Sitting of 19 May 1903

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.
UNOPPOSED PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  LONDON EDUCATION BILL.
  Petition of the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Commons of the City of London, in Common Council assembled, presented by the Sheriffs at the Bar, for alteration of the Bill; to lie upon the Table.

  PRIVATE BILLS [LORDS] (STANDING ORDERS NOT PREVIOUSLY INQUIRED INTO 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, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, viz.:
  Rickmansworth Gas Bill [Lords]; Sutton Coldfield Corporation Bill [Lords]; Birmingham Corporation Bill [Lords].
  Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time.
  Crystal Palace District Gas Bill; Ebbw Vale Water and Improvement Bill; Leigh Corporation Bill, Read the third time, and passed.
  Fishguard and Rosslare Railways and Harbours Bill [by Order]. As amended considered; to be read the third time.
  Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill; Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 6) Bill; Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No 7) Bill; Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No 8) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 8) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 9) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 11) Bill; Naval Works Provisional Order Bill. Read a second time, and committed.
  Broughty Ferry Gas Provisional Order. Bill to confirm a Provisional Order, under The Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1892, relating to Broughty Ferry Gas Supply, ordered to be brought in by the Lord Advocate and Mr. Solicitor-General for Scotland.
  Broughty Ferry Gas Provisional Order Bill. "To confirm a Provisional Order, under The Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1892, relating to Broughty Ferry Gas Supply," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. (Bill 203.)
  Dublin, Wicklow, and Wexford Railway Bill; Mullingar, Kells, and Drogheda Railway Bill. Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
  MR. HALSEYreported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from the Standing Committee on Trade (including Agriculture and Fishing), Shipping, and Manufactures; Mr. Wallace (added in respect of the Licensing (Scotland) Acts Amendment and the Licensing Acts Con solidation (Scotland) Bills); and had appointed in substitution: Mr. George Brown.
  Report to lie upon the Table.
  Beckenham Urban District Council Bill, Reported, from the Police and Sanitary
  1080
  Committee, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to: Stoke Newington Borough Council Bill, with Amendments.
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to provide for the transfer of the undertaking of the Shepshed Gas and Coke Company, Limited, to the Shepshed Urban District Council; and to confer further powers on the said Council with respect to the supply of gas; and for other purposes." (Shepshed Urban District Gas Bill [Lords]).
  And, also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confer further powers on the Belfast City and District Water Commissioners." (Belfast Water Bill [Lords]).
  Shepshed Urban District Gas Bill [Lords]; Belfast Water Bill [Lords]. Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

PETITIONS.
  BANKRUPTCY LAW AMENDMENT BILL.
  Petition from Walsall, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  CHURCH DISCIPLINE BILL.
  Petitions against: from Brighton; and Tam worth; to lie upon the Table.
  COAL MINES REGULATION BILL.
  Petitions in favour: from Ebbw Vale; New Tredegar; Cwm Avon; Turton Moor; and Llanelly; to lie upon the Table.
  COUNTY COURTS BILL.
  Petition from Walsall, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  COUNTY COURTS JURISDICTION EXTENSION BILL.
  Petition from Stoke-upon-Trent, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  DETENTION OF POOR PERSONS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Lochbroom, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  EMPLOYMENT OF CHILDREN BILL.
  Petition from Walsall, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENCES RENEWAL AND TRANSFER BILL.
  Petition from Battersea, against; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSING LAW (COMPENSATION FOR NON-RENEWAL) BILL.
  Petition from Battersea, against; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSING (SCOTLAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  Petitions for alteration: from Lybster; Kirkwall; Camelon; and Keith; to lie upon the Table.
  LIQUOR TRAFFIC LOCAL VETO (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Govan, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT FRANCHISE AND REPRESENTATION (EXTENSION TO COMPANIES) BILL.
  Petition from Walsall, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  LONDON EDUCATION BILL.
  Petition from Bermondsey, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER BILL.
  Petitions against: from Elham; Marston; Brighton; and Tamworth; to lie upon the Table.
  PORT OF LONDON BILL.
  Petition from Battersea, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION BILL
  Petitions in favour: from Birkenhead; Arbroath (three); Parkstone; Port Sunlight; Grahamstown and Bainsford; Hamilton; Apperley Bridge; Rat by; Overtown; Cambuslang; Rhodes; Airedale; Bath; Runcorn; Winsford; Worksop; Darwen; Glespin; Oxford; Bristol; Kinning Park; Howick; Woolwick; Backbarrow; Walsall; Brandsby; Leaven-seat; Stockton; Sowerby Bridge; and Paisley (two); to lie upon the Table.
  PUBLIC LIBRARIES.
  Petitions for alteration of Law: from Runcorn; Bodmin; and Stoke-upon Trent; to lie upon the Table.
  RAILWAYS (PRIVATE SIDINGS) BILL.
  Petition from Walsall, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  RATING OF MACHINERY BILL.
  Petition from Walsall, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  REGISTRATION OF FIRMS BILL.
  Petition from Walsall, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  Petition from Camberwell, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE DISPUTES BILL.
  Petitions in favour: from Cwm Avon; New Tredegar; Turton Moor; and Llanelly; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE UNIONS AND TRADE DISPUTES BILL.
  Petition from Battersea, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  WAGES BOARDS BILL.
  Petition from Walsall, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  WOMEN'S DISABILITIES (REMOVAL) BILL.
  Petition from Battersea, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  AFRICA (No. 4, 1903).
  Copy presented, of Report from His Majesty's Commissioner for British Central Africa respecting the Anglo-Congolese Frontier, in the neighbourhood of Lake Mweru, and the circumstances attending the arrest of the late M. Rabinek [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (MISCELLANEOUS SERIES).
  Copy presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Miscellaneous Series, No. 590 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 2979 to 2982 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  AUSTRALIA.
  Copy presented, of Correspondence respecting the Constitutional Relations of the Australian Commonwealth and States in regard to external affairs [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  COLONIAL CONFERENCE, 1902.
  Copy presented, of Memorandum on Sea Power and the Principles involved in it [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  LEECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 7) BILL.
  Copy ordered, "of Memorandum stating the nature of the proposals contained in the Provisional Orders included in the Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 7) Bill."—(Mr. Bonar Law.)

  LAND REGISTRY.
  Return ordered, "showing the work done in the Land Registry under the various Acts hereinafter mentioned, namely:—

  "1. Under the Land Transfer Acts, 1875 and 1897:—(a) The number, value, and acreage (where known) of estates the titles to which were registered, on first registration, from the first day of January, 1902, to the 31st day of December, 1902, showing the numbers of estates registered with absolute, qualified, and possessory title, and leaseholds; and also the number of estates registered under The Small Holdings Act, 1892; (b) The total number of separate titles on the register on the 31st day of December, 1902 (i.) by first registration, (ii.) by sub-division of estates already registered, and (iii.) by transfer from the 1862 register; (c) The total number of separate titles which have been removed from the register on the 31st day of December, 1902.

  "2. Under the Land Registry Act, 1862:—(a) The total number, value, and acre age (where known) of estates the titles to which were registered on first registration;
  1084
  (b) The total number of separate titles on the register on the 31st day of December, 1902 (i.) by first registration, and (ii.) by sub-division of estates already registered; (c) The total number of separate titles which had been removed from the register on the 31st day of December, 1902, otherwise than by transfer to the 1875 register.

  "3. Under both the Acts of 1875 and 1862:—(a) The total number of separate titles on the register on the 31st day of December, 1902; (b) The total number of transactions registered from the 1st day of January, 1902, to the 31st day of December, 1902, showing the numbers of (i.) first registrations under the Acts of 1875 and 1897, (ii.) conveyances, transfers, and transmissions of land, (iii.) mortgages, charges, further charges, and transfers of mortgages and charges, (iv.) reconveyances of mortgages and cessation of charges, (v.) leases and surrenders of leases, (vi) miscellaneous.

  "4. Under the Mortgage Debenture Acts, 1865 and 1870, and the Improvement of Lands Act, 1864: A statement so far as may be practicable of the nature and amount of the work done under these Acts from the 1st day of January, 1902, to the 31st day of December, 1902.

  "5. Under The Land Charges Registration and Searches Act, 1888, and The Land Charges Act, 1900:—The number of registrations, official searches, and ordinary searches made from the 1st day of January, 1902, to the 31st day of December, 1902.

  "6. Under the Middlesex Registry Act, 1708, and The Land Registry (Middlesex Deeds) Act, 1891:—The number of registrations and searches made from the 1st day of January, 1902, to the 31st day of December, 1902.

  "And, showing the amount of fees received and the amount of salaries and expenses in the Land Registry from the 1st day of April, 1902, to the 31st day of March, 1903, distinguishing for the purposes of Section 22 of The Land Transfer Act, 1897, the fees received and salaries and expenses paid under the Land Transfer Acts and the other Acts above referred to (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 304, of Session 1902)."—(Mr. Henry David Greene.

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Statue of James II. at Gwydyr House.
  MR. BAYLEY: To ask the hon. Member for North Huntingdonshire, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, if he will state when the statue of James II. that was removed from the garden adjoining Gwydyr House, Whitehall, during the Coronation festivities of last year will be restored to its place.
  (Answered by Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.) The First Commissioner does not think that the garden adjoining Gwydyr House proved to be a suitable position for the statue of James II. He is considering whether a site can be found in the vicinity of the new Admiralty building in St. James's Park, or whether to replace the statue in its old position behind the Banqueting Hall in Whitehall Gardens. It is not proposed to re-erect it out of London.

  Vaccination in Scotland—Supply of Lymph.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Lord Advocate in view of the fact that the Local Government Board for Scotland expended £120 14s. 3d. in respect of glycerinated calf lymph and vaccine lymph during the year ending 31st March last, will he state the quantity of each of the two classes of lymph thus obtained, the source from which each class was procured, and to whom the cost in each case was paid.
  (Answered by Mr. A. Graham Murray.) 419 tubes of vaccine lymph were obtained from Dr. Cadell, of Edinburgh, and 2,220 tubes of glycerinated calf lymph from Dr. Blaxall, of the Government Bacteriological Laboratory in London. The amounts paid to these gentlemen respectively were £15 14s. 3d and £105.

  Overcrowding in the Royal Edinburgh Asylum.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Lord Advocate, seeing that in the West House of the Royal Edinburgh Asylum there are 142 patients in excess of the number
  1086
  which the building was designed to accommodate, and in view of the outbreak of dysentery, will arrangements be made to secure temporary premises for the accommodation of the surplus patients pending the erection of Bangour Asylum.
  (Answered by Mr. A. Graham Murray.) I am informed that as many patients as accommodation could be provided for have been removed as boarders to other asylums, and that the new asylum buildings will be ready within as short a time as would be required for the acquisition; and adaptation of temporary premises.

  Corn Duty—Rebate.
  MR. GODDARD: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the duty will be refunded on malt, maize meal, flaked maize, flaked rice, lamb food, etc., made from duty-paid grain, in the same way in which the duty is to be refunded on flour made from duty-paid wheat.
  (Answered by Mr. Ritchie.) Stocks of malt, maize meal, flaked rice, lamb food, and kindred milled products of duty-paid cereals will be eligible for rebate within the limits of the recent concession. Regulations on the whole subject will be issued by the Board of Customs in due course.

  "Central African Times."
  SIR BRAMPTON GURDON: To ask the Lender Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the action of Mr. Nunan, Judge of the High Court of British Central Africa, in forfeiting the bonds of Messrs. Hynde and Rutherford, the proprietor and editor of the Central African Times, in consequence of an article which appeared therein on the 13th December, 1902; and, if so, will he say what steps, if any, he proposes to take in the matter.
  (Answered by Lord Cranborne.) The matter to which the hon. Member refers has been brought to the notice of the Secretary of State, and is under the consideration of His Majesty's Government.

  Telegraphic Communication between Listowel and Tralee.
  MR. FLAVIN: To ask the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to the fact that inconvenience is caused by the fact that there is no direct telegraphic communication between Listowel and Tralee, a distance of about twenty miles, and that telegrams to or from Tralee and Listowel must go by Killarney, Mallow, and Limerick to either place, a distance of about 150 miles; and, if so, whether, seeing that the telegraphic system is already extended from Tralee to Lixnaw, a point only five miles from Listowel, he can take steps to grant this extension.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) The circumstances have not materially changed since the hon. Member called attention to this subject on the 2nd July, 1900.† The telegraphic communication between Tralee and Listowel is certainly somewhat circuitous. The number of telegrams passing between the two towns is, however, very small, and, as the average time occupied in their transmission is only seventeen minutes, there is at present no case for incurring the considerable expense which the carrying out of the hon. Member's suggestion would involve. The matter will, however, be borne in mind in case an opportunity should present itself of effecting in an economical way any improvement in the service.

  Irish Equivalent Grant.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he proposes to devote part of the equivalent grant for Irish education to the reduction of the average necessary for the services of an assistant teacher; and whether any will be used in heating and improving schools and in providing apparatus for the proper working of elementary science.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) I stated yesterday, in answer to a similar Question by the hon. Member for East Clare,‡ that inquiries in this matter, generally, are still proceeding, and that
  † See (4) Debates, lxxxv., 281.
  ‡ See page 933.
  1088
  until these have been completed it will not be practicable to allocate the money.

  Irish National Teachers' Pension Fund.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the fact that the Irish National Teachers' Pension Fund was revised in 1901, he will lay a Report upon the Table so that the present position of the fund may be known.
  (Answered by Mr. Arthur Elliot.) Yes, I will do so.

  Treatment of Two English Girls by Police at Cape Town.
  MR. NORMAN: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if his attention has been called to the case of two English girls from Bilston named Laura and Agnes Hyslop, who were taken under arrest through the streets of Cape Cown by the police, charged with absenting themselves from their employment, and subsequently discharged by the magistrate on the ground that they have been sufficiently punished by this exposure; and, if so, will he say if he can take any steps to prevent in the future such action, as calculated to deter young women from emigrating to South Africa.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Chamberlain.) I have seen a newspaper report of the case referred to, but I am not otherwise acquainted with the incident. I am not in a position to interfere in such a matter occurring in a self-governing colony beyond instructing the Governor to call the attention of his Ministers to the subject, which will be done.

  QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    Somaliland.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state whether the Government have received General Manning's Report, and whether they intend to go on with the military expedition in the interior of Somaliland; whether they have applied to the Italian Government for military co-operation; and, if so, with what result; will he lay

    1089
    upon the Table the text of any treaties or formal engagements made by the Government with the Ishak or other tribes of the interior of the Somaliland Protectorate obliging the Government to continue to them military protection; and can he state what is the position of the Abyssinian force co-operating with the British expedition.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK, Surrey, Guildford): As regards the first and last part of the Question concerning the present condition of the operations in Somaliland, His Majesty's Government, as I stated yesterday,† have given orders to concentrate the British force at Bohotle, and pending the receipt of further information from General Manning I cannot make any further statement on the subject. As regards co-operation with the Italian Government the hon. Member will find the information he requires in Paper, Africa No. 1. 1903 (Cd. 1394) presented in January, and as regards treaties or engagements with the Ishak and other tribes, in State Papers Vol. 76, pages 101 to 107, and Vol. 77, pages 1263 to 1267.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer that portion of my Question relating to the position of the Abyssinian force. I wish also to ask whether there have been any negotiations with the Italian Government in respect of Somaliland since those mentioned in the Papers to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred me.
    MR. BRODRICK: With regard to the Abyssinian force, as I stated yesterday, our information is that it is operating from the south and is driving the Mullah's forces to the north. That coincides with the determination of the Government to concentrate their forces at Bohotle, where they will be available for the protection of British territory.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to say whether there have been any negotiations in respect of Somaliland between the Government and the Italian Government since those mentioned in the Papers of last January.
    † See page 922.
    MR. BRODRICK: His Majesty's Government are in continual communication with the Italian Government. Their communications throughout have been of the friendliest character, an I the Italian Government have given such co-operation as they have been able to give throughout.

    Imperial Yeomanry.
    MR. MANSFIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state how many companies of Imperial Yeomanry went to South Africa in 1901, and the date when the last company returned; whether the orders that the accounts of each company should be settled before embarkation on their return, and that the chief paymaster for Imperial Yeomanry should report to headquarters at Johannesburg that the accounts had been adjusted were carried out; how many officers commanding companies of the 1901 batch of Imperial Yeomanry have received their gratuities in full to date, and how many remain to be settled with; have the offers of officers commanding companies of their services in adjusting these accounts been accepted; and will he state the position in the Army Pay Department, pay, and pension of the chief paymaster for Imperial Yeomanry, and what his position will be when the work of the Imperial Yeomanry Pay Office is completed; and can he state when this work will be finished.
    MR. BRODRICK: The 1901 Imperial Yeomanry consisted of 17,243 non-commissioned officers and men who were despatched as drafts and subsequently organised into companies; the last of these companies was demobilised on 15th September, 1902. The orders as regards the accounts were that they should be brought up to date, and under great pressure they were sufficiently brought up to date to enable the men to receive the bulk of what was due to them prior to their being discharged at Aldershot. No less, however, than 14,000 men appealed against their captains' assessment, and in nearly every case their complaint was justified. The blame, therefore, for the delay in final settlement rests entirely with the captains, and the action of the

    1091
    War Office in withholding the officers' gratuities until the accounts were examined has been amply justified. Of the 1,451 officers commissioned for the Imperial Yeomanry, 370 officers in charge of companies have not yet received their gratuities. Officers have offered their services to clear up the accounts and their information has been duly utilised. The officer acting as chief paymaster is a very able and experienced re-employed officer from the retired list; he is drawing the same emoluments as a chief paymaster on the active list, and when his employment ceases will return to the retired list. His pay is £638 15s., and his retired pay, when he reverts to it, is £500 a year. He hopes to complete the 1900 accounts by June and the 1901 and 1902 accounts by the end of the year.

    Scots Fusiliers—Officers' Uniforms.
    MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state what will be the average cost of the alterations in the uniform of the Scots Fusiliers to individual officers.
    MR. BRODRICK: The cost of alteration by London tailors is 18s. 6d. and by regimental tailors 12s. 6d.

