Sitting of 18 May 1903

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.
UNOPPOSED PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  PRIVATE BILLS (STANDING ORDER 62 COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, Standing Order No. 62 has been complied with, viz.:—
  Baker Street and Waterloo Railway (Extension of Time) Bill.
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.

  PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS (STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE THERETO COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, viz.:—
  Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 9) Bill; Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 6) Bill; Naval Works Provisional Order Bill.
  Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time to-morrow.

  PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS (NO STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE).
  Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, viz.:—
  Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 8) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 11) Bill; Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 7) Bill; Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 8) Bill.
  Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time to-morrow.
  Watford and Edgware Railway Bill.—Read the third time, and passed.
  Gas Light and Coke Company Bill; Hampton Court Gas Bill; Lancashire and Yorkshire and London and North Western Railways (Steam Vessels) Bill; Metropolitan District Railway (Various Powers) Bill; Midland and Belfast and Northern Counties Railways Bill; Stroud District and Cheltenham Tramways Bill. As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  Frinton-on-Sea Sea Defences Bill [Lords]; Harrogate Water Bill [Lords]; Harrow and Stanmore Gas Bill [Lords]; Knott End Railway (Extension of Time) Bill [Lords]; Milford Docks Bill [Lords]; Pelican and British Empire Life Office Bill [Lords]; South Wales Mineral Railway Bill [Lords]; Staffordshire and Worcestershire Canal Bill [Lords]; Strabane and Letterkenny Railway Bill; Wellington (Salop) Gas Bill [Lords]; Wirral Railway Bill [Lords]. Read a second time, and committed.
  Dundee Royal Lunatic Asylum Order Confirmation Bill. Read the third time, and passed.

  WESTERN VALLEYS (MONMOUTHSHIRE) SEWERAGE BOARD BILL.
  The CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS informed the House; That the Committee on the Western Valleys (Monmouthshire) Sewerage Board Bill, not being appointed to meet until to-morrow, the parties promoting the Bill had appeared before him and proved that the evidence of William Harpur, Member of the Institute of Civil Engineers, Town Hall, Cardiff, was essential to their case, and that his attendance could not be procured without the intervention of the House.
  Ordered, That William Harpur do attend the Committee on the Western Valleys (Monmouthshire) Sewerage Board Bill to-morrow, at half-past eleven of the clock.

  PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP B).
  Leave given to the Committee to make a Special Report.—(Mr. Tennant.)
  Special Report brought up, and read.
  Plymouth Corporation Bill. Reported with Amendments.
  Report and Special Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. (No. 174.)

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to, Great Northern and City Railway Bill, without Amendment.
PETITIONS.
  COAL MINES REGULATION BILL.
  Petitions in favour: from Dillwyn; Pentremawr; Ibstock; Desford; Yniscedwyn; Ystradfawr; and Gurnos Collieries; to lie upon the Table.
  COUNTY COURTS JURISDICTION EXTENSION BILL.
  Petitions in favour: from Wells; and Wigan; to lie upon the Table.
  GROCERS' LICENCES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Govan, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENCES RENEWAL AND TRANSFER BILL.
  Petitions against: from Pocklington (two); Hammersmith; and Carlisle; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSING LAW (COMPENSATION FOR NON-RENEWAL) BILL.
  Petitions against: from Bainbridge; Hammersmith; Oldham; Pocklington (two); Kettering; and, Carlisle; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSING (SCOTLAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  Petition from Peterhead, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSING (SCOTLAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  Petition from Aberdeen, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  OUTDOOR RELIEF (FRIENDLY SOCIETIES) BILL.
  Petition from Govan, for extension of provisions to Scotland; to lie upon the Table.
  OUTDOOR RELIEF (PENSIONERS) BILL.
  Petition from Govan, for extension of provisions to Scotland; to lie upon the Table.
  PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION BILL.
  Petitions in favour: from Langwith; Godalming; Buttershaw; Haywards Heath; Colchester; Paddock; Ipswich; Cleator Moor; Edenfield; Blackburn; Kirkby-in-Furness; Lower Holker; Newington Green; Keighley; Cross Roads; Dartford; Star Carn; St. Ives; Todmorden; Bridge End; Milnrow; Cambridge; Alcester; Stapleford; Ilkeston; Alston; Ramsgate; Beccles; Nuneaton; Chelmsford; Rochdale; Lincoln; Cramlington; Throckley; Perth; Barnsley; Bridlington; Cleckheaton; Birkenshaw; Fleetwood; and, Fylde; to lie upon the Table.
  PUBLIC LIBRARIES.
  Petitions for alteration of law: from Fenton; Wigan; Kettering; and, Middleton; to lie upon the Table.
  RATING OF MACHINERY BILL.
  Petitions against: from Darton; and, Monk Bretton; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF ADULTERATED BUTTER BILL.
  Petitions against: from Kington; and, Leominster; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  Petition from Ibford, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE DISPUTES BILL.
  Petitions in favour: from Dillwyn; Ibstock; Pentremawr; Gurnos; and, Yniscedwyn Collieries; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  ILLICIT DISTILLATION.
  Return [presented 15th May] to be printed. (No. 167.)
  BURGHCLERE (HANTS) CHARITY.
  Return [presented 15th May] to be printed. (No. 168.)
  Copy presented, of General Annual Return of the British Army for 1902 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  ARMY.
  Copy presented, of Return showing peace establishment and effective strength of the troops at present in the United Kingdom belonging to the First, Second, Third, and Fourth Army Corps [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  MINES AND QUARRIES.
  Copy presented, of General Report and Statistics for the year 1902, Part I. (District Statistics) Statistics of the persons employed, output, and accidents at mines and quarries in the United Kingdom, arranged according to the inspection districts [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  POLLING DISTRICTS (COUNTY OF LANCASTER).
  Copy presented, of Order made by the County Council of the County of
  914
  Lancaster altering certain polling districts in the Lancaster and Newton Parliamentary Divisions [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

  POLLING DISTRICTS (WEST RIDING OF THE COUNTY OF YORK).
  Copy presented, of Order made by the County Council of the West Riding of the County of York altering certain polling districts in the Elland and Shipley Parliamentary Divisions [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  BOARD OF EDUCATION.
  Copy presented, of Papers relating to the resignation of the Director of Special Inquiries and Reports [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  UNIVERSITIES OF OXFORD AND CAMBRIDGE ACT, 1877 (OXFORD).
  Copy presented, of Statute made by the governing body of Wadham College, Oxford, on 6th February, 1903, amending Clause 1 of Statute VI. of the Statutes of the College [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. (No. 169.)
  UNIVERSITIES OF OXFORD AND CAMBRIDGE ACT, 1877 (OXFORD).
  Copy presented, of Statute made by the governing body of Exeter College, Oxford, on 12th December, 1902, amending Statutes III. and XV. of the Statutes of the College [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. (No. 170.)
  UNIVERSITIES OF OXFORD AND CAMBRIDGE ACT, 1877 (CAMBRIDGE).
  Copy presented, of Statutes made by the governing body of King's College, Cambridge, on 19th December, 1902, amending the College Statutes [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. (No. 171.)
  UNIVERSITIES OF OXFORD AND CAMBRIDGE ACT, 1877 (CAMBRIDGE).
  Copy presented, of Statutes made by the governing body of Trinity College, Cambridge, on 31st May, 1902, amending the Statutes of the College [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. (No. 172.)
  SOUTH AFRICA.
  Copy presented, of Statement of the Estimated Financial Position of the Transvaal and Orange River Colony [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  EVICTED FARMS (IRELAND).
  Return ordered, "showing how farms from which tenants were evicted on certain specified estates since the first day of May, 1879, were occupied (1) at the time of the Inquiry of the Evicted Tenants Commission; and (2) on the 1st day of May, 1903."—(Mr. Wyndham.)
  Return presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. (No. 173.)

  ARRESTS FOR DRUNKENNESS (IRELAND).
  Return ordered, "giving the number of arrests for drunkenness within the Metropolitan Police District of Dublin, and the cities of Belfast, Cork, Limerick, and Waterford, on Sundays between the 1st day of May, 1902, and the 30th day of April, 1903, both days inclusive, the arrests being given from 8 a.m. on Sundays till 8 a.m. on Mondays."
  "And, similar Returns for the rest of Ireland from the 1st day of May, 1902 to the 30th day of April 1903 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 233, of Session 1902.")—(Mr. Sloan.)

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Cost of Public Vaccination.
  SIR THOMAS ROE: To ask the President of the Local Government Board, if he will cause a Return to be issued showing the total cost of public vaccination charged on the Poor Rate for England and Wales for the two periods of four years, viz., 1895 to 1898, and 1899 to 1902.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long): The particulars referred to are shown in Part I. of the Local Taxation Returns which are published annually. The Returns for the year ended Lady Day, 1902, are in preparation, and Part I. will, I hope, shortly be ready for issue. It does not seem necessary that a special Return should be granted.

  Abolition of Offices—Compensation.
  SIR THOMAS ROE: To ask the President of the Local Government Board, if he will state the principles and scale adopted by the Board in determining the amount of compensation on an appeal to them where the Local Government Act, 1888, Section 120, applies, in respect of abolition of office or diminution or loss of fees or salary.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) In determining the amount of the compensation in cases of the kind referred to in the Question it is the practice of the Local Government Board to award as many sixtieths of the annual emoluments of which the officer has been deprived as he has served years, together with a special addition varying, according to the length of his service, from one-sixtieth to ten-sixtieths of those emoluments.

  Adulterated Whisky.
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether he is aware that German spirit made from potatoes and roots is imported into this country and sold as Scotch or Irish whisky, and that under the existing methods of supervision any potable spirit, German or otherwise, can be made up and sold as genuine whisky; and that English spirit, made largely from molasses, is shipped from this country to France and returned and sold as brandy; and, if so, whether he will consider the advisability of appointing a Committee of Inquiry into the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Ritchie). I am aware that allegations in the sense indicated have been made, but I have no official knowledge that would enable me to confirm or to refute such allegations. The matter was very fully examined by the Select Committee of the House of Commons in 1890, and I doubt whether any advantage would result from a fresh inquiry.

  Applications for Guaranteed Transvaal Loan.
  MR. COHEN: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he will state the number of the applications for

  917
  the recent Guaranteed Transvaal Loan of £1,000,000; between £1,000,000 and £5,000,000; £5,000,000 and £10,000,000; £10,000,000 and £20,000,000; £20,000,000 and £30,000,000; and of £30,000,000 respectively.
  (Answered by Mr. Ritchie.) The applications for the Transvaal Loan included 145 of £1,000,000 each; eighty-nine exceeding £1,000,000 and not exceeding £5,000,000; five exceeding £5,000,000 and not exceeding £10,000,000; five exceeding £10,000,000 and not exceeding £20,000,000; four between £20,000,000 and £30,000,000; one of £30,000,000.

  Money Order System with the Colonies and Foreign Countries.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the cost or commission on a money order from Canada to the United States is only three cents (1½d.) for five dollars (£1), whereas the cost of a similar money order for £1 from Canada to England would be ten cents, (or 5d.); whether he is aware that a money order from France to England for 5s. is charged only 1d., but for a similar money order for 5s. from England to France 6d. is charged for commission; and, if so, whether he will take steps to improve our money order system with foreign countries and the Empire.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) I am aware that in the cases referred to by the hon. Member the rates of commission are as stated by him. As I announced in the House on the 11th instant, the money order system in this country is now the subject of inquiry by a Departmental Committee, and until that inquiry is completed I can promise no changes.

  Greek Currant Monopoly.
  MR. CHARLES M'ARTHUR: To ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will instruct His Majesty's Minister at Athens to forward by telegraph particulars of any proposals tending to the establishment of a Greek
  918
  currant monopoly as soon as they are formulated, so as to admit of their examination in this country, if possible, before they are submitted by the syndicate for the sanction of the Hellenic Government.
  (Answered by Lord Cranborne.) His Majesty's Minister at Athens has been instructed to send home by telegraph particulars of the proposals of the syndicate for examination before they have been sanctioned by the Hellenic Government.

  Typhoid and Oysters—Suggested Board of Trade Inspection.
  MR. SEYMOUR ORMSBY-GORE: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if, in view of the cases of typhoid fever caused by oysters reared in insanitary beds, he will consider the advisability of appointing an inspector of oyster beds.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) The question of preventing the spread of typhoid fever is primarily one for the sanitary authorities, and I do not think that the appointment of a special inspector of oyster beds by the Board of Trade is necessary. I may, however, mention that the Board of Trade are considering with the Local Government Board whether in particular cases joint action might not be taken by the local sanitary and fishery authorities with a view of preventing the discharge of sewage in the neighbourhood of oyster beds, or where that is impossible of inducing the owners to move the oysters to another site.

  Board of Education and Local Education Authorities.
  MR. D. A. THOMAS: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether the intention of the Board of Education not to dictate to the local education authorities is intended to apply to elementary as well as to secondary education; and whether the Department adheres to the policy of not forcing the representation either of intellectual interests or of denominational interests on any Council with which the Board had to do.
  (Answered by Sir William Anson.) The requisites of a scheme for an Education Committee are set forth in Section 17 of the Education Act, and the duties of the Board in respect of such schemes are also there stated. The Board will endeavour to ensure that the schemes submitted for their approval are such as will satisfy the requirements of the Act, and will promote the educational interests of the areas to which the schemes apply.

  Ireland—Transfer of Sergeant Maloney.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will explain why Sergeant Maloney is to be transferred from his present station, seeing that he has only spent three years there.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) There is no intention to transfer this sergeant at present.

  South Africa—Transport of Troops.
  MR. FLOWER: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will cause instructions to be given that the transport of troops by rail in South Africa shall be effected in ordinary railway carriages; whether he is aware that on the 6th of last January the 1st Royal Welsh Fusiliers left Potchefstroom for Cape Town in cattle trucks, unprovided with shelter against the rain; and if he will issue such orders as shall for the future ensure that accommodation equivalent to that given to the returning Boer prisoners, shall be given to His Majesty's soldiers.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) There is considerable difficulty in the provision of sufficient passenger carriages in South Africa for the conveyance of troops. I have been in communication with the railway authorities and will take care that all possible consideration is shown to the troops.

  Survey of Somaliland.
  COLONEL SADLER: To ask the Secretary of State for War if he will explain why the maps of Somaliland recently issued by the War
  920
  Office are being published with a footnote stating that the country has never been surveyed, seeing that Colonel Swayne between the years 1886 and 1892 made a survey of the country, which was acknowledged by the Government of Bombay.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) The object of the footnote is to warn those who use the map that it is a compilation from travellers' routes and other sources of information and not the reproduction of a complete survey, and that the accuracy of the detail is therefore not absolutely reliable. Colonel Swayne's route reconnaissances have been used and have proved most valuable in the compilation of the map, but none of his work can be technically described as survey.

  Military Manœuvring Ground—Old Dean Common.
  COLONEL WYNDHAM QUIN: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the representations made by the General Officer Commanding the First Army Corps, the Commandants of the Royal Military College and Staff College, and others with reference to the expediency of securing the use of the whole of Old Dean Common for military purposes, he will take steps to prevent the alienation of any portion of the Common for building or other purposes.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) This Question is one which concerns the Office of Woods and Forests, and I would therefore refer my hon. and gallant friend to the full statement made by my hon. friend the Member for Fulham, in reply to a Question put by the Member for the West Division of Newington on the 2nd March, † from which he will see that there is no cause for anxiety on this matter so far as the War Office is concerned.

  Horses for 125th, 126th, and 127th Field Batteries.
  MR. ARTHUR LEE: To ask the Secretary of State for War, how many horses are actually present and available for duty in the
  † See (4) Debates, cxviii., 1113.

  921
  125th, 126th, and 127th Field Batteries respectively; and what is the proper establishment.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) The states on the 15th instant were as follows:—125th Field Battery, establishment 66, strength 49; 126th Field Battery, establishment 66, strength 60; 127th, Field Battery, establishment 66, strength 41.

  Scarlet Fever at the Duke of York's School.
  MR. WHITLEY THOMSON: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that the epidemic of scarlet fever at the Duke of York's School still continues, and that the sanitary authority of the borough of Chelsea, although it has been called upon to remove and disinfect bedding and clothes, has been refused information on the extent of the epidemic and not allowed to enter the school, he will instruct the officials of the school to give entrance to the representatives of the sanitary authority of the borough.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) Nothing is known of any such refusal to give information to the sanitary authorities of the borough. On the contrary the medical officer of the school has been working in co-operation with the borough medical officer of health. It has been decided to remove all the boys who are free from infection and encamp them for a time.

  QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    Somaliland Operations.
    MR. BRYN ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he has communicated to General Manning the view of His Majesty's Government that the objects of the military operations have been accomplished, and that they do not propose to incur further expenditure in pushing up fresh troops.
    MR. FULLER: At the same time may I ask the Secretary of State for War whether he has yet received the report from General Manning upon the situation in Somaliland caused
    922
    by the results of the recent fighting; and, if so, whether he is in a position to make a statement to the House as to the policy the Government intend to pursue with regard to further operations.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,): I will reply at the same time to a Question on the same subject put by the hon. Member for the Westbury Division of Wiltshire. We have not yet had a full report, from General Manning. He has however, transmitted to us in a telegram, dated 6th May, a rumour that the Abyssinians are advancing from the south and have engaged the Mullah's outposts, the Mullah's main body moving in consequence to the north. No sign of the enemy had been seen for some days by our advanced post at Galadi. In view of the difficulty of transport, which makes operations from the south and east impossible except in comparatively small parties. His Majesty's Government have directed General Manning to concentrate his force at Bohotale as his transport permits, and to operate from that base. In addition to its other advantages this will probably be the most favourable base for co-operation with the Abyssinians, but General Manning has discretion, having regard to the Abyssinian advance, to remain some time longer at Galadi, provided that he runs no risk of want of food or transport.
    MR. BRYN ROBERTS: My Question was whether the Government have communicated with General Manning on the lines they announced in this House, that the object of the expedition has been accomplished and no reinforcements will be sent.
    MR. BRODRICK: No, Sir. The communication made to General Manning is to the effect I have mentioned. General Manning has asked for no reinforcements, and, therefore, no question has arisen of sending fresh troops.
    MR. BRYN ROBERTS: Is the communication to General Manning of the altered policy not of vital importance?
    MR. BRODRICK: No, Sir. A communication has been made to General

    923
    Manning as to the base from which he should conduct his operations. We have no intention of withdrawing from the announcement of the policy made to the House.
    MR. ARTHUR LEE: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman has received any reply from General Manning as to the alleged deficiency of British ammunition?
    MR. BRODRICK: I have received several telegrams from General Manning with regard to different points in the operations, and the general effect of them coincides with the view of His Majesty's Government, that the future operations should take place from Bohotle. There is no withdrawal or change of policy in the matter. The troops from different posts have been concentrated, as they were intended to be concentrated, at Bohotle, which is to be the base of operations.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Are we to understand that the Government has sent instructions to General Manning as to the disposition of his forces without having heard his opinion of the situation?
    Mr. BRODRICK: I did not say that. His Majesty's Government consulted General Manning, and their decision has been in entire accord with the views he has expressed as regards the concentration of troops. As for ammunition, we have not yet heard anything from General Manning.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Has any communication been received from General Manning as to the situation since the recent disaster, and have the instructions sent to him by the Government been approved by him?
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That question does not arise out of the one on the Paper, and the hon. Member must give notice of it.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to give notice that I shall ask a series of Questions on this subject.

    Loans to Naval and Military Exhibitions.
    CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can give a list of the Government property lent by the War Office for the late Naval and Military Exhibitions in Manchester and Leeds, and state what steps have been taken to recover the 4·6-inch gun and maxim which were in the hands of the bailiff's, and with what result; and will he also state what inquiry, if any, was made into the status of the proprietors of the United Service Gazette, to whom the property was lent, and who they are; did the War Office authorities specify the proportion of the proceeds to be handed over to military charities; what regimental bands were permitted to perform at the Exhibition, and how many of these have been paid; and did the musical director of Kneller Hall receive official sanction to give his services to this exhibition.
    MR. BRODRICK: The list of Government property lent by the War Office to these exhibitions is too long to read out, but I can give the hon. Member a copy if he likes. No guns, however, were lent by the War Office. As regards the status of the proprietors of the United Service Gazette there appeared to be no reason for doubting the bonâ fides of a respectable paper of long standing, and no inquiries were made. No fixed proportion of profits was stipulated for. It is not known at the War Office how many regimental bands were allowed to compete at the Exhibition, as this would be left to the discretion of the general officers commanding the districts concerned, nor is it known which, if any, received payment. The notification that the Director of Music of Kneller Hall would adjudicate in the band competition received official sanction.
    CAPTAIN NORTON: Who are the proprietors of the United Service Gazette?
    MR. BRODRICK: I cannot say.
    CAPTAIN NORTON: I shall put the Question again, as it is all important.

    Naval Gunnery.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, have the firing returns from the Mediterranean Fleet now been scrutinised at the Admiralty in accordance with the practice which had been adopted by the Board on the 23rd April last; and whether, seeing that some of the battleships and first-class cruisers in that fleet have only had three half-days gunnery practice this year, and that one ship has has not had that, do the Admiralty propose to hold the admiral in command of the fleet responsible for the general low standard of shooting efficiency in that fleet; and will they now reconsider the advisability of causing it to be understood that the retention by admirals and captains of their respective commands will in future depend on the adequate shooting efficiency of the fleets or ships under their orders.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER,): Returns are carefully scrutinised as received. The attention of the Commander-in-Chief is, when necessary, called to any special points in connection with the Returns. I have already, on more than one occasion, stated the views of the Admiralty with regard to the importance of gunnery and good shooting. The Board have every confidence that the officers referred to in the hon. Member's Question are using their best endeavours to produce the desired result. They are, moreover, of opinion that no advantage to the service would accrue from the issue of orders of the nature suggested by the hon. Member.

    Finances of Burmah.
    MR. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the administration of Burmah is now a charge upon the Indian revenues, or whether there is a balance shown in favour of Burmah; and will he say what is the amount in either case.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON,): In 1901–2, the last year for which final accounts are
    926
    available, the revenue of Burmah exceeded its civil expenditure by about £1,800,000.

    Sinking Fund and Transvaal Loan.
    MR CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, under the terms of the Transvaal Loan Prospectus, the Sinking Fund can be applied to the purchase of the Transvaal Government Three per Cent. Guaranteed Stock when it is above par.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. RITCHIE,): No, Sir. The annual contributions to the Sinking Fund can be applied to the purchase of the stock only when it is below par.

    Registration of Clubs.
    MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has yet received copies of the Returns furnished in January last under Subsection (3) of Clause 25 of the Licensing Act, 1902, to the clerks of the Justices in England and Wales by secretaries of clubs, containing the particulars requisite for registration; and, if so, whether he is now in a position to state the number of clubs registered under the Act in England and in Wales.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. AKERS DOUGLAS,): There is no provision in the Licensing Act, 1902, requiring copies of these Returns to be sent to the Secretary of State, and I do not think that I should be justified in calling for them. I will, however, take steps to ascertain how many clubs have been registered this year, and will let the hon. Member know in due course. And in future arrangements will be made to include this information in the Annual Reports of the Inspectors of Constabulary.

    Mr. Whitaker Wright.
    MR. LAMBERT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he

    927
    can give any information as to how soon the extradition proceedings in connection with Mr. Whitaker Wright will end.
    MR. AKERS DOUGLAS: No, Sir, I can only repeat that the matter is entirely in the hands of the Courts of the United States of America.

    Licences Return.
    MR. J. H. LEWIS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can say when the Return as to the number of licences ordered, on the 18th March, 1902, and presented on the 18th December, 1902, will be printed and distributed.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. ELLIOT,): The Return is still in the hands of the printer, but will probably be ready for distribution in about three weeks.

    Light Railways in England.
    MR. SEYMOUR ORMSBY-GORE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he is prepared to initiate legislation to promote light railways in the poorer agricultural districts of England similar to that exercised in the congested districts in Ireland.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): The Light Railways Act already affords considerable facilities for the promotion of light railways in poor districts, and the Treasury is prepared to give a liberal interpretation to the provisions of Sections 4 and 5 of the statute providing for monetary assistance from the State. I fear I cannot promise legislation on the lines suggested by my hon. friend.

    Board of Trade Appointments.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the fact that a Naval officer has recently been appointed to the post of Board of Trade representative at Gravesend, he will consider the advisability of appointing in
    928
    future to these posts men from the Merchant Service, who have as much experience as naval officers.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The advisability of appointing suitable officers of the Mercantile Marine to such posts as that referred to in the Question is always considered. Of the nautical posts under the Marine Department of the Board of Trade, two only (out of twenty five) are at the present time held by Royal Naval officers.

    Manchester Licensing Committee.
    MR. WHITTAKER: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General whether he is aware that at the meeting of the Justices of the Peace for the City of Manchester for the appointment of the Licensing Committee for this year six Justices who were either brewers or shareholders in breweries engaged in the sale of intoxicating liquors in Manchester voted in the election of the Licensing Committee after being formally warned by the Lord Mayor and the clerk to the Justices that Justices in their position rendered themselves liable to penalties if they voted; and, if so, will he say whether he has authorised a prosecution in this case; and, if not, what action he has taken, or proposes to take, to prevent the repetition of such proceedings in Manchester.
    THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY,): My attention has been called to the occurrence to which the Question relates. It was decided in the Attorney-General v. Willett that a Justice interested in a brewery is not entitled to vote on the appointment of a Licensing Committee. That case is not reported in the authorised Reports and does not appear to be so widely known as it should be. By my directions the Treasury Solicitor communicated with the six gentlemen referred to in the Question. One of them denied that he had voted; another stated that under the circumstances which he explained he had not been aware that he or his firm had the shares in question. From the letters of the other four it appeared that there had been some discussion on the question of

    929
    the right to vote, and that they had acted without, realising that the law was as decided in the Attorney-General v. Willett. The Treasury Solicitor has called their attention to that decision and to the necessity of conforming to it, and I am satisfied that in future no breach of the law in this respect will be committed by them. Under these circumstances I have not thought it necessary to direct proceedings to be taken for the recovery of penalties.
    MR. WHITTAKER: Has an assurance been given that they will not break the law again?
    SIR ROBERT FINLAY: From one gentleman who seemed inclined to dispute the law, I have required an express assurance, two others voluntarily gave an assurance, and from the letters sent by two others I think there is no doubt that in future the law will be conformed with.

    Education Committees and the Press.
    MR. TREVELYAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether he is aware that the Education Committee of the Northumberland County Council has decided at its first meeting to exclude the public and the Press from its deliberations; and, if so, whether the Board will recommend the rescinding of the resolution, as contrary to the spirit and intentions of the Education Act. In putting this question may I further ask if it is not the fact that this Education Committee takes the place of thirty-four School Boards in Northumberland whose meetings were open to the Press.
    THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Sir WILLIAM ANSON,): The question of the exclusion of the public and the Press from the meetings of this Education Committee is a question for the Northumberland County Council to decide. It does not appear to me to be a matter for the interference of the Board.
    MR. TREVELYANasked whether the Board of Education had not been issuing circulars of advice to the education
    930
    authorities, and whether this was not a case where advice was desirable.
    SIR WILLIAM ANSON: This is provided for in the First Schedule of the Education Act of last year.

    Rates for Secondary Schools.
    MR. J. H. LEWIS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education if he will state what County or County Borough Councils in England have resolved to levy rates for the support of secondary schools under the powers conferred upon them by the Education Act, 1902.
    SIR WILLIAM ANSON: The Board of Education have no information on the subject of the hon. Member's Question.

    Voluntary Schools Aid Grant.
    MR. LAMBERT: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education if he will state when the year commences for payment to voluntary schools under the Act of 1897; when the last audit took place of the accounts of these schools; whether the whole of the 5s. grant was spent each year, and, if not, whether any estimate has been formed as to balances remaining in hands of associations after providing for their schools up to the appointed day of the Act of last year; to what purpose will these balances be applied; and will they be spent in the current financial year.
    SIR WILLIAM ANSON: The grants under the Voluntary Schools Act, 1897, are for the financial year commencing 1st April in each year. The accounts of each voluntary school are audited in each case at the end of the school year. There has been an audit therefore in every case within a twelvemonth. Aid grant is given in respect of the financial year and not of any particular school year; in many cases it would be impossible for managers to expend it within the school year during which it happens to be paid. The Board of Education always satisfy themselves that it is expended within a reasonable time on the objects for which it is given. Hitherto no part of the grant has been put into the hands of an association; the grants

    931
    have been paid direct to the schools by the Board of Education on the recommendation of the governing bodies. Schedule II. (12) of the Education Act, 1902, empowers the Foard of Education to pay the aid grant for the current financial year that may be allotted to any association direct to the governing body instead of to individual schools, if satisfied that suitable arrangements are made for its application. Some governing bodies are applying for the whole aid grant, some for part of it, to be so paid over; arrangements for its application are under consideration. It is at present impossible to calculate what the amount so handed over will be. The purposes to which the whole of the money will be applied are those purposes for which managers will in future be responsible under the Act. There is no reason why the money should be spent in the current financial year.
    MR. LAMBERT: Is it the intention of the Board of Education to pay the aid grant to the governing bodies in future?
    SIR WILLIAM ANSON: The Board of Education will endeavour to carry out the provision of the Education Act.
    MR. LAMBERT: That is not quite the point. Do the Board of the Education, instead of paying these sums to the individual schools, intend to pay them to the governing bodies of the associations?
    SIR WILLIAM ANSON: The Board of Education is empowered to do so, when satisfied that suitable arrangements are made for their application.
    MR. LAMBERT: Will they do so?
    SIR WILLIAM ANSON: If they are satisfied that suitable arrangements are made for their application.

    Trinity College Leases.
    MR. LONSDALE (Amargh, Mid): I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland whether, in the case of a landlord holding a portion of his estate under a Trinity College perpetuity lease,
    932
    that portion may be treated as a separate estate for the purposes of sales under the Irish Land Bill.
    THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,): The mere fact that a landlord holds from Trinity College portion of the lands which belong to him does not of itself prevent that portion from being treated as an estate.
    MR. LONSDALE: Does that apply to all other head landlords?
    MR. ATKINSONsaid the mere fact that the title under which a landlord derives part of his land differs from the rest does not prevent that portion of his land being treated as a separate estate.

    Castleblaney Licence Transfer.
    MR. CLANCY: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been directed to the action of the local Inland Revenue authorities in a case in which a person named Edward Keely recently obtained, at the Castleblayney (County Monaghan) Quarter Sessions, a certificate entitling him to a transfer of a public house licence from one Charles Moley; and to the fact that the Inland Revenue authorities in question have refused to act on the certificate of the County Court on a legal point decided against their contention by the County Court Judge; and, if so, will he state whether this action had his sanction, and whether he proposes to take any, and, if so, what steps in the matter.
    MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Edward Keely applied for a transfer of a "six-day and early closing" licence from Mr. Moley in October last. The Quarter Sessions in granting the transfer extended the certificate so as to authorise Mr. Keely to apply to the Excise for a "six-day" licence. This licence the Board of Inland Revenue declined to grant, and I am advised that their action is supported by a decision of Lord Chief Justice O'Brien in a somewhat similar case, in which the Court held that the Licensing (Ireland) Act 1902 did not admit of the grant of

    933
    a licence more comprehensive in character and quality than that previously held, "the status quo was to be preserved, but not to be extended."

    Ireland's Equivalent Grant.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, if he can state what portion of the equivalent grant of £185,000 will be allocated for education in Ireland.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,): No, Sir. Inquiries are still proceeding, and until these have been completed it will not be practicable to allocate the money.

    American Batter sold as Irish.
    MR. JOYCE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the attention of the Department of Agriculture has been drawn to the face that low grade American butters are being packed in Irish firkins and sold in the Manchester district as Irish firkin butter; that ordinary lump butter is being packed in creamery boxes and sold in England as Irish pure centrifugal creams or creamery butter; and that foreign eggs are being packed in Irish cases and sold as Irish; and, if so, will he state what steps the Department intend to take to stop these practices.
    Mr. WYNDHAM: Representations have been made on this subject, but they were of too general a character to enable the Department to take action. If definite particulars are supplied to the Department in any case in which the provisions of the Merchandise Marks Act are alleged to have been contravened, the Department is prepared to vigorously follow up the matter.
    MR. FLAVIN: Have the Department no inspectors who can go round and prevent these frauds being committed?
    MR. WYNDHAM: There are inspectors, but the suggestion I make is that those who have knowledge of
    934
    such cases should bring them before the Department.

    Irish Betting Offices.
    MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to a declaration made before a magistrate giving the names and addresses of persons alleged to carry on a betting business and keeping a house or office, contrary to the Betting House Act of 1853, in Dundalk, Armagh, Londonderry, Maryborough, Dublin, Belfast, and other towns; and, if so, will he cause inquiry to be made with the view of taking action in the matter.
    MR. WYNDHAM: Yes Sir. Declarations to this effect were recently received, and the police at the places named are now making inquiries into the matter.

