiously, generally by the voluntary resignation of those who desired to follow other occupations, and where it was by dismissal there was reason to complain of the conduct of the person dismissed. So far as I know, there has been no case of harsh dismissal such as the hon. Gentleman suggests, but if he will give me the particulars in writing I shall inquire into it. The hon. Baronet the Member for Norfolk referred to the importation to South Africa of natives from British Central Africa, which he regarded as a failure. I do not know whether the facts are correct, but I have asked for information. I will only say that most successful of our emigrations to the West Indies was in its inception attended by somewhat similar circumstances. The wants of the natives were not then so well understood as the are now, and consequently in the first instance there was a considerable amount of sickness. Therefore the fact of such sickness among the natives of British Central Africa who have gone to the Transvaal would not be a conclusive reason against continuing the experiment. Assuming the facts to as stated by the hon. Baronet, they are not at all satisfactory. On the other hand, I refuse to pay the slightest attention to such statements as the hon. Baronet read from gentlemen in Central Africa, whose one object it is to keep the natives there, adscripti glebae, attached to the soil, in order that they many have a sufficiency of labour at an exceptionally low cost. We have it form the able Administrator the Protectorate, on whose good faith I have the fullest reliance, that there is a great amount of surplus labour, and that, apart altogether form the question of South Africa, it would be of advantage to the Protectorate to try its hands at South African work.
  952
  Then the hon. and learned Member for Dumfries Burghs asked me some questions as to the Peace Preservation Act. There also I think the hon. and learned Gentleman will see that it is impossible for me to state the actual results and extent to which the Act has been put in operation. I believe it is not the case that a further ordinance has been issued imposing severer penalties. On the contrary, when I myself was in South Africa I arranged some alterations and some modifications of its provisions. My own impression is that up to the present time it has been very little used. The hon. and learned gentleman put the question somewhat in the shape of a dilemma. He said: "If the condition of the country is not satisfactory, a great, deal of what von told us before has proved to be incorrect; if, on the contrary, it is satisfactory, what do you want with the Peace Preservation Act?"
  SIR ROBERT REID: I said that if the statements which reached me as to the extensive use of the ordinance be true, then it meant one of two things—either there has been maladministration or there is a serious state of things which requires the use of the ordinance.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: My answer the question would be that it would be unwise, in my opinion, to dispense with legislation of this kind. We must have the powers, even though we may not require to put them into operation. And here let me say that one of the great difficulties we have to deal with in the Transvaal and the Orange River Colony does not concern the relations between the Boers and the British. Not at all. They concern the relations between different sections of the Boers themselves. There was at one time a very bitter feeling between those who surrendered in the early stages of the war and those who stood out to the end. That is a state of things most unfortunate, most disastrous, and not at all tending to the general peace, order, and prosperity of the country; and that was one of the things I did my best to address myself to when I was in South Africa, imploring both sides to forget the past and not to bear any unkind memories or malice in the way they were doing. The feeling had proceeded so far that some of the Dutch Reformed Church predikants refused to

  953
  baptize the children of Boers who surrendered early in the war and refused to give them the Holy Communion.
  MR. HAVILAND BURKE: Those were the National Scouts.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Almost the whole of the National Scouts were persons who surrendered early in the war.
  MR. HAVILAND BURKE: And afterwards drew the rifle on their own flesh and blood.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: It is not my object to raise controversial matters. I am not here to say whether the action of the National Scouts was right or wrong, but it does not be in the mouth of any Britisher to condemn them. what I say is this, that the war being over, and these people being neighbours and of the same race and blood, and being very numerous on both sides, it is in the interests of the country that they should be brought together, and when I found, as I did, that there were some mischief-makers who were trying to maintain the unhappy relations I have indicated between different classes of Boers, I felt it my duty to bring all the pressure I possibly could to bear in order that that state of things might cease. To a very large extent I am glad to say that state of things has ceased. I have heard many satisfactory accounts of the results of what has been done. I might quote as one instance the fact that the Boers are forming agricultural associations in different parts of the country to look after their interests as an agricultural community. An agricultural association, has been formed in the neighbourhood of Pretoria. Speaking from memory, I believe I am correct in saving that the chairman of that association is Andreas Cronje, brother of Piet Cronje, who surrendered at Paardeberg. He was himself the head of the National Scouts, having first fought bravely for the cause of the Boers, but when the country fell into our hands, he thought it his duty to transfer his allegiance, and thereupon became a National Scout. Mr. Andreas Cronje was the chairman of this association, and the vice-chairman is a gentle-
  954
  man who fought to the end and surrendered with General Botha. In the same way, the other officers of the association are divided between the two sections of the Boers. That is very satisfactory, and I congratulate the Committee and the Government on the fact that they have been in many cases brought together. But this is one of the reasons why it was necessary, and I believe is still necessary, to have strong powers; because if we found our work of pacification being undone, if we found mischief-makers trying to separate those whom we had brought together, we would not hesitate to use out powers and enforce them. The hon. Member for Poplar referred to General Botha. I attach not the slightest importance to the latter form General Botha. I think it will tend majority of his countrymen. He has definitely taken the lead of those who are irreconcilable. As I say, I do not attach the slightest importance to the letter, which was evidently written to order, and as to which I very much doubt whether it was written by General Botha himself. [An HON. MEMBER: Whose order?] I am quite satified with the expression of my own opinion on the subject. I hold an optimistic view. I think the only passage in that letter which is of real importance is that in which he points out the extraordinary way in which the people are setting to work in order to restore the country and improve its condition: and I am satisfied as long as they are so employed. It will not be necessary to go behind that evidence.
  The hon. Member for Poplar, while expressing approval of what has been stated by me with regard to the importation of coolie labour for the work on the railways, pointed to language in the letter of Lord Milner to the effect that if the labour question grows worse it may cause serious financial embarrassment in the Transvaal. That is a commonplace almost. If efficient labour cannot be obtained, if the mines have to be closed, there will be, temporarily at any rate, very great financial embarrassment in the Transvaal. Nobody, however, supposes that the matter will not ultimately be settled, and my policy is

  955
  to leave them to work out their own salvation. The hon. Gentleman asks me how we propose to ascertain public opinion in the absence of representative government. In the first place I deny absolutely that there is no representative government. Some Members of the House seem to suppose that the only possible representative government is a constitutional government with all the fullest forms of the British Constitution. That is not the case. That may be the final development, but in the meantime Legislative Councils, such as those which have been established in the Orange River Colony and in Pretoria, are representative and do give indications of public opinion to which it would be monstrous not to pay some attention. It is quite true that they are nominated councils. Somebody said that they are the creatures of the Government. If by that is meant anything more than that they are nominated by the Government, it would be very unjust both to them and to the Government. What is really the fact? There are Lord Milner, Sir A. Lawley, and Sir A. Goold Adams, with a tremendous work upon their shoulders. Their object is to get their business done with the least possible irritation and the most general goodwill. What folly it would be of them if they only called advisers who would be their creatures, who would not give them advice which would be of sound value. I say of my own knowledge—for I discussed this matter with them most carefully—that the Governors took every possible pains to secure as representative a council as they could get. It would have been in the case of the Pretoria Council a little more representative if there were a larger representation of what are called the irreconcilable Boers. But whose fault is it there is not that representation? We took the three men who at that time were the recognised leaders, and had obtained influence by their bravery and conduct during the war. We asked all of them to serve. They refused. It is not our fault that gentlemen who would have represented that section insisted on standing out side. All the other sections have come in. The moderate Boers, the "hands-uppers," as they are called. All the other sections are represented, and represented by men of the greatest popularity
  956
  and influence in their several districts. In the same way, every class of the community is represented.
  Now, when a question is put to a council so appointed, no doubt you must weigh the votes as well as number them. We have a Government majority, and if an Imperial interest is concerned we can order the Government members to vote one way, and the whole nominated members can vote the other. But surely if we were anxious to get the public opinion of the country we should in such a case pay a great deal of attention to the votes of those who are the nominated and. representative members. If we found, for example, that the representatives of labour were opposed to us, I should say that was an important factor in the matter. Even though what the hon. Member for Mansfield calls the capitalist class voted one way, I should pay great attention to the fact that the working-class representatives voted the other. Therefore we can get a certain amount of indication of public opinion from a council so constituted. Then we have the Press, which, notwithstanding what has been said by the hon. M ember for Mansfield, is really a free Press. The statement which the hon. Member has made has been denied again and again. We know what are the kind of statements he sometimes makes in this House, and what is the evidence on which he relies for their truth. All I can say is I know nothing about it. I am not behind these papers. All I know is that it has been absolutely denied that there has been any such influence. But if there is in one case, or more than one, there are some papers of which it cannot be true, because they live by abusing the capitalists, and I do not suppose that they are paid by the capitalists for that. Then, the other day, a great public meeting was held, and was addressed by one of the most popular, and deservedly popular, capitalists in the Transvaal, a gentleman who has done a great deal for the public life of the Transvaal, and to whom that country owes a great debt—Sir George. Farrar. Sir George Farrar fought in the war with conspicuous bravery. Millionaire though he was, he did not hesitate to risk his life like anybody else. He called this meeting together and addressed them

  957
  strongly in favour of Asiatic labour. What was the result? I forget whether an amendment was moved, but, at all events, the meeting with absolute unanimity voted against their popular chairman. I am quoting that as a proof that public opinion is free in the Transvaal, and there is not the least doubt that we shall have very accurate information from time to time of what the opinion of the country may be upon this question. I have said to the House that at the present time we have sufficient knowledge to justify us in saying that public opinion in the Transvaal is against tins importation of this Asiatic labour. It may be that at some future day a different view may be taken. Then the hon. Member for Poplar also asked for a Return of the expenditure upon repatriation and compensation, showing the lines upon which it has been carried through. As to the lines on which it has been carried through, I really think we have given him the information in the Blue-looks which have been published. As regards the actual balance-sheet, I shall be very pleased to lay Papers upon that subject as soon as I can get anything that is at all complete. Meanwhile, I will inquire as to what can he done in that respect.
  Then, Sir, there is the long speech of the hon. Member for Mansfield, in which he brought various charges against the Government, and against Lord Milner,.and, of course, against the capitalist class. The hon. Member appears to think that the capitalist class is represented by he Beers, and it is against De Beers that he has brought two out of the three matters which he has brought before the Committee to-day. The first question is as to the course which has been taken with regard to a certain diamond mine which the hon. Gentleman says is one of extraordinary value. He complains that I have not answered a Question which he put upon the Paper. Sir, the Question which he put upon the Paper was rather singularly worded. It was,
  "To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received from Lord Milner, Sir A. Lawley, or any other Transvaal official, any despatch, report, letter, or any communication whatever in connection with -the new diamond law."
  No cross-examining counsel could put a more searching inquiry than that, and it seems to imply a suspicion that something very nefarious will take place
  958
  unless every possible hole and corner is stopped. I refused in the interests of all Secretaries of State to answer a question of that kind, because one of our most valuable privileges is the power which we have to write privately and to receive private letters from the Governors and Ambassadors, from Ministers and from persons in authority representing us in foreign countries. If it were known that we were to be cross-examined with regard to documents of that kind nothing in the nature of that private and confidential intercourse could go on, and it would be a very serious precedent if I were to consent to reply to any Question which would touch upon that privilege. If instead of being so very careful to ask everything, the hon. Member had been satisfied to inquire of me whether I hail received any official despatch or report, or anything of that kind, I should not have had the slightest hesitation in saying practically I have not received any. I have received one telegram, in which Lord Milner states that the matter is too complicated to be dealt with by telegram, and accordingly I told the hon. Gentleman that I had communicated with Lord Milner, asking for information for myself as well as for others, and that I was waiting for his report. I am still waiting for his report, and I am unable therefore to make any statement to the Committee as to the ultimate decision of the Government. But I know enough to be able to say that the statement that has been made by the hon. Gentleman is not accurate. The statement or implication of the hon. gentleman is that in order to benefit De Beers Lord Milner, whose integrity he does not impugn, is deliberately altering the law in regard to diamond mining in favour of De Beers and against the State.
  Mr. MARKHAM: I did not say that.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That is the charge. That is the implication from everything the hon. Member said. Any Member who was in the House at the time will know that what I say is perfectly correct. To say you do not peach the integrity of a man, and in almost the same breath to say that you accuse hint of having injured the State pecuniarily for the benefit of a monopoly,

  959
  is a very inconsistent line of argument. What are the facts? Under the Transvaal law the State got nothing, the Crown got no portion of the mine, but only a share of the licence money, which is a very small business. We have discussed this question of mining laws, and I found myself absolutely and entirely in agreement, so far as the principle was concerned, with Lord Milner. The details, of course, I assume he will carry out from time to; time. Our object with regard to all new discoveries is to get every penny we can for the State, having regard to the interests of the State in the further development of the industry. If we did not treat the pioneer, the discoverer, the mine-owner, reasonably, we should get nothing done. There is present a Member of this House who used continually to tell us that the Treasury had destroyed all chance of the development of the mining industry in Wales by insisting upon excessive royalties. If so, it was excessively foolish and unbusinesslike of the Treasury. The object of every Government representative should be to increase the development of enterprise, and be content with a fair and reasonable share. We claim the whole of the mine except such part of it as is to go to the owner of the land and the discoverer. The proposal in this case is to give the owner, I think it is four-tenths of the mine as his own. The Transvaal gave to the owner one-eighth of the mine and thirty claims to the discoverer. One point of which the hon. Member seems to be ignorant is this—that under the old law a person so benefited had the right of selection. If you have the selection of a portion of a mine it is quite possible you may take the eye, and all the rest will be of no value at all, and it seems to me that to allow the discoverer or the owner to select even a small portion of a mine, if you give him the first choice, may be to destroy every advantage which the Government hopes to obtain from the discovery. Accordingly, in the present instance we treat the mine as an undivided whole, and we take six-tenths of the profits, whatever they are. I do not know the details of this legislation. As I understand, it is agreed by every expert, and I attach more value to the opinion of experts in this matter than to any other, that you
  960
  cannot work a diamond mine satisfactorily, or economically, except as a whole And, therefore, the mine is to be worked as a whole and we have six-tenths of the profit. The hon. Gentleman talked at great length about the extraordinary fact that, after protesting last night against a monopoly in sugar, I should now establish a monopoly in diamonds. But diamonds are not the food of the people, and for my part I do not care a brass button whether diamonds are dear or whether they are cheap. I quite understand that it is a matter of State profit. That is the only way in which I am interested or concerned in the matter. I quite understand that it would be the killing the goose that lays the golden eggs if you took all the diamonds at once. It may be a far wiser course to keep a considerable number of diamonds in hand as a resource for future generations. If we applied such a system to what are called "black diamonds," it might be a good thing for this country. We are' considering the best way of dealing with the mine in order to obtain the largest return for the State, and the hon. Member says we are creating a monopoly-that will be an evil to the State. That seems to me to be a perfect exaggeration.
  The hon. Gentleman's second point was the monopoly of dynamite. There, again he had the nightmare of De Beers about him. So far as I could make out, he confused De Beers with what is called the local factory. At all events, so far as I could gather, he was reading something about the protection of local industries and seemed to believe that it was De Beers. If so, he is entirely mistaken. The question of our protecting local industries concerns only the-original factory at Bloemfontein, a factory which was established by Germans under the Transvaal rule. Against that factory he says, and says truly, we protested, but not for the reason that he suggests. We said we had no power or right to interfere in tins matter if it was a monopoly working for the benefit of the State, because in that case the State would be able to draw its share of the revenue from the industry. What we complained of was that, contrary to the Convention, which provided equal commercial rights for all people, it was a

  961
  monopoly which did nothing whatever for the State, and was conducted solely in the interests of a particular individual or a particular firm. When we came, I need scarcely say that our first object was to put an end to this grotesque monopoly. We found that we could not do entirely without dynamite as a source of revenue, and accordingly the 7s. 6d. a keg was put on as a revenue duty upon all dynamite imported into the Transvaal. That is the chief thing of which the British manufacturers for whom the hon. Member speaks—that is, Kynoch's and 'Nobel's — most bitterly complain. I have strongly represented to the Legislative Council that if they are going to pat on, as they must put on, a revenue duty of 7s. 6d., then they ought to put on an internal Excise duty of equal amount if that is done the local manufacturer will have no advantage whatever over the British importer, except the advantage of propinquity. But the matter is not settled. Like everything else of this kind the matter Las been referred to the Legislative Council, and I shall give due considers hon to anything which that Council, who will have. I believe, in this matter the real interests of the country at heart, may decide upon. Then there is the case of another manufactory, which is the De Beers manufactory, but which is situated in Cape Colony. It is not subject, therefore, to the coastal duty, because it is in South Africa, and the duty for all South Africa is collected at the coast. Neither is it subject at the moment to a Transvaal duty, because the Customs Convention has, as far as possible, done away with all inter-colonial Customs and has made free trade within South Africa. But, having regard to this peculiar and exceptional case, what is suggested is that a special duty of is. 6d. per case shall be put on the De Beers dynamite, and if that is done everybody will he on exactly the same terms. That is the proposal which has been submitted to the Legislative Council at Pretoria, and at present I am waiting for their consideration of it. That is the second great scandal.
  Now I come to the third—the municipal franchise. The hon. Member is shocked at our inconsistency because, forsooth, we asked for the franchise for the Uitlanders
  962
  while, he says, we refuse the municipal franchise to the Uitlanders ourselves. We do nothing of the kind. We do not refuse the municipal franchise to the Uitlanders; we do not refuse naturalisation. Our difficulty in the time of the late Republic was that British subjects could not get naturalised. We never claimed for them that they should have votes without being naturalised. On the contrary, it was pointed out to them that if they were naturalised they would give up their British citizenship, and that that was the only condition on which we could claim the franchise for them. We give to the Uitlanders exactly what we asked for ourselves. We say, "You shall be naturalised, if you like, after five years residence, and when you are naturalised you, of course, give up your original citizenship and you will he entitled to all the privileges of British citizenship, including the municipal franchise." That disposes of the charge of inconsistency. Why should we do more than that I it is no more than we asked for ourselves; it is no more than we do here. To my mind it appears to be a perfectly reasonable arrangement, and it was one which I had no hesitation in approving. I deprecate the lone adopted by the hon. Member, and I really do not think it was necessary for him to have spoken with such violence and bitterness. I hope I have succeeded in convincing the Committee that the De Beers malign influence is non really apparent in any of these transactions. The position of the British Indian, which was raised by the right hon. Gentleman, will, I trust, be satisfied in what appears to me to be a reasonable way—that British Indians qualified by education and character to enjoy the franchise should be entitled to it. I admit the great difficulty of dealing with this Asiatic question. I admit there is this strong prejudice against Asiatics, but I would point out that all the praise that is given and all the enthusiasm that is aroused among hon. Members opposite by the decision of the Transvaal and the South African Colonies to exclude Asiatics is precisely on the same lines as the feeling which leads them to treat them as an inferior race when they do get to the Transvaal. My own opinion on this subject has been

  963
  sufficiently clearly expressed, and I sincerely hope that some reasonable arrangements may be made in the future.
  I come next to the question of Malta, which is a very simple one. I know the interest the hon. Member for South Kerry takes, not only in the language question, but also in the question of education generally. He has quite generously given me credit for having been considerate in this matter, and for as he says, the three substantial concessions which I was able to make to the desires, I will not say of the population of Malta, but of the elected members. When this matter was last before the House I explained at great length our views, and it is unnecessary to repeat what I then said. What I then did was to withdraw the proclamation which had given, or was said to have given, considerable offence, and which declared that the English language should be the official language of Malta twenty years hence. I said then I never attached any importance to that proclamation; that, on the whole, I was prepared to admit that it had been ill-advised, as it was never worth while legislating for twenty years in advance. And having regard, also, to a certain sentiment which had arisen on the subject in Italy, I was very willing to take the opportunity of yielding. I also yielded, as the hon. Member said, on certain matters of considerable importance, and I expressed a hope that the elected members would recognise this and be conciliatory on their side. But there was one point on which I said His Majesty's Government would never yield—I will go further and say I do not believe any Government who may succeed us will yield on this particular point—and that was that the people of Malta should themselves, personally and individually, not have the choice of the second language which should be taught to their children. I would do everything to make that choice absolutely free, absolutely independent; but I would not take that choice away to please the little knot of elected members who, as I have pointed out before now, have really very little influence with the population. It is quite true they get to be elected members. It is quite true
  964
  that I should not think of putting up Government nominees, as the hon. Member suggested, to stand against them. But it is equally true that no person in the better-educated classes of Malta will take part in politics and stand for this position. I very much regret it. I think it shows a want of enterprise and even of patriotism, but I cannot alter their decision. I am told it is due to their fear of the bitter and libellous attacks which are made on every one in public life by the local papers, which are carried on by some of the elected members themselves. I have seen those papers, and they certainly are very often extremely scurrilous, and I can quite understand people not accustomed to the rough and tumble of political life thinking it hardly worth while to go through so much to get so little. The position of the elected member is not of so much importance as to justify a man making considerable sacrifices of his personal comfort, and if he takes part against an elected member neither his public nor his private life is safe from his criticism. The policy of the Government is confined, therefore, strictly to seeing that the parents have a personal and individual choice. We will not allow the so-called elected members to speak for them. We think they had better speak for themselves.
  The hon. Member opposite has been entirely misinformed when he says that the choice is not a free choice, and that the choice of the parents is conveyed through the children. It is nothing of the kind. It is made the most formal act possible. It has to he made either in writing or before two witnesses, and the documents and the evidence of the choice made are carefully preserved, and the records are at the disposal of anyone who desires to see them. How better, in what other way, would it be possible to obtain the personal wishes of the parents in regard to the education of their children? What annoys these elected members is this, that they go to public meetings and are able, as many of us are at meetings of our friends, to pass their resolutions in favour of the Italian language, and that then the very people who have passed these resolutions go

  965
  back home and sign documents in favour of English. I confess I am gratified. The hon. Member seems to think it very wrong because the Government said they heard with satisfaction the result of the choice of the parents. I really do not think I am at all wrong in expressing my pleasure at finding, in a British colony, this large proportion of native parents selecting the British language in preference to any other. What has happened? The number of parents choosing English in 1898 was 95 per cent., in 1899, 97 per cent., and 1900, 98 per cent. Then there was an agitation, and when it was at its height some of the parish priests, who have, naturally and rightly, a very great interest in their flock, intervened, and suddenly, therefore, the percentage fell from 98 to 75 per cent. But the agitation died away, and the result was that in 1902 the percentage had again risen to 85 per cent. I do not think the hon. Member can make any complaint as to our action in regard to the elementary schools—it is in regard to the lyceums. In the lyceums both languages are offered to all the scholars, and here again I believe a very considerable proportion have what the elected members consider the bad taste to prefer English to Italian, but if they prefer Italian they can have it. The hon. Member called attention to the statement that seven Italian professors are employed and eleven English. Well, I think that is a very remarkable percentage of Italian under the circumstances. When you find that the elementary schools, which necessarily feed the secondary or lyceum schools, choose English in the proportion of 85 per cent., I think it is a remarkable thing that the language which is least popular has nevertheless seven, as against eleven, of the teachers employed. It seems to me we are lending our weight as far as we possibly can in favour of Italian rather than putting it under any disadvantage.
  The recent action taken by the 6overnment is in accordance with the warning which was distinctly given in my speech of last April, when I discussed this subject. The hon. Member says, "Why did we not give them a little more time?" Time! We have given them time again and again. We
  966
  begged them to be reasonable. When they have made amendments, if we could do it without any injury to Imperial interests, we have accepted them, even when we have thought them wrong. But what they have said is this, "Unless you give up this doctrine of free choice and allow us, the elected members, to decide for the parents of the children what language they shall be taught, we refuse all the Education Estimates." They retired into that impossible position; they did it again the other day. We gave them another opportunity; they passed one month's Vote. Then it had to be brought forward again, and then they rejected the 11 months which remained. We brought it forward again, and gave them a further opportunity, asking them whether they would not consider the subject once more, but they rejected the whole of the Education Vote. Then the constitution of 1887 was reverted to; that constitution suits us, and I may say it suits them. If I may believe anything that the elected members themselves say it suits them at least as well as the constitution which the hon. Gentleman says we have suspended. We have not suspended it—it has disappeared, and we have reverted to the older system. But how was the system we have got rid of described by the elected members? Were they grateful for it? We had actually given to these people, who were elected at a General Election by 2,000 votes among the lot, out of a population of 180,000, the right to deal as they pleased with the whole finances of the colony—they could refuse any Vote and bring the whole thing to a standstil. We did this relying on their good sense, but I have shown how they dealt with matters in which they differed from us. And they all spoke in the strongest possible terms against even that constitution which gave them absolute power over the purse, as being altogether insufficient for national needs, and they claimed to have not merely representative government, but responsible government, and they would have made our position in the fortress a perfect and absolute farce. They played this ridiculous game a little too long, but now I am confident that we shall have no further trouble.