    Gilbert and Ellice Islands—Mr. Lodge's Case.
    MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware that a Mr. Lodge was illegally deported from the Gilbert and Ellice Islands to Fiji; and, if so, can he state whether any compensation has been paid to him in respect of his deportation or any reprimand upon those who were responsible for it.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN, Birmingham, W.): Mr. Lodge was sent, to Fiji in September, 1901, to be sentenced by the High Commissioner on a charge of being an idle and disorderly person. This action was taken by the Resident Commissioner of the Gilbert and Ellice Islands Protectorate, under a misconception of the powers vested in him by the Pacific Order in Council, 1893, in order that he might not have
    1092
    to deal with a man against whom he might be supposed to be prejudiced. The attention of the Resident Commissioner was drawn to the technical illegality, and the cost of Mr. Lodge's maintenance in Fiji and return passage to the Gilbert and Ellice Islands was defrayed from Protectorate funds. The circumstances, in my opinion, do not call for a reprimand of the Resident Commissioner.

    Administration of the Gilbert and Ellice Islands.
    MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if his attention has been called to the fact that the Resident at the Gilbert Ellice Islands has deprived chiefs of their land, ordered floggings for delay in payment of taxes, and has organised a system of forced labour; and, if so, will he state what steps the High Commissioner at Fiji has taken to exercise control over the administration of justice at the Gilbert and Ellice Islands.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Allegations, of the kind mentioned by the hon. Member, against the Resident Commissioner of the Gilbert and Ellice Islands Protectorate were fully investigated in September, 1901, and were reported to be unfounded, as I informed the hon. Member in reply to a similar Question from him on the 14th February, 1902.† I have recently received other complaints of maladministration in the Protectorate from a former officer of the Gilbert and Ellice Islands, whose appointment he High Commissioner for the Western Pacific terminated in 1900. The complaints have been referred to the High Commissioner for investigation.

    Government Shipments to South Africa.
    MR. DALZIEL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in the interest of British manufactures and for the development of British trade to South Africa, he will consider the advisability of directing the Crown Agents to discontinue shipments of cargo by the Conference lines until such time as the Conference lines cease their methods of penalising traders who desire to send goods by other lines. † See (4) Debates, ciii., 40.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I stated in answer to a Question by the hon. Member for the Otley Division of Yorkshire on the 24th April† that public tenders for the transport of freight would be called for. Meanwhile the contract at present in force does not admit of the action pro posed by the hon. Member.

    Massacre of Jews at Kischineff.
    MR. STUART SAMUEL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is able to give the House any information respecting the massacre of Jews at Kischineff in Russia.
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord CRANBORNE, Rochester): According to information received by His Majesty's Government disturbances arose in the district of Kischineff shortly before the Greek Easter, from the murder of a Christian lad, which was wrongly attributed to the Jews. The latter retaliated on their assailants. The result was a general attack on the Jews by a mob on Easter Sunday and Monday, in which it is believed that about 100 Jews lost their lives and many more were wounded.

    Preferential Railway Rates.
    SIR JOHN LENG: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether cases have been brought under his notice in which railway companies in the United Kingdom make lower charges on the carriage of foreign than on home produce and manufactures; and whether, seeing that the Board has not power to insist on uniform rates for all goods, British and foreign, he will initiate legislation to give the Board such power.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR, Leeds, Central): A complaint of the nature referred to was made to the Board of Trade and fully investigated by the Department in 1900 under the conciliation provisions (Section 31) of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888, with the result that the allegations made against the railway companies concerned were not sustained. Since that date no specific cases (as distinguished from merely
    † See (4) Debates, cxxi., 358.
    1094
    general allegations) have been brought to the notice of the Board, of differential treatment of home and foreign merchandise in respect of the same or similar services. Such treatment is explicitly prohibited by Section 27 of the Act of 1888, and apart from the action which the Board of Trade are always ready to take under the conciliation clause to which I have referred, the prohibition may be enforced by the Railway and Canal Commissioners upon proceedings before that Court. I am not prepared to initiate legislation designed to transfer the power of enforcement from a judicial Court to an administrative Department.

    Kingston Motor Accident.
    MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if any inquiry has taken place into the recent motor accident at Kingston, and, if so, will he state what action he proposes to take.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. GRANT LAWSON, Yorkshire, N. R., Thirsk): My right hon. friend the Home Secretary has obtained from the Police a report as to the accident referred to and I have had an opportunity of reading this. The case does not seem to call for any further inquiry or for any action by me.

    Castlebaldwin Postal Facilities.
    MR. O'DOWD: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General, whether his attention has been directed to a memorial forwarded in June of last year from the Castlebaldwin district of county Sligo to the effect that letters posted in Sligo could not be delivered in the neighbouring county of Roscommon until two days afterwards; and, if so, will he state what steps, if any, are being taken to remove this grievance.
    THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN, Worcestershire, E.): I have looked into the official Papers relating to the memorial referred to by the hon. Member, forwarded in June of last year by certain residents in South Sligo, and I find that an answer was sent to the hon. Member from my Department on the 6th August last to the effect that it was not practicable to improve the postal service between the districts in question. I will, however, make further

    1095
    inquiry on the subject and I will communicate the result to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

    Donaghadee Post Office.
    MR. T. L. CORBETT: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he has considered the petition lately addressed to him by the inhabitants of Donaghadee praying that the post office should be removed to a more convenient and central part of the town; and, if so, whether he has arrived at any decision.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The memorial received on the 25th ultimo from certain inhabitants of Donaghadee, asking that the post office should be removed to a more convenient and central part of the town, is under consideration, and two schemes are being examined, but I have not yet been able to come to a decision.

    Whitsuntide Recess.
    DR. FARQUHARSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman now give the House any information as to the Whitsuntide holidays?
    THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.): I do not think there is any chance of our being able to rise for the Whitsuntide recess before the Thursday before Whit Sunday. I should greatly regret if anything were to keep us after that.
    SIR JOSEPH LEESE: When are we to meet again?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am afraid I cannot say.

    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
    MR. BRYCE: Will the Prime Minister say what Supply he proposes to take next Thursday?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I understand it will best suit the convenience of the House that I should put down
    1096
    the Vote for Law and Justice first on Thursday, and the Revenue Votes second.
    In answer to Mr. GIBSON BOWLES (Regis Lynn)—
    MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, although he was anxious to get on to the Finance Bill, they must go on in the meantime with the London Education Bill.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  PORT OF LONDON BILL.
  That they concur with the Commons in their Resolution, "That it is expedient that the Port of London Bill be committed to a Joint Committee of both Houses."
NEW BILLS.
  COTTAGE HOMES BILL.
  "To authorise the provision of Cottage Homes for the Aged Deserving Poor," presented by Mr. John Hutton; supported by Mr. Wharton, Mr. Brigg, Sir Walter Foster, Mr. Goulding, Mr. Paulton, Mr. T. W. Russell, and Mr. Wilson-Todd; to be read a second time upon Friday, and to be printed. (Bill 204.)
  BANKERS' (IRELAND) ACT REPEAL BILL.
  "To repeal an Act passed in Ireland in 1759 relating to Bankers," presented by Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. (Bill 205.)
  MARINE STORE DEALERS (IRELAND) BILL.
  "For regulating the business of Marine Store Dealers and Dealers in second-hand goods in Ireland," presented by Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. (Bill 206.)
  IRISH VALUATION ACTS COMMITTEE.
  Ordered, That Mr. Hozier be discharged, and that Mr. William Maxwell be added to the Committee.—(Sir Alexander Acland-Hood.)

  LONDON EDUCATION BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]
  Clause 1.
  SIR JOHN GORSTmoved to omit the words "so far as applicable and subject to modifications made by this Act" in order to insert "subject to the provisions of this Act." In regard to the words "so far as applicable" he thought they were unnecessary. But his chief objection was to the word "modifications." It appeared to him that the adoption of the word would pledge the Committee in advance to some very important questions of principle which were to be dealt with on later clauses of the Bill. He suggested that the Government should substitute some neutral word so as to leave to the Committee an unfettered discretion with respect to the modifications of the Act of last year which might subsequently be made in the present measure. One modification which they would be called upon to discuss was that the education authority for London, alone of all education authorities, was to delegate its powers to bodies over which it was not absolutely supreme. Over and over again the Prime Minister said the managers mentioned in the Act of last year were to be the creatures and servants of the local education authority, but under this proposed modification, instead of being the creatures and servants of the education authority in London, they were to be an entirely independent authority with a right of appeal to the Board of Education. The Committee ought not to be asked to pledge itself to adopt these important modifications hereafter.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In Clause 1, page 1, line 6, leave out from 'shall' to 'apply' in line 7, and insert 'subject to the provisions of this Act.'"
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Sir WILLIAM ANSON, Oxford University)1098
  said that if the word "provisions" would satisfy the right hon. Gentleman the Government were prepared to abandon "modifications" and thus make the phrase read "subject to the provisions of this Act." But he still felt that the words "so far as applicable" were necessary because the references to non-county boroughs and urban districts were not applicable, and, if these words were not inserted, would involve changes wherever they occurred. It was not desirable that the Committee should have to consider a great number of small changes or that the Bill should be overloaded with a number of small Amendments, and the insertion of these words was therefore desirable.
  MR. BRYCEurged that in a matter of this kind—the retention of the words "so far as applicable"—they ought to accept the advice of the Secretary to the Board of Education. As to the term "modification," it was one not usually used in Acts of Parliament, and "provisions" would be more suitable. He was glad the hon. Baronet was willing to make that change.
  MR. YOXALLsaid he had on the Paper an Amendment somewhat similar in terms, and he was glad the hon. Baronet was prepared to make the suggested change.
  SIR JOHN GORSTsaid he could not agree with the hon. Baronet that the words "so far as applicable" were necessary, but the question was not one worth discussing at any length, and if the other change were made he would be satisfied.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  MR. TREVELYANthen moved to omit the words "and subject to modifications made by this Act" in order to insert "except as regards non-provided schools." He said the object of the Amendment was to exclude the voluntary schools from the scope of the Bill. He thought the Committee ought to be grateful to him for withdrawing the discussion from the unattractive regions into which it wandered yesterday, and for raising a good square fight upon a question with regard to

  1099
  which they could use the English language, and not such barbarous terms as "inco-ordination," "de-democratise," and "ad hoc." He was aware that his action might be displeasing to the Government, who had put forward the Bill as if it were only a piece of machinery involving no great principle. His contention was that it involved exactly the same principle as the Bill of last year, and the Government must not expect to avoid the discussion of most important questions by framing the measure in such a way as to make it difficult to raise these vital points. The Prime Minister, in answering a Question on the previous day, used contemptuous language in reference to the movement in progress among the Nonconformists against the payment of the education rate under the Act of last year. He declared that the movement was against sound logic, sound morality, and sound constitutional law. But they were not concerned with any such questions as that. They were concerned with the fact that a rebellious feeling had grown which was inducing a large body of the most respectable citizens to refuse to discharge their civic duties. He had got into trouble with some of his constituents for having said that he did not entirely approve of that action. But they were bound to recognise the fact that such a movement existed, especially in the large towns. It was useless saying that the movement was not a great movement. There were already 150 committees of citizens who were determined not to pay their rates, and in places like Leeds thousands of citizens had announced their intention not to pay. He asked the Committee to hesitate before it extended the movement to a great metropolis like London, by placing the voluntary schools on the rates. He did not like the way in which they were forced to raise the question, for he agreed with the hon. Member for North Camberwell that the way in which voluntary schools had to depend upon private subscriptions was deplorable. He would say at once that if the Government could bring forward any kind of concordat which would offer any promise of a settlement of this question, he would withdraw his Amendment.
  The situation had changed in another way since the Act of last year; not only was there a civic rebellion on the part of the Nonconformists of this country, but those
  1100
  who cared had been watching a settlement of the question shadowed and outlined, though not actually accomplished, in Wales. Church laymen and Nonconformist laymen had put their heads together and made offers to the Church managers of the voluntary schools. They had come so nearly to an agreement that it was whispered that one of the most eminent bishops thought a settlement could be easily arrived at on the Welsh lines. The only thing which had prevented a definite settlement in the Principality was that the clergy, and the clergy alone, had refused to give up the patronage of the schools. Thus a most desirable settlement was blocked by one small section of the Church of England community. Why could not the Government devise some plan for London which might eventually be made applicable to the whole of England, and which would settle that disagreeable question. Everybody knew that the Bill of last year would continue to be the cause of religious and political friction until the difficulty had been settled in some such way as the Welsh people had come to the opinion it was possible to settle it. London was a particularly good place for making the experiment he suggested, because the educational representatives of London had always shown themselves devoid of denominational feeling. There had only been one attempt to introduce religious controversy on the London School Board and that was promptly suppressed by the action of the majority of the members and by the electors as well. In the case of the Jewish schools they had demonstrated their willingness to respect religious convictions by appointing, as far as possible, Jewish teachers, and in the selection of managers generally they had adopted a similar policy. For instance, they had appointed no fewer than 348 Church of England managers, and thus they had shown themselves eminently capable of giving denominationalists fair treatment. He did not believe that the body which the Government now proposed to set up—a body which would be largely composed of members of the London County Council—directly elected by the people of London—would be any more influenced by denominational feeling than the School Board had been.

  1101
  Indeed, if anything, he thought it would be less liable to be influenced. He therefore invited the Government to try some scheme which would, on the one hand, give full opportunity to the religious denominations of having the religious teaching they wanted for their children, and on the other, give full control to the public authority.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, lines 6 and 7, to leave out the: words 'and subject to modifications made by this Act,' and insert the words 'except as regards non-provided schools.'"—(Mr. Trevelyan.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'and subject to' stand part of the Clause."
  SIR WILLIAM ANSONpointed out that the proposal of the hon. Member was practically to exclude the voluntary schools from the operation of the Bill, in order that at some later stage the Government might devise a concordat—the conditions of which the hon. Member did not in any way shadow forth—which would solve the religious difficulty in London and possibly be an example to the rest of the country. If there was one part of the United Kingdom where the religious difficulty was less present than another it was in London, where every sort of school, of every sort of denomination, was open to the children of any and every religious belief. Had the hon. Member considered the number of schools that would be excluded by his proposal, and the proportion of them which would hardly be amenable to any such concordat? There were more than 300 Church of England schools, and more than 100 Roman Catholic schools. The latter were not likely to fall into line with any solution which would probably be agreeable to the hon. Member. There were more than 468 voluntary schools which would, by the Amendment, be excluded, and, as was well known, they had to work under very considerable difficulty. The proposal was, for the sake of a possible solution of the religious difficulty—if it existed at all in London—to retard the efficiency of all those voluntary schools, and keep them outside the control of the local authority—that complete control
  1102
  over secular instruction which was given by the Act of last year. He asked the House, was it worth while to embark upon a problem so difficult, so likely to excite animosity—and so calculated to prolong indefinitely the debates oh that Bill? He thought not, therefore on behalf of the Government he refused to accept the Amendment.
  DR. MACNAMARAsaid that while he held strongly that the Bill last year was a great educational reform in one respect, in so far as it put the whole cost of education on public funds, he felt that it ought to have been accompanied by two concomitants (1) full and complete public control, and (2) the teachers should be relieved from theological tests. Unfortunately those two conditions had not been satisfied. The result would be that every voluntary school in London would be more and more the cock-pit of contention and faction. That would be entirely unsatisfactory, and could not but be disastrous to education. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education called attention to the hopeless condition of the London voluntary schools if they were excluded from the Bill. They were in a hopeless condition. Most of them were in a chronic state of bankruptcy; their apparatus was very scanty; and the teachers were nearly all juvenile drudges, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University used to call them, or uncertified teachers. He would mention two facts about them. The School Board for London had one certified teacher for every fifty-one children on the roll; the voluntary schools had only one certified teacher for every 131 children on the roll. That showed the hopeless condition of voluntary schools from an educational point of view. Therefore, he agreed that they should be taken over sooner or later, and the sooner the better; but on terms fair to the ratepayers who provided the money. He sympathised with the hopeless condition of those schools; but the House would do them more harm than good if it insisted upon thrusting them on the rates on terms not fair to the people finding the money. They would be more starved than before. He desired education to be a popular charge.