    Cork Model Schools.
    MR. J. F. X. O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to a public meeting at Cork on the 10th instant in reference to the action of the Commissioners of National Education in regard to the Cork Model Schools; and, if so, whether, in view of the fact that the Cork Technical Committee have spent £700 on alterations to make that portion of the schools granted by the Commissioners available for the purposes of technical education, the Irish Government will communicate with the National Commissioners with a view to their postponing their projected action with regard to the Technical Committee until after the Education Estimates have been submitted to Parliament.
    MR. WYNDHAM: In submitting the hon. Member's Question to the Commissioners of National Education, I invited their attention to the supplementary Questions put on the same subject last Thursday,† and stated that I should be glad to be favoured with their further observations. In reply, I am informed that the matter will be considered by the Commissioners at their next meeting on the 26th instant.
    † See page 695.
    MR. FLYNN: Has the attention of the Commissioners been called to the fact that there are in attendance only one-fourth of the number of pupils for whom accommodation is provided?
    MR. WYNDHAM: I called attention to that point, but, of course, the schools are also used for several other purposes.
    MR. SLOAN: Was application made for permission before the alterations were effected?
    MR. FLYNN: Yes.
    MR. WYNDHAM: I understand that the Committee got the place temporarily, and the alterations are said to have been such as would have spoiled the schools for their original purpose.
    MR. FLYNN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the requirements of the Education Department were reduced to writing, and that their inspector was satisfied with what the Committee did?
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The Question has been answered, and the hon. Member should put any further Question on the Paper.

    Ballyduff Mails.
    MR. FLAVIN: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that inconvenience is caused in and around Ballyduff, North Kerry, by the fact that there is no Sunday delivery of mails, while local places receiving less mail matter have a Sunday delivery; and, if so, whether he has made local inquiries and will accede to the request of the general public and grant a Sunday service.
    THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): When the question of affording a Sunday post to Ballyduff, North Kerry, was considered last year, it was found that the cost of the existing service on week days as compared with the amount of correspondence was so high that additional expense for the purpose of establishing a Sunday post was not warranted. I will, however, make further inquiry in order to ascertain whether it is now
    936
    possible to provide a Sunday post to Ballyduff, and I will communicate the result to the hon. Member as soon as possible.
    MR. FLAVIN: Seeing that other places in the immediate district which usually receive the same number of letters get a Sunday delivery, will the right hon. Gentleman make local inquiries as to the necessity?
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir.

    Church Discipline Bill.
    MR. AUSTIN TAYLOR: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will give the necessary facilities for enabling the further stages of the Church Discipline (No. 1) Bill to be proceeded with during the present session.
    THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): As my hon. friend is well aware, the policy I have always recommended the House to adopt with regard to the two Bills which have been read a second time is to send both to a Committee. My hon. friend is probably also aware that it would be impossible for the Government to give facilities for a Bill, whatever its merits, which is of a controversial character.
    MR. AUSTIN TAYLOR: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the favourable condition of public business in this House, and the absence of controversial matters?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Perhaps my hon. friend will allow me to wait a month or two before expressing a final judgment on the opinion he has just expressed.

    Committee of National Expenditure.
    MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been drawn to the Motion which stands on the Paper respecting the Committee of National Expenditure; and whether he will afford facilities for its discussion.

    937
    The Motion referred to is as follows—
    National Expenditure, That, in view of the fact that no sitting of the National Expenditure Committee has yet been held this session, the Order of the House for the appointment of such Committee be rescinded.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I cannot understand the object of my hon. friend's Question, but I am informed that the Committee have completed taking evidence, and are about to consider their Report. It would seem an unusual and unfortunate course to stop their labours at so advanced a stage.
    MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Committee has not met during the present session.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am not aware of anything more than I have told the House.
    MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will consider the desirability of giving them a gentle hint.

    "Passive Resistance" to the Education Rate.
    MR. TREVELYAN: On behalf of the hon. Member for South Wolverhampton I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he will state whether he proposes to take any, and if so what, action against the National Committee for Passive Resistance to the payment of the Education Rate, as in law a criminal conspiracy.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I know little or nothing about the society to which the hon. Gentleman calls my attention. I do not know whether they have taken action which would bring it within the scope of the criminal law; but I should trust no person of sense would embark in any undertaking of the kind, which is equally at variance with sound logic, sound morality, and sound constitutional principles.

    Preservation of Historical Buildings.
    MR. YOXALL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury
    938
    whether he will consider the appointment of a Select Committee of this House to inquire into the desirability of establishing in the United Kingdom a system of national protection and conservation of buildings of historical or biographical interest, such as exists in France under the Loi du 30 Mars 1887, whereby a Government grant of 1,427,000 francs is available for the purpose this year.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I should be very sorry to express any opinion on this question, or even go the length of saying that it is ripe for discussion before a Committee of this House. I have looked at the French law, and I find that it entirely turns upon the discretion of a Minister who is competent, or understood to be competent, to deal with questions of this kind. I am not sure that I should like to add to the labours of the central Government in this country such addition to their responsibility as the copying of the French law would entail.
    MR. YOXALL: But the right hon. Gentleman is no doubt aware that the Minister is assisted by a specially appointed Commission.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That may be so, but the whole responsibility rests with the Minister.

    Shipping Combine Agreement.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury can he now state the details of the agreement which had been come to on 30th September last between His Majesty's Government and Mr. Pierpont Morgan respecting the use in time of war of the ships of the International Mercantile Marine Association, and also between His Majesty's Government and the Cunard Company to lend to that Company the money required for the construction of two 24- or 25-knot ships, and also in addition to pay the Company £150,000 annually for twenty years. Can he state the cost of the two ships in question. In view of the delays which have occurred in laying before Parliament the formal documents embodying these agreements, and in affording to this House the promised opportunity

    939
    for discussing them, will he now fix a definite date when that discussion will be taken. And, in view of the decisions come to by His Majesty's Government on 11th November last that these two agreements were so closely bound together as to make it necessary to submit them together to Parliament, and of the further decision come to on 23rd February last that one of them was not open to reconsideration, do His Majesty's Government propose to execute the formal agreements without affording this House any opportunity of discussing their terms.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The formal agreement with the Combine is in course of execution, and will be laid before Parliament with the agreement with the Cunard Company. There are, however, some details in connection with this latter agreement which are still to be settled; and until both agreements can be laid upon the Table, I do not think it would be possible for me to say anything about them or fix a date for the discussion. Meantime, matters will be expedited.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Can the right hon. Gentleman reply to the second paragraph of my Question?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I should rather deprecate doing so until the agreements are in the possession of hon. Members.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: But considering the great delay that has taken place will the right hon. Gentleman try to expedite matters so that we may consider them shortly?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The delay has been longer than I could have desired, but I do not think it amounts to a degree of delay of which the House has a right or desire to complain. I do not think, however, it will be much longer extended.

    The Shipbuilding Vote.
    MR. LOUGHI beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can inform the House, on the Report stage of the Shipbuilding
    940
    Vote, what is the policy of the Government which has led to the increase in the amount of that Vote and of the total Naval Estimates this year.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I gather that there was an explanation of that policy on the Vote last Thursday. I cannot promise a further debate on the later stage of the debate, even if such a stage should come up.
    MR. LOUGH: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Secretary to the Admiralty stated that he could not enter into the question of policy.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I heard the speech of my hon. friend, and I think he entered at great length into the policy.

    The Minister of Agriculture.
    MR. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether, in consequence of the delay in appointing a Minister of Agriculture, he will make some arrangement whereby some other Minister will be enabled to answer Questions concerning the Department.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The delay will not be of long duration.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
MR. BRYCE: What Supply will be taken next Thursday?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I hope to take the Revenue Estimates.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the propriety of putting down the third section of Vote 8, in order that we may discuss the general question of subsidies for merchant cruisers?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not think it would be expedient to again bring on Vote 8, to which a full sitting has already been devoted, when there are other important matters which must engage the attention of the House. In addition to that, it appears to me the point the hon. Member wishes to discuss touches on the fringe of another discussion which will take place later on the Atlantic Combine agreements.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: The third part of Vote 8 has not been considered at all.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That may be so, but I still think it inexpedient to bring the Vote on again.
SIR HENRY FOWLER: A considerable amount of time has already been given to the Revenue Votes, and I would call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the fact that we have as yet reached none of the Votes for the great administrative Departments. Would it not be desirable to take one of those next Thursday?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: With regard to the Votes raising the action and policy of the great administrative Departments, the Home Office and the Local Government Board, I shall be happy to consult hon. Gentlemen opposite through the ordinary recognised channels, and will take care that some arrangement is arrived at which will be agreeable to the House at large. I will endeavour to announce the result either to-night, at the termination of business, or to-morrow at Question time.
SIR CHARLES DILKE: We cannot discuss the Home Office Vote until we have the reports of the Inspectors of Factories and Workshops, which I believe are ready, although they have not yet been circulated.

NEW MEMBER SWORN.
JOHN KERR, Esquire, for the Borough of Preston.

LONDON EDUCATION BILL.
MR. SPEAKER: There are two instructions standing in the names of the hon. Members for Camberwell, N., and Islington, W. The one proposes to vary the constitution of the education authority provided in the Bill, and the other to make the School Board for London the local education authority. The object in each case is one to be obtained by amending the Bill, and consequently both the instructions are out of order.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]
MR. LOUGH: Before the first Amendment on the Paper is taken, I beg to move that you report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
THE CHAIRMAN: I cannot accept that Motion.
MR. LOUGH: Will you allow me to state—
THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order The House has decided that the Committee stage shall be proceeded with to-day. I therefore cannot accept the Motion.
MR. LOUGH: But will you allow me to explain the extraordinary position in which we are placed owing to the action of the Government?
THE CHAIRMAN: That question cannot be raised on a Motion to report Progress.
MR. LOUGH: We are not in a position to go on.
DR. MACNAMARA: The First Lord of the Treasury gave a definite assurance that before the Committee stage was proceeded with the London County Council and the London School Board would have an opportunity of considering the details of the measure.
THE CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of order.
DR. MACNAMARA: I submit it to your consideration.
THE CHAIRMAN: I cannot consider it. I am here to consider points of order.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONmoved that Clause 1 be postponed. He did so, he said, in consequence of the extraordinary position in which they found themselves that day. On the debate

943
on the Second Reading the First Lord told them that the Bill would not be taken until the County Council and the School Board had had an opportunity of considering it. Did the right hon. Gentleman deny that?
THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): That was not agreed upon. What I believe I said was that we could not postpone the Second Reading because these two bodies had not considered the Bill, but that I hoped they would have an opportunity of doing so before the Committee stage. I do not see why they should not have done so.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid the right hon. Gentleman must surely be aware that these bodies met only at certain times, and that a complicated measure such as this must be considered by a Committee before being submitted to the central body. The House was in a most extraordinary position. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education, who was evidently much impressed by the arguments advanced during the Second Reading against some of the provisions of the Bill, and especially those dealing with the inclusion of the Borough Councils, put down an Amendment on Thursday night, and subsequently finding that it would not work, he put down another on Friday night. This most important Amendment, altering the whole constitution of the Bill, had been put down in such a way as entirely to preclude the putting down of Amendments by the Opposition, and they could only move them verbally if the matter was reached that day. He did not think that was treating the Committee fairly. He hoped the hon. Baronet would give some explanation of the Government's proposals, and in order to make him do so he proposed to move the postponement of the clause.
THE CHAIRMAN: That cannot be done upon the Motion to postpone the clause.
MR SYDNEY BUXTON: We want to know how the Bill of last year will be made applicable to London.
THE CHAIRMAN: That can be discussed only on the Clause as a whole.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: We can only discuss the clause as a whole when it is amended, and what we want to know is how it is to be amended It appears to me that this is one of the evils which has sprung up from legislation by reference. Here is a clause which introduces an Act of nearly thirty clauses, and I want to ask how far we shall be able to amend the principal Act. Take, for instance, Clause 8.
THE CHAIRMAN: That does not arise on a Motion to postpone the clause. The hon. Member must show good reason for postponing this clause and beginning on Clause 2.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: The Committee is in such an extraordinarily difficult position that it may be necessary to move to postpone each successive clause as it arises. That was a fair position for them to take up if the Chairman ruled that the Government themselves were unable to state the latest views which they held, for they had held all sorts of views. He would reserve further discussion on the point till the clause was put.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Clause 1 be postponed."—(Mr. Sydney Buxton.)
DR. MACNAMARAsaid he supported the postponement of Clause 1, which was to apply the Act of last year to London, subject to certain modifications. As a London Member, he protested in the strongest possible way against this attempt to rush this clause, which was of the essence of the Bill. He was sorry the Prime Minister had left the House, because he maintained that the right hon. Gentleman had been guilty of what he called a grievous breach of faith in connection with this matter. The Bill was introduced and read a first time on 7th April; the text of the Bill was issued on 8th April. At that date both the London School Board and the London County Council were in recess for Easter. The Second Reading was taken on 28th April, when

945
the London School Board and the London County Council were still in recess, and had had no opportunity whatever of discussing a Bill which touched their interests in a most acute manner. The Second Reading was taken on the fourth Parliamentary day after the Easter holidays. He hoped when the Government came to deal with Scotland in regard to their Education Bill they would act very differently, or else the Scotch people would send their Bill back to them shorn. On 23rd April, a few days before the Second Reading, he asked the First Lord of the Treasury whether he would defer the Second Reading of the London Education Bill until after the London County Council and the London School Board had had an opportunity of considering the proposed measure, bearing in mind the fact that both these bodies had risen for the Easter recess before the Bill was issued, and had not yet had an opportunity of discussing it. And the Prime Minister answered that he did not think it would be convenient or possible to alter the arrangements they had come to. But, of course, the important bodies to which the hon. Member had referred would have ample opportunity of expressing their views before they came to the Committee stage. Now, the Prime Minister that day said that they had had ample opportunity. He asked any fair-minded man whether they had had ample opportunity to consider the measure? What opportunity had the School Board, which was to be destroyed by the Bill, of discussing before the Committee stage the details of the measure, as promised by the Prime Minister? The School Board met on 30th April, and immediately appointed a Special Committee. [Interruption.] This was rather important for the people of London, he could assure hon. Members opposite; and he warned them in time that they might find it important before they had done with the matter. On 5th May the Committee met and worked very hard, as he could personally testify, and on the 8th and the 12th they also met and worked hard, and then all of a sudden the Prime Minister told the House that he proposed to take the Committee
946
stage on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday. The School Board Committee met again on Friday, and the Board had to pass a special resolution that its Committee should send in their recommendations to the Government before submitting them to the Board, although on Friday last the Committee was not half-way through with their labours. They had, therefore, to scamper through the questions which involved the constitution of the local authority. Was that what hon. Members opposite considered giving plenty of time to discuss the important problems involved in this Bill?
As a London Member he protested in the most vehement manner at the way in which this Bill was being rushed. He believed the Prime Minister wanted to get a good authority for London education, but the least thing he could have done was to have given time to the bodies most concerned to consider the details as to how they were to get a good authority for London. Up to last Thursday night, the Education Committee was to consist of thirty-six members appointed by the local authority, thirty-one members by the Borough Councils, and twenty-five outsiders; but at the eleventh hour, on the eve of going into the Committee stage on the Bill, they were told that the Education Committee was to consist of forty-two members appointed by the London County Council, twelve appointed by the Borough Councils, and thirty outsiders—an entirely new scheme altogether. Now, he had spent the whole of the previous day in endeavouring to see how that would work out. [Cries of "Oh."] Yes, he did, and he thought it was very admirable work—he had got to be in a hurry in those days—but he was still at a loss as to how this grouping scheme was going to work out. With every desire to secure a good working scheme, he was still in the greatest difficulty. It was unfair, unjust, and inexpedient to rush things in the way that was being done. Rash haste was worse than delay. He did not want to make two bites of a cherry, but to do the thing in the best possible way. He desired in the most vehement manner to support the postponement of the first clause, first of all, because there was an open breach of

947
faith in respect to the promise made by the Prime Minister, and second, because at the eleventh hour a brand new scheme was put on the Paper which they had not had an opportunity of considering in its details and how these would work.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he was very much surprised that no answer had been made to the mover and seconder of the Amendment, which he supported. It was not in accordance with Parliamentary usage or courtesy that when a Motion was made by an hon. Member on the Front Opposition Bench, and supported by a distinguished educational authority, that no answer at all was made to their arguments. The President of the Local Government Board seemed to think that they were beneath contempt.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. WALTER LONG,)said the hon Member had no right to speak in that fashion. His hon. friend near him was ready to reply, and was only desirous to hear a case made out for the postponement of the clause.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Sir WILLIAM ANSON,)said that his right hon. friend had exactly expressed his point of view. He was waiting for a clear case for the postponement of the clause to be made out. What had been urged up till now was not argument for the postponement of the first clause but for reporting progress, and that the Committee should delay the whole question until the London County Council and the London School Board had had an opportunity of giving their views on the Bill. Now, the matter before the Committee was the postponement of the first clause, and he would point out that that would make it perfectly idle and nugatory to discuss any other clause. The first clause was to bring in the Act of last year, subject to certain modifications, but if they did not take the first clause first, but proceeded to the discussion, which he presumed hon. Members
948
opposite wanted to hurry on, of the composition of the Committee of the local authority, they would be discussing the composition of the Committee before having constituted the body of which it was to be a Committee, and then they would proceed to discuss management before constituting the body which was to control the managers. It appeared to him that this proposal to postpone the first clause was so absurd that it could not be treated as a business-like proposal, and could only be regarded as of the nature of a dilatory Motion.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that the hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary of the Education Board had asserted that the idea of postponing the question of the voluntary schools in London, as affected by the Act of last year, until after they had set up the machinery, was a perfectly absurd suggestion. But the hon. Member had forgotten that that was exactly what he himself did last year. Then the hon. Gentleman said, "Put up your machinery first and see afterwards what it is going to do." Was there no ground for postponing Clause 1? He agreed that the clause was the most serious part, the very essence of the Bill. The Government, without giving any opportunity at all to London to consider the matter, had decided to apply the whole of last year's Bill to the Metropolis. Now, in the first place, they ought not to do so until they knew their ground thoroughly, until they were certain that London was behind them in the matter. The London County Council had absolutely repudiated the very suggestion made in this particular clause. There had been a by-election in the last six months, when the opinion of London was expressed very clearly against the principle of this Bill. In spite of all those manifestations of opinion, the Government had decided to proceed with the Bill without giving London an opportunity of considering it. He would point out how differently the Board schools and the voluntary schools were treated in this respect. The voluntary schools were taken into consultation beforehand, and the Bill was actually altered to suit them. The voluntary school said that they would

949
have nothing to do with the Borough Councils, and that they must have the London County Council, and the Bill was altered accordingly. But the London School Board were not taken into counsel with the Government; they were not asked what their opinion was. The primary thing was to consider what the voluntary schools thought. The London County Council came to the same conclusion as the voluntary schools, but they were not consulted. The Government were now rushing the Bill through without giving any opportunity to either the London School Board or the London County Council to consider it. That was entirely in accord with the action of the Government. The Colonial Secretary said that the great question now was how much New Zealand mutton they should buy; the question before the Committee wag insignificant, and should be rushed through. He entirely supported the Motion of his hon. friend.
MR. FLOWERsaid he did not quite understand why hon. Members opposite should desire to postpone Clause 1. If that desire arose from the belief that the London School Board had not had a sufficient opportunity to consider the proposals of the Government, he thought hon. Members were somewhat unreasonable in their demand. The London School Board had for months past been considering the constitution of the new authority for London. It was perfectly true that the Board did not see the Bill; but did the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Camberwell suggest that it would be in accordance with Parliamentary practice that a Bill to be introduced by the Government should have been previously submitted to the London School Board? [Dr. MACNAMARA: No.] The hon. Member suggested nothing of the kind. The hon. Member and every member of the London School Board knew the lines on which the Government intended to proceed in legislating for London. The hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs seemed to think that the voluntary schools had received earlier information as to the Bill than either the London County Council or the London School Board. Not being in the secrets of the Education
950
Board, he could not say whether that was the case or not; but it must be evident that the very substantial changes foreshadowed by the Amendment of the Secretary to the Board of Education must have been as fresh to the representatives of the denominational schools as they were to either the London School Board or the London County Council. The main object of the Motion was to enable the Committee to debate at great length the question which was practically determined on the Second Reading, viz., whether there should or should not be an ad hoc authority for London; and it was to preserve, he would not say a licence, but a liberty of discussion upon that question that the matter had been raised in its present form. He believed that the Bill, as now drafted, was one which the people of London as a whole were fairly well acquainted, with. They had had an immense deal of discussion, and they bad had the views of the respective parties on the London School Board. Each hon. Member bad received from the vice-chairman of the Board a letter setting forth in lengthy detail his views on the Bill. What would it profit if this Motion were carried? The Committee would gain no knowledge they did not now possess; and they would have to proceed with the discussion in Committee hampered by the absence of the kernel of the Bill, the centre around which every discussion would really range. Therefore he hoped that the Committee would pass to the serious consideration of details of great importance and great interest, which could not be effectively dealt with if the clause were postponed.
MR. BRYCEsaid that the hon. Member who had just spoken stated that the people of London were fairly well acquainted with the provisions of this Bill. If the people of London were acquainted with the Bill they must possess the gift of prophecy, because the Government themselves were not acquainted with the most important provision of this Bill until Thursday night, and it was not until Friday morning, and, to some extent, not until Saturday morning that hon. Members as well as the people of London knew what the ideas of the Government were on a vital and

951
material point of the Bill. [Mr. FLOWER: That is Clause 2.] Yes, but Clause 2 made all the difference. Clause 1 was the alternative to Clause 2. The object of Clause 1 was to extinguish the London School Board, and it was not until Friday morning that they knew what the Government proposed to substitute. Until Friday morning the people of London were entitled to believe that the London County Council would not have a majority on the new body. It was not until Friday morning they saw the Amendment giving the London County Council a majority. [Mr. Flower: The First Lord of the Treasury said that on the Second Reading.] The First Lord of the Treasury said nothing of the kind. He had the best reason to know that, because he had made tremendous efforts to extract some information from the right hon. Gentleman but had failed. Neither the right hon. Gentleman, nor the Secretary to the Board of Education, nor the President of the Local Government Board stated what shape the Bill would assume except that it could not remain in the shape it then was. The real object of the Motion was that as the real purpose of the clause was to extinguish the School Board, the Board ought to have the chance that every prisoner had of being heard. How could the Committee decide whether the London School Board should be extinguished or not until they knew what authority was to be set up in Clause 2? Therefore, until they had that information, they were not in a position to take the vital and irrevocable step of destroying the School Board. For that reason his hon. friend's Motion seemed to be founded in reason; and he thought it would be a great pity if the Committee were deprived of an opportunity of knowing what the new authority was to be before they passed Clause 1.
MR. WALTER LONGsaid he thought the right hon. Gentleman was straining the case rather far. He appealed to the Committee as to whether in the debates last year hon. Gentlemen opposite did not repeatedly declare that the object of the legislation of the Government was to destroy the School Board system; and they were repeatedly told that the only
952
privilege London enjoyed was that it would be reserved for the last. That was not an incorrect description of the debates last year; and was it not, therefore, rather exaggerating the case to suggest now that they should not proceed until the London School Board had considered the Bill, the main policy of which, viz., the abolition of the ad hoc authority and the substitution of a municipal authority, was the same in this Bill as in the Bill of last year? The right hon. Gentleman said that the Prime Minister was not clear in his statement on the Second Reading. That was not his recollection, nor the recollection of many of his hon. friends. His right hon. friend's statement was explicit—that the local education authority was to be the London County Council, that the Government intended to make the local education authority supreme, and that they intended to give the metropolitan boroughs a share in municipal education, but what precise form that would take would be a matter for consideration in Committee. He submitted that the description which had been given of the action of the Government was not well founded, and he further submitted with confidence that there was no justification for the Motion to postpone the clause. The Committee ought to adopt the advice of his hon. friend and proceed to the consideration of the Amendments, which alone could enable the question to be discussed.
MR. MCKENNAsaid he agreed with the Secretary to the Board of Education that Clause 1 was a most important clause, and that in the final form of the measure it ought to be first. The question under discussion, however, was not whether the clause should stand as it was, but whether the discussion should be postponed. The clause stated that the Education Act of 1902 should, so far as it was applicable, and subject to modifications, apply to London. The logical sequence, therefore, was that they should first discover what the modifications were to be. He admitted that that method might be inconvenient to the Government, as it would make them expose their hand too soon, and

953
defeat their scheme to divert public opinion from the religious question to the conflict between the London County Council and the Borough Councils. He did not, however, think that the Government could go on amending their arrangements indefinitely. The Government, in the interests of debate, should not ask the House to apply the Act of 1902 to London, when they did not know in what respects it was to be modified. That appeared to him to be an overwhelming ground for postponing the discussion of the clause. The right hon. Gentleman would get the clause later; there was no doubt about that as long as he had the support of his friends. But the Committee ought to have the details of the modifications of the Act of 1902 before they blindly said that the Act as modified should apply to London. The President of the Local Government Board accused hon. Members on that side of the House of having said last year that the object of the Bill was to destroy the School Boards, and of being inconsistent now in asking for further time because the London School Board was to be destroyed. It was quite true that they did say last year that the Bill was intended to destroy School Boards, but the right hon. Gentleman denied it, and they believed him. However that might be, he did not think that the President of the Local Government Board had touched the arguments in favour of the Motion at all. If they were to treat the Bill in a business-like way they ought to consider it step by step. They should not be asked to swallow the Act of 1902 in a mouthful, and then chew the cud slowly hour after hour and week after week. When they had passed Clauses 2 and 3 and the schedules, they could then proceed in a logical manner with the consideration of Clause 1.
SIR GEORGE BARTLEYsaid he thought the Government ought not to comply with the Motion to postpone Clause 1. In the past few days the Bill had been changed to such an extent that the municipal boroughs had almost disappeared. Islington now was represented by half a man, which was a most
954
extraordinary condition of things, and he feared if the clause was any fur her postponed, that half man would disappear altogether. He thought the boroughs should take a more prominent part than they did with regard to education.
MR. WHITLEYsaid the one point of the Motion which appeared to have been overlooked by the Committee, was the fact that the first clause of the Bill dealt, and was the only part of the Bill that did, with the management of the voluntary denominational schools. The whole management of the voluntary schools depended upon Clause 1, and the management of the provided schools depended on the subsequent provisions of the Bill The reason he supported the postponement, was that they should first of all see what they were going to do with the public schools, and then treat the voluntary schools in exactly the same way as the provided schools. That was the practice adopted by the Government in the previous year when passing the Education Act. They first made up their minds as to how they would treat the public schools and then they placed the private schools under parallel conditions. If they passed Clause 1, they had the power taken out of their hands of dealing justly between the provided and non-provided schools. What really happened was that in January last a meeting of the voluntary school, managers took place in London, and the position they then took up was that they would not be placed under the Borough Councils at all; that if they were put under anybody it must be the County Council. The Committee was now asked to accept a clause of this description without knowing what the Government intended to do with the non provided schools. They ought, in the first instance, to decide under what authority they were going to place the provided schools, which were the vast majority of the schools in the county, and it was only after they had done that that they should decide in what manner they would deal with the voluntary schools. It seemed to him that they were putting the cart before the horse in dealing with the non-provided schools before they knew in

955
what way the Government intended to deal with the provided schools. In justice to the great majority of the schools in London, they should deal with the provided schools first and the non-provided schools after.
MR. YOXALLsaid this was said to be a pendant and complement to the Act of last year. The Act of last year made one local authority for education throughout England and Wales, and therefore the Secretary to the Board of Education suggested there should be one authority for London. But many of the objections made to the Act of last year stood with regard to Clause 1 of this Bill, unless they knew beforehand what modifications were going to be made in the Act of last year as applied to London, and therefore he urged that discussion on Clause 1 ought to be postponed until they knew what the authority for London was going to be. The Act of last year began by setting up the local education authority, and the remaining clauses gave the local education authority certain powers of
administration. The Bill of this year reversed the proceedings of last year. Here it was proposed to lay down the powers which were to be vested in the authority before they had decided what the authority was to be. Such a change could not be defended on logical grounds, and it had only been adopted to hurry the Bill through and prevent discussion. The object of the parliamentary draftsmanship of the present day was to prevent discussion and to obviate criticism, to cause hasty and slipshod work, and make work for the lawyers after measures left the House, and this was the most flagrant instance of it he had ever seen. He thought the Committee would do well to follow the practice adopted in the case of the Education Act and determine what the authority was to be before they proceeded to say what powers it should exercise. He heartily supported the Motion.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 87; Noes, 194. (Division List No. 85.)

AYES.

Allan, Sir William (Gateshead)

Grey, Rt. Hn. Sir E. (Berwick

Roe, Sir Thomas

Asher, Alexander

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Rose, Charles Day

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

Russell, T. W.

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

Samuel, Herbt. L. (Cleveland

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk

Schwann, Charles E.

Black, Alexander William

Hutton, Alfred K. (Morley)

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Bryce, Right Hon. James

Jacoby, James Alfred

Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Jones, David Brynmor (Swans'a

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Caldwell, James

Labouchere, Henry

Soares, Ernest J.

Cameron, Robert

Lambert, George

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Causton, Richard Knight

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall

Tennant, Harold John

Channing, Francis Allston

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.

Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark

Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington)

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

Cremer, William Randal

Leng, Sir John

Tomkinson, James

Crombie, John William

Lewis, John Herbert

Toulmin, George

Crooks, William

Lough, Thomas

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

M'Kenna, Reginald

Wallace, Robert

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

Markham, Arthur Basil

White, George (Norfolk)

Duncan, J. Hastings

Middlemore, Jn. Throgmorton

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Edwards, Frank

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Evans, Sir F. H. (Maidstone)

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Williams, O. (Merioneth)

Evans, Saml. T. (Glamorgan)

Paulton, James Mellor

Yoxall, James Henry

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

Price, Robert John

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

Rea, Russell

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Foster, Sir Michl. (Lond. Univ

Reckitt, Harold James

Mr. Herbert Gladstone and

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.

Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries

Mr. William M'Arthur.

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Rigg, Richard

Fuller, J. M. F.

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

NOES.

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

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Newdegate, Francis A. N.

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

FitzGerald, Sir Robt. Penrose-

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Allhusen, Aug. Henry Eden

Flower, Ernest

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

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Forster, Henry William

O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Fyler, John Arthur

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Galloway, William Johnson

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

Garfit, William

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Austin, Sir John

Gibbs, Hn. Vicary (St. Albans

O'Dowd, John

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Etgin and N'rn

Peel, Hn. Wm. R. Wellesley

Bailey, James (Walworth)

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

Pemberton, John S. G.

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Eldon

Percy, Earl

Balcarres, Lord

Goschen, Hon. Geo. Joachim

Pierpoint, Robert

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

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

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

Graham, Henry Robert

Plummer, Walter R.

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Greene, Hy. D. (Shrewsbury)

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Barry, Sir Fras. T. (Windsor)

Gunter, Sir Robert

Pretyman, Ernest George

Bartley, Sir George C. T.

Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benj.

Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Ld. G. (Midx

Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd

Ratcliff, R. F.

Bignold, Arthur

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Rattigan, Sir William Henry

Bill, Charles

Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

Redmond, William (Clare)

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Reid, James (Greenock)

Boland, John

Hayden, John Patrick

Remnant, James Farquharson

Bond, Edward

Heath, James (Staffords. N. W.)

Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge)

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

Helder, Augustus

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

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

Hoare, Sir Samuel

Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

Brassey, Albert

Hobhouse, Rt. Hn. H. (Somers't, E.

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Hozier, Hon. Jas. Henry Cecil

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse

Brvmer, William Ernest

Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Bull, William James

Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

Seely, Chas. Hilton (Lincoln)

Butcher, John George

Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin Univ.

Johnstone, Heywood

Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Joyce, Michael

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

Kerr, John

Smith, H. C. (North'mb. Tyneside

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Kimber, Henry

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Knowles, Lees

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

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm

Laurie, Lieut.-General

Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset

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

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Lawson, John Grant (Yorks. N. R.

Stroyan John

Charrington, Spencer

Leamy, Edmund

Sturt, Hon. Humphrey Napier

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Sullivan, Donal

Cochrane, Hn. Thos. H. A. E.

Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Ox'fd Univ.

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

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

Thornton, Percy M.

Colston, Chas. Edw H. Athole

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton

Lowther, Rt. Hon. Jas. (Kent)

Valentia, Viscount

Crossley, Sir Savile

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Lundon, W.

Wanklyn, James Leslie

Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

Webb, Col. William George

Dickson, Charles Scott

Maconochie, A. W.

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

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W.

Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts

Donelan, Captain A.