  967
  Passing from that, I feel sorry I am unable to concede what my hon. friend the Member for the Abercromby Division asked me so gracefully. He does not ask it of me personally, but from the State, and there I have a certain public duty to fulfil. It is in accordance with that duty that I am obliged to refuse his application. He applied for compensation for certain Liverpool firms whose property was destroyed during a rebellion which took place at Sierra Leone. Well, the common law and general practice of all countries is that in such cases the liability rests with the individual, and the State is not liable. Where either foreigners or its own subjects reside in a country under these conditions they must take all the risks, and the State is not liable for damage done to them either by insurgents in a rebellion, or by His Majesty's forces in repressing a rebellion, if they have proceeded in a reasonable way. It is not contended for a moment that in this ease His Majesty's forces did net proceed in a reasonable way, and it is perfectly certain that if they had not destroyed some of these sheds or factories the insurgents would have done so, and would have seized for their use all the stores they contained. Although, therefore, I have every sympathy with the persons v ho have suffered, just as I should have if, without any rebellion at all, the factories had been Burnt down, or any other accident had happened to them, yet I cannot make a precedent which would be so very far-reaching. Such a precedent might be applied so widely that I really do not know in what position the Chancellor of the Exchequer might be, or what unforeseen obligations might not be cast upon us. I fear we must adhere to what has been Almost our invariable rule in these matters, and say that this is one of the chances which have to be considered by those who engage in trade under such circumstances, and who, I cannot help thinking, are apt to take such chances into consideration when they fix the rate of profit on their manufactures.
  The MASTER of ELIBANKasked whether ex-Civil servants of the late Transvaal Government would be employed by Lord Milner in our Civil Service at Pretoria. He hoped we were not going to make
  968
  the mistake made by Sir Theophilus Shepstone.
  Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Where they are suited to the work he is not proscribing them in any way.
  MR. CATHCART WASONsaid he desired to call attention to the condition of affairs in the Fiji Islands. It was some thirty years ago since regulations were introduced for the better government of the Fiji natives, which were intended solely and wholly for their benefit. The idea was that the Government should act as a sort of co-operative store to whom the natives could sell their produce; but the Fijians never relinquished their sovereignty over the islands. Whatever regulations might have been made by-Sir Arthur Gordon, he believed they were utterly out-of-date and insufficient for the carrying out of the work of civilisation and the settlement of those islands. It was common knowledge that a large amount of forced labour was employed in those islands to the detriment of the Fijian natives, and they complained most bitterly that they were not allowed to work when they pleased and for whom they pleased, and they might be said in every respect to be the slaves of the Government. He would not for a moment say anything which would tend to make the administration of affairs there more difficult, and he did not mean to make any attack upon the Colonial Secretary, who was, he believed, doing the best he could in the matter. It was, however, his duty to let as much daylight into such places as possible, and he did not think the present state of affairs in Fiji was at all creditable to this country, or that it was in the interests of the natives. Something like a state of forced labour existed there. No doubt it would be said that it was a good thing for them to work, and that they would only be in mischief if they did not work. That might be said of a lot of other people besides Fijians. These natives were ordered here and there at the bidding of Government officials, and it was with the very greatest difficulty that those officials could be kept within fair bounds, and the tyranny which was inherent in human nature constantly broke out in

  969
  dealing with people of this kind. The natives complained that they were set to work on Government roads, and had to act as police and work at places thirty or forty miles away from their homes. Their grievances had found vent in a petition which had keen sent to the King. As far as he knew the right hon. Gentleman bad never seen the petition. It was signed by considerably over 10,000 of these natives, and it set out their grievances in a piteous way. Their population was decreasing to a great extent, and they desired not only that their grievances should be formally handed over to New Zealand.
  The main grievance was that they suffered exactions at the hands of the administrators. They said they were exploited for the benefit of those people, that they were not in any way allowed a free hand, or to do as they pleased, but that virtually and to all intents and purposes they really were slaves. In these days when people really heard of such abuses as had been brought to light in connection with American administration they could not be too particular in endeavouring to throw as much light as they could on the affairs of a large number of His Majesty's subjects, who relied upon the faith, honesty, and goodwill of this country, and had demanded our protection in order that they should enjoy the privilege of living under such a civilization as ours. He had no hesitation in saying that the Fijians were better off 30 years ago than now. They might have more wars then, but they enjoyed themselves to their hearts' content. One of the complaints they made was with reference to forced labour, and another related to deportation. Without rhyme or reason they were taken form one island to another, and though they did not starve, for bountiful nature had provided plenty of food, they suffered in being taken from their wives and families. They were an affectionate and grateful people, to whom it was nothing short of torture to be taken away and thrown on a desolate shore. That was done because the administrators thought it ought to be done. He was justified in demanding for these people a little more freedom from the exactions which were constantly pressed upon them. The tax-gatherer was ever at their door.
  970
  He had asked the Colonial Secretary a number of Question upon this matter, and from the Answers he had received he was sure that the right hon. Gentleman looked upon it rather sympathetically than otherwise. From all he could learn, the Colonial Secretary was sincerely hopeful that under the present Governor a new stat of affairs would be brought about.
  There had been one or two special cases brought before the right hon. Gentleman. One referred to a native who was taken out, and upon evidence on which they would not hang the commonest dog, was tied to a tree and cruelly flogged. The right hon. Gentleman, in answering a question on this matter, said the native had committed an abominable outrage on a white woman. It was the first time he had heard the suggestion that that crime had been committed, and he believed that that if such an accusation had been brought forward at the time and found proven the man would have deserved not merely 25 lashes but a good hanging, and he would probably have got it. He believed the right hon. Gentleman was misinformed with regard to the flogging of that native. He himself was informed that the man was flogged illegally by order of a resident magistrate. The law required that a medical man must he present when a native man was flogged, and on this occasion there was no medical officer present. The medical officer who should have been there, but who was not asked, was cruelly persecuted because he afterwards endeavoured to throw the light of day on this transaction. Hundreds of natives had been put in prison for signing a respectful petition to the King. It was such a petition as any Member of this House would have signed if it had been put before him. It was not sent back to the administrators because it was felt that severe punishment would fall on those who had signed it, and took part in getting it up. The islands are flourishing. There were over 100,000 people there to whom we ought to pay every respect and attention. The land belonged to them, and he was sorry to say that there were eases, as the right hon. Gentleman would find if he enquired, where large tracts had been acquired most unjustly and without any payment whatever. That showed the

  971
  necessity of making a searching inquiry into these matters. If such transaction; had taken place, they should be annulled without the slightest delay. He was very glad to have this opportunity of representing the views of a very large portion, he might say the greater portion, of the Fijian population, who deserved to have their grievances carefully and fully enquired into.
  MR. THOMAS SHAWsaid he desired to call the attention of the Colonial Secretary to a special grievance with regard to South Africa. He referred to the way in which military receipts, granted by officers during the late campaign, were being dealt with. There was a widespread feeling of dissatisfaction in South Africa on that subject, and he believed from private information that had reached him, that if there was a strong utterance upon it by the Colonial Secretary it would largely allay the discontent which was felt. The situation was this. The method of securing the money which stood against those receipts was the most unbusiness-like proceeding, or at least very expensive, because long distances must be traversed by those who held them. He was informed that after they had traversed long distances they were informed that having been convened to a particular, Court, they must go to another Court. After travelling a long distance to the second Court, they were in some cases even sent to a third. That was a serious matter for people who were at the door of poverty. Added to that there was the system of compounding, which was considered to be extremely hard. They were convened to one quarter and having gone there at much expense they were convened to another, and sometimes to a third, and after all that they were compounded with on what were considered to be niggardly terms. In this way very considerable discontent had been created. He vas not to be taken as for one moment challenging the action of the authorities in regard to the method of compounding, and he admitted that there must have been exorbitant claims in regard to values. But he said that this ease was to be taken as distinct from that of losses for which compensation was to be paid. This was the ease of receipts granted by the military authorities, and the only
  972
  question was as to value and not as to quantity. There seemed to be an impression abroad, and he earnestly hoped there was no foundation for it, that part of the inquiry into these receipts was to ask the history and record of the claimant, and that, according to the opinion of the authorities of that record, their appraisement was high or low. This seemed so incredible that he was quite sure the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary would emphatically repudiate any proceedings of that kind. There was a third matter he wished to mention. Some time ago the right hon. Gentleman made a speech in which he stated to the House that these military receipts would be honoured, and nothing in the last months of the history of the war had given more satisfaction in South Africa. On all hands it was admitted that the Dutch farmers, whose properties had been devasted as the result of the war, and who had obtained military receipts, the moment that speech was delivered, went in large numbers to the authorities and presented their receipts. That showed that the Dutch of all kinds of political opinion gladly welcomed the statement and acted upon it. That was the best tribute which could have been made to the right hon. Gentleman after his visit to South Africa. But notwithstanding the right hon. Gentleman's assurance, there were still enormous delays in the settlement of these Dutch farmers' claims, and those which had been disposed of had been settled, it was alleged, on a totally inadequate footing. All he asked was that the right hon. Gentleman would repeat, for the benefit of these Dutch farmers, his authoritative statement that these claims would be promptly and fully met. He had no doubt that the prompt and full settlement of the receipt granted by British officers would have a far-reaching and pacific effect. He had no object to serve except the restoration of peaceful feelings and hearty goodwill amongst these Dutch farmers, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to give some be able to give some consoling information of the kind he had indicated.
  MR. CHARLES DEVLINsaid the right hon. the Colonial Secretary had dealt at length with every question raised in the debate, except that which, in his opinion, was the most important.

  973
  There was a feeling in Canada, as well as in this country, that the position should be made absolutely clear as to what was known as the German difference with Canada. This was a matter of fair play and justice to Canada, because there had been no Legging on the part of Canada to the Colonial Secretary or to this Government to interfere in the difficulty between Canada and Germany. He knew the Canadians did not like to he represented in any way in the light of beggars. Canadians had a natural pride, and they were justified in the belief that they could make their own fiscal arrangements, and that, when made, they were able to look after them. He was glad to hear the right hon. the Colonial Secretary say that he would do his best to provide a copy of the Debates in the Canadian Parliament in the library. The thing was easy, and he knew that the Canadian Government would put at the disposal of this House not only the Debates, but all their Blue-books. He would ask the Colonial Secretary if, only recently, Sir Wilfrid Laurier said—in regard to the dispute between Canada and Germany—that the first step towards a peaceful solution must come from Germany, and that Canada could not, until then, take any further action. Only the other day the editor of one of the leading papers in Canada was sent over here, by his paper, to see what the reason was for all these difficulties, and all this agitation on matters not only affecting preferential tariffs but in regard to Germany. After all the Colonial Secretary was the chief intermediary between the Canadian Government and His Majesty's Government, and to him they should apply for information, and he would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he did not know that when he same to make his proposals he would find a large measure of public opinion in Canada was against him? He would ask the right hon Gentleman whether a Resolution or an Address, which had been passed by the Canadian House of Commons in its present session, approving of a measure of justice towards Ireland in regard to the land question, and of a measure for Home Rule, had been received by him, and, if so, why it had not been brought before the notice of this House. He knew a Resolution was passed by the Canadian House of Parliament, and it would be a matter of exceeding in-
  974
  terest to Members of the British House of Commons to have the document before them. There was also another Resolution to which he invited attention, and he would first offer a word of explanation. Let them consider what elements went to make up the population of Canada. The Colonial Secretary the other night spoke of the people of Canada as his children. Who were those children? First there were 2,000,000 of French Canadians; then there were great numbers of Russians, Poles and Germans, as well as Irishmen. The right hon. Gentleman could hardly call them his children.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! I fail to see what all this has to do with the Colonial Office Vote.
  Mr. CHARLES DEVLINsaid he was calling attention to a Resolution which he was sure had reached the Colonial Office from Canada, and which it was desirable should be communicated to the House. It was one asking that the Royal Declaration on the Accession should be changed.
  THE CHAIRMAN: That really has nothing to do with the Colonial Office Vote.
  Mr. CHARLES DEVLINsaid he understood all communications between the Government and Canada passed through the Colonial Office, and this particular Resolution seriously concerned the French Canadians.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid the Vote really had nothing to do with the composition of the Canadian people. The hon. Gentleman is entitled to ask if certain documents have been received, or will be presented, but he is not entitled to try and show- why the Canadian Parliament passed a certain resolution.
  MR. CHARLES DEVLINwas sorry the rules of debate were so restricted that he could hardly mention anything. In the Canadian Parliament, of which he was once a Member, a great deal more latitude was granted. He now wished to ask if any representations had been made by the Canadian Govern, meat to the Colonial Office with regard to the purchase in Canada of horses and stock for South Africa.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDthought the last speaker was perfectly entitled to ask the Colonial Secretary if he had received any Resolution from the Canadian Parliament, for he was sure hon. Members would be greatly interested if these Resolutions were communicated to them, and he hoped that the hon. Member for Galway City, who, by reason of his wide experience of Colonial Legislatures could well give voice to colonial sentiments, would at least receive a courteous reply to his question. He desired on his own part to inquire whether any decision had been come to by the Commonwealth Parliament with regard to the Australian main contracts, and had that decision been accepted by His Majesty's Government. He understood that the Commonwealth Government refused to enter into a mail contract with this country if coloured labour was employed on any of the steamers carrying mails. It would be as serious thing if the contract were refused on that ground. Personally, he was against the employment of coloured labour on ships subsidised by large sums of public money, but he believed that in certain cased it was almost inevitable. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would say if the Commonwealth Government had, on what appeared to many people to be a trivial ground, refused to enter into fresh mail contracts, and if so what course did His Majesty's Government proposed to adopt so as to prevent any interruption of the mail service with Australia and New Zealand.
  MR. BRYAN ROBERTS (Carnarvonshire, Eifion)said there was a question in connection with South Africa which had not yet been touched upon, and that was a question of education, which was creating a very sore feeling in the part of the world. The statement was made that the schools were being used for the purpose of forcing children to learn English contrary to their desires, and endeavouring to wean them from their own nationality. It was a fovourite delusion of Englishmen that if they could only teach other nations English they would became English in feeling, and lose all sense of their own nationality. There never was a greater delusion in the world, and he was sure that every
  976
  effort made in South Africa to Force, English methods of education on the, children, would only lead to the greatest mischief without bringing the slightest ameliorating effect on the Boers. Let the right hon. Gentleman reflect on the contrast presented by Wales and Ireland, and he would see the absolute folly of supposing that language affected the sentiment of nationality. In Ireland the language of the majority of the Irish people was English; in Wales it was Welsh, and yet the history of the past shewed how dissatisfaction reigned in Ireland, while the very reverse was the case in Wales. If any attempt was made to force on the people of South Africa what was a foreign language it would certainly lead to hostility. The right hon. Gentleman had made reference to Malta, and had said very truly that no child there was compelled to learn English unless the parents expressed a desire to that effect in writing. He asked the right hon. Gentleman to extend to South Africa the principle he had advocated in Malta. He quite recognised that it would be desirable for them to learn English, and he had no doubt that if they were left to follow then own inclinations they would eventually do so, but he was certain that if it was forced upon them they would resent it, and he hoped that any such intention would be abandoned.
  MR J. CHAMBERLAIN, in reply, said he was glad to give the hon. Member the most complete and satisfactory assurance in the sense he desired. There was no attempt to force English on the children of the Boers, and their choice was as free as that of the people of Malta; and if there was any complaint whatever of anything to the contrary he would undertake personally to look into it. He had communicated not merely with Lord Milner, but with the heads of the Education Department in the two colonies. They both understood what was intended, and they both sympathised with it. And he might add that they had agreed to allow the predicants to go into the schools themselves to give teaching in Dutch or religion or any subject they liked, and also to send inspectors of their own appointment to go round the schools and see if there

  977
  was anything of which they had any right to complain. Of course they had decided how many hours should be given to Dutch teaching, but any complaint either of the character of the teacher, or that he was using his position in order in any way to affect either the religion or the politics of the children, would certainly meet with attention, and they should take care to put a stop to it. In answer to the hon. Member for Clare, with regard to the Australian 'nail contract, it was the case that the Australian Government had informed the Colonial Office that they would no longer join in any contract or subsidy to any line which employed Asiatic labour. The Government had said, on the other hand, that they absolutely refused to put a prohibition on the employment of their fellow subjects in those ships, and, therefore, the position was that when he present contract came to an end, they should each have to make their own arrangements. Australia would have a service served by all white men, and we should continue with our service served as at present by Lascars as well as white men. The matter, however, was not immediate, because the contract did not terminate till 1905. In answer to the hon. Member for Galway City, he had not heard that anybody had ever accused the Canadians of begging, and certainly he had not done so. What they had done was contained in the publications that were before the House, and everybody must learn for himself from them what the attitude of the Canadian Government had been. He had no knowledge of private correspondence with Sir Wilfrid Laurier such as has been alluded to by the right hon. Gentleman, and no statement such as that quoted had been brought before him. Then the hon. Member for the Border Burghs made a complaint as to the distribution of money for compensation for military receipts; he had an idea where the complaints came from, they might be true, but he did not believe they were but the only way to deal with them was for those who received complaints to send them to him, and he would make inquiry into them. Of course he could not go into them for ever, and if he found they were
  978
  false in the instance, no doubt hon Gentlemen would be satisfied with that assurance. The matter, however, was one of the greatest difficulty. The claims numbered, certainly, more than 100,000. There had been most grievous attempts at swindling, and a good number of them, he was afraid, had been successful. They could not hurry the matter more than they were doing. In regard to the question raised by the lion, Member for Orkney, they had in Sir H. Jackson it Governor who had shown the greatest ability, and he was, at the present moment, conducting an examination into the whole situation in the Fiji Islands. He would, however, warn hon. Members against being misled by information which was not to he relied upon. He did so because he saw the other day a meeting had been addressed by a particular gentleman who had recently been on a voyage to those islands, and if that gentleman was in any sense the informant of the hon. Member opposite, then he would warn the hon. Member that that gentleman's information was not to be relied on. The fullest inquiry would be made, and he hoped it might have good results. He did not think there was nay general desire on the part of the natives, such as the hon. Gentleman seemed to suppose, to be annexed to New Zealand, but if there were it would raise a very difficult question in regard to Australasia, because Australia was as anxious as New Zealand in this matter. He hoped he might now take the Vote.
  MR CHARLES DEVLINsaid he would like to repeat the Question he had put before, which was not answered by the right hon. Gentleman. He asked whether the right hon. Gentleman would lay on the Table the whole of the Resolutions passed this session by the Canadian Government, which, he understood, were addressed to the British Parliament.
  MR. J. CHAMBEPLAIN: No, Sir. They were not addressed to this Parliament, or they would have been sent to Mr. Speaker.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: May I ask to whom they were addressed?
  An HON. MEMBER: Not to you.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: The hon. Gentleman says the Resolution as to

  979
  Home Rule was not addressed to me. May I be allowed to tell him that as a matter of fact it was. It was addressed to me in this regard, that it was addressed to the Home Rule Party, of which I am one. It declared that the Members of the Canadian Parliament were quite in accord with us in our demand for Home Rule.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order. The statement of the hon. Member shows this has nothing to do with the Colonial Office Vote.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: No, Sir, I would not have been led into it except by the enthusiastic interruption of the hon. Gentleman opposite, whose constituency I am sure I don't know. I ask with all respect a Question which I think ought to be answered by the Colonial Secretary. I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman can state to whom the Resolution passed with reference to Home Rule in Ireland by the Canadian Parliament was addressed. Was it sent to anybody in this country? Was it sent to the Colonial Office?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I think the communication was sent to the Colonial
  Office, as are all communications from the. Canadian Government.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: May I have a copy of it?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Surely the hon. Member does not want a copy of it. He says it was sent to him.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I said it was addressed to me as a member of the Home Rule party. I wish to know whether I can have an official copy of what was sent to the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Oh, yes, I will send it, certainly.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will send a copy to the hon. member opposite also.
  MR. JOSEPH DEVLINrose to continue the debate, when
  MR. SECRETARY CHAMBERLAINrose in his place, and claimed to move,— "That the Question be now put."
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 183;. Noes, 83. (Division List No. 198.)

  AYES

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Chamberlayne, T. (Southmptn

  Foster, (Warwick, S. W.

  Allhusen, Aug. Henry Eden

  Chaplin, Right Hon. Henry

  Fyler, John Arthur

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Chapman, Edward

  Gardner, Ernest

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Charrington, Spencer

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

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Gibbs, Hn. Vicary (St. Albans

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Cochrane, Hon T. H. A. E

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

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

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

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

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Goschen, Hon. Geo. Joachim

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

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.)

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Gretton, John

  Bathurst. Hon. Allen Benj.

  Denny, Colonel

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Groves, James Grimble

  Bignold, Arthur

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Bigwood, James

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord G. (Mid' x

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Darning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

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

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Butcher, John George

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Cautley, Henry Strother

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

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Cavendish, V. C.W.(Derbyshire

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Howard, Jno. (Kent, Farersham

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tott'ham

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Jeffreys, Rt. Fin. Arthur Fred

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon J. (Birm

  Flower, Ernest

  Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Wore

  Forster, Henry William

  Johnstone, Heywood

  Kemp, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Kenyon, Hon. G. T. (Denbigh

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Stroyan, John

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow

  Pease, H. Pike (Darlington)

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Lawrence, Sir Jos. (Monm'th)

  Peel, Hn. Wm. R. Wellesley

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Lee, A. H. (Hants., Farcham)

  Percy, Earl

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

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Leveson-Gower, Fredk. N. S.

  Pilkington, Colonel Richar

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Lodor, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Valentia, Viscount

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Vincent, Col. Sir C. EH (Sheffield

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Purvis, Robert

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H

  Lowe, Francis William

  Rattigan, Sir William Henry

  Webb, Col. William George

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmonth

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Whiteley, H (Ashton-End-Lyne

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  Wills, Sir Frederick

  M' Killop, James (Stirlingshire

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert.

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

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

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Wilson-Todd, W. H. (Yorks.)

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

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

  Mitchell, William (Burnley)

  Sadler, Col. Saml. Alexander

  Worsley-Taylor, Hry. Wilson

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Saunderson, Rt. Hn. E. J.

  Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart

  Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.)

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

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

  Wylie, Alexander

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Wyndham Quin, Major W. H.

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Sloan, Thomas Henry.

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East

  TELLERS FOR THIS AYES—

  Mowbray, Sir Robt. Gray C.

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks

  Sir Alexander Acland Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

  Murray, Rt. Hn A. Graham (Bute

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

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Stanley, Edward, Jas.(Somerset)

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath

  Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)

  NOES

  Allen, Charles P. (Glonc., Strond

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Pearson. Sir Weetman D.

  Barlow, John Emmett

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Price, Robert John

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Rea, Russell

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Joicey, Sir James

  Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries

  Brigg, John

  Jones, David, B. (Swansea)

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

  Runciman, Walter

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Joyce, Michael

  Russell, T. W.

  Burt, Thomas

  Kearley, Hodson E.

  Shaw, Thomas(Hawick. B

  Caldwell, James

  Kilbride, Denis

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Cameron, Robert

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Cawley, Frederick

  Leamy, Edmund

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Spencer, Rt. Hn C.R. (Northants

  Cremer, William Randal

  Lloyd-George, David

  Sullivan, Donal

  Delany, William

  Lundon, W.

  Taylor, Theo. C. (Radcliffe)

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Thottlas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Thomas, F. Freeman (Hastings)

  Doogan, P. C.

  M`Laren, Sir Charles Benj.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Wason, E. (Clackmannan)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

  Ferguson. R. C. Munro (Leith

  Moss, Samuel

  Weir, James Galloway

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Nolap, Joseph (Louth, South)

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Whiteley, G. (York, W. R.)

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

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

  Griffith, Ellis J.

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

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

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

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Hayne, Hon. Charles Seale-

  O'Mara, James

  Mr. Joseph Devlin and Mr. Whitley.

  Hayter, Rt. Hon Sir Arthur D.

  Partington, Oswald

  Question putt accordingly.
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 76; Noes, 183. (Division List No. 199.)

  AYES

  Allen, Chas. P. (Glos,. Stroud)

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Cremer, William Randal

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Burt, Thomas

  Delany, William

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Caldwell, James

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway)

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Cameron, Robert

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

  Brigg, John

  Cawley, Frederick

  Doogan, P. C.

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Fenwick, Charles

  Lloyd-George, David

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Fitzinaurice, Lord Edmund

  Lundon, W.

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Spencer, Rt. Hn. C.R. (North'nts

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall

  Sullivan, Donal

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  M'Laren, Sir Charles Benj.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe

  Harwood, George

  Moss, Samuel

  Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, S.)

  Thomas, F. Freeman (Hastings

  Hayter, Rt. Hon Sir Arthur D.

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Helme, Norval Watson

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Wason, J. Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

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

  Wason, J. Cathcart (Orkney)

  Holland, Sir William Henry

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

  Weir, James Galloway

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Partington, Oswald

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Joicey, Sir James

  Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Jones, David Brynmor(Swans'a

  Price, Robert John

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Joyce, Michael

  Rea, Russell

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

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Kilbride, Denis

  Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwell

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Sir Brampton Gurdon and Mr. Markham.

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Runciman, Walter

  Leamy, Edmund

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.)

  NOES

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Long, Rt. Hn Walter(Bristols, S.

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Fellowes, Hon. Alwyn Ed.

  Lowe, Francis William

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Ferqusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Man'r

  Lucas, Reg'ld J. (Portsmouth)

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  M' Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Fisher, William Hayes

  M'Killop, Jas. (Stirlingshire)

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manir

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Majendie, James A. H.

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

  Flower, Ernest

  Maxwell Rt. Hn. Sir H. E.(Wigfn

  Balfour, Kenneth R.(Christch.)

  Forster, Henry William

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Foster, P. S. (Warwick, S. W.

  Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Fyler, John Arthur

  Mitchell, William (Burnley)

  Bignold, Arthur

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

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Bigwood, James

  Gibbs, Hn. Vicary (St. Albans

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Bill, Charles

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Gore, Hn. S. F. Ormsby (Linc

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Goschen, Hon. Geo. Joachim

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Murry, Rt. Hn A. Graham(Bute

  Butcher, John George

  Greene, Hy, D. ( Shrewsbury)

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Gretton, John

  Murray, Col Wyndham (Bath)

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Cavendish, V C W (Derbysh.)

  Groves, James Grimble

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Pease, H. Pike (Darlington)

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Hamillon, Rt. Hn Lord G (Middx.

  Peel, Hn. Wm. R. Wellesley

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon J (Birm

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Percy, Earl

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J A (Worc

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Chamberlayne, T. (South'mpt'n

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Chaplin, Right Hon. Henry

  Hay, Hon Claude George

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Chapman, Edward

  Henderson, Sir A.(Stafford. W.)

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Charrington, Spencer

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Hoare. Sir Samuel

  Purvis, Robert

  Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E.

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Rattigan, Sir William Henry

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Howard, Jno (Kent. Faver'hm

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tott'ham

  Remnant Jas. Farquharson

  Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasg.)

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. C. Thomson

  Corbett. T. L. (Down. North)

  Johnstone, Heywood

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Kemp, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Russell, T. W.

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Kenyon, Hon. G. T. (Denbigh

  Rutherford, John (Laneashire

  Denny, Colonel

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Sackville, col. S G. Stopford-

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Lawrence, Sir Jos. (Monm'th)

  Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col. E. J.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Lee, A. H. (Hants, Farehum)

  Seely, Chas, Hilton (Lincoln)

  Doxford, Sir Wm. Theodore

  Legge, Col. Hen. Heneage

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

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Leveson Gower, Fredrick N.S.

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  984

  985

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Wodehouse, Rt. Hn E R. (Bath

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Worsley Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.)

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

  Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

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

  Vincent, Col Sir C. E. H(Sheffield

  Wylie, Alexander

  Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)

  Webb, Col. William George

  Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Whiteley, H.(Ashton-u.-Lyne)

  Stroyan, John

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES —Sir

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Wills, Sir Frederick

  Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

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

  Wilson-Todd, Sir W. H. (Yorks)

  Whereupon MR. SECRETARY CHAMBERLAIN claimed, "That the Original Question be now put."
  Original Question put accordingly.
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 184; Noes, 74. (Division List No. 200.)

  AYES

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Allhusen, Aug. Henry Eden

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Lowe, Francis William

  Anson, Sir William Keynell

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Ed.

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

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

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire

  Batley, James (Walworth)

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Flower, Ernest

  Mitchell, Ed W. (Fermanagh, N.

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

  Forster, Henry William

  Mitchell, William (Burnley)

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

  Foster, P. S. (Warwick, S. W.

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch

  Fyler, John Arthur

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

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

  Morgan, David J (Walthamstow

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Gibbs, Hn. Vicary (St. Albans

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Bignold, Arthur

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Bigwood, James

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Bill, Charles

  Gore, Hn. S. F. Ormsby- (Linc

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Eldon

  Murray, Rt. Hn A. Graham (Bute

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Goschen, Hon. Geo. Joachim

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Greene, Hy. D. (Shrewsbury)

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Gretton, John

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Butcher, John George

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Corson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Groves, James Grimble

  Pease, H. Pike (Darlington)

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Peel, Hn. Wm. R. Wellesley

  Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Percy, Earl

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Ld G (Midlx

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J.(Birm.

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J A (Worc

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Chamberlayne, T. (Southmptn

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Pryce-Jones, Le-Col. Edward

  Chaplin, Right Hon. Henry

  Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.)

  Purvis, Robert

  Chapman, Edward

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Rattigan, Sir William Henry

  Charrington, Spencer

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Reed, Sir Edw. James (Cardiff)

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Houston, Robert, Paterson

  Remnant, Jas. Farquharson

  Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

  Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tottham

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred

  Russell, T. W.

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasg.)

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Johnstone, Heywood

  Sickville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Kemp, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Crossley, Rt. Hn. Sir Savile

  Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

  Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col. E. J.

  Denny, Colonel

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Seely, Chas. Hilton (Lincoln)

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Law, Andrew Bonar(Glasgow)

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

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Lawrence, Sir Jos. (Monm'th)

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Doughty, George

  Lee, A. H. (Hants, Fareham)

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. Akers

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Doxford, Sir Wm. Theodore

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.

  Smith Abel H. (Hertford, East

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

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

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

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol S.

  Stanley, Ed. Jas. (Somerset)

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Vincent, Col. Sir C.EH (Sheffield

  Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir Win. H.

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Stroyan, John

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Wylie, Alexander

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Whiteley, H.(Ashton and Lyne

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Wills, Sir Frederick

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

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  TELLEES FOR THE AYES—

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Wilson Todd, Sir W. H. (Yorks.

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

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

  Valentia, Viscount

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  NOES

  Allen, Chas. P. (Glouc., Stroud

  Hayter, Rt. Hon Sir Arthur D.

  Price, Robert John

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Rea, Russell

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Henderson, Authur (Durham)

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries

  Brigg, John

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Joicey, Sir James

  Runciman, Walter

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Jones, David Brynmor(Swansea

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.)

  Burt, Thomas

  Joyce, Michael

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Caldwell, James

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Cameron, Robert

  Kilbride, Denis

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Cawley, Frederick

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall

  Spencer, Rt. Hn. CR. (Northants

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Sullivan, Donal

  Cremer, William Randal

  Leamy, Edmund

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe

  Delany, William

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

  Lundon, W.

  Thomas, F. Freeman (Hastings

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Wason, Eugene(Clackmannan

  Doogan, P. C.

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Wason J. Cathcart (Orkney)

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  M'Laren, Sir Charles Benj.

  Weir, James Galloway

  Fenwick, Charles

  Moss, Samuel

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmund

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, S.)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

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

  Griffith, Ellis J.

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

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

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

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Harwood, George

  Partington, Oswald

  Mr. Markham and Mr. Thomas Bayley.

  Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale-

  Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

  Resolution agreed to.