  1103
  That was why he supported the principle of the Bill of last year to maintain all public education out of public funds; but the terms must be fair. They could take a horse to the stream but they could not make him drink; they could lay down schemes for aiding the voluntary schools but they would not work unless the terms were fair. Therefore, while he agreed as to the essential necessity of putting the voluntary schools on public funds, he was bound to point out that if the Government desired to see those schools maintained financially they would frustrate their own end unless the terms were fair.
  What were the terms proposed? Every voluntary school was to have six managers, of whom the public were only to send two. That, to his point of view, was entirely unsatisfactory; and he believed the people of London would resent it. They would resent it as much as Durham, the Isle of Wight, and Wales resented it. The expenditure of London money by persons not responsible to the people of London was a very acute question; and therefore, in this endeavour to aid the voluntary schools, the terms should be fair, or else the scheme would not work. His second point was that there were 468 blocks of buildings with 1,500 departments; and, therefore, 1,500 head teachers, who in the past had been partly paid by voluntary contributions, which justified, in the minds of the donors, the right to superimpose theological tests. The voluntary contributions would disappear under the Bill, and with them would also disappear the last claim to superimpose theological tests. It would not be right to pay the salary of a teacher entirely out of public funds, and then superimpose a private test. The public authority should be the only authority to superimpose any test. There was no answer to that. The public would say, "Here we are finding all the money, and only getting two managers out of six; here we are paying the salaries of the teachers, on whom the clergy of all denominations are imposing tests." The public would not have that. They might have to have it for the moment; but they would take the earliest opportunity of upsetting it, which would cause a lot of acrimony and friction, and
  1104
  the setting back of the work of education. As he understood his hon. friend who moved the Amendment, he did not desire that the voluntary schools should remain out for all time. The Amendment was only to be a temporary expedient; and his hon. friend admitted that he had to move it in a way which did not entirely commend itself to him. His hon. friend did not think the scheme was the best scheme, but let it be adopted, and then let them excogitate a new concordat which would satisfy the people who would have to provide the money. That was a wise proposal which would be better for the voluntary schools in the long run. If they were to be thrust on the rates now, they would be starved as they were being starved under the Act of last year in many parts of the country. The Secretary to the Board of Education asked what would be the condition of the voluntary schools in the meantime. He agreed it would be bad and hopeless; but the scheme in the Bill would not make it better, as it would cause bitterness and acrimony and make the schools a cockpit for contention. He would gladly, with both hands support any proposal, for the time being, to give these starving schools in London an additional Exchequer grant for the next twelve months in order that they might not lose by the non-application of the Bill during that period.
  During the year they themselves might be able to do two things, and do them successfully. First of all, they might be able to get a good education authority for London. They might be able to get together a number of persons who would submit to the Government a good scheme for education in London. In addition to getting a good authority, which he thought was easily possible, for they had the time and the circumspection to deal with it, they might prepare a scheme by which the denominational schools might be taken over so as to make their finance sound, and to do it fairly to the people who found the money. There was no finality about the scheme of last year. The only thing certain about it was that it was giving a great deal of trouble and causing a great deal of irritation, which was bound to retard education. The

  1105
  Secretary to the Board of Education said that the Committee had no scheme other than that in the Bill before them; but, before the Clause was disposed of, he would ask the Committee to consider such a scheme. Its four broad principles were—firstly, that in return for public money the voluntary schools should be under complete popular control — no proportion of two out of six, or nonsense of that kind, which could not stand for any length of time; secondly, that as the voluntarists had the buildings, he would be prepared to pay them a generous rental for the hours they would be occupied; thirdly, that the local authority should appoint the teachers without reference to tests; and, fourthly, that every facility, outside the hours appropriated by the public authority, should be given to the denomination to gather together the children of their faith, and teach them the tenets they desired to teach, altogether irrespective of public money. He did not think that the teaching of denominational tenets could be justified except in that way. That was what was now called the Welsh concordat. He recommended it in the First Reading of the Bill of last year; and he believed it was bound to prevail, as it had prevailed in the colonies. There was now a very good opportunity of trying it in London. It would allay bitterness; and then it could be extended to the whole of the country, and the whole controversy would be got rid of. He supported the Amendment which would take the voluntary schools out if the Bill for the present, in order that they might not rush into a scheme which would frustrate the object in view. If hon. Members thought that they were settling the question by applying last year's Bill to London, they would be only importing the acrimony from the provinces into London. He was afraid it would be so; he deplored it very much. He desired to do the best he could for the voluntary schools; and he hoped they would come upon the public funds on the lines he had suggested.
  SIR FRANCIS POWELLsaid that, perhaps, he ought to apologise for intervening, having taken so much
  1106
  part in the Education Bill of last year. But he had been in the Metropolis for forty years, and had acted as a guardian and a vestryman in the parish in which he lived. He therefore had some connection with the Metropolis, and he desired to express his regret, in the interests of education, that this discussion should have been inaugurated. He was very strongly in favour of a uniform system of education, so far as it could be obtained, for the whole of England and Wales. There was one great reason for uniformity, and that was that if they once departed from uniformity they must enter into the widest fields of discussion, and raise probably some of those bitter controversies which he believed to be profoundly dangerous to the cause of education and religion. The population with which they had to deal with regard to elementary education was to a large extent a migratory one. He believed that in the local legislation of the country—in the administration of municipal affairs—it would be of the greatest advantage to the working man to have uniformity. It was a very great hardship on the working man when he had moved, in pursuance of his calling, from one town to another, that he should find the education of his children conducted under widely different conditions. The hon. Member for Elland, when he spoke of a desire on the part of the clergy to dominate these schools, must have forgotten that where there were six managers of a voluntary school only one was a clergyman, and to say under those circumstances clerical influence was to predominate and tyrannise was one of those monstrous propositions which any one with a less active imagination than the hon. Member for Elland could not for a moment conceive. With regard to the suggestions made as to the bitter controversies that had been raised in the country, so far as he had been able to observe, all the bitterness existed in this House. They had great discussions in the House and brave declarations, but when he went into the country he did not observe any bitter discussions or brave declarations. So far as he could see, there was a desire to make the Act of last year work well, and an Act of Parliament could not work well if there were to be bitter controversies on all sides.
  MR. NUSSEY, who was almost inaudible in the gallery, was understood to say, he supported the Amendment, as he failed to see how a uniform scheme could in any way remove these bitter controversies. In the interest of education he deplored the fact that there should be any danger of involving this great Metropolis in similar controversies to those which were now raging in the country. The Education Act of last year was not a success. The Church party did not thank the Government for it, and he was not sure that the Roman Catholics were satisfied, whilst it was well known the Nonconformists were not. He hoped, in the interest of education in the voluntary schools, that some modifications which should be satisfactory to the ratepayers would be made. He much deplored the unsympathetic speech of the hon. Gentleman who represented the Education Department, and for that reason he should vote for the Amendment.
  MR. AUSTIN TAYLORsaid, so far as he could judge, the Bill was skilfully devised to evade all the bitter controversies which had been referred to. Why had the religious controversy again obtruded itself? He had considered so far as he could the Amendment of the hon. Member for Camberwell, and he could not see his way to support it. He should vote against it on two grounds. In the first place, in his opinion the religious controversy was fairly well threshed out last year. He did not favour the Government method of treating this controversy. The Government had two alternatives. They could have adopted the dual system of the School Board and the voluntary school system, or in the alternative the system sketched by the hon. member for Camberwell — that they should take over the schools or rent them, and put them under complete public control, and then place them in the hands of religious teachers for religious instruction at certain times. The Government elected, rightly or wrongly, to adopt the former. The proposal of the Amendment was to refuse to apply to London the principle which had been adopted for the rest of the country; a course for which he
  1108
  failed to see any argument. If they were to have war in the provinces over last year's Act, surely it would be better to have it all over the country at once and have done with it. There was nothing in the relations between the board and voluntary schools in London to differentiate them from those in the rest of the country; why, therefore, should Parliament refuse to make London the subject of this interesting experiment? He was not at all sure that by proceeding on the lines of the Bill they would not eventually get a good education authority for London. It appeared from the debate that the Committee was not yet clear as to what the constitution and powers of that authority should be, and he was not without hopes that by the assistance of the Government they would get a much better authority than at one time was foreshadowed. He also opposed the Amendment from the point of view of the London County Council. If the Amendment were adopted, the County Council would be left in a shorn and truncated condition. Already it was not in the best of positions under the Bill. There was need both to confirm the authority and to enlarge the powers of the Council as the new education authority, and, certainly, to take away a large proportion of the elementary schools was not the way to magnify its office.
  He had been much perplexed to understand why the County Council should be so obnoxious to many Members of the House; and he would much like to know why that body was thus cribbed, cabined and confined, and placed in what an ordinary man fresh from the provinces would consider as not altogether the position in which it ought to be. He remembered having a conversation in the Lobby with an hon. Member who said he had an infallible recipe for deciding Parliamentary action. On being pressed to state it he said it was to vote against the London County Council whenever and wherever he saw it. That was an extremely simple rule of life, and explained much that had previously been somewhat obscure. Under the Bill, as regarded the voluntary schools the authorities would be able to appoint two managers for each school, to group schools under one body of

  1109
  managers, to give directions which the managers were bound to carry out, and to consent to the appointment of or to dismiss teachers on educational grounds. But the position was very different with regard to the provided schools. The authorities could not appoint managers, group schools, or appoint or dismiss teachers; they could only give general directions, and they had nothing to do with equipment. That was an anomaly, and if the Secretary to the Board of Education would explain the extraordinary difference it would greatly help hon. Members from the provinces who really thought the Act of last year might have been applied in its fulness to London without the qualifications and modifications proposed. By its action of last year Parliament had relegated the religious question to the decision of the municipalities, and he failed to see why it should again be raised now. With many points in the religious policy of the Government he did not agree, but he was strongly of opinion that in the hands of the great municipalities throughout the country the question would be settled on more progressive lines than at one time seemed likely, and he hoped the problem in London would be solved in a similar vigorous fashion.
  MR. RUNCIMANsaid the hon. Member for East Toxteth was entirely mistaken in supposing that the Act of last year had dismissed the religious controversy from the minds of the people of England. He need scarcely remind the hon. Member that there was nothing in which the English people were more interested than a good sound religious fight.
  MR. AUSTIN TAYLORexplained that what he sad was that the Act of last year dismissed the question, not from the country but from Parliament.
  MR. RUNCIMANthought the hon. Member hardly understood the business of Members of the House. Their business was to represent the opinion of the country, and it was because they on that side believed they represented the opinion largely held by the country that they were opposing the
  1110
  Bill. He did not particularly care whether the management of education in London was entirely in the hands of the Borough Councils or of the County Council; doubtless some way out of the difficulty would be found, whichever body took the work in hand. There were important municipal questions involved, but the matter in which he was mainly interested was in frustrating the object of the Bill to place voluntary schools on the rates. The hon. Member for East Toxteth had stated that for the sake of uniformity he would prefer, if there was to be a religious struggle over education, that it should involve London as well as the rest of the country. That was a singularly unkind thing to say. What was desired in London was that the educational system should go a head, unimpeded by religious controversy, and when the Opposition were taunted with having raised the religious question on this Bill, their retort was that it was not they but the Government who were responsible. The hon. Member opposite had also said that it was not altogether generous to propose to take away from the County Council the control of half the elementary schools of London He thought the hon. Member had misread the duties of the London County Council. He did not think the London County Council would be particularly grateful for receiving powers to raise extra money for voluntary schools from the ratepayers, when the spending of that money was handed over to a management over which they had no adequate control; nor did he believe that they would enjoy paying salaries to teachers whom they had not themselves selected. He was one of those who deprecated the passive resistance movement being used as a political weapon. He had stated to his constituency that he thought this was a matter for the private conscience of those concerned, and should not be used as a political weapon. Hon. Members should not get it into their heads that the action of those who refused to pay education rates was wild, hare-brained action. Now, was this action being taken by men who were not worthy of respect? The Secretary to the Board of Education altogether underrated the amount of feeling which had been raised in this country over the Education Bill of last year. He should like him to test

  1111
  the feeling of the London constituencies in regard to this Bill. Was it possible for the hon. Gentleman to lead a crowd to Hyde Park to express their unbounded enthusiasm for this Bill?
  THE CHAIRMAN: I must remind the hon. Member that we are not now discussing the Bill as a whole, and he must confine himself to this Amendment.
  MR. RUNCIMANsaid he was speaking with reference to non-provided schools, and he could not do it without importing religious controversy into it. If the Secretary to the Board of Education wished to know the opinion of London he should take the earliest means of testing it, because the people regarded it as an effort to throw the non-provided schools of London on to the rates without granting popular control of those schools. He should be glad if the voluntary schools could receive larger assistance from the Exchequer. But if they were to exist purely on public funds, they should submit to public control. The strong feeling raised on both sides of the House on this subject must indicate to the hon. Gentleman that it was not possible to keep this consideration out of their discussions. The people of this country did not wish to carry this fight on upon religious lines, and if the Church of England would make up their minds that the patronage of the voluntary schools was not worth fighting for, they would be able to set about their business with a great deal more efficiency than they had got at the present time.
  MR. C. R. DEVLINsaid he wished to explain why he could not support this Amendment. During the course of the debate reference had been made to the bitterness of the controversy over school matters in Canada, the country from which he came. He knew what was at the bottom of all that bitterness, for it was due to those who opposed the system of denominational schools entirely, and to those who took very much the same line which was now being followed by certain hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition side of the House, who wished to destroy a system of schools which had existed during a great number of years, and which system
  1112
  was created by an Act passed by this Parliament known as the British North America Act. Those who supported the denominational schools of Canada were perfectly satisfied and content with the provisions of that Act. What was the position to day? They were now asked why should they give public rates to schools which were not under public control. Who paid the rates? Did those parents who sent their children to denominational schools not pay rates? Who did pay those rates if not the very people who sent their children to denominational schools? Why should they not get in return their share of those rates to which they contributed? He hoped they would hear a little bit less about the public rates, because in the case of voluntary schools the money was only going back again to those who were paying the rates. He should vote against this Amendment, not because he was hostile to those who introduced it, but because it was a proposition which would deal a blow against a system of schools which had worked very well in the past. He did not refer to the denominational schools of the Church of England, about which he knew nothing, but he did know something about the Catholic schools, and he questioned if those schools would not compare very well with the schools which received so much praise from hon. Members who would like to see Catholic schools done away with. [Cries of "No, no."] But they would as far as they could render inefficient the schools if they withdrew all contributions to them from public rates, as was proposed by this Amendment. By this proposal they practically said to Catholic parents, "If you want a school according to your own religious ideas, to which you have a perfect right, you need not expect for the support of that school any of those taxes which we take from you. You can support it yourself, and then turn round and also support a school which we shall establish for you."
  He understood perfectly well that he belonged to the unpopular minority in this country, [An HON. MEMBER: Religious minority]. Of course he did not mean that he belonged to an unpopular political minority, because they were at present the popular political

  1113
  party. He found in the papers only that morning the most bitter assaults possible upon the religion to which he belonged, and it arose over this very question. He had only to go to Hyde Park on a Sunday to see how unpopular was the religious body to which he belonged. He came from a country where religious rights were generally respected, and those who attacked them would be very quickly put down. He remembered a time when men holding the same opinions as those which had been expressed on the Opposition Benches brought about a very bitter state of things in Canada, but that was not due to any effort made by the advocates of a denominational system, but entirely due to those who had crushed that system out in certain sections of the country. That was the case in 1886 in Ontario, and in 1890 in Manitoba, and that was the state of things which would be brought about in England by those hon. Members who had introduced this very question. He simply rose to explain why in this matter he should give his vote against the Amendment which had been proposed, which, if carried, would deal a very serious blow at the schools which in conscience Catholics were bound to support, because they believed that they ought to send their children to schools managed according to their own ideas. They did not object to inspection, or to thorough and close examination, by the representatives of the public authority, for nothing would be taught in those schools that would in any way be offensive to the constitution of the country. He was perfectly sure that nothing would be taught that was in any way hurtful or injurious, and even if they decided to take away that share of the public money to which Catholic schools were entitled, they would still have the schools in any case. They were the schools to which Catholic children would go, the schools for which Catholics would pay, and for which they would struggle. He hoped that a more generous view would be taken of the whole subject.
  MR. LOUGHsaid the hon. Member had rather misunderstood the effect of the Amendment. It would not deprive any of the schools to which
  1114
  he referred of a single shilling of the support they now enjoyed. The hon. Member for the Elland Division, and the hon. Member for Camberwell, both dealt with the necessities of these schools and said they were anxious to make provision for all their requirements. No one had proved more completely than the hon. Member for Galway City that there was something which the managers desired quite as much as State support. Under this Bill a certain amount of control over these schools would be taken away. He could assure the hon. Member that there was the most friendly feeling on this side of the House towards the particular schools he represented. He believed it was a fact that not a single Catholic school in this country was ever transferred to the Board School system, and therefore Catholics could make their plea more consistently and conscientiously than any other sect on behalf of denominational schools. He agreed with the statement that if the Government accepted this Amendment it would be necessary to make provision immediately for these schools in the sense the hon. Member for Camberwell suggested. He thought they ought to look at the Amendment somewhat more closely from the London standpoint. The hon. Member for the East Toxteth Division of Liverpool presented a curious argument. He admitted that the Bill passed last year was calculated to create controversy throughout the country and stated that he did not see why the area of controversy was to be restricted. "No," he said, "as there is to be a row in the country, let there be a row in London also." It was hardly too much to call it a monstrous speech. If they had made a mistake in the country they ought to have the battle excluded from London. The hon. Baronet who was in charge of the Bill stated truly that there was very little religious controversy in London. In connection with the great work of the London School Board, he himself did not think a parent had complained that his religious feeling, or that of his child, had been unfairly treated in a Board school. The hon. Baronet thought that statement supported the Amendment. What they feared was that they were going to introduce religious controversy

  1115
  in a field which was free from it at present. They could not but think that when the duty of supporting these 468 schools was thrown upon the ratepayers it would evoke in London, as elsewhere, a feeling of popular hostility. There was the same number of Board schools in London, but the voluntary schools had only half the number of scholars. That showed that the schools were much smaller and that they were much less qualified for the great educational work they had to carry on, yet they were to be thrown over to the public authority with almost no, or at least with slight, popular control. Surely, in view of the burden that would be suddenly thrown on the people of London, they ought to consider carefully how they dealt with the question. Surely they might go step by step, and if at first they handed over the School Board system to the new authority that would be enough. Many of the voluntary schools were very ill-fitted for the educational work they carried on. They were in localities where the schools were not wanted, and where they were quite unnecessary. The Government would have to lighten the Bill in some way. He thought the spirit of this Amendment ought to be accepted, and that the Government ought to promise that the subject would receive a little more consideration at a later stage of the Bill.
  MR. BARRANsaid this Amendment did not take away the assistance of the rates from the voluntary schools of London. It merely forced on the Government the absolute necessity during the present session of reconsidering the whole of their position with regard to the voluntary schools, and in any such reconsideration of their position it would be absolutely necessary for them to act fairly and rightly to the Roman Catholic schools, while at the same time giving the proper treatment demanded for the Nonconformists of the country. When the hon. Member for Galway City drew a picture of the happy state of religion in Ireland, as against the sectarian disputes and bitterness in England—
  MR. C. R. DEVLIN: I did not refer at all to the condition of Ireland.
  MR. BARRANbegged the hon. Gentleman's pardon; he thought he had referred to Ireland. The point he wished to draw attention to was precisely the same. In Canada there was no established Church as there was in England, and therein lay the whole difference. Their object in this Amendment was to bring before the Government the reasons entertained in the country why, having passed the Bill last year for the whole country, they should not repeat the religious clauses for London. Everything that was prophesied as to the results of that Bill in the large cities of England had been more than proved. In every large city there was at the present time a bitter and violent agitation against the religious clauses of last year's Bill. Almost every city council had been occupied, and was occupied to-day, with a religious discussion, and it was perfectly evident that this discussion would not subside until some fresh legislation on the religious question had been enacted. That was surely a sufficient reason why that legislation should not be extended to London. He ventured to suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education that he should follow the wise course of his colleague on the Treasury Bench, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and apply to this measure the persuasive arguments which had come from the country, as had been done in regard to the corn tax. Precisely the same arguments applied to the religious question in education. The withdrawal of the corn tax was due to the strong and vigorous protest from the country. The opposition and the bitterness which existed to-day in the towns in regard to the Education Bill would to-morrow exist in London if this Bill was passed in its present form.
  The Parliamentary Secretary stated that London less than anywhere was subject to these religious difficulties, because in London there was such great variety of schools. He supposed the hon. Gentleman's suggestion was that they were so widely distributed that if a child or a teacher wished to go to one kind of school or another he was at liberty to do so. But he should like to point out—and he spoke