M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

Wharton, Rt. Hon. J. Lloyd

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Malcolm, Ian

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

Doxford, Sir Wm. Theodore

Maple, Sir John Blundell

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Duffy, William J.

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

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

Dvke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

Morrison, James Archibald

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Mount, William Arthur

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Fardell, Sir T. George

Mowbray, Sir Robt. Gray C.

Younger, William

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Murphy, John

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

Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Ffrench, Peter

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath

Sir Alexander Acland-

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Myers, William Henry

Hoodand Mr. Anstruther.

Clause 1:—
The following Amendments stood in the name of the hon. Member for North Camberwell—
958
"In Clause 1, page 1, line 5, at beginning, to insert, 'Except as respects the constitution of the local education authority for the administrative county of London, which shall be constituted as hereinafter provided.'"

959
"In Clause 1, page 1, line 7, at end, to add 'The London County Council shall be the education authority for London provided that—(1) The Local Government Act, 1888 (fifty-first and fifty-second years of Victoria) be so amended as to provide that the representation upon the London County Council of each metropolitan parliamentary division be increased by one half; (2) that at its first meeting after the election next after the passing of this Act the London County Council do appoint fifty-nine of its members together with fifteen other persons, selected for their knowledge of the educational needs of the Metropolis, to form the Education Committee. All matters relating to the exercise by the London County Council of their powers under this Act, except the power of raising a rate, or borrowing money, shall stand referred to such Committee as provided under Section 17 of the principal Act. The London County Council may also delegate to such Education Committee any of their powers under this Act in manner provided by Section 17 of the principal Act."
"In Clause 1, page 1, line 7, at end, to add, 'The authority for controlling all grades of publicly aided education within the administrative county of London shall be constituted as follows—(1) By the direct election, triennially, by the parochial electors of one person for each parliamentary division, provided that women as well as men shall be eligible for election; (2) By the co-optation by the members so elected of not more than fifteen persons chosen for their knowledge of the educational needs of the Metropolis.'"
THE CHAIRMAN: The first Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for North Camberwell must, I presume, be read along with the second. That would be beyond the scope of the Bill, because it would involve an alteration of the Local Government Act, 1888, with regard to the constitution of the London County Council. The other would be in order as it stands; it does not require the first Amendment.
DR. MACNAMARAsubmitted that as a preliminary it would be necessary to except the question of the constitution of the local authority from this clause, on the lines of a ruling of the Chair last year in connection with Clause 7 of the 1902 Act. The hon. Member for East Mayo then proposed to deal specially with single school districts, and it was held to be necessary that certain preliminary words should be moved. He suggested that the present was a parallel case.
THE CHAIRMANsaid it did not strike him in that way. The last Amendment, when reached, would be perfectly in order as it stood. It seemed to raise the question of an ad hoc authority quite properly as there placed, the words "so far as applicable" being sufficient exception.
MR. MCKENNAmoved to insert at the beginning of line 5 the words "Parts I., II., and IV. of." He reminded the Committee that in the Bill of last year, as originally introduced, the adoption of Part III. by the local authority was optional, and the object of the present Amendment was to exempt the work of elementary education from the Bill, in other words, the London School Board would be kept alive. No sufficient reason had ever been given for the abandonment of Clause 5 last year. When introducing that measure, the Prime Minister said—
"We cannot hope to succeed in our object unless we carry with us the local authorities on whom the burden and responsibility of the Bill will fall. We think it would be most undesirable to drive or force them, with but brief consideration, and possibly against their will, into accepting our plans. We therefore propose to leave it to the Councils of the various districts to adopt the portion of this Act dealing with elementary education if and when they please. My conviction is that very few years will elapse before they do so. I feel tolerably confident that as it is stated and brought home to them that only by adopting its proposals in their entirety can they really hope to deal with the education problem as a whole they will all adopt it. How much better to attain that result through their free and untrammelled action than to force it upon them, it may be, prematurely."
Those words when applied to the present Bill were conclusive against the inclusion of Part III. Both the London County Council and the London School Board had declared against he measure, and, in the language of the Prime Minister, it was far better not to force on the local authorities work which they did not want when, if they were allowed time, they might be willing to accept it hereafter. There were exceptional reasons in the case of London why Part III. should be excluded. First of all, there was the magnitude of the task. Most admirable work had been done by the School Board, and he put it to the Committee whether it was not most undesirable

961
to destroy an organisation which, after thirty years experience, was doing some of the best educational work in the country. Was it reasonable to sacrifice that great organisation when it might be worked in with the general scheme of the Bill? They had in London a great complication arising from the existence of the Borough Councils, which were not an advantage in any educational scheme. In so far as the Government were compelled to recognise the Borough Councils in this form, they were injuring this educational scheme. If they included elementary education they would have three statutory authorities with co-ordinated powers, namely, the Board of Education, the County Councils, and the Borough Councils. It was said that the Borough Councils would only exercise the duties devolved upon them by the County Council, but the Borough Councils were statutory independent authorities for certain purposes. What would be the result under this Bill? The County Council would be liable to provide the accommodation, but the Borough Councils would determine the site on which the necessary school was to be built. The County Council would build, but the Board of Education would decide what was necessary in that building. After the children came into the school the Borough Councils had the independent management of the schools. The County Council determined the qualifications of the teacher, but the Borough Councils appointed and dismissed them. Those three co-ordinated authorities ran through the whole system, and so far from getting one single authority they would get confusion worse confounded than at the present time. What possibility would there be of obtaining that unity of control which was the vital principle of the Act of last year. Under the Amendment he proposed both classes of education, higher and technical on the one side, and elementary on the other, would be fully represented on the Education Committee, and they would thus secure a real unity of control and a guarantee of efficiency, neither of which they would set under this Bill. It would be far wiser if the Committee recognised that
962
the situation in London was different to any other borough in England; for London needed a special body. They ought to retain what was best in the Bill of last year, and combine in their authority all that was best in the School Board and the London County Council.
Amendment proposed—
"In Clause 1, page 1, line 5, at beginning insert, Parts I., II., and IV. of.'"—(Mr. McKenna.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid it would be remembered that in the Bill of last year the option clause was thrown out by a very large majority, and consequently it might be taken that the House had pronounced very decidedly against it. He did not find any suggestion that there should be any option as to the inclusion or introduction of Bart III. There being no such suggestion the Amendment really struck at the root of the principle on which the legislation of last year was carried into effect and on which this Bill was founded, namely, the co-ordination of all forms of education under one authority. The hon. Member spoke of the confusion that would arise, but surely the confusion he proposed to continue between the voluntary schools and the Board schools, under his new authority for secondary education and the authority for elementary education, would be infinitely more disastrous than anything that could possibly happen under the clauses of the Bill now before them. This Amendment would probably cause a conflict of jurisdiction between the various authorities set up. He did not wish to labour the point, but this Amendment could not be contemplated by the Government as a possible one to introduce into the Bill. It ran counter to everything they wished to see established all over England and Wales, and it was contrary to that which they hoped to establish in London before very long. This Amendment could not be introduced into the Bill without violating the principle upon which the Bill was founded.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid although the Government had declared themselves against the ad hoc principle they had not declared themselves against the principle of this proposal, which was in the original Bill of the Government last year. The object of this proposal was that in certain towns where the School Boards had done good work and where the local authority did not desire to take over that work the existence of the School Board should be continued. Surely the Secretary to the Board of Education was not entitled to say now that this proposal was contrary to the principle of the Bill of last year. The essence of last year's Bill was in the first place that there should be a supreme authority; and in the second place that education should be municipalised. This Amendment, whilst municipalising education as far as possible, would allow the existence of large School Boards if such School Boards and the municipality concerned agreed to this course. He did not think the Government had met the point of the enormous amount of work this Bill would throw upon the London County Council, and that fact differentiated London from other great towns where the Government thought the work was being carried on so excellently that there was no necessity to absorb those School Boards into the local education authority. As the London County Council did not desire to undertake this work, and as the London School Board did not desire to give up the work in which it was engaged, he thought the Committee ought to accept this Amendment. His hon. friend had shown that confusion would result under the Bill, but the Secretary to the Education Department did not attempt to meet the argument that while the principle of the Bill was that there should be one authority, this Bill created three authorities. There was much to be said for the proposal of his hon. friend, and he should support it because he thought it was a better one than that contained in the Bill. When they got an opportunity of discussing the question of an ad hoc authority he thought they would be able to show some reasons why such an authority ought to be established for London.
MR. ALFRED HUTTONsaid he quite agreed that the principle which animated the Government with regard to this Bill was, upon their own confession, first of all, the destruction of the London School Board—the institution the supporters of this Amendment supremely desired to preserve. Its whole work had been of the utmost importance for elementary education in London, and but for the existence of the Board there never would have been the extraordinary development of education that had taken place in the Metropolis Because the hon. Baronet could say that occasionally, here and there, the School Board might have shown a desire to be the secondary as well as the elementary education authority, that was not a condemnation of the work rendered by that splendid authority.
SIR WILLIAM ANSON: I said that it would lead to conflict with the new authority.
MR. ALFRED HUTTONsaid there were many ratepayers in London who thought that the School Board imposed too great sacrifices on them in connection with the education of their children. What had been the justification that had enabled parents to put up with the demands made on them and their children? It was the fact that they had a School Board which they could control, and to which they sent direct representatives. Could the Committee believe that under an authority constructed as proposed by this Bill the ratepayers would have the same control as they had had in the past? In regard to elementary schools in this country, fortunately or otherwise—and they might deplore it—there had existed, and there would continue to exist under the Bill, a good deal of religious controversy. With regard to that, injustice was felt by the people of different communions, and the only way to secure the common concord and assent of the education authority was to allow all parties to come together by popular election. That system had been the security of our schools in the past, but that was being destroyed by the Bill. While they were quarrelling as to the

965
constitution of the authority, and the claims of the County Council and the Borough Councils, the clergy were simply taking the money for the voluntary schools. It was true, as the hon. Baronet had said, that if the Amendment were passed it would leave the voluntary schools as they now stood. He wondered that the Government, in view of the position created by last year's Act, had the courage to bring forward a proposal to put the voluntary schools on the rates. They might think a little of the methods of opposition which were appearing in every part of the country. It was not a matter of congratulation to the Government that they should have passed a measure which was producing such a tremendous feeling of opposition on the part of people who were prepared to go to almost any length in order to show their disapproval of putting the denominational schools upon the rates. He believed that in every part of the municipality of London, whether the people were represented by the Borough Councils or the School Board, resolutions had been passed disapproving of this measure, which proposed to destroy the School Board. He thought the Government might well pause before they took this step of establishing for the control of elementary education an authority which was not amenable to the great majority of the people of the Metropolis.
DR. MACNAMARAsaid this clause struck at the root of the scheme proposed, namely, the co-ordination of elementary, secondary, and higher education. There were two words he was getting tired of. One was "ad ho" and the other "co-ordination." Co-ordination was a word which fascinated him formerly, and he was one of the tellers in favour of striking out Clause 5 in last year's Act because he believed it would not give co-ordination. Let them look at the co-ordination which this Bill gave. Under the Bill the County Council would be the authority for higher education. The County Council, nominally, would be generally and in a vague sort of way the authority for elementary education. But when they examined the Bill a little closer what did they find? In regard to the voluntary schools, which
966
were two-fifths of the elementary schools, the County Council was to be the controlling body as to local management; and in regard to the Board schools the Borough Councils were to have the control of the management. All he could say, was that he did not understand this mysterious Bill, although he had spent some little pains over it. If co-ordination between elementary and secondary education was desirable, how much more desirable was harmony between the various classes of elementary education. In the matter of teacherships the voluntary teacher was appointed by the managers subject to the veto of the County Council. The Borough Council did not touch the voluntary teacher under this Bill as it stood at present. What the Bill might be in a few days he could not say. But the Borough Council was to have complete control over the appointment and dismissal of the Board teachers subject to certain conditions as to qualifications. The Board teachers were to be shut up in twenty-nine watertight compartments, but the voluntary teachers were to be treated as one whole by the County Council. If he understood the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education on the Second Reading of the Bill in regard to the voluntary schools, the County Council would, subject to the education code for the time being, determine nice points of the curriculum, but in regard to the Board schools the hon. Gentleman definitely stated the Borough Councils were to have some sort of jurisdiction over the curricula of the schools. The hon. Gentleman said that in the poorer parts of London the system had been rather rigid when carried out by one authority for all London, and that part of the object of the Bill would be to give the Borough Councils power to adapt the curricula of the Board schools to the needs of their areas.
SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid he never stated that the Borough Councils were to control the curriculum. What he said was that the Borough Councils would be in a better position to present such matters to the County Council as local authority than the existing managers could do in their relations with the School Board.
DR. MACNAMARAsaid the Borough Councils would be minor authorities and they would be quite oblivious of County Council control. At any rate, according to the statement now made, they were to submit to the County Council suggestions to meet every variety of curricula for the Board schools in the twenty-nine different districts, but no such suggestion could come from any authority with regard to the voluntary schools. The curricula of the Board school would be settled to a large extent by the representatives of the twenty-nine; Borough Councils. What sort of co-ordination was that? This Bill set up chaos, and the hon. Gentleman was pleased to call it co-ordination. The argument that the adoption of this Amendment would strike a fatal blow at co-ordination was perfectly futile, because there was no co-ordination in it. It was said that this Amendment would set up a conflict of jurisdiction, but obviously the County Council and the Borough Councils were going to be in conflict on certain matters. It was proposed to give Battersea and Wandsworth one representative Battersea was progressive, but Wandsworth was not. How were these Boroughs going to settle who was to be the representative? Hammersmith, Fulham, and Chelsea were to have one representative, Fulham, long before the Bill was introduced, declared in favour of an ad hoc authority. Hammersmith and Chelsea had passed resolutions in favour of the Bill. He did not like this Bill very much. If accepted, the County Council would control higher education, but the voluntary schools would remain as they were; the School Board would remain as it was with its work truncated by the Cockerton Judgment. He thought that that might be got in a different way from that proposed in the Bill. The School Board and the London County Council would come into closer harmony for the moment. He would go still further. The voluntary schools were in a helpless condition; the buildings were wretched, and the teachers starved. He would for a year give them a grant from the Imperial Exchequer pro rata for what they would lose financially by their non-participation in this scheme, and during that year they could appoint a Committee which would sit down quietly and cogitate or hammer out on the anvil of deliberate discussion, a scheme for London which would give an authority
968
with the control of all education, and real co-ordination and harmony. The issue was so grave and the problem was so stupendous that it would be worth while to do as he suggested, instead of passing this undigested scheme at a speed which would be illegal for a motor car.
MR. CLAUDE LOWTHERsaid that if the hon. Member for Camberwell proposed to discuss every Amendment on this very interesting and intricate measure at the same length as he had indulged in his last speech, there would be very little motor car speed in the progress of the Bill. He did not suppose he would be in order in discussing the provision in the schedule which the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education had put on the Paper, or to endeavour to reconcile the rival claims of Battersea and Wandsworth; but he wished to point out that the effect of the Amendment, if carried, would be practically to destroy the whole object of the Bill. So far as London was concerned no one would deny either the excellence of the work done for higher education by the Technical Education Committee of the London County Council or the excellence of the work of the London School Board. Nobody who had had the honour of a seat on the London School Board would wish to speak in any but respectful terms of admiration of the work done by that great and important body. He did not like to hear the phrase continually used that the object of this Bill was to destroy the London School Board. He did not think that it was in any hostile spirit to the London School Board that the Government had endeavoured to provide a scheme which would enlist in one army all the great forces for educational progress in the Metropolis. If the Amendment were carried the Bill might just as well be dropped, because this was a Bill for co-ordination, and the Amendment was directly hostile to that principle. The point raised by the hon. Member for Camberwell could be raised again on his Amendment at the end of line seven and that would be the fitting opportunity on which to offer such objections as might be made to the principle of the clause.

969
The sooner they came to the really important matters they had to discuss—the constitution of the Education Committee and the powers and the devolution of the powers of the local authority to that Committee—the better would be the progress of the Bill. They need not waste time on discussions of questions which had been thoroughly threshed out in the debates last year.
MR. SAMUEL EVANSsaid that the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down was the only Member who affected to see that the Government did not desire to put an end to the School Board, of London. Had he still remained a member of the London School Board, as he once was, the hon. Member would not have so complacently taken that view. For himself, he regarded the Amendment as of the greatest importance, as had been admirably shown by the hon. Member for Camberwell. He was glad to find that at last his hon. friend had had his disillusionment in regard to the question of co-ordination. His hon. friend said he was getting tired of that word. Several of them were tired of it at the beginning of the debates on the Education Act of last year, because they knew that co-ordination was only a catch-word and a shibboleth to cover aid to the voluntary schools at all costs He was not going to prophesy that there would be a rate-war in the country over the voluntary schools, but, if there was, would it not be better to limit it to the country and not introduce it into London? Nobody at the present moment could predict how the Education Act was going to work in many parts of the country, and what would be the effect of the threat of many people not to pay the education rate at all. If the Amendment were adopted the London County Council would remain the rating authority for elementary education. The hon. Baronet said that they would be introducing great confusion; but no confusion brought in would be half as bad as that which already existed. The hon. Member for Camberwell had pointed out that the Borough Councils were to have no control over the voluntary schools, but to have control over the number qualifications, the appointment and
970
dismissal, of the teachers of the provided or Board schools. The effect of the Amendment would be to shut out the voluntary schools in London for the moment, and that, he contended, would not be a bad thing to do. It would re move the rate-war outside London, while the London voluntary schools would share the improved grant given to the voluntary schools throughout the country. Their position would not be worse than at present, but would be improved, while the Board schools, administered by the body which, it was admitted in all quarters, had done their work hitherto most excellently, would not be disturbed. It was perfectly true that if elementary education was to be limited to the three R's, by reason of the Cockerton judgment, the jurisdiction of the Board would be very much limited also. But elementary education could be defined by a clause which would give to the School Board legislative authority to carry out the excellent work which they did before the Cockerton judgment. If the Amendment were carried it would facilitate very much the passing of the Bill, and would have the advantage of enabling them to see what the country was going to do in regard to the Act of last year and to limit the probable great conflict over the payment of rates for the voluntary schools to the country—leaving London undisturbed.
MR. TREVELYANsaid that the Amendment raised two very important points. He did not propose to discuss one of them at present—that relating to the voluntary schools in London. The most important point they had to discuss was whether the School Board should be the elementary authority for education in London in future. He had been a member of the London School Board, and his experience compelled him to support the Amendment. In theory he was in favour of municipalisation as against direct election, but the Government were running that theory a great deal too far. Owing to the manner in which Amendments had to be submitted, they never in the Bill of last year obtained a proper discussion as to whether towns having large School Boards should be exempt from the operation of the Act. Many of them thought that there was

971
really no case why, in the smaller towns, education should not be handed over to the municipal authorities; but that, for merely practical reasons, where there was a great School Board its work should not be thrown on the municipal authority. To give the Committee an idea of what the London County Council was being asked to undertake under this Bill, he might mention that, apart from teachers, the London School Board had a staff at the offices on the Embankment of 559. In addition, the superintending and visiting staff numbered 445, the correspondence staff 35, and the works staff 154; or a total of about 1,200 people. That would give some idea of the immense amount of detailed labour that would be imposed on the new Education Committee. Already the London County Council had as much work as it could get through; and it seemed to him that what would happen would be either that the work would be scamped—and he was afraid that would be what would happen—or else the Education Committee would have to do almost all the work that the London School Board now did. Any one who saw the heavy agenda, paper which the London School Board had at present, would at once agree that the work of the Board was more than hard-worked County Councillors could undertake. It might be said that the Bill provided for delegation. That was perfectly true. There was a system of delegation proposed to which they intended to object; but, as a matter of fact, the duties to be delegated to the Borough Councils would not be very much more than the duties which were now delegated to boards of managers.
THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman is a little off the Amendment now.
MR. TREVELYANsaid what he wished to point out was that the Bill would not lead to any very great amount of delegation; and that, therefore, the authority proposed to be set up would have a great deal too much work to do. There was one other alternative; but he did not believe that there was any chance of its being adopted until a new idea was introduced, as it would eventually have to be introduced, into the municipal government
972
of the great towns of the country. That was the payment of a certain number of councillors in order to act, so to speak, as ministers of education, and works, and, other things. If a larger amount of specialised work by the very best councillors could be obtained in that way, they could dispense with the committee system. That would not, however, be done, at any rate for the present. They would continue the existing system of working through Committees; and to put the work of the London School Board upon men who were already worked as members of the London County Council were, would be to put more on them than they could undertake. He would support the Amendment.
MR. WALLACEsaid he was very glad the Bill would not apply to Scotland; but as it now seemed as if they were to have an Education Bill every year, he was beginning to be afraid that the principle might be extended to that country also. That was why he ventured to intervene. The Amendment raised what appeared to him to be a most important principle in connection with the Bill. Having watched the great work of the London School Board for the last fifteen or twenty years, and having realised how excellently that work had been done by the present Board, it seemed to him that the justification for this Bill should come from those who proposed to destroy such an excellent institution. Everyone praised the work of the London School Board; but it was said it was necessary that it should be destroyed in order that they might have what had been described as co-ordination. The word found favour last year, and was played upon, but now there was no word more detested when put before a popular audience. If it were proposed to increase the powers of the existing Board, and to give it power over higher education, he could have understood it; but he could not understand the extraordinary method now proposed. It was not co-ordination at all; it was mere playing with the word. They were creating a variety of new authorities which would come into conflict with each other; and produce strife in the future. They were proposing to have a County Council authority, and a Borough

973
Council authority, and an increased authority to the Board of Education, This Bill was put forward on the ground that it was decentralising the authority. Its real effect was to centralise all authority in the Board of Education. It would destroy entirely the education authority of London, and centralise it in the hands of persons whom some people, at all events, did not trust. If these two authorities disagreed, they were to call in the Board of Education to arbitrate. That would be a night for the gods indeed. They would be like the Kilkenny cats, and when all was finished very little would be left of the Education Department, and if that happened there would be few wet eyes at the funeral of the Department. What they felt was that the authority which had to deal with the problem of education for London must be an authority which was occupied with nothing else. Those members of the London School Board who gave any attention to the problem of education devoted their whole time to it, from Monday morning to Saturday night, and then found it impossible to overtake it, yet now the Government were proposing to destroy that excellent authority, and substitute that artificial authority the Board of Education, an authority no one praised or understood, and which would only make frightful confusion in the future. He would not discuss the Amendment further. He rose now to enter his protest against the destruction of this great authority, which had done more to civilise and humanise London than any other authority.
MR. LOUGHsaid the Committee ought to have regard to the weighty matter with which they were dealing in this small clause of three and a half lines. What the Amendment said was that elementary education ought to be left out. If that were done there would be a great deal left for the education authority to undertake. The secondary with elementary education problem of elementary education was sufficiently vast to merit the Government giving it some consideration. He thought some explanation should be given as to why, when they felt last year that the principles of the Education Act could not be applied to London,
974
which must be dealt with separately, the whole of the principles of the Act should be suddenly cast upon London by this clause. Those who represented London on the opposite side of the House were quite as much interested as those with whom he sat, and he thought they should give this matter more attention. If the clause was to be passed would it not be better for the Committee to put their heads together and see if something could not be done to meet the views expressed in the Amendment. He and those who sat with him who had followed these proposals, certainly thought that they were most unsatisfactory. This was such a terribly revolutionary clause that every one would be justified in opposing it.
MR. BRYCEsaid he desired to submit a really practical reason in favour of this Amendment which had not received the attention it deserved. When the Bill of year last was under discussion many Members supported the fifth Clause on the special ground that the addition of the work of elementary education to secondary education would lay so heavy a burden, on the local authority that it would be impossible for them to accept it. It was argued then that as secondary education was more needed it should be taken first. It was a matter of common knowledge that we were more behind in regard to secondary education in London than elementary education. In London there was no authority for secondary education, although there was a good authority for technical education. The problem of the secondary education of the 4,500,000 people in the area of the County Council was a gigantic problem. The practical way of dealing with this matter would be to proceed by steps; first of all, establish the authority for secondary education, and when it had grappled with that problem and had provided the secondary schools that were needed and co-ordinated secondary with elementary education, it was time enough then to give it the control of elementary education. If his recollection served him, one of the chief objections to Clause 5 when the Education Act was under discussion, was that it gave an option to the local authorities, and his hon. friend, bearing in mind the

975
objections taken to Clause 5 in the Education Act, had so drawn his Amendment that secondary education only should be given to the local authority. When that had been done and the schools brought up to date, elementary education could be brought in by a short Bill. It was on this ground, and on the ground that London furnished so peculiar a case, that they must not press the general principles applied last year in the Education Act, to the case of London, and in the belief that London was best served by the handling of secondary education first and then adding elementary education after, that he should support the Amendment.
MR. YOXALLsaid that co-ordination embodied and represented all the great principles of education, and all the defects of education in the past had been due to the lack of co-ordination. The chief hope of education in the future was the establishment of a proper system of co-ordination. The Secretary to the Board of Education had appealed to the Committee to pass on to the essential clause of the Bill, that being the clause which constituted the education authority to perform this work of co-ordination of the schools of London. He (Mr. Yoxall) made an appeal earlier to postpone the discussion on Clause 1 in order to do so. Therefore he regarded the Amendment before the Committee as an adjourning Amendment. It was another attempt to postpone Clause 1 until they knew what the Education Committee was to be. He was no particular friend of the School Board for London. In his opinion it had at various times, fallen into the hands of faddists and extremists who had regarded their position on the London School Board as a platform for the exposition, on the one hand, of theological ideas, and on the other as a means of enabling them to regard education as a mechanical thing rather than as a spirit and a principle, but he would much rather that the School Board schools should remain in the hands of the School Board for London until he saw what were to be the powers of management in the hands of the new educational authority. In Clauses 2 and 3
976
there were most important and vita considerations as to what shoulld be the managing powers of the Borough Councils and the proper constitution of the Education Committee, and that was one of the reasons for his desire to postpone the discussion.
MR. GEORGE WHITEsaid the clause now under discussion made the machinery for the education of London the same as that for the whole country by the Bill of last year. He was surprised that the Prime Minister desired to use the provisions of the Act of last year for London. When that Act was under discussion he was not satisfied that it would be right to apply its provisions to London, and now by the very first clause of this Bill he had adopted it. He ventured to say no similar clause had ever been drawn in so few words which accomplished so great a revolution. It was acknowledged that the work of the School Board had been most efficiently done, and that its members had shown great devotion to their duties; therefore good reasons ought to be shown before it was abolished. He could well believe that the Government had had much difficulty in drafting the Bill, because, while they hated the School Board, they did not regard the County Council with much greater favour. The County Council could not devote to the work the same amount of time that the School Board had done. The chief idea of the Government was to get rid of the directly representative system in education. This proposal marked a most important step in regard to education, which, consequently, was one of the most important a Government could take, and one which he believed would be disastrous to the work of elementary education. The people of London had never asked to have that work taken out of the hands of the School Board. The task involved in Parts I., II., and IV., would have been sufficiently gigantic to tax the powers of the new authority, but the inclusion of, Part III. would make the task one which, from his experience of School Board work, he was convinced could not be efficiently discharged by such a body. So far from assisting co-ordination, the Bill would work in the opposite direction.

977
A large amount of co-ordination could be secured between an ad hoc authority and the authorities for technical and secondary education. All that was necessary could be done by mutual Arrangement and co-operation without an Act of Parliament, and certainly more than was likely to be done under this Bill. The fact of the matter was that this great revolution was being effected by the Government at the wish and request of those who did not appear in the foreground, and, by the question being so dealt with, there would be brought into London the strife and opposition which were manifesting themselves throughout the country. The Prime Minister must have failed to read the newspapers if he was unaware that friction of all sorts was arising, and that the opposition to the working of the Act of last year was likely to be most acute. The opposition to the payment of rates for the support of denominational schools would be extended to London, and elementary education, instead of uniting the people, would be an occasion of endless strife and opposition. All this could have been avoided by omitting Part III, for the present. He objected also to the large amount of power which would be placed in the hands of the Central Board of Education. The way in which the Act of 1902 was being administered would increase the opposition to this Bill. So far from certain sections of the community getting fair representation on the boards of management, there was plenty of evidence that they were being most unfairly treated. Therefore, in the interests both of education and of good feeling in the work, he cordially supported the Amendment.
MR. COURTENAY WARNERdeprecated any great revolutionary step being taken unless some great improvement was certain to be thereby secured. The Amendment proposed to modify the Bill to some extent, but supporters of the Government ought really to be grateful for anything that would limit to the country districts the war which this matter was causing. One could not read the newspapers without realising that the present was not an opportune moment to stir up fresh controversy.
978
The Amendment would avoid the creation of twenty-nine new boards in the place of one which had been tried and found efficient, while the Bill as it stood would entirely sever the ordinary Londoner from the idea of having anything to do with the education of his children. The Amendment was a very reasonable one; it would not injure the principle of the Bill, and it would leave it open to the Government in future years, if the system was found to work well in the country, to extend it to London.
MR. TRITTONsaid that hitherto he had always advocated the London County Council being the paramount authority on this question, but his views had been somewhat changed of late by the action of that body with reference to the Bill. By a large majority the County Council had condemned the measure, and declared in favour of an ad hoc authority. Taking the deepest possible interest in the education of the children of London, he protested against handing over this most sacred and important task to a body which did not want it. He would like to see the work placed in the hands of a body that would love to have the care of the education of the children, and consider it one of their greatest privileges to have such a task committed to their charge. As he looked round he saw some of the wonderful work which the London School Board had been doing for the last thirty years in this great Metropolis, and he did not think they could speak too highly of the education which that body had been giving, both from a secular and a religious point of view, to the children of this great city. He had only risen to say that he intended to vote in support of the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for North Mon mouth shire because he believed it to be a very fair compromise. He did not wish to see the work of the London School Board belittled or done away with, and he thought it would be better to leave this work in the hands of that body, which had done it so well for so many years.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 100;

AYES.

Allan, Sir William (Gateshead)

Harmsworth, R. Leicester

Hose, Charles Day

Asher, Alexander

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale

Russell, T. W.

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbt. Hy.

Hutchinson, Dr. Chas. Fredk.

Schwann, Charles E.

Atherley-Jones, L.

Jacoby, James Alfred

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea

Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Labouchere, Henry

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Black, Alexander William

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

Soares, Ernest J.

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Taylor, Theo. C. (Radcliffe)

Bryce, Right Hon. James

Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington)

Tennant, Harold John

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Leng, Sir John

Thomas, A. (Carmarthen, E.)

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Lough, Thomas

Thomas, F. Freeman (Hastings

Caldwell, James

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

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

Cameron, Robert

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall

Tomkinson, James

Causton, Richard Knight

Mappin, Sir Fredk. Thorpe

Toulmin, George

Channing, Francis Allston

Markham, Arthur Basil

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Cremer, William Randal

Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

Wallace, Robert

Crombie, John William

Morley, Rt. Hn. John (Montrose

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Crooks, William

Newnes, Sir George

Warner, Thos. Courtenay T.

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardig'n

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Weir, James Galloway

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Palmer, G. Wm. (Reading)

White, George (Norfolk)

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

Partington, Oswald

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Duncan, J. Hastings

Paulton, James Mellor

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Edwards, Frank

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Emmott, Alfred

Perks, Robert William

Williams, O. (Merioneth)

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

Price, Robert John

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

Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith

Priestley, Arthur

Yoxall, James Henry

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

Rea, Russell

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Rigg, Richard

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Fuller, J. M. F.

Roberta, John H. (Denbighs.)

Mr. M'Kenna and Mr.

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J.

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Alfred Hutton.

Grant, Corrie

Roe, Sir Thomas

NOES.

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

Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin Univ.

Duffy, William J.

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Campbell, John (Armagh S.)

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Allhusen, Aug. Henry Eden

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. Hart

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire.

Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm

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

Austin, Sir John

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

Faber, George Denison (York)

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Fardell, Sir T. George

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Charrington, Spencer

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Olive, Captain Percy A.

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

Balcarres, Lord

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

Ffrench, Peter

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

Cuddington, Sir William

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Balfour, Rt. Hn. Gerald W. (Leeds

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Finsh, Rt. Hon. George H.

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Colomb, Sir. John Charles Ready

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Marry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor)

Colston, Chas. Edw H. Athole-

Fisher, William Hayes

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benj.

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Fison, Frederick William

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Bignold, Arthur

Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

Flower, Ernest

Bigwood, James

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Forster, Henry William

Bill, Charles

Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton.)

Fyler, John Arthur

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Crossley, Sir Savile

Galloway, William Johnson

Boland, John

Dalkeith, Earl of

Garfit, William

Bousfield, William Robert

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

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

Bowles, Lt,.-Col. H. F. (Middlesex

Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway)

Gibbs, Hn. Vicary (St. Albans

Bowles, T. G. (Lynn Regis)

Dickson, Charles Scott

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

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Gordon, Maj Evans-(Tr. Hmlts

Brown, Sir Alx. H. (Shropsh.)