EVENING SITTING

  STANDING ORDERS.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Mr. J. W. LOWTHER, Cumberland, Penrith)said the period of the session had arrived when the House should consider the Standing Orders for private business, and to make such alterations in them as might be necessary. The list of Amendments which appeared on the Paper was a long one, but he thought there was nothing controversial in it, or anything that need detain the House Last year a Committee was appointed to consider this question with a view to such alteration of the Standing Orders as might be desirable in the interests of efficiency, economy, and general convenience that Committee had made a great many recommendations and the Amendments which he had put down on the Paper were to
  988
  carry out some of those recommendations. Others it was impossible to carry out without legislation. He thought the better way would be to make a short explanatory statement with regard to each Amendment before the Question was put from the Chair. He moved to amend Standing Order 29 in order to provide that in parishes which had no parish council the promoters of any Bill affecting matters within the parish should deposit such plans as might be required by Standing Orders with the chairman of the parish meeting, in order that he might be informed as to how his parish might be affected.
  LORD EDMUND FITZMAURICE,: Thought that this would be a great improvement to small parishes, which at the present time were put to great disadvantage in regard to Private Bills At the same time he moved that the best plan would be to get these

  989
  small parishes to merge with their larger neighbours. He supported the Amendment.
  Standing Order 29, relating to Private Business, read, and amended, "in paragraph (D), by inserting in line 2, after the words 'Parish Council,' the words 'with the chairman of the parish meeting and.'"—(The Chairman of ways and Means.)
  MR. J. W. LOWTHERsaid the next Amendment was destined to carry out the recommendations of the Committee to substitute December 17 for December 21 as the date for depositing Petitions for Private Bills in the House. He said December 17 was the date in the House of Lords.
  MR. WHITLEYsaw no reason why the date for the House of Commons and for the House of Lords should not he the same, but suggested that it would be perhaps better to make the date the 21st. There was a great difficulty very often in getting municipal Bills ready as early as the 17th. The elections took place on the 1st November and the councils met for the first time on the 9th, and the right hon. Gentleman would quite appreciate the fact that the Committees had to be got into working order, and it was very often difficult to get a Bill ready by the 17th. Of course he would not pres, the matter against the convenience of the public departments, but municipal corporations promoted a great many Bills in this House, and he thought this small advantage should be given them.
  SIR CHARLES RENSHAWexpressed surprise at the view taken by the Member opposite, who seemed to forget that notice of all these Bills had to be given in the month of November. The date they proposed to fix now did not, therefore, affect the question, so far as the municipality was concerned, of the elections or the duties of the Committees. He believed the proposed Amendment would have a most beneficial effect.
  Standing Order 32 read, and amended, "in line 5, by leaving out the word '21st,' and inserting the word '17th.'"—(The Chairman of ways and Means.)
  MR. J. W. LOWTHERsaid the next Amendment was designed, like the last, to get the promoters to get on with their
  990
  work. The object was to compel promoters of Bills to hold the Wharncliffe meeting within a reasonable period after the First Reading of the Bill. He hoped the result would be that the Committees would be able to commence work at an earlier period of the session than had been the case hitherto.
  Standing Order 62 read, and amended, "in line 2, by leaving out the words 'after the first reading thereof,' and inserting the words within live weeks of the date on 'which the Petition for the same was endorsed by the Examiner.'"—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)
  MR. J. W. LOWTHERsaid the next three Amendments were really only in order to bring the Standing Orders into accordance with the existing course of procedure. If accepted it would permit the counsel for Mr. Speaker to take counsel with the learned Chairman and his counsel as to the division of the Bills. They had also defined a date, the 28th, January, for the drawing of Bills which had hitherto taken place on the first day of the session.
  Standing order 79 read, and amended, "in line 1, after the word 'Means,' by inserting the words 'or the Counsel to Mr. Speaker,' and by leaving out the words the commencement of each session,' and inserting the words on or before the 28th day of January in each year.'"—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)
  "In line 3, by inserting after the word 'Lords,' the words 'or with his Counsel.'"—(The Chairman of Ways and Means)
  MR. J. W. LOWTHERsaid the next Amendment carried the recommendation of the Committee, and designed to slightly reconstruct the Court of Referees. Under the present order the number of the Court of Referees was three. Mr. Speaker as a fact appointed seven, and this proposal was to bring the Standing Orders in accordance with the facts.
  MR. WHITLEYasked, under this proposal were the duties to be divided Would the same persons as were on the Board of Referees be on the unopposed Bill Committee, and, if so, what distinction would be drawn before the Board?
  MR. J. W. LOWTHER,by leave of the House, explained that the duties of the Board of Referees and the Committe of unopposed Private Bills were not identical. The Referees appointed by Mr. Speaker were gentlemen of great

  991
  legal ability, who considered strict questions of law, and all this amendment proposed was to enlarge the Court of Referees chiefly because in the past there had been difficulty in obtaining a quorum. The new proposal with regard to the Committee on unopposed Bills was this. At the present moment, whenever the Committee was set up by the Standing Order it had to consist of the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Member whose name was on the back of the Bill, and a Member who had no interest in the matter. He had considered the recommendation of the Committee on the matter, and had thought it best to have a panel to select from. He had consulted the Chairman of the Committee of Selection on the subject, who first seemed to think it would not be possible, but subsequently came to the conclusion that it would be possible to form a panel, especially if hon. gentlemen now serving as referees would consent, if asked, to serve on the Unopposed Bill Committee.
  "Standing Order 87, read and repealed, Ordered that the Chairman of Ways and Means, and the Deputy Chairman, with not less than seven other persons, who shall be Members of this House, and shall be appointed by Mr. Speaker for such periods as he shall think fit, shall be Referees of the house on Private Bills, and shall have the assistance Of the Counsel to Mr. Speaker; such Referees to form one or more Courts, three at least to be required to constitute each Court."—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)
  Ordered, That this Order be a Standing Order of this House.
  Mr. J. W. LOWTHERsaid the next Amendment was simply to bring the Standing Order in accord with the fact. He begged to move.
  Standing Order 98 read and amended, "In line 3, by leaving out the word 'seven' and inserting the word 'ten.'"—(The Chairman of Ways and Means )
  MR. J. W. LOWTHER: The next he had already explained in reply to the hon. Member for Halifax.
  MR. WHITLEYagreed that it was extremely desirable to improve the method of dealing with unopposed standing Bills. All he desired to suggest was that some method should be found to co-ordinate the work. It would be unfortunate if the Police and Sanitary
  992
  Committee and the Unopposed Bill Committee worked on different lines.
  MR. J. W. LOWTHER said: Any unopposed Bill having police and sanitary clauses would go of course to the Police and Sanitary Committee. It was not intended to interfere with that. He quite agreed that the practice in these matters should be uniform.
  Standing Order 109 read and amended, "In line 2, by leaving out from the word 'them,' to the end of the Standing Order, and inserting 'to the Committee on Unopposed Bills, which shall be composed of five Members, namely, the Chairman of Ways and Means (who when present shall be ex-officio Chairman of every such Committee), the Deputy Chairman, two Members from time to time selected by the Chairman of Ways and Means from a panel to be appointed by the Committee of Selection at the commencement of every session, and counsel to Mr. Speaker, and three shall be the quorum thereof.'"—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)
  MR. J. W. LOWTHERsaid the next Amendment was to leave out a Standing Order dealing with road Bills, which did not now exist, and which would therefore become obsolete.
  Standing Order 110, read, and repealed.—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)
  MR. J. W. LOWTHERsaid the next was a novel one; the idea was that they might save a little time by compelling all petitions to be deposited on or before 12th February.
  Standing Order 129, real and amended, "In line 6, by leaving out the words, not later than ten clear days after the First Reading of such and inserting the words 'on or before the 12th day of February,' and at the end of the Standing Order to add the words, Provided that in the case of, (a) any Bill brought from the Howe of Lords; and (b) any Bill as to which compliance with the Standing Order as to the time for depositing the Bill has been dispensed with; and (c) any Bill promoted by the London County Council introduced under Standing Order 194; a petition against the Bill may be deposited at any time not later than ten clear days after the First Beading of the Bill.'"—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)
  MR. J. W. LOWTHERsaid the next Amendment was also a new proposal, recommended by the Select Committee last year in order to obviate a difficulty in which they found them, selves. It was a case in which a question arose as to the rates charged for

  993
  the carriage or, bicycles, and the Cyclists' Touring Club presented a petition on the ground that the rate was much too high. Their locus standi was objected to, and the Court of Referees decided that they had no power to give there one, because they were neither a chamber of commerce, nor a chamber of agriculture nor any similar body. Seeing that the Cyeclists' Touring Club represented cyclists generally, the decision was very hard upon them, but in fact their position was subsequently justified by the action of the House in striking out the excessive rates complained of and putting in reasonable ones. He begged to move.
  SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid there had been private Bills before the House in which bodies representing in some cases employers and in other eases employed had some distinct interest, but had not found it possible to be represented, and such cases had been dealt, with by an Amendment of Standing Orders. That had been done in the case o' the mines, but it had not been possible to do it in the case of the textile employers and employees of Lancashire, and he would suggest whether words could not be inserted to enable the representation of employers or employed in any particular trade. This matter had been considered by the Speaker's counsel, who wits, he thought, somewhat, favourable to some such alteration.
  MR. J. W. LOWTHERhoped the right hon. Gentleman would not move an Amendment. The point was a controversial one, and he had deliberately refrained from raising it on this occasion. It ought to be on the Paper some little time in order to give those interested an opportunity of studying it.
  SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid he felt the force of the appeal, but he had pointed out a case of hardship which ought to be deal with. It was a case rather for the textile representatives, and he would not therefore move an Amendment.
  MR. BRYCEhoped that when the question of amending 123 B came on, the Chairman of the Committee would
  994
  consider the question of allowing persons not pecuniarily interested to represent certain phases of public policy on which they were entitled to be heard by reason of their experience and position.
  Standing Order 133A read, and amended, in line 1, by leaving out the words 'Where a chamber of commerce or agriculture or other similar body, sufficiently representing a particular trade or business,' and inserting the words Where any body of persons corporate or incorporate sufficiently representing a particular trade, business, or interest.'"—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)
  "In line 4, by leaving out the words 'or business,' and inserting the words 'business or interest.'" (The Chairman of Ways and Means.)
  MR. J. W. LOWTHERsaid the next Amendment had been pressed on him by the Chairman of the County Council of the West Riding of Yorkshire, and its object was to give the Joint Committee of a Council the right to be heard.
  Standing Order 134B read, and amended, in line 3, by inserting after the word 'Borough,' the words being a Joint Committee of Councils of administrative counties or County Boroughs.'"—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)
  MR J. W. LOWTHERsaid the object of the next Amendment was to carry out a recommendation of the Select Committee enabling a person in the occupation of a house in a street at right angles or in the immediate vicinity of a street when it was proposed to lay a tramway to have a locus standi and to appear.
  Standing Order 135 read.
  Amendment proposed
  "In lines 1 and 2, to leave out the words 'in any street,' and insert 'situate in or having its access materially dependent on any street or road.'"—(The Chairman of Ways and means.)
  Question proposed, "That the word proposed to be left out stand part of the Standing Order."
  Mr. WHITLEYhoped the Amendment would not pressed. Petitioners who had only a vague interest might use their powers against the promoters for the sold purpose of blackmail. It would be a very dangerous thing to enlarge the sphere of objection frontages in that vague way.

  995
  It would lead to considerably increased expense. He hoped the right hon. Gentlemen would reconsider the matter.
  Mr. J. W. LOWTHERsaid he was not aware the Amendment would meet with opposition, and under the circumstances he would not press it. He held that the referees should have power to determine whether petitions from round-the-corner petitioners should have a locus standi, but he was not prepared to frame the words on the spur of the moment, and he would see if later on he could bring it up in an amended form.
  "Standing Order 137 read and repealed."—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)
  Mr. WHITLEYsaid be was in favour of this Amendment, but he feared that the wording would exclude from its operation municipal Bills where the promoters supplied themselves as well as other persons.
  Mr. J. W. LOWTHLERsaid the point had been carefully considered by the Board of Trade, and he did not think there would be any difficulty such as the hon. Member seemed to fear.
  LORD EDMUND FITZMAURICEthought the words were on the whole sufficient. This was one of the most important and valuable changes proposed, because these Electric Power Bills were increasing in number, and many difficult points had had to be dealt with in the past year. The clause would save a great deal of expense.
  "Ordered, That in the ease of any Bill relating to the generation of electricity for supply to persons or bodies other than the promoters, the Bill shall not be reported by the Committee until a Report from the Board of Trade on the powers sought has been laid before the Committee; and the Committee shall report specially to the House in what manlier the recommendations or observations in the Report of the Board of Trade, and also in what manner the Clauses of the Bill relating to the powers sought, have been dealt with by the Committee."—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)
  "Ordered, That this Order be a Standing Order of this House."
  MR. J. W. LOWTHERsaid the next Amendment might almost be called a consequential Amendment. It would save
  996
  the necessity of sending a Bill twice before the Examiners.
  "Standing Order 193 read, and amended in line 2, by leaving out the words 'first presented, which shall have been duly,' and inserting words 'which shall be.'"
  "In line 3, by leaving out the words 'and indorsed by one of the Examiners.'"—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)
  MB. J. W. LOWTHERsaid this next Amendment dealt with the date before which Provisional Orders must be read a first time. At present it was fixed for the 1st June, but it sometimes happened if Whitsuntide occurred before that, to be necessary to suspend Standing Orders in order to pass a Bill. This would obviate that necessity.
  SIR WILLIAM TOMLINSONsuggested that it would he less ambiguous to provide that the First Reading should take place before the House rose for the Whitsuntide recess.
  MR. J. W. LOWTHERdissented, and said Whitsuntide was a date which anyone could discover by looking at the calendar.
  Mr. WHITLEYhoped the Treasury would be induced to apply a similar provision to Money Bills.
  "Standing Order 193xA read, and amended at end by leaving out the words the 1st day of June,' and inserting the word Whitsuntide.'"—( The Chairman of Ways and of Means.)
  Ordered, That all Private Bills shall on the day previous to the day fixed for their being laid upon the Table of the House he deposited in the Private Bill Office, and shall be laid by one of the Clerks of that Office on the Table of the House, together with a list of such Bills."—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)
  "Ordered, That this Order be a Standing Order of this House."
  "Ordered, That where the Examiner has endorsed the Petition for a Private Bill Standing Orders complied the Bill shall be presented by being laid upon the Table of the House not later than one clear day after such endorsement, or if when it is endorsed the House is not sitting, then not later than one clear day after the first sitting thereof subsequent to such endorsement, and if the House is not sitting on the latest day on which the Bill ought to be laid upon the Table of the House, then the Bill shall be so laid on the first day on which the House again sits. Where the Examiner has reported respect to any Private Bill that the Standing Orders have not been complied with, and the Report has been referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders, and the Select

  997
  Committee on Standing Orders have reported that the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with, the Bill shall be presented by being laid upon the Table of the House not later than one clear day after the House has given leave to the parties to proceed with the Bill."—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)
  "Ordered, That, this Order be a Standing Order of this House."
  "Ordered, That a Private Bill shall, when laid on the Table of the House, be deemed to have been read a first, time and ordered to he read a second time, or referred to the Examiners, as the case may be, on the day On which it is so laid, and shall be recorded in the Votes as having been so read."—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)
  "Ordered, That this Order be a Standing Order of this House."
  "Standing Orders 195, 196, and 197 read, and repealeild."—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)
  MR. J. W. LOWTHERsaid the idea of the next Amendment was to enable the Committee upstairs to divide any Bill into two Bills, and separate the opposed from the unopposed Orders. The Committee would then be able to send down to the House the unopposed parts, and could then proceed without any further delay with the consideration of the opposed parts upstairs. That seemed to him to be a very convenient plan to pursue with regard to Provisional Orders. In the group of Provisional Orders contained in one Bill, some of them might be heavily contentious and the rest unopposed, and it seemed a hard fate for the unopposed Orders to have to wait for a considerable time while discussion was taking place with regard to the opposed Orders.
  Standing Order 208A read, and amended, by "adding at end the words 'and may, if they think fit, divide the Bill into two Bills, dealing with the opposed and unopposed Orders or Certificates respectively and report the same separately.'"—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)
  MR. J. W. LOWTHERsaid that with regard to the other Amendments on the Paper, he had satisfied himself that they were merely consequential, and he thought that they might be put as a single Question from the Chair.
  Standing Order 33 read, and amended "in line 1, by leaving out the word '21st,' and inserting the word 18th.'"
  Standing Order 34 read, and amended "in line 1, by leaving out the word '21st,' and inserting the word 18th.'"
  998
  Standing Order 63 read, and amended "in lines 4 and 5, by leaving out the words 'after the First Reading thereof be referred,' and inserting the words within five weeks of the date on which the Petition for the same was indorsed by the Examiner be referred again.'"
  Standing Order 66 read, and amended "in line 1, by inserting after the word (Bill),' the words (originating in this House either as).'"
  "In line 9, by leaving out the words 'before the Second Reading in this House,' and inserting the words within five weeks of the date on which the Petition for the same was indorsed by the Examiner.'"
  Standing Order 67 read, and amended, "in line 4, by leaving out the words after the First' Reading, thereof be referred,' and Inserting the words within five weeks of the date on which the Petition for the same was indorsed by the Examiner be referred again.'"
  Standing Order 84 read, and amended, "in line 7, by leaving out the words '33a and 60A,' and inserting the words '34A.,' and by leaving out the word '21st,' and inserting the word '18th.'"
  Standing Order 92 read, and amended, "in lines 3 and 4, by leaving out the words (and after the Petition for the Bill shall have been duly presented).'"
  Standing Order 104 read, and repealed, Ordered, "That the General Committee Oil Railway and Canal Bills shall refer every unopposed Railway or Canal Bill to the Committee on Unopposed Bills."
  Ordered, "That this Order be a Standing Order of this House."
  Standing Order 107 read, and amended, "In line 2, by leaving out the words 'not later than ten clear days after the First Reading thereof,' and inserting the words within the Omtime appointed by Standing Order 129.'"
  Standing Order 194B read, and amended "in line 10, by leaving out the word '21st,' and inserting the word '17th.'"
  " In line 17, by leaving out the words 'The Petition for the Bill may be presented forthwith and.'"
  "In line 18, by inserting after the word '(shall),' the Words as soon as may be after the deposit of the Petition.'"
  "In lines 18 and 19, by leaving out the words, not later than the second sitting day after the presentation of the Petition.'"
  Standing Order 210 read, and amended, "In line 2, by leaving out the words, 'Not later than ten clear days after the First Reading of such Bill,' and inserting the words Within the required time.'"
  Standing Order 230 read and amended, "In line 3, by leaving out the word, '21st,' and inserting the word, 17th.'"
  "In line 11, by leaving out the Word, '21st,' and inserting the word, '17th.'"
  Table of Fees read, and amended—
  "In line 5, by leaving out the words, 'the Petition for.'"
  "In line 12, by leaving out the word, Petition,' and inserting the word, 'presentation"—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)
  Standing Orders, as amended, to be printed. [No 298.]

  SUPPLY.— [20TH ALLOTTED DAY.]
  Considered in Committee:—
  (In the Committee.)
  Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith), in the Chair.]

  CLASS V.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £284,780, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1904, for the expenses in connection with His Majesty's Embassies, Missions, and Consular Establishments abroad, and other expenditure chargeable to the Consular Vote."
  MR. BRYCEsaid he desired to call attention to the report of the Committee appointed to inquire into the constitution of the consular service abroad, and he desired to ask the Government what course they proposed to take in reference to the report of that Committee. The condition of the consular service had been a subject of frequent debate in the House of Commons for a long time, not only among hon. Members representing the commercial classes, but also the service Members. Great interest had also been taken in the matter by the general public. Most of them felt that the condition of the consular service was very unsatisfactory, and required to be brought up to the level of a regular branch of the service. He agreed that there were a great many aide and zealous men amongst their consuls abroad. Everyone who had travelled often had felt when he went to a foreign town and called upon His Majesty's consul that he learned more in a short conversation with the British consul than he would have found out by long observation on his own part with regard to the commercial condition of the country in which he might be tr velling. A great many of the consular reports contained information valuable to commercial men, which shed a great deal of light upon the economic conditions of the countries concerned. But having said that they must also agree that those merits were not universal, and not so general as they might be, and consequently there were
  1000
  real grounds for the complaints that had been made. Those complaints might be summed up under two heads. In the first place there was far too much of the element of mere patronage in appointing consuls; and in the second place far too much patronage in regard to promotion. A man was often put into the consular service without any recommendation, and it frequently happened that his progress in the service was more rapid than in the case of men of longer standing and more eminent service. He had known cases of excellent consuls who had devoted themselves with great, zeal to the duties of their office, but who had failed to receive that recognition to which they were justly entitled.
  The other complaint was with regard to the necessity for special knowledge commercially amongst the consuls. Sometimes commercial men made inordinate demands upon the consuls, and they thought they ought to do nothing else but push British goods and offer unlimited hospitality to British merchants. Considering the kind of position they must occupy and the dignity which belonged to consuls as representing the Crown, it was plain that they could not expect them to devote the whole of their time to merely commercial duties. At the same time it was quite true that a great deal might be done which in times past had not been done to give the latest and the most up-to-date commercial intelligence which a man with commercial experience who knew the ropes was best able to give. Therefore, he agreed that something more ought to he done than heretofore had been done. If this work was to be done properly one of two things must happen: either they must be very carefully selected from the commercial community, or else there must be something like a prescribed course of knowledge for the consular office for which a, period of commercial training must he prescribed in order to qualify persons for these appointments. The Committee say—
  "In our opinion the general consular service, as it at present exists, offers no attraction to capable young men. It is not a properly constituted or graded public service, and offers no definite prospect of promotion to those who enter it, for men who are new to the service may be given appointments over the heads of others who have been there for years before them."

  1001
  I think that presents in a summary form their condemnation of the existing system. What, therefore, was it that was wanted to create a proper consular service? In the first place it should be a regular service and an open service. It should be also recognised as a distinct branch of the public service, with its own rules, and it ought to be an open service in this sense, that there ought to be competition to secure the proper capacity and special knowledge of those who entered the service. The Committee recommended limited competition, and also that the service ought to be one in which both promotion and entrance should be by merit. He would not say that promotion ought to be always according to seniority, because while seniority ought to be regarded there ought to be a power of advancing a capable man where he had given exceptional proof of his capacity. There ought to be some proof of competence and some evidence that those appointed had the necessary capacity needed for the particular country to which they were going to be sent. Although in nineteen out of twenty cases the principal duties were commercial, they were not always commercial duties to the same extent, for at some consulates there were political duties as well. The recommendations of the Committee went a long way to meet the difficulties complained of and would carry out the amendments required. The recommendations of the Committee were—
  "That the present system of nomination and age limits for the general consular service should be abolished; that admission into that service should be by limited competition; and that the age for admission should be from 22 to 27. These limits will enable candidates to compete who have had both a university and a commercial training. At the same time, power should be reserved to the Secretary of State to appoint any person, regardless of age limit, to one of the higher posts for which special qualifications may be required; but such appointments should be rare, as in the diplomatic service, and should only be made in exceptional circumstances, and when they are clearly in the public interest, so as to avoid lessening the attractions of the service, and blocking the promotion of deserving officers.'"
  That was a recommendation which he thought would generally commend itself to the Committee. Where the ordinary rules were passed over under the power reserved to the Secretary of State to
  1002
  appoint a person regardless of age limit, a memorandum or some other official note should be made of the fact, which could, if necessary, be reported to Parliament, regarding the special services and stating the grounds on which the appointment had been made. He thought that would prevent any abuse of the power. The Committee went on to discuss the way in which this should be secured. They state:—
  "In view of this fact, the Committee consider that the interest s of British trade abroad would be advanced if consuls had a business training which would quality them to forward and safeguard, and, at the same time, incline them to sympathise with the interests of British merchants. Consular officers must, indeed, have the qualifications necessary to enable them to discharge efficiently their other consular duties, but the Committee believe the latter qualifications to be in no way incompatible with the former. On the contrary, they think that a business training of a few years will be of material assistance to these officers in performing their duties generally. The Committee suggest that great advantage would result if young men trained in commercial houses for four or five years could be induced to enter the consular service."
  Those were valuable suggestions, which showed that the Committee recognised the wishes of the commercial community. He saw, however, a difficulty in giving effect to the proposal for four or five years' training in commercial houses, because it was clear that those who entered in an ordinary way might not in the course of four or five years, or at the age the Committee specified, have got to a sufficiently high position in that par titular house to be able to acquire the kind of knowledge of commerce which a consul ought to possess. He thought that point required some little further consideration. They wanted men not only familiar with the ordinary routine of commercial business, but they should be in a position in commercial houses to obtain experience of the larger questions of commerce, and the theory of commercial operations, and they should have a pretty wide experience of the way foreign business was done. A mere experience in a commercial house extending over four or five years would not give the practical knowledge which the Committee desired. The Committee recommended also—
  "That a proportion of the nominations for the suggested limited competition should be given to young men who have received a good commercial training. The applicants should be

  1003
  required to satisfy the Secretary of State before they receive nominations that they have had a liberal education: that they have had a commercial training of four or live years, and that they are in other respects from their previous history likely to be qualified and suitable for the consular service."
  The Committee proceeded to discuss the subjects of examination and the important question of salaries. He noticed that the salaries showed a slight increase on the total expense, but that was not a matter which need deter the House from adopting the recommendations of the Commission. Although one was loth in these days to make any suggestions except in the interests of economy, he thought they might, with great advantage, increase the number of their consuls. It had been a great advantage in the case of the appointment of the new commercial attachés, whose range of operations were wider than the commercial consuls, who travelled about through the countries, and were able to present reports upon the commercial conditions of the country, which were of more use to commercial men at home than a report from any particular place. He believed that the result would amply justify the expense, and he thought they might with advantage appoint more consuls in places where they had none at present. The Committee recommended that the system of obtaining unpaid consuls in many large cities should be maintained. Those who disparaged unpaid consuls did not know what was the alternative. If they had paid consuls in all these places they would add very greatly to the cost the country would be put to. If they had no unpaid consuls they would lose the services of a number of capable men who possessed knowledge of the commercial conditions of the country, and who were able to give valuable information. Therefore, he believed that where considerations of economy made it impossible to establish paid consuls they ought to endeavour to find competent men and retain the unpaid consuls. He had touched only the outlines of this subject, but he hoped the recommendations of the Committee would induce the Foreign Office to take some action in regard to this Report. He asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he might entertain the hope that the Foreign Office, recognising the importance of the subject, would deal with the matter promptly and in
  1004
  accordance with the suggestions the Committee had made.
  SIR ALBERT ROLLITsaid he thought the Committee generally would concur in the remarks made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberdeen. He did not remember whether the right hon. Gentleman was at the Foreign Office during Lord Rosebery's administration, but he thought credit should be given to Lord Rosebery for the revised consular instructions drawn up at that time, which had been a great improvement, and had contributed very much to the more efficient administration of the consular service. It would be greatly to the commercial advantage of the country if more adequate remuneration were given to the consuls, and if their numbers were increased. He did not think there was any Vote in the Estimates which demanded more careful consideration than this one. There was a general decrease in the Vote, but there were some increases, of which he did not complain. There was an increase of £3,000 in the salaries, and he thought that whatever might be said about salaries generally, and the opportunity of getting with advantage unpaid services., in many cases the remuneration of their consuls was absolutely inadequate, and this did not con tribute to the proper performance of the very responsible duties committed to a consul.
  He hoped that this decrease did not mean a decrease in their mobility. On the contrary, we should encourage inquiries in the surrounding districts. He found also that there was a decrease for special missions and services of so large an amount as £9,000. These special missions, services and reports were what we wanted most, in view of what was being done by other nations. He hoped the decrease did not mean any starving of that branch in the future, and yet he was inclined to think that it might be so. He did not hesitate for a moment to say that our trade as a general rule in those districts was decreasing, and he thought that it was simply worthy of more attention than it had received. At this moment he was informed, on the best authority, that a treaty of commerce was being negotiated between Germany and