  1117
  with considerable practical experience of School Board work in a large city—that this was not at all the case, and if they took the 460 denominational schools in London they would find that they covered such large areas that it was impossible for every child or teacher to move from one district to another. The hon. Member must be perfectly aware that the distance a child could travel to school was very small indeed, and it was a well-known fact that to day in London a child wishing to go to a school other than a denominational one, in tens of thousands of cases could not find that school within reasonable distance of his home. Under this Bill a teacher who wished to have an equal opportunity of taking a position in the schools paid for entirely out of the rates, would be unable to find these positions in schools in their own locality. They would, in London, just as they were in the provinces, be practically excluded from the profession in any but their own district, because the expense of removing to another district was practical exclusion. In London there was one difficulty from the religious point of view, which, in many ways he thought, was more acute than it was in any part of the country. He referred to that difficulty where people had been driven from the English Church, and where they did not desire to send their children to the schools of that Church. They had to look at this from a parent's point of view. If a certain number of people in a district or parish were driven out of the Church and from any management of the Church by practices which this Government absolutely refused to put down—[MINISTERIAL cries of "Oh, oh!"]
  THE CHAIRMANsaid that the hon. Gentleman was wandering very far away from the Amendment.
  MR. BARRANsaid he would then go on to another point. He wished to emphasise that the parents here would have no control over the teaching in their own district. In certain districts large numbers of parents would be absolutely excluded from being one of the four trustees of the school out of the six, and they could not vote for them, as they did
  1118
  not belong to the Church. These were the men who were good Anglicans, but who had been driven out of the Church by the action of those who had remained inside. That was in many ways a more acute matter in London today than in many towns in the provinces. Therefore he supported the Amendment. They ought to have a full reconsideration of the system of managing the voluntary schools after the thorough condemnation it had received in all the large cities and towns in the country, before it was applied to the City of London.
  MR. CHARLES ALLENsaid that the hon. Member who introduced the Amendment claimed the gratitude of Members on that side of the House, but, speaking for himself, he did not think the hon. Gentleman deserved any gratitude at all, for he looked upon it with a considerable amount of difficulty. Of course the Amendment was right; if the managers objected to popular control, they ought to object to popular money. He was not quite sure, however, that the hon. Member for Elland was not, at the moment, the best friend of the Government; for surely it was an undeniable fact that the Government had been losing election after election by putting the voluntary schools on the rates on their own terms, and here was an Amendment to try and prevent them doing the same in London. Rather they ought to encourage the Government in their evil ways, and, if they did not trip over the corn tax—which he thought they would—they would find the Government putting the Churches on the rates as well as the schools, and then their cup would be full. If the Government were clever and wise, they would be inclined to take the advice of the hon. Member for Elland; but, luckily, he had a very confident belief in their unwisdom. He was pretty sure they would not accept the Amendment, and, therefore, they could look upon it from the point of view of principle, and not of party politics. The Government had no mandate from the country to bring in any Bill of this kind. They all knew what the Government were elected for at the last election.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid that the right hon. Gentleman must come a little closer in his remarks to the Amendment before the Committee.
  MR. CHARLES ALLENsaid he bowed to the Chairman's ruling, but it did seem to him that the proposal of the Government, which this Amendment was to do away with, could not possibly commend itself to the feeling of the country in any way whatsoever. The proposal was that one-half of the people of this country—if the Amendment were defeated—would be placed in a position of inferiority in regard to the teaching profession in a very large number of schools. That was a point not before the public at the last General Election. The Government, in pressing this proposal at this time, were making a mistake, as they had done in the Act of last year; and for this reason, that the sense of the country had been shown to be against them. The bye-elections proved that. They had now got an opportunity, by the Amendment, to pause for a moment, to give the voluntary schools in London a grant which would carry them over the hard times which all knew they suffered from, while the irritation and quarrels in the country wore themselves down. If that happened the Government could follow the example of the previous Bill, but if it did not, they could search and, mayhap, find a more excellent way.
  MR. BRYCEsaid that the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Elland would no doubt require some subsequent Amendment in order to make it work; but there could be no difficulty in introducing these Amendments if the Committee accepted the Amendment now under discussion. At this stage he wished to raise a question of principle, but his hon. friend would be ready to bring forward Amendments so as to put his proposal into shape. He supported the Amendment on the very simple broad ground of principle, that the less they had of a bad thing the better. If this clause passed in its present form the Bill would bring into London the same controversies whose exasperating effect they had all watched with so much regret in all parts of the country. The raising of these controversies had been predicted on that side of the House, and
  1120
  the prediction had unhappily proved true. They desired to spare London from them. The Government made a great mistake if they supposed that the soft and dulcet tones in which this question had been discussed to-day represented the feeling of the country. He could assure the Government that there was a larger, stronger, and deeper feeling in the country on this subject than had yet been realised by the Ministry, and that that feeling, which was gathering to a head in this campaign, would find very forcible expression as soon as a General Election arose. The best friend of the Government would be he who endeavoured to save them their London seats by preventing the application of this clause to London. His hon. friend the Member for Wigan, with his usual sweet reasonableness, said: "Now that the Act of last year has been passed, let us have an end of controversy. We have had a fight, you have been beaten, knocked down, left helpless, and been compelled to pay the school rates. But all that is past. Let us now kiss and be friends, and make up our minds to forget the past and work in an amicable spirit." He knew that had been said frequently, and that there was a human sentiment of amity which would incline to agree to it. But the best way to avoid controversy was not to pass unjust Bills. If good feeling were wanted Bills should be passed which were not only constitutional but also appealed to the natural sense of justice in all people. The Bill had by large sections of opinion in the country been conceived to be an unjust measure, and whenever they were asked to record their protest against it, as they were now, they were bound to record that protest. He did not desire to go into any of the arguments used last year. His hon. friend had declared all they had said last year about the obnoxious and unconstitutional character of the Principal Act, and they were bound to support him in his protest. They delivered that protest in the full belief that they represented the view of the majority of the people of London.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. WALTER LONG, Bristol, S.)said that in

  1121
  rising to make an appeal to the Committee he did not intend to answer at length the arguments advanced in support of the Amendment. He based his appeal on the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberdeen. The right hon. Gentleman stated that he supported the Amendment on the ground of principle; that he was opposed to the inclusion of the voluntary schools in this new system, but that under existing conditions he did not wish to state over again the opinions against the Bill because, he admitted, the question had been fully debated last year, when the educational policy of the Government was decided. Everybody must realise that there had been a great air of unreality in the debates. [OPPOSITION cries of "No!"] He did not mean unreality in the sense that hon. Gentlemen opposite did not honestly feel all that they had said, but unreality in the sense that everyone must know perfectly well that the broad lines of the educational policy of the Government had been settled and laid down last year, and no one could seriously believe that they would be likely now to exclude the voluntary schools of London from the educational system which had been applied to the rest of the country. He would point out that the suggestions that they should make this alteration had come from gentlemen who were not London Members.
  MR. TREVELYANsaid there had been no defence from London Members.
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid that the London Members probably felt that the question had been fully discussed last year, and decided that this was not the occasion to present their case over again. At all events, there had been no defence of the Amendment from those who represented London constituencies.
  MR. TREVELYANsaid that one-third of the hon. Members from London on that side of the House had spoken in its defence.
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid that he noticed that the majority of the London Members were absent from the debate altogether. The controversy had been fully discussed last year, and it would be undesirable to re-discuss it now. Therefore, having
  1122
  regard to the very important questions which remained to be considered, he hoped hon. Gentlemen would be content with making a protest, and allow the Committee to arrive at a decision.
  SIR MICHAEL FOSTERsaid that as he understood the Amendment, it was not to pronounce an opinion on the policy to be adopted but to defer it. He felt very strongly that the voluntary school question was not so urgent in London as it was in the country, and, on the other hand, that the educational question in London was of extreme urgency, especially in those branches of education which passed up from the elementary towards the higher education. He therefore ventured to appeal to the Government whether it would not be in the circumstances statesmanlike to accept this Bill so far as it referred to provided schools, and not let them get once more entangled in those dreadful theological discussions under which education seemed destined entirely to sink. Was it not better to leave these over for a year or more and to frame a Bill which would start efficiently and effectively that sound education for which London was thirsting, and which was absolutely necessary if London was to maintain its place in the world?
  MR. CORRIE GRANTsaid he could not claim to be a London Member, but he had lived all his life in London; and had had a great deal to do with its School Board work; and he strongly hoped that the Government would consider the attitude they were taking in regard to the denominational schools. The Government could not have it both ways. London was left out of the Bill of last year because it required special treatment; and when the Government were now asked to give special treatment to London, they could not ride off on the argument that the matter had been discussed last session. The Government were, he thought, justified in making a special departure with reference to London. In London the denominational schools were managed by men who were largely of a higher type than the managers of denominational schools in the country. This was not a religious controversy; it was a denominational controversy; and that

  1123
  made all the difference in considering the Amendment. Those denominational controversies were fought out most bitterly in the little towns, where personal animosities came in behind denominational animosities, and where the interests of the children and of education were lost sight of altogether. In London, however, the denominational schools were in the hands of men who were in the forefront of the denomination to which they belonged, and they might be expected to treat this question in a different way to that in which it was treated in small country towns. Again, the denominational controversy did not press in London in the same way that it did in the provinces. Any parent who wished to give denominational teaching to his child had no difficulty in finding a school for that purpose. Travelling on any of the East End overground railways, one must be struck by the noble school buildings to be seen on all hands. He had heard them called the cathedrals of the East End, and the words were never better applied. To his mind the Amendment raised one of the broadest issues that could be discussed on the Bill. It was broad and also important, and it should be settled by the House of Commons. He did not believe in denominational controversies they were not real; they did not stir the parents; they belonged to the sects; and he hoped before very long the parents would step forward and take the management of their own schools into their own hands, and sweep the denominational question out of the way. For that reason, he asked the Government to consider whether they could not accept one of the many methods of settlement which had been suggested. Two or three of them would certainly be accepted by the common sense members of the Committee, shutting out the men who spoke from the denominational standpoint alone. This controversy would have to be settled apart from the clerics and the clerical laity, who were worse than the clerics. On the London School Board there was a five months wrangle as to how the denominational question could be settled, and finally it was settled; and the system had been adopted in many School Boards throughout the country. To-day the
  1124
  Bishop of St. Asaph, in attempting to arrange terms with the Nonconformists in Wales, suggested that they should adopt the syllabus drawn up by the London School Board. Was not that fact in itself one of the greatest hopes for the settlement of the question in London? The attitude of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education was timid and hesitating, and not such as was to be expected from a man who had done such splendid work in another Department. There was no law student who was not indebted to the hon. Gentleman for his work on contracts; and if the hon. Gentleman only showed the same firmness of principle now, and settled this denominational question, he would write an enduring mark in the legislation of this country. Everyone knew that half the denominationalists were ready to settle it if rent were paid for the schools. He hoped the hon. Member for the Toxteth Division was not going to repeat in the House all the foolish things he heard in the Lobby. If he might venture to make a suggestion to the hon. Member, it would be never to repeat the foolish things but always to repeat the wise things he heard there. He would have less to say but his reputation for statesmanship would at once increase.
  The hon. Baronet the Member for Wigan said that this question was put forward largely as a matter of patronage. He himself would not like to put it so strongly. Many of the Anglican clergy were as anxious for good education as were the Nonconformist clergy; but he could not conceal from himself the fact that there was not quite that high standard which he should like to see, and that some of the clergy did make it a matter of patronage. He knew a case in a small town where a Churchman and a Liberal was one of the managers of the denominational schools for thirty years. The clergyman, his curate, his coachman, and his wife were now managers; and the Liberal manager having differed from them the curate, who had been only eighteen months in the parish, told him if he did not like the proposal he could resign. How would the hon. Baronet, after his many years of hard work in this House, feel if a new Member told him that if he did not like

  1125
  a particular Amendment he could resign. The hon. Baronet the Member for Wigan said it was not a matter of patronage. He would read a letter from a Church of England clergyman to one of his schoolmasters, in which he said that he was now sending in his return to the County Council of the salaries paid to his teachers. This schoolmaster had £74 a year and 30s. for doing some small work on Sundays. The schoolmistress was receiving £45 and £5 for playing the organ. The clergyman wrote saying that if; thy schoolmaster would undertake to do the work he was now doing, for nothing, he would return his salary at £75 10s and he added that the schoolmistress had already agreed that her salary should be returned at £50, and consented to play the organ in future for nothing. Was that the sort of thing to improve the standard of morality in the villages of England, which were supposed to be the care of the clergy? He did not believe they could match such an instance from among any other sect. He did not believe they would ever find a Nonconformist or a Catholic who would make such a proposal as that. He was glad to know it was an isolated case, but when they were told there was no patronage behind this question he pointed to instances such as this as showing the temper of mind and the trickery to which the clergy would descend to save themselves a few shillings. Hon. Gentlemen made the mistake that the Borough Councils in the provinces were the same as the Borough Councils in London.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Is this relevant to this Amendment? I cannot see it.
  MR. CORRIE GRANTsaid he was answering an argument.
  THE CHAIRMAN: If hon. Members insist on answering every irrelevant observation in the speeches of other hon.
  Members it will be impossible to be ever relevant.
  MR. CORRIE GRANTsaid he would do his utmost to support the authority of the Chair; and, therefore, he would not say another word on the irrelevant portion of the hon. Gentleman's speech. With reference to the speech of the hon. Member for Galway he hoped the hon. Member was not going to draw any conclusions from what he heard in Hyde Park on Sunday afternoons. Hyde Park was on Sunday afternoons the blow-hole of English politics. Catholics, Anglicans, the Government, the Opposition, and every constituted authority were condemned on Sunday afternoons; and he hoped the hon. Gentleman would not put any gloss on the Amendment from what he happened to hear in Hyde Park. He thought the hon. Gentleman had misunderstood the Amendment. The hon. Gentleman thought that the Amendment would deprive the Catholics of this country of something they now possessed, but that was an entire I mistake. It proposed simply that the question should be postponed. It did not take from Catholics anything they had. He entirety agreed with what had been said by his hon. friend the Member for North Camberwell; and in supporting the Amendment he was prepared to vote for a grant which would bring the denominational schools of London up to the level of the denominational schools in the country, while a settlement, which they believed they would get, would be worked out if the Government would only take the advice of the sensible section of their supporters.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 235; Noes, 117. (Division List No. 89.)

  AYES.

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

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Arrol, Sir William

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Allhusen, Aug. Henry Eden

  Atkinson, Right Hon. John

  Balcarres, Lord

  Ambrose, Robert

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H.

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

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Austin, Sir John

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

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

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

  Percy, Earl

  Bartley, Sir George C. T.

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashfd

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick G.

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Bignold, Arthur

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Purvis, Robert

  Boland, John

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

  Rattigan, Sir William Henry

  Bond, Edward

  Helder, Augustus

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Bowles, Col. H. F. (Middlesex

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Ridley, S. F. (Bethnal Green)

  Bowles, T. G. (Lynn Regis)

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

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Brown, Sir Alx. H. (Shropsh.)

  Hoult, Joseph

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Howard, John (Kent, Faversh'm

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Bull, William James

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Hutton, John (Yorks., N. R.)

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

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

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Cavendish, V C W (Derbysh.)

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm

  Johnstone, Heywood

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

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

  Joyce, Michael

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Kenyon, Hon. G. T. (Denbigh

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Charrington, Spencer

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Kimber, Henry

  Seely, Chas. Hilton (Lincoln)

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

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Coddington, Sir William

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks. N R

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Cox, Irwin Edwd. Bainbridge

  Leamy, Edmund

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Cranborne, Lord

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

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

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

  Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Spear, John Ward

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick, N. S.

  Stanley, E. Jas. (Somerset)

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Cullinan, J.

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart

  Cust, Henry John C.

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir Jn. M.

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

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

  Stroyan, John

  Denny, Colonel

  Lowe, Francis William

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Lundon, W.

  Sullivan, Donal

  Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir J. E.

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Maconochie, A. W.

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

  Doxford, Sir Wm. Theodore

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Duffy, William J.

  M'Killop, Jas. (Stirlingshire)

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Malcolm, Ian

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. E. M.

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Maple, Sir John Blundell

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Ed.

  Maxwell, Rt. HnSir H E. (Wigt'n

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

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

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Valentia, Viscount

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Walrond, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. H.

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

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

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

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

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. J. Lloyd

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  Morgan, David J (Walthamstow

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

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Flower, Ernest

  Mount, William Arthur

  Williams, Rt HnJ Powell (Birm.

  Forster, Henry William

  Mowbray, Sir Robt. Gray C.

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Fyler, John Arthur

  Murphy, John

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Murray, Rt. Hn A Graham (Bute

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Garfit, William

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

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

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath

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

  Gibbs, Hn. Vicary (St. Albans

  Myers, William Henry

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

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

  Newdegate, Francis A. N.

  Wolff Gustav Wilhelm

  Gordon, Hon. J. E. (Elain & Nrn.

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart

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

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

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

  O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

  Wvlie, Alexander

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Goschen, Hon. Geo. Joachim

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

  Younger, William

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Graham, Henry Robert

  O'Dowd, John

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Gunter, Sir Robert

  O'Malley, William

  Sir Alexander Acland-

  Hain, Edward

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Penn, John

  NOES.

  Allan, Sir William (Gateshead

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tyd

  Price, Robert John

  Allan Charles P. (Glouc. Stroud

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

  Priestley, Arthur

  Asher, Alexander

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  Rea, Russell

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Reckitt, Harold James

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristl, E.

  Rigg, Richard

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Bell Richard

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Black, Alexander William

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Rose, Charles Day

  Brigg, John

  Joicey, Sir James

  Runciman, Walter

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Jones, David B. (Swansea)

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Bryce, Right Hon. James

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

  Shaw, Charles E. (Stafford)

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Burt, Thomas

  Kitson, Sir James

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Caldwell, James

  Labouchere, Henry

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Cameron, Robert

  Lambert, George

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark

  Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington)

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Cremer, William Randal

  Leng, Sir John

  Tennant, Harold John

  Crombie, John William

  Levy, Maurice

  Thomas, A. (Carmarthen, E.)