Dimsdale, Rt. Hon. Sir Joseph C.

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Eldon

Brymer, William Ernest

Donelan, Captain A.

Goschen, Hon. Geo. Joachim

Bull, William James

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Butcher, John George

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Graham, Henry Robert

Noes, 239. (Division List No. 86.)

Greene, Hy. D. (Shrewsbury)

Manners, Lord Cecil

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Maple, Sir John Blundell

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Gunter, Sir Robert

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

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone W.)

Hain, Edward

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

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

Molesworth, Sir Lewis

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashfd

More, Robt Jasper (Shropshire)

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Morrison, James Archibald

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Hatch, Ernest Frederick G.

Mount, William Arthur

Smith, H. C. (North'mb. Tyneside

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Mowbray, Sir Robt. Gray C.

Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.)

Hayden, John Patrick

Murphy, John

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

Heath, James (Staffs., N. W.)

Murrray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham (Bute

Spear, John Ward

Heaton, John Henniker

Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

Henderson, Sir Alexander

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)

Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

Myers, William Henry

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Hickman, Sir Alfred

Newdegate, Francis A. N.

Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

Hoare, Sir Samuel

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Stroyan, John

Hobhouse, Rt. Hn. H. (Somerset, E.

O'Brien, K. (Tipperary. Mid)

Sturt, Hn. Humphry Napier

Houston, Robert Paterson

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Sullivan, Donal

Hozier, Hon. Jas. Henry Cecil

O'Connor, Jas. (Wicklow, W.)

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

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

Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

O'Dowd, John

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred

Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

Thornton, Percy M.

Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

Pease, H. Pike (Darlington)

Tomlinson, Sir Wm. E. M.

Johnstone, Heywood

Peel, Hn. Wm Robert Wellesley

Valentia, Viscount

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop)

Pemberton, John S. G.

Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. H. (Sheffield

Kerr, John

Penn, John

Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

Kimber, Henry

Percy, Earl

Walrond, Rt. Hon. Sir W. H.

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Pierpoint, Robert

Wanklyn, James Leslie

Knowles, Lees

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

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

Laurie, Lieut.-General

Plummer, Walter R.

Welby, Sir Chas. G. E. (Notts)

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Wharton, Rt. Hon. J. Lloyd

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool

Power, Patrick Joseph

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

Lawson, J. Grant, (Yorks. N. R.)

Pretyman, Ernest George

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Leamy, Edmund

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

Pym, C. Guy

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

Wilson John (Glasgow)

Lockie, John

Ratcliff, R. F.

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

Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

Rattigan, Sir William Henry

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

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Reid, James (Greenock)

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham

Remnant, James Farquharson

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

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

Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Lowe, Francis William

Ridley, S. Forde, (Bethnal Green

Wylie, Alexander

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. C. Thomson

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Lundon, W.

Robertson, H. (Hackney)

Younger, William

Maconochie, A. W.

Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Round, Rt. Hon. James

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Ed'nb'rgh W.

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Sir Alexander Acland-

M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

MR. LOUGHmoved to insert after "The" in line 5, Clause 1, the following words: "School Board and County Council for London may pass resolutions asking that the." He said the object of the Amendment was that the clause should not come into effect until these two great bodies had requested that it should be applied to London. He thought this was a most reasonable Amendment. The great complaint of the Members for London was that the Government, in regard to the Bill, had not given the people an opportunity of considering this educational problem before it had been settled for them by the
982
Government. It could not be said these bodies took a party view on the great question of education, or any view hostile to the wishes of the Government. The School Board had shown a disposition to reform itself and to put itself in order in every way so as to be able to discharge its important duties. Months ago it passed a resolution by a large majority that a body elected on the ad hoc principle should be chosen to deal with the question of education. The case of London was peculiar. The School Board for London was by far the greatest that existed in the country, and there were precedents

983
to show that London ought to receive exceptional treatment. When the Municipal Corporations Act was passed and applied to every town in the country, London was exempted, and when the Local Government Act was passed in 1889 a special Act was passed for London. This was obviously an occasion on which the old constitutional course with regard to London should be followed. The Government should take some opportunity of allowing the people to pronounce on the sort of authority they wanted. This was all the more desirable because of the fact that in all these local matters of administration the view taken by Londoners was quite different from that held by the representatives of the Metropolis in this House. London seemed to elect one class of men to speak its mind on Imperial affairs, and another class to manage its local affairs. Why not consult the School Board and the County Council in regard to this proposal? Why not leave them some option to express their view on the whole situation that had arisen and to state what in their opinion might be the right course to pursue? The Government would not be bound to adopt their recommendations in every case, but it was desirable that their opinions should be expressed before the Government proceeded to a solution of this question. He asked that something should be inserted in the clause to provide for this being done, and that the proposal should not be pushed down their throats in the way it was on the Paper. It appeared a short clause, but it contained a great deal. This Amendment gave the Government the opportunity of consulting local feeling and, he believed, making a better Bill than would be produced if they went blindly on without consulting the people of London.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 5, after the word 'The,' to insert the words 'School Board and County Council for London may pass resolutions asking that the.'"—(Mr. Lough.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid the object of this Amendment was that they should
984
wait before bringing this Bill into operation until the London School Board and the County Council passed a resolution asking that this should be done. He had been taken to task in the earlier stages of the Bill for having stated that one of its objects was the abolition of the School Board. He might have expressed himself somewhat brusquely, but, as a matter of fact, the Bill was to constitute a new education authority for London, and one of the results of that would be the passing away of the School Board. He hoped that he had expressed himself with proper admiration and regard for the School Board and its work. The hon. Member who had just moved this Amendment, in his previous speech this afternoon called upon him to do more than that—to express his sympathy with the School Board. He thought that would be a somewhat peculiar thing to do while in the act of abolishing the School Board. He preferred to express his admiration for the work it had done. He thought sympathy was an empty thing at the best, and that it would be somewhat out of place on the present occasion. Whatever regard, or sympathy, or admiration, he might feel for the London School Board the Amendment was an impossible one to accept. The principle of the Bill involved the displacement of the School Board for another education authority Were they under these circumstances to wait until the School Board so far lost the natural instinct of self-preservation as to pass a resolution in favour of its own extinction? The hon. Gentleman spoke of the Government consulting the opinion of the people, but what he asked was that the School Board should decide upon its own extinction. The Amendment was hardly to be taken quite seriously, and he apologised to the hon. Member if he had not approached it in the solemn spirit which he seemed to think the occasion required. But when proposing to constitute a new authority, they could not wait the pleasure of the old authority to express its willingness to be abolished.
MR. MCKENNAdid not think the hon. Gentleman had treated the Amendment| in the way it should be treated. If this

985
Amendment were accepted, the ratepayers of London would have an opportunity when they elected the next School Board to decide what form of education authority they wanted. Surely the representative system was not to be treated with ridicule as it was in this matter. What they asked was that the people concerned, the ratepayers of London, who had to pay for the schools and whose children were to be educated in the schools, should be allowed some voice in deciding what should be the form of education authority for London. On the last Amendment he read an extract from the speech of the First Lord of the Treasury in introducing last year's Bill. In a latter part of the same speech the right hon. Gentleman dealt with this exact point, and showed how useful it was in wise legislation to act with caution. He used these words—
"We have, I think, in the sphere of education itself, a good example of how valuable this cautious procedure may prove. It may be in the recollection of the older Members of the House that it was not until 1876 that the non-School Board areas were given the right to pass by-laws for making attendance at schools compulsory. They were not obliged to exercise the right, but they were given it. Had they been obliged to make attendance at school compulsory, they would undoubtedly in many cases have bitterly resisted the obligation. Fortunately it was made a voluntary act. Four years elapsed, and, without a word, without the smallest objection from any quarter of the House or from any part of the country, universal and obligatory school attendance was made by statute the universal rule. I augur well from this precedent, and I believe that while the voluntary element which we introduce into our Bill will relieve a great many fears, smooth over many difficulties, and prevent many prejudices being harshly interfered with, it will not delay for any long or important period the universal adoption of this Act in every part of England and Wales."
He appealed to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education to adopt the wise and statesmanlike procedure so heartily recommended by the First Lord of the Treasury last year. Call their objections to this Bill prejudices if they liked, but let them remove these prejudices. If the proposal, of the Government was a wise proposal the electors would recognise its wisdom, but do not let them complicate the already complicated condition of education in this country by forcing upon them a system of which they might disapprove. If the Bill was a good one it would not
986
suffer any permanent injury, and if it was a bad one they would at any rate have spared London the loss of its School Board. By adopting the Amendment they would, to use the words of the First Lord of the Treasury—
"Relieve a great many fears, smooth over many difficulties, and prevent many prejudices being harshly interfered with."
On these grounds he asked the hon. Member to accept the Amendment which would allow them time to watch the operation of the Act in the country. In the meantime London itself would be able to say to what extent the operations of the Act should be adopted in the Metropolis. In this way all those difficulties which were called prejudices, but which they were satisfied were based on sound reason, would be overcome.
CAPTAIN JESSELsaid that it had been stated that the Amendment only meant that the ratepayers of London should be consulted at a future election. That was not really the purpose of the Amendment, and he would say to his hon. friend that if he had been as well acquainted with London school matters as other hon. Members, he would have been aware that only 18 per cent. of the ratepayers of London voted at the last School Board election. It was incredible that on a question of whether the School Board was to be continued or not any higher percentage of votes would be obtained. By the London Government Act of 1899, all the existing vestries were extinguished, but could anybody contend that these bodies were consulted beforehand? No public body liked to be suicided out of existence, and he could quite understand that members of the School Board would never vote for their own extinction. He suggested that the Amendment had been put on the Paper for the purposes of delay. [OPPOSITION cries of "Oh, oh!" and "Withdraw."] He did not say anything wrong; they were only delaying the question until some future period. As to the other portion of the Amendment, the Committee was well aware that the London County Council had already come to a conclusion in regard to the Bill, and had passed a resolution against it. The Amendment was, therefore, not very useful.
MR. GEORGE WHITEsaid that to force upon a great body like the London County Council the work of the School Board without a clear understanding that they desired the additional labour, and were prepared to undertake it con amore seemed to him to be a very vicious kind of legislation. There was no work which required more sympathetic treatment than educational work. The School Board of London had given a large amount of time to it, and the only éclat attaching to it was the consciousness that they had been doing good work. It might be that the Loudon County Council, feeling itself utterly unable to do the work in a desirable and efficient manner, might decline to undertake it. If that were so, and if the Government were determined to force it upon them, they were sure to do the work in a very inefficient way. The London County Council was in a very different position from the County Councils in the country when the Act of last year was passed. No doubt many of the country County Councils wished to undertake the work if the House desired to place it on their shoulders; but there was no indication of that in the case of the London County Council. The charge that the Amendment had only been proposed for the purposes of delay ought not to have been made. So far from that, it had been put forward for the most excellent possible reasons. The hon. Member for St. Pancras had compared the extinction of London vestries with that of the London School Board; but the hon. Gentleman's ideas must be very vague indeed if he did not see the very different character of the two bodies. He was not intimately acquainted with the cause of the very small poll at the last School Board Election, but he knew that that argument had been answered over and over again to good purpose. At any rate, the sole advantage of these education discussions had been to awaken and very largely to increase, interest throughout the community in educational matters, and, therefore, there was likely to be a very much larger poll on the question whether the School Board should be kept in existence; and in that way the real opinion of the ratepayers
988
of London would be obtained. He warmly supported the Amendment.
MR. BRYNMOR JONESsaid that the hon. Member for St. Pancras had obviously misconstrued the Amendment. He had endeavoured to suggest to the Committee that the Amendment was to be read as though it applied to the present School Board and the present London County Council. He overlooked the fact that the School Board and the London County Council were corporate bodies, and the effect of the Amendment was to make it a condition to the operation of the Act, that the School Board and the London County Council should pass Resolutions in its favour. The practical effect of this would be that when the next School Board Election took place in London, the question voted upon would be whether this was the kind of educational scheme that was best suited to the requirements of the Metropolis. And that would take place as early as next November. Another practical effect would be that at the next County Council Election, in March 1904, the question voted upon would be whether that body, having regard to the large amount of work already thrust upon it, could undertake that work, and at the same time discharge all the duties of the School Board. Was it an unreasonable thing for him, as a London ratepayer, to ask the Committee to pause before making this enormous change, until the ratepayers, not simply as persons electing Members to this House, but as ratepayers, had expressed their opinion finally in regard to this matter? He submitted that the demand made by the Amendment was entirely reasonable. He would advance another point. They had now had in Wales some experience of the attitude of the County Councils towards this alteration in their educational system. It would be in the recollection of many Members of the Committee that when the Education Act of last year was passing through the House, many of the Welsh County Councils objected to administer the Act, not on the ground of any religious scruples, but on the ground that, having regard to their other work, they should not have imposed upon them another inconsistent set of duties. It would have

989
been better, he thought, if, before the Government attempted to make this change in London they had waited to see how the County Councils of England and Wales had managed to administer the Act of last year.
THE CHAIRMANsaid that the hon. Gentleman's argument did not really apply to the Amendment before the Committee.
MR. BRYNMOR JONESsaid that, with great deference, he thought it did. He was not referring to what the County Councils were doing, although at first they were not inclined to administer the Act at all. He was only arguing that it would be better to delay any changes in the practical educational system of London until they knew what was the true construction of the Act of 1902 in actual working, and that could only be ascertained by watching what the County Councils were doing, and how the Courts construed the different sections of the Act. The Amendment, instead of being dismissed in a few perfunctory sentences by the Secretary to the Board of Education, was a suggestion well worthy of the consideration of the Committee.
MR. BURDETT-COUTTSsaid the Amendment introduced a very large and quite a new principle into the constitutional practice of the House. It struck at the ordinary theory of legislation, namely, that the initiative of legislation lay with the Government, and the responsibility first with the House of Commons. It was not the first time that the supremacy of this House over these subordinate bodies had been contested. He wished to point out that the result of this Amendment would be really to ask the London County Council and London School Board to draw up an Education Bill for London. The hon. Gentleman who had just spoken said the object of the Amendment was to enable those bodies to give their opinion as to whether this was or was not the sort of Bill they wanted for London. The result of that, of course, would be, as they all knew, owing to the constitution
990
of those two bodies, to defeat the Bill. It was a Government Bill, and the two bodies were permeated by the political colour of hon. Gentlemen opposite. Therefore, the result would be certain. But was it the part of a Government elected by the majority of the suffrages of this country to submit itself to any subordinate elected body? What would be the practical result in this case? This Bill, for the reasons he had stated, would be rejected, and they would be asked to express their opinion on some other Bill than the Government Bill. Who was going to draw that Bill? Was the hon. Member for West Islington going to draw up an Education Bill for London? He did not understand the practical nature of the hon. Gentleman's proposal. The Amendment introduced a principle which was altogether against the theory and practice of their legislation, and he hoped the Committee would reject it.
MR. WHITLEYsaid he wished to thank the hon. Gentleman for stating that if the ratepayers, acting through the London County Council and the London School Board, were allowed to express an opinion on this Bill they would not have it at any price. [Mr. BURDETT-COUTTS assented.] He was glad the hon. Gentleman assented to that. Therefore, it was necessary for the Government, by their temporary majority, to get the Bill through as quickly as they could.
MR. BURDETT-COUTTSsaid that they would not accept the Bill because it was a Government measure.
MR. WHITLEYsaid that went to show how dissatisfied the ratepayers of London would be if they had an opportunity of expressing an opinion on the Bill. That added greatly to their complaint against the Government for having taken advantage of an adventitious majority on another subject to rush last year's Bill through; and, as his hon. friend explained, they were anxious to complete the edifice by means of the same adventitious majority. But the hon. Gentleman admitted that the citizens of London, acting through the London County Council and the

991
London School Board, would not pass the Resolutions suggested in the Amendment.
MR. BURDETT-COUTTSsaid the hon. Gentleman did not state his argument correctly. He said that if it were left to the present London County Council and the present London School Board they would not accept the Bill.
MR. WHITLEYsaid the present London County Council and the present London School Board were in the same position as the present Parliament. They were not elected to give an opinion on this Bill; and what the Amendment proposed was that they should be put in that position through the elections which were imminent, and that the ratepayers of London should be allowed an opportunity of expressing an opinion on this question. But the Government would not have trust in the people at any price; and it was perfectly clear that their object was to use the power they possessed against a small minority in the House before there was any chance of an appeal to the people, either local or national. He was glad the hon. Gentleman had put the matter so clearly; and they certainly would vote for the Amendment which proposed that the people should be left to judge for themselves. In last year's Bill power was given to local authorities to express their opinion; and it was only by closure of a rather peculiar kind that that provision was struck out. They now asked that the great City of London should be given an opportunity of expressing its opinion, especially as the machinery for taking that opinion was at hand. Next November there would be elections for the London School Board, and in March next for the London County Council. If the policy of the Government commended itself to the people, then the Government was perfectly safe; but the rejection of the Amendment would show that the Government were afraid to ask the people of London to give their opinion on the policy of this Bill.
MR. CREMERsaid that when the Bill was in its Second Reading stage, it was stated, he thought by the Secretary to the Board
992
of Education, that only eighteen per cent. of the ratepayers of London went to the poll two years ago when the London School Board was elected. The bottom was knocked out of that argument over and over again; but, notwithstanding that, the hon. Member for St. Pancras thought it right to repeat that assertion, because, he supposed, the hon. Gentleman was not in the House when the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education was so effectively answered. It was evident, therefore, that they should continue to repeat the answer which had been given to that assertion.
THE CHAIRMAN: Has this anything to do with the Amendment? I do not see the relevancy of the hon. Gentleman's argument.
MR. CREMERsaid that, the assertion having been made, he thought he was perfectly entitled to answer it.
THE CHAIRMAN: If the argument of the hon. Gentleman is relevant, he is entitled to follow it; but if we were to follow every observation made and contradicted in debate, I do not know that we should ever arrive at the conclusion of any debate at all.
MR. CREMERsaid that if the assertion were accepted as evidence that there was a great deal of apathy on the part of the ratepayers of London concerning the School Board and its splendid work, then he thought he was perfectly justified, even at the risk of being accused of delay, in asking that another opportunity should be afforded to test the feeling of London with regard to the School Board and its work. As he was not permitted to explain the peculiar circumstances in which that election was fought, he would content himself with saying that they were quite abnormal, and that it was not fair and just to repeat the assertion to which he had referred. If the electors neglected their duty on that occasion, and went "mafficking" instead, he thought they ought to be afforded another opportunity of expressing their opinion. It had been said that the Amendment was proposed for purposes of delay, but, even if that were true, he claimed that he would be

993
perfectly justified in attempting to delay the passage of this Bill through the House of Commons. Let him give his reasons.
THE CHAIRMAN: No question as to any attempt to delay the passage of this Bill through the House of Commons can possibly arise on this Amendment. The Amendment proposes that when the House passes the Bill, it shall be in the power of the London County Council and the London School Board to say they do not want it.
MR. CREMERsaid it was stated that the object of the Amendment was to delay the passage of the Bill, and, in those circumstances, he thought he was perfectly entitled to reply, and to state that he would have no hesitation in doing everything he could to prevent the passage of the Bill.
THE CHAIRMAN: I have already pointed out to the hon. Member that the question of delay does not arise. The hon. Member for St. Pancras, in mentioning the word delay, meant that further time should be given to the School Board to consider the position. He did not refer to delay in passing the Bill through the House. The hon. Gentleman must not deal with that question again.
MR. GREMERsaid he thought they were entitled to ask for further delay. The elections would not be long deferred, and if the Government would allow the London County Council and the London School Board to consult the ratepayers with regard to the proposals in the Bill a clear issue would be raised. If it were sought to rush the Bill through without consulting the ratepayers of London, he would feel himself justified in interposing every obstacle he could to the progress of the Bill through the House of Commons.
MR. CORRIE GRANTsaid the object of his friend
was to obtain for the people of London the right to express their opinion on the legislation of the Government. The proposal of his hon. friend was not an ideal proposal, but it did raise that point. There were many ways in Parliament by which local authorities of all kinds were given an opportunity of pronouncing judgment as to whether an Act was to be brought into operation or not. The hon. Member for Westminster was entirely ignorant, apparently, of the many Local Government Acts in which local authorities were given an opportunity of bringing the Acts into operation by a Resolution. For instance, that was true of many measures dealing with the public health. Though he agreed that the School Board and the County Council should have the right to pass Resolutions to bring this Bill into force, and though he agreed that the Amendment was not an ideal way of dealing with this Bill, when it was said there was no authority for it and that it had never been done before, then he said there were numerous precedents for it under the Public Health Acts. The hon. Member for Westminster also said the initiation of legislation belonged to Ministers, but the constitutional principle of this country was that initiation of legislation belonged to the people. It was from the desire of the people themselves that initiation of legislation should come, and when there had been some definite expression of opinion from the electors of the country or locality that they desired legislation, then, and only then, was it the duty of Ministers to bring proposals before the House. He entered his protest against the suggestion that Ministers with a majority of the House could bring forth despotic proposals for which there was no demand.
Question put.
Committee divided:—Ayes, 109; Noes, 242. (Division List No. 87.)

Brown, Geo. M. (Edinburgh)

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

Roe, Sir Thomas

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

Jacoby, James Alfred

Rose, Charles Day

Bryce, Right Hon. James

Jones, W. (Carnarvonshire)

Russell, T. W.

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Kearley, Hudson E.

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland

Burton, Sydney Charles

Labouchere, Henry

Schwann, Charles E.

Caldwell, James

Lambert, George

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Cameron, Robert

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

Causton, Richard Knight

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Channing, Francis Allston

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Corbett, T. L. (Down. North)

Leng, Sir John

Soares, Ernest J.

Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Taylor, Theo. C. (Radcliffe)

Cremer, William Randal

M'Arthur William (Cornwall)

Tennant, Harold John

Crombie, John William

M'Kenna, Reginald

Thomas, A. (Carmarthen, E.)

Crooks, William

Mansfield, Horace Rendall

Thomas, F. Freeman (Hastings

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Mappin, Sir Fredk. Thorpe

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

Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardign

Markham, Arthur Basil

Tomkinson, James

Dilke, Rt. Hn. Sir Charles

Middlemore, John Throgmorton

Toulmin, George

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Duncan, J. Hastings

Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

Wallace, Robert

Edwards, Frank

Morley, Rt. Hon. John (Montrose

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Elibank, Master of

Moulton, John Fletcher

Warner, Thos. Courtenay T.

Emmott, Alfred

Newnes, Sir George

Wason, J. Cathcart (Orkney)

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Weir, James Galloway

Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith

Nussey, Thomas Willans

White, George (Norfolk)

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

Partington, Oswald

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Fuller, J. M. F.

Paulton, James Mellor

Whiteley G. (York, W. R.)

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J.

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Perks, Robert William

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Grant, Corrie

Priestley, Arthur

Williams, O. (Merioneth)

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Rea, Russell

Yoxall, James Henry

Harmsworth, R. Leicester

Reid, Sir. R. Threshie (Dumfries

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

Rigg, Richard

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

Robert-, John Bryn (Eifion)

Mr. Lough and Mr.

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H.

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Brynmor-Jones.

Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

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

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Chaplin, Right Hon. Henry

Flower, Ernest

Allhusen, Aug. Henry Eden

Charrington, Spencer

Forster, Henry William

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Clive, Captain Percy A.

Fyler, John Arthur

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

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

Galloway, William Johnson

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Garfit, William

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready

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

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Colston, Chas. Edw H. Athole

Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

Bain Colonel, James Robert

Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

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

Balcarres, Lord

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Gordon, Maj Evans-(Tr. Hmlts

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

Cross, H. Shepherd (Boltont

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Eldon

Balfour, Rt. Hn. Gerald W. (Leeds

Crossley, Sir Savile

Goschen, Hon. Geo. Joachim

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Cullinan, J.

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Barry, Sir Fras. T. (Windsor)

Dalkeith, Earl of

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benj.

Dalryample, Sir Charles

Greene, Hy. D. (Shrewsbury)

Beckett, Ernest William

Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway)

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

Dickson, Charles Scott

Gunter, Sir Robert

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Hain, Edward

Bignold, Arthur

Dimsdale, Rt. Hon. Sir Jos. C.

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

Bigwood, James

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashfd

Bill, Charles

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

Boland, John

Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

Hatch, Ernest Frederick G.

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Bousfield, William Robert

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Hayden, John Patrick

Bowles, T. G. (Lynn Regis)

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

Heath James (Staffords, N. W.

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Faber, George Denison (York)

Heaton, John Henniker

Brymer, William Ernest

Fardell, Sir T. George

Henderson, Sir Alexander

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

Campbell J. H. M. (Dublin Univ

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

Hickman, Sir Alfred

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Ffrench, Peter

Hoare, Sir Samuel

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Hobhouse, Rt. Hn. H. (Somerset, E.

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Hoult, Joseph

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Fisher, William Hayes

Houston, Robert Paterson

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Fison, Frederick William

Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm

FitzGerald, Sir Robt. Penrose

Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

996

997

Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred

Myers, William Henry

Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew

Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

Newdegate, Francis A. N.

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Johnstone, Heywood

Nicholson, William Graham

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Joyce, Michael

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Smith, H. C. (North'mb, Tyneside

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, S.)

Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.)

Keswick, William

O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

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

Kimber, Henry

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Spear, John Ward

King, Sir Henry Seymour

O'Connor, Jas. (Wicklow, W.)

Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

Knowles, Lees

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)

Lambton, Hon. Fredk. Wm.

O'Dowd, John

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Laurie, Lieut.-General

O'Malley, William

Stewart, Sir. Mark J. M'Taggart

Law, Andrew Benar (Glasgow)

Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Lawrence, Sir Jos. (Monm'th)

Pease, H. Pike (Darlington)

Stroyan, John

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool

Peel, Hn. Wm. R. Wellesley

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Lawson, John Grant (Yorks, N. R.

Pemberton, John S. G.

Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

Leamy, Edmund

Penn, John

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

Percy, Earl

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

Lockie, John

Pierpoint, Robert

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Thornton, Percy M.

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Plummer, Walter R.

Tollemache, Henry James

Long, Col. Charles W. (Eversham)

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Tomlinson, Sir Wm E. W. M.

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

Power, Patrick Joseph

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Pretyman, Ernest George.

Valentia, Viscount

Lowe, Francis William

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

Pym, C. Guy

Wanklyn, James Leslie

Lundon, W.

Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

Webb, Col. William George

MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

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

Maconochie, A. W.

Ratcliff, R. F.

Welby, Sir Chas. G. E. (Notts)

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Rattigan, Sir William Henry

Wharton, Rt. Hon. J. Lloyd

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Redmond, William (Clare)

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

M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W.

Reid, James (Greenock)

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Manners, Lord Cecil

Remnant Jas. Farquharson

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Maple, Sir John Blundell

Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

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

Ridley, S. F. (Bethnal Green)

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. C. Thomson

Wilson John (Glasgow)

Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

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

Molesworth, Sir Lewis

Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

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

More, R. Jasper (Shropshire)

Round, Rt. Hon. James

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

Morrison, James Archibald

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Mount, William Arthur

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Younger, William

Mowbray, Sir Robt. Gray C.

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham (Bute

Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

Sir Alexander Acland-Hood

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Sharpe, William Edward T.

and Mr. Anstruther.

DR. MACNAMARAmoved the insertion, after the word "shall," in line 6, of the following words—"Except as to the constitution of the local education authority for the administrative County of London." By the insertion of these words the constitution of the local authority for London would be taken out of the clause, and he would subsequently propose to add the following—
"The authority for controlling all grades of publicly-aided education within the administrative County of London shall be constituted as follows—

"(1) By the direct election, triennially, by the parochial electors of one person for each Parliamentary division, provided that women as well as men shall be eligible for election.

"(2) By the co-optation by the members so elected of not more than fifteen persons, chosen for their knowledge of the educational needs of the Metropolis."

998
He objected to the assertion that this principle had been already decided by the Second Reading of the Bill. What the Second Reading decided was that the principle of the Act of 1902, after adaptation, and with certain modifications, should be applied to London. But Clause 27 of that Act stated that it should—
"Not extend to Scotland or Ireland or, except as expressly provided, to London."
The only express provision with regard to London was in reference to the Cockertonised schools. The Act, therefore, did not settle the question of the local authority for London, or any other of the great issues involved. The Amendment raised the question of the ad hoc authority, a question which doubtless many Members were tired of hearing him raise. He, however, was

999
the only member of the London School Board with a seat in the House, and if his authority was to go down he meant to go down with his flag flying. With the general policy of the Government with reference to the local control of education he had no quarrel whatever. In small towns the work of education might be municipalised; the work was of such a nature and extended over so comparatively small an area that a committee of the town council might very well carry it out. But in any large borough, and least of all in London, the local control of education could not be municipalised. What was the result of the endeavour to do this in the great county boroughs? All sorts of outsiders had to be called in, with no responsibility whatever to the ratepayers, and it was they and paid officials, and not the elected representatives of the ratepayers, who did the work. That would be overwhelmingly the case with regard to London. He believed that were it not for the feeling that having destroyed the ad hoc principle in the country the Government would suffer a loss of dignity if they allowed it to remain in London, the arguments in favour of a directly-elected authority would be so patent to Members on the other side of the House that, being anxious to have a really good authority, they would agree there was no way out of the difficulty except by constituting a directly-elected body.
The Bill of 1870 in its early stages was a municipal Bill. The ad hoc authority was created by an Amendment of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Forest of Dean, and before that Amendment was put to the vote everybody in the House agreed that it was necessary that London, at any rate, should have an ad hoc authority. He rested his case for a directly-elected authority for London on the magnitude of the work. If he could only explain what that work really was he believed that all would be convinced that it could not be handed over to any body subordinate to another authority. The School Board comprised fifty-five members, and held weekly meetings; there were seven standing committees and thirty-two sub-committees; the members were
1000
summoned to 706 meetings last year; the Board had charge of 500,000 children, managed 1,500 school departments, and employed 12,000 certificated teachers. In addition, there were the voluntary schools. He had always frankly admitted that they must come under the local authority and receive rate aid under reasonable terms; they could no longer be dependent on voluntary contributions. In voluntary schools there were 1,500 school departments and 220,000 children. Then there was higher education, at present managed by a Committee of thirty five members of the London County Council, who found it necessary to meet every fortnight. Altogether the work represented 2,000 separate educational institutions, 20,000 public school servants and teachers, 1,000,000 students and pupils, and an expenditure of £4,000,000 public money. That was a piece of work as great in its area as, and far more minute in its details than, the whole of the work of the London County Council. He did not think hon. Members realised that this Bill would double the work of the London County Council. Both financially, humanly, and administratively, the educational work of London was as big as the whole educational work of Scotland, and it was three times as big as that of Wales. It was originally proposed to constitute for London an authority consisting of thirty-six county councillors, thirty-one borough councillors, and thirty outsiders. Now it was proposed that there should be forty-two county councillors, twelve borough councillors, and thirty outsiders. Did any hon. Member believe that the London County Council could spare forty-two men, who would be taken exclusively away from their work as county councillors. It meant that instead of going to Spring Gardens, forty-two county councillors would have to attend at the School Board Offices, and once they put their hands to this educational work they would not be able to do anything else. He himself used to be a pretty regular attendant at the meetings of the London School Board, but since he had been a Member of the House of Commons he was ashamed of the small amount of time he had been able to devote to School Board work.