  1005
  Roumania. A similar treaty was negotiated a few years ago with Russia, and since then undoubtedly our trade had been materially affected. He was informed that at present there were really no adequate means at Bucharest for the purpose of looking.into these matters, and, what was still more singular, Roumania was outside the sphere of any of our commercial attacheés, so that if his information, which came from a London Chamber of Commerce, were correct, we were isolated. Special attention should be given to the negotiations proceeding with Germany. He hoped the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs would he able to give the Committee some assurance that that was being done. He expressed the hope that the noble Lord would take steps to have a special commissioner despatched in order that our commercial relations with Roumania should have the closest and most watchful attention. The right hon. Gentleman had referred to the system of appointments by patronage. That system was by no means over. He admitted that there had been considerable improvement, but the noble Lord acknowledged that colonels and others who had done good service in different parts of the Empire were recognised by consular appointments. No one objected to the recognition of their services, but he objected to their being recognised and the men remunerated at the cost of commerce. That was a most expensive mode of dealing with the subject.
  The right hon. Gentleman also spoke on the question of open competition ill the Far East. He hoped that principle would be acted upon. He was sure everybody would re-echo what was as said by the right hon. Gentleman, namely, that many of our consuls rendered most able services to the country. There was, however, considerable difference in the ability which they displayed. A number of the reports simply comprised statistics which had been well known for a long period. Such reports were still far too plentiful. Why were the reports so late? He admitted that they were improving, but they came in hatches, and he thought the delay must he at home. This was the day when in commerce despatch was everything, and nothing was less acceptable than information which had already been obtained.
  1006
  He hoped that in future we should have, as in America, more special reports dealing with specific subjects rather than reports containing statistical information generally. The Departmental Committee which had been referred to, had taken no small pains to ascertain the facts and arrive at the right conclusions. While he thought the report by no means dealt fully with the subject and that it touched merely its fringe, there was in it a great deal of material which might be useful, and which he hoped would be applied as early as possible.
  In regard to commercial training the difficulty was to get it in this country. He did not under-rate for a moment the old classical instruction and the opportunities which now existed at the Universities for obtaining a greater knowledge of science than in times past. It was not long since a don at Oxford said—"We know nothing of science here, and we do not even teach it." An improvement had taken place, but the difficulty was to know where a candidate for a consular appointment could obtain a good commercial training, so far as this country was concerned, such as could be obtained in the commercial colleges in Paris and other places. Although improvements had been introduced in the teaching of scientific engineering in connection with our colleges, even in this department we did not make any approach to what was done in other countries and in our own colony of Canada. The suggestion had been made that candidates for consular appointments should spend some time in commercial offices. He thought that would be particularly ineffective. He was very much afraid that if special ability calculated to fit a candidate for consular service were exhibited, he would discover, and his employers would discover, that a much more adequate remuneration was obtainable in those offices than in the consular service. The result would be that the second and third-rate men, instead of the very best men, would enter the service. There were certain large houses which had more or less a monopoly, who were disposed to use their own organisations for obtaining information, but in dealing with commercial matters the Government must consider the whole community, and he was quite satisfied that it was even dangerous that knowledge of the affairs

  1007
  of foreign countries should be in the hands of only a few houses. They should spread the information and give more opportunity to the smaller houses to take their rank among the better and higher. There was no doubt that we were behind in the matter of commercial training and languages. It was quite true that English was becoming more and more the commercial language of the world, but the want of foreign languages was a great obstacle to our trade. He thought the words "preferably French and German" were not justified. He should have been more disposed to recommend French or German, and Italian, Spanish, and Portuguese. He also urged the desirability of more attention being given to the metric system of arithmetic. The greatest impetus to consular work being well done would be given by allowing our consuls a better opportunity of rising into the diplomatic service, and by making that service more commercial in character than it had been in the past.
  MR. PARTINGTONasked whether any of the £2,500 which was spent in collecting commercial intelligence was expended in obtaining information on the fiscal reform. The system of appointing commercial attaches should be reformed. Although a great deal was said about foreign competition and the loss of foreign markets to us, the system of appointing these attachés remained a farce. One of our commercial attachés had to look after France, Belgium and Switzerland. He was also secretary to an embassy, and a director of the Suez Canal. Another represented Germany, Denmark, Holland, Norway and Sweden, and although they hand one for Turkey, there was no commercial attacheé for either the United States or Russia. They had five commercial agents over the whole world—one of them at Moscow, another in Central America, and another at Vladivostock. The population of the last mentioned place was only about 22,000, and the imports were chiefly for the Russian military and the Manchurian railways. What was the good of having a commercial attacheé in that part of the world What commercial training had these attachés? If this country desired to hold its own against foreign competi-
  1008
  tion it should pay attention to these questions.
  Sir HOWARD VINCENTsaid that they were greatly indebted to Lord Lansdowne for appointing a Committee on the consular service, and he hoped that the Government would see their way to adopt that Committee's very excellent report at a very early period. The attractions for entering the consular service were not excessive, and might have to be increased. In regard to the large number of foreigners who held consular posts under His Majesty's Government, he knew that many of them showed great zeal in the service, but undoubtedly, where it was possible, British subjects should always be appointed. He endorsed what had been said by the hon. Member for Islington as to the great deficiencies in the system of commercial education in this country. A great necessity existed for commercial colleges, and he had always thought that the Imperial Institute should have been changed into something of the sort. If anything in that direction could be done under the auspices of the Government Are was sure it would be money well expended and cheerfully voted by every representative of a commercial constituency in the House.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid he desired to ask the noble Lord the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affair's, whether he could give him some information as to the retirement from the consular service of Mr. Joseph H. Longford, formerly consul at Nagasaki, Japan. This gentleman, he thought, had been treated with very great injustice in view of his long service in the consular work of the Empire. Mr. Longford had been vice-consul at Tokio, then he was transferred to Formosa, and afterwards was appointed to Nagasaki. After thirty-two years' continuous service he was advised by his medical attendant that if he were to retain his hi alt h it was absolutely necessary to have a change of climate. Mr. Longford returned to England on leave some time ago, and was given to understand that, in view of the state of his health and the advice of his medical

  1009
  man, he would be transferred to a consular post in the United States or some other portion of the world where the climate would suit him. It was said that Lord Salisbury himself held out very strong hopes to Mr. Longford that he would receive a consular post in Boston, or elsewhere, when a vacancy occurred However, in spite of his 32 years' distinguished and laborious service in the Far East, he was suddenly ordered to return to Nagasaki, or leave the service. He had a number of extract: front The Times and other leading journals, spread over a long series of years, speaking in high praise with reference to the work performed by Mr. Longford. He had also a number of expressions of opinion from leading statesmen connected with foreign and colonial affairs, setting forth that Mr. Longford had performed his ditties with the greatest possible effectiveness, and with great advantage to his country. For instance, The Times of May 19th, 1896, referring to one of Mr. Longford's reports said it, was a model of what such a document ought to be. Not a single coin plaint had ever been made against this gentleman. He was greatly afraid hat some influences of not quite a fair nature had been at work in reference to Mr. Longford. In the first place he was an Irishman, and there were those who said that had something to do with the fact that he had been hardily treated. He had an account of a conversation which took place between the Secretary of Legation and a very distinguished American gentleman, the President of the University of South Dakota. In the course of that conversation it was stated that Mr. Longford wa snot an old man; that he entered the service as a student interpreter at the age of 19; that he had served for 32 years faithfully, honourably, and usefully, and that then he was suddenly retired without any option, except to return to Nagasaki. The Secretary of the Legation at Tokio said to the professor— "How can he hope to rise in the service when he is no' a patriotic Englishman? Now they could not all be patriotic Englishmen; they coda not id come from Birmingham. This Secretary o Legation said of Mr. Longford that he was a Home Ruler, and that no Home Ruler could
  1010
  be a patriotic Englishman. It was under these circumstances that Mr. Longford was retired. He presumed that Mr. Longford enjoyed a pension after his 32 years service; but it was not a question of pension, but a question of a grievous wrong being done to a distinguished servant. He asked the noble Lord to look into this ease, and see if anything could be done to lessen the harshness of the treatment Mr. Longford had received. All that could be said against him was that he was an Irishman, and a Home Ruler. The best servants in the diplomatic service had been Irishmen, and the next thing they might be told would be that no man could get on in the service unless he cursed the memory of Cobden, and became a rampant protectionist.
  The men who ought to be appointed as consuls were men of a commercial training, suited by their lives and their experience to look after the commercial interests of Great Britain in all the regions of the earth. But many of the gentlemen appointed as consuls were palpably so appointed, not because they had experience or knew anything of business, but for no earthly reason except that they had simply been party hacks, had sat in this House, or had friends in the Government. They simply wanted a job with a good salary to it. Some of the consular reports made wonderful and extraordinary reading, and conveyed no other impression than that the men who wrote them were not fitted to represent this country in any part of the world. In order to show the kind of gentlemen who were appointed, and their qualifications for the office of consul, he would give two or three instances. He wished it to be distinctly understood that he was making no personal attack on these gentlemen; he had no personal animosity against them; he did not blame them for taking good appointments when they were offered. All he desired to call attention to was their lack of commercial training and general qualifications for the office. He would not therefore mention names. One gentleman was a clerk in the Foreign Office front 1857 to 1894, and his age was 54—a somewhat advanced stage in life at which to commence an entirely novel career. He had doubtless been passed over in promotion in his own department,

  1011
  the time of his retirement was approaching, and he was appointed Consul-General at Valparaiso. A man who had spent his life in the Foreign Office was not the man to he sent to a place like Valparaiso to watch over the commercial interests of this country. Another gentleman was chief clerk in the Treaty Department of the Foreign Office from 1856 to 1896. His duties had consisted of the keeping and examination of accounts, and matters connected with treaties, ceremonial, and passports; he had had no opportunity of acquiring any knowledge of trade and shipping, and yet he was appointed Consul-General at Havre, and afterwards at Antwerp. Another gentleman was in the diplomatic service from 1875 to 1895, and was then appointed Consul-General at Chicago, and afterwards at New Orleans, although he had absolutely no knowledge of American life, commerce, or business. Another gentleman was a knight. This time he would mention the name, as surely no knight would mind his name being given. Sir T. Smith was for many years a prominent working official of the Primrose League; he works I hard in that department, enrolling knights and dames, inaugurating habitations, unfurling flags, marching to the Albert Hall, and doing all the other things which a good Primrose Leaguer roust do or perish. All his qualifications for looking after the trade and commerce of the Empire were acquired in the habitations of the Primrose League, and he was rewarded by Lord Salisbury offering him the appointment of Consul at Samoa, and afterwards at Valparaiso. Another gentleman, Captain Talbot, was in the Army; he served in the hussars from 1860 to 1865; there was no further record of his military service, but in 1885 he was appointed Consul-General at Tahiti, then at Corunna, and flintily at Boston, one of the best and most important posts in the service. A few years in a hussar regiment was surely not sufficient recommendation or training for a man who had to meet the 'cute Yankee people of Boston. The last one he would mention was the former hon. Member for Rye. Colonel Brookfield was very popular on his own side. He went to the war in South Africa, thereby setting a good example from his own point of view, and he wrote novels. ["His brother."] If hon. Members opposite ob-
  1012
  jected to the statement that Colonel Brookfield wrote novels, he would withdraw the expression, and say that he betrayed literary leanings. He was not to be condemned on that account, as the Prime Minister had done the same, but these were not the qualifications necessary for the office of consul at Montevideo, to which Colonel Brookfield was appointed.
  MR. PIERPOINTsaid there was nothing derogatory in the assertion that Colonel Brookfield wrote a novel, but the hon. Member implied a sneer as to his capabilities to act as Consul at Montevideo, an office to which he was never appointed.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid the appointment was certainly offered to Colonel Brookfield, but, of course, if the hon. Member assured him that the offer was not accepted that part of his case fell to the ground. He believed, however, that what he had stated was substantially correct.
  MR. PIERPOINTsaid he believed there was some formal appointment; that he was not going to Montevideo he knew to be a fact.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid that in that case what the Committee would want to know from the noble Lord was whether we had a consul at Montevideo at all. Anxious as he was that our consuls should be men of business capacity, he would rather have a Volunteer officer, or even a novelist, than no one at all. He would suggest that some other method of rewarding long services in Parliament or Government offices should be invented than the appointment to consular posts. For instance, substantial salaries might be attached to the various Orders which were so much sought after, and then these might be bestowed on deserving individuals. He had no hope, however, of his advice being accepted; it never was, and the British Empire consequently suffered.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (LORD CRANBORNE, Rochester)said the hon. Gentleman had brought before the House in a humorous vein a complaint which he had

  1013
  heard very often before, and he thought he ought to make one or two criticisms on his methods. It was not usual, of course, to mention the names of gentlemen belonging to the consular service, and to criticise them unless they had done something worthy of blame.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid he never blamed the gentlemen he had referred to for a single moment. He said no more than that their training did not fit them to be consuls.
  LORD CRANBORNEsaid that if the hon. Gentleman had found anything worthy of blame he would have been absolutely within his right in bringing it forward. He could not, however, agree with the hon. Gentleman that the position of a Member of the House, or long service in the Foreign Office, necessarily proved that a man was unfit to be a consul but he might be relieved from defending in detail the system which existed at present, because he had been a party to drawing up a document which had been laid before Parliament, and which proposed a radical change in the method tinder which consuls were to be appointed. The hon. Gentleman referred to the case of Consul Longford, but the hon. Gentleman candidly admitted that he had not given him any notice on that subject, and, therefore, he was not prepared to answer him, but he would, of course, look into the matter, and if the hon. Gentleman put a Question down he would be glad to reply to it.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDasked if the noble Lord would be good enough to elucidate the mystery which surrounded Montevideo.
  LORD CRANBORNEsaid that the hon. Gentleman need be under no misapprehension that this country would not be properly represented at Montevideo. [HON. MEMBERS: Are we represented?]
  LORD CRANBORNE: I am not absolutely certain whether we are at the present moment. I believe my hon. friend behind me is perfectly accurate in saving that Colonel Brookfield is not consul at Montevideo, but he is about to be consul somewhere else.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Send me out, and I will bring back word who is there.
  LORD CRANBORNE: I should be sorry to remove the hon. Member from the House of which he is such an ornament.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: You had me in gaol for three months.
  LORD CRANBORNEsaid the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Islington delivered an interesting speech on the consular service, and he asked what the Foreign Office was doing to secure British interests in connection with the Roumanian tariff. That was a matter which was engaging the careful attention of the Government. They were fortunate to have at that moment in London His Majesty's Minister to Roumania, whose advice they would have the advantage of, and they would take every step in their power to arrive at a proper conclusion in the matter. He was not able at the moment to give an absolute promise that a special representative of our commercial interests would be sent to Bucharest, but the subject was engaging the serious attention of the Government. It was a little too soon for the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Aberdeen to expect him to give a definite reply to the Question whether the Government were going to carry out the recommendations of a report which had only been laid before Parliament at the beginning of the present month, especially in view of the fact that the report entered into considerable detail which required to be considered by the Foreign Office. He himself occupied a somewhat ambiguous position as one of the joint authors of the report and also as the representative of the Foreign Office, and he could not be expected to be sufficiently disinterested to criticise a report which he himself bad signed. Ho thought, however, he might be allowed to so far depart from his official position as to say that he hoped the report would be accepted by the Foreign Office, and he had every confidence that, in a large measure, it would be.
  Having regard to the criticisms of the consular service, it ought to be noted that the report said the country had been well served on the whole,

  1015
  and that there was a great deal of good in the present system. It was quite recognised by the Committee, however, that the time had come for a change, and that it was necessary to place the service on a more businesslike and more formal footing. He did not think that the reason the consular service did not attract as good men as it ought was the pay. The pay was not so very bad; but what undoubtedly did act as a deterrent was that the service did not offer any certainty of a career. A man might enter the service, and might be successful in rising in it; but again he might not; and no able young man, choosing his career for life, would embark on one in which the prospects were so uncertain as the Committee found them to be. The first thing, then, was to place the service on a regular footing, and to determine the limits of age between which consuls should be appointed, and also to determine the kind of examination they would have to pass, and the commercial training they should possess. As regarded age, it was necessary that the candidates should be young, because unless they had young men they would not get the best men. If old men were to be appointed, they would be generally men who had tried something else, and had probably failed. In order to get a service which would really deserve the confidence of Parliament they would have to take young men, and afford them an opportunity of adopting the consular service as their profession for life. As to the examination, the committee recommended that it should be competitive. There was a great deal to he said on both sides, but it was very difficult to find a substitute for a competitive examination. After very carefully considering the matter the Committee came to the conclusion that it was necessary that the element of competition should enter into the appointment; but they were unanimously opposed to open competition; and he thought the hon. Members would probably agree that they were wise in coming to that decision. In the first place, they had the precedent of the diplomatic service. In the second place, he thought when men were to be chosen to represent their country in more or less important positions abroad, that every man would not necessarily be suited for the position. It had been said, very
  1016
  truly, that they ought to have British subjects as consuls. He agreed. But even in the wide compass of that term "British subject," he thought there would be found certain persons who were not suited to be consular representatives. That was the reason why limited competition was adopted; and the Committee would agree that it would be easy to give other reasons why open competition should not be adopted. The question of compulsory languages had been referred to. It was agreed on all hands that French should be the first; and he confessed he was surprised that all the expert witnesses recommended German as the second. It was pointed out that Spanish was very easily acquired by anyone who had been properly educated, and especially by anyone who knew French; and that, therefore, it was not nearly so important at the beginning to know Spanish as it was to know German. Therefore German was chosen as the second language. But the most important point was the question of the commercial training of the candidates, The Committee recommended two methods—one that the candidates should have had a business experience, and the other that after their appointment they should spend some time in the Commercial Department of the Board of Trade. These recommendations had been criticised as inadequate. It was said that the candidates should acquire this qualification in commercial colleges. But the answer to that suggestion was that there were no such colleges of the kind suggested, and, therefore, the proposal was impossible. It might he asked why they did not recommend their establishment; but that would be an undue extension of their duties. They were not asked to consider the interesting and important topic of commercial education in this country. Least of all were they asked to make proposals which would throw a very heavy burden on the Treasury. So they had to take things as they found them, and they proposed the two methods he had mentioned. The right hon. Gentleman the member for South Aberdeen indicated a considerable amount of doubt as to whether they would be able to secure good candidates from business houses.
  MR. BRYCEsaid he did not quite mean that. What he meant was that the mere fact that a man was five years

  1017
  in a business house did not prove that he had received the kind of commercial training that was wanted.
  LORD CRANBORNEsaid be agreed that such a candidate might not have the commercial training that was wanted; but he would have acquired a knowledge of business, from a practical point of view, which he believed was to be acquired in no other way. The Committee felt strongly that the only way of obtaining candidates with a practical knowledge of business matters was to take men who had actually been at business. The Committee recognised that it was as important, and even more important, than any other information that a consul should possess, that he should be able to deal with commercial matters, furnish commercial information, and act as a channel for commercial intelligence. The financial conditions which were proposed really meant that the consular service provided a decent career for a young mall. It was proposed to start at £300 a year, with a possible rise to £1,200, which was not bad, provided, of course, that the consul would be assured that he would stand an equal chance upon his merits with others in the consular service, and that, without fear or favour, he might aspire to win the prizes of his profession. Lastly, he would say, that he hoped the Committee would realise that the proposal to take men from business houses was avowedly put forward as an experiment. That experiment would show whether such a system would be successful, and would command the confidence of British subjests who had businesses abroad. An hon. Gentleman criticised the unpunctuality with which consular reports were furnished. He was sorry if there was any ground for legitimate criticism in that direction, and he would look into the matter. But he should like to remind the Committee that, as a matter of fact, a consul had to depend for his information on the official sources of the country in which fie was posted; and that very often the delay was not his delay, but the delay of others in furnishing facts and figures necessary for his report. Of course they could not too roughly disturb the existing system, because there were certain vested interests which must be respected. In this matter he spoke more as a member of the Committee than as the representative of the Foreign Office. He
  1018
  could not enter into any engagement on the part of the Department to adopt all the recommendations of the Committee; there had not yet been time for doing that; but he was certain the Foreign Secretary would have every desire to follow the recommendations so far as he could, especially if they received on the whole the approval of the House of Commons.
  MR. MOONsaid he wished to direct attention to what appeared to him to be a mistaken policy in one section of the consular service, namely, the Far Eastern branch.
  And, it being Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

  REVENUE BILL.
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. DALZIEL (Kirkealdy Burghs)desired to renew his protest against matters of such great importance being taken after midnight. This Bill raised questions of great and far-reaching importance, which ought to be discussed in the light of day, and it was not right that the Government should attempt to get it through without a word of explanation. The object of the first clause appeared to be to exempt imported molasses from duty. That in itself was an excellent proposal, but it was in strange contrast with the measure discussed yesterday, and the Government ought to explain why they proposed to tax sugar one day and to remit the tax on another class of sugar the next. The Bill also proposed to tax the spirit contained in manufactured articles. It would surely be very difficult to ascertain the exact proportion of spirit contained in the manufactured article, but no explanation of how it was proposed to be done had been given. With the work they already had in hand, and the additional duties to be imposed upon them, the life of the Customs officials would be anything but a happy one. There was also and allowance

  1019
  to be made on articles exported containing spirit. How was that to be tested, and who was to decide to whom the allowance should be paid? Then, too, saccharine "and all like substances" were in future to be taxed. Who was to define what "all like substances" were? Had this clause been inserted at the request of the Colonial Secretary? In future the Inland Revenue authorities were to have power to inspect warehouses in which spirit might happen to be. He would have thought they already had full powers to inspect such warehouses, and that there was no necessity for such a clause.
  The Bill also announced another new departure. In the case of a company increasing its capital, the increased registration duty was to be paid within fifteen days. If it was not paid there was to be a debt charge on the shareholders as individuals. The law of limited liability was to be set aside, and a shareholder holding a £1 share in a company might, although that company had been wound up, be liable for a debt to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in regard to an increase of capital. That was an important departure, because in future the liability of a shareholder would not be limited by the amount of the shares held by him. He protested against adding any additional responsibility to a shareholder when he had discharged his full liability by paying the amount of the share at the nominal value. There was a possibility that the Chancellor of the Exchequer with regard to all these stamps might be making a mistake. His belief was that the severe tax put upon registration had been a source of very great loss to the Revenue, and he thought this cause was driving many registrations out of the country. His opinion was that this proposal would not recompense the right hon. Gentleman, and would not amount to the sum which would justify this important departure. Then, again, hiring agreements were to be taxed, and this was a question which deserved the serious consideration of Parliament. If a person entered into a hiring agreement for £100 and paid £80 of that amount, and could not pay the remaining £20, it was very hard that such a person should lose the money he had paid. He should like to know what evidence could be brought forward to justify this important departure. Had the right hon.
  1020
  Gentleman formed any estimate as to the amount of money he would get by this proposal? Then there was a proposal in regard to the insurance of ships. In future under this Bill it would be impossible to get sea insurance on any ship under construction in a dockyard or port. Then there was another proposal in regard to friendly societies, and smaller policies had to be reported as well as the larger ones. He did not wish to go into the other one hundred and one things raised by this Bill, but he contended that this was a measure which ought not to be discussed after 12 o'clock. Many of the proposals in the Bill were of an important character, and as they had had no explanation of them, he thought they were entitled to insist upon knowing exactly what they were doing and what object the Government had in view. He could not believe that the Government at this period would introduce a Bill which would go its far as this Bill went. Until they got an explanation he was not inclined to believe that all the clauses were as good as the Secretary to the Treasury believed them to be. He hoped the hon. Member would justify his policy in bringing forward this Bill at this period of the session. He begged to move "That this Bill be read a second time this day three months."
  SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid the main objection to this Bill was that the whole of these proposals should have been in the Finance Bill. That Bill was not confined only to the new taxes of the year, but it was a measure which always Contained the general amendments of the law. Therefore he had the greatest pleasure in seconding this Motion. There were two rather strange clauses in this Bill, and one of them related to the importation of molasses. It would he a very difficult thing to distinguish molasses imported for one purpose and those imported for another purpose. Molasses was used both for feeding stuns and as food for young persons, therefore it would be very difficult to make this distinction. A more serious matter was concerned in Clause 13, which was the tenement clause. He did not wish to accuse the Chancellor of the Exchequer of specially differentiating in the case of Birmingham, but it was well known that in Birmingham there were

  1021
  no flats. The effect of this proposal must be to benefit by a preferential system one particular class of houses.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words upon this day three months.'"—(Mr. Dalziel.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question.'"
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASUR (Mr. ELLIOT, Durham)said the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs complained that no explanation had been given of this Bill. As a matter of fact he was prepared to rise to give an explanation when the hon. Member anticipated him. The hon. Member appeared to altogether misconceive the nature of the Bill. He asked more than once what the Chancellor of the Exchequer hoped to gain by it. The object of the Bill was not to gain money for the Chancellor of the Exchequer but to relieve the public of a burden. [An HON. MEMBER: To relieve the landlords.] There was nothing in the Bill to relieve the landlords. It was partly to relieve those engaged in the agricultural interest who were anxious, for the purposes of their business, to bring in feeding stuffs. It was to enable them to carry on their trade to advantage, and to free from duty articles which came into this country practically as raw material. He did not know what there was in the clause to affect landlords or to enable the hon. Member to ask what the Chancellor of the Exchequer hoped to gain by the Bill. In regard to the taxing clause anyone who read it would understand that it was to carry out a promise given on the Second Reading of the Budget Bill by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he hoped to be able to give effect to his wishes in relieving from duties commodities which were made use of in the way stated. That was a main and most important clause of this Bill. The other clauses were framed in order to smooth matters and lighten the burden on the ordinary taxpayer of the country. He did not know that the hon. Member quite appreciated the real meaning of the spirits clause. The real meaning could be put easily and shortly. The position at present was that where articles had been manufactured by means of spirits the manufactured articles on being im-
  1022
  ported should be subject to duty. At present the duty was estimated by the Customs, who took into consideration how much spirits would be required in the manufacture of a particular article and then impose on the manufactured article a duty equal to what would have been on the spirits if imported into this country not as a manufactured article. What was done by this clause was to put the scale of charge exactly at the same rate as on the home-made manufactured article. The hon. Gentleman seemed to think that a considerable point was made as to saccharine. At present the Act of Parliament governing these matters gave the authorities power to prohibit the importation of saccharine, while in regard to glucose there was power given not really to prohibit but to regulate the manufacture of the article in this country. When the last Act was passed no saccharine was manufactured in this country, but nowadays it was. It was a highly sweetening matter, and might easily be made the subject of fraud, and it was proposed that the conditions applicable to glucose should be extended to saccharine. At present the law required that the housing for excise officers should be established on the premises where the distilleries were situated, but it gave no power to establish these houses beyond the actual premises used for distilling. The clause to which the hon. Member had called attention would enable premises to be extended beyond the present limit. With regard to stamps, as hon Members were aware, the amount at present was 5s. per £100 on the capital of companies. There was the same stamp duty exacted for an increase of capital. No limit was fixed as to the time for the payment of duty on increased capital, and therefore a good deal of capital escaped taxation. A clause was therefore put into the Bill to prevent evasions of the law in that respect. Then as regarded coal, when a cargo of coal was shipped, either for foreign parts or coastwise, the exporter had to enter into a bond of security for the payment of the coal duty. The bond was subject to a stamp duty, and the proposal in the Bill was to relieve the coal exporter from that stamp duty. If hon. Members were determined to stand

  1023
  in the way of these concessions being given they would cause inconvenience and loss to many of His Majesty's subjects.
  MR. LOUGH: What about the Inhabited House Duties?
  MR. ELLIOTsaid that so far as he understood it, the object of that clause was to make some abatement; to charge exactly the same duty on houses erected one above the other as applied to houses set side by side. That did not impose a burden, but was a relief.
  ME. CALDWELLsaid that in view of the importance of the subject he moved the adjournment of the debate.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. RITCHIE,)said it was perfectly obvious that the Government could not insist on this Bill being proceeded with if there was not a desire on the part of the House to assist the Government in doing what they believed to be in the interests of the public. Many of the matters which were dealt with in the Bill had been pressed on the Exchequer for several years past, and they were all in the nature of concessions. It was evident that the Bill gave facilities for a vast amount of discussion, and he was prepared to agree to the Motion for the postponement of the debate. As the Bill was composed of a great many clauses which, on the face of them, were, perhaps, not easily understood, he thought it might facilitate matters if a memorandum were circulated amongst hon. Members explanatory of each one of the proposals. He hoped that the House would consent, after considering the memorandum for a night or two, to the Government proceeding with the Bill, which was very much wanted so far as administration was concerned.
  MR. LOUGHsaid he wished to thank the right hon. Gentleman for so readily accepting the Motion. He had to say, however, that if the memorandum was not full and complete there was not the slightest hope of the Bill passing, except under the compulsion of the closure.
  MR. ALEXANDER CROSSsaid he was gratified at the very reasonable manner in which they had been met by the Chancellor of the Exchequer; and he did not think that the debate should be allowed to conclude without his right hon. friend being congratulated on his action.
  MACVEAGHsaid he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would be able to distinguish between molasses imported for food for stock and molasses imported for a different purpose, namely, for the manufacture of a very poisonous class of Scotch whisky. It would be desirable that the House should he given an assurance that this Bill would not facilitate Scotch distillers poisoning the public.
  Motion made, and Question—"That the debate be now adjourned,"—(Mr Caldwell.)
  Put, and agreed to.
  Debate to be resumed upon Tuesday next.

  PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill he now read a second time."
  MR. LOUGHsaid he thought some explanation of the Bill ought to be given. He wished to know why one amount was taken for Great Britain and another amount taken for Ireland. He thought the Government would really facilitate matters if an explanation were given.
  MR. ELLIOTsaid the Bill was an annual one, and was framed in the usual way. The main reason for wiping out such a large sum for Seton Had tour was that until it was wiped out the Harbour Commissioners would be unable to raise money to improve the Harbour, and, in the circumstances, he thought it was only right in the interests of the fishing population of the neighbourhood that the amount should be wiped off.
  MR. WHITLEYsaid that although the Bill was called a Public Works Loans

  1025
  Bill, it was really a Bill for wiping off debts For instance, Timothy Sullivan was to have £8 1s. 10d. written off; John Houlihan was to have £5 5s. written off; and George Bain and James Webster were to have £10 7s. 1d. written off. He confessed he was not familiar with this soft of Bill. He always understood that such a Bill was to enable money to he advanced to certain local authorities for public works; but when they were asked to authorise the Treasury to issue a sum not exceeding £7,000,000 in Great Britain and £900,000 in Ireland, he thought, they were entitled to look into the matter closely. After all £7,900,000 added to the liability of the State was a matter for consideration. He wished to know how it Came about that the small debts mentioned in the schedule were to be written off. Certainly, if the money now asked for was to be distributed in the same manner he would decline to vote for the Bill.
  MR. DALZIELsaid that when he looked at the Bill he thought it suggested a job of some kind; and he made sure it was an Irish Bill. He made enquiries, however, and found it related to that part of the country to which he himself belonged. They were asked to wipe off £5,509 borrowed by the Port Seton Harbour Commissioners. What security was that amount granted on? Who granted it, and who was responsible for the great loss which was incurred? If they were going to lend £7,000 one year and wipe off £5,000 later, there would be a great demand for loans on the Treasury. He thought until there was an explanation that the House should not give increased powers in regard to loans. As regarded the smaller sums, the individual cases might be justified: but it seemed to him that the amount to he remitted in the interests of the Port Seton Harbour Commissioners was a very important matter indeed He thought the House was entitled to more information than it had received; and unless it was forthcoming he would vote against the Second Reading.
  MR. JOHN DEWALRsaid the amounts which it was proposed to write off in connection with the loans granted to Scottish fishermen were not
  1026
  in any way due to the dishonesty of the fishermen, but to the mismanagement of the Scottish Fishery Board. The Board advanced money to build boats, but the boats were the wrong class; and the fishermen were consequently unable to pay the loans. How differently things were managed in Ireland, where the Congested Districts Board had established a great fishing industry and where the fishermen were able to repay the money which had been advanced to them.
  MR. CALDWELLsaid that it should be noted that the sums asked for in the present Bill showed an increase over the amounts in the corresponding Bill of last year. Why was the amount for Great Britain increased from £6,000,000 to £,000,000 and the amount for Ireland from £800,000 to £900,000? This was the first Bill in which an amount exceeding £100 had appeared against Scotland, but with regard to Ireland, he often wondered why anyone in that country ever repaid a loan at all, as they all appeared to get off. He should like to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if the writing off was brought up to date. He thought that highly improbable, having regard to the small sums which appeared in the Bill against Ireland. It was often stated that although the money was written off, the Government retained the right to recover it. He had often asked how much had been recovered in that way, but as far as he could find out not a penny had ever been recovered. He thought Public Works Loans Bills were a device to enable people to get rid of the payment of loans. He hoped the Treasury would make the strictest investigation with regard to all these loans, as it seemed to him that they were too easily wiped off. That was not fair to those who really struggled honestly to pay what they had borrowed.
  MR. WEIRsaid with reference to the amount written off oil loans to the fishermen of Stornoway, he wished to point out that the fishermen were not dishonest, but were very careful to pay their debts. The fault lay with the Fishery Board of Scotland, in pressing on the fishermen, who were badly off for boats, a class of boat not suited to the harbours in the district. Some of the

  1027
  boats were damaged, but the fishermen still continued to pay until they could pay no longer. If the Board had only supplied the proper kind of boats, there would be no arrears. He only mars died that the people paid up so well in the circumstances.
  MR. H. J. WILSONsaid that by a little frank explanation at the beginning of the proceedings on the Bill all this discussion would have been avoided. In order to elicit further information he moved that the Bill be read a second time this day three months.
  AN HON. MEMBERformally seconded.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out the word now, and at the end of the Question to add the words upon this day three months.'"—(Mr. H. J. Wilson.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  MR. DALZIELasked whether the Government were really going to refuse the information asked for. All they desired to know was under what circumstances this particular loan of £7,000, of which £5,900 was to be written off, was granted. The Lord Advocate was now present: did he know anything about it?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY, Buteshire)said he did, and so would the hon. Member if he had read Section 3 of the Bill. The debt was made in 1882, when a Liberal Government was in office, and that was the whole explanation. Why the money could not now be recovered was that the harbour had been under a judicial factor for many years, and no money had been coming in.
  MR. WHITLEYsaid that his question with regard to the small items in the schedule had not been answered. His point was that public works loans were not intended for such matters as the purchase of fishing boats. The Bill ought to be reserved for such substantial works as the construction of piers and harbours, which could not be carried out without the aid of public credit.

  PUBLIC BUILDINGS EXPENSES [CONSOLIDATED FUND].
  Resolution reported. "That it is expedient to make further provision for defraying the expenses of the purchase of Land and Buildings and the construction of Buildings and Works in connection with certain Public Departments, and to authorise the issue out of the Consolidated Fund of any sums not exceeding in the whole £1,790,000 for such purposes, and to authorise the Treasury to borrow for the purpose of providing money for sums to be issued out of the Consolidated Fund, or for the repayment of sums so issued, by means of Terminable Annuities for such period not exceeding thirty years from the dates of borrowing, such Annuities to be paid out of moneys to be provided by Parliament for the service of the Commissioners of Works, and if those moneys are insufficient out of the Consolidated Fund."
  Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolution by MR. Elliot, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. Victor Cavendish.

  PUBLIC BUILDINGS EXPENSES BILL.
  "To make further provision for defraying the Expenses of the purchase of Land and Buildings and the construction of Buildings and Works in connection with certain Public Departments," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to he read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 305.]

  STATUTE LAW REVISION (SCOTLAND) BILL [LORDS].
  Order for Committee read, and discharged:—Bill withdrawn.
  Whereupon, in pursuance of the Order of the House of the 28th day of July, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put.
  Adjourned at Ten minutes after One o'clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS
North Metropolitan Electric Power Supply Bill [H.L.]. Report from the Committee of Selection, 'Chat the Lord Lamington be proposed to the House as a member of the Select Committee on the said Bill in the place of the Earl of Denbigh, read and agreed to.
Exeter Corporation Bill [H. L.] Commons Amendments considered and agreed to.
Hainault Forest Bill. The King's Consent signified; and Bill reported, with Amendments.
North Metropolitan Electric Power Supply Bill [H.L.] Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
London County Council (Tramways and Improvements) Bill; London County Council (Money) Bill; South Shields Corporation Bill. Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
Perth Corporation (Tramways) Order Confirmation Bill [H.L]; Aberdeen Corporation (Tramways) Order Confirmation Bill [H.L.] Pentillie Estate Bill [H.L.]. Returned from the Commons agreed to.
Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Bill [H.L.]; Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Bill [H.L.]; Manchester Southern Tramways Bill [H.L.]. Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments.
Barry Railway Bill [H.L.]; Dewsbury, Batley, and Birstal Tramways Bill [H.L.]; Worthing Corporation Tramways Bill [H.L.] Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments; the said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Great Northern, Piccadilly, and Brompton Railway (Various Powers) Bill; London County Council (General Powers) Bill; London, Tilbury, and Southend Railway Bill; Watford and Edgware Railway Bill; Harrow Road
822
and Paddignton Tramways Bill; London United Tramways Bill, Returned form the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
Birmingham Corporation Bill (H.L). Commons' Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 8) Bill. Read 3a (according to Order)" and passed.
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill; Metropolitan Police Provisional Order Bill. House in Committee (according to Order); Bills reported without Amendment; Standing Committee negatived; and Bills to be read 3a to-morrow.

BECKENHAM URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
[THIRD READING.]
Bill read 3a (according to order).
LORD TWEEDMOUTH: My Lords, this is rather a bulky Bill, and I am afraid that my Amendment looks rather big on paper; but I think I can in a comparatively few words state the case to your Lordships. The case is one which I hope will commend itself to you, and one in which I think your Lordships will do well to review the decision of the Committee. This Bill is an omnibus Bill, and, amongst other things, it contains a quantity of tramway clauses. The Beckenham Urban Council under this Bill is given power to construct three tramways, altogether amounting to about two miles in length. Tramway No. 1 is about one mile in length, and to that we have nothing to say. Tramway No. 2 is about three-quarters of a mile in length, and runs from Thesiger Road along the Kent House Road to the county boundary between Kent and London. Then comes Train way No. 3, which is a short piece of about 280 yards, which also runs from the county boundary along Kent House Road to its I junction with the Sydenham Road, and it is with regard to this tramway that the difficulty arises. I think it is worth remarking that the Beckenham Urban Council propose to hand these tramways over under lease to the British Electric Traction Company to work, but it is

823
curious that it is specially stipulated in the Bill that the Beckenham Urban Council should not be bound to construct Tramway No. 2 at all unless an arrangement is arrived at with regard to Tramway No. 3, which lies outside their territory, but within the territory of the London county. I think that very clearly shows that the advisers of the Beckenham Urban Council and of the British Electric Traction Company were well aware that there would probably be difficulties with regard to this short piece of tramway lying within the London county, and that they were prepared for Parliament to take a hostile view with regard to the powers sought in respect of that particular piece of tramway.
These 280 yards of tramway he entirely outside the territory of Kent and of the Beckenham Urban Council. The road authority there is the Lewisham Borough Council, and the tramway authority the London County Council, and there is absolutely no precedent whatever for one of the tramway authorities surrounding the London county carrying a tramway into London county territory without the consent of, or arrangement with, the London County Council as the tramway authority. Since the existence of the London County Council, namely, since 1889, there have been only three cases in which these powers have been sought and given—I refer to the cases of the London United Tramways Company at Hammersmith, a tramway projected by the Bexley Urban District Council in 1901, and a tramway projected by the Erith Urban District Council in the present session. But in all those three cases special arrangements were made in the Bills by which the rights of the London County Council were acknowledged and saved. The Erith Tramway case came before the very same Committee that had to deal with this Bill in the House of Commons, and in that case the Committee decided that the Erith Council should not be at liberty to construct the tramway in the London county without the consent of the London County Council, and of the Woolwich Borough Council as the road authority. With regard to the other two cases—the Hammersmith tramway and the Bexley tramway—special provisions were made, and my Amendment proposes to introduce
824
the conditions made in 1901 with regard to the Bexley tramway into this Bill, those conditions being that the London County Council should have the right, in the course of the next two years, to construct this piece of tramway, and that if they did not use that power, then the Urban Council should have the right to go on with the work as proposed under the Bill.
I think there can be no question as to the correctness of my case so far as precedent is concerned. There is absolutely no precedent whatever for power being given to one of the smaller tramway authorities to invade the London county without the consent of the London County Council, or without some definite arrangement with that body. I shall probably be told that this tramway No. 3 affects a very small bit of the county of London, but that is a very dangerous sort of proposition to admit. After all, little though it may be, it is just as much all infringement of the principle as if a larger area were effected. The London County Council has not shown itself ill the least obstructive in regard to this matter. It offered to undertake, if necessary, the construction of the line, or to buy it from the District Council when constructed, and to lease it on the terms which have been put forward by the Highways Committee. I quite admit that in this particular case the tramway is but a short piece. I admit that it is in the interests of the people of the district that it should be connected with Tramway No. 2; that, indeed, it is almost necessary for the purpose of Tramway No. 2 that these 280 yards of tramway should be constructed from the county boundary up to the Sydenham Road in order to complete the connection. The London County Council are perfectly willing to agree to this, and are only desirous of having its rights saved in the manner adopted in all previous cases. If this piece of tramway is to he worked within our territory, it ought to be constructed by our leave, or, if we so desire it, constructed in such a manner and on such conditions as we think proper to impose. I do not think I need labour the point. I have stated the case shortly, and, I hope, clearly, and I trust your Lordships will give me your support in securing the insertion into this Bill of the clause which stands in my name Oil the Paper.

825
I should have preferred, if it had not been for the late period of the session, to have moved that the Bill be re-committed; but I recognise that it is too late for such a course to be adopted now. I therefore beg to move my Amendment.
Amendment moved—
"In Clause 18, page 19, line 38, at the end of the clause, to insert the following proviso: Provided also, that not withstanding anything in this Act contained, the Council shall not construct, the said Tramway No. 3 if the London County London County Council shall, in either of the sessions of 1904 or 1905, obtain powers to construct a tramway between the same, points as the said Tramway No. 3. and shall proceed to construct and complete the same as soon as possible after obtaining such powers, and on the completion and opening of the same for public traffic by the London County Council all powers for the construction of the said Tramway No. 3 by this Act given to the council, shall absolutely cease and determine: provided always that if the said London County Council shall not, before the thirtieth day of November one thousand nine hundred and four, have given notice of their intention to apply in either of the said sessions for such powers as aforesaid, or having given notice of such intention shall not proceed with the promotion of a Bill or Order, or shall, before the said thirtieth day of November one thousand nine hundred and four, have informed the council by notice in writing that they do not intend to construct such a tramway, then from and after the said thirtieth day of November one thousand nine hundred and four, or the abandonment of the said Bill or Order, or the receipt of such notice as last aforesaid (as the ease may be), the powers by this Act conferred upon the Council of constructing the said Tramway No. 3 shall, not withstanding anything in the foregoing proviso contained, be exerciseable by the Council.'"—(Lord Tweedmouth.)
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of MORLEY): My Lords, my noble friend has asked the House to reverse a decision that was deliberately arrived at by the Committee to which this Bill was referred. I do not think I need go into the particulars of the Bill, because my noble friend has very clearly and very fairly put them before you. The Urban District Council of Beckenham has in this Bill asked leave to construct a series of tramways, one of which—tramway No. 2—is on its own ground, but would be practically useless without this little addition of 280 yards which goes into the territory of the London County Council. There is no not question about the Standing Orders having been complied with in this case
826
in every particular. The proper consents were given to the construction of the tramway according to the Standing not Orders, and, so far as I can see, no absolute principle is infringed except the principle that my noble friend has set up, that under no case is ay neighbouring local authority to invade the district of the London County Council. I quite agree with my noble friend, that one should be very jealous of interfering with the tramway authority of so important a body as the London County Council, but it is not a principle the applies in other parts of the country. There are many cases in which local authorities construct tramways, with local authorities construct tramways, with the two-thirds consent of the districts through which they pass, into the district of other local authorities. The London County Council have no tramways for a very long distance within the reach of these 280 yards, and even if they had they would have to obtain the consent of the Lewisham Borough Council before they could construct the tramway which they could construct the tramway which they ask leave to construct under this proposed clause. I do not think I need labour the question, but I would point out what our Standing Order is which deals with this matter. The Standing Order is No. 133, and it Provides that—
"No power shall be given to any local authority to construct…any tramway beyond the limit of the district…unless a Committee on the Bill shall determine that, having regard to the special local circumstances, such construction, acquisition, taking, or working ought to be sanctioned."
Therefore, under our Standing Order it is perfectly open to the Committee to which the Bill is referred to consider any local circumstances connected with the case. This case was entirely before them. The London County Council was heard, and I cannot help thinking that without hearing the evidence as it was given before the Committee, it would be scarcely right of your Lordships to upset a decision deliberately arrived at after hearing both sides of the case. On those grounds I venture to hope that the House will not depart from the decision which has been arrived at by the Committee upstairs.
LORD MONKSWELL:My Lords, I think the Noble Earl the Lord Chairman

827
of Committees is mistaken when he says that there have been many cases where, contrary to the views of the local authority, their territory has been allowed to be invaded by another authority. I am told that in no single case has that been so. Tramways outside the districts of the promoting local authorities have been invaded in many cases, but my information is that in all cases it has been done by argument with the local authorities of the districts invaded. Therefore this Bill would absolutely throw to the wind the precedent that has been established in these cases. Never has even a larger local authority been allowed to invade the territory of a smaller authority, and yet here we have a smaller local authority allowed to invade the territory of a larger authority. I am sorry the noble Earl the Lord Chairman has taken the view he has on this question.
Loan TWEEDMOUTH: After the speech of the noble Earl the Lord Chairman of Committees I know perfectly well, that it is useless for me to put the House to the trouble of dividing, but I do wish to enter a very distinct protest against the decision of the Committee, and I also wish to put it very distinctly on record that that protest is solemnly entered by the London County Council, against the principle of the invasion of its territory by an outside tramway authority. I also protest that this particular case, though it may be excusable on the ground of the very small nature of the tramway, must not be accepted as a precedent for Committees to go upon in the future.
Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
LORD STANHOPE: My Lords, I have an Amendment to omit Clause 40 of this Bill. That Clause was inserted on the application of the Crystal Palace District Gas Company, and it is to this effect: that if it can be proved that any damage is done to the gas pipes of that Company by electrical action the Urban District Council of Beckenham shall be made liable for such damage. The Clause was inserted in your Lordships' House upstairs without the promoters being asked to give any evidence, and I think I can show that the clause is
828
really unnecessary. The great objection to the insertion of this clause is that it vitiates an agreement which has been made with the Electric Traction Company, who were to carry out these tramways. The clause puts an obligation which already exists in another clause in the Bill, but presents it in such a way that it vitiates to a great degree the agreement entered into with the Electric Traction Company. The clause is wholly unnecessary because Clause 35 of the Bill is the model clause, which was agreed to after full consideration by a Joint Committee of both Houses under the Chairmanship of my noble friend Viscount Cross. This clause enacts the making of regulations by the Board of Trade, which really protect all gas, water, and other pipes affected by electrical action. The Crystal Palace Gas Company have asked that Clause 40 should be inserted for their protection, but there is no special protection under this Clause for the Vauxhall Water Company's pipes. They are, of course, protected by Clause 35, and I contend that the special protection given to the Crystal Palace Gas Company in Clause 40 is-quite unnecessary in view of Clause 35, and contrary to all precedent. I therefore hope the House will agree to the omission of Clause 40.
Amendment moved—
"To leave out Clause 40."—(Earl Stanhope.)
THE EARL OF MORLEY: My Lords, I regret very much that my noble friend, the Duke of Bedford, who was Chairman of the Committee to which this Bill was referred, is not in his place, because he would no doubt have replied to my noble friend. I feel some difficulty about this matter. I am very unwilling to support an Amendment which would seem in any way to go against a decision of a Committee of your Lordships' House, but after what my noble friend has said, I am somewhat inclined to think that the noble Duke and his colleagues had not before them the full circumstances of the case when they were induced to insert this clause on behalf of the Crystal Palace Gas Company. It is a question of some importance and a ' matter of principle. The clause provides protection for an individual company against the dangers of electrolysis. Prior

829
to 1893 there was a great deal of difficulty in traction Bills in dealing with the different companies and different bodies who had pipes or wires likely to be affected by electrical action. So difficult did this become that Parliament appointed a Joint Committee in 1893, over which Viscount Cross presided, the result of which was that a model clause was framed which subjected all these companies to the Board of Trade regulations, and that clause has from that time, I think, hardly ever been varied. One of the sub-clauses of that clause is that the electrical power shall be used only in accordance with the Board of Trade regulations, and such regulations shall be made for preventing fusion or injurious electrolytic action on gas and water pipes. The result of that has been that that general principle has been adopted in all legislation, with very few exceptions. Where companies have come for individual protection it has almost invariably been refused to them on the ground that the Board of Trade regulations, if they were properly carried into effect, were sufficient to protect them, and that if they were not sufficient the proper course would be for the Board of Trade to render their regulations more stringent. As far as precedents go, from 1897 to 1900 four special clauses were applied for and all refused. There was one case—the London County Council Tramways in 1900—where a clause of a somewhat similar character was allowed; and in a Sheffield Bill in 1901 there was also a clause allowed, but the circumstances were so peculiar that I do not think it ought to be taken as a precedent. The year before last two clauses were refused, and in no case was one granted, and this year it has been refused in one case, allowed in one, and it is in this Bill. I should further say that the Board of Trade, in the Orders which they issue for the construction of tramways, have invariably refused to give this protective clause to individual companies or persons. They say the companies must rely on the general clause which is given to all companies and in all Bills,.and that if the Board of Trade regulations are not sufficient they must be strengthened. I believe there has been one case recently in which it is supposed—I
830
cannot state anything definitely to your Lordships because I have not gone into the matter—that electrolytic action has been proved to have damaged water pipes, but I am informed by the Board of Trade that, so far as they know, the present regulations are sufficient to deal with this matter. Therefore, I venture to think that in allowing this clause to be inserted in the Bill the Committee hardly considered the general principle that was involved, and that it would be a misfortune if in these Bills there crept in a clause of this kind affecting individual companies and persons. On those grounds I feel I cannot possibly resist the Motion which has been moved by the noble Earl.
LORD KINNAIRD: My Lords, the noble Earl has stated that in one case to which he referred the circumstances were peculiar, and that such a clause as the one in question was justifiable on that account. Possibly there was a similar reason for the Committee inserting the clause in this Bill. I have no doubt that the noble Duke who presided over this Committee and his colleagues weighed the evidence carefully and fully considered the points put before them, and is it not possible that the Committee inserted this protection because they recognised special circumstances which rendered it necessary? I am informed that there are other instances which are now being investigated, not only of water, but of gas pipes being injured, and that lately there was a serious explosion owing to a pipe having been moved without the knowledge of the undertakers, and if it had been a large main the damage might have been serious. I think it is rather hard to delete this clause to-day, when those who support it have not had sufficient time to prepare the case against the deletion of a provision which has evidently been inserted in the Bill for their protection after due evidence. This is a question of principle, and I submit that it is a matter for delay. I have not had time to go into it, or to ascertain whether the companies have duplicate mains or not, or whether the inconvenience to the public would be very serious in the event of an accident, and I suggest that the matter should be deferred, so that the Board of Trade might make more inquiry before the Crystal Palace Gas Company is deprived of the protection given them in this clause.
LORD WOLVERTON: My Lords, I am, of course, unacquainted with the local circumstances in this matter, but as, by the regulations of the House, the noble Earl the Lord Chairman of Committees, is unable to speak again, I have to say, on behalf of the Board of Trade, that up to the present there is no evidence that the Board of Trade regulations have proved ineffective. The Board of Trade are watching the matter, and if future regulations are considered necessary they will be introduced.
On question, Amendment agreed to.
Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

RETURNS, PEPORTS, &c.
  Despatch from the Governor of the Transvaal respecting the position of British Indians in that Colony.
  CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION.
  Forty-seventh Report of His Majesty's Civil Service Commissioners; with Appendix.
  VOLUNTEER RIFLE RANGES.
  Statement showing the allotment of the £170,000, provided in the Military Works Loan (Head 3 Sub-head 2): for the purpose of assisting Volunteers in connection with expenditure on rifle ranges.
  CHARITABLE DONATIONS AND BEQUESTS (IRELAND)
  Fifty-eighth annual Report of the Commissioners.

  POST-OFFICE.
  Forty-ninth Report of the Postmaster-General.
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  LUNACY.
  Return to the Lord Chancellor of the number of visits made, and the number of patients seen by the several Commissioners in Lunacy during the six months ended the 30th June, 1903.
  GRENADA.
  Regulations for providing gratuities to prisoners on their discharge from prison.
  Twentieth General Annual Report by the Board of Trade, under Section 131 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883.
  COMPANIES (WINDING UP).
  Twelfth General Annual Report by the Board of Trade, under Section 29 of the Companies (Winding-up) Act, 1890.
  GREENWICH HOSPITAL AND TRAVERS' FOUNDATION.
  Statement of the estimated income and expenditure of Greenwich Hospital and of Travers' Foundation, for the year 1903–1904.
  SUPERANNUATION.
  Treasury Minute, dated 10th July, 1903, granting a retired allowance to Alfred Flood Bakers, a second division clerk in the Savings Bank Department of the General Post Office, under Section 2 of the Superannuation Act.