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings

  Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan

  M'Laren, Sir Charles Benj.

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

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-shire

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Tomkinson, James

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Mappin, Sir Fredk. Thorpe

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Mellor, Rt. Hn. John William

  Wallace, Robert

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Middlemore, Jn. Throgmorton

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay, T.

  Edwards, Frank

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

  Elibank, Master of

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Emmott, Alfred

  Morley, Rt. Hn. John (Montrose)

  Whiteley, George (York, W. R.

  Evans, Sir F. H. (Maidstone)

  Newnes, Sir George

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Foster, Sir Michl. (Land. Univ

  Palmer, Sir C. M. (Durham)

  Wilson, F. W. (Norfolk, Mid)

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Partington, Oswald

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Paulton, James Mellor

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Mr. Herbert Gladstone and

  Grant, Corrie

  Perks, Robert William

  Mr. William M'Arthur.

  Grey, Rt. Hn. Sir E. (Berwick

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Question proposed, "That Clause 1, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  DR. MACNAMARAsaid that this clause was the heart and essence of the Bill, and in the three-and-a-half lines of which it was composed the Government practically disposed of the whole educational problem of London. As a London Member he vehemently protested against such a course of procedure. London was entitled to a self-contained Bill, setting up the London authority and dealing with London finance, instead of being fobbed off by a reference to last year's Act. He had never heard a more unjustifiable contention than that the question of London was settled by the 1902 Act. By Clause 27 of that statute it was enacted that the Act should not apply to London except as expressly provided, and the express provision was
  1130
  for carrying on the Cockertonised schools for twelve months. Lord Balfour of Burleigh had practically promised a Bill for Scotland next year. The Scotch education system was not bigger or more important than that of London, but would the Government venture to deal with it by a three-and-a-half-line reference to the Act of 1902? If not, why not? And if not for Scotland, why for London, whose system was quite as special and peculiar? Of this he was certain — that although the ad hoc principle was killed in England, the Scotch people would insist on it being kept alive in Scotland. The Government were trading on London's apathy. Londoners were apathetic, indifferent, and unconcerned in these matters, and they got the government they deserved. But apathetic and indifferent though they were, he honestly believed

  1131
  that at the next General Election they would make short work of many of the Members who were treating the education problem in this contumelious way. According to the Secretary to the Board of Education, the objection to an ad hoc authority was its extravagance, but under this proposal that extravagance would be multiplied twenty-nine times. The Bill was financially disastrous, municipally irresponsible, educationally deplorable, and administratively unworkable, and it had only to be put on the Statute-book to necessitate its repeal at the earliest possible date. He had no objection to the County Council being the authority, provided its membership was increased to enable it to do the work. That increase could not be effected now, but it would have to be done at an early date. In the debate on the previous evening the President of the Local Government Board had stated that not only Moderate but Progressive members of the London County Council had told him the Council could do this work without any increase of membership if they reduced the size of their Committees. It appeared, therefore, that, in framing their scheme, the Government entered into pourparlers with the Progressive members of the Council.
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid the question of increased membership was not directly raised, but the assurance was that the Council could do the work, subject to decreasing the size of the Committees.
  DR. MACNAMARAsaid there must have been some measure of duplicity and intrigue on the part of certain Progressive members of the London County Council, because they must have known that that was not the view of their authority at all, for the London County Council as a whole had resolved that they could not do this educational work.
  MR. WALTER LONG: The hon. Member has made a rather startling charge, but perhaps he will allow me to say that the Progressive members of the Council I refer to spoke for themselves, and did not pretend to represent the
  1132
  London County Council as a whole. They admitted that there were different views held by members of the Council, and they stated that many of them did not share their view, and in fact were in favour of an ad hoc authority.
  DR. MACNAMARAsaid that the Progressive members of the London County Council to a man had voted that the County Council could not take on this educational work, and therefore the Government had obviously been misled by Progressive members of the London County Council. This was a very important matter, because the members of the Council referred to, on their own responsibility, went behind the back of their authority, and told the right hon. Gentleman that the County Council could do this work by merely reducing the size of their Committees. If he were a member of the London County Council he should press this matter to the bitter end. Of course he could not ask for the names. [An HON. MEMBER: You can guess them.] He should like to know who were the Progressive members who voted at the Council meeting in favour of a Resolution that this work could not be done, and who afterwards came and told the Government that it could be done. The County Council could not possibly do this work without increased membership. They were now drifting into rather a serious position. The County Council and the Borough Councils were represented on the Central Committee for London, and the Borough Councils were to have certain function locally. The general opinion expressed yesterday was that it would be desirable to strike the borough councillors off the Central Committee. (MINISTERIAL cries of "No.") At any rate there appeared to him to be a growing opinion in favour of striking the borough councillors off the Central Committee.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I think it would be better to reserve the constitution of the Committee until the next Clause.
  DR. MACNAMARAsaid if they pursued the general trend of the opinion expressed in Committee it was in favour of taking the borough councils off the Central Committee. In that case there

  1133
  would be a tendency not to reduce the powers proposed to be given to the Borough Councils locally. He thought they had too much power locally already, and he would rather have thirty-one borough councillors instead of twelve, than increase the power to be given in each locality. This clause did not deal with the London problem fairly, for it dealt with the Metropolis in about three and it half lines. It was because he thought that the scheme of last year was entirely inapplicable to London, and because he thought this measure was bound to be followed by disaster educationally, and wastefulness in regard to finance, that he felt compelled to move the rejection of this Clause.
  MR. YOXALLsaid he agreed with what his hon. friend had said in regard to wishing that this clause should not be added to the Bill. This clause proposed to apply the Education Act of 1902 to the County and City of London. An Education Act which was applicable to England and Wales was not necessarily suitable to the Metropolis. The measure of last year dealt with various kinds of areas in the provinces, and when it was passed the Government, by exempting London, were of opinion that last year's Act was not a measure which could be fairly applied to the metropolitan area. Now what did they find? They were now to pursue the evil practice of legislating by reference and quotation. If they had had any experience of the Act of 1902 there might be something said in favour of applying it to London. It was true that in the majority of provincial areas the authorities had taken up their duties with something like avidity. A great number of schemes had been brought before the Board of Education, but they had not yet begun to work and no appreciable proportion of those authorities had begun their work; consequently, they had no experience of the working of that Act either before Parliament or the country. It was too soon to suggest that that Act was going to work well, and that it should be applied to London. Many of the details of that Act might prove, after experience, to be quite inapplicable to the metropolitan area. The
  1134
  London education problem was a separate and peculiar one, and it was entirely different to the problem of the areas dealt with in the Act of 1902. As a whole the London area was well provided with Board schools. Therefore the difficulty in this respect of the Act of 1902 did not apply in the same degree to the London area. The Act of last year did not provide the best possible procedure for London. A better course for the Government to pursue would have been not to extend to it the Act of 1902, but to bring in a Bill dealing, from the first to the last clause, with the London area alone.
  The position of London was peculiar and special, and surely the Metropolis was important enough to be dealt with entirely by itself. The Bill was couched in a form to avoid debate, to shirk the real question, and to avoid the great issue, and on that ground he certainly opposed the clause. He also opposed it on the ground of the treatment which the clause had received in Committee, and on the First and Second Reading debates from the Government. Hon. Members on the Opposition side had moved Amendments for the purpose of convincing the Government of the validity and necessity of their criticism. Their criticism had been echoed from the other side of the House by hon. Members representing London constituencies. They had again and again asked that the Act of 1902 should not be applied to London until they knew in what particular respects it should be modified, and until they were assured that the Education Committee for London would be constituted in such a manner as would give some prospect of success. They had been met with a desire on the part of the Government to hasten furiously, and to legislate in a hurry. He protested against so great a problem as the education of London being dealt with in that way. It was a problem which demanded full consideration on educational rather than party or theological grounds, or with reference to the squabbles between the London County Councils and the Borough Councils. It must have been obvious to the Committee right through the discussion, as it had been to him, that the question in the mind of the Government was not

  1135
  what was best to be done in regard to this great problem of London education, but how they could best reconcile the views of this and that set of their supporters, how they could bargain with the Bishops, how they could baffle the ambitious aspirations of the London County Council, and how they could make it impossible to have a directly elected education authority for London. He condemned and repudiated the way in which this clause had been proposed. No opponent of the Government could say that the Prime Minister and the Secretary to the Board of Education did not approach the great problems dealt with in the Bill of last year with due deliberation and a grave sense of the issues involved. He asked the Committee to contrast their attitude last year with their attitude now. This subject was being dealt with by the Government without due consideration, with haste, and with levity, and for that reason he heartily supported the Motion for the rejection of the clause. He hoped that even at the last moment the Government would relent and consent to the adjournment of the clause to enable the Committee to consider the important Clauses 2 and 3.
  MR. TRITTON: said he was not in full sympathy with the Education Act of 1902, and he had occasion, to his regret, not infrequently to separate himself from those with whom he was usually associated, and he must confess that he was not desirous of seeing that Act extended to London. He did not quite know who was. He had difficulty in finding a genuine friend of this Bill. It had been condemned by the Press; it had been condemned in this House, and right and left by the man in the street. He could not see that it would in any way be an advantage to London to have the Bill extended to it, and, for his own part, he would very much rather that they would go on as they were. They were getting on very happily in London, and their children were having a most excellent education accorded to them. Personally, he did not believe any better education could have been given to the children of this great Metropolis than had been given by the London Board schools during the last thirty years.
  1136
  It was perfectly true that voluntary I schools were in many places in very great difficulty for want of funds, and that, no doubt, was a good reason for doing something. But in this age in which we lived there was a movement—a growing movement — which must command the respect of all thoughtful Londoners — a movement for linking together rich parishes and poor parishes; and he could not help thinking that our National Church ought to be able to support our national schools and that the scheme of linking rich parishes with poor parishes might be carried out to a very much greater extent, so that those voluntary schools, which were short of funds and unable to carry on their good work of education might be assisted by those wealthier parishes, and be able to get on without rate aid of any kind whatever. They were getting on very happily in London, and then this Bill came in and brought an end to their tranquillity and their peace.
  He was opposed to the Bill, and he would give two reasons why he did not wish to see it applied to London. He did not believe it would give the children of London a more efficient education than they had at present, for if its modifications—they did not know what they were to be—were going to consist in putting the education of the children into the hands of a body whose very form was suggestive of confusion and conflict, then he could not for the life of him see where greater efficiency in education was to come from under the Bill. He would rather see a fresh body, elected ad hoc, on different lines, perhaps, from the present Board, than vote for the Second Reading of a clause which would relegate this most important subject — he believed there was no more important subject for the citizens of London to consider—into the hands of an overworked and unwilling body. His second reason was that he believed that if the Act of last year were applied to London, it would be a very fruitful source of religious animosity and sectarian bitterness. If there was one thing in the world that, personally, he hated, it was a religious fight. For many years they had been drawing

  1137
  closer together instead of going further apart, and there had been a spirit of mutual appreciation and fraternal feeling among all branches of the Christian Church in London. London was not an ordinary city. It might be called the headquarters of Christianity; it was the headquarters of those religious societies which were carrying their blessed influence all over the world, and which were an honour to the British Empire. It was sad to think that this period of peace and tranquillity, which had been enjoyed so long, was to be rudely disturbed and broken up by the passing of an Act which must introduce, more or less, sectarian rancour and denominational differences. For his part he would rather that they went on not seeking to find out where they differed, but seeking to find out where they agreed. This Act would mean that many estrangements would take place; that many a cold attitude would be taken up, and that many friends, who had been living for years and working together for the common good would be driven into opposing camps. It was because he did not think this Act would tend to the efficient education of the children of London, and because it would tend to the accentuation of their unfortunate differences, that he felt bound, with very great regret indeed, to separate himself from those with whom he usually acted, and to vote against the clause.
  MR. ALFRED HUTTONsaid that when a short time ago the President of the Local Government Board expressed the desire that more Loudon Members should speak, he had not long to wait in having his desire gratified. The hon. Gentleman who had just sat down represented a London constituency, knew very intimately the common opinion which was held by the citizens of London in numerous parts of the City, and he had made a speech in which he struck the key-note of the real purpose of the clause the Committee was now discussing. There could not be a member of the Committee who believed that they would have spent five minutes in discussing the Bill, or that the Government would have wasted any time in its preparation, had it not been the determination of the Government to put the Church of England schools on the
  1138
  rates of this city. That was the main and only object of the Bill; and in doing that two great principles had been destroyed which ought to be cherished in regard to education. The one was public control and the other was religious equality. The hon. Baronet who represented the Education Department said that he was not sure that there would be any religious feeling or religious controversy. Perhaps the hon. Baronet, if he would not believe the statements of hon. Members on that side of the House as to the probability of religious conflict, would believe the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken, not as a Nonconformist but as an Anglican, and from a knowledge of the working of the voluntary schools, when he offered his testimony as to the certainty of the growing feeling of religious controversy in regard to the measure which the Government was forcing down their throats. If the Government would persist in their wilful blindness and would never take any notice of the warnings Members on that side of the House gave them, if the Government continued to offer suggestions that these warnings or threats, if they liked to call them so, came from men who were of no principle, of no high character, who had no sound logic, no sound morality, and no sound constitutional principles—that meant that no one who ventured to oppose this Bill would ever listen to the First Lord of the Treasury when he taught them anything about sound morality, sound logic, or sound constitutional doctrines. He did not suppose there was any man in the House who was a more extraordinary opportunist than the Prime Minister of this country, and for a man who was in that unchallengeable position to lecture them on political and public morality and constitutional doctrines, was an attitude to take up in this House most astonishing and most regrettable. He had said that it was absolutely necessary to preserve public control. That was why they stood by the principle of the School Board. That was the only security against all the grievances and injustices of which they complained. There was the other principle—that of religious equality. He maintained that the introduction of religious tests, and the strengthening of them in the

  1139
  schools up and down the country and in this city, was deplorable. Here was an advertisement which appeared in the Schoolmaster newspaper of May 2nd:—"Wanted mistress, trained or certificated"—if she was trained or certificated it was at the public expense—"must be confirmed and a communicant. Average forty."—he supposed that meant the average attendance—"Superintendence of the Sunday School on alternate Sundays, and every Sunday must keep order among the children in the Church." But the most extraordinary statement in the advertisement was—"The salary to be arranged in consultation with the county authorities." They were now asked to advance that principle of calling on the county authorities to further the imposition of religious tests in the schools of the country and of London. He insisted that it was intolerable the Government should have brought them face to face with such a state of things when they were only anxious for a peaceful and efficient scheme of education in the schools of the country.
  CAPTAIN JESSELsaid he would not follow the hon. Member who had just sat down in regard to the religious character of this question. In common with many hon. Members on that side of the House he had been in favour of the Bill of last year because they believed that it would be for the advantage of the education of the country, and because they thought it afforded greatly needed financial assistance to the voluntary schools. He was surprised at the attitude taken up by the hon. Member for Nottingham, for many on that side of the House thought that the matter would have been much more easily dealt with if London had been included in the Bill of last year. That, however, was not his own opinion, because he believed that the special conditions of London required different treatment from the rest of the country. Though the Bill was a short one it had been now for some time before the House; and, after all, what was the House called upon to decide? In the first place, whether the School Board of London should continue to exist, and in the second place, if not, what was the
  1140
  best authority to take its place. He denied that the Bill was being rushed through and not duly considered. He reminded the Committee that all during the autumn the Government had been carefully considering the Bill; the London County Council, the Borough Councils, and the School Board had been working out all sorts of schemes connected with London education. Any hon. Member who represented a London constituency must be well aware of the numerous letters and resolutions which he had received from experts and others dealing with this subject. As to the remarks of the hon. Member for Camberwell, he thought the Committee would agree with him that that hon. Gentleman had died gallantly in the last ditch on behalf of the School Board. He had made a splendid case for it and had shown the good work it had done; but at the same time the hon. Gentleman should recognise, what many of them did recognise, that further progress had got to be made, and that education had to be co-ordinated in London on similar lines as in the rest of the country. He could not agree with the hon. Member when he said that the London County Council would find it impossible to do the work. Two hon. Members of the London County Council in the House had declared that with its present members it was quite capable of undertaking this work. He most respectfully urged that if the London County Council took the advice that had been given to it of reducing the size of its Committees; if it would give to the Borough Councils a good deal of the details of administrative work, as might easily be done, there would be no difficulty in the London County Council being the educational authority for London. As the President of the Local Government Board had shown, the London County Council last session was most anxious to undertake the water supply of London, and did not then complain of overwork; but when the Unionist Government asked them to take over education they were unwilling to do so. Surely they must think that there was something behind the Government, some ulterior motive to overload them and break down the machine. He could not conceive anything of the sort. He thought the

  1141
  Government had given them the work of education simply because it was the rating body, and the only body which could do the work properly.
  The hon. Member for Nottingham objected to this clause being passed until he had seen the modifications to be proposed later on in the Bill. To his mind, once the educational authority was settled, the rest was detail, and it would have been impossible to settle on detail before deciding on the principle. No doubt some parts of the Bill were the result of compromise; but the London education question was so complicated that it was absolutely necessary that some sort of compromise should be come to. Therefore, he thought the modified proposals, as they now stood, were the best that could have been made to meet a very difficult situation. Country Members, he knew, felt somewhat differently, and argued that the county authority alone should be the education authority. They did not seem to recognise that there were other bodies in London desirous of taking their fair share of the work and of doing their duty in the municipal life of London. He thought that there was a very unfair prejudice in some quarters of the House against the members of the Borough Councils. Knowing the County Councils and the Borough Councils, he could not see any great difference between them and their work. He hoped the Government would continue with their Bill as they had now put it down on the Paper. He was in favour of the original proposal, but he recognised the importance of the principle that the municipal government should have a majority on the Committee.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid that would come on in the next clause.
  CAPTAIN JESSELsaid he thought, taking all the difficulties into consideration, the Government scheme was the best.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid the whole Committee listened with considerable sympathy to the hon. Member for Norwood. It was a pity the hon. Member had not spoken earlier; if he had, the Committee
  1142
  would have listened to him with even greater sympathy. On the Second Reading of the Bill some of them had ventured to say that one of the reasons why the religious question was so much less acute in London was the wise action taken by the London School Board. If the non-provided schools were to be placed under a local authority, he did not believe any authority would deal with them in a more delicate and tactful way than the London School Board would if left in existence. What they felt now was that this matter, instead of being left in the hands of one authority which could deal with it, would now be left to a municipal body and would get mixed up with municipal affairs, and that the religious difficulty would become more pronounced. He associated him self with what had been said as to the drafting of this clause, which was a clause by reference. That had made it almost impossible to deal with the matter as a whole, or in the way in which such an important question should be deal with. And the matter had been made still more difficult owing to the ignorance of the Committee with regard to the views of Government on this matter. The hon. Member for Norwood had said that both the Government and the local authorities had had an opportunity of considering this Bill since last autumn. The local authorities had certainly not had such an opportunity, because the Bill had only been recently introduced; but if the Government had, they might throw some light upon the various Amendments put down by the Government from time to time. The hon. Gentleman who represented the Board of Education first of all said the number of the representatives of Borough Councils he had included in the Committee was the lowest he could possibly include, but now they had almost disappeared.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid that that argument was relevant to Clause 2, but not to Clause 1.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid the Committee was put in a very difficult position in regard to this matter. The original idea was to treat London separately, now they were told that this Bill