1001
They were taking away from the County Council forty-two members for education, fourteen for the Water Board, and eight under the Port of London Bill. This meant, if they added the representatives of the Council on the Thames and Lea Conservancy Boards, that they were taking away seventy-eight out of 120 elected members of the London County Council. They were simply spoiling the London County Council.
If the Government meant to municipalise, why did they not create enough county councillors for the purpose? The only thing they would do by this scheme would be to destroy the London County Council. Last year the County Council called over 1,300 meetings, and its Committees, Sub-committees and Special Committees numbered sixty-eight. What would happen under this scheme? The forty-two members taken away by this Bill would not be able to deal with educational work. The twelve borough councillors would, but they were not very capable administrators and the net result would be that the work would fall into the hands of twelve borough councillors and thirty outsiders. Who would be the outsiders? They would be doctrinaires and very likely he might be one of them, for he had been named as one of the five from the School Board who might be brought in. Could they leave this work to thirty doctrinaires? Would he himself be a good administrator? He would want to be toned down by the common sense of those persons who were not experts. Lender this scheme the forty-two men of business would not be able to be there, and the whole thing would be in the hands of thirty multiplications of himself. If the ad hoc authority would be extravagant what would happen in the hands of thirty specialists who had lost all sense of proportion and all idea of public needs. This meant the control of education in London by thirty experts. When the London County Council had none of the extra work which recent Acts of Parliament had imposed upon it, they were told by Members of the Government that the County Council had too much work. He remembered Lord Salisbury stating that the London County Council was suffering from megalomania and
1002
had too much work to do. The Duke of Devonshire also said that the County Council had too much to do, and the Colonial Secretary went so far as to say that if the county councillors were archangels from Heaven they could not do the work. His scheme was a perfectly simple one. He took the fifty nine Parliamentary areas in London, and from each he proposed that one member should be elected directly and exclusively for educational purposes. If this made too many elections they might have them on the same day, a system which worked very admirably in America. They would then get fifty-nine persons directly elected who would be responsible to the ratepayers. This proposal was quite consistent with last year's Act, which excluded Ireland and Scotland and which enabled the School Board of London to continue for one year longer. The Government had formed a Bill for Scotland, and when they brought that measure forward what would they say? Would they say "We have destroyed the ad hoc authority for England and Wales therefore we must destroy it for Scotland." Lord Balfour of Burleigh would give the Government a lot of trouble if they did that. He objected to having this question defeated by a side issue. The terms of last year's Bill did not necessitate the application of the same principle, because the unique case of London made it undesirable that that principle should be applied to the Metropolis. He believed he had the great bulk of the people of London behind him in regard to maintaining an ad hoc authority for London. (MINISTERIAL cries of "No, No.") The Borough Councils, representing half the population of London, had declared in favour of an ad hoc authority.
MR. REMNANT: No, No.
DR. MACNAMARAsaid that amongst metropolitan boroughs that had passed resolutions in favour of the ad hoc authority were Battersea, Bethnal Green, Camberwell, Finsbury, and Wandsworth.
MR. KIMBER: That resolution has been cancelled by Wandsworth, and they have passed another resolution in favour of the Bill.
MR. REMNANT: And I am sure that Finsbury is dead against an ad hoc authority.
DR. MACNAMARAsaid there was also Woolwich. The population within the areas of these Borough Councils amounted to 2,100,000. He thought he was entitled to say that the Borough Councils, representing half of the population of London, were in favour of an ad hoc authority. The great bulk of the people were in favour of an ad hoc authority. He was sorry that the Government had not proposed it, but it was not too late to do so now. However apathetic Londoners might be, and they were apathetic, he was sure that the Bill could not come into operation. Next November, when the School Board election had taken place, and next March, when the County Council Election had taken place, the Government would hear definitely what London believed, and that was that there should be a directly-elected authority for education. He asked the Committee not to shut this question up, but by adopting the Amendment to allow an opportunity at a later stage for discussing the precise form of the authority. He hoped that, if left a few hours longer to consider the matter, the Government would find it expedient and wise to go back to the ad hoc authority he had always advocated. He begged to move—
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 6, after the word 'shall,' to insert the words 'except as to the constitution of the local education authority for the administrative county of London.'"—(Dr. Macnamara.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
SIR WILLIAM ANSONexpressed the hope that they were now discussing the ad hoc authority for the last time. He wanted to take exception to the statement of the hon. Member for Camber-well that they had discussed the ad hoc authority in connection with this measure as a side issue. Nothing could be more explicit than the issue as stated on the Second Reading of the Bill by the Prime Minister. He had not the right hon. Gentleman's words before him, but
1004
he was confident that he said that there were two principles in this Bill, namely, to establish the London County Council as the education authority for London, and to provide for decentralisation, to be developed by means of the Borough Councils. The right hon. Gentleman gave various reasons against an ad hoc authority, and upon that issue the Second Reading of the Bill was decided. There was no reason why a directly-elected authority for educational purposes only should be more popular than a directly-elected authority which comprised the administration of education among its functions. It was that sort of authority which this Bill proposed to constitute. The real question was why should education, of all municipal duties, be dealt with by a special authority; Why should it not take its place by the side of other municipal duties? The fact that education had hitherto been dealt with by a specially elected authority was the result of an historical accident. The Government neglected education for many years, and afterwards they began slowly to subsidise voluntary effort. As the subsidies grew the Government control grew stronger. At length it became apparent that voluntary effort assisted by Government subsidies was not enough, and the School Boards were introduced to supplement, but not to supersede, voluntary effort. When the Education Bill of 1870 was first introduced, however, no School Board for London was proposed, but a number of School Boards were contemplated scattered all over the London parishes. From these beginnings developed the notion that it was necessary to have a directly-elected authority for education. The growth of the Boards—of these separate little corporations with their own constituencies—had made it impossible to arrange a scheme of education by which all forms of education should be brought together. He thought the hon. Member for Camberwell would go so far as to admit that it was nothing but the amount of work to be thrown upon the municipality which disinclined him to entrust to the London County Council the work of the School Board. With regard to the question of popularising educational control, he wished to point

1005
out that as the Bill now stood the London County Council had a most indisputable control over its own Committee. Then he came to the argument as to the undesirability of an ad hoc authority, not as a general proposition, but in this particular case. It was undoubtedly a fault of local authorities to appoint unnecessarily large committees, and he thought that by economy in this matter the London County Council might spare as many men as were required for educational purposes. Moreover, without any interference with the general control which the central authority would exercise over elementary education throughout London, the local authority would be relieved of an immense burden of administration under this Bill. There was no difference of opinion between him and the hon. Member as to the merits of municipalisation; the question at issue was merely one of the amount of work to be thrown upon the County Council. He asked the Committee to reaffirm the decision at which it had definitely arrived on the Second Reading, and to say that it would not set up an ad hoc authority for London.
MR. GEORGE WHITELEYsaid he did not for one moment pretend that he possessed expert knowledge on educational matters, but this was an Amendment which did not deal with the educational side of the question.
And, it being half-past Seven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
Committee report Progress.
To sit again this evening.

EVENING SITTING.

  LONDON EDUCATION BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.
  Clause 1:—
  Aamendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 6, after the word 'shall,' to insert the words 'except as to the constitution of the local education authority for the administrative county of London."—(Dr. Macnamara.)
  Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. GEORGE WHITELEYsaid the Amendment of his hon. friend the Member for Camberwell could not be regarded as an educational Amendment pure and simple. It was not one which experts and specialists in educational affairs alone were competent to deal with. It was a matter more of municipal government, and an Amendment on which it might be as well to have the consideration and opinions of those who spent their time in municipal affairs and civic work. He had spent seventeen of the best years of his life as a member of a town council, and, in his opinion, it was attempting an impossibility to ask the County Council to take upon its shoulders—to superadd to its already multifarious duties—the work of the education of the Metropolis. He would be the last to depreciate the ability, energy, and zeal of the County Council. He had the fullest appreciation and recognition of the manner in which they had conducted the affairs of this great city, and, in his opinion, if this House were to mould its debates and manage its affairs on the methods of the great municipal corporations of this country, the harvest of its labours would be greatly increased. The hon. Member for Camberwell was not asking the House to take a retrograde step in voting for this Amendment, nor was he asking any Member of the House to stultify himself in supporting it, and if he thought for one moment that there was any inconsistency in it he should be the last to support it. There was no analogy whatever between the London County Council and the other County Councils in the country. They were not upon the same plane, and what might be appropriate and seemly for one might easily be inappropriate and unseemly for the other. The Bill was seeking to create an educational machine for London, and yet at the outset, in its initial stages, almost before they were dealing with the main phases of the Bill, they were clogging the wheels of the

  1007
  machine by imposing upon the County Council—an already overburdened body—work which they could not possibly do.
  The House could not have appreciated the size and importance of the work now done by the School Board. It had to supervise the work of, 5,360 schools. It had to deal with the appointment and dismissal of 13,519 teachers. It had ten special schools for the blind, eighteen for the deaf, sixteen for the mentally defective, four for the physically defective, two industrial, three day industrial, three truant schools, and twelve assistant teacher centres. If the House considered the colossal array of duties to be performed in connection with that work, it would become evident at the outset that any Committee of the London County Council could not for a moment deal with this complex and mainfold work. There was one great central office on the Embankment, and eleven sub-district offices. There was a staff 560, visitors and superintendent visitors 460, school keepers 464; correspondent, artisans, etc., 250. This was the work of the London School Board, and this was the first work which any Committee of the London County Council would have to take over. They might as well put upon a Committee of the London County Council the management of the six new Army Corps which had been hatched by the present Secretary of State for War. They were asking the London County Council to achieve an impossibility. If a man had as many sets of brains or centres of mental and physical activity as a camel is said to have stomachs, it might be possible to achieve this, but until men were so constituted it would be nonsense to attempt it. One of two results were bound to ensue—either the municipal work of the Council would be neglected, or the educational work of the Council would be neglected. It was absolutely impossible for a man to give his attention to both sets of duties. Every authoritative opinion on record was against it. Lord Salisbury and the Secretary of State for the Colonies, and other persons of eminence, were all agreed that the County Council had now too much to do; that it could not now carry out its present duties,
  1008
  and therefore it was perfectly ludicrous to impose these new duties upon it.
  The scheme of dual representation was ludicrous and farcical. Take the case of the metropolitan borough of Battersea, for instance. Battersea sent a man to the London County Council who rejoiced in the name of Burns. Mr. Burns might be elected to serve upon this Education Committee. The borough of Battersea might, in addition, send a direct representative to the Educational Committee, and these two representatives of Battersea might be absolutely opposed in their opinions, and bicker, and quarrel, and vote against each other on every conceivable opportunity, which would entirely nullify the representation of the borough. The practical solution of this matter was to create the special authority suggested by the hon. Member for Camberwell. The hon. Baronet in charge of the Bill had asked why an ad hoc authority should be more popular in its character than this proposed Committee. No one had argued that it was, all they said was that a body such as was suggested by his hon. friend would devote all its time, zeal, and power to this gigantic task of managing the educational work of London. Education was a matter of such great importance to the County of London that it could not possibly be left to men who were elected for other purposes, who would only devote the dregs of their time to it. He urged upon the Committee that from a municipal standpoint they were attempting to set up an Education Committee which could not perform its duties because the members of it would be physically incapable of carrying on all the multifarious and momentous duties for which they were elected.
  MR HARRY SAMUELsaid the change of attitude on the part of the hon. Gentlemen opposite was extremely peculiar. It was not so many months ago since they had fought and died in the last ditch, as it were, in trying to give the whole control of Water London to the London County Council. It was true that was municipal work, but that did not touch his argument that if they were overworked they had no right to have the whole of the business of

  1009
  Water London in their hands. The analogy of the Borough of Battersea returning one member to the County Council and another member of opposite opinions directly to the Educational Committee had its counterpart in this House. Nothing was so common as a double-barrelled constituency which returned one Member to the Unionists and another to the Liberal side of the House. There was nothing strange in it with regard to the advisability or inadvisability of having an ad hoc authority; in his opinion they had arrived at a deadlock. They had the London School Board entering into the most wasteful competition with other bodies. They competed first of all with the voluntary schools, inasmuch as Board Schools were being dumped down all over the place every month in the year. The ad hoc authority was in competition with the London County Council technical schools and the polytechnic schools, and also with what might be called the monotechnic schools established by the City Guilds. The establishment of a central authority for London was to do away with the overlapping and the extravagant waste of money that was the root of the Government Bill. The argument of the hon. Member for Camberwell in support of his Amendment was that the County Council and the Borough Councils would be in conflict, and the result would be that education would be handed over to the expert, which said the hon. Member, God forbid. That argument was the very strongest argument that could be used against his Amendment, because the ad hoc authority meant the election of experts upon a particular subject; and to hand over education to such a body as the hon. Member proposed, would be to hand it over to experts, a thing which he did not wish to see. So far as he could see, the results obtained by the School Boards were not such that they should ask the House to continue the ad hoc authority. The great difficulty in the way of education was the slack attendance and the early age at which the children left school, and that certainly was not an argument in favour of the continuance of the ad hoc principle, which had obtained only an attendance
  1010
  of 80 per cent. He was deeply impressed with the necessity of such a scheme as the Government had suggested.
  SIR WALTER FOSTERsaid he had always regarded with pride the results obtained under the system of education now to be swept away. The results of that system were remarkably encouraging, and although some thought money had been spent somewhat too lavishly and unwisely, it was in connection with the education of the children, and if there was one thing which had caused any check to our trade it was that we had not spent enough on education or that we had not spent it in a proper way. He regarded the Government's scheme with great apprehension. He thought it was likely to be disastrous to this great city as regarded education. His joy at having a body which would have under its control education in all its grades, was shattered when he thought of the absolute inefficiency of the body that it was proposed to set up. He could not conceive a body more incapable than the body suggested by the Government. The proposal to add selected members to the body was an admission that the body itself was inefficient. These members would not be directly responsible to any constituency, and he believed no man should be placed in a position to spend public money unless he was directly responsible to the people who provided the money. He did not like co-option or selection, on these bodies because it gave to all engaged in a position of public trust less of that great sense of responsibility and interest which was the great element of public work. He was afraid that the scheme proposed by the Government would not produce the most efficient body for carrying on education in the Metropolis. In the old days, before the Act of 1870 was passed, he remembered that Mr. John Bright said that what was wanted was a school in every parish and district managed directly by people chosen by the parents of the children, and in such a way that while they provided the money they would have the full control of the schools. Well, this scheme would not give them that. The recent Act, which had been applied to the whole of

  1011
  England, had destroyed that ideal for a long time at least. The proposal of the hon. Member for Camberwell made some approach to the ideal, for it suggested that there should be a really popular and efficient body directly elected by, and responsible to, the ratepayers of the whole area; that was having the vivifying virtue of direct responsibility to the people who found the money. That was a prime and necessary element in the constitution of any good and efficient body for the administration and control of popular education. Then, that body would be practically efficient because it would have no other work to do except that for which it was directly elected. By dividing itself into Committees and calling in to its assistance managers, the scheme of education could be worked efficiently in every respect.
  Under the scheme of the Government they should not have a body directly elected to discharge this enormous responsibility of the education of the whole of London, but a body which had associated with it two other elements more or less heterogeneous in character. The tendency would be for the work to fall more and more on those members of the body who were selected, and less and less on those who were elected. The consequence would be that the non-elected and non-responsible members would have a larger share than they ought to have of the work. Another reason why he disliked the Government system was, that in an overburdened body like the London County Council, with a small infusion from the outside, the work would be thrown to a large extent on the irresponsible officials. In every body in this kingdom, where the private time of the Members was encroached upon by the increased responsibilities thrown upon them, the tendency was to shift more and more of the work on the paid officials, and the consequence was that they had administration by paid officials instead of the good old wholesome system of administration by elected representatives. The tendency of that was to introduce a narrow uniformity which ought not to mark any good scheme of education. He believed that that danger would be obviated by the scheme of the hon. Member for Camberwell. What surprised him more than anything else, was that this enormous responsibility for the
  1012
  education of this wide area of the Metropolis was to be given to the London County Council, even with the addition suggested to the Education Committee. If he mistook not, this Government had shown more than once a desire to limit the functions of the municipalities. It had refused to London the power of looking after its water supply. Surely a body who could not be trusted with the water supply was not a body to which to entrust the duty of the education of the childien—a duty much more sacred and which called for a much greater expenditure of individual labour. In addition to that, the tendency of His Majesty's Government had been, by the appointment of Committees and by remarks made from time to time in the House, to try and check municipal trading on the ground that municipalities were not to be trusted with the expenditure of their own ratepayers' money in connection with tramways, electric lighting, water supply, and other developments of modern municipal life. But these things were a mere trifle compared with the terrible burden and sacred duty which it was now proposed to place on the shoulders of the London County Council in connection with the education of the children. The scheme of the Government would be found to be inefficient, it would lead to the diminution in the excellence of the education of the children; it was bound to produce bad administration, and consequently to bring about public discontent.
  MR. KIMBERsaid he thought that a primâ facie case for the Motion of the hon. Member for Camberwell had been proved. The hon. Gentleman's figures, at all events, could not be controverted. In fact, he believed that neither the House nor London itself realised the largeness of the task which had been undertaken. Here were 1,000,000 children to be educated in a locality forty miles in circumference; an army of educated teachers, 20,000 strong; the revenue of a State—£100,000, to be raised and expended every week; the daily toil of mind and body upon the superintending authority, to say nothing of the executive duty which must be committed to the much larger body of managers than could be compassed within the supreme

  1013
  assemblage—if they considered for a moment all these facts there was, as he had said, a good primâ facie case made out for the Motion of the hon. Member for Camberwell. The Parliamentary Secretary had answered this case first by saying that the ad hoc principle had been discussed and, to a certain extent, decided at the Second Reading. No doubt it was discussed at great length on the Second Reading. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education also said that ad hoc assemblies were always extravagant; and, judging from the past, in London they might be admitted to be so. Another objection to an ad hoc body made by the Parliamentary Secretary was the multiplicity of elections. That, no doubt, was a strong objection; but the question was, whether these and other objections urged at the Second Reading were sufficiently valid to overcome the arguments put forward in favour of a directly-appointed body of men by the ratepayers to whom the body ought to be responsible? He was not afraid of the ad hoc principle at all; he was not afraid of the extravagance because he believed the remedies would be equal to the disease. Another objection, or rather what he might call a mitigation of judgment in regard to the ad hoc principle advanced by the Parliamentary Secretary, was that we had in London already municipal machinery on the very large scale adapted to the municipalisation of almost everything. He thought that there was very great weight in that, although it was also true that the water supply had been committed to the hands of a separate Board. It seemed to be admitted on all hands that education formed a fair subject for municipalisation. He did not quite like the range of the thing himself, still he did not see any reason why, if municipal bodies could be entrusted with the sanitary part of domestic life, they should not be entrusted with the education of the young mind. Therefore, he accepted the principle. The Borough Councils and the London County Council furnished machinery capable of carrying out the educational duties of the Metropolis in a very admirable manner.
  When the Bill was first brought in there were some men of sound judgment who did not relish at all the idea
  1014
  of committing the care of the education of 1,000,000 children to an overworked body like the London County Council. The Government themselves had admitted, when the Water Bill was being discussed, and on a subsequent occasion, that the London County Council was an overworked body with ever increasing duties. He could not help feeling the force of the observation of the hon. Member for Camberwell that forty two Members were to be taken—because it was always the willing horses that were drawn upon—from the body which could not reach the accomplishment of the work already on their hands. He and his constituents consoled themselves, when they saw from the Bill that the London County Council would be the education authority, with the fact that that was a very dignified body and was entitled to every respect for the admittedly good work which it had done in many directions. Therefore, he willingly bowed to the adoption of the London County Council as the education authority, because the other parts of the machinery, which he considered to be ten times more important, and which reached from end to end of the constituencies of London, were to be committed to the Borough Councils, who were in daily touch with the children, who knew them, and the places where they lived. He had had upwards of fifty years acquaintance with the City and all its doings, but he could not claim to thoroughly know London. But here they had twenty-nine bodies, composed of members who came from the uttermost parts of this great city, that would form a force large enough to deal with the education problems and would give the assistance which the London County Council, as the supervising body, would need. If there was one thing in arranging this great measure for London which ought to be kept supreme in all minds, it was that whoever composed the superintending council, the executive council, or the managing councils, they should be men not only of ability, but who had the time to afford to see that this business was done properly. A mess might be easily made, and they should beware lest in attempting to grapple with some minor points, they made a bad piece of machinery.

  1015
  He thought that the Borough Councils should have a large share in the executive work, but why should they have lost that link which the Bill as brought in gave them—only one voice to represent 200,000 ratepayers in the counsels of the supreme body when their affairs were being discussed? He passed over the fact that the Government proposed to increase the number of the superintending authority on the Committee from thirty-six to forty two. He gave way to that, because he had strong confidence that whether the London County Council were in a majority or in a minority on the supervising body, their action would be the same. They would be, as it were, the referendum body for the education authority, and at all events all the proceedings would be carried on in the light of day, subject to the public opinion and a certain amount of corrective action from this great Metropolis. But when he found on the Paper an Amendment that this small shred of what was called the representation of the boroughs on the Education Committee, was reduced from one solitary individual to a third of an individual, he failed to see how there could be representation in any reasonable sense. How could the third of a man represent most conflicting districts with conflicting views? He did not know whether the man who was to represent Wandsworth and Battersea, and the former included the Parliamentary Division of Clapham, was to represent Wandsworth with his head, and Battersea with his legs! How was he to report to the superintending body the opinion of the two Councils without possibly being a member of either, and how could he take back the views of the superintending body to the Councils? The great American impresario, Barnum, once quarrelled with his partner as to their property in an elephant, and Barnum solved the difficulty by loading a rifle and declaring that he was going to shoot his half of the elephant. That was a symbol of what might happen in the proposed amended representation of the grouped boroughs! Could anything be more grotesque than to attach the name of representation at all to such a thing—to allow to the third or to the half of a man the representation of a constituency of 250,000
  1016
  inhabitants. And yet that was to be the fink between the supreme body and the executive management. He agreed with his constituents that rather than submit to such an affront they would prefer to have no representation. He told the Government distinctly that if this was to be the representation as between Borough and County Councils they had better leave it out. They would drive the constituencies of London back to the ad hoc principle. Unless the executive power of the Borough Councils was strengthened there would be dissatisfaction and revolt in the constituencies.
  MR. CROOKSwould not say the County Council could not do the work; they would do it, and perhaps efficiently, but perhaps also at the expense of some other very important work. The work of education was sufficient for any body of men, and the industrial classes claimed that if an authority was to be constituted for the purpose they should have a voice in the constitution. This Government seemed to have delegation on the brain. Anything that wanted doing was to be handed over to somebody else. But if there was one thing more that another that hon. Members opposite were given to boast about it was that they refused to be delegates, but were willing to be sent there as representatives of the people. If they believed in that principle, why not give London an education authority to which the people might send their representatives and not have someone co-opted here and there? The people of London were perfectly satisfied that the School Board for London was going on very safe lines. The outside public were beginning to look with suspicion upon this new-fangled notion of delegating work to other people. The people looked upon this system of delegation with suspicion, because they knew that if they wanted to get "equal opportunity" for all the children this was not the way to get it. People were frequently told that they should be content with the positions in life to which the Lord had called them, but he did not believe in that. His belief was that any position belonged to the workman and his family that God had given them capacity to fill. He would not secure fair opportunities through an authority over which he

  1017
  had no control. The hon. Member opposite had spoken about the borough councillors knowing every part of their own locality. Surely it was not unreasonable to suppose that if they adopted the Amendment of the Member for North Camberwell the constituency would select someone who knew the needs of that particular district. There were many people on the Borough Councils who were actually teachers. Were they going to turn them off? Were such councillors to take part in fixing the wage of the teachers? Hon. Members knew that they would not tolerate such a state of things. There would be a delightful mix-up as to who was to come in to make up this new authority. Woolwich would not get even a third of a representative in spite of the fact that it polled the largest number of votes of any constituency in the Metropolis. They were arguing in favour of a continuity of authority, but Woolwich was only going to have a quarter of a representative. How were Deptford, Greenwich, Lewisham and Woolwich going to select their representative? Would they have to go round the corner and toss for it? How were they going to settle it? They wanted a directly elected authority. He wished parents to realise that the greatness of this country lay mainly with the workpeople, who must get the best education possible. To secure this they must get a grip of the authority who were going to do the work, and so create the sense of responsibility. He appealed to the Government to give them the best possible education for London by providing an authority which would win the confidence of the vast majority of the people of London. This could only be done by establishing an authority directly created by the people themselves.
  MR. MIDDLEMOREsaid it was time for those sitting on the Ministerial side of the House who were dissatisfied with the proposals of the Government respecting the creation of the new education authority definitely to declare their opinions. He had abstained from voting against the Second Reading of the Bill, like other supporters of the Government, in the hope that a radical modification would be made in the proposal
  1018
  with respect to the new education authority when it was reached in Committee. The original proposal had been withdrawn. He had had no very great objection to it, because it was so grotesque that it could not possibly have been administered. Under the new proposal of the Government they were asked to double the work of the County Council, and they were asked to sanction the appointment of forty-two of its members to attend to the new educational duties of the County Council. In his opinion, the County Council, with all the duties that at present fell to their lot, could not discharge this impossible task. If that were so they were creating an authority which would not be able to control its own Committee, and it would not be able to exercise any control over the Borough Councils at all. The Government proposed to give to this so-called authority a bare majority on its executive committee. There were to be twelve representatives of the Borough Councils, and they were going to confer upon them the most vital of all the educational duties, namely, the appointment and dismissal of teachers and the selection of sites. Did they call that an authority? They would be but a phantom authority; or, rather, they would be simply the paymasters. They would have no more authority than the Paymaster General of the Forces had of the real control of the Army.
  SIR WILLIAM ANSON: Rubbish.
  MR. MIDDLEMOREsaid it was not rubbish. It was what he honestly believed; and what he had the courage to say. (Opposition Cheers and Cries of "Withdraw.") The right hon. Gentleman was very fond of interrupting. He was nothing if not technical. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to grope his way along the technicalities and husks of life like a snail without his horns. The right hon. Gentleman invariably spoke as if he were one of the deities—as if he were omniscient; but he was only a poor ignorant child of time to whom it was enough to do to follow his own nose. The description he had given of the relations between the County Council and the Education Committee was substantiated by experience. The great provincial municipalities were able to

  1019
  exercise but little control over the committees which spent their money. Take the gas committee. Upon a gas committee it was necessary to attend its meetings with the most unbroken vigilance, and if a Member was absent from a single meeting he often found considerable difficulty in picking up what he had lost. But the safeguard of the municipality was that they appointed the whole of the committee; and, having appointed it, they trusted it. If that were true of the new education authority he should have very little objection to it. The Government had begun entirely at the wrong end. They started with the management committee, went on to the Borough Councils, and then on to the County Council. The Government ought to have begun, in his opinion, at the other end, and made the County Council the real and genuine authority, the fount of authority. Let that authority depute and depute, delegate and delegate, until at last they got down to the management committee. There would then be solidarity and conformity; and the best opinion of the country was in favour of that, as well as the common sense of every business man. He did not know how they could fix responsibility on these various authorities. The County Council would not be the authority—it would be nothing better than the paymaster; the Education Committee would not be responsible—they were not in touch with the boroughs; and certainly the boroughs would not be responsible for London as a whole. He thought the authority was badly constructed, that it began at the wrong end, and that it would be wasteful, heterogeneous, and ineffective.
  MR. YOXALLsaid he thought the Committee would now be able to understand why the Government was reluctant to postpone the discussion of Clause 1, for directly they got to close quarters with Clause 2 it became patent to the Committee that this was an impossible Bill. Upon its first introduction it was condemned, on the Second Reading it was thrown overboard by its own friends, and since then the hon. Baronet and the President of the Local Government Board had been engaged with the London Unionist Members in botching and
  1020
  tinkering it day by day; and at last they had produced a set of proposals which satisfied nobody, and which were repudiated and condemned by all people outside who knew anything of the education question, as well as by sections of the Government's own friends—by those who were in favour of the London County Council being the authority as well as by those who favoured the Borough Councils being the authority. He ventured most respectfully to commiserate the hon. Baronet and the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board who sat blushing beside him, on the searching fire of criticism to which they had been subjected by the hon. Member for Wandsworth and on their exposure to the double-shotted guns of the hon. Member for North Birmingham, two of their own friends—one of whom spoke from long experience of London municipal life, in which he was thoroughly versed, and the other of whom possessed equal experience in the municipal life of a great provincial city which had been held up as a model municipality—he meant the city of Birmingham. All seemed to be agreed that this was an impossible Bill, which would not work. Had the Government approached the question with a desire to introduce a satisfactory educational measure they would never have brought in a Bill of that nature. Had they set aside their political predilections and objections to existing authorities all that botching and tinkering might have been avoided, and they would have had a Bill setting up a specially elected authority.
  He was in favour of the municipal principle in dealing with education; but when he was asked to apply it to the Metropolis, with its 20,000 teachers and 1,000,000 scholars, with the revenue of a principality or a small kingdom—when he was asked to entrust that enormous task to forty-two members of the London County Council, already overburdened with work, and to add to them twelve members from the Borough Councils selected by a process which carried absurdity to the point of perfect bathos and ridicule, he felt it to be impossible in the case of London—and he prophesied that sooner or later the Government would be compelled to fall back on the ad hoc principle.