  LONDON CORPORATION.
  Annual accounts of the Chamberlain of London.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  LICENSING ACTS (SCOTLAND) CONSOLIDATION AND AMENDMENT BILL.
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Lord BALFOUR of BURLEIGH): My Lords, I think perhaps the wisest thing that I can do will be at once to relieve your Lordships' minds of any apprehension that I propose to make a speech of a length at all commensurate with that of the Bill which I am about to ask your Lordships to read a second time. There are, as any of your Lordships who have taken the Bill in your hands will see, somewhat more than a hundred clauses, but they are not by any means new matter. The Government announced in the Gracious Speech from the Throne that they proposed to deal during the-present session both with the Amendment and with the Consolidation of the Licensing Laws of Scotland. An Amending Bill was introduced into another place, and also a Consolidation Bill. Both Bills were read a second time and

  833
  referred to the Standing Committee, and at the conclusion of the proceedings of that Committee, which sat for some weeks considering the Amending Bill, the results of their labours upon that Bill were transferred by general consent to the Consolidation Bill, which then went through its subsequent stages in the House in the form in which it is now presented to your Lordships.
  This Bill, therefore, not only amends but consolidates the licensing law of Scotland. It consolidates the whole of the legislation regarding licensing which has been passed as affecting Scotland from the years 1828 to 1901—a period of more than 60 years. During that period there were passed twelve or fourteen public Acts, and a good many private Acts which had penalties of their own, and they are all now reduced to one harmonious whole; and if this measure passes through Parliament, as I have every confidence it will do, before the end of the session, anyone who wants to study any matter respecting the law of licensing in Scotland will not have to do more than read this measure. I think I am entitled to say that this is a highly creditable and useful piece of work, and one which will tend greatly to the convenience of those who have to deal with these matters in the future.
  As I do not anticipate any opposition to the Second Reading of the Bill, I shall pass very lightly over most of its provisions, and only touch upon the most important and the new matters which are suggested for legislation to the House. I am sure your Lordships will see that the Bill is presented in a convenient form, because the parts which are new and the parts which are old are distinctly marked, the new parts being marked with thick black lines, so that your Lordships may rely with confidence that anything which is not so marked is already the law of the land. The Bill, then, is divided into seven parts. The first part deals with the question of the new authorities which it is proposed to set up for licensing purposes. I suppose everybody connected with Scotland knows that at the present time there is a licensing court for every county, and in some cases for divisions of counties, and that every Royal burgh has its licensing court of its own, consisting of the magistrates of the burgh. There is an appeal to Quarter Sessions in the case of
  834
  counties, and to Quarter Sessions of counties in the case of burghs, the large cities having an appeal to their own Quarter Sessions. Very general dissatisfaction has been felt for many years in regard to the constitution of these authorities or, as they are described in the Bill, courts.
  In some of the counties of large size the courts have grown by the increase in the number of justices to such an extensive number that all sense of personal responsibility is lost, and in some of the larger counties there have been courts assembled for what after all is largely a judicial as well as an administrative purpose, numbering ninety or over a hundred members; and there has been a great deal of canvassing and solicitation. It is perfectly notorious that in many cases large numbers of the members of the court appear, having been whipped up by one side or the other, and that as soon as special cases in which they are interested are decided they go away. We have, I hope, successfully made an effort to reform that state of matters. In the future there will be a separate licensing court for every burgh over 7,000 in population, whether Royal or Parliamentary, but the existing Royal burghs which are over 4,000 in population will, as a concession to a sort of, perhaps, vested interest, retain their own court, and in all those cases the court will be the magistrates of the burgh. There are now about eighty Royal burghs with courts of their own. About half of those are below 4,000 in population, There are 118 police burghs, and to, these licensing courts of their own will be given whenever they are above 7,000 in. population.
  I think nobody defends the existing state of matters. It is perfectly absurd that a burgh with 348 population should have a licensing court of its own, when a police burgh of 82,000 is still under the control of the county justices. The burghs, I have no doubt—in fact I know quite well—would have desired that all the Parliamentary burghs and all the police burghs should have courts of their own given them, but if that had been done it would have made about 250 different licensing courts in Scotland, one for every three or four parishes, it may be said, and that, I am perfectly certain, would not have tended to wise administration, and is not seriously proposed by

  835
  anyone. Although this proposal has caused a certain amount of opposition on the part of those burghs from whom licensing authorities are taken away, I think I am entitled to say that it has been very maturely considered, and both the majority and the minority of the Licensing Commission, which sat under the presidency of Viscount Peel, recommended that no burgh which was under 7,000 in population should have a licensing court of its own. That, my Lords, was the recommendation which we first adopted, and which we put into the Bill as we laid it on the Table of Parliament. But, as I have said, as a concession to feeling, and in the hope of modifying the opposition to the proposal which we then made, we have gone down to a population of 4,000 for Royal burghs which now have licensing courts and allowed them to retain in those cases their own courts of first instance.
  So far as the counties are concerned, every county or district of a county will have a licensing court of its own. The court will consist half of county councillors and half of justices, and will vary in number from eight or nine in the case of the smallest courts to twenty-one or twenty-two in the case of the larger ones. Where the county or district contains any Royal or Parliamentary burgh under 4,000, magistrates from such burghs will be added to the court in the population ratio. I hope by this means that we shall do away with most, if not all, of the existing difficulties, that there will be introduced a sense of personal responsibility which I am afraid is too often absent at the present time that we shall get the maximum of local knowledge which those resident in these places will have, and at the same time that those very small communities will have their local bias and local feeling corrected by a certain admixture of those who live, not within their borders, but in the immediate neighbourhood.
  We provide also for a new system of Appeal Courts. There will be a separate Appeal Court for each burgh or city above 20,000 in population. It will consist half of magistrates and half of justices of the county or of the city, as the case may be. All burghs in each county between 7,000 and 20,000 in population will have an Appeal Court of
  836
  their own, and in that case the Court will be constituted half of magistrates and half of justices of the peace; and each county, whether divided into districts or not, including all the burghs under 7,000, will have an Appeal Court of its own. The idea is to have as few different policies as may be. We think it advantageous that the largest possible area should be brought under the control of the Appeal Court, so that the decisions in regard to licensing in that area may be as uniform as possible. The second part of the Bill consolidates all the existing provisions as to the power and duties of licensing courts, and confers certain new powers, the most important of which will be found in the forty-first Clause of the Bill and are concerned with the making of by-laws for certain purposes which are there specified.
  The third part of the Bill consolidates all the provisions as to Excise licences, and it also contains a new provision of some importance concerning the forfeiture of Excise licences when the holders are guilty of shebeening or hawking liquors without certificates. The fourth part of the Bill consolidates the law as to offences and penalties for various forms of drunkenness and breaches of the licensing system This, I think, will be a great improvement, because many of the larger towns and cities have passed special Acts of their own, defining their own special offences, and decreeing certain penalties, each differing from the other, in regard to them. By this Bill, if it passes, they will all be consolidated into one whole, and the penalties will be uniform over the whole country. Amongst other things, in this part of the Bill a certain measure of liquor which has been the subject of a good deal of conflict and discussion in Scotland is now legalised. It is known as a "schooner." I do not know if many of your Lordships connected with Scotland know how much is contained in a schooner. As a matter of fact, a schooner is two-thirds of an imperial pint. The Home-Drummond Act prevented the sale of any liquor above half-a-pint in anything except imperial measures. I understand that the special thirst in Glasgow requires more than half a pint to slake it, but that it is not necessary to purchase a whole pint, and, therefore, with the economy peculiar to the race this half-way house, so to speak, has been

  837
  devised. It is undoubtedly illegal at the present time to sell two-thirds of a pint, but if a man wants rather more than half a-pint why should he be forced to buy a whole pint if two-thirds will satisfy him? Therefore, by general consent, it is proposed that it shall no longer be illegal to sell this particular measure of two-thirds of a pint.
  This part of the Bill also adopts the English provision forbidding the sale of liquor to children under the age of 16. It restricts Sunday sale except to lodgers and to bonâ fide travellers for their own consumption. The law with regard to bonâ fide travellers differs from the law of England in this respect, that there is no distance charter. In each case the distance which a man must have travelled is considered as a question of fact for the court which hears the case. I think that is more logical, and, at any rate, no serious proposal has been made to alter the law in that respect in Scotland and make it the same as the English law. But one unfortunate decision was given some time ago—at least a decision in my opinion unfortunate—that a bonâ fide traveller when he has travelled a certain distance was entitled to purchase, not only for his own consumption, but for the consumption of any of his friends, whether they had had travelled or not, as much liquor as he liked. We propose to do away with that and to make it clear that the bonâ fide traveller shall be entitled to purchase only for his own personal consumption.
  Another clause in this part of the Bill forbids sale from vans except where the liquor has been previously ordered or booked. A custom has grown up for grocers' vans to hawk liquor about, and this has been productive of much evil and will be abolished by the unanimous consent of everybody who has the interest of the population at heart. Clause 76 makes an important consolidation of the various general and local provisions, a matter which I have already mentioned. Clause 72 provides for a Black List on principles analogous to those provided in the Act of last year for England, but with some differences. We propose that when any fourth conviction for an offence scheduled under the inebriates Act has taken place within twelve months, a person so convicted may be put on the Black List with
  838
  out further procedure. Another clause makes habitual drunkenness, either of husband or wife, a ground for judicial separation; and another clause forbids excisable liquor from being consumed in unlicensed refreshment houses during the hours when the public-houses are closed.
  The fifth part of the Bill deals with the difficult and complicated subject of the registration of clubs. That is a mater which was also dealt with in the English Act of last year, but he evils which have grown up in Scotland are, I am sorry to say, much more serious and more deep-seated, and much worse in every way than anything which in known in England, The club of the humbler strata of population is hardly known in Scotland as a social resort. It may be said, without fear of contradiction, that in practically every case where a club has been formed in any of the large towns or cities in Scotland for those below the artisan class, it has been formed solely and only for the purpose of encouraging drinking, for getting drink at times when the public houses and hotels are closed, and generally for purposes which are not defensible. The number of these institutions has been rapidly growing. I have had complaints from every town and city of importance, and no matter has been made the subject of so much public discussion in Scotland as the best means of regulation this class of institution. It has gone to this length, that many of them in Edinburgh and Glasgow, in Dundee and Aberdeen and other places, have actually their agents upon the streets on Sunday for the purpose of touting for customers for the clubs, and in one case it was proved before the Courts that a large number of people had been taken into one of these institutions, and the only colourable defence that could be made for their being taken in and given drink was that they were friends of the waiter, who had treated them.
  The provisions we are making are for the registration of clubs upon application by those institution. Before a club can be registered at all a certificate in form of one of the schedules of the Bill must be produced, signed by two justices and magistrates, and by the owner of premises. This certificate

  839
  must certify that the club is to be conducted as a bonâ fide club, and not mainly for the sale of excisable liquors, and the club rules must comply with the provisions of Clause 80. All clubs of all social classes will have to come under this provision, but if your Lordships look at that clause, you will see, I think, that there is nothing in any one of the rules with which every well-ordered club does not already comply. I need not, I think, do more than refer to that clause, because it is in plain language and will tell its own story. A registered club may be struck off the register, as provided in Clause 85, by the sheriff in respect of conviction before the Sheriffs Court or the Burgh Magistrates' Court if that club or any of its managers have broken the law. The sixth part of the Bill deals with legal proceedings, and really does nothing more than consolidate the present law, with such changes of phraseology as are made necessary by the passing of the Summary Jurisdiction Act. The seventh part of the Bill contains definitions, and there are schedules for the forms of the certificate and so on.
  There is, perhaps, one matter to which I should specially allude. Your Lordships know that on recent occasions we have had more than one discussion here as to the limitation of the power of the magistrates of the larger cities to close public-houses and other similar places within their bounds at 10 o'clock at night. It is worth while, perhaps, and this is almost the last topic to which I shall think it necessary to allude, to go somewhat closely into the history of this matter, because in proposing the Bill in the form in which it is now brought before the House, I am asking the House to reverse a decision to which it came in 1887, and also to alter a decision which, at my own instance, it came to last year. The history of the matter is this. By the Act of 1865 a power is given to the licensing court of any district to fix other hours for opening and closing in any particular locality than 8 and 11. In 1872 the magistrates of Rothesay sought, under this provision, to close all the inns and public-houses in that town by drawing a line which included all the inns and public-houses in the burgh, and to say that the area so included was a particular locality in the sense of the statute. The Court of Session decided that such a course was not authorised by the law, and ordered the
  840
  magistrates to revert to the original hours. That decision was given in 1874, and no further advantage was taken of the provisions of that Act until the spring of 1902, when the magistrates of Glasgow and Dundee resolved to delimit certain areas in Glasgow and Dundee respectively as being particular localities in the sense of the Act, and to fix the hour of closing at ten o'clock instead of eleven, for inns, hotels, and public-houses. That case was taken on appeal to the Court of Session, but it was decided that the locality was fairly delimited, and the decision of the magistrates practically stood. The result is, therefore, that in particular localities magistrates can, in every burgh, define particular areas for early closing.
  An Act was passed in 1887 allowing every burgh, with the exception of four or five exempted burghs, to close their public-houses at ten o'clock, and your Lordships will recollect that the exemption in the matter of the larger cities was inserted by this House. Last year the noble Earl opposite, the Earl of Camperdown, introduced a Bill to reverse that decision, and to give the magistrates of those larger cities the same power as was hitherto enjoyed by the smaller communities. Last year I opposed that Bill, and your Lordships may perhaps remember that I opposed it mainly upon two grounds. First, on the ground that if it were carried into effect and the magistrates did so close the public-houses, it would be impossible in the existing state of the law with regard to clubs to avoid a still further and greater increase of bogus institutions of that kind, in which case the last state of matters would be worse than the first. If this Bill passes into law that argument will no longer have any weight. The second main ground of objection which I offered was upon a consideration that in these larger cities there were more people arriving and departing, and that life generally was later, and that the same law ought not to be applied to these larger communities as was applied to the smaller ones. The great argument against me at that time was that although that was true as far as the centres of these cities were concerned, it did not apply to the outlying districts, and that it was hard that there should be no

  841
  power to close in those districts at an earlier hour it desired. The force of the second argument which I used will, as I think your Lordships will see, be largely taken away by the decision of the Court of Session last year, given subsequently to the time when I was speaking, that it is at present competent for the magistrates of these larger cities to delimit areas in their towns without treating the area under their jurisdiction as a whole.
  Although I still remain of opinion that there is no case as yet made out for closing the whole of the public-houses within such communities as those of which I am especially speaking, I think it better not to adhere to the view I previously expressed, but to give way to the practically unanimous opinion of those who were concerned with this Bill ill another place, and allow the provisions of the Act of 1887 with regard to the larger towns to be repealed. There may be some matters which it may be necessary to discuss in Committee, but I think I have gone over all the points which it is necessary to call attention to at this stage. I put this measure before you as a substantial instalment of temperance reform. I am perfectly well aware that it will not do all that everybody wants to do. I do not believe that it is possible, to ever will be possible, to carry out some, at any rate, of the proposals which are glibly made by those who have not to carry them into effect. I would point out, however—and I think it is an important point—that eighteen out of twenty-nine suggestions contained in the Majority Report of Viscount Peel's Commission are embodied in this Bill. Of the Minority Report we take twenty-one out of thirty-two. Many of those, of course, are the same recommendations, but I think I may say broadly, and without fear of contradiction, that we have practically embodied in this measure every provision upon which both the Majority and the Minority Report agree. There are one or two which we have not taken, but I think I may say that we have gone in this matter as far as enlightened and wise public opinion will allow us to go at the present time. If we cannot, as I know perfectly well we
  842
  cannot, make men sober by Act of Parliament, at any rate we are doing much in this Bill to take temptation out of the way of those in whose way it is at present placed, and, while I think we do not interfere unduly with individual liberty, we are doing a great deal which, I believe, will make for the formation of public opinion in favour of sound tem, perance principles. While we penalise that trader who makes it a large part of his business to avoid keeping the law, we do not hamper those who desire legitimately to carry on what we regard as a necessary business. I believe those who have studied the discussions on this Bill will bear me out when I say that on the whole it has been well received, that it is in accordance with public opinion, and that not only the amendment of the law which we now propose, but the consolidation of all the statutes which we now-bring together, will prove of great, and, I hope, if it passes into law, of lasting benefit to the country in whose interests it is put before the House.
  Moved that the Bill be now read 2a— (Lord Balfour of Borleigh.)
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, the subject of Scottish licensing is a very important one, and the Bill which is before the House is, as your Lordships will have seen, of very considerable dimensions. I am happy to think that the discussion of this Bill is not likely to bear any proportion to its size. The reason for this is that the Bill, like many Scottish Bills, has been very fully considered by the Government with the aid of the Scottish Members in the other House, and the result is a Bill which I concur with the noble Lord in thinking is a satisfactory one. It goes as far as all reasonable persons would think possible at the present time, and I hope with him that it will produce a very good effect when it comes into operation in Scotland. I therefore only propose to trouble your Lordships with a very few remarks, at all events at this stage of the Bill. I would say, in the first place, that I agree with the noble Lord that the consolidation of all the licensing Acts in this Bill is a step which will prove of great advantage to the country to which the Bill applies, and I also think, with

  843
  him, that it confers very great credit upon the permanent staff who have been occupied in what must have been a very laborious work.
  I think that the licensing authority, as it stands in the Bill, is a very satisfactory one. I am speaking chiefly of the counties. I think that the proportion of one-half of elected members of the County or Burgh Councils, and the other half of justices of the peace in the burgh or the county is, perhaps, the best solution of that question which could have been adopted. As your Lordships will remember, in England two-thirds were to be justices, and one-third elected members of the County Council; but when the English Bill was under discussion I never attached too much importance to that point, because, after all, the very same class of persons are justices of the peace as are elected on the County Councils, and the difference really is one much more of words than of reality. With regard to the Court of Appeal, I have nothing to say against its constitution, except in one small particular, namely, where the smaller burghs have a Court of Appeal in common with the counties. Those small burghs, I know, are very anxious to have licensing authorities of their own. In that I am afraid I cannot agree, and, indeed, I think that the Government have already gone rather too far in the concession they have made by departing from the limit of a population of 7,000 and allowing Royal and Parliamentary burghs with a population of 4,000 to remain separate areas. As a matter of principle, I think it is undesirable that a licensing area should be too small, and except for some stronger reason than that of sentiment I think it is not desirable to create these small islands in the midst of large licensing areas. So far as I can see, no separate representation, and no special representation, is given to the small burghs in the country with regard to the Court of Appeal. It is a matter on which they have made representations themselves, and I think, although I have no brief at all to speak on their behalf and have no special preference for them, it is a matter on which they have some claim to consideration. If the noble Lord could see his way between this and the
  844
  Committee stage to consider that point, I should be glad. I would much rather that he should propose an Amendment in that direction than that it should be done by myself or any other private member of your Lordships' House.
  The most important part of the Bill to my mind is that which deals with grocers' licences. I entertain the notion very strongly, and I think those of your Lordships who know Scotland well must agree with me, that grocers' licences and the way tins business is worked in Scotland do the greatest evil at the present time. In Scotland villages are few and far between, and the cottages are scattered about, and are usually adjacent to the farm-houses. The consequence is that the population is very scattered, and although there may be no public-houses within miles, you will find as a rule that those sparsely populated country districts are more regularly served with liquors through the agency of the grocers' carts than perhaps any other part of the kingdom, and I am vary glad that stringent regulations are made in this Bill on that point. It is provided that in the first place the liquor is only to be taken in carts when it has been ordered, that a book is to be carried by the man who delivers it containing the orders and the name of the person to whom the liquor has been delivered, and there is also to be kept in the grocer's shop a corresponding book, both of which books will be accessible to the police. I hope that this Bill may be successful in dealing with what is undoubtedly a very great evil at the present time. If it proves an unsuccessful means, we must try to find some more effectual means of dealing with it, but in the meantime the proposal in the Bill seems to me as practicable and as sensible a proposal as could be made, and I have no doubt that the County Councils will endeavour to work it in the best way they can.
  I really think that it is hardly necessary for me to address any more remarks to your Lordships on points on which I agree with the Bill. I think that the Bill is a very good and a very sensible one so far as I can judge, and I would merely, in conclusion, make one remark to the point on which the noble Lord touched at the end of his speech. I refer to the power conferred upon the municipalities of the seven large towns which were previously

  845
  exempted of closing at any time between ten and eleven o'clock, which is a power that has been possessed for some time by all other muncipalities. I am very glad indeed to find that the Government have adopted a different attitude from that which they adopted last year towards this proposal. I am also glad my noble friend Lord Wemyss is not present, because if he had been I do not know what he would have said with regard to their backsliding. But the proposal which the Government are now making is, I believe, a sensible one and the right one. I never could understand why there was any less reason to trust the councils of large towns than the councils of small ones. Unless it is evident that the public sense is in favour of closing at an earlier hour, I cannot see any reason why the council of a large town should be more anxious to act against the wishes of the majority than a small council. I do not quite agree with the noble Lord in the reasons winch he gave for this change of attitude. He said that the Courts had now decided that it was in the power of these municipalities to close any districts in their area, but I contend that they had that power for years: there never has been any doubt of it as far as I know. The only instance in which the case came into Court was when Rothesay proposed to divide its whole area into four or six districts, and to close the public-houses in each of those districts. The Court in that case decided that the whole area could not be dealt with in that way under the Act, but with regard to the power of closing in a district, that power has for many years been in force. I am glad that the Bill has been introduced, and I hope that it will pass into law.
  THE EARL OF ABERDEEN: My Lords, the noble Lord in charge of the Bill stated that he considered this a practical instalment of temperance legislation, and I have no doubt that the House will feel that that declaration is amply justified. It is certainly a matter for congratulation that the noble Lord has succeeded in so ably dealing with this difficult subject. If the Bill dealt only with that important subject of clubs which my noble friend referred to, it would certainly be a public benefit. The fact that the beverage chiefly consumed
  846
  in Scotland is spirits as compared with ale, which is more common in England, makes the abuse in regard to grocers' licences particularly easy in Scotland. Personally, I would gladly have seen something further done in this direction. The Bill deals with the sale of liquor by means of grocers' carts, but there is often an abuse without the use of the travelling carts. I refer to the custom of selling spirits in bottles, which are taken by a group of persons, and the spirits consumed, not technically on the premises, but at the door, so to speak, of the establishment where the liquor is purchased. I think the Bill in some other respects might have gone further. My noble friend Lord Camperdown remarked that the Government in the other House had the assistance of the Scottish Members. No doubt the Scottish Members showed the keenest interest in the subject, and proposed many Amendments; but, unfortunately, some of the Amendments which were submitted by the Scottish Members in Committee were not supported by the Government, and are not embodied in the Bill as it is brought up to us. I shall certainly in Committee bring forward some at least of the Amendments which were suggested in the House of Commons. I am glad that my noble relative has included in this Bill the provision enabling public-houses to be closed at an earlier hour in the large towns, which have hitherto been exempted. Although I think the Bill might have gone further, it is an excellent measure, and I trust that it will pass and will pave the way for even further steps in the same direction.
  On Question, Bill read 2a and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Tuesday next.

  PUBLIC OFFICES (DUBLIN) BILL.
  House in Committee (according to order). Bill reported without Amendment. Standing Committee negatived Bill to be read 3a to-morrow.
  MILITARY LANDS BILL.
  Amendment reported (according to order) and Bill to be read 3a to-morrow.
  LIGHT RAILWAYS BILL [H.L.]
  Read 3a (according to order). An Amendment (Privilege) made. Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

  LONDON EDUCATION BILL.
  House in Committee (according Order).
  [The Earl of MORLEY in the Chair.]
  Clause 1 agreed to.
  Clause 2:
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (THE MARQUESS of LONDONDERRY): My Lords, the Amendments standing in my name to this clause are really drafting Amendments, without which it is thought that the clause might not be workable. I therefore move them without further explanation, but if any noble Lord thinks it necessary to ask any Question upon them, I need hardly say that I shall be very glad to reply.
  Drafting Amendments agreed to.
  LORD REAYmoved an Amendment, the object of which was to leave the determination of the composition of the bodies of managers in the case of provided schools to the London County Council instead of to the metropolitan boroughs, as arranged under the clause. He said that the object of his Amendment was to give to the County Council the same power which the County Councils in the country had under the principal Act. In the principal Act the number of managers and the grouping of the schools was left entirely in the hands of the County Council, and it seemed to him that so important a matter as the decision with regard to the number of managers and the grouping of schools should be in the hands of the authority which, as had been constantly asserted by the Government, was the authority which had supreme control. He did not understand why this departure from the principal Act had been adopted in this Bill, and why it was proposed to give to the metropolitan boroughs powers with regard to the number of managers and grouping which had not been given to similar authorities in the country. It seemed to him a pure waste of administrative power to introduce bodies which hitherto had had no connection with education, which had no experience
  848
  in the administration of education, and some of whom at least bad expressed a distinct wish not to be entrusted with these powers. The County Council, of course, would have inspectors and officials cognisant of the wants of the various districts, but the metropolitan Borough Councils would have no machinery whatever, and he could not see that any good result would he obtained V introducing this entirely new feature in the administration of the Act, and in deviating from what had been adopted last year by Parliament with regard to the schools all over the country.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 1, line 13, to leave out from the word 'by' to the first 'the' in line 14."—(Lord Reay.)
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I admit that the noble Lord is quite justified in raising the point. It is quite true that by this Bill powers are given to the metropolitan boroughs which are not extended to boroughs under the Act of last year, but if the noble Lord did me the honour of listening to the speech delivered the other day he will have recognised that I laid great importance on Are fact that the metropolitan boroughs occupied a very important position. I dwelt at considerable length on their population and wealth, and I also dwelt on the fact that many local authorities of smaller dimensions in other parts of the country had powers which were not extended to the metropolitan boroughs. I consider that the least we can do for the metropolitan boroughs is to give them a voice in regard to a certain amount of the details of the management of the schools in their boroughs. If your Lordships will carry your minds back to the debates that took place in the House of Commons, you will remember that this was really the result of a compromise between the claims of the Borough Councils and the County Council. The County Council, of course, is absolutely free to decide what are to be the powers to be given to these managers. I must say I consider it very essential that boroughs which have been recognised to be of such importance should have this voice. It has been said that a great deal too much work has been added to the already great amount of work which the London County Council has to do. If that is the ease, I think the provision in the Bill that the Borough Councils should,

  849
  after consultation with the London County Council, make arrangements in this direction, will lighten the burden of he County Council. I maintain that we are only doing justice to the metropolitan boroughs in this matter. Much as I would desire to accept an Amendment from the noble Lord, who has the interests of London education so much at heart, I cannot accept the Amendment.
  LORD MONKSWELLsaid he was much obliged to the noble Marquess for the suggestion that he desired the work of the London County Council to be lightened, but he failed to see how it would be at all lightened by the passing of the clause in its present form. The clause provided that the boroughs should, after consultation with the local education authority, decide the composition of the managers. Therefore, if the County Council were to do their duty, they must have formed an opinion on this matter. Therefore the argument that their labour would be lightened fell to the ground.
  EARL SPENCERregarded this as a matter too important to be dealt with as a matter of compromise. He was not affected by the argument that the metropolitan Borough Councils were important bodies, for he considered that this was a matter entirely for the responsibility of the educational authority, which ought to be supreme.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTHsaid the speech of the noble Marquess; both that night and on the Second Reading, seemed to him to prove too much. His observations were directed not to supporting the provisions of the Bill as it now stood, but the provisions in the Bill as it w s introduced in the House of Commons. The clause originally read:—
  "The council of each metropolitan borough shall he the managers of all public elementary schools provided by the local education authority within their borough."
  The noble Marquess frankly admitted the other night that that was his idea of what the Bill should be, and he understood that though the noble Marquess had given way to Parliamentary pressure he still thought would have been better to have given the whole matter of education in each particular
  850
  borough to the Borough Council. Holding that view the speech of the noble Marquess that night was perfectly justified, but as he had been driven from that position to take up the view that the proper education authority for London was the London County Council, he thought the noble Marquess should have the courage of his conviction and admit that the local educational authority should have the power of decision without any drawback. He pressed the Government to reconsider their decision. Perhaps the noble Duke would be able to say that some concession would be made in this direction.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The Duke of DEVONSHIRE): My Lords, the noble Earl opposite objects to this question being treated as one of compromise, and says it is too important to be considered ors that basis, but the noble Earl cannot get away from the fact that it is a compromise arrived at in the other House of Parliament. The original provision of the Bill did give to the Borough Councils absolute powers of management over the elementary schools in their districts. Under the compromise which was come to in the other House it gave to the Boroughs Councils not the absolute power of management, but the power of determining, after consultation with the education authority, and subject to the sanction of the Board of Education, the number of the managers of each school, the manner in which the schools should be grouped and it provided that they should also have the appointment of two-thirds of the managers. On the other hand, the education authority retains the power of deciding what powers and duties they intend to entrust to the managers thus appointed. If the London County Council intend to carry on the administration of education in London exactly on the lines which were described by the noble Lord the Chairman of the London School Board the other night, I should admit that any provision of this sort was unnecessary; but, as noble Lords opposite have pointed out, the labour which would be imposed on the County Conned by adding to their work all that is now

  851
  done by the London School Board would tax to too great an extent their powers and their abilities. We believe that the London County Council will be compelled to decentralise their administration much more than the London School Board has done, and we think it would be a very good thing that they should do so. If there is to be decentralisation, it is to the Borough Councils, to the minor municipal authorities of this great city, that we must look for assistance in the work of decentralisation, and if we expect to receive any assistance from them, surely it is not an unreasonable thing to suggest that they should have, not a controlling voice, because the ultimate decision will not rest with them, but that they should have at all events the power of making their suggestions in consultation with the education authority as to the organisation and local management of the schools. I believe that this is a duty which they will be competent and willing to undertake. I admit that I should have preferred the proposal that was originally in the Bill. I should have preferred to delegate specifically certain powers of management to these great bodies, but mainly I suppose, on educational grounds, that solution did not commend itself to the judgment of the other House, and this compromise has been accepted in its place. I must point out that any such alteration as has been suggested by noble Lords opposite would have a very serious effect upon the probable fate of this Bill. This compromise was only arrived at after long and protracted discussion in the other House. To send the Bill back with an Amendment, which would practically amount to striking the Borough Councils out of the administration of education in London altogether, would inevitably m the other House revive all those discussions which have hitherto taken place, and I think that it might—though I do not wish in any way to use the language of menace—have the effect of possibly endangering the final acceptance of the measure. That may be a course which does not hold out any terror to noble Lords opposite, but I think the great majority of Members on this side of the House will think twice before they assent to an Amendment which certainly would lead to a renewal of protracted discussion in the other House, and would be productive of the greatest inconvenience and danger.
  LORD DAVEYobjected to the clause on the ground of the divided responsibility which it created and which he believed would be fatal to good administration. They ought to throw the whole responsibility upon the body which had the administration of the schools. He was not at all impressed with the susceptibilities either of the County Council or the Borough Councils, and was indifferent to the question whether this was a compromise or not. He regarded the provisions of the Bill solely from the point of view of whether they would tend to the efficiency of London education, and he could not but think that to divide the responsibility between the Borough Councils and the local education authority in an important matter of this kind would not tend in that direction.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: The noble and learned Lord has overlooked the fact that this Bill leaves the County Council absolutely free to decide what powers should be given to the managers, and, therefore, to a certain extent the managers are controlled by the education authority. Also, I think the noble and learned Lord has not realised that the Bill provides that the Borough Councils shall act after consultation with the education authority, and that any arrangement made by them has to be approved by the Board of Education. This provision guards against Borough Councils acting in any way calculated to prejudice the educational policy of the local education authority. I believe that the fears that the County Council and the metropolitan Borough Councils may not work amicably together are vain. I am of opinion that the local bodies will do the utmost, with their local knowledge, to promote the cause of education. In the interests of the County Council itself it is desirable that the Council should consult with the local authorities.
  LORD REAYsaid it seemed to him to be an extraordinary position to allow the minor authority to decide after consulting the superior authority. It would be logical enough if the higher authority consulted the minor authority and then came to a decision.
  LORD COLCHESTERheld it to be desirable that those who were specially connected with a district should have a voice in its affairs. It was a great mistake to endeavour to treat London as one unit instead of as a collection of large boroughs which had very little in common. Obviously there could be little known by one district of the schools in another district, and he thought the same lack of knowledge would be found
  THE LORD BISHOP oft ROCHESTERmoved an Amendment substituting one-third for two-thirds as the proportion of the managers to he appointed by the Borough Council. He said it had been urged that it would be of great importance in the future to interest the local authorities in education, or, as it had been put even more effectively, to interest the people of London locally in their own schools. He felt the importance of that very much, but he could not but think that in this case, if the Borough Councils were allowed to appoint one-third of the managers, it would suffice to give them a very real interest
  854
  in their representatives on the County Council. He felt strongly the importance of giving those who were specially acquainted with a district a voice in its affairs.
  On Question, whether the words proposed to be left out shall stand part of the clause,
  Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 56; Not-Contents, 23.