  1143
  was to carry out the Act of last year; to apply it to London and not to treat London exceptionally, and that therefore it could be included in one clause. It was too late to allude to the alternative, the ad hoc authority, but he would like to refer to one matter which had been referred to by the hon. Member who had just sat down, and that was the question of how far the London County Council could undertake this work and why the London County Council, which had been so anxious to undertake the water question, should have declined to have this duty passed upon them. One would have thought the hon. Member would have appreciated the difference between dealing with municipal and non-municipal work. There was another thing—the difference between the amount of work entailed in dealing with the water question and with the education question was enormous. He believed the County Council would be able to deal with this matter if it was placed upon them in the proper way, though it might cripple them in some of their other work. The only way in which this Bill could be worked by the London County Council was by their being absolute masters in their own house and having a free hand to deal with the entire thing. They could only carry out a system of devolution and decentralisation in that way. It must be done by themselves, and there must be no conflicting statutory right with any other body. The London County Council must have complete control, and so far as any devolution was concerned it must come from themselves. As the Bill stood, the London County Council would be in a greatly inferior position to the position of the County Councils under the Act of last year. The London County Council would not be the supreme authority, and he could not help thinking that the checks of the Bill which placed difficulties in their way of attaining supreme control were dictated by jealousy or dislike of the London County Council. He would vote against the Clause on the ground that it was rather a large order for the Government to deal with the whole question of elementary education in London in one clause and by reference.
  SIR J. BLUNDELL MAPLEsaid that those who talked
  1144
  about religious controversies being raised in London by the abolition of the School Board seemed to have forgotten the object of the Education Act of last year. That Act had been passed because it was necessary that something should be done for the voluntary schools. If they had not kept the voluntary schools going the School Board rate in London would in all probability have risen to 2s. 6d. in the £, and it was the same throughout the length and breadth of the land. He could not understand why the hon. Member for Norwood should suggest the keeping of the old School Board unless he was prepared to have brought in an Amendment substituting the School Board for the London County Council. The measure which had been brought in by the Government was a good measure, from the very fact that they not only had the members of the London County Council but had also twenty-five experts put upon the Education Committee. He thought when the Act was passed everybody in London would be delighted with it. The denominational schools were suffering from, and had been affected very greatly by, the better education given in the Board schools, and the principal object of this Bill was to maintain the denominational schools and what were now called the Board schools at the same high level. The Bill had been well thought out, and it had been decided that they were not to have the old London School Board, and if that was so, and if they could not place the management of education in the hands of the London School Board, the only authority and the right authority to take it was the London County Council.
  MR. OSMOND WILLIAMSopposed the clause because he considered that the destruction of the London School Board would be one of the worst outrages that a Government could commit. When they thought of the immense deal of work which the London School Board had accomplished, of the difficult problems with which they had to deal, and of the subtle spirit of opposition with which it had to contend, he maintained that its record was an honour to the public spirit of this great city, and a monumental triumph of honest public work. It had been condemned for its virtues, but thank goodness it had not been executed. He

  1145
  was perfectly certain that the Opposition, and Members on the other side of the House also, would not see the outrage perpetrated in the provinces, inflicted on this great city without a struggle.
  SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid the heartiest expression of disapproval of this clause had come from the hon. Member for Camberwell. He thought he might summarise the language of condemnation used by the hon. Member by saying that the Bill, in the opinion of hon. Gentlemen opposite, was like Dr. Johnson's leg of mutton—ill-fed, ill-killed, ill-cooked, and ill-dished up. And yet the hon. Member's main complaint was as to the shortness of the clause; but when it was stated that they had put so much into one clause, it was forgotten that that clause embodied the result of a very long and careful discussion during the spring, summer, and autumn of last year. They had framed a scheme and enunciated principles which they believed were applicable to London. That being so, what was the object of setting them forth again verbatim et literatim, when they had them in the Act of 1902? Various motives had been alleged as having animated the framers of the Bill, and something was said about bargains with Bishops. He had had something to do with the framing of the Bill, and he had had nothing to do with any bargain with Bishops or a suggestion of a bargain with Bishops. As to the allegation that the framers of the Bill wished to baffle the London County Council, his great desire had been to make the County Council the supreme authority; and so far from the Borough Councils being introduced to baffle the Council, or to set up an opposition to it on its own Education Committee, his hope was that the association of these great local authorities with one another in the work of education would result in nothing but goodwill. When it was said that the Government had created discord where hitherto peace had prevailed, that discord was reigning throughout the country and would reign in London, he could only reply that prophecies of that sort were apt, to some extent, to bring about their own fulfilment. He had had something to do with the action of local authorities in the matter of bringing into operation the Education
  1146
  Act. He had seen the schemes of nearly all the local authorities, he had had to scrutinise them carefully to see that the conditions of the Act were carried into effect, and that the educational and other interests within the area were all satisfied; and what had struck him throughout had been the honest intention of the local authorities to deal justly with all the interests with which they were brought into contact within their area. The House spent a great part of last year in developing educational principles which it was thought were applicable to London. Having embodied the principles in the clause the question to consider was, what was to be the authority and what were the modifications necessary. The Government hoped that, having put the principles in the clause, and having assigned the County Council as the authority for London, they would be allowed to proceed to deal with the provisions and the modifications which might be necessary to adapt the general principles of last year to London. It was said that the County Council was disinclined to undertake this great work, and that it was idle to pass the clause, because the Bill would never work. All he could say was that, if, the Committee being constituted, the County Council should refuse to undertake the work, the County Council would neglect the greatest opportunity in the educational field that had ever fallen to the lot of any municipality in any country in the world.
  MR. M'KENNAsaid the hon. Baronet had not been so candid as the hon. Member for Dulwich, who had openly declared, and it had not been denied, that the purpose of the Bill was to bolster up the voluntary schools with public money from the moment of its introduction. That had been declared by the Opposition to be the purpose of the Bill, and the speech of the hon. Member ought to be learnt by heart by hon. Members opposite and explained by them to their constituents. The Government had a peculiar knack of calling things by wrong names. It had taken the Prime Minister a year to learn that the duty on corn was a bread tax, and doubtless a year hence, when this Bill had proved

  1147
  an absolute fiasco, the country would be told that inasmuch as it was a violation of two important principles which a great party in the State could not agree to see violated, therefore the Act must be repealed. The Opposition would make no compromise on this point. They would not consent to see the principles of public control of public expenditure, and the abolition of religious tests violated by any Act of Parliament, and so long as this Bill violated those principles they would resist it by every means in their power. There had been no religious controversy of late years, but the Party opposite were now arousing it; the rate-war would be extended to London, and there would be chaos instead of order in London's educational system. The Committee were asked to accept a principle when the machinery by which that principle was to be carried into effect was undoubtedly not yet on the Notice Paper. After the debate of yesterday the Government could not adhere to their existing proposals. This clause was exactly the same as the preamble of a private Bill, before the acceptance of which the details of the Bill were always considered. He, therefore, appealed to the Committee not to tie their hands at the present stage but to reject the clause, and preserve to the last moment educational peace in London.
  MR. HUGH SMITHsaid so many references had been made to the Act of 1902, that it might interest the Committee to know how that Act had worked in the county a portion of which he had the honour to represent. Last year they had this religious conflict in the county. Meetings were held in the constituencies, and supporters of the Bill were challenged to meet the Free Church Council to discuss the matter. He accepted the challenge, and at the close of the debate the Council had the candour to admit that he had put before them arguments which they had not previously heard, and that there was much to be said from his point of view. The only result of the Act in that district was that the School Board had been decently buried and its place taken by the Education
  1148
  Committee, and the rate which last year was 2s. 3d., would this year be 1s. 3d. in the £. After all their declarations of last year, he had not heard that any of the members of the Free Church Council were desirous of going to prison rather than pay a rate a shilling less in the £. He supported the present Bill because of the advantage it would be to the education of the children. Under the existing system it was absolutely impossible to co-ordinate elementary and secondary education, but when both systems were under one body, they would be able to pass children from the Board to the secondary schools, and thus the education would proceed stage by stage. At one time he would have preferred to see the School Board have the control of both primary and secondary education, but, as that could not be adopted all over the country, he was perfectly content to leave it in the hands of the County Council, and he hoped the Government, after giving the Council a majority on the Committee, would stand fast to that portion of the Bill.
  MR. GEORGE WHITELEYsaid the Committee had listened to a remarkable and momentous speech from the hon. Member for Norwood, and one which the Government could not ignore. If other hon. Members on that side of the House would equally freely unburden their minds, there would be little necessity for the constitutional Opposition to exert themselves. He did not agree that this was a debate in which only London Members had a right to take part. As a London ratepayer, he had the good government of the Metropolis deeply at heart, and because he believed this Bill to be a retrograde measure he raised his voice in opposition to it. By passing Clause 1 the Committee would be taking a very serious step. This was the one great operative clause in the Bill, in fact it was the mainspring of the whole measure. Once they passed this clause, rightly or wrongly, they were committed to the principle. After the adoption of this clause they might say good-bye to the ad hoc authority. He was very much struck with some of the speeches made by hon. Gentlemen opposite, but he was more struck with the reply of the President of the Local Government Board. The debate upon

  1149
  this question was opened by a closely-reasoned speech from the hon. Member for North Camberwell, but the right hon. Gentleman did not debate the question then before the House, although he threw on their heads the contention that in a previous debate they had decided not to give London the control of its own water. The control of the water undertaking of a town was something germane to municipal government, but until the fatal step was taken in the Bill of last year it had never been contended that the educational control of a borough or a city should be the work of a municipality. In London, education was a matter so colossal and grave as to almost exceed in importance all the work of the London County Council. The only palliative suggested to this scheme was that in all probability the Government would have to increase the number of the London County Council. Unless that increase was made, they were really placing upon the County Council a greater burden than it could possibly bear. To increase the membership of the London County Council would practically mean that they would be driven to the adoption of an ad hoc authority in a different fashion.
  The Government were simply forcing down their throats a scheme to which they strongly objected. The School Board for London did not ask permission to commit suicide, and the London County Council had put on record its wish that these new powers should not be committed to it. There was no public demand on the part of the electors generally for this change. The Government was forcing upon London a new educational system which the people did not desire, and if there happened to be a single redeeming feature in the Bill, he would gladly have supported the measure. Had the School Board for London so ill-managed the extensive work of education that they were going to requite it by abolishing them? The work of the School Board for London had been the marvel of the whole educational world. In the face of that fact, and because there was no popular demand for this change, the Committee would do very wrong by adopting it. As the hon. Member for Norwood had said, the present state of peace and tranquillity in education in London would be upset by this clause, and work which had hitherto been carried on satisfactorily would be performed
  1150
  indifferently, and the last state of educational matters in London would be worse than the first. Why was it desirable to make this great change at the present juncture? Why did the Government not let a few years pass over in order to find out whether education under the new Act was being carried on better than it was before. Until they had that experience, he thought the Government would be ill-advised in pressing this measure through the House, and he should never record a vote with more sincere pleasure than in voting against this Motion.
  MR. TREVELYANsaid the hon. Member for Tyneside had just stated that he was sanguine in regard to the popularity of this Bill in Northumberland, and he stated that the School Board in his division had been decently buried. So had the publicity of debate there. In that county the County Council, under aristocratic influence, closed its doors to the public and the Press, and unless they possessed another Dr. Johnson to report the debates they would not know anything about the eloquence of the Duke of Northumberland. The hon. Member spoke of a deputation of Nonconformists who were friendly to his view, but he had been told that some of those Nonconformists had already decided not to pay the rate. He then went on to say that the Education Rate had already been reduced from 2s 3d. in the £ to 1s. 3d. That might be so in some parts of his constituency, but they would have to increase the rate in other parts of Northumberland in order to pay for the voluntary schools. Two hon. Members representing London had spoken. The hon. Member for South St. Pancras said this matter was debated last year on the principle of the Bill, but he wished to remind the Committee that hardly a single Member for London took any part in the debates at all. The hon. Baronet the Member for Dulwich said the voluntary schools had been kept going simply for the sake of cheapness. He wondered whether the ratepayers would believe that statement now. Owing to the Port of London Bill and the Water Bill and the London Government Bill the rates of London were going up by leaps and bounds. [An HON. MEMBER: It is due to the London County Council and the School Board.] The shares of the London Water Companies were shooting up to an

  1151
  enormous premium. [Cries of "Question."] That was the question, because they were still going to add a further increase of rates by this clause. They now had the Borough Councils revelling in their new-fledged grandeur. Who were responsible for most of the increase in the rates? Why the Borough Councils. [Cries of "No."] The rates in the different metropolitan districts had gone up on an average 5d. in the £, and this was almost entirely due to the Borough Councils, who were to be given most of the powers under this Bill. By this clause they were adding another 3d. or 4d. to the rates of London at a time when Londoners could hardly bear it. He noticed that the City Council of Westminster was petitioning in favour of a clause to limit the Education Rate. The City of Westminster was ready to put up the rates for other municipal purposes, but it desired to have the Education Rate limited. Why did the City of Westminster not petition Parliament against putting the voluntary schools upon the rates? Hon. Members sitting on the Opposition side of the House were not opposed to a wise increase of the rates for educational purposes if it was accompanied by public control. This immense increase of the rates was not accompanied by any of that adequate public control which practically all the citizens of England wanted, and which the citizens of London well knew they were being deprived of, simply owing to a clerical conspiracy.
  MR. WHITLEYsaid the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education had told the Committee that this clause only contained principles which had been discussed during the spring, summer, and autumn of last year. On this side of the House they believed that those principles were bad, and they fought against them during the whole of last Parliamentary session. They would continue to fight against them in the country until they got them wiped out of the Statute-book. But there was one thing which the hon. Baronet did not tell the House, namely, that this clause, which he was pressing them to allow to be passed, included one third of the Bill of last year which was passed through Committee by means of the closure and which had never been discussed. By the
  1152
  ingenuity of the Government draftsman they had been precluded this year from discussing that third part of the Bill. The hon. Baronet had boasted that this Bill contained no bargain with the Bishops. There were many good reasons for that. In the first place the Government, he imagined, had had enough of bargains last year when they remembered what took place in the House of Lords, He would remind the Secretary to the Board of Education that this Bill contained not only the original bargain with the Bishops of last year, but also what was known in the country as the Bishops' trick, which was introduced at the last moment. The hon. Baronet would remember also that the late President of the Board of Education stated publicly a short time ago that if the Government had consulted the country after the passing of last year's Bill they would undoubtedly have met with defeat. The Duke of Devonshire acknowledged in so many words, speaking in the last recess, that the country was not in favour of the Bill of last year. Yet the Government proceeded to take further advantage of their majority, and, in a manner which precluded discussion in this House, proposed to apply to London principles which the Duke of Devonshire stated the country, if it had had the opportunity, would have certainly rejected. That was, he thought, trading on the temporary majority which the Government had, and if they carried this clause by that method they certainly could not claim that they had had any popular support behind it. The hon. Baronet omitted to tell the Committee another very interesting fact, which he wished to draw attention to before the clause was finally done with, and that was that there was one body which had had a good deal to do with the framing of the Bill. In January last there was a meeting held in London of the managers of the voluntary schools, and they came to the decision that they would have nothing to do with the Borough Councils. They petitioned the Government not to put them under these Councils, but to put them under the County Council. In the Bill, as introduced, that principle was recognised, and the Government had given to the voluntary schools conditions which were not meted out to the public schools.

  1153
  The President of the Local Government Board, when recently addressing a meeting of bankers in the South of England, said that if the Government had muddled it was because the people had not brought sufficient pressure to bear, and had not shown them what they ought to have done. That was another interesting theory of government. They had first held the theory that it did not matter how they managed so long as they muddled through in the end. What kind of pressure had been brought to bear in connection with this Bill? First of all they had the voluntary schools seeking public money in support of their schools without public control. The managers passed a Resolution, and the Government at once, with the utmost fervour, incorporated their request in the Bill. The second stage of the pressure was from hon. Members on the other side of the House representing London constituencies. The London Unionists had had, not one, but several mysterious confabulations with the Secretary to the Board of Education, and some of the results were to be seen in curious Amendments which had been put down on the Order Paper by the Government. In response to that pressure, the number of county councillors had been increased by twelve, and the borough councillors had been reduced, and the boroughs had been partitioned out in combinations of electorates which were difficult to understand. There was a third form of pressure on the part of those public bodies which had been entrusted by this House with educational duties, namely, the London County Council and the School Board, both of which contained persons of experience. What kind of response did they meet with? They had the greatest claim on the consideration of the Government, but they had met with nothing but blank refusal. The Government listened to the private interests, and they rejected the public interests. They listened to the backstairs pressure, and they took no account of the public feeling of this country. It was the duty of the Committee before the clause passed to give the Government clearly to understand that those who
  1154
  fought last year's Bill from the beginning right to the end objected utterly to the principle which was embodied in the clause. They warned the Government that the religious controversy which they had aroused, and which they might profess to regard with contempt, had raised a feeling in the country that would never die out, until the domination of one set of religious opinions had been entirely swept away. Whether inside this House or out of it, they were determined that they would not rest until the Bill of last year, and the Bill of this year, if it was going to contain this vicious principle, had been removed finally from the Statute-book.
  MR. BRIGGsaid the Government had learned nothing from the experience of the Bill of last year. One would have thought that, having that experience, they would have learned that it was an entire mistake to apply the principles of last year's Bill to London. They had mistaken the opinion of the people of London and of the country generally. In London there was a large body which was carrying out the educational work in a very satisfactory manner. By this Bill it was proposed that the School Board should be entirely dispersed, and that another body should be called in which had no experience in the management of the education of London. He thought that was a very great mistake, and one which ought to have been avoided. It would have been wise on the part of the Government to wait and see how far the Act of last year worked in the country before bringing forward this Bill for London. They might have learned a great deal more, and been able to introduce a Bill which would have avoided the difficulties which were now found in the country.
  MR. LONGrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."