  1021
  In his opinion a specially elected authority for that purpose, and for no other purpose, was the only possible authority to do the work. Why had not the Government adopted that idea, which afforded the only practical solution of the difficulty? Simply because they were opposed to the idea of a School Board, or of a specially elected authority. They were opposed to the London County Council as the sole supreme and undivided authority; they did not like either the London County Council or the School Board. But this was not a matter to be played on by political prejudices or ancient hatreds, by a dislike of their own child in the case of the London County Council, or of the School Board which was the child of Liberal parents. He would remind the House that in 1870 the Liberal Government tried to introduce for London the principle of devolving education upon the then existing vestries, but as the debates went on it became obvious that the only way to deal with London education was by an authority specially elected for the purpose. And that conclusion was arrived at, not after a debate which had been rushed or stifled, but after leisurely, careful and full discussions. He believed that if the Government would give equal opportunity for full debate on the present occasion the Committee would be irresistibly forced to a like conclusion. He had listened with great interest to the able speech of the hon. and learned Member for Wandsworth, who had told them that rather than have the preposterous proposal of borough councillors elected by thirds and halves he would prefer the ad hoc proposal. He believed many of the hon. Gentleman's colleagues coincided with that view. It was clear that this Bill was a huge mistake, and although it had been botched and tinkered, revised and re-revised, it would never satisfy the House, and although it might be carried by force it must eventually result in failure.
  SIR JOHN GORSTsaid that the question whether education should be entrusted to a specially elected authority, or to the ordinary municipal authority which
  1022
  represented the people, was discussed at great length last year. On several occasions he gave his reasons for preferring the municipal authority to the specially elected body—not because he had any strong prejudices against School Boards or directly elected authorities, but because he thought that they would never have proper local self-government until there was one body alone able to rate the people, and be responsible to the people for the local finances and general expenditure. His reasons at that time were not educational, but local government reasons. He had intended to sit silent through the debate, but the peculiar circumstances of London would, however, perhaps justify him in explaining how the matter struck him. Those who were endeavouring to municipalise the management of education were that night at a great disadvantage; because on the one hand they had the usual proposal for a specially elected body, and on the other hand they had not a clear proposal for a definite and absolute municipal control. If he voted, as he intended, against this Amendment, he must not be understood as voting in favour of any sham supreme municipal body. He was going to vote for a real municipal body in London as elsewhere; and when the Committee came to the further clauses of the Bill, he could promise the House that he would do everything in his power to make the control of the County Council over the education of London absolutely real, and secure that the Council should have all the powers and the opportunities of carrying out the great work placed upon it in the same degree as the municipalities of other places. Against such a municipalisation of education as he had described, there was only one special argument. It was the difficulty, or, as some thought, the impossibility of the existing County Council being adequate for that work. But he thought that the best judge of that question was the County Council itself; and if it were to come to the opinion that its present numbers were insufficient for the task which Parliament was placing upon it, he thought that a good deal of attention would have to be paid to it. But the cure was very simple. The

  1023
  Prime Minister himself pointed it out—to increase the numbers of the County Council so as to make it adequate to do the work. He had intimated clearly that if it were shown that the London County Council was insufficiently strong to perform the duty which Parliament placed on it, he would have no difficulty whatever in bringing in a Bill — or making provision for such an increase of its numbers as would make it adequate for the task. He held, therefore, that those who were supporting the Government in resisting that Motion were perfectly consistent; they were merely carrying on a stage further the municipalisation of education which they embodied in the legislation of last year. The arguments brought forward by the hon. Member for Camberwell were sound, no doubt, but they could easily be got over by the simple expedient of increasing the numbers of the London County Council so as to make it adequate for the work.
  MR. MCKENNAnoted with regret the absence of the Prime Minister in view of the importance of the subject and the powerful arguments on both sides of the House which had been adduced in favour of the principle for which they were contending. He sympathised with the work which the Prime Minister had to do, and particularly his special labour now in discussing the Corn Tax with the Colonial Secretary, but if the right hon. Gentleman had been present he thought that he would have been able to give the Committee some assurance that the Amendment of his hon. friend, if not accepted now, would lead hereafter to some Amendment being proposed to adapt it to a real municipalisation. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken that there was no argument in favour of the ad hoc principle that could not be used with equal strength in favour of the County Council, provided that that body was made large and powerful enough to carry out its added duties. As London now stood, if they did not have an ad hoc authority, but if they had the Bill as it stood, the House would be stultifying itself, having regard to the principle laid down in the Act of
  1024
  1902. That principle was that they should have one single authority for the control of education. That was exactly what this Bill did not give them. It was an affront to their common sense to talk of the County Council as a single authority under the Bill. It would merely delegate to the Borough Councils certain powers which it did not exercise itself. It would have no more authority than the Borough Councils; it would have a different authority, and such authority as the Borough Councils would enjoy would not be a delegated authority, it would be an authority entirely independent of the County Council. The hon. Member for Limehouse was the only Member who had spoken against the Amendment, and he had but two objections to urge. In the first place, he desired that one authority should have control of every grade of education, and it was exactly what would happen if the Amendment were carried. The second was that the municipality should take the child from the elementary school right up to the highest school. That also was provided for by the Amendment, as an ad hoc authority would be a single authority for all grades of education, and the child would remain under that authority until his education was completed. After the speeches made from hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, he thought they were entitled to ask the Parliamentary Secretary of the Board of Education for some better reasons for his opposition to the Amendment—something different from those advanced last year on a Bill which did not deal with London. It was not sufficient to give them a mere perfunctory answer as the hon. Baronet had done; they might easily retort on him that there was no principle put forward by his Government which might not be altered, withdrawn, or reserved if public pressure was brought to bear upon it. He believed that on Saturday next public opinion on this Bill would be amply demonstrated in Hyde Park, and that the Government would soon be brought to realise that public opinion was against them on this Bill.
  Mr. CRIPPSheld that the two questions of the ad hoc

  1025
  authority and the position of the County Council must be kept absolutely distinct. With regard to the ad hoc authority, the arguments were just the same in the case of London as in the case of other large areas; they rested on the concentration of local duties, both as a matter of responsibility and as a matter of rating. For any economical administration of local duties the responsibilities must be so concentrated that those who elected the local authority might know what the responsibilities were and have an interest in them. The only suggested difference between London and the other great municipalities was that the London County Council was over-burdened with work. He did not believe it was overburdened in the sense of being unable to undertake these educational duties. No doubt it had a large number of functions, which it performed in an admirable fashion. Politically he did not agree with the County Council, but he thought that everybody in London was indebted to that body for the manner in which it carried out its local duties and responsibilities. But as to the constitution of the new authority he was entirely out of accordance with the proposals of the Government. As a question either of rating or of local government it was impossible to justify the proposals of the Bill, even as amended. There could be no justification for not imposing the same trust and responsibility, and giving the same facilities in London as in other parts of the country. It was no good making the County Council the authority unless it were made the real authority, with power and responsibility for carrying out its duties, so that the ratepayers might know where the responsibility really rested. It was impossible for the local authority to have that responsibility unless it had the control of the Education Committee. In other parts of the country the education committees consisted of a majority of county councillors. That had been put right in the amended proposals of the Government. But in addition to that, other members of these Committees had a delegated authority from the County Councils, and he desired to know why in London there should be an Education Committee composed of persons who were not county councillors, and who had not a delegated authority
  1026
  from the County Council? No one wanted to say a word against the dignity and efficiency of the borough councillors; but they did not attack their dignity and efficiency by not giving them duties which were not properly theirs; and he said, without fear of contradiction, that if the County Council was to be the local authority for London it ought to have full power of delegating to the Education Committee in the same way that the County Councils in the rest of the country had full power. Unless this were done, both as regards rating and education, they might expect failure from this Act.
  As a London ratepayer he dissented from the idea that his money was to be spent except under the jurisdiction and power of the County Council. No other authority had any right to dispose of the county rate in London, and it was a matter of bad principle to give the real authority for spending rates not to the authority responsible for raising them, but to a body which was not responsible to the ratepayers for them. As to local government, why should they have a local authority, and yet not give it power to appoint the committee by which the duties were to be carried out? What reason was there for introducing in the case of London—admittedly a most difficult problem—a principle which had not been introduced in any other case, and which was directly antagonistic to the true principles of local government? From the educational point of view—and in a Bill of this kind their chief thought should be of education—they in London, the centre of the Empire, ought to know where the true responsibility rested in the matter. But if this Bill were passed as it stood, where would the responsibility for carrying out the duties imposed on the County Council really lie? Were they trying to fix that responsibility when they elected a County Council, as they ought to? They would not do so unless they made the responsibility of the county councillors a reality, not only by giving them nominal powers, but by making them supreme on the Education Committee by which those powers were carried out. On the question of management, again, he protested most strongly

  1027
  against independent bodies being treated as managers who were not directly responsible to the ratepayers at all. He would not speak so strongly were it not that he felt very deeply on this question; and he would ask why should every principle of rating and local government and real responsibility in education be upset in our great Imperial metropolis? This was not a London question only; it was a great Imperial question. Matters of this kind were not to be settled by patching up compromises between various interests; it was far too big a matter altogether. And, though he would certainly oppose anything like an ad hoc authority, he did earnestly hope that before they came to Clause 2 the Government would make up their minds that London was not to be dealt with in this opportunist manner, but that principle was to be adhered to on these great questions, and that they could not assent to an Education Bill for London on any other basis.
  MR. BRYCEsaid this had been a very remarkable debate. The Government Bill since half-past seven had been riddled by the fire of their supporters—by the hon. Member for Wandsworth, the hon. Member for Birmingham, the late Vice-President of the Council, and, lastly by the hon. and learned Gentleman, who was usually one of the most faithful advocates of the Ministry, but who had now declared with unwonted warmth that the proposals of the Bill as regarded the County Council could not be justified either in their original or their amended form. Yet the Government had given no reply whatever. How was it they had drifted into this position? Last year the principle of municipalisation and of throwing all power on to one authority was defended on grounds confessedly inapplicable to London. But this year all the Secretary to the Board of Education had to say was that they must do this for London because they did it last year for other places, on grounds which did not apply to London. There was no similarity between the case of London and that of cities like Manchester or Liverpool, which had no more than one-seventh of the population of the Metropolis. Surely the difference of facts made it impossible to argue that this question was
  1028
  settled last year, and made it necessary for the Government to deal with it as a new question in the interests of London, considered as an entirely separate kind of place. He did not deny the advantages of having one authority; and to secure complete unity of administration one might be willing to sacrifice a great deal. But the present Bill would not secure unity of administration; on the contrary, it would introduce the most complicated, confused, chaotic, and unworkable system which had ever, he thought, been proposed to a legislative assembly. Sites were to be selected by one body, and another body was to pay for them and build the schools. One body was to pay the teachers and another body was to appoint them. Then the provided and non-provided schools were to be on totally different systems and principles.
  With regard to the practical problem before the Committee, viz., to constitute an authority capable of doing the work, he said that if the Government would propose an increase in the number of the County Council so as to enable it to deal with its new educational work, that arrangement would largely meet the objections felt by most Members on that side of the House. If one member, or two members, were added to each County Council division, such members to be elected with a view to educational needs, the County Council would be given a strength and power to deal with this mass of work which it did not, and could not at present possess. If, however, the Government did not care to do that, let them constitute an ad hoc body. He had no strong preference for such a body as opposed to a body which united all functions, subject to one consideration which he would mention later. The one thing to secure was a body with the time, knowledge, and competence for the work, and the Bill would be an unsatisfactory measure, which the opinion of London would condemn, if it threw upon the authority work it was unable to discharge. There was one point which an increase in the membership of the County Council would not meet, and that was the necessity, referred to by the hon. Member for Woolwich, of giving the people a grip of the schools.

  1029
  If at a County Council election the policy of education was to be mixed up with all the other questions of policy which now came before the electors, how was the question of education to be considered by the people, and praise or blame, as the case might be, allotted? That impulse for educational progress which ought to be given by the people at an election would be lost, and that, to his mind, and not any mere democratic theory was the argument which recommended a body specially elected to deal with education. He believed that would be the best of all possible solutions; but if they were not to have that, let them have the County Council. The Bill could not work as it stood. Let the Committee either retain the body which had done good work already, or let them strengthen the County Council. The Committee were not merely rendering an honourable funeral to the School Board; they were discussing a question which would occupy London for some time to come. The Bill could not be a permanent solution of the problem; the needs of the case would force any Government to provide an authority capable of giving London a proper system of education. He therefore felt anxious that they should make it clear to the Government that the Bill must be taken back, and, much as it had been tinkered with already, still further altered before it could pass through the discussion in Committee.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. WALTER LONG,)said that, having regard to the fact that this was perhaps the most important Amendment that would be moved in the course of the proceedings in Committee, it was not unreasonable that the Government should have abstained from taking part in the debate until the usual hour for winding up such discussions. He therefore felt that the right hon. Gentleman's complaint on that score was unfounded. The right hon. Gentleman had congratulated himself and his Party on the fact that from the Government side of the House there had come speeches which were very qualified in their support of the Government proposals. The right hon. Gentleman, although he confessed very few who had listened to him realized
  1030
  the fact, was supposed to be advocating the proposal of the hon. Member for North Camberwell; but anybody who had listened to the debate would be driven to the conclusion that, though many people were found to criticise the proposals of the Government, very few were found to support the proposal of the hon. Member for North Camberwell. Something had been heard about the pourparlers which were supposed to have taken place between the different sections on the Government side. It was not only on the Government side that there had been pourparlers. If they were to embark in what he regarded as somewhat fruitless discussion, it would be interesting to know why the London County Council had suddenly arrived at the conclusion the Committee was told they had arrived at, that this work was too heavy for them to undertake. Many members of the London County Council, both Moderate and Progressives had come to him singly, or in twos or threes, and assured him that there was no foundation for the statement that the Council could not fully discharge these duties. It was argued that, owing to the constitution of the Council, a great many more members had to be put on Committees than were required. Members of the Council had said to him, "Add to our duties and we will reduce our committees, and we shall hear this burden with the utmost ease."
  DR. MACNAMARA: Who said that?
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid that that statement was frequently made to him. [HON. MEMBERS: Name.] He did not think he was called upon to mention names; but he was not in any way misleading the Committee. He was dealing, as the hon. Member for North Camberwell would realise, with negotiations which ran over a very considerable period of time. He had seen many members of the County Council, and he did not think he could say who the members were who said to him "Reduce our Committees and we will be able to do this work." All he could say was, up to a very recent period no member of the Council had said to him "We cannot take the work of education upon us." The one fear of every London county

  1031
  councillor was that the Government were going to set up what was called a Water Board, and the prevailing opinion was that that would be very bad for London government. But was it not idle to discuss the question? During the discussions on the Water Bill, the Government were attacked for setting up an authority other than the County Council. Why should the County Council spend hundreds and thousands of pounds in promoting Bills in this House to have the sole control of London water if they were overworked? If the right hon. Gentleman opposite and the hon. Member for Camberwell said that the London County Council were so overworked that they could not possibly manage London education without neglecting some portion of the work, then they must be forced to the conclusion that the London County Council had wasted the ratepayers' money when they brought into that House Bill after Bill asking to have the entire control of London water, to say nothing of their requests to control the police, Thames steamboats, and so forth. He thought he was not misrepresenting the argument of the hon. Member for North Camberwell when he said that he had stated on many occasions, and again that night, that the London County Council was so overburdened with work that it was impossible for them to undertake the work of education.
  DR. MACNAMARA: Why not increase their numbers?
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid that the London County Council had never asked Parliament for an increase of numbers, although they had asked for the complete control of the water supply and other matters. It was said that the water supply was an easy matter, and that the London County Council could manage it, and also manage the police. But when it was proposed to ask, not the Council as a whole, but a Committee, to deal with the administrative and detailed work of education, then it was said that they were so overworked that they could not undertake that duty. At any rate, the hon. Member for North Camberwell was consistent. He had never departed from his view that
  1032
  there ought to be an ad hoc authority. The right hon. Gentleman and others stated that the only answer of his hon. friend the Secretary of the Board of Education in reply to arguments which had been brought forward, was the Act of last year. But his hon. friend not only said that it would be inconsistent with the Act of last year, he also stated—and he himself did not wonder that his hon. friend did so, having regard to the laborious part he took in the discussion of last year's Bill—that the question of an ad hoc authority had been discussed ad nauseam last year, and that he did not propose to revive the arguments against it. His hon. friend went further, and said that the main argument of the hon. Member for North Camberwell viz., the overburdening of the County Council, had been disproved by the County Council themselves, who had never advanced that argument.
  DR. MACNAMARAsaid that the Council stated that they could not undertake this work.
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid that was another matter altogether. The attitude of the Loudon County Council was very much that of hon. Gentlemen opposite—that was to say, they declared that the work was too burdensome, not because they had too much to do, for they kept on asking for more work, but because they preferred, for reasons that were obvious, that there should be an ad hoc authority. If the London County Council asked to be allowed to control the whole of London's water, how could they represent that they were overburdened with work when this educational proposal was brought forward, as to which there would be a distribution of the labour between the central and the local authorities? It was a dilemma from which hon. Gentlemen opposite could not escape. The hon. Member for Camberwell had been consistent; he had always advocated the creation of an ad hoc authority.
  DR. MACNAMARA: So do the London County Council.
  MR. WALTER LONG: The London County Council advocated the creation of an ad hoc authority on the ground

  1033
  that they had so much work to do that they could not support this addition to it. [An Hon. Member: Not this work.] Now they were coming to the truth of the matter. The London County Council and hon. Gentlemen opposite regarded the Council as overburdened now; but they regarded the County Council as a body capable of doing a great deal more work when they themselves were anxious that other work should be handed over to the Council. It was impossible for hon. Gentlemen to controvert that argument. The facts were quite simple. Hon. Gentlemen advocated an addition to the labours of the County Council in connection with the water question. They would, he was sure, be prepared to-morrow, almost without discussion, to transfer to the control of the Council the London police and the Thames steamboats. All this the Council could do, but even with the distribution of labour between the central authority and the local authorities they could not undertake the work of education. Hon. Gentlemen were entitled to the view which the hon. Member for North Camberwell had always consistently held that there should be an ad hoc authority for education in London. That was a perfectly reasonable proposal; but manifestly they could not support it by the contention that the County Council was overworked, or if they supported it by that contention they could not next day support a further proposal for an enormous addition to the labours of the County Council. He was bound to say that he listened with profound regret to the attack which had been made by the hon. Member for North Birmingham on his hon. friend, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education. He thought that that attack had been heard with regret in all parts of the House. His hon. friend had not been very long in the position he now occupied. He came to it at a moment of very great difficulty, and had not the advantage of being in office when the Bill of last year was being prepared. But he was confident that every one who had watched him in the discharge of his responsible and laborious duties would agree that he had brought great energy and distinguished ability to their performance, and that he had done his work to the
  1034
  enormous advantage of the House and the country.
  AN HON. MEMBER: He was referring to you.
  MR. WALTER LONG: No, no.
  MR. MIDDLEMORE: May I, as a matter of personal explanation, say that I very fully admit all the good things the right hon. Gentleman has said of the Parliamentary Secretary? I spoke undoubtedly in a moment of irritation, when an extremely unpleasant word fell from his lips and caught my ear.
  SIR WILLIAM ANSON: As a matter of personal explanation, may I say that I heard the hon. Member describe the provisions of the Bill in terms which did not commend themselves to me, and, I am afraid, speaking, as I thought, in an undertone to my right hon. friend I said what I am sorry to think reached his ear? I accept his explanation, and I hope the matter is now ended.
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid he recognised to the full the satisfactory withdrawal of his hon. friend the Member for North Birmingham, and he joined with his hon. friend in desiring to carry the incident no further. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberdeen had referred to the speeches made by his hon. friend the Member for Wandsworth, and his hon. and learned friend the Member for Stretford. But what was there to be found in those two speeches in support of the Amendment the Committee were now considering? His hon. and learned friend the Member for Stretford advanced some arguments against the proposals of the Government. The Committee would come to those proposals in time, and then he and his hon. friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education would be prepared with their defence of those proposals. The arguments of his hon. and learned friend were not, however, in favour of an ad hoc authority. His hon. friend the Member for Wandsworth, who had received a resolution from his constituents, was also not prepared to agree to an ad hoc authority. In those circumstances, he appealed to the Committee whether they might not fairly decide

  1035
  upon this question of an ad hoc authority now, and then approach and consider the question with reference to which most of the speeches to-night had been delivered, namely, whether the constitution of the Bill was satisfactory. Whether the authority was satisfactory and whether it could be improved was another matter altogether. He submitted that the great bulk of the speeches delivered to-night showed that an ad hoc authority would be as impossible as it would be inconsistent with previous legislation.
  MR. GEORGE WHITEsaid that the hon. Baronet, followed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University, disputed to some extent whether the County Council had disowned any desire to become an education authority. The last paragraph of the resolution passed by the London County Council was as follows—
  "This Council is strongly opposed to the scheme proposed by the Bill, and would prefer either the maintenance of the present system or the creation of one directly elected education authority devoting itself exclusively to educational purposes, and which shall have real and complete control over all grades of education."
  That showed the disposition of the County Council in regard to this matter. Although there might be something in the argument that if the number of councillors was increased they might be able to undertake the work, it had been already ruled that no such proposition could be made under this Bill, and that it would have to be accomplished in an entirely new Bill. The hon. Baronet said that this would be the last time the ad hoc principle would be discussed in this House. Having for thirty years been a member of a large School Board elected on that principle, he naturally parted with it with some reluctance; and
  1036
  he was bound to say that as far as the discussion went, he had heard no argument to induce him to believe that a better authority could be put in its place. It might be said that the London School Board would naturally seek to retain its powers. But that argument could not be used with reference to the Resolution of the London County Council, which was perfectly disinterested, and which should have more attention given to it than it appeared to receive from Members of the Government. He felt that the Committee had been slighted by the absence of the Prime Minister during the evening. He should like to ask where the Prime Minister got his mandate to destroy the ad hoc principle. Several hon. Members opposite admitted that the principle was popular, and that this measure was going against the wishes of the people. He wished that the Prime Minister had heard the speech the hon. Member for Norwood, who of spoke with great feeling of the work of the School Board of London, and who dreaded the disaster which he believed would follow its abolition. Then there was the powerful appeal of the hon. Member for North Camberwell; but they were delivered in the absence of the Prime Minister, who, of course, was responsible for this Bill. He thought there should be some plain speaking when a revolution like this was attempted to be accomplished against the people's will. He would quote the words of a well-known historian, Mr. J. R. Green, with reference to a conjunction of circumstances which exactly corresponded to that in which they were placed. Mr. Green said that a Minister who was elected at a moment of panic, who refused to appeal to the country, and who acted in defiance of its will, would be acting technically legally, but that such a

  1037
  Minister would be none the less a criminal. That was exactly the position in which they were placed at present. When they had an attempt to tamper with representative institutions in the way this Bill proposed to tamper with them, there ought to be some plain speaking. The question had been asked—why has not the Government attempted to bring forward a measure of this kind for Scotland? The answer was very plain. There was not a dominant Church in that country to dictate policy to the Government. He ventured to think that the Government in attempting to carry this Bill were going not only against the will of the people, but in the teeth of a great many of their own supporters. He hoped, therefore, after the representations which had been made from both sides of the House that the Government would reconsider their scheme, and that London would be saved the degradation of having one of its most useful representative institutions destroyed by this measure.
  Mr. T. P. O'CONNORsaid he was unable to see any contradiction in the attitude of the County Council in not feeling fit to deal with the great question of education along with its other work. He thought the President of the Local Government Board must have been impressed by the severe, merciless, and, in some degree, unanswerable arguments which had been brought against the scheme of the Government by some gentlemen on his own side of the House. He gathered from the right hon. Gentleman's reply that the question now before the House was left open for consideration on subsequent portions of the Bill. This was a very remarkable Bill from all points of view. He thought it rather remarkable that hon. Gentlemen opposite who had been speaking of the
  1038
  megalomania of the County Council should put upon it this large addition to its burdens. He expressed his surprise at the conduct of the Government in taking away from one authority power it wished to retain, and insisting on imposing it on another authority which did not want to undertake the new duties. That did not seem very rational conduct on the part of the Government. His hon. friend the Member for Camberwell proposed a body ad hoc. He agreed with those who thought that the management of the education of London was big enough to take all the time, powers and energies of a body elected for that purpose. The question they were now discussing was the creation of a new body entirely different from the School Board. It was different in respect that it did not give to minorities the protection of their rights which was accorded to them by the cumulative vote. He represented a minority which from the religious point of view was to a large extent unpopular. That minority under the School Board system had hitherto been protected by the cumulative vote. He regretted the departure from that safeguard, and he deplored the antagonism which had been created between the School Board system and the denominational system by what he called the zealots on both sides of the question. The Roman Catholics, who in this country were mainly Irish Catholics, had no fear whatever of popular control provided that the religious character of their schools should not be interfered with. His hon. friend proposed that every Parliamentary constituency should have a representative on the new Board, but how would the Catholics fare under the proposal? He ventured to say that there would not be a single Catholic representative from

  1039
  any London constituency, and Catholics would be deprived of all the protection they had on the School Board, where they had two members whom they were able to elect by the cumulative vote. He could not vote for the proposal of his hon. friend. It was not one to maintain the School Board but to set up an entirely separate body. He regarded the School Board as gone, and now they had to find a substitute, and the real question was—was the County Council to be a real educational authority or not? In any effort the Government might make to meet the objections raised by making the County Council really effective they would have the support of the Irish Members. It might well be that an addition should be made to the Council, and if that were necessary the Government should introduce a one-clause Bill increasing the number of members and making the Council equal to the larger responsibility thrown upon it.
  MR. LOUGHcomplained that the Government had given no satisfactory reply to the arguments which had been stated in support of the Amendment from both sides of the House. There was something particularly mean in the speech of the President of the Local Government Board, who argued that, the County Council being eager to take up such work as the administration of the water supply and the provision of steamers on the river, it was ridiculous to say that the Council could not tackle the great work of education. That was a very shabby argument to use. He did not think the right hon. Gentleman had been serious in pressing it. Did he know that the cost of education in London was as great as all the work the County
  1040
  Council had to perform? They had heard a great deal from the right hon. Gentleman about the co-operation that might be expected between the County Council and the Borough Councils in discharging the work under the scheme in the Bill. They had experience in London on this point. There was constant difficulty and conflict arising between the County Council and the Borough Councils with regard to the municipal duties they had now to discharge. His hon. friend the Member for the Scotland Division hardly did justice to the Amendment. It contained the suggestion of the co-option of Members, and he believed his hon. friend the Member for Camberwell had, in making the suggestion, had in view the meeting of the difficulty with regard to the Roman Catholics which had been referred to. The President of the Local Government Board had admitted that the last word had not been spoken, but he said, "Dispose of this Amendment; we might have something else up our sleeve." That was the difficulty the House had had at every stage. They were not treated fairly; they had hardly been treated honestly by the Government. It was admitted by speakers on the other side of the House that there was some substance in the Amendment, and, if that was so, this was the occasion when they should hear the first proposal of the Government. The Prime Minister ought to be here, but if the right hon. Gentleman did not care to attend he ought to leave some adequate person to represent him. There should be some kind of statement made on behalf of the Government as to the course they proposed to take. He moved that they report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress; and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Lough.)
  MR. WALTER LONGappealed to the hon. Member not to persist in that Motion. The Secretary to the Board of Education and himself had replied, and it was wholly unreasonable to ask for a further reply.

  AYES.

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

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Asher, Alexander

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  Rose, Charles Day

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbt. Hy.

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Runciman, Walter

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H.

  Russell, T. W.

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Black, Alexander William

  Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Brigg, John

  Joicey, Sir James

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Brown, Geo. M. (Edinburgh)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Bryce, Right Hon. James

  Kitson, Sir James

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Labouchere, Henry

  Tennant, Harold John

  Burns, John

  Lambert, George

  Thomas, A. (Carmarthen, E.)

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Thomas, F. Freeman (Hastings

  Caldwell, James

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

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

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Leng, Sir John

  Tomkinson, James

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Levy, Maurice

  Toulmin, George

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Lough, Thomas

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Cremer, William Randal

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Warner, Thos. Courtenay T.

  Crombie, John William

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Wason, J. Cathcart (Orkney)

  Crooks, William

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Weir, James Galloway

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Middlemore, Jn. Throgmorton

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

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

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Norman, Henry

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Edwards, Frank

  Partington, Oswald

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Emmott, Alfred

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid.

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Price, Robert John

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Priestley, Arthur

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Grant, Corrie

  Rea, Russell

  Mr. Herbert Gladstone

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Rigg, Richard

  and Mr. William M'Arthur.

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Hardie, J. Keir) Merthyr Tydvil

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  NOES.

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

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

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

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Bignold, Arthur

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Bigwood, James

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Bill, Charles

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

  Austin, Sir John

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Chaplin, Right Hon. Henry

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Boland, John

  Charrington, Spencer

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Bond, Edward

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

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

  Balcarres, Lord

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

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

  Bowles Lt.-Col. H. F. (Midd'x

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

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

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin Univ

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 105; Noes, 201. (Division List No. 88.)

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Johnstone, Heywood

  Richards, Henry Charles

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Joyce, Michael

  Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge)

  Cullinan, J.

  Kenyon, Hon. G. T. (Denbigh

  Ridley, S. F. (Bethnal Green)

  Cust, Henry John C.

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop)

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. Thomson

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Keswick, William

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Knowles, Lees

  Robertson, H. (Hackney)

  Denny, Colonel

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

  Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.)

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks, N. R.

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Leamy, Edmund

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Dimsdale, Rt. Hon. Sir Joseph C.

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Duffy, William J.

  Leveson-Gower, Fredk. N. S.

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Faber, George Denison (York)

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

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

  Smith, H. C. (North'mb, Tyneside

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Lundon, W.

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks)

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

  Maconochie, A. W.

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

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Stanley, Hon. A. (Ormskirk)

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W.

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  FitzGerald, Sir Robt. Penrose

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Sturt, Hn. Humphry Napier

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Flower, Ernest

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

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

  Forster, Henry William

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Fyler, John Arthur

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Garfit, William

  Mount, William Arthur

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Mowbray, Sir Robt. Gray C.

  Valentia, Viscount

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

  Murphy, John

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

  Gordon, Maj Evans (Tr. H'ml'ts

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Webb, Colonel William George

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

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

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

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Eldon

  Myers, William Henry

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Newdegate, Francis A. N.

  Whitmore, Charles A'gernon

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Greene, Hy. D. (Shrewsbury)

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Wilson John (Glasgow)

  Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Ld. G. (Midx

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

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

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashfd

  Pease, H. Pike (Darlington)

  Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Peel, Hn. Wm. R. Wellesley

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Percy, Earl

  Wylie, Alexander

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Heath, James (Staffords, N. W.

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Sir Alexander Acland-

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hn. H. (Som'rs't E.

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Hoult, Joseph

  Rattigan, Sir William Henry

  And, it being after Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow.

  ADDENBROOKS HOSPITAL BILL.
  Read a second time, and committed for this day.

  MILITARY MANŒUVRES (ORDER IN COUNCIL).
  Resolved, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying
  1044
  His Majesty to make the Order in Council under the Military Manœuvres Act, 1897, a draft of which was presented to this House on the 17th day of February last.—(Mr. Secretary Brodrick.)
  To be presented by Privy Councillors and Members of His Majesty's Household.
  Adjourned at thirteen minutes after Twelve o'clock.

MILITARY MANŒUVRES ACT, 1897.
His Majesty's Answer to the Address of Monday last delivered by the Lord Steward (E. Pembroke and Montgomery), and read as follows: "I have received your humble Address praying me to make the Order in Council under the Military Manœuvres Act, 1897. I will comply with your request."

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:—
Gas Orders Confirmation (No. 1) [H.L.]; Gas Orders Confirmation (NO. 2) H.L.]; Water Orders Confirmation [H.L.].
And the Certificates that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:—
Electric Lighting Provisional Order No. 1); Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 2); Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 3); Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 4); Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 4); Scarborough Gas; Market Drayton Gas; Commercial Gas.
And the Certificate that no further Standing Orders are applicable to the following Bill:—
Land Drainage Provisional Order.
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.
Manchester Corporation Bill [H.L.] (Petition for additional Provision).
Gosport, Fareham, and Cosham Tramways Bill [H.L.] (Petition for additional Provision).
Examiner's Certificates of non-compliance with the Standing Orders referred to the Standing Orders Committee on Tuesday the 26th instant.
Bangor Corporation Bill [H.L]. (Petition for additional Provision). The order of Tuesday last referring the Examiner's Certificate of non-compliance with the Standing Orders to the Standing Orders Committee to-morrow discharged, and said Certificate referred to the Standing Orders Committee on Tuesday the 26th instant.
London County Council (General Powers) Bill. Read 2a and committed; the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
Shepshed Urban District Gas Bill [H.L.]. Read 3a; Amendments made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
Belfast Water Bill [H.L.]. Read 3a, passed, and sent to the Commons.
Stoke Newington Borough Council Bill. Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
London United Tramways Bill, Newcastle-upon-Tyne Electric Supply Bill, New Hunstanton Improvement Bill. Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
Hastings Tramways (Extension) Bill [H.L.], Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
Pontypridd Urban District Council Bill [H.L.]. Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
Land Drainage Provisional Order Bill. Read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  BOARD OF EDUCATION.
  Papers relating to the resignation of the Director of Special Inquiries and Reports.
  CAPE COLONY (OBSERVATORY).
  Report of His Majesty's Astronomer at the Cape of Good Hope to the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty, for the year 1902.

  ARMY.
  General Annual Return of the British Army for 1902.
  Return showing peace establishment and effective strength of the Troops at present in the United Kingdom belonging to the First, Second, Third, and Fourth Army Corps.

  TRADE REPORTS.
  I. Annual Series—No. 2979. Russia (Batoum); No. 2980. Turkey (Trebizond); No. 2981. Turkey (Tripoli); No. 2982. Germany (Baden).
  II. Miscellaneous Series—No. 590. Persia (Trade and General Condition of the City and Province of Kermanshah).

  SOUTH AFRICA.
  Statement of the Estimated Financial Position of the Transvaal and Orange River Colony.

  MINES AND QUARRIES (GENERAL REPORT AND STATISTICS FOR 1902: PART I. DISTRICT STATISTICS).
  Statistics of the persons employed, output, and accidents at mines and quarries in the United Kingdom, arranged according to the inspection districts.
  Presented [by Command], and ordered to lie on the Table.

  UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1889.
  University Court Ordinance, No. VIII. (Glasgow, No. 3). Foundation of professorship of geology; and for other purposes. Laid before the House [pursuant to Act], and to be printed. (No. 74.)

  UNIVERSITIES OF OXFORD AND CAMBRIDGE ACT, 1877.
  Statutes made by the Governing Body of King's College, Cambridge, amending the statutes of the College.
  Statutes made by the Governing Body of Trinity College, Cambridge, on 31st May, 1902, amending the statutes of the college.
  Statutes made by the Governing Body of Wadham College, Oxford, on 6th February, 1903, amending Clause 1 of Statute VI. of the College statutes.
  Statutes made by the Governing Body of Exeter College, Oxford, on 12th December, 1902, amending Statutes III. and XV. of the statutes of the college.
  Laid before the House [pursuant to Act] and to be printed. (No. 75.)

  POLLING DISTRICTS.
  (County of Lancaster.) Order made by the County Council of the county of Lancaster altering certain polling districts in the Lancaster and Newton Parliamentary Divisions.
  (West Riding of the County of York.) Order made by the County Council of the West Riding of the county of York altering certain polling districts in the Elland and Shipley Parliamentary Divisions.
  Laid before the House [pursuant to Act,] and ordered to lie on the Table.

NEW BILLS.
  MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT, 1894, AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894 was presented by the Lord Muskerry; read 1a; and to be printed. (No. 76.)
  POLLING DISTRICTS (COUNTY COUNCILS) BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to make further provision with respect to the arrangement of Polling Districts for the election of County Councillors was presented by the Lord Ribblesdale; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a to-morrow. (No. 77.)