  CONTENTS.

  Canterbury, L. Abp.

  Hardwicke, E.

  Congleton, L.

  Halsbury, E. (L. Chancellor.)

  Harewood, E.

  De Le Isle and Dudley, L.

  Devonshire, D. (L. President.)

  Howe, E.

  Dunboyne, L.

  Ilchester, E.

  Ellenborough, L.

  Argyll, D.

  Lauderdale, E.

  Grenfell, L.

  Manchester, D.

  Morley, E.

  Harris, L.

  Marlborough, D.

  Onslow, E.

  Kenyon, L.

  Northumberland, D.

  Stanhope, E.

  Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

  Portland, D.

  Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

  Lawrence, L. [Teller.]

  Wellington, D.

  Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]

  Lindley, L.

  Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

  Ponsonby, L. (E Bessborough.)

  Bath, M.

  Rathmore, L.

  Rayleigh, L.

  Clarendon, E. (L. Chamberlain.)

  London, L. Bp.

  Robertson, L.

  Sherborne, L.

  Abingdon, E.

  Abinger, L. Bp.

  Stanmore, L.

  Camperdown, E.

  Allerton, L.

  Suffield, L.

  Denbigh, E.

  Alverstone, L.

  Ventry, L.

  Derby, E.

  Balfour, L.

  Windsor, L.

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

  Belper, L.

  Wolverton, L.

  Cheylesmore, L.

  Eldon, E.

  Colchester, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Hereford, L. Bp.

  Lyveden, L.

  Carrington, E.

  Rochester, L. Bp.

  Monkswell, L.

  Chesterfield, E. [Teller]

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

  Reay, L.

  Crewe, E.

  Ribblesdale, L. [Teller.]

  Portsmouth, E.

  Burghclere, L.

  Sandhurst, L.

  Russell, E.

  Coleridge, L.

  Tweedmouth, L.

  Spencer, E.

  Davey, L.

  Wandsworth, L.

  Farrer, L.

  Gordon, V. (E. Aberdeen.)

  Kinnaird, L.

  in the schools. It was clear from the speech of the noble Duke at the Second Reading stage that the importance of the new managers would be greater than that of the old; and he suspected that, if the existing managers were asked which course they preferred, they would prefer that the bulk of their body should be appointed by the central authority rather than by the local council. It was no use disguising the fact that the County Council and the Borough Councils did not always enter into the treatment of a subject with a predominant desire to find themselves at one. There was a tendency, at any

  855
  rate, to antagonism, and it seemed then a serious risk to run with their eyes open, to allow the minor authority, on which, from the nature of the case, they were throwing a very large part of the educational responsibility, to be mainly constituted from a body which had some prepossession against the higher authority.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 1, line 16, to leave out the words two-thirds' and to insert the words 'one-third'; and in line 17, to leave out the words 'one-third' and to insert the words 'two-thirds.'"—(The Lord Bishop of Rochester.)
  LORD REAY,in supporting the Amendment, pointed out that the managers were not the agents of the metropolitan boroughs, but were appointed to carry out the educational policy of the County Council. The noble Duke the other night unfavourably contrasted the business methods of the School Board with those of a great railway company, but would any railway company ask another body to appoint a majority of its agents? By this clause, as it stood, they introduced an element of confusion into the administration and defeated their own object. How could they expect the County Council to devolve duties on bodies on which they would be represented by a minority? In these circumstances the delegation of powers to the managers would be restricted, and he doubted whether they would be allowed to have the power which they now possessed of appointing assistant teachers, and also of nominating the head teacher from three candidates selected by the School Board. Instead of having more devolution they would have less. In the borough of the Tower Hamlets, out of the 178 managers, fifty-two were resident elsewhere. Obviously the Borough Councils would endeavour, whether they found fit persons or not, to fill the bodies of managers by their own members and residents.
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: Why?
  LORD REAYsaid that if the appointment were left in the hands of the County Council better managers would be appointed. What was the position of the
  856
  non-provided schools in this respect? In that case one manager would be appointed by the County Council and one by the metropolitan borough. Why was there an equality in the case of non-provided schools and a disproportion in the case of provided schools? He thought the noble Marquess would be well ad-advised to reconsider this point.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I am afraid I cannot accept the Amendment, which is part and parcel of that which has already been rejected, the object of which was to take away the powers from the metropolitan boroughs. Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to remind him of what took place in the House of Commons on this question. Mr. Peel's Amendment, which was the origin of the present provision, fixed three-fourths to be appointed by the Borough Council, and one-fourth by the County Council. On the Report stage this was altered to two-thirds and one-third respectively, on the ground that it enabled the number of managers to be varied more conveniently. That was a compromise on this question between the London Members and the local education authority. The right rev. Prelate in his speech dwelt on the fact that the method of appointment of these managers would lend interest to local life in London. It was the knowledge possessed by these men of the local requirements that led us to entrust this power to them and insist on their having a majority. In the past the managers have done excellent work, and there is no reason to distrust them in the future; but if the managers who are appointed do not come up to expectation the local education authority will be able to refuse to give them any powers whatever. The local authority is entrusted with the power of seeing that the managers appointed are, so to speak, up to the mark. We have had experience of the fact that these bodies are co-operating together for the public good, and why it should be imagined that there will be any friction under this clause I cannot understand. The local education authority can supersede the managers should they desire to do anything injurious to the education of the district.
  LORD DAVEYsaid that the objection to the proposal was that, while the County

  857
  Council was made responsible for the efficiency of the school, its powers were to he exercised by a body the majority of which was not appointed by itself. This was the most wonderful provision that he had ever seen in an Act of Parliament. The policy of the Council might be thwarted by the managers, but it would have no power to remove them. Suppose there was a difference of opinion between the County Council, which represented the whole of London, and the Council of the Borough in which the school was situated, as to the policy to be pursued with regard to that school. In that case who ought to govern? Everyone would say the body on whom the responsibility for the efficiency of the school rested. But what would happen The County Council, which appointed only one-third, could remove only one-third; and the Borough Council, which appointed two-thirds, would have the sole power—and that to his mind was much more important than the actual appointment — of removing those two-thirds. Under this system the Borough Council might appoint managers, and instruct them in perfect good faith to carry out a policy which was not dictated by the local education authority, and that authority might find itself thwarted by the board of managers, through whom it had to act, and over the appointment of the majority of whom it had no control. Such a provision as that was calculated to lead to difficulties, and to place obstacles in the way of the policy of the local education authority being rigidly and properly carried out.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I should like to point out to the noble and learned Lord that the managers will have no powers except such as the County Council choose to delegate to them, and those powers can be withdrawn whenever the local education authority think fit.
  Loup DAVEYsaid that it was one thing to delegate powers and another to see them carried out.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTHsaid that this provision could not be described as a compromise, because one of the parties most concerned—the County Council—had not been consulted. The position of the London County Council had always
  858
  been perfectly clear. It had taken the view that it would prefer not to have these duties thrown upon it, and that it would be better that the education of the children of London should be placed in the hands of a body specially elected for that purpose. But if Parliament decided that the London County Council was to be the local education authority, then it claimed that it should he the real education authority, and that in its hands should be placed complete power to control and deal with this question. To pretend that this was a compromise was surely a misapplication of terms. This provision was not a compromise—it was a scrap thrown to satisfy those who had been desirous of putting the whole of the control of education into the hands of the Borough Councils. The noble Marquess had said that the managers appointed under the present system had done extremely well, and that he had complete confidence that they would give equal satisfaction and do equally good work in. the future. But how were the present managers appointed? They were not appointed by subordinate authorities, but were directly appointed by the central education authority—the London School Board. The London School Board selected the managers and delegated to them such powers as it thought proper, and they were actually agents to carry out the work of the Board. The case under this clause was a totally different one. It might just as logically be suggested that the noble Marquess should allow the choice of the managers of some of his great collieries to be made by a rival colliery owner hard by. He did not think the noble Marquess would like to see the managers under him appointed by his rivals in his own line of business, and, after all, that was very much the position of the Borough Councils to the London County Council. The managers were, above all, the agents of the central education authority, and he held therefore that they should be appointed by that authority.
  LORD MONKSWELLsaid the noble Marquess had defended his proposal by saying that in the event of there being any difference of opinion between the London County Council and the minor authorities the former would have the power of asserting their authority only by refusing to give any powers whatever to the managers. The County

  859
  Council might be obliged to place itself in a position in which the whole of this educational scheme would be brought to a standstill.
  LORD REAYplaced before the noble Marquess an analogous illustration in which the selection of assistant and head teachers would devolve, not upon the present School Board, but upon a body of managers not chosen or employed by the Board.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: The question of teachers is undoubtedly in the hands of the managers, controlled by the local authority. The question is, whether the local authorities can be trusted or not. I think that they can be trusted, and no discourtesy is intended to the County Council in not asking it to undertake this, work.
  LORD BURGHCLEREsaid they were told last year that the object of the Education Act was to co-ordinate and simplify authorities. He would like to ask how the extraordinary provisions which had been pointed out in this clause in any way co-ordinated or simplified the education authorities. It was pointed out in the discussion on the Act last year that the Government, in their ardour to co-ordinate authorities, had introduced into the Bill rather more authorities than there were under the then existing condition of things; but under this Bill they were going still further in the same direction, because they introduced the municipal boroughs. The minor local authorities were to possess a power over the County Council which was not conferred elsewhere by the original Act. Nothing could be more ridiculous than to allow the minor authorities to override the County Council.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP of CANTERBURYsaid that he approached this question with an open mind. He understood Lord Tweedmouth to say that the
  County Council and the Borough Councils were in the position of hostile authorities. The noble Lord spoke of two rivals in industrial concerns.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: I said nothing and meant nothing of the sort. I said that the Borough Councils in relation to the County Council were subsidiary authorities.
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Lord BALFOUR of BURLEIGH): The noble Lord used the expression "rivals as in business."
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid that he was in the recollection of the House The noble Lord spoke of the heads of two rival industrial concerns, and asked whether one owner would like to have the management of his concern appointed by the head of another rival in business. If that was the view which was taken of the relation of the Borough Councils to the County Council, they were indeed touching on a larger question than was raised by the Amendment. He should like in the strongest terms to protest against the idea that the two authorities, which were appointed with a view to the fullest co-Operation and friendly and harmonious working, should ever be hell up as intended to oppose one another in this matter.
  EARL CARRINGTONsaid there was no rivalry between the County Council and the Borough Councils in London. The question before the House was whether it was right to place these minor bodies in a majority against the County Council.
  On Question, whether the words proposed to be left out shall stand part of the clause,
  Their Lordships divided: Contents, 49; Not-Contents, 24.

  CONTENTS.

  Canterbury, L. Abp.

  Marlborough, D.

  Clarendon, E. (L. Chamberlain.)

  Halsbury, E. (L Chancellor.)

  Portland D.

  Devonshire, D. (L. President.)

  Wellington, D.

  Abingdon, E.

  Camperdown, E.

  Argyll, D.

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

  Manchester, D.

  Bath, M.

  Eldon, E.

  Abinger, L.

  Lawrence, L. [Teller.]

  Hardwicke, E.

  Alverstone, L.

  Lindley, L.

  Howe, E.

  Balfour, L.

  Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

  Hehester, E.

  Belper, L.

  Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

  Lauderdale, E.

  Cheylesmore, L.

  Onslow, E.

  Colchester, L.

  Rayleigh, L.

  Stanhope, E.

  Congleton, L.

  Robertson, L.

  Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

  De L'Isle and Dudley, L.

  Stanmore, L.

  Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]

  Dunboyne, L.

  Suffield, L.

  Ellenborough, L.

  Ventry, L.

  Hutchinson, V. (E. Dononghmore.)

  Grenfell, L.

  Windsor, L.

  Kenyon, L.

  Wolverton, L.

  Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

  London, L. Bp.

  Lamington, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Gordon, V. (E. Aberdeen.)

  Lyveden, L.

  Carrington, E.

  Monkswell, L.

  Chesterfield, E. [Teller.]

  Herford, L. Bp.

  Reay, L.

  Crewe, E.

  Rochester, L. Bp.

  Morley, E.

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

  Ribblesdale, L. [Teller.]

  Burghelere, L.

  Sandhurest, L.

  Portsmouth, E.

  Coleridge, L.

  Tweedmouth, L.

  Russell, E.

  Davey, L.

  Wansdworth, L.

  Spencer, E.

  Kinnaird, L.

  Welby, L.

  On Question, Amendment agreed to.

  Drafting Amendment agreed to.
  LORD REAYsaid that if the existing bodies of managers were to cease to exist on the appointed day, there would be an interim during which some confusion aright arise. He therefore moved the insertion of words providing that the existing body of managers should be continued until the new bodies were appointed.
  Amendment moved—
  " In page 1, line 24, after the word 'provision,' to insert the words 'the existing bodies or managers shall be continued until the new bodies of managers are appointed.'"—(Lord Petty.)
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I think the noble Lord will admit that this is not an Amendment of very great importance. It was proposed in the other louse by Mr. Lough, but was not pressed to a division, my colleague, Sir William Anson, expressing his unwillingness to insert a provision which might act as an inducement to the authorities not to put the Bill into operation at the earliest possible date. I can assure the noble Lord that the point will receive our attention.
  Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
  Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 3.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDEERY: The object of the new clause which I have to move after Clause 2 is to make it clear that schools belonging to the Loudon School Board outside London shall be treated as if they were in London. It is moved on behalf of one or two schools that otherwise would receive exceptional treatment. Sub-section 2 of the new clause deals with the case of a school situated partly in one Metropolitan Borough and partly in another.
  Amendment moved—
  "After Clause 2, to insert the following new clauses:—'(1.) As from the passing of this Ac, any public elementary school provided by the London School Board before the passing of this Act, which is wholly or partly situated outside the county of London, shall, for the purposes of this Act, be treated as, and for the purposes of the principal Act be deemed to have been, wholly situated within the county of London and within the nearest metropolitan borough. (2.) Any public elementary school provided by the local education authority which is situated partly in One metropolitan borough and partly in another shall, for the purpose of this Act, be deemed to be situated in such one of those boroughs as the local education authority determine.'"— (The Marquess of Londonderry.)
  LORD REAYsaid the Amendment standing in his name was accepted by the Government in the other House, but, on Report, was defeated on division. The

  863
  London Government Act, 1889, contained this section:—
  "The Local Government Board may, if they think fit, on the application of the London County Council and of the majority of the Borough Councils, make a Provisional Order for transferring to all the Borough Councils any power exercisable by the County Council or for transferring to the County Council any powers exercisable by the Borough Councils."
  That was an extremely wide power of transfer, and when the Act of 1899 was passed no one, of course, contemplated that it would apply to education, as the Borough Councils then possessed no educational powers. Moreover, it was entirely unnecessary in this case, because the Act of 1902, in Section 20, gave the powers required. The clause as it stood brought in two Government Departments, for, of course, the Local Government Board would not allow powers with regard to education to be transferred without consulting the Board of Education. This procedure seemed to him unnecessary, and in the interests of the smooth working of the Bill he thought it would be well that the section of the London Government Act, 1899, in question should not apply to proceedings under this Bill.
  Amendment moved—
  "To insert the following new clause:—Subsection:3 of Section 5, of the London Government Act 1899, shall not apply to proceedings under this Act.'"—(Lord Reay.)
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: This clause was inserted in the House of Commons on the Motion of Mr. Lough, and accepted on behalf of the Government. On the Report stage a Motion was made to strike out the clause, and the matter was left to the House of Commons to vote exactly as they pleased, with the result that the clause was struck out by 214 votes to 120. When I tell your Lordships that these powers cannot be transferred unless the County Council applies, unless the majority of the Borough Councils are willing, unless the Local Government Board give their consent, and unless the transfer is approved by Parliament, it will at once be seen that the matter is sufficiently safeguarded. I do not think it would be fair at this late period of the session to send the clause back to the House of Commons for reconsideration.
  Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
  LORD REAYdid not think the noble Marquess could have any objection to the next Amendment. Under the Technical Instruction Act, which was repealed, the County Council had the power to provide or assist in providing, scholarships, or pay, or assist in paying, the fees of students ordinarily resident in the district of the local authority in schools within or outside that district. Therefore they had the power to give scholarships at an elementary school. Under this Bill, however, the power of the County Council to give scholarships at elementary schools would no longer exist, and the result would be disastrous to those to whom it was very important that there should be afforded this first step in the ladder of advancement. Unless a provision of the nature contained in his Amendment were inserted in the Bill, the lack of it would make itself very seriously felt.
  Amendment moved—
  "To insert as a new clause (B) The local education authority may aid the education of scholars in public elementary schools who are exempt from the legal obligation to attend school by scholarships, free education, grants of books, or otherwise.'"—(Lord Reay.)
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: This Amendment has relation to a subject with which the Government will have to deal by a measure having application to the whole country. It is under the consideration of the Board of Education, and my colleague, Sir William Anson, has drafted a clause which provides that—
  "The local education authority shall be entitled to aid by scholarships the education of any scholar in a public elementary school who, being a scholar to whom instruction can legally be given in such a school, is exempt from the legal obligation to attend school."
  I hope that next year a measure will be brought forward that will meet the views of the noble Lord, who, I hope, will not insist on his Amendment.
  LORD REAYsaid that as the reply gave him more than he asked for he would not press the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
  Clause 3 agreed to.
  Clause 4
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRYformally moved the following Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 2, line 20, after the word 'shall' to insert the words except as expressly provided.'"—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)
  Clause 4., as amended, agreed to.
  Schedule 1.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORDsaid the Amendment which he desired to move bore upon Section 17 of the governing Act, the first sub-section of which was to the effect that any Council having powers under the Act shall establish an Education Committee, or Education Committees, constituted in accordance with the scheme made by the Council, controlled by the Board of Education, provided, etc. He proposed to determine by statute the form of the Educational Committee of the London County Council, which would, of course, be subsidiary to and working under the Council. The members of the Committee were to consist first of all of one member from each electoral division for the County Council, to be elected at the same time as the members of the County Council, on the same franchise, and by the same process, but with the difference that women were to be eligible for election equally with men, and secondly, to consist of nineteen members appointed from their own body by the County Council, and ten members, men or women, experienced in education, to be appointed by the County Council. It would be seen that of such a Committee the County Council would appoint the majority and the rest would be directly elected. Upon a superficial view it might be thought that this was an attempt to bring back the School Board, but it simply went to the extent to bring into the administra-
  866
  tion of the County Council all the best elements of the School Board administration. There was no attempt in this Amendment to revive the School Board, but merely to retain the principle of direct election. There were, indeed, several obvious advantages in such a Committee if it were made a statute. In the first place, such a body—a very impartial, thoroughly representative and efficient type of body— would relieve the excessively overburdened County Council. It would take off the whole burden which was being put upon it by the Bill in this shape, and he did not think there was any Member of their Lordships' House who doubted that this large amount of administrative work would overburden the Council, and that in consequence they could hardly fail to be inefficient in one part of their work or another. Therefore it was for efficiency of education and the whole work of the County Council that he ventured to urge this Resolution on the House. Then, again, by the appointment of one member, one man or one woman from each electoral division, they had an opportunity of securing a person who was directly interested in the great and good work of the education of the children of this Metropolis, and they held on to the principle of direct popular representation In his judgment one of the greatest defects in this legislation, in which they had been engaged for two years, was the tendency to depart from the principle of direct election by the people of the persons who had to do their work.
  Then, again, this Amendment gave them the opportunity of enlisting capable women for the work, and putting them in their rightful position on the Council. In the Bill as it stood it was generally thought outside that one of its great defects was that it practically disfranchised women from being elected. Those women who had worked so devotedly on the School Board for London practically disappeared, and seeing that three-fourths of the teachers and pupil teachers in the schools were women, and at least one half of the pupils were girls, he contended that it would be reasonable, and would certainly tend to an efficiency of devotion to the work, if women were admitted to their proper place in the education of the country. Those

  867
  were the main reasons on which he ventured to urge this Amendment for adoption by the House. He knew that some persons who have not had any experience in practical administration of that kind would say that it was hardly reasonable to elect popular representatives on the Committee of the Council, but no person of practical educational experience would venture to say that. He himself was working happily on two Education Committees at that moment under the Bill of last year, and the Archbishop of Canterbury had informed him that he was the only Bishop who was fortunate, or unfortunate, enough to be appointed on such Committees. He had worked on a Committee under the County Council which was just in the same position that this Committee would be, and he could assure their Lordships that the County Council almost invariably accepted the decision of that Committee, so that there would Le nothing to deter the best persons from offering themselves as candidates. Again, ill the City Committee in Hereford they had had some experience, and out of this experience he ventured to urge as advisable for the good work of the Metropolis, the establishment of an Education Committee under the London County Council such as he had sketched out. he had no doubt that it would work with far more efficiency and harmony than would any other kind of Committee which had been indicated, and he ventured to hope that it might commend itself even now to the noble Marquess in charge of the Bill.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 3, after paragraph (3) to insert as a new paragraph the words: The provisions of Sub-section 1 of Section 17 of the principal Act shall not apply, and the Education Committee of the London County Council shall consist of—(1) one member from each electoral division for the County Council, to be elected at the same time as the members of the County Council, on the same franchise and by the same process, women to be eligible for election equally with men: (2) Nineteen members, appointed from their own body by the County Council; (3) Ten members, men or women experienced in education, appointed by the County Council. This Committee shall come into existence at the time of the next County Council election, the Act to be administered meanwhile by the present School Board together with the twenty-nine persons appointed by the County Council under (2) and (3) above, acting as the Education Committee of the County Council."—(The Lord Bishop of Hertford.)
  EARL SPENCERsaid he rose at once to say two or three words on the proposal of the right rev. Prelate, because he had a great deal of sympathy with the proposition. He always felt in favour of what was called an ad hoc authority for dealing with this matter. He also felt very strongly in favour of electing women who had done such good work on the School Board. At the same time, he felt there was some difficulty in adopting in this Bill the proposition of the right rev. Prelate, which was to modify the School Board as a Committee. He had very great sympathy with the view of the right rev. Prelate, and if they were dealing with the thing de novo he thought there would be a great deal in what had been said. He was afraid that he had not quite gathered the argument made by the right rev. Prelate, that in his own experience in this matter the Committee of another body should be independently elected.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORD: I said a minority of the whole Committee.
  EARL SPENCERsaid he was not aware that in the country any such minority was now elected in that way. Those were the reasons why, although he very much regretted they could not adopt something of the sort, he doubted whether it could be brought conveniently into the present Bill. The form of the Bill did not seem quite in unison with the proposal of the right rev. Prelate, and much as he sympathised with the endeavour to, get a new element into the matter, he felt there would be a very great difficulty to be encountered. Then he saw another difficulty, which was by no means clear. The members would be only elected to the Committee. That was an anomaly which he thought was a very serious one, and he ventured to hope that the right rev. Prelate would not press this alteration in the schedule to a division.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I do not think after the remarks of the noble Lord that there is anything for me to say. He has recognised, as I do, that if this Amendment were to be accepted it would ignore-

  869
  virtually everything that has taken place in the House of Commons with regard to this Bill. Any question of a body elected ad hoc could not receive our sanction at the present time. I there fore really do not think the noble Lord will go to a division, and I also do not think he will think me discourteous in not answering at a greater length, which, however, I am perfectly willing to do if he so desires.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORDsaid he would not press the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORDsaid he ventured to think his next Amendment was not open to the objections to the previous one. It dealt with the subject of endowment. The endowment of schools in the London Bill was a new clause. It involved a departure from the parent Bill, and he was very glad to see it, because he recognised it as a great advance upon the Bill of last year. He would even go so far as to say that it was almost a confession that a mistake was made last year. In his own diocese the prevalent conviction was that a great mistake had been made; that they had wasted large sums of money which might, and he ventured to think would, have been used for helping forward the education of the children of the poor. To that extent they had been educationally impoverished by the action of that Bill. Turning to the London Bill he was glad to see that powers were taken to deal with endowments, although he was afraid that they were taken in a very half-hearted manner, so that the repentance did not appear to be either complete or effective. As the clause in the schedule ran the Board of Education had to wait for direct application from the trustees of the endowment in one case, or from the local education authority in the other case. That being so, what was likely to happen? Where they had trustees who might be said to be public-spirited trustees or generously-minded towards the poor children, or who were really earnest in and devoted to the cause of education, they would undoubtedly make an
  870
  application. Similarly with the local education authorities. If they were stirred up by a generosity which was not usually found in local authorities, then they would apply to the Board of Education. But supposing that neither of those applied to the Board then the trustees were left to use the endowments for the up-keep of the school buildings and similar purposes. That would happen in many cases, and money would be used for purposes for which it was never intended; to that extent they would be impoverished and the money would be confiscated. The local authorities would have to ask themselves, the question whether they should let the money go to the relief of the rates or apply it to the schools, and in many cases they would elect to put it to the relief of the rates. The facts would be that if they had a public-spirited and generously-minded body the money would be applied to its proper educational purpose, but if they had an inert and selfish body the trust would be abused, and the money would be confiscated. On that ground he hoped that the noble Marquess would be willing to accept his Amendment, which was simply to make an educational use of this endowment. All that he asked was that it should be the duty of the Board of Education, with regard to all endowments which at the time of the passing of the Act were being used for education, in all such cases to make the scheme an educational scheme, and that the endowment should continue to be used for a genuine educational purpose, and due regard had to the educational needs of the children of the locality or district for which the benefits of the particular endowment were originally intended. He was sure that their Lordships were anxious to have everything reasonable done with a view to help on the education of the children.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 3, line 22, to leave out from the word 'education' to the end of paragraph 4, and insert the words shall, by scheme or order, define the use to be made of any endowment to which this sub-section would have applied. Under any such scheme or order, the endowment shall be used for educational purposes, and due regard shall primarily he had to the educational interests of the children of the locality or district for which the benefits of the endowment were originally intended.'"— (The Lord Bishop of Hereford.)
  THE LORD BISHOP OE LONDONsaid in many cases these endowments were left for the poor schools and were left for the fabric of the schools. No one in the world was more anxious than himself to see the children properly educated, or had more sympathy with the desire of the right rev. Prelate, but they had to be just before they were generous. In St. Paul's they had to consider the questions of keeping up the service and putting the choristers out in suitable positions in life, but the first and chief question was that of the fabric. The schools could not exist unless the fabric were kept up. As it was, all that was left in many cases for that purpose was the endowment trust, and now the right rev. Prelate proposed to take that away. Therefore, whilst he was in sympathy with the right rev. Prelate's motives he could not support the Amendment.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORDwished to point out that where any endowment was left for the fabric it would of course be used for that purpose. His Amendment only applied to endowments which at the time of the passing of the Act, were being used for elementary education.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDONsaid his point was that the first essential part of the school was the fabric of the school, without which they could not carry on the purposes of education. He must oppose what he understood to be the real meaning, intent and result of the Amendment.
  LORD COLCHESTERsaid he expressed himself last year as being in sympathy with the object of the right rev. Prelate, but he saw one or two difficulties attending the Amendment. In the first place, when endowments were left for the poor they were not always left for the purposes of elementary education. It was quite possible that if this Amendment were to be passed it would only perpetuate an abuse which had grown up. Again, if any of these endowments were denominational it would be a very serious matter if the object which the denominational founder had in view were
  872
  to be disregarded. Therefore, while he sympathised with the general principle of the Amendment, he could not vote for it.
  LORD DANVEYsaid he also sympathised with the object of the right rev. Prelate who, he thought, did not quite grasp the effect of the clause in the schedule. The effect of Section 4 of the schedule was to except from this Act certain sections of the principal Act of 1902 and to enact instead with regard to all endowments that the Board of Education might make schemes with respect to those endowments. But those endowments were not endowments which as the right rev. Prelate seemed to suppose were devoted to purposes other than education, such as the repair of the fabric, ecclesiastical purposes generally, or anything of that kind. Section 4 of the schedule only applied to endowments which could be applied for the purposes of elementary schools including the maintenance of the school house. The Amendment of the right rev. Prelate also applied to those endowments of the character mentioned, and the effect of the Amendment was that, whereas under the schedule proposed it was necessary that the Board of Education should be put in motion either by the trustees of the charity or by the local education authority, the Amendment of the right rev. Prelate would make it obligatory on the Board of Education to define the use of the endowments which the scheme put in motion. He thought that was an improvement, and that the Board of Education would probably find this to he a freer Act than if it was necessary that they should be put in motion in the manner proposed in the schedule. But for practical purposes he confessed that as it applied only to the London County Council he did not think there would be any practical difference in the result, and he should certainly prefer that the Board of Education should be left free and without the necessity of their being put in motion in the manner proposed in the schedule. With regard to the latter part of the Amendment he thought it would be an improvement to insert it in the Bill, as it would define the purposes for which the scheme was to be made and he should consider it very doubtful whether it would not be ultra vires for the Board of Education to make a scheme for any other purpose than that referred to in