  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 230; Noes, 112. (Division List No. 90.)

  AYES.

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Allhusen, Aug. Henry Eden

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Ed.

  Maple, Sir John Blundell

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

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

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Arrol, Sir William

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Atkinson, Right Hon. John

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Austin, Sir John

  Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Fisher, William Hayes

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Fison, Frederick William

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Baird, John George Alexander

  FitzGerald, Sir Robt. Penrose

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Balcarres, Lord

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edw. Algernon

  Mount, William Arthur

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

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey

  Flower, Ernest

  Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham (Bute

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

  Forster, Henry William

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch

  Fyler, John Arthur

  Murray, Col. Wyndam (Bath)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Myers, William Henry

  Bartley, Sir George C. T.

  Garfit, William

  Newdegate, Francis A. N.

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benj.

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

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

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

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Bignold, Arthur

  Gordon, Maj Evans-(Tr. Emlts

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Robt. Wellesley

  Bigwood, James

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Eldon

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Goschen, Hon. Geo. Joachim

  Percy, Earl

  Bond, Edward

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Bowles, Col. H. F. (Middlesex

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Hain, Edward

  Purvis, Robert

  Bull, William James

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

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

  Rankin, Sir James

  Butcher, John George

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashfd

  Rattigan, Sir William Henry

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

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Remnant, James Farquharson

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

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick G.

  Richards, Henry Charles

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

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

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

  Ridley, S. P. (Bethnal Green)

  Cecil Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Helder, Augustus

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. Thomson

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm

  Henderson, Sir Alexander

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

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

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Chapman, Edward

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Charrington, Spencer

  Hoult, Joseph

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Howard, Jno (Kent, Faver'hm

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

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

  Hutton, John (Yorks, V. R.)

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred

  Seely, Chas. Hilton (Lincoln)

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Seely, Maj. J. EB (Isle of Wight)

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Johnstone, Heywood

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Joyce, Michael

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Kenyon, Hon. G. T. (Denbigh

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Keswick, William

  Smith, H. C. (North'mb Tyneside

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Kimber, Henry

  Smith James Parker (Lanarks.)

  Cust, Henry John C.

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

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

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow

  Spear, John Ward

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks. N. R.

  Stanley, Hon. A. (Ormskirk)

  Denny, Colonel

  Lee, A. H. (Hants, Fareham)

  Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart

  Dimsdale, Rt. Hon. Sir Joseph C.

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Stock, James Henry

  Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir J. E.

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham

  Stroyan, John

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Bristol, S

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Sturt, Hn. Humphry Napier

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Lowe, Francis William

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart

  Maconochie, A. W.

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

  Taylor, Austin (East, Toxteth)

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

  Wilson John (Glasgow)

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Wylie, Alexander

  Thornton, Percy M.

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

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Tomlinson, Sir. Wm. Edw. M.

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. J. Lloyd

  Younger, William

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

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

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Valentia, Viscount

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Sir Alexander Acland-

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

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

  NOES.

  Allan, Sir William (Gateshead)

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Priestley, Arthur

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

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Reckitt, Harold James

  Asher, Alexander

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  Rigg, Richard

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbt Hy.

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristl, E.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Hope John Deans (Fife, West

  Runciman, Walter

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

  Shaw, Charles E. (Stafford)

  Bell, Richard

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.)

  Black, Alexander William

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Joicey, Sir James

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Brigg, John

  Jones, Dav. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Bryce, Right Hon. James

  Jones, William (Carnarv'nshire

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Kearley, Hudson, E.

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Burt, Thomas

  Labouchere, Henry

  Tennant, Harold John

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Lambert, George

  Thomas, A. (Carmarthen, E.)

  Caldwell, James

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glam., E.)

  Cameron, Robert

  Layland Barratt, Francis

  Thomas, F. Freeman (Hastings)

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Leng, Sir John

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

  Cawley, Frederick

  Levy, Maurice

  Tomkinson, James

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Lough, Thomas

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Wallace, Robert

  Cremer, William Randal

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Walton, J. Lawson (Leeds, S.)

  Crombie, John William

  M'Laren, Sir Charles Benj.

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Wason J. Cathcart (Orkney)

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Mappin, Sir Fredk. Thorpe

  Weir, James Galloway

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  White, Luke (York. E. R.)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

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

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Edwards, Frank

  Norman, Henry

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Elibank, Master of

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Williams O. (Merioneth)

  Emmott, Alfred

  Palmer, Sir C. M. (Durham)

  Wilson, F. W. (Norfolk, Mid)

  Evans, Sir Francis H. (Maidstone

  Partington, Oswald

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Foster, Sir Walter (Dorby Co.)

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Perks, Robert William

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Grant, Corrie

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Mr. Herbert Gladstone

  Grey, Rt. Hn. Sir E. (Berwick

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  and Mr. William

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Price, Robert John

  M'Arthur.

  Question put accordingly, "That Clause 1, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided; Ayes 242; Noes, 114. (Division List No. 91.)

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Helder, Augustus

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

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

  Henderson, Sir Alexander

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Hoult, Joseph

  Purvis, Robert

  Cranborne, Lord

  Howard, John (Kent, Fav'rsham

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Rankin, Sir James

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Hutton, John (Yorks. N. R.)

  Rattigan, Sir William Henry

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred

  Remnant, Jas. Farquharson

  Cust, Henry John C.

  Jessel, Captain Hebert Merton

  Richards, Henry Charles

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Johnstone, Heywood

  Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Joyce, Michael

  Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green

  Denny, Colonel

  Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

  Kenyon Slaney, Col. W. (Salop

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Keswick, William

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Kimber, Henry

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Dimsdale, Rt. Hon. Sir Joseph C.

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir J. E.

  Law, H. Alex. (Donegal, W.)

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks. N. R.

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse

  Doxford, Sir Wm. Theodore

  Leamy, Edmund

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.

  Duffy, William J.

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

  Seely, Chas. Hilton (Lincoln)

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

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

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. Hart

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

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

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

  Smilh, H. C. (North'mb Tyneside

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks)

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

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

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

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Lowe, Francis William

  Spear, John Ward

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Lundon, W.

  Stanley, Hon. A. (Ormskirk)

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)

  Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Fison, Frederick William

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir Jn. M.

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W.

  Stock, James Henry

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edw. Algernon

  M'Killop, Jas. (Stirlingshire)

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Stroyan, John

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Maple, Sir John Blundell

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Flower, Ernest

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Forster, Henry William

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Fyler, John Arthur

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

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

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Garfit, William

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

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

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

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

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Gordon, Maj Evans (T'r H'mlets

  Mount, William Arthur

  Valeutia, Viscount

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Vincent, Col. Sir CEH (Sheffield

  Goschen, Hon. Geo. Joachim

  Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham (Bute

  Walrond Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath

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

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Myers, William Henry

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. J. Lloyd

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Newdegate, Francis A. N.

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

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Hain, Edward

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  O'Brien, K. (Tipperary Mid)

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

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

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Wilson John (Glasgow)

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf d

  O'Malley, William

  Wylie, Alexander

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Peel, Hn. Wm. R. Wellesley

  Younger, William

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick G.

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Percy, Earl

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Sir Alexander Acland.

  Heath, James (Staff S., N. W.)

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

  NOES.

  Allan, Sir William (Gateshead

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Black, Alexander William

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

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Asher, Alexander

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Brigg, John

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

  Bell, Richard

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Burt, Thomas

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Runciman, Walter

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Caldwell, James

  Joicey, Sir James

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Cameron, Robert

  Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.)

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Cawley, Frederick

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Labouchere, Henry

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Lambert, George

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Cremer, William Randal

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Tennant, Harold John

  Crombie, John William

  Leng, Sir John

  Thomas, A. (Carmarthen, E.)

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Levy, Maurice

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glam., E.)

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Thomas, F. Freeman (Hastings

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

  M'Kenna, Reginald

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

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  M'Laren, Sir Charles Benj.

  Tomkinson, James

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Edwards, Frank

  Mappin, Sir Fredk. Thorpe

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Elibank, Master of

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Wallace, Robert

  Emmott, Alfred

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

  Walton, J. Lawson (Leeds, S.)

  Evans, Sir Francis H. (Maidstone

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Warner, Thos. Courtenay T.

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Norman, Henry

  Wason, J. Cathcart (Orkney)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Weir, James Galloway

  Grant, Corrie

  Palmer, Sir C. M. (Durham)

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Grey, Rt. Hn. Sir E. (Berwick

  Partington, Oswald

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

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Perks, Robert William

  Whittaker Thomas Palmer

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tyd

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Williams, O. (Merioneth)

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Wilson, F. W. (Norfolk, Mid)

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  Price, Robert John

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  Priestley, Arthur

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Reckitt, Harold James

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristl, E.

  Rigg, Richard

  Mr. Herbert Gladstone

  Hope John Deans (Fife, West

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  and William M'Arthur.

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  And, it being after 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 2.
  MR. YOXALLsaid in moving the postponement of Clause 2, he might base his Motion on the terms in which Clause 2 was expressed. This was only another example of the inveterate reluctance of the framers of the Bill to put into the body of it a definite statement of what it was they wished the House to enact. Clause 2 referred to a schedule, and he did not think, in view of the
  1162
  debates which took place on the Act of last year, that it was quite a safe thing to defer such an important matter as the precise constitution of the Education Committee of the London education authority, to a schedule which might, or might not, be discussed, and which they might, or might not, be able to amend, and the discussion on which would depend upon the exigencies of Parliamentary time. He suggested the further consideration of Clause 2 and the setting up of the Education Committee of the London education authority because, in the present proposal, the Committee was to contain some representatives of the Metropolitan Borough Councils. So far as he could see, the reason for the proposal of the Government that the Education Committee and the London education authority should contain representatives of the Borough Councils was that, in Clause 3 the councils of the Metropolitan Boroughs were to be given certain managerial powers over certain elementary schools. It might be perfectly right and proper that there should be a representative of each Metropolitan Borough on the Education Committee if the Borough Councils were, by the

  1163
  Bill, or the discussion on Clause 3, made an integral and essential part of the management or administration of the education of the Metropolis; but the Committee did not and could not determine, until they got to Clause 3, whether these Borough Councils should become an integral and essential part of the administration of education for London. For his part, on the discussion which would take place on Clause 3 would depend very largely the vote he intended to give on Clause 2. The Bill drew a distinction between the local management of one class of elementary and the local management of another Class of elementary school. That distinction having been set up, it might be necessary, in order to maintain that co-ordination, the principles of which he had endeavoured to vindicate against the attacks made upon them, not only between elementary and secondary education but also between the two forms of elementary education, that of the provided schools with which the Committee of the London education authority had to deal directly and in a managerial manner, and that of the voluntary schools which are to be handed over to the representatives of the Borough Councils, to deal directly with in a managerial manner. If that distinction was to be maintained he foresaw a great danger to proper co-ordination. He was opposed in principle to the representation of Metropolitan Borough Councils on the Education Committee of the London County Council. So far as Clause 2 was concerned he was opposed to it and would have to vote against it, but his view might be profoundly modified by the discussion on Clause 3. He submitted to the hon. Baronet that he was pursuing a less desirable and less logical course in proceeding from the educational authority downwards, setting up the constitution of the educational authority which was involved in the nature of the work which the various units of that education authority were to represent on it, and last of all to proceed to consider what, if any, managerial work those representatives were to possess and represent on the managerial Committee. The proper plan would have been to proceed the other way. The Committee should first of all decide whether any managerial work of the schools should be taken out of the hands of the central authority and put
  1164
  into other hands except by the will of the central authority, with power to devolve such part as it chose. In this matter they had departed from the principles of the Act of 1902. He submitted that the Committee ought to consider Clause 3 before proceeding to consider how the education authority should be constituted. Until they considered Clause 3 they did not know the amount of work which had to be done by the Committee, and that was obviously a reason why they should discuss Clause 3 first. He appealed to the Committee therefore to postpone Clause 2. He begged to move that Clause 2 be postponed.
  Motion made, and Question proposed "That Clause 2 be postponed."—(Mr Yoxall.)
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Sir WILLIAM ANSON, Oxford University)said no doubt the postponement of one clause in order to take the discussion of another first was a matter of convenience which might be discussed without going into the details of the clauses. He was rather at a loss to understand the ground on which the hon. Member had moved the postponement of Clause 2, because, although he had dwelt at great length upon the importance of discussing Clause 3 before Clause 2, he had noticed that having postponed Clause 2 the hon. Member had an Amendment on the Paper to postpone Clause 3 in order to discuss Clause 4, so that very great importance could not be attached to the hon. Member's argument in favour of postponing Clause 2. He asked the Committee to proceed at once with the discussion of the clause. The first clause, he said, determined the elementary education authority; Clause 2 determined the Education Committee, with the assistance of which the authority should work. He proposed, as soon as the Committee came to the discussion of Clause 2, to propose an Amendment which would bring the constitution of the Committee into the clause. It was the natural course after determining the education authority to determine the Education Committee, and then to pass on to details of management.
  MR. CORRIE GRANTsaid no doubt the arguments of the hon. Baronet were effective from his point of view, but when they looked at the Bill the arguments of his hon. friend for the postponement of the clause were very strong indeed. One of the errors into which students of the Bill had fallen was the common error that the constitution of the Committee was the important part of this Bill; it was nothing of the kind. The vital point in the Bill, if it was to be effective, was the question of management as entrusted to the Borough Councils, and it was of great importance to settle the question of local management before proceeding to the question of the Education Committee. The House was groping its way in semidarkness, created by the Government, and men were voting for propositions on the distinct understanding that they were not to mean what they apparently meant now. That was the reason why he ventured to suggest that there was very great and sound reason for the proposal to postpone Clause 2.
  MR. LEVYthought that the Committee ought to be made acquainted with the intentions of the Government before passing the clause. It would be an absurd thing to allow this clause to pass unless the Committee had some definite understanding from the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill. There was hardly a Member in the House who had a really true knowledge of what the ideas of the Government were in this matter, and it was not too much to ask that there should be some definite understanding as to what the Government meant before they passed Clause 2.
  MR. THORNTONsaid that if the clause were not discussed it would be useless to take up the following clause. He made an appeal to the hon. Member for Nottingham not to persist in his Motion for the postponement of the clause. He asked that the clause should be immediately discussed because of the desire in all parts of London to understand what the Government really meant. His constituents were anxiously waiting to know what the Government intended
  1166
  to do about the London Boroughs, who all had representation on the Committee in the Bill, but were unfortunately threatened with a grouping into eleven electoral districts, the local details of which were injurious to his constituents.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is not in order in now discussing the composition of the Committee.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: The argument for postponing Clause 2 until they had discussed Clause 3 was that until they knew what were going to be the local powers of management they were not in a position to know how far they were entitled to double representation. They could not discuss the merits of Clause 3 because they had not the faintest idea what the Government meant. They knew that, as the clause stood, the Borough Councils would have control—
  THE CHAIRMAN: Surely it will be better to wait until the clause is brought on. Hon. Members must limit their remarks strictly to the question of postponement.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid that until they got to Clause 3 they really did not know how far they were prepared to give the County Council double representation. It was on that ground that he should support his hon. friend's Motion.
  MR. BRYNMOR JONESsaid it was quite right that all the arguments should be limited to the question as to why this clause ought to be postponed. The effect of this clause was to constitute a schedule, but there could be no schedule until some provision authorising it had been carried. He should support this Motion because he was not certain that there need be a first schedule. He did not think that was a thing which the Chairman could rule out of order.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The proper course is to move to strike out the reference to the schedule.
  MR. BRYNMOR JONESsaid he was now arguing whether Clause 2 ought or ought not to be postponed. He was not

  1167
  satisfied that there ought to be a schedule to the Bill at a 1. Clause 2 seemed to him to be a meaningless clause until they knew whether Clause 3 would be part of the Bill.

  AYES.

  Allan, Sir William (Gateshead

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tyd

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

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

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Shackleton, David James

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Bell, Richard

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

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.)

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Brigg, John

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Burt, Thomas

  Joicey, Sir James

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Caldwell, James

  Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)

  Thomas, A. (Carmarthen, E.)

  Cameron, Robert

  Lambert, George

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glan., E.)

  Cawley, Frederick

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Thomas, F. Freeman (Hastings)

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Leng, Sir John

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

  Cremer, William Randal

  Levy, Maurice

  Tomkinson, James

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Lloyd-George, David

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Lough, Thomas

  Weir, James Galloway

  Edwards, Frank

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Emmott, Alfred

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Foster, Sir Michael (Lond. Univ.

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Woodhouse, Sir J. T. Huddersf'd

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Mr. Yoxall and Mr.

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Runciman, Walter

  Corrie Grant.

  NOES.

  Allhusen, Aug. Henry Eden

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Lawson, John Grant

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Leamy, Edmund

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Lee, A. H. (Hants, Fareham)

  Arrol, Sir William

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Atkinson, Right Hon. John

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Austin, Sir John

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

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

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

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

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Lundon, W.

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

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

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

  Fison, Frederick William

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Flower, Ernest

  Maple, Sir John Blundell

  Bignold, Arthur

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Middlemore, Jn. Throgmorton

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Forster, Henry William

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Fyler John Arthur

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham (Bute

  Bull, William James

  Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Gordon, Hn. J. E. Elgin & Nairn

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire)

  Gordon, Maj Evans- (Tr. Hmlts

  Myers, William Henry

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Chapman, Edward

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Peel, Hn. Wm. R. Wellesley

  Charrington, Spencer

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Pretyman, Ernest George

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

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Purvis, Robert

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Helder, Augustus

  Rankin, Sir James

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasg.)

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert L.