  BETTING BILL [H.L.]
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD DAVEY: My Lords, this Bill has been prepared to carry into effect the recommendations contained in the Report of the Select Committee which was appointed two years ago on the Motion of my right rev. friend the Bishop of Hereford. The reference to that Committee was—
  "Toinquire into the increasing of public betting amongst all classes, and whether any legislative measures are possible and expedient for checking the abuses occasioned thereby."
  The Committee, after hearing much evidence, were of opinion that betting is generally prevalent in the United Kingdom, and that the practice of betting has

  869
  increased considerably of late years, especially amongst the working classes, whilst, on the other hand, the habit of making large bets, which used atone time to be the fashion amongst owners and breeders of horses, has greatly diminished. Betting (they say) is not confined to horse racing, but is also prevalent at athletic meetings and football matches. I think your Lordships, particularly those of you who are acquainted with the large manufacturing towns in the North of England, will agree with the Committee that betting has become much more prevalent in recent years, especially amongst the working classes. It is not only the men, but the women and children also who are addicted to this practice, and they bet upon everything which is capable of being betted upon. I remember being told, when I was connected with a north-country town, a story which impressed me very much. There was a temporary slackness of work and a good deal of distress in the town. A relief fund was started by the Mayor, and an office opened. I cannot personally vouch for the statement, but I was told that a woman who had applied at the office and received half-a-crown was known to have gone straight off and put it on a horse.
  I am not going to waste your Lordships' time by stale platitudes on the demoralisation caused by the habit of betting when carried to excess, and when it becomes the occupation of a man's life, nor will I expatiate on the way in which the habit saps the energy of a man for regular industry or legitimate work. What is a much more serious consequence, and a matter which should engage the attention of the Legislature, is that the habit of betting, to the extent to which it now prevails, has been the fruitful parent of crime. Evidence was given before the Committee that the thefts which sometimes come to light committed by Post Office clerks and letter carriers, were in most cases directly traceable to their having indulged in betting. The principal point which was made before us was the increase in the crime of embezzlement. The evidence on that was really remarkable. Mr. Horace Smith, a metropolitan police magistrate of fourteen years experience, on being asked what his opinion
  870
  was about the increase of crime in general during that period, said—
  "My impression would be—of course, my experience is limited to certain areas—that crime has decreased generally very much, and particularly crimes of violence and drunkenness; but, on the other hand, that crimes of fraud and embezzlement are on the increase."
  In answer to a further question he said—
  "Where the crime is one of embezzlement, or fraud akin to embezzlement, after the case is over, not as part of the case, but after the case is over, I almost invariably find that betting has been at the bottom of the crime."
  And he expressed the opinion that practically nine-tenths of the crimes of embezzlement were either directly or indirectly traceable to that source. That evidence was confirmed by another metropolitan police magistrate—Sir Albert de Rutzen, who has had twenty-five years experience in that capacity—and by other witnesses from various parts of the country.
  The most prevalent and the most mischievous form of betting is street betting. The smaller class of bookmakers who haunt the streets will take money from whoever they can; they waylay workmen as they enter and leave the factories, and it is said that, when the workmen are away from home, they even go from door to door of the workmen's houses, and persuade, incite, and induce the women to make bets with them. They have also been known to take coppers from children in the streets, and one case was mentioned of a child of apparently not more than six years of age being seen to give his copper to a well-known member of the bookmaking fraternity. I do not want to weary your Lordships by reading much of the evidence which was given before the Committee, but I should like to call attention to the evidence of one witness. He was asked to confine himself to what he had actually seen, and he told the Committee that on 5th June last year he took the opportunity of going to St. Giles-in-the-Fields, Bloomsbury, accompanied by a retired bookmaker. He noticed a young bookmaker, of about twenty-five years of age, take coppers from a boy of apparently twelve years of age. Then he noticed two more boys, who may have been fourteen or fifteen years of age, hand him coppers, and he spoke of having

  871
  seen various small sums of this kind received. But in case that evidence should be thought to come from a suspected source—it was the evidence of Mr. Hawke, the Secretary of the Anti-Gambling League—I have the unimpeachable testimony of Mr. Spruce, who is himself a bookmaker and betting agent, that street betting has very much increased within the last ten years, and he expressed the opinion that it will still further increase. Colonel Fludyer, Chairman of Tattersall's Committee, said, in his evidence before the Committee—
  "Although I have very little to do with street betting, yet I know that in all the great towns it goes on, and, letting alone its demoralising effect on the labouring classes, I look upon it as a public nuisance which should be suppressed."
  Mr. Peacock, Chief Constable of Manchester, spoke of street betting being carried on amongst artisans, and especially by young men and lads; and Mr. Shannon, superintendent of the Lambeth Division of Police, gave evidence upon the prevalence of street betting in his area. He said—
  "Of course, it is a working-class neighbourhood, and a great number of bookmakers use that district. They place themselves in busy thoroughfares between 1 and 2—thoroughfares that the workmen pass through—or outside large factories during the same hours, and bet to a very extensive nature. We have received many complaints of this street betting—for instance, a wife complains of her husband spending all her money, and her children starving; a mother complains of her son, and we had one complaint where the schoolmaster complained of his children being late at school through being employed by their parents to go and back horses with the bookmaker, who stood close to the school."
  It is said that these children do not bet themselves but are sent by their parents to put the money on; but it appears to me to be equally bad whether the children bet themselves or whether they are used as messengers for their parents for the purpose of making bets. We do not allow children to fetch their parents' beer from the public house, and I think it is equally demoralising and equally shocking that children of the tender age I have described should be allowed to become the intermediaries for carrying on this system of betting. Mr. Robert Knight, a magistrate of the City and County of Newcastle, stated that—
  "Betting generally is largely on the increase; especially is this noticeable amongst
  872
  young men and women. Between the hours of 11.55 and 3.15 a bookmaker was recently seen to take 236 bets from men, women, and children in South Shields. This was sworn to in Court by a policeman."
  Similar evidence was given by magistrates and superintendents of police in Glasgow. Street betting is at present unlawful; but all the magistrates and police officers who gave evidence before the Committee agreed that the penalties to which people who carry on the trade of a bookmaker in the streets are exposed, are utterly insufficient and altogether inadequate to check the practice. The way in which street betting is at present hit is by means of by-laws, of which there are two classes. One class of by-laws is made under the Municipal Act and treats the offence as one of obstruction. This offence, however, requires the assemblage of three persons, and betting is generally confined to two. There is another kind of by-law—it is now being largely introduced—which treats betting as an offence per se. But I believe there is no case in which a larger penalty than £10 can be imposed for street betting, and in most cases it is only a fine of £5 that can be imposed. The bookmakers make very light of a penalty of £5; they pay it cheerfully and go on their way rejoicing. Mr. Horace Smith, whose evidence I have already referred to, said—
  "At present it is almost a farce fining these gentlemen £5. They simply bow and smile and pay the £5 and go away with the rest of the money in their pocket and begin again. It is absolutely futile and produces, in my opinion, a very bad impression. The law is simply derided and made fun of by these persons."
  He then mentioned the case of one bookmaker who offered him £5 for the poor box in addition to his £5 fine. Mr. Shannon, the Lambeth Police Superintendent, mentioned a case in which a man had been fined the maximum penalty of £5 sixteen times in one year and on three days successively. It is perfectly clear that at present the means of stopping what the law treats as an offence are utterly inadequate and ineffectual, and calculated to bring the law into contempt.
  The Legislature, I think, must do one of two things. Either it must treat street betting as no offence at all, or, if it is to be considered an offence, some effectual means must be taken to prevent its recurrence. It appears to me that there is a very strong case indeed for

  873
  legislation. The operation of the Bill extends to—
  "Any person exercising the business of a bookmaker or betting agent by betting or offering to bet with other persons, or inciting other persons to bet with him, or receiving money or other valuable things as consideration for any bet, or paying or settling any bets in any street or other public place, or any place to which the public have unrestricted access."
  The penalties proposed by the Bill are those recommended by the Committee, and which were recommended by a very experienced police magistrate, who is now dead, Sir Franklin Lushington—a fine of £10 for the first offence, £20 for the second offence, and £50 or imprisonment for six months without the option of a fine for a third offence, on indictment, or a fine of £30 or three months imprisonment without the option of a fine, on summary conviction. I am not prepared to say that even those penalties will be found sufficient, but this I regard as an honest, and, I think, a moderate attempt to provide an effectual remedy for what the law now treats as an offence, although the existing penalties are found insufficient for the purpose of preventing it. I ought to say, with regard to Clause 4, that it is carefully confined to any person carrying on the business of betting, and it is not open to a criticism which was suggested to me, that two friends walking along the street might be overheard by a policeman to make a bet with each other and be run in for that offence. It is not that which is aimed at, nor do I think that such a contingency could by any possibility arise under this clause if the Bill passes into law.
  There is another clause relating to this, to which I ought to call your Lordships' attention. I refer to the clause rendering persons who are guilty of this offence in the streets, liable to be arrested at once—instead of being merely summoned to appear before the magistrate—and liable to be searched. That was very strongly recommended by the witnesses who gave evidence before the Committee, and it is recommended in the Report of the Committee. I am aware that some exception has been taken to the expression in that clause that any person so offending "shall be deemed to be a rogue and a vagabond" within the meaning of the Act of George
  874
  IV. The expression has been introduced for the purpose of bringing in the power of search and arrest under the Vagrant Act, and it follows closely the precedent of the Vagrant Act Amendment Act, 1873, by which any persons betting or wagering by means of any "instrument" in the streets is brought under the Vagrant Act. The whole effect of the clause is to put the person who is plying the trade of a bookmaker in a public street in the same position as the man who is gaming or getting people to bet or wager with him by means of "instruments." The whole effect of the clause is to put the two in the same category. It introduces no new principle, but merely applies an old principle to a new case. I think it is a sound criticism that the words "or any place to which the public have unrestricted access" are too vague. I have failed myself to give a satisfactory construction to them; and in Committee, if the Bill is read a second time, I shall ask your Lordships to omit them, or, if any noble Lord places an Amendment on the Paper to that effect, I will accept it. The words "street or other public place" are intended to meat cases like those of the London parks, or the public gardens which one frequently sees in provincial towns, and which are not, strictly speaking, streets, but which for this purpose are equally public places, and it is thought that the section should be extended to them. I do not myself think that the words "or other public place" are of any extreme importance, although if they are omitted it might lead to an evasion by the offence being committed in a public place which was not technically a street. But that is quite open to reconsideration so far as I am concerned in Committee, and if your Lordships pass the Second Reading I shall be prepared to consider on its merits any suggestion of this kind which may be made.
  Your Lordships are probably aware that all street betting takes place at what are called starting prices; that is to say, when a man backs a horse and pays his shilling or half-a-crown to the bookmaker, the bookmaker does not lay any particular odds against the horse, the agreement being that the bet shall be at the odds which are quoted in a particular newspaper, as the price at which the horse

  875
  stood at the time when the race commenced. I believe all street betting invariably takes place on that footing. Several witnesses who appeared before the Committee, and some gentlemen who have been kind enough to send me criticisms on the Bill during the short time that it has been before your Lordships, have said "Why not abolish the publication of starting prices? If you did that you would stop street betting." What the Committee thought, and I entirely agreed with them, was that, in the first place, it would be rather a strong measure to prohibit newspapers from publishing what is, in fact, intelligence of some interest to a great many people besides the betting fraternity. And, in the second place, we were a little sceptical, even if the publication were prohibited, as to whether it would stop street betting altogether. Some people were of opinion that men would still bet in that manner, but that there would not be the same security against disputes, and perhaps dishonesty, as there is by reference to the starting prices as published in particular newspapers. I think that is sufficient answer to the criticism that has been urged upon that head. Another alternative proposal is one of a very far-reaching character, and it is that bookmakers should be licensed. There is, of course, a great deal to be said for that, because if you license people who carry on this business you can impose conditions and prohibit their carrying on their trade in the public streets, and it would be possible to revoke their licences if they infringed this condition. I assume that what is meant is, not a mere fiscal licence which anybody could obtain on payment of a fee, but a licence which is granted by some body who are able and willing to investigate the character of the licencee and to grant the licences only to persons who can stand the test of an examination into their antecedents. The members of the Committee who had had experience of the Jockey Club were all agreed that it would be impossible for the Jockey Club to undertake such a duty, and that there is no other body in England who could do so. That duty would have to be undertaken by a Department of the State. I think there would be a very strong objection amongst a large number
  876
  of people to that mode of licensing the business of betting. Moreover, if persons were licensed by a State Department to carry on that particular business, it would be impossible to retain the present law that money lost on a bet or wager is irrecoverable by action. It would be ridiculous to licence a person to carry on a trade, and then say he was not to recover by action debts which became due to him in connection with that trade, and that he was not to be sued if he became indebted to his customers.
  The third proposal is one of which the noble Lord opposite, Lord Newton, is, I believe, a strong advocate—it is the adoption of the pari mutuel system, which is conducted by the State in France. Under this system the money is deposited at an office. You name the horse which you wish to back for a particular race and receive a ticket, and all the money which is received, subject to certain deductions, on that race is then divided between those who back the winner. It is, in fact, the same kind of business as is carried on by the sporting newspapers on the coupon system. I believe—and this, perhaps, would make it attractive to the Chancellor of the Exchequer—that a large profit is derived from the conduct of the pari mutuel system in France. Offices are opened in various places, and on every race course. Part of the profit goes to charity, a part to providing prizes at the various races, and a part remains to the State. The pari mutuel system is also known in India, but I am informed that there it is carried on by the proprietors of the racecourses, and in that case the profit made is devoted to paying the expenses of the races, providing prizes, and so forth. I think there is a good deal to be said for the pari mutuel system, but it is questionable whether it would tend to decrease betting. A great objection to its adoption by the State in this country is that it would be the maintenance by the State of a form of gambling, and I feel tolerably confident that in the present state of public opinion it could not be successfully carried on, for the same sort of objections would be made to the adoption in this country of the pari mutuel system as were made to the holding of lotteries by the State as a means of raising

  877
  revenue. The remaining part of the Bill relates to Amendments of the Acts of 1853 and 1874, but if these sections give rise to a good deal of misunderstanding, I think I ought to apologise to your Lordships for the Bill being drawn in a way in which its effect cannot be seen from merely reading the clauses, because the sections to which I am about to refer are sections amending or explaining particular sections in those Acts. It would, of course, be much better if every Bill could explain on the face of it, its own meaning; if, when you wished to amend an Act, you could reprint that Act with the Amendments which you wish to make, so that every one reading the Bill could understand it. But, unhappily, one cannot always do that, and I think it would be rather unusual for a private Member to venture to consolidate previous legislation. Your Lordships will, therefore, perhaps forgive me if, before mentioning the proposed Amendments, I explain very shortly the effect of the existing Acts.
  The chief Act is the Act of 1853, which is called a Betting Act, but strictly it is a Betting House Act. It does not prohibit betting; it does not, as I understand it, even prohibit the trade of a professional bookmaker or betting agent. What it does is to make it unlawful for people to keep a betting house or advertise a betting house. By Section 3 of the Act of 1853 any man who owns, occupies, or uses a house, office or place for the purpose of betting with persons resorting thereto is liable to penalties. Your Lordships will observe that that section only applies to betting houses in this country and aims only at betting "with persons resorting thereto." It has been held, and it is the accepted construction of the Act, that "persons resorting thereto" means persons physically walking into the house, office, or place, and does not include persons corresponding either by telegram or by letter with the office. This Bill proposes to amend Section 3 to make the words "resorting thereto" include "applying by the agency of another person, by letter, telegram, or other means of correspondence." I cannot help thinking that that must be right, because it seems to me ridiculous to suggest that an
  878
  office into which people may walk and make their bets is a nuisance, and the keeping of it a misdemeanour, when a similar office, into which people do not walk to make their bets, but make them by letter or other means of correspondence, is not a nuisance. If it be right as a matter of public policy, as it has been for the last fifty years, that an office shall not be kept for the purpose of betting with persons who walk into it, it must be equally contrary to public policy to keep such an office for the purpose of betting with persons who make their bets by telegraph or by letter. It is utterly illogical to make any such distinction, and it is therefore proposed that the section should be amended in the way I have mentioned. I need scarcely say that this in no way affects betting by telegram or letter or otherwise with any member of the ring on a racecourse. It does not touch that in the least.
  The seventh section of the Act deals with the question of advertising betting houses, but it applies only to betting houses in this country. It is therefore not illegal at present to advertise betting houses abroad or to invite persons to send their money to a house situated abroad. That, of course, is well known, and it has resulted, particularly of late years, in the keepers of betting houses carrying on their business abroad and advertising them here as carried on abroad. The favourite place appears to be Middelburg, in Holland, but they also have offices at Rotterdam and Boulogne, and they can advertise safely their offices at either of these places and invite people to send their betting correspondence there. It is now, under the system of money orders, just as easy to send money to the Continent as it was to send it to Manchester. The Act is therefore evaded by the simple process of opening an office across the Channel. It was thought that that should be corrected, and therefore it is proposed to amend the seventh section of the Act of 1853 by extending it to betting houses kept outside the United Kingdom as well as to those inside. This is done by inserting in the section the words "or without." It was found to be the case that newspapers carrying on the coupon system transferred their business across

  879
  the Channel when they found themselves liable to the penalty imposed by the Betting Act of 1853. One newspaper, known as "Sporting Luck," immediately transferred its energies to Middelburg, and people were invited to fill up the coupons and send them with the required fee to Middelburg. They carried on this business with impunity. The only effect of the Amendment proposed in this Bill is to make the Act of 1853 more efficient for the purpose for which it was intended, and to supplement it in parts where, after an experience of fifty years, it is found to be defective and capable of being easily evaded.
  There is one other point connected with advertisements which I want to mention. It was very strongly pressed upon the Committee that they should prohibit all advertisements of tipsters, of people who profess to give tips on coming races, and I believe my noble friend Lord Durham took some interest in that question. That recommendation is not embodied in the present Bill, and I will explain why. In the first place, if you mean by an advertisement of a tipster an advertisement stating the place where you may obtain information and advice on payment of a small fee for the purpose of making bets, it appears to me that that is already prohibited by the amending Acts of 1874, which, I may add, extends both to the United Kingdom and abroad; but if you mean by a tipster's advertisement a prophecy that a certain horse will win and a recommendation to put your money on a certain horse for a particular race, it seems to me extremely difficult to draw any section which would not hit genuine comments on the prospects of horses in particular races, and, of course, one would not—it would be impossible if one would—desire to prohibit that form of newspaper comment and intelligence. It is a perfectly legitimate thing to discuss the prospects of different horses in a race, although it may be a very dangerous and mischievous thing to pretend to give special information which you have not got. I can only say that if this Bill is allowed a Second Reading, and
  880
  any of your Lordships desire to amend it by providing for the prohibition of the tipster's advertisements, so far as I am concerned I shall be perfectly ready to consider any such Amendment upon its merits.
  Your Lordships are aware of the case recently decided in this House on the Act of 1853, known as the Kempton Park Case. That decision was to this effect, that a person using a house, office, or place and so forth, meant the person using in the sense of having some sort of occupation, and therefore it was held that betting men in the ring at Kempton Park were not using it in the sense of the Act, because they did not have any greater rights in the ring in which they carried on their business than the rest of the public who paid the necessary admission fee. That is the right construction of the Act. Whatever learned judges may have said to the contrary, and whatever noble and learned Lords in this House may have said, it has now been determined by your Lordships' House to be the correct construction of the Act, and that decision is final. This Bill does not in any way attempt to touch that decision; it does not impugn it or impeach it in the slightest degree. The racecourse and the ring are left exactly as they are now, but, my Lords, there were certain consequences probably unforeseen at the time of the Kempton Park Case, which have thrown confusion into the administration of the Act. It is found that, consistently with the principle on which the Kempton Park case was decided, you cannot now summon professional betting men who carry on their business in public houses. Previous to that decision there were a large number of cases in which it was held that it was an offence under the Act of 1853 for men to use public houses for the purpose of carrying on their betting business. We had evidence before the Committee to show that it is impossible now to prevent persons carrying on this trade in a public-house, which used to be considered forbidden by the Act. There has been only one case in which a man was summoned for carrying on his trade in a public-house,

  881
  and that was a case in which the publican had assigned a particular seat in the bar for the use of the bookmaker, so that he might, in some sense, be said to be an occupier of that seat while he was there.
  The other point is with regard to athletic meetings—football and cricket matches, and the like. It used to be held that the ground used for these purposes constituted a place within the Act, and a person using it for the purpose of carrying on the business of betting might be convicted, although he was in no sense an occupier. This cannot any longer be considered the law, and we were told that the police are now powerless in this matter. The Bill proposes that owners of grounds in which sports are carried on, should be enabled to put up a notice to the effect that betting is prohibited within the area, or some part thereof, and, in that case, any person holding himself out as ready to bet will be guilty of an offence, and incur the same penalty as if he had been found betting in the streets. That is the best way the Committee could find of dealing with it. The matter will then rest with the owners and proprietors of grounds. If they wish betting to take place all over the ground, they need not put up any notice; but, if they wish that no betting should take place, or to confine it to a particular ring or enclosure, they can do so. It leaves it to the proprietor, but it enables the police, if the proprietor prohibits betting, to interfere, whereas your Lordships know how difficult it is for a proprietor of grounds of that kind who has admitted a person on payment of a fee to eject him. The proposal in this Bill will enable the police to interfere and to carry out the wishes of the proprietor. Clause 6 of the Bill extends the operation of Lord Herschell's Act with regard to money received from infants for a bet. That was recommended by the Committee, but, personally, I am rather doubtful about it. Lord Herschell's Act seemed to me to deal with rather a different matter, and the penalty imposed by that Act is extremely heavy. It will be for the consideration of your Lordships, if the Bill is read a second time, whether that clause should be retained.
  882
  I venture to say that this is a very modest Bill. The noble Duke opposite, who was kind enough to give evidence before the Committee, need not be afraid that it will interfere in any way with sport. People who really take an interest in sport and bet on the merits of the horses on the racecourse, will not be in any way interfered with by this Bill. The chief merit of this Bill seems to me to be that it introduces no new principle whatever, but goes upon the lines of existing legislation. With regard to street betting, it increases the penalties where the present penalties have been found insufficient, and the other clauses amend existing legislation which has been on the Statute-book for upwards of fifty years. I regret to find that my noble friend Lord Durham has given notice of a Motion to reject the Bill, and I am surprised that my noble friend should take such a course after presiding over the deliberations of the Committee, in which position his knowledge and experience were of so much assistance. I cannot understand my noble friend's act in attempting to slay this Bill, for he was the chief author of the Report upon which the Bill is founded. I am perfectly aware that there are some recommendations in the Report that he did not acquiesce in. I think there were only two in which he was in a minority. I would seriously ask my noble friend whether he does not think it would be better to allow this Bill to be read a second time and then bring forward, by Amendment in Committee, those points on which he disagrees and desires some alteration. The only point on which I find from the proceedings that he divided the Committee was on paragraph seventeen of his draft Report, which recommended a modification of the pari mutuel system for adoption. I need scarcely say that your Lordships will be perfectly ready to consider any Amendment my noble friend may put down for the purpose of introducing that into the Bill. The questions in dispute are mere matters of detail, and need in no way endanger the existence of the measure. I am afraid I have detained your Lordships an unconscionably long time, but I found it extremely difficult to explain the provisions of the Bill and the alternative proposals which have been made, without

  883
  occupying your attention for a considerable time. I apologise for detaining you at such length, and hope your Lordships will not punish me for my long speech by rejecting the Bill.
  Moved, that the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Davey.)
  THE EARL OF DURHAM: My Lords, I rise to move that this Bill be read a second time this day six months. My noble and learned friend commenced his speech by saying that people would bet on anything. I have no doubt he gained that experience on a voyage I had the pleasure of making with him to India a few months ago. I never heard any protest from the noble Lord on that occasion against betting on the run of the ship and other matters; but when I came back to England I was astonished to find this Bill promoted by my noble friend, and was reminded of Horace—Cœlum non animum mutant qui trans mare currunt. The noble Lord has referred to my position as Chairman of the Betting Committee, and he informed you that this Bill was founded on our Report. I beg to point out that the Report as submitted to your Lordships, and which I, as Chairman, was ordered to present to the House, differs very much from the draft Report which I had the honour of submitting to my colleagues, and that on almost every provision in the Bill which my noble friend has introduced, I opposed those suggestions and divided. I could quote one test division. It was on paragraph 11 of the Report. It was proposed by the Lord Bishop of Hereford to leave out paragraph 11 and insert the following new paragraph—
  "The Committee are convinced that it is impossible altogether to suppress betting, but they feel that the inducements and temptations held out by professional betting men ought to be diminished as far as possible, and they believe that they would be greatly lessened by such measures as would restrict professional betting to the places in which the different kinds of sport are being carried on."
  There voted "contents"—Viscount Cobham, Earl of Aberdeen, Viscount Peel, Lord Bishop of Hereford. (4); and there voted "not-contents" also 4, viz., Earl of Derby, Earl of Harewood, Earl of Durham and Lord Newton. The numbers being equal it was resolved in the negative. Four noble Lords voted against restricting betting practically to
  884
  racecourses, and the whole gist of my noble friend's Bill to-night is for that purpose. I cannot understand how the noble Lords who voted with me on that occasion can support this Bill. I admit—I am very sorry that it is so—that there is a craze for betting at the present time, especially among the working-classes, but I recognise also that there is in what is called "smart society" a craze for the game of "bridge," and I am averse to legislation for the prevention of either of these non-criminal offences. This Bill transforms what is only a human instinct into a crime, and it is impracticable in its working.
  My noble friend discussed a good many irrelevant matters, if he will allow me to say so, such as the pari mutuel system and licensing bookmakers, with which the Bill has nothing to do, but he never pointed out how the clauses of the Bill are to be carried into effect if passed into law. I could quote witnesses who would prove, I think, to your satisfaction that this Bill is impracticable. We had various curious witnesses before the Betting Committee. My noble friend has quoted the evidence of one or two of them, and I cannot say that in considering the Report which I presented to the Committee I paid much attention to them. But I would quote to the House the class of evidence with which we wasted our time and the Government's stationery. I do not see my noble friend the Earl of Aberdeen in his place, but we had one well-meaning witness who described himself as the founder and secretary of a Young Men's Christian Association. My noble friend (Lord Aberdeen) with a look of chastened satisfaction, proceeded to put this witness through his examination. He elicited no facts whatever about betting itself, but the final question put was—
  "Have you ever known any case of gambling which has resulted in disaster?"
  The witness replied—
  "That is so."
  He mentioned that there had been demonstrations at some of the centres of the Young Men's Christian Association against betting, and that whilst these demonstrations were on he received a very sad letter from some young fellow in Colney Hatch. He said that a large

  885
  number of men in that place were brought there by one or other of the three special forms of evil they were seeking to put down. The writer said—
  "The worst thing about it is that though they have been brought in here by these evils they continue them while here,"
  referring more especially to betting. This witness was asked by Lord Newton whether the letter he was referring to came from a lunatic, and he replied,
  "Yes, in a time of sanity."
  Another witness announced himself as a "retired professional backer." My noble friend is kind enough to say that I have some experience of the turf and of racing matters, but I had the greatest difficulty in making out what a retired professional backer was. I was so interested in this witness that I asked some of those much maligned bookmakers if they had ever heard of him and they said—
  "Oh, yes, he used to bet once upon a time under an alias, but his brain having become somewhat weak, he has taken to religion and found salvation by joining the Anti-Gambling League."
  They also said—
  "When he is enjoying times of sanity he again has a bet."
  This gentleman, having confessed he had not been on the racecourse and had had nothing to do with racing for many years, proceeded to inform the Committee of the iniquities committed by bookmakers. Nearly every horse which ran on the turf was, according to this gentleman, poisoned. He declared, for instance, that he was present in the club on the occasion of Orme's poisoning. Lord Newton again came to the rescue, and naturally asked the question—
  "He was not poisoned in the club, was he?"
  My noble friend has said very little about the clauses in this Bill, which deliberately alter the Act of 1853. I am not old enough to remember what occurred before 1853, but it is obvious that in those days a certain class of betting and gambling houses existed which had become a public nuisance because people resorted to them. They went there for the purpose of betting or gambling, and very likely created a disturbance
  886
  in those houses, thereby causing them to become disorderly houses, and it was for the purpose of suppressing them that the Act of 1853 was passed. My noble friend said that it was an anomaly that persons should be prevented under the Act of 1853 from physically resorting to a club for the purpose of betting, and yet be allowed to communicate and make bets by other means. What my noble friend did not do was to tell us how such communications are to be stopped.
  LORD DAVEY: People sending telegrams and letters and so forth are not prohibited from sending them under this Bill. The effect of the clause is to make the person who occupies the betting house which receives orders by telephone, telegram, or in any other way liable to penalties. There is no penalty on the person who sends the message.
  THE EARL OF DURHAM: That is my point. Under this Bill any house which is inhabited by a bookmaker who receives betting messages from other persons would become a house within the Act, and the noble Lord says that the persons who send these messages are not committing a crime, but the man who receives them is. I do not think any Post master-General would agree that letters should be intercepted, that there should be any tampering with the work of the Post Office. My noble friend quoted Mr. Hawke. I should like to read to the House the answer given by that witness to questions put to him by Viscount Peel—
  "You say in this instance of advertising tips the Post Office, to use your own words, do a very large business?—Yes.
  "Do I understand you to seriously suggest as a remedy that the Government of the day should authorise the Postmaster-General to open letters which are sealed or fastened, because you have reason to suspect that those letters contain advertising tips? Do you think that is a practicable remedy?—I did not mention that proposal in connection with tipsters. Our suggestion has only gone so far as where, as in the case of, say, Stoddart and one or two others, the Post Office receives tens of thousands of registered letters—they are not always registered, but a great number of them are registered—addressed to persons whom they know, or could have no difficulty it finding out, are betting agents. In that case our suggestion was that they should have the right, which should be confined to the

  887
  Postmaster-General and his chief assistants in Scotland and Ireland, to detain the letters, and ask one or two of the parties for an explanation of the remittances if they were addressed to a betting house.
  "But they would have to open them first, would they not?—They would have to open one or two of them.
  "Do you not think that would create a pretty good stir in the country?—That was the opinion of the legislator under whose notice it came."
  I am glad there is one anonymous legislator who understands the temper of the public. I have quoted the irresponsible opinion of Mr. Hawke, the Secretary of the Anti-Gambling League. I should like now to quote the opinion of two officers of the Post Office. Mr. J. C. Lamb, C.B., Second Secretary to the Post Office, came on behalf of the Post Office and volunteered to give us any information. He was asked—
  "Can you state generally what is the attitude of your Department with reference to receiving telegrams?"
  He replied—
  "It is simply that of a servant of the public whose duty it is to carry out the wishes of Parliament. We think those wishes are indicated in the preamble of the Telegraph Act of 1868, which authorised the Postmaster-General to acquire and work the telegraph system of the country. The preamble makes it clear that it was in the interest of the public generally, as well as of merchants and traders, that the telegraph system was to be acquired, and unless the Department receives directions to the contrary, it must assume that 'public generally' includes those who attend race meetings."
  The next question asked was—
  "If Parliament directed the Post Office to make a distinction between betting telegrams and other telegrams, would it be possible to carry out such a direction?"
  And the witness replied—
  "It would be possible to withdraw facilities from racecourses, but the withdrawal would affect other messages besides betting messages, and in many cases it would throw such a pressure on the neighbouring post office as to interfere with the ordinary telegraph business of the town. I do not think that at the Post Office a distinction could be made between one kind of message and another. There would be a risk of serious public inconvenience and injury through the refusal or questioning of telegrams which might appear to relate to betting but which had some other object altogether. I may add that if a censorship were instituted, it would be easy for senders of betting messages to resort to a secret code and so defeat the censorship."
  I do not know whether a secret code would defeat the object of my noble friend's clause or not, but another Post
  888
  Office witness was still stronger in his evidence. Sir Robert Hunter, solicitor to the Post Office, said—
  "The Postmaster-General has no power whatever over any closed letter of any kind. His business is to deliver letters with proper despatch. He is expressly prohibited by law from either opening a letter or detaining it, and, further, the Postmaster-General would strongly deprecate any alteration of the law in this respect."
  He was asked whether the same law with regard to lotteries applied to letters relating to betting, and he replied—
  "No, it does not. The Betting Act of 1874 makes it an offence to send a letter or telegram relating to certain betting arrangements, but it has been held that the operation of that Act is confined to such bets as are mentioned in the earlier Act of 1853, that is, to bets which are made in a house or place kept for betting by persons physically resorting thereto."
  Sir Robert Hunter added that telegrams sent in relation to betting did not relate to that particular kind of betting which was made illegal by the Betting Acts. This witness was asked by the Bishop of Hereford—
  "Do you say, with regard to telegrams addressed to an infant, that, under the Act, they would be stopped by the Office if it were feasible; but that, as a matter of fact, the distinction is too fine."
  His reply was—
  "Quite so, there is nothing on a telegram to indicate whether the addressee is an infant or not."
  The Solicitor to the Post Office went so far as to say that if a telegram were addressed to a boy at Eton, Harrow, or Rugby, the Post Office would not be justified in inferring from the address that the receiver was an infant, and yet Lord Davey proposes a section which cannot be carried into effect unless by means of the Post Office. There is only one other means, viz., the employment of informers, and I look upon that as un-English, although, according to the Act of 1853 which this Bill amends, half the penalties go to the informer. There is no necessity for increasing the powers of the Act of 1853. My noble friend quoted two well-known London magistrates in defence of his argument that street betting had very largely increased, and he also quoted their opinion upon betting in general. I should like to give the opinion of Sir Albert de Rutzen and Mr. Horace