  873
  the Amendment. He should there fore be disposed to support the Amendment, although he did not think that, when it was thoroughly threshed out, it would confer a great practical improvement on this Bill.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The EARL of HALSBURY): I really do not know, after what my noble and learned friend has said, that it is very desirable to pursue the discussion of this Amendment. As I understand him, and I concur in his view, it will make no practical difference to this particular Bill. This matter has been settled in the House of Commons by an Amendment by the Government, which was accepted by Sir Michael Foster with great gratitude. I really think it would be un- desirable to disturb that agreement. There is only one observation that I wish to make, and that is, that educational purposes must surely include the upkeep of the schools, and if diverted from that the endowments would be diverted from educational purposes.
  On Question, Amendment negatived.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, the paragraph I am moving to insert was acquiesced in by the President of the Local Government Board on the request of Dr. Macnamara in the House of Commons. It is, with regard to the accounts being open to inspection by ratepayers, and we therefore came to the conclusion that if a Committee acts independently with regard to delegated powers their accounts shall not he open to inspection, but if it is approved by the County Council they shall be open. It is quite possible for a Committee to have matters to deal with of a confidential character. Questions of the character of the teachers, the division of grants, and similar matters, might arise, which it would be inadvisable to make public, unless the Committee were acting with the County Council. The Amendment is uncontroversial, and I therefore beg to move it.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 4, line 3, after paragraph 6, to insert as a new paragraph the words, 'Where the London County Council dele- gate to their Education Committee any
  874
  powers, and the acts and proceedings of the Committee as respects the exercise of those powers are not required to submitted to the Council for their approval, Sub-section 1 of Section 233 of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1882 (which provides for the inspection and the taking of copies of Minutes) shall apply to the Minutes of the Committee relating to the exercise of those powers as it applies to the Minutes of the Council.'"—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)
  THE EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid he would have regard to the state of physical exhaustion of their Lordships by reason of the lengthened sitting, and would speak very briefly to the Amendment that appeared on the Paper in his name. With regard to the two words, "by agreement," he would like to say that it was only intended that this clause should take effect in the event of the foundation managers and the local authority coming to an agreement. There was to be no sort of compulsion. Then the words, "outside the ordinary hours of the school time-table," were inserted in order that schools might be left in the hands of the foundation managers, except for the purposes of secular teaching—that was to say, foundation managers to arrange their schools for Sunday evening classes, or even to let the schools for entertainments. He was bound to say that since the Board of Education issued the new by-law he was not sure what hours the school time-table would set forth. That, however, was a matter which could easily be made clear. So far as religious education went he might say that a system such as this had been in vogue in Birmingham for some years in the Board schools, and had given every satisfaction. The Church of England had taken advantage of it, and the Church people there had professed themselves to be entirely satisfied with the character of the religious education that had been given, and with the general results. He ventured to think this was a solution of the difficulty with regard to religious education that the Lord Bishops professed to be anxious to get rid of. There is an easier way open, by giving up the attempt to control secular education in the schools throughout the country, but if they did not see their way to do that, he hoped they would

  875
  support this new clause. It ran on the lines of the compromise proposed for Wales, and would place the voluntary schools on the same basis as the Board schools were placed under the Act of 1870. Therefore it would, he hoped, foreshadow some agreement on the part of all these bodies in the State with regard to education.
  Amendment moved—
  "In Page 4, after paragraph 7, to inset as a new paragraph the mortis 'All public elementary voluntary schools within the area shall be maintained by the local education authority as if they were provided schools, provided that the local education authority shall, by agreement, rent the school premises from the trustees, free use of the premises being granted to the denominations under whose auspices the schools have hitherto been conducted for purposes of denominational religious teaching outside the ordinary hours of the school time-table, to the Children of such parents as make written application for the same. If any question arises under this section between the local education authority and the managers of a school not provided by the authority in respect to the use and rental of the premises, the matter stall he determined by the Vogel of Education.'"
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I do not think the noble Earl for a moment imagines I can accept his Amendment. It seeks to reverse the whole scheme in last year's Bill with regard to voluntary schools. The whole scheme was discussed last year and was rejected. A similar Amendment to this was ruled out on the Report stage in the House of Commons on the ground that it was a charge on the rates. That having been ruled out, I do not know how your Lordships are to deal with this question, but I can only say that it must be taken as a cardinal principle of the Bill that the position of the voluntary schools, as settled last year, is not to be altered, and no difference can be made between the voluntary schools in London and those in the country. I can hold out no hope of the Amendment being accepted.
  LORD DAVEYsaid he could not be surprised at the view expressed by the noble Marquess with regard to this Amendment, which was of a character that might have been more fitly adopted
  876
  in the Act of last year, if it was intended to apply—and there was no reason why it should not—to the whole of the country. He felt indebted to the noble Earl for having suggested this question, because in his opinion it was an extremely important one, and he had always looked to a solution of this kind as a real solution which might meet the just desires and wishes of the supporters of denominational education as well as those who preferred the system of Board schools. He ought to observe that the scheme which was suggested in the Amendment of the noble Earl was really that of the powers already existing under Section 26 of the Act of 1870, and when he heard the most reverend Primate say that no scheme or plan had been suggested by any Party on that side of the House for a solution of the difficulty, he felt some surprise. The solution to be found in Section 26 of the Act of 1870 had been put forward in the Press, by speeches both in the House of Commons and in that House, and in the literature that had been issued on the subject. He believed it was on the basis of the compromise proposed by his right reverend friend -the Lord Bishop of Hereford. He (Lord Davey) had some right to speak on this subject, because he had for the last twelve, years been a member and the chairman of a, School Board in his own parish, in which they had carried out exactly this system. There they had a school which belonged to a charity. The School Board rented the school at a nominal rent under the powers of the Act of 1870. The trustees of the charity reserved to themselves the use of the school out of school hours, and they gave religious instruction in that reserved time. What happened? The school bell rang three-quarters of an hour before the school began, and religious-education was given at the beginning of the school time. Then at a quarter to ten the bell rang again and the School Board work began. They found that system worked admirably and gave satisfaction to everybody. He had never heard a single complaint about it, either from the Church people, or from any member of the School Board, or from the Nonconformists themselves, and he had always thought that it afforded material for the solution of the question. He had always been of the opinion that

  877
  if the clergy had embraced that solution it would have been of great advantage to them. There would have been no Kenyon-Slaney Clause or introduction of foreign managers into the control of religious education, but it would have been entirely in the hands of those to whom the school house belonged, and they would have been free form many of those restrictions which the clergy found to be rather irksome upon them. It was a subject upon which he felt a great interest. He regarded it as a real basis for the solution of the confliction views of both parties. It was one to be welcomed by the Nonconformists, because it would not involve any payment of rates for the religious education that might be given by the trustees, and it was one which the supporters of undenominational education ought to—and he believed would—welcome, because it would relieve them of the cost of the maintainence of the building, and of very many restrictions under which they now suffered.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF ROCHESTERsaid that although anyone at this late hour spoke as with a halter round his neck, he thought it would not be respectful if no one sitting on those Benches expressed their views with regard to the Amendment. His objection would, of course, rest on the words "outside the ordinary hours of the school time-table." He could well imagine that the arrangement might work admirably in some cases, but they had to think not of instances but of the general rule, and in their view it would neither be respectful to the subject of religion nor practicable to make and arrangement by which that great subject should be taught outside the school hours and thereby give a kind of advertisement to the children concerned that they need not attend, It was important to he interests of peace in the future, and of a future settlement that they should recognise that any such arrangements must come within the school time-table. He had in his hand a paper by a Nonconformist, reproaching the Church for not coming to an arrangement based on facilities within the school time-table, but such an arrangement had never yet been responsibly suggested, and
  878
  he was quite convinced that no arrangement would ever commend itself to the consciences of those denominationalists who require denominational teaching, so long as proposals were made that religious education should be given outside the school time-table. When the noble Lord said he thought a compromise had been proposed on that basis, he (the Lord Bishop of Rochester) was not sure what compromise was alluded to, but he thought perhaps it was that suggested by Dr. Macnamara. He felt, and Dr. Macnamara knew at the time, that that was a point which from their point of view put his proposals out of Court.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORDsaid as he had been referred to in connection with the compromise he should like to say by way of explanation that the noble and learned Lord opposite had not received quite the right impression of the compromise which he had more than once proposed in regard to the voluntary schools. It was, he understood, voluntary schools with which this Amendment would deal. He had always contended, in a compromise of the kind, that denominational instruction should be limited to a specified time—but to a specified time within the ordinary hours of the school curriculum. There lay all the difference. Whilst sympathizing with the general view of the noble Earl he could not support the Amendment as it stood. He had another practical objection in his mind. From his experience in a country diocese he felt they had to consider both sides, and in many parishes there was on sufficient reason for so drastic a remedy. The Lord Bishop of Rochester had suggested that he should figure a little more in the shape of mediator. He could only say that he had been mediating for seven years, and he was afraid that with regard to some points the time for mediation was now over. But with regard to the Amendment he felt that in the country this is not the best mode of solving the difficulty.
  On Question, Amendment negatived.
  LORD BURGHCLEREsaid he had reason to believe that the Amendment he had to submit had never been brought forward in the House of Commons. It appealed to a large class of people and spoke for itself. It was a

  879
  supplementary Amendment to one that was to be moved later, and it dealt with religious tests as applied to those who wished to become teachers and were about to go into training colleges. The object of the Amendment was to enjoin upon the London County Council, who would be the particular educational authority under the Act to make adequate provision for those who wished to have undenominational colleges. The noble Marquess would observe that under the Bill the London County Council were only obliged to provide additional colleges if they considered the existing arrangements insufficient, and if they thought on the other hand that there were at the present moment sufficient opportunities for those who wished to have undenominational training, they would not be obliged to alter the present conditions. He would venture to point out that there could be no reproach cast upon those who asked for these undenominational colleges. They were in no sense irreligious persons, but they preferred to get the tenets of their faith from spiritual guides rather than to look upon them as tickets of entrance to a particular college. What was the provision existing at the present moment in this country for denominational and undenominational colleges? In England and Wales there were 45 residential training colleges, of which 38 were denominational. Of these 14 were for men and 24 for women. Therefore there were only seven undenominational colleges in the whole of England and Wales, two being for men and five for women. Then, what was much more germane to the Bill and to his Amendment, he asked their Lordships to consider how many of these training colleges there were in London, to which place the Bill applied. In London there were 12 residential colleges, of which 10 were denominational and only 2 in the whole of this great Metropolis were undenominational, one being for men and the other for women. But he was bound to admit that, as he understood it, there were day training colleges for teachers to which he had not alluded. In one sense, at any rate, they fulfilled the object which his Amendment had at heart, because those who wished to be teachers attended day training colleges and would not live in denominational hostels. These day training colleges were practically undenominational as regarded
  880
  particular students. He welcomed some regulations that the Board of Education had lately brought forward for the purpose of encouraging day training rather than residential colleges for teachers. They were prepared to encourage hostels by grants, where those pupils who wished eventually to become teachers resided, and who attended day training colleges in the daytime. The Board of Education had promised grants to denominational hostels, and it was quite obvious that if a teacher had to live in a denominational hostel, there was a test on that student even if he attended a day training college which was undenominational. His Amendment would enable the London County Council, as the principal education authority, to encourage undenominational hostels, of which he was told there were very few at the present moment, and also to encourage the establishment of day training colleges for undenominational teachers. The present system imposed upon those who wished to become teachers in public schools a sort of religious test. The hostels, which were mainly of a denominational character, also imposed a religious test, and his Amendment empowered and enjoined, but did not impose upon the London County Council, if they thought the present provision for undenominational colleges inadequate, to provide them for those who were to become teachers, and who wished for such educational provision. He did not think his Amendment was in any way one that could not be accepted. It was desired by many people in this country, and he hoped, having regard to the inadequate provision for undenominational training at the present moment that it would be taken into favourable consideration.
  Amendment moved—
  "In Page 4, after paragraph 7, to insert as a new paragraph the words, 'It shall be the duty of the education authority to make adequate provision of training colleges or of day training colleges, to which all qualified pupils shall be admitted without inquiry into their religions beliefs, and in which no religious catechism or formulary which is distinctive of any particular denomination shall be used.'"—(Lord Burghclere.)
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I am afraid that it is impossible to accept the Amendment of the noble Lord, for the simple reason that it would make the provision of training

  881
  colleges by the local authority compulsory. As this is a very important and serious matter, I have been careful to supply myself with the reply which should be given to the noble Lord on this point. The answer I have framed is as follows: This Amendment cannot be accepted. It would make the provision of training colleges by the local education authority compulsory. The local education authority, under their secondary education powers, have power to provide such training colleges. The quest ion whether the provision of secondary education in any form at all was to be made compulsory was fully debated last year; and Section 2 of last years Act represents the farthest extent to which the House of Commons would go in that direction. Under that section the local education authority are to "consider the educational needs of their area, and take such steps as seem to them desirable, after consultation with the Board of Education, to supply or aid the supply of education other than elementary." It is made quite clear by Section 22 (3) that the power to supply education other than elementary includes the power to train teachers. The actual compulsory supply of education corresponds, and should correspnod, with the extent to which education is compulsory. A parent is obliged to give his child elementary education; and the duty of the State is to make sure that there are elementary schools to which a parent can send his child for the purpose. No duty is imposed on the parent to see that his child receives anything beyond elementary education, and therefore no duty is imposed on the State to provide such education. The part of the Amendment which provides that the training colleges provided by the local education authority should be undenominational is already provided for in last year's Act (see Section 4), under which any training colleges provided by the local education authority must be undenominational. The noble Lord asked with regard to grants given to hostels. They are given to hostels whether they are denominational or undenominational.
  EARL SPENCERsaid he was not surprised at the answer given by the noble
  882
  Marquess to his noble friend. Everything for which the Opposition asked, no matter how sound the arguments by which the request was supported, was refused by the Government, and, of course, against their majority it was impossible to prevail. His noble friend had not been answered in the least degree. The noble Marquess had quoted a memorandum on the subject, and said he relied on the provisions of the Act of last year. The House were repeatedly being told that everything in the Act of last year was sacred, and that the limits there laid down must not be overstepped. He, however, could not accept that proposition. There was nothing more needed in the country than increased facilities for the training of teachers, particularly for those who did not belong to the Church of England. More undenominational training was required. He was quite aware of the difficulties in the way, and possibly he felt them more, having had considerable experience of training institutions in Ireland, where the attempt to establish hostels for the different denominations had practically broken down. The real remedy was to establish day training colleges. According to the noble Marquess, there were ample powers in that direction under the head of secondary education. But those powers were optional, and his noble friend desired that the local authority should be obliged to deal with the matter. There were many districts in the country without sufficient training college accommodation for teachers, and the object of this clause was to lay it down as the imperative duty of the local authority to provide that which was so much needed, and without which all their Lordships would doubtless agree good education was impossible.
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I do not think my noble friend or anyone else has claimed a specially sacred character for the legislation of last year; and we are perfectly aware, as I said the other day, that as soon as they had the opportunity noble Lords opposite are pledged to alter—in fact, practically to repeal—it. But I venture to point out to the House again that the work we are now engaged in is not in the Amendment of

  883
  the Act of last year, but the application of that Act to London, and I do think it would be very inconvenient and undesirable that we should now introduce a provision as regards London, which was deliberately rejected by the other House of Parliament last year in regard to the rest of the country. What reason has the noble Lord to suppose that the London County Council will not do all that is necessary in the way of providing the training college accommodation which may be necessary? I was under the impression, until a short time ago, that the London County Council was a body in which noble Lords opposite reposed very considerable confidence. It is now proposed to make compulsory upon the London County Council the exercise of a duty which it has not been thought necessary to make compulsory upon the rest of the educational authorities in the country. That is an extremely curious way of showing the confidence which noble Lords opposite entertain in the London County Council, and I must altogether object to inserting this entirely novel provision in the Bill.
  On Question, Amendment negatived.
  THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTHsaid he entirely agreed with the most rev. Prelate that the opposition to the Act of last year was not based on educational grounds so much as on grounds outside and beyond educational considerations, and he had reason to believe that that was the view of a great many people throughout the country. He did not say it as a matter for congratulation, but he believed that while the people of the country cared very little for education, they were greatly concerned with regard to the principles of injustice which, in their opinion, underlay the Act of last year and the Bill now before the House. The new paragraph which he proposed to insert would have the effect of removing a very real and substantial grievance which was felt most keenly by Nonconformists throughout the country. If these tests were to be established and maintained, he personally had no objection, because, detesting the Act as he did, he believed that no scheme could be devised by which the dislike of
  884
  the Act would better be kept fresh and keen in the minds of the people than it would be by these tests. What was the position as regarded London? In London there were approximately 1,000 head teacherships and 5,000 assistant teacherships in voluntary schools. The best posts in all those voluntary schools could never be held by Nonconformists, and the assistant teacher-ships might, but probably would not, be so held. His noble friend Lord Burghclere had called attention to the necessity for undenominational training colleges, and that view he entirely endorsed. Under the present state of affairs Nonconformists were trained and examined, knowing all the while that however excellent might be their work in the examination they would be debarred, by a test of the kind against which his Amendment was directed, from the best positions in their profession. Such a position was perfectly indefensible and it was made the more indefensible by a by-law recently issued by the Government. By that by-law the time during which a child was required to attend school was to be held to be the time during which the school was open for secular instruction only. The result would be that in a great number of schools, both Board and voluntary, the children of the poor in London would never hear the Bible read, or receive any religious instruction whatever. That was what had happened from the endeavour to press denominational education too far. This was not imaginary, but a real case in London, because the very poor would naturally and almost inevitably employ their children in the selling of newspapers or in adding to the income of the home by some other means, with the result that they would not receive religious education of any sort or kind. He objected most strongly to that by-law, and it affected the question under discussion in that if children were allowed to be kept away from the school so that they received no religious instruction at all, there was no reason whatever why these tests should be imposed upon Nonconformists. It the time during which children were required to attend school was to be limited to the time during which the school was open for secular instruction, why could not

  885
  the clergyman or minister of any particular denomination give religious instruction before the school opened?
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRYpointed out that the noble Lord the Chairman of the London School Board had a Question down for to-morrow, and intended then to discuss this subject at considerable length. He hoped, therefore, the noble Earl would forgive bins if, instead of replying on this point now, he reserved his remarks till to-morrow.
  THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTHsaid he was simply stating these facts because they bore most pertinently on the question of tests. His contention was that if it was not necessary for the children to receive any religious instruction at all, and that if the time during which they had to attend school was limited to the time during which the school was open for secular instruction, the argument as to the importance of the denominational views of teachers in voluntary schools was very much weakened. Judged, therefore, by the action of the Government themselves in issuing this by-law, altogether apart from the hardship of reimposing these religious tests, he was unable to appreciate the importance of the teachers belonging to a particular religious denomination. He therefore moved the Amendment standing in his name, regretting that, in view of the strong feeling excited in the country on the principle involved, he would feel bound to insist on taking a division.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 4, after paragraph 7, to insert the words, 'No teacher shall be required, as a condition of being anointed or continuing a teacher in any school or college aided or maintained by the local education authority, to belong to any particular religious denomination, or to attend or abstain from attending any place of religious worship, or religious observance, or Sunday School'"—(The Earl of Portsmouth.)
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYthought, with all respect to the noble Earl, that he was hardly conversant with all the facts in this particular matter. The Amendment divided itself into two parts, the object of
  886
  the first part being to prohibit the imposition of the condition that a teacher should belong to a particular denomination, and that of the second to prevent a teacher being obliged to attend or to abstain from attending any place of religious worship, and so forth. The second part was already practically the law, as the Code laid it down that such a condition should not be imposed. The words of the Code were—
  "A teacher shall not he required to perform or to abstain from performing any duty outside ordinary- school hours or unconnected with the ordinary work of the school."
  That was a most wholesome, right, and legitimate provision of the Code, and it really disposed of the second part of the noble Earl's Amendment He altogether disapproved of its being made a condition of a teacher's appointment that he should as a matter of absolute obligation undertake certain duties unconnected with the school and its work. He was quite aware that such a condition had not been unknown in the past, and it was possible that as a matter of private and terminable agreement, it was not unknown in the present, but if it should be made a matter of legal obligation, it was, in his opinion, indefensible in theory and practically inoperative in practice. When, however, he came to the further suggestion of the noble Earl, that it should he rendered impossible to require or to arrange that the teacher appointed to the head teachership in a particular school should belong to the denomination by the members of which the school was built and had been maintained, he was compelled to part company with the noble Earl. The issue there raised was a very wide and large one, involving the whole policy of the present Bill and of the Act of last year. It raised the question of the maintenance in any form whatever of schools in which denominational teaching was given. The noble Earl was perfectly consistent in objecting to this provision as part of the much larger provision that denominational schools as such should continue to be carried on. But if they were to be carried on, he fell back once more on the remark of Mr. Asquith that if denominational schools were to go on it was reasonable that the teachers should belong to the denomination which built the school. He did not wish to labour the point; it seemed hardly to require

  887
  argument when fairly faced. He would instance the case of a school on the building of which £15,000 or £16,000 had been spent by members of a particular denomination, who were at the same time rated for undenominational schools, and were maintaining by annual subscriptions, amounting to £1,000 a year, the character of the teaching in the schools. That it should be said that, as a condition of receiving any help whatever, that school must be liable to have appointed to it as head teacher a Roman Catholic or Unitarian, did not appear to him to be at all fair.
  A little while ago, when speaking to a friend who agreed with the noble Earl in opposing this Bill, he asked whether, if he were chairman of a small rural School Board, he would think it legitimate in appointing an infant mistress to ascertain whether or not the candidate was a Roman Catholic, and his friend said, "Certainly not. To ask such a question would be entirely and absolutely wrong." That was surely the redurtio ad absurdum of the theory which had been laid down. To assert that in a school which had been built and maintained by the members of a particular section of the Christian community, and which as regarded the fabric, was still to be maintained by them, the head teacher who was to give the instruction might be one who definitely opposed the tenets of the denomination who had built and maintained the school was to put forward one of the most illiberal, unfair and arbitrary contentions that could possibly be made That was his view as to the denominational test, as it was called. On the previous occasion when he spoke he did not refer to the denominational test as such, but to the question of whether or not the teacher, in order to be considered qualified to give religious instruction, should have been trained at a training college or elsewhere, and be able, as proved by examination and inquiry, to give the religious instruction in a proper manner. He was, however, quite ready to go further, and to say that in those schools which were still to have a denominational character, subject to all the safeguards imposed by recent legislation,
  888
  which introduced for the first time a popular element on the governing body which was not only to help in appointing the teachers, but actually to control the religious teaching given, and subject also to the still prevailing conscience clause, it seemed to him to be almost a self-evident proposition that the teacher should belong to the denomination to which the school was attached. He would not follow the noble Earl into the question of the by-law which was to be discussed to-morrow. He would simply say that the noble Earl had not quite fairly represented the matter, as the adoption of the by-law by the local authority was entirely optional, and the relaxation was to be given only when a parent asked for it in writing. He merely mentioned that lest it should be supposed that he and others accepted the interpretation of the by-law which had been put forward. As to the proposal that denominational schools should in future be presided over by teachers who might be opponents of the Christian faith-or, indeed, of any form of faith whatever—he hoped it would not commend itself to their Lordships' House.
  THE LORD BISHOP of HEREFORD,as he understood the noble Earl intended to divide the House on this question, desired to explain why he would be unable to support him. He strongly held the view that a wise and right policy was that the office of head teacher as well as that of assistant teacher in all publicly maintained schools should be open in this sense—that candidates for the office of head teachers should be eligible for appointment in voluntary schools, even though they did not profess to belong to the particular denomination to which the particular school was attached. It had to be borne in mind that in connection with all voluntary schools the foundation managers were in a majority, and the only effect of the Act of last year was to tie the hands of the Church majority, so that however much they desired to appoint the candidate whom they considered to be the most eligible, they were unable to do so unless he happened to he of the right denomination That was his objection as an educationalist to the Act of last year. He knew of one case in Which the managers, one of whom was a distinguished High Church leader, preferred

  889
  to appoint as the head of a department a Wesleyan teacher rather than an inferior Church teacher. He was certain that many clergy and other managers of his diocese under similar circumstances would do the same, and it was for the benefit of both religion and education that they should do so. Moreover such an arrangement would remove a substantial grievance at present felt by Nonconformists. But further than saying that all candidates should be eligible he did not think they ought to go. It was not reasonable that in a Church school the managers should be bound down by such a clause as that now proposed.
  LORD KINNAIRDthought the right rev. Prelate hardly realised that after the passing of this Bill the denominational schools would no longer be voluntary, but would be supported by the rates. There Was a difference between a grant in aid for secular education, coining from the Consolidated Fund, and assistance from the rates to schools which had hitherto been called "voluntary." The by-law to which reference had been made showed the drift of e cuts. It seemed as though that which many of them feared would be the result of this legislation was being gradually brought about, and that eventually the teaching of the Bible, according

  CONTENTS.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Gordon, V. (E. Aberdeen).

  Monkswell, L.

  Carrington, E.

  Reay, L.

  Chesterfield, E. [Teller.]

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

  Ribblesdale, L. [Teller.]

  Crewe, E.

  Burghclere, L.

  Sandhurst, L.

  Portsmouth, E.

  Davey, L.

  Spencer, E.

  Kinnaird, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Canterbury, L. Abp.

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

  Belper, L.

  Devonshire,(L. President.)

  Cheylesmore, L.

  Hard wicke, E.

  Colchester, L.

  Argyll, D.

  Howe, E.

  Congleton, L.

  Marlborough, D.

  Morley, E.

  Ellenborough, L.

  Portland, D.

  Onslow, E

  Kenyon, L.

  Wellington, D.

  Stanhope, E.

  Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

  Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

  Lawrence, L. [Teller.]

  Bath, M.

  Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]

  Robertson, L.

  Suffield, L.

  Clarendon, E.(L. Chamberlain.)

  London, L. Bp.

  Ventry, L.

  Abingdon, E.

  Windsor, L.

  Denbigh, E

  Balfour, L.

  Wolverton, L.

  Schedule 1 as amended agreed to.
  Schedule 2 and title agreed to.
  to the compromise of 1870, would be withdrawn from the children of the land, As to the re-imposition of tests on teachers. he agreed with the Bishop of Hereford in the belief that in many cases the common sense of the people of the country would ensure the appointment of the best teachers, but as long as the tests remained they would prevent much of the harmony which was so important in the question of the teaching of the children.
  EARL SPENCERsaid the most rev. Primate had referred, in the course of the debate, and also on a previous occasion, to the opinion of Mr. Asquith that religions teaching would and must continue to be taught in the schools. That statement was made some years ago. His right hon. friend would never have made it with regard to this Bill under which the maintenance of the schools would fall chiefly on the rates. It was hardly fair, therefore, to quote the statement on the present occasion. As to the question under discussion, the whole thing turned on the fact that these schools were now to be maintained chiefly by public rates, and if these teachers were to be thus supported they, as public servants of the State, ought not to be subjected to tests.
  On Question, their Lordships divided: Contents, 15; Non-Contents, 33.
  Standing Committee negatived. The Report of Amendments to be received

  891
  on Tuesday next; and Bill to he printed as amended. (No. 182.)

  METROPOLITAN STREKTS BILL.
  Read 3a (according to order), and passed.
  House adjourned at a quarter past Nine o'clock, till Tomorrow, a quarter past Four o'clock