  889
  Smith on the question of betting houses, which I think is more relevant to the Bill than street betting. Sir Albert de Rutzen was asked whether he could tell the Committee anything about betting houses, and he replied—
  "I think that at the present time the law is quite sufficient to deal with that matter. I think the law is sufficiently strong for all purposes required."
  He was asked—
  "You mean the law with regard to betting houses?"
  And he replied—
  "Yes."
  The Bishop of Hereford asked—
  "You think the law sufficient if carefully administered and carried out?"
  And the witness replied—
  "Yes."
  Mr. Horace Smith, who was asked about betting houses and gaming houses, said—
  "There I agree with Sir Albert. I think the law is strong enough. It would be desirable if it were simplified and, of course, made clear."
  I cannot see that my noble friend's Bill simplifies it. Mr. Smith continued—
  "That would be a very desirable thing to do because there are Gaming Houses Acts and Betting Houses Acts and Amending Acts, and there is a difficulty of definition of the Act as to what is a 'place' or what is not, and so on. It would be desirable, no doubt, to simplify it, but I do not there complain that the Acts are not strong enough, or that our powers as magistrates are not strong enough."
  I agree that street betting is a nuisance; so is football in the streets and many other pursuits. Mr. Smith's opinion on betting was this—
  "Betting and horse racing is legal. As I say, there is nothing wrong about it in itself, or criminal, or anything of that sort."
  My noble friend, however, rather tried to make your Lordships imagine that betting is an offence under the Act of 1853.
  LORD DAVEY: I expressly said it was not.
  THE EARL OF DURHAM: But the noble and learned Lord now wishes to make it one, and to turn into a crime what is only a natural instinct. As to Clause 2, I do not know whether it goes beyond extending the provisions
  890
  of the Betting Act of 1853, to places outside the United Kingdom. As to Clause 3, I can give no personal opinion upon the legal aspect of the wording of this clause; but I see no objection to further endeavouring to prevent advertisements with respect to betting. No one who has the welfare of the people at heart wishes that betting should be advertised or encouraged. What is aimed at could undoubtedly be done by a slight amendment of the Act of 1853. But Clause 4 is a most objectionable and pernicious clause. It is really an omnibus clause. My noble friend includes in the clause a provision that any person betting in a place to which the public have unrestricted access should be punished, and yet in the marginal reference to this clause it is described as "Betting in a street, etc." This clause would really include Epsom Downs, Doncaster, the Town Moor and the Knavesmire at York. My noble friend now offers to eliminate those words. That would not make his clause quite so offensive, but it is still so very drastic and hard on people who are fond of racing, and occasionally have a bet, that I see no reason for withdrawing my opposition. Subsection 2 of Clause 4 is really most offensive. I remember my noble friend Lord Derby, during our consideration of the Report, particularly objecting to and having a division upon the question of summary arrest and search. He thought it too drastic and quite uncalled for, and I voted with him; but of course we were in a minority. A man may have on his person a betting-book in which he has not inscribed a bet for six months, yet if arrested in the street it would be used against him. It is most offensive and un-English that a man should be liable to summary arrest and search in the street, and to be treated as a rogue and a vagabond, because he has spent what is really his own money in his own way. No one can possibly object to betting by children being stopped. That is reasonable, but it hardly requires a new Betting Act. With regard to the proposal in the 6th Clause, I cannot see that it is necessary that this should be put in a Betting Act at all. In my opinion it should be an Amendment to

  891
  Lord Herschell's Act of 1892. My noble friend made a slight mistake when he said he could not quite understand why this paragraph had been put into the Report. I must remind him that he moved it himself. The remaining sections of the Bill are merely corollaries.
  I would ask your Lordships to consider who are the promoters of this Bill. What public demand has there been for this Bill? I do not know whether any petitions have been presented to the House, or whether my noble friend has received letters from Colney Hatch in support of it. It is a drastic, a very offensive, and a needless Bill. Who are its promoters? It is the offspring of a body of faddists who call themselves the Anti-Gambling League, and whose sponsors are my noble friend and the right rev. Prelate the Bishop of Hereford. I think that of all the most strange species of the human race the faddist is the strangest; he is a cross between a fanatical Pharisee and a lunatic. This Bill is a typical example of the methods of faddists, which are most vexatious and tyrannical. They expect the British public to accept as a new principle that a man may not spend his own money in his own way. You cannot stop at this Bill. Sumptuary laws would logically follow. The fact is, these people think they have a mission in this world to point out to the rest of mankind the straight and narrow way to Heaven, and they consider that in order to save their own souls they are justified in mortifying other people's flesh. I am glad to see that the right rev. Prelate is not supported by many other right rev. Prelates. It is all very well for the Bishops to use the great power which the Education Act gives them to educate the children of the country, and to point out to them the folly and waste of time and money that are involved in betting, but I hope they will not come down to this House to exercise their votes in restricting the free amusements of a free people. The effect of the Bill if passed would be that not a single artisan when he went home from his daily toil, would be allowed to bet a shilling with a local bookmaker; not a miner on coming up from the grimy coalpit would be able to bet a
  892
  shilling in a public house, or public place, and not a soldier serving his country abroad would be able to send a trifle home to be put on a horse; and neither a Government official at his office, nor an employee at a railway station must send a message by agent, letter, telegram, or telephone to a betting club.
  LORD DAVEY: All that the Bill seeks to do is to prevent a person keeping a house or an office for the purpose of receiving bets. The Bill will not stop betting. All it aims at doing is to stop betting in the streets.
  THE EARL OF DURHAM: It takes two to make a bet, and as long as people will bet, as long as there is any demand for bookmakers, bookmakers will exist. This Bill would seriously interfere with the amusements of the working classes and intensify the monotony of their lives; and in the name of common sense, of common justice, and of common sympathy with your fellow-countrymen, I ask your Lordships to reject it.
  THE EARL OF HAREWOOD: My Lords, I should not have ventured to obtrude any opinions of my own if I had not made up my mind to second the rejection of this Bill. It is the very last subject on which I should wish to address your Lordships, and I only do so because it was pointed out to me that having sat on the Committee, on the unanimous Report of which this Bill is supposed to be based, I should do wrong if I did not give my reasons for voting against it. My noble friend Lord Durham has already told you that although this Bill is supposed to be based on the unanimous Report of the Committee which sat to consider the question, it is not really based on a unanimous Report. There were many clauses in the Report to which I and my noble friend strongly objected, and up to the last day on which the Committee sat, not knowing the forms of your Lordships House, I was under the impression that it would be open to any Member of the Committee to present a minority Report. When I found that was not the case I was obliged to acquiesce in the Report. But that does not prevent me stating that I did not agree with all the clauses

  893
  in the Report. The noble and learned Lord has explained, possibly to the satisfaction of your Lordships, but not to my satisfaction, some of the clauses in this Bill which I consider vague and obnoxious to the general public. I will freely own that I think there is much that is good in this Bill. I do not share the opinion of my noble friend that the Bill was not necessary at all, or that no Bill of any sort on this subject is necessary, but I think a better and wiser Bill might have been drafted. I do not think that this Bill is one for the Second Reading of which I can vote. When I came to look over the clauses I found that there were two or three of them with which I could not possibly agree, and those comprise nearly half the Bill and are precisely the clauses which I have since been led to suppose were most obnoxious to the public. For instance, the hon. and learned Lord attempts to define the word "resort." I think he has singularly failed. The word remains to my simple understanding as vague as it was before this Bill was drafted. I do not now see how the noble and learned Lord proposes to stop betting by telegraph, letter, or telephone without annulling the regulations of the Post Office which forbid the officials instituting a system of espionage.
  LORD DAVEY: I do not propose that this Bill should stop it in any way whatever. All that the Bill will do is to prevent a person keeping a house or office for the purpose of receiving bets.
  THE EARL OF HAREWOOD: Then I do not know what the noble and learned Lord has brought in his Bill for, if it does not stop betting in some form or other. Acts of Parliament when once passed sometimes bear a very wide interpretation. I, of course, bow to the vast legal experience of the noble and learned Lord, but it seems to me it will be within his experience and that of your Lordships, that Acts of Parliament have constantly been stretched when put into operation. I think this would be a dangerous clause to pass, and one which would bear a different interpretation from that which the noble Lord desires. The next provision in the Bill to which I principally objected was the sentence which the noble and learned Lord has expressed his willingness to withdraw, referring to a place to which the
  894
  public have unrestricted access; but he has left "public place" in. I am perhaps putting an extreme case, but I tremble to think of what the consequences might be, supposing for instance, in a public place certain of your Lordships might be found making a bet. I have known noble Lords to frequent the hills at Epsom and make small bets there. They would be at once subject to arrest. The provision with regard to rogues and vagabonds is most offensive to the general public, and I do not think it would have the slightest chance of passing either your Lordships' House or the other House. There is a very significant paragraph in Clause 4 referring to "any books, cards, papers, and other articles connected with such betting." I am sometimes to be found on a public racecourse, and I always have a race card in one pocket and sometimes a betting book in the other. I tremble to think what would happen if I were found in those circumstances, or what might happen to my noble friend, Lord Rosebery, who has achieved the highest distinction both on the racecourse and in politics, who might some day, when walking from Epsom racecourse to his residence close by, be subject to arrest and search, and committed as a rogue and vagabond, because he had a race card in one pocket and a betting book in another. Even the noble Duke the Leader of the House might find himself in such a position. It is true I am putting extreme cases, and I hope that the noble and learned Lord and the right rev. Prelate will not think that I am approaching this subject with undue levity. It is not my intention to do so, but there are cases in which a reductio ad absurdum is the most convincing argument. Of the clauses of this Bill relating to street betting and to betting with infants I most heartily and thoroughly approve, and if this Bill could have been drafted without the obnoxious clauses to which I have referred, clauses which I think in the long run will be impossible to enforce, I should have no hesitation in voting for the Second Reading. But, as it is, I have endeavoured to lay before your Lordships the reasons which prevent me from voting for the Second Reading.
  Amendment moved, to leave out "now" and add at the end of the Motion "this day six months."—(The Earl of Durham.)
  THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORD: My Lords, I rise in the hope of saying a word or two in support of this Bill which may possibly induce some of your Lordships to give your support to the Second Reading. I desire to remind your Lordships that it is the Second Reading that we are debating at this moment, and I cannot but feel that a good many of the objections which have been raised are objections of a kind which would come more naturally at the Committee stage. Before I proceed further, I would venture to say one word in reply to a remark made by Lord Durham in the course of his speech this evening. The noble Earl said that the Bishop of Hereford had very few Bishops to support him on this occasion. I think it due to the Bishops that I should answer that statement. I am not always in agreement with every Member on this Bench, but I venture to say that on this occasion—and His Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury will bear me out—there is not a single Bishop who is a Member of this House who would not, had he been able to be present to-night, have voted for the Second Reading of this Bill. Your Lordships are aware that the Second Reading was put down for last Thursday. For reasons of convenience the date was changed, but I think it is right that it should be stated that at least a dozen Bishops who are not able to be here to-day would have been in their places to support the Second Reading had it been taken last Thursday. Bishops have duties which compel them to be in their dioceses in accordance with engagements, and, unfortunately for us, the change of date has had this effect—that the Bishops who had arranged to be present on Thursday are prevented by engagements from being here to-day. I am surprised at the attitude which the noble Earl who presided over the Committee has taken with regard to this question. I cannot but feel, when I look through the Bill, and remember the points in it on which we are agreed, and remember also that the noble Earl presented the Report to the House without any Minority Report.
  THE EARL OF DURHAM: It was impossible to present a Minority Report, otherwise I should certainly have done so.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORD: At any rate I think I can show that the noble Earl agreed with a very large proportion of the clauses of this Bill, and therefore I cannot but feel that he has put himself in the position of that famous heathen deity who devoured his own offspring. I feel that a very simple answer to the arguments of the noble Earl may be found if we glance at the clauses of the Bill. The real meaning of the Bill has been to some extent obscured by the production of irrelevant evidence. If we look through the Bill we find that, as a matter of fact, it contains eight propositions. The first of these propositions is the one to which the noble Earl has taken strong objection—that contained in Clause 1. I will refer to that presently. The next proposition simply amounts to this, that, it being illegal to keep a betting house in the United Kingdom, it shall be made equally illegal to have an office for doing business or receiving money on behalf of a betting house situated outside. I venture to think that every one of your Lordships will agree with that. The third proposition simply declares that inasmuch as it is now illegal to advertise a betting house in the United Kingdom it should be equally illegal to advertise a betting house situated outside. On that, again, I venture to think there can hardly be two opinions. Then we come to the fourth proposition in the Bill, which has reference to street betting, and, so far as I can remember, the noble Earl was strongly in favour of the Resolution with regard to street betting. Then we come to a clause which proposes to give to the police the right of arrest and search. The police would be given the right, if they saw a bookmaker plying his trade in the street, to arrest and search him. On that there may be two opinions; but the next proposal is simply this, that it should be made specially penal to bet with an infant who is under sixteen years of age. Then we come to the proposal with reference to proprietors or persons having control of places of sport. There again I take it there is general agreement, shared in, I think, by the noble

  897
  Earl, that it is only reasonable that those persons who own or control a place of sport should be free to prohibit the bookmaker from pursuing his trade in the area under their control. As things stand at present, owners and managers of these grounds cannot prevent bookmakers from being a nuisance all over the field. There are many persons interested in English sport who desire to see it conducted without being made an instrument of the betting trade, and I trust we are all pretty well agreed with regard to that section of the Bill Then there remains only one other proposal in the Bill, which is to extend Lord Herschell's Act with regard to infants so as to include ready money betting as well as the sending of circulars.
  When I look through the eight propositions contained in the Bill, I find that the noble Earl himself agrees with six of them; that is to say, that with three-fourths of the Bill he is, I believe, in complete accord, and yet he moves the rejection of the measure on Second Reading. In my humble opinion that is hardly a reason able course to adopt. I think, on the other hand, that it is perfectly reasonable that we should ask your Lordships, who probably agree in the main with these six proposals, to give your support to the Second Reading, and let us discuss the two remaining propositions in Committee. That, it seems to me, although I speak with due deference, would be the reasonable and natural course, and, if I may venture to say so, the sportsmanlike course. If I may be permitted I should like to revert for one moment to the clause to which the noble Earl specially objects—the; clause dealing with "resort." As the law stands at present this is the state of the case. A bookmaker, a man in the betting trade, may keep a betting house in St. James's Street, and if any one of your Lordships walks into that house to make a bet in person the keeper of that house breaks the law, but if you sit in your club and send a letter or a telegram to him he does not break the law. If the law is to remain in that condition I say it is to remain in a condition of absurdity. That state of the law cannot commend itself to the common
  898
  sense of the people at large. If it is your intention to stop the betting house in reality then you must be prepared either to support the Amendment suggested by the noble Lord opposite or to propose some other Amendment which will have the same effect. I confess that, if the law is to remain in that condition, for myself I should feel it difficult to speak of it with any respect; and I do not believe it can commend itself to your Lordships' judgment as reasonable and right that this absurd inconsistency should be allowed to remain. I think the noble Earl has entirely misconceived the effect of the Bill.
  The Bill will in no way interfere with the liberty of any one of your Lordships, or any other person, who makes bets. What it will do is this. It will continue the process which in years gone by has been wisely undertaken of putting a check on the trade of belting men. I have no doubt that it would put a check on the trade, but probably nothing like the check which the trade, in a state of panic, is inclined to suppose. As I was on my way to the House this afternoon I received a printed extract from, I presume, one of the organs of the betting trade. This extract, sets forth that if this Bill is allowed to pass there will be all sorts of serious consequences. We are told that horse racing will become extinct, that over 1,000,000 people will be thrown out of employment, and that as they are a class of persons who do not easily adapt themselves to other occupations all sorts of terrible results will ensue. Not content with this, it is further stated that all the racecourse companies will become bankrupt, and so on; and it would seem as if a great disaster is to fall on the English people if this modest Bill is allowed to pass. But the statement winds up with this remarkable sentence—
  "With one object of the Bill all reputable men must be in sympathy—the annihilation of the irresponsible tipster."
  So you see how inconsistent these arguments against the Bill are. The Bill is based absolutely and entirely on the Report of the Committee; it does not even include all the recommendations in the Report Nearly every reputable, newspaper has declared in favour of the

  899
  Report. Judges on the Bench one after another have com in ended it, and magistrates in all directions have spoken in favour of it. Only on Saturday morning received unsolicited a list of seventy-three Boards of Guardians who have lately passed resolutions in its favour. I venture to think that possibly your Lordships are not quite aware of the extent and the intensity of public feeling with regard to this curse. What is this betting trade? It is a purely parasitic trade. It serves no good purpose in the political organism. And just as your Lordships, every one of you, as sportsmen, desire to keep your sport healthy, and are very careful to keep all unwholesome and noxious parasites from your stables and kennels, so, as English citizens, you should help in this modest endeavour to check the growth of this parasite in our English society. All that this Bill does is to put a reasonable check on a trade which is exercising such a wide and mischievous influence on English life. I do not know how far your Lordships have read the evidence which was presented to us. Some quotations have been given, but I would suggest to any noble Lord who has not read it, that he should peruse the evidence given by large employers We had one large employer of labour from Leeds who employs 1,000 engineering men. He is a sportsman and a breeder of horses himself, and he told us that he would not engage any betting man to any post in his service. We had a remarkable witness in a member of the working classes from Newcastle-on-Tyne who has been made a Justice of the Peace, and whose evidence I would wish that every Member of this House should read. But no evidence is needed. We all know the curse of which this trade is the instrument. If we are sincere in our desire to do something for the good of the people I cannot but feel that we should be ready to help forward this kind of social legislation which has done, by universal consent, so much good in times past. I have alluded to the Leeds employer. I might speak of another employer—His Majesty's Government. A good deal was made by the noble Earl of the evidence produced from the Post Office. If your Lordships look at the evidence you will find that no official in the Post Office, from top to
  900
  bottom, is allowed to bet, or if he does it is at the risk of his office. I think that is an excellent rule. I hope your Lordships will at any rate go so far as to give this Bill a Second Reading, and then in Committee the clauses can be modified, or, if necessary, rejected. Indeed, I should be grateful if the Bill could become law with only those clauses in it on which we are all agreed.
  LORD NEWTON: My Lords, the interpretation which has been placed on this Bill by previous speakers is of an extremely contradictory character. But one thing I think everybody will recognise is that this is a Bill which is obviously directed against bookmakers and bookmaking. I gather that the noble Lord who moved the Second Reading has no objection to betting per se; he would be quite prepared to bet, say, with me or with the right rev. Prelate, always providing he saw a chance of winning and was likely to get his money. The objection of the noble and learned Lord is to the intermediary. One of the main objects of the Bill is to restrict betting to places where the sports themselves are carried on, and for that reason my noble friend Lord Durham is no doubt justified in describing the measure as, in a sense, a piece of class legislation. Personally, I do not take the serious objection to the Bill which has been taken by the two noble Lords who have moved and seconded its rejection. For myself I am disposed to criticise the Bill because it does not go far enough. It appears to me, if I may say so, that it is a piecemeal measure and is quite inadequate to deal with the alleged gigantic evils with regard to betting. The only form of betting and gambling which merits any consideration at all is gambling upon races, because betting which takes place on sports can be indulged in between the parties, and there is no necessity for any intermediary. Therefore, any legislation should be confined to betting on racing and racing only. I think that any impartial person who reads the evidence and the Report of the Committee must come to the conclusion that the Report is a confession that betting cannot be stopped. It is declared that "betting is not a crime in itself;" and if I were a bookmaker I should take these words as my device. If this is so, if betting cannot be stopped,

  901
  and if it is not a crime, what is the obvious conclusion? That betting should be recognised, regulated, and restricted within reasonable limits. That is where the real difference of opinion arose between the Members who formed the Committee. One section showed itself in favour of recognising betting by the introduction of the system which prevails almost everywhere, except in England, under which the Government appropriates a proportion of the money invested in betting and devotes it to useful objects. A proposal in this direction was defeated by only one vote. If the pari mutuel system were ever adopted we should at once obtain the advantages which are claimed under this Bill and a great deal more besides. Betting would practically be confined to the racecourse itself; fraud would be put an end to; people would be obliged to bet with ready money, and therefore would not find themselves in the difficulties in which they are constantly placed through being able to bet on credit. An orderly and methodical system would be substituted for the pandemonium which now prevails, and finally a large sum would be available for useful purposes.
  In France, where there is less racing than in the United Kingdom, the 2 per cent. which is deducted by the State for charitable purposes reached £180,000, and the 1 per cent. which is deducted for the encouragement of horse breeding reached the sum of over £90,000. It is perfectly clear that a very much larger sum could be obtained here if we had the courage to adopt this system; and in view of the fact that Governments are perpetually looking for fresh sources of income such a proposal ought not to be entirely despised. But I should like to go further still. There is one class in this country, and one class only so far as I know in the whole world, who are literally clamouring to be taxed. These are the bookmakers, and personally I should like to oblige them very much; and I should be inclined to oblige them to such an extent that their numbers would be materially reduced. The only possible objection to such a course is that such recognition would mean an encouragement of the vice. It is our habit to represent that the refusal of
  902
  State recognition—in other words, the refusal to look plain facts in the face—conduces in some mysterious way to the advancement of national morality. But by the Report betting has been put upon the same footing as drinking. Neither is a crime in itself. Now I would like to know, with regard to State recognition, if any human being before he gets drunk or drinks a glass of beer, pauses to consider whether the State recognises the drink traffic; and does anybody seriously believe that any human being who does not bet now, will be induced to bet because the State exacts some small profit from betting transactions or levies a tax on bookmakers? I am unable to see any objection to controlling a national amusement, which leads to much trouble, by moans of taxation, and considering the well-known fact, corroborated by the noble Duke the Leader of the House, that racing cannot exist without betting, I must confess that it is a matter of surprise to me that the reform I have indicated has not been adopted long ago by the Jockey Club, who practically have complete control of racing in this country. Instead of this, the Jockey Club chooses to ignore betting altogether. The members of the Jockey Club sit aloft, like the gods of Epicurus, and they wish it to be understood that the betting shouts with which we are familiar, are expressions which convey absolutely nothing to their mind and with which they have no concern. This is a somewhat illogical attitude on their part, and although it is with great diffidence that I venture to criticise such an august body I venture to think that if they had exercised their great powers somewhat earlier, such legislation as we are considering at the present moment would have been entirely unnecessary. I am afraid I have committed an offence which is not altogether unknown in this Assembly—namely, that of discussing a matter which is not before the House. I admit that the major portion of my speech has been devoted to matters not contained in the Bill. Personally, I regret it. I think they ought to have been included. I rose with the object, in the first place, of pointing out the fundamentally different standpoint from which the two sections of the Committee regarded the question of betting, and also to take the opportunity of pointing out

  903
  that if the alleged gigantic evils of betting are to be satisfactorily dealt with they must be dealt with by a bolder and more comprehensive measure than this.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: My Lords, I feel somewhat nervous at entering on a discussion which seems to have been one of a family character, for up to the present five noble Lords have addressed the House, all of whom were members of the Committee who dealt with this subject. Two have spoken against the Second Reading, and three in favour. So far as I can gather from the opinions expressed by those noble Lords, there is a general consensus of opinion that something should be done to grapple with the betting evil. I need not go to the Report of the Committee. I will refer simply to the draft Report prepared by Lord Durham, which lays down as strongly as the accepted Report that the question of street betting is one that calls for legislative interference, and ought to be dealt with, as it is productive of the greatest possible harm to the working classes. The great central feature of the Bill is the checking of street betting, and I would appeal to my noble friend Lord Durham and to your Lordships to take this vote on the Second Reading as a vote in favour of doing something to diminish the evils of street betting. I think it can be shown that all the other proposals in the Bill are subsidiary to that great object which is to be found in Clause 4. For my own part, I frankly admit that I would not myself vote for the Bill if it involved support of the first two clauses, and if the Bill goes into Committee, as I hope it will, I shall be found among those opposing those two clauses. The Lord Bishop of Hereford, representing the high-water mark of strenuous support of the Bill, said he would be willing to accept the omission of these clauses. It seems to me that the supporters of the Bill have shown themselves in the utmost degree conciliatory. They have asked you to accept the proposition that half a loaf is better than no bread, and that if the House is not willing to accept the whole of the provisions of the Bill as they stand, let the House accept those provisions
  904
  which it does agree with. They say to the chief opponent of the Bill, Lord Durham, on whose draft Report the Bill hangs—
  THE EARL OF DURHAM: I protest. The Bill does not represent my views, and I defy the noble lord to prove his statement.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: If the noble Lord challenges me, I will prove it. I will quote the noble Earl's draft Report—the Report before it had been altered by his friends on the Committee. In his draft Report the noble Earl states—
  "18. It has been proved conclusively to the Committee that the practice of betting in the streets has increased very much of late years, and is the cause of most of the evils arising from betting amongst the working classes.
  "The fact that bookmakers can ply their trade in the open street, and lie in wait to catch working men in their dinner hour outside factories and workshops in order to induce them to bet, is undoubtedly a great source of evil.
  "19. Evidence has also been brought before the Committee to show that street bookmakers bet not only with men, but also with women and children.
  "20. At the present time such offences can be dealt with as 'obstruction' under various local Acts or under particular by-laws in each town, the penalty in either case being inadequate to cheek the practice.
  "21. When a street bookmaker is convicted twenty-five times in four years and is able to pay 137 l. 8s. in fines and costs (to take a typical example of many cases which have been brought to the notice of the Committee), it is obvious that the profits of his calling must be very great, and that the penalties provided by the law to restrain his trade are not sufficiently strong.
  "22. The Committee, therefore, recommend that, in view of the acknowledged evils of this form of betting, there should be further legislation, enabling magistrates to send bookmakers to prison without the option of a fine for the first offence, who have been convicted of betting in the streets with women or boys or girls, or otherwise inducing them to bet.
  "The Committee further recommend that bookmakers convicted of belting in the streets with men should be liable to a line of 10 l. for the first offence, 20 l. for the second offence, and that for any subsequent offence it should be within the discretion of the magistrate either to impose a fine of not more than 50 l. or to send the bookmaker to prison without the option of a fine."
  Those are the words of the noble Earl in his draft Report, and I contend that on the paragraphs I have read may be founded the whole case for this Bill.
  THE EARL OF DURHAM: No.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: That is the way it is accepted by its chief promoters. The right rev. Prelate says he is content to withdraw those provisions with which the noble Earl does not agree. It appears to me that the offer made by the promoters of the Bill is an extremely generous one, and I hope your Lordships will assent to the Second Reading.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, I do not often trespass on your Lordships' house, but this is one of the occasions on which I do not feel free to give a silent vote. I cannot refrain from the remark that the noble Lord who has just sat down seemed to be unduly hard on my noble friend opposite, in citing the paragraphs contained in the draft Report as paragraphs to every one of which the noble Earl himself assented. The draft represented the general view of the Committee, based upon the evidence, and it was perfectly free for us as members of the Committee to take what line we chose upon the various provisions as they came under discussion. Passing that by, however, I think it would undoubtedly have been better, if, differing on some points from the majority Report, we had stated our dissent more plainly; but in the circumstances I do not feel justified in opposing the Second Reading. By rejecting the Second Reading the House would take up the unenviable position of preventing any amending legislation on the lines recommended by the Committee. I am not prepared to take such a course. I desire to see the Bill go to the Committee stage and receive a full discussion, holding myself free to vote for further Amendment or the rejection of the Bill on the Third Reading stage. I hope your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading on that understanding.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The EARL OF HALSBURY): I confess that it is with the greatest reluctance that I ask your Lordships not to follow such a course as that recommended by Lord Derby, and not to introduce a new and dangerous system into your proceedings. It is said the Bill proceeds on the principle of abolishing
  906
  street betting; and against that practice there is much to be said, for it comes within the ordinary description of a nuisance. If it were confined to this object I would have some hesitation in voting against the Bill; but it is not so confined, and the authors of the Bill have not the courage of their opinions. If they mean to make betting an offence to be visited with penalties, why do they not bring in a Bill to prohibit betting? It is an extremely awkward thing to impose a number of penalties with ludicrous conundrums for His Majesty's Judges to solve, because the framers of the Bill will not say what they mean. If betting is to be made an offence, why not say so? The authors of the Bill have not the courage to say what they really mean; and the House is asked to go into legislation not dealing with the substance of a subject, getting rid of the responsibility for dealing with the substance, and going about the edge of it without touching it. Whether betting is right or wrong is a question I will not discuss. I will only say that betting is not the only form of gambling, and if we are going to make it an offence for any person to do something ancillary to betting, which is not an offence, treating him as a rogue, then we are embarking upon a very objectionable species of legislation; and I shall unhesitatingly vote against the Second Reading of such a Bill. I protest against the idea that after discussion among the Members of a divided Committee the House should give a Second Reading to a Bill on the understanding that two-thirds of it should be struck out, the remainder being that upon which they could agree. Why not bring in a Bill for the abolition of street betting that could be supported on different grounds? Street betting is a public nuisance, and, there is general agreement, should be put down. I shall vote against the Bill, and I hope your Lordships will not give any countenance to the new system of passing the Second Reading though two-thirds of the Bill will be thrown out.
  EARL SPENCER: I rise to say a few words on what has just fallen from the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. The course which the noble and learned

  907
  Lord condemned is by no means extraordinary, and I rather think that His Majesty's Government have followed it in the other House, treating the Second Reading as acceptance of principle, yet agreeing to strike out large portions of the Bill. The principle of the Bill is that it is necessary to check the grave evils of betting among certain classes of persons who cannot afford it, and to diminish the temptations to the practice. That is the general principle; and I am convinced that the evils are great, and that betting has been the cause of sadness and ruin to many families. The Bill proposes to modify and reduce the temptations to betting. There are those who desire that no person should be allowed to get any drink. Your Lordships would not go so far as that; but many are in favour of some check in the great temptations there are to persons to indulge in drink. Why not apply the same principle to this question"? Here is an admitted evil. Why should we not attempt to modify the temptations offered to people to bet, without attempting to say that betting is criminal? I contend that the proper course would be—and I strongly and earnestly urge your Lordships
  to follow it—to read the Bill a second time and to take out in Committee the clauses to which you object.
  THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: There is one principle in this Bill which I cannot support. I object to the Bill because it would enact one law for the rich and another for the poor. That is a vicious principle indeed. The rich man may carry on his betting within the enclosure, but the poor man doing the same outside the enclosure, would be liable to arrest by the police. I agree with the objection urged by the Lord Chancellor that to pass the Second Reading of a Bill when you propose to omit some of the most important clauses of it, is not consistent with the practice of Parliament and may lead to great confusion and irregularities. I shall therefore support the Amendment of my noble friend opposite.
  On question, whether the word ("now") shall stand part of the Motion,
  Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 39; Not-Contents, 48.

  CONTENTS.

  Canterbury, L. Abp.

  Gloucester, L. Bp.

  Leigh, L.

  Hereford, L. Bp.

  Lyveden, L.

  London, L. Bp.

  Monkswell, L.

  Northampton, M.

  Monteagle of Brandon, L.

  Ashcombe, L.

  Reay, L.

  Carlisle, E.

  Barnard, L.

  Ribblesdale, L.

  Carrington, E.

  Brassey, L.

  Robertson, L.

  Derby, E.

  Braye, L.

  St. Levan, L.

  Jersey, E.

  Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

  Silchester, L. [E. Longford.]

  Morley, E.

  Davey, L. [Teller.]

  Suffield, L.

  Russell, E.

  de Ros, L.

  Tweedmouth, L.

  Spencer, E.

  Denman, L.

  Wandsworth, L.

  Westmeath, E.

  Farrer, L.

  Welby, L.

  Hawkesbury, L.

  Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

  Cobham, V. [Teller.]

  Herries, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Halsbury, E. (L. Chancellor.)

  Innes, E. (D. Roxburghe.)

  Hay, L. (E. Kinnoul.)

  Devonshire, D. (L. President.)

  Stanhope, E.

  Heneage, L.

  Strafford, E.

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

  Abercorn, M. (D. Abercorn.)

  Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

  Cholmondeley, M.

  Waldegrave, E.

  Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

  Pembroke and Montgomery, E. (L. Steward.)

  Monckton, L. (V. Galway.)

  Churchill, V.

  Oranmore and Browne, L.

  Clarendon, E. (L. Chamberlain.)

  Falmouth, V.

  Penrhyn, L.

  Abingdon, E.

  Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

  Rossmore, L.

  Albemarle, E.

  Rothschild, L.

  Bathurst, E.

  Ridley, V.

  St. Oswald, L.

  Carnarvon, E.

  Saltoun, L.

  Cawdor, E.

  Abinger, L.

  Sefton, L. (E. Sefton)

  Durham, E. [Teller.]

  Brougham and Vaux, L.

  Sherborne, L.

  Ellesmere, E.

  Crawshaw, L.

  Southampton, L.

  Feversham, E.

  Farquhar, L.

  Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)

  Harewood, E. [Teller.]

  Fermanagh, L. (E. Erne.)

  Wenlock, L.

  Howe, E.

  Harris, L.

  Wolverton, L.

  PROPOSED FISHERIES BOARD.
  LORD HENEAGE: I beg to ask His Majesty's Government whether the Bill for the creation of a Fisheries Board has been prepared, and, if so, whether it will be introduced before Whitsuntide; also whether it is still the intention of the Government that the Fisheries Board shall be under the charge of the same Minister who may be appointed to preside over the Board of Agriculture.
  EARL HOWE: There is no change in the policy of the Government, but no statement can be made at present as to the date at which the Bill will be introduced. The Bill, I understand, has been prepared.
  House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.