  Redmond, Jn. E. (Waterford)

  Cranborne, Lord

  Hoult, Joseph

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. C. Thomson

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Robertson, H. (Hackney)

  Cullinan, J.

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Davies, Sir H. D. (Chatham)

  Joyce, Michael

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Denny, Colonel

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

  Keswick, William

  Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

  Dimsdale, Rt. Hon. Sir Joseph C.

  Kimber, Henry

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Question put.
  The Committee divided; Ayes, 68; Noes, 133. (Division List No. 92).

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

  Sullivan, Donal

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

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

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Spear, John Ward

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Wylie, Alexander

  Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. E. M.

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Stock, James Henry

  Valentia, Viscount

  Mr. Alexander Acland-

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Walrond, Rt. Hon. Sir W. H.

  Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid that in moving this Amendment he thought he should be in order in discussing the further consequential Amendments which stood in his name, the object of which was to bring into this clause the constitution of the Committee which it was proposed to provide for the local education authority. When the Bill was introduced the provision for the constitution of the Committee was in the schedule. It was thought necessary, as he explained at the time, that the Committee should be constituted by Parliament, because the interests of London were so different from those of other parts of the country with respect to the various bodies, persons, and educational interests which needed to be represented, and that the matter should not be settled between the London County Council and the Board of Education. The Government had, therefore, decided to provide for the constitution of the Committee in the Bill. It would not have been desirable that the Board of Education should be called on to decide whether or not the boroughs should be represented on the Education Committee, and it was better that a matter on which there was a considerable difference of opinion should be settled once for all by Parliament. In the composition of the Committee they had to consider what were the main objects of this Bill. As stated by the Prime Minister in the debate on Second Reading those objects were, first, that the London County Council should be the central educational authority for London, and, secondly, that they should endeavour to relieve the London County Council of some of the burden of administration by devising a decentralising process which would confer the duties of management, as distinguished from educational control, on the boroughs. That being so, it was fairly obvious that the Committee should consist of three groups. There was, first of all, the group con-
  1170
  sisting of those members of the education authority itself who must represent it on the Committee; next there was the miscellaneous group of persons, who had to be appointed by the education authority, who were to represent the various bodies who contributed to the education of London; the voluntary schools, women, and the great schools and universities with which London was studded; and, lastly, there were the boroughs. There were several reasons why the boroughs should be represented on the Committee. It was not an unknown practice—though he would hardly call that a practice, which had sprung into existence since the Education Act became law—for English counties to provide on their Committees for a representation of large boroughs within their area. Cambridgeshire, for instance, had provided for the representation of the town of Cambridge; both divisions of Suffolk had provided for the representation of boroughs within their area, Derbyshire had given a place on its Committee to the county borough of Derby, and Westmorland to the borough of Kendal.
  All these illustrations showed that the counties had been not unwilling to place the large urban districts within their area upon their Committees; and they had many demands by smaller urban districts to be represented on the County Committee, these representations which had been laid before the County Councils, not having always been accepted. There was another reason, which he thought was the reason why these boroughs were constituted—namely, that it was desirable in London to endeavour to excite local interest in matters of local concern, and that boroughs, which had much to do with the detailed local government of London, should be interested in what must be not merely a matter of general London interest but also of local concern, the education of the children in the respective boroughs. Lastly, if the boroughs were to have the powers of management which it was the principle of the Bill to

  1171
  assign to them, with a view of relieving the County Council of the excessive burden of administration, it was important that there should be links on the Committee between the central authority and the boroughs. The Committee as first constituted in the Bill consisted of thirty-six representatives of the County Council; each borough had one member with the exception of the City and Westminster, which had two members; and there were twenty-five representatives of outside bodies, whom for shortness he would call outsiders. It had been suggested frequently in the course of the debate that one purpose in the mind of those who framed the Bill was, in the composition of the Committee, in some way or other to baffle or interfere with the free action of the London County Council. It had been suggested that they desired to place the boroughs on the Committee as a counterpoise to the County Council. As far as he was concerned, no such idea had been present to his mind. It was very important that the boroughs, from their local interest and the duties they would have to discharge as managers, should be represented on the Committee; and it did not occur to him that the County Council, having so large a number as thirty-six of its members on the Committee, and also appointing twenty-five other persons, would have any hesitation in accepting the position as one which gave it a dominant influence, if not an actual majority, on the Committee. That, he was afraid, was not the view of the London County Council, and it was not the view of many of their friends on that side of the House, as well as of many Members on the other side. Many of their friends on that side, having in view the fact that the counties throughout England had been allowed to have a majority in most cases—he might say that in all cases they had provided themselves with a majority on their Committees—thought that the London County Council should not be in a different position and should have a majority on its Committee. That being so, the Government were prepared to accept that view of the matter, and to constitute such a Com-
  1172
  mittee as would assure to the London County Council not only that it was the dominant influence, but that it was to have a majority and the control of this Committee; and thus to show that there was no sinister desire to baffle its influence on its own Committee. That having been decided upon, there came a difficult arithmetical problem—how to represent the boroughs consistently with the London County Council having a majority on the Committee. It was possible to remove the boroughs, but that, for the reasons he had stated, they were unwilling to do. It was possible to increase the size of the County Council, but that was a matter which could hardly be dealt with in this Bill. It was possible also to invite the County Council to place as many of its members as it pleased on the Committee; but it was thought, he believed with reason, that would make too large a demand on the resources of the County Council. Having set aside various other fancy schemes and devices which naturally occurred to them in the course of the solution of this problem, they had to fall back on the method of grouping the boroughs. It was not an unfamiliar practice in our constitutional development. By this means they provided the City with one member, and there would be eleven other representatives of the boroughs on the Committee, grouped in accordance with the schedule which was now before the House. He would not now enter into the merits of that schedule, which would have to be discussed hereafter.
  They proposed to ask the London County Council to contribute forty two members; there would be the twelve representatives of the boroughs, and the twenty-five outsiders would remain. The County Council could choose members, not exceeding five, of the present London School Board if they so pleased. By this means the County Council would be assured of a permanent working majority on its own Committee, and it would thus be able to have the expert advice of persons of experience in education and the management of schools. They hoped that the boroughs, whose local interest it was desired to stimulate, would be able to give further assistance in the work of management; but this he would explain on the next clause, and he

  1173
  trusted his explanation would clear up some of the misunderstandings which were perhaps inevitable. They hoped that the Committee, under the great authority of the London County Council, would be able to work together for the benefit of the education of London.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 8, at beginning, to insert the words 'as ordinarily constituted.'"—(Sir William Anson.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid it was a little difficult to discuss this great change on the present Amendment. He thought the position of the Borough Councils on the board of management was more important than their representation on the statutory Committee. He did not think the hon. Gentleman quite appreciated the position in which the Committee stood. A few weeks ago they had a Bill introduced to which, they were entitled to assume, the Government had given considerable thought and care. The hon. Gentleman then laid down two propositions as absolutely uncontroversial in regard to Borough Council representation. One was that the Borough Councils should be represented on the central authority, and the other was that the members of the Committee ought to be members of the Borough Council. The idea of the Government clearly was that each Borough Council should have one representative—and, in some cases, two—on the central authority. In the course of the debate that was seen to be an untenable position, and the Government, having re-considered the matter, had now produced another scheme. He confessed that there was something to be said for the original scheme of the Bill giving direct representation to each Borough Council on the Education Committee, but he could find nothing to say in favour of the proposal now submitted by the Government. If the original proposal was somewhat ludicrous, the present one was surely grotesque, viz., that the boroughs should be grouped without any reference to any local considerations, or without any local
  1174
  connection with one another. To ask twenty-nine boroughs to elect between them twelve members of the statutory Committee was an extraordinary proposal.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education had spoken of his desire to get rid of fancy devices. His proposal was about the fanciest of fancy devices, and the most ridiculous they could possibly conceive. Surely a simple solution of the difficulty would have been to adopt the principle of the Act of last year and put the London County Council in the same position as the provincial County Councils had been placed. He asked the Committee to seriously consider what advantage could accrue from the proposal of the Government—what would be the advantage to the County Council, to the Borough Councils, or to the ratepayers and others who took an interest in London education. It was quite true that in other parts of the country the County Councils had elected outsiders to the Education Committee, and no doubt that was intended by the Act of last year. But the difference between the Act of last year and the present Bill was that, under the former there was no compulsion to elect a single outside person, while under the present Bill there was no control over the selection of twelve, and a very limited control in regard to twenty-five others. The question had been raised whether the London County Council could undertake the enormous work of elementary education in London. In his opinion it would only be possible for it to do so by delegation to an enormous extent. No central body, hampered and controlled in the way the Bill proposed, could do it. In moving the Second Reading of the Bill, the hon. Gentleman said he was giving the London County Council the fullest assistance in regard to their work, but it appeared to him that the present proposal gave them no assistance in any sense of the term. The twelve borough councillors who were to be brought into the work would lead to friction; they would hamper the County Council in its work, and, so far as they were representative, they would not help to unity and co-ordination, but would lead to disunion. The hon. Gentleman said the House had decided that the

  1175
  County Council ought to have a majority, and that he was in this proposal falling in with the views so expressed. The proposal was that there should be forty-two county councillors, twelve borough councillors, and twenty-five outsiders. In the appointment of its ordinary committees, the County Council gave about one-third of the representation to the Moderates, who were the minority. If this method were adopted in regard to the Education Committee, the County Council representation would consist of twenty-eight Progressives and fourteen Moderates. The representatives of the Borough Councils, especially under the grouping now proposed, would be in almost every case Moderates. [MINISTERIAL cries of "No party politics."] Unfortunately there would be party politics. [MINISTERIAL cries of "No," and "Why"] The constitution of the Committee would then be twenty-eight Progressives and twenty-six Moderates. That, he feared, would be a moat fatal thing for the work of the London County Council in regard to education. He was afraid the result would be that, in selecting its own representatives on the Committee, the County Council would feel it its duty to appoint all Progressives and no Moderates, and that when it came to the appointment of what the hon. Gentleman had called "the outsiders," they would, instead of basing their choice on purely educational grounds, see how far they could get supporters of their own Party. [MINISTERIAL cries of "No."] The Water Board afforded them an object-lesson in this respect. No one would deny that the last County Council election turned on the water question—on whether the London County Council should be the water authority. [Several HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Well, he took some part in the election, and he ventured to assert that a majority of Progressives was returned chiefly on the water question. But the voice of the electors had been absolutely disregarded, and the Water Board created by the Government was in the hands of the Moderates. That was what he was afraid of in regard to education. He would be sorry to see political questions raised in connection with the election of the education authority, but he maintained that that would be the result of bringing in the Borough Councils. What advantage would the
  1176
  Bill give to the Borough Councils themselves? It seemed to him that the Government were giving the Borough Councils too little and too much. They were not giving them enough to give them an interest in education or any practical control of the educational policy of the central body, but they were giving them enough to lead to considerable friction. He would like to know how the twelve councillors to be chosen by the grouped boroughs were to be elected.
  THE CHAIRMAN: We are now discussing the general principle of the Amendment. That point must be raised on the Schedule.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: But surely it is of great importance when we are wondering whether there ought to be twelve borough councillors or not on this central body, to know how they are going to be elected, and if they are likely to be really representative.
  THE CHAIRMAN: That is dealt with in the Schedule, and it cannot be raised here.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid he would not press the point further. What he wished to point out was that the twelve borough councillors would not have as good a knowledge of the educational needs of the districts they would represent as members of the County Council would have, and the ordinary ratepayers would have no opportunity of expressing their opinion in reference to the selection and the conduct of these twelve borough councillors. The President of the Local Government Board had more than once said that he wanted to bring local knowledge into these matters. Did he think the proposal of the Government would secure that? He for one would not oppose it, but he would like to ask how one representative from Battersea, representing an area with half a million of population, could have any local knowledge of the educational requirements of that district? How was popular control to be had over the twelve borough councillors? There was something to be said in favour of interesting the Borough Councils in the work of education by giving them some practical representation on the central

  1177
  body, but it would be absurd to suppose their interest in education would be aroused by placing twelve councillors out of 1,500 on the education authority. The Government had refused to accept an ad hoc body, and the only possible mode of carrying on the work of education was to make the County Council absolutely supreme from top to bottom, absolutely supreme in the education authority, and in the management of the schools. The proposal of the Government in regard to the twelve borough councillors was ludicrous and grotesque. He objected to the proposal of the Government to hand over the management of the schools to the Borough Councils. He believed it would so hamper the central authority that the educational work of London could not be properly carried out, and that at any rate it would be carried out in a worse way than at present.
  MR. W. F. D. SMITHregretted that the Government had not followed in full the Act of last year. The County Council, having been chosen by the Government as the education authority for London, ought to have an effective majority on the Committee, and it was essential that the electors should be able to fix the responsibility for the work on one particular body. He recognised that the proposed Amendment of the Government improved the situation to a considerable extent, but it was unfortunate that it should practically suggest that it was not advisable to appoint any School Board representatives, because if such representatives were appointed the Council's majority would disappear. Moreover, he would have preferred the absence rather than the company of the twelve representatives of the Borough Councils. He had no fear of the London County Council in educational matters. His experience of the work of the Technical Education Board had shown him that they were not influenced by religious, sectional, or political considerations, and he had no reason to doubt that a Committee framed on similar lines to deal with elementary as well as technical education would act in precisely the same manner. As to the compromise which the Government had
  1178
  proposed, it would be easy to point out the extraordinary inequalities of rateable value, population, numbers of schools, and children, and so on, as between the various boroughs which the twelve borough councillors would have to represent. It was clear that in some instances they would have the difficult task of trying to represent very diverse interests. He should like to suggest that possibly some of the difficulty of selecting these gentlemen might be obviated if they were not necessarily members of the Borough Councils. He had still some hope, however, that the Government might return to their better frame of mind of last year, and that even now they might determine to leave the County Council the responsibility of choosing their own Education Committee.
  SIR JOHN GORSTearnestly hoped the Government would not at this point come to a final conclusion on the question here involved. By accepting the proposal to treat the London County Council in the same manner as other County Councils had been treated they would extricate them selves from the position in which they were now placed; or, if they did not care to do that, they would leave this matter open as they did the case of the optional clause last year, when the House of Commons, he could almost guarantee, would extricate them from their difficulty. The idea of an Education Committee was derived from the Technical Instruction Act, in which permissive power was given to local authorities to appoint a Committee, and to delegate to that Committee such powers as the local authority thought desirable. That power was used by many local authorities, and large powers were delegated to the Committees. The arrangement worked well, and among such Committees that of the London County Council was considered the model and example. That Committee, which was not composed exclusively of members of the County Council, but included representatives of educational and other interests in the Metropolis, gave the utmost satisfaction and had the entire confidence of the Council. With experience of the Technical Instruction Act, the Act of last year gave to every local authority similar powers; and if

  1179
  the present Bill passed in the form contemplated by the Government, there would be the extraordinary result that every education authority in the country would have the power of drawing up its own scheme and appointing its own Committee, with the singular exception of the greatest of them all, which furnished the model for the Bill of last year. Unrestrained by legislation, the Council would appoint a Committee in which it would have implicit confidence, would determine the numbers, how many members should be Councillors, what outside members should be appointed, and to what extent women should be represented on the Committee. These and similar questions the London County Council would be far more competent to determine than the Committee of the House. If the Government persisted in refusing to allow the London County Council the power which every other County and Borough Council in England and Wales possessed, and fixed upon that Council a Committee of which the Council did not approve and in which it had no confidence, the Council might either itself review the acts of the Statutory Committee, or appoint a Committee of its own to which might be entrusted the duty of reviewing the reports and proceedings of the Statutory Committee, and as the supreme authority the Council might act upon the recommendations of its own Committee. Such an absurd arrangement would not conduce to the smooth working of the Act and the interest of education. He felt sure the Government, in the interval before the vote was taken, would either come to the conclusion to abandon the scheme placed on the Notice Paper or leave the House of Commons to decide, after hearing all that could be said on the subject, whether the London County Council, as the educational authority for London, should have powers similar to those possessed by every other educational authority in the country.
  DR. MACNAMARA, accepting the decision of the Committee to municipalise the local control of education in London, desired, as one who had some little experience of the problem to be dealt with, to do what he could to carry
  1180
  out municipalisation on what he considered to be the best lines. It had to be remembered that the County Council were being asked absolutely to double its operations. The Statutory Committee, as at present proposed, was to consist of forty-two county councillors, twelve borough councillors, twenty-five outsiders, and, if the Council so desired, five members of the present School Board His profound conviction was that the forty-two county councillors would not be able to devote their time to the work, with the result, unless the membership of the County Council were increased, that the work would fall into the hands of the thirty outsiders and the paid officials. That would be disastrous, and he desired to impress upon the Committee that the work could not safely be handed over to the County Council without the alteration of constitution he had suggested. They began with thirty-six representatives of the Borough Councils, then they had eleven, now they had twelve, and the clear trend of the Committee was to strike them out altogether. He believed that if it were left to the Committee they would be struck out. But he would not mind, if only provision were made for the work being done by the representatives of the ratepayers. He was profoundly convinced that under the present scheme, unless the representatives of the London County Council were strengthened, and were free to devote themselves to educational work, that work would fall into the hands of the thirty outsiders and the paid officials, and to that he objected most strongly. That would not be municipalisation. It would be a spurious form of municipalisation with which he, for one, would have nothing to do.
  On the Technical Instruction Board he found from the minutes that many important resolutions involving considerable expenditure were passed by a majority of outsiders. It was true that the minutes were submitted to the County Council; but the Council never went into the details of each minute. He was anxious to secure a sufficient number of representatives of the ratepayers to make it certain that the work would not be done by outsiders, to which he strongly objected. Clause 3 was closely associated with this proposal. Under Clause 3 it was proposed to give the

  1181
  Borough Councils certain powers; but now that their representatives were cut down to twelve, and possibly might be struck out altogether, there would have probably been a reaction in favour of them when it came to the question of management. His position was quite clear. He did not want the Borough Councils to have the power of management or of electing teachers or selecting sites; and he did not, therefore, want a reaction in their favour. He hoped the Committee would agree that if this work was to be given to the County Council, the Council must be given the men to carry it out. That could not be done under the present Bill; but he should ask the Government for a definite pledge that provision would be made at the earliest possible date to secure that the County Council should be given a sufficient number of men to do this work. Unless that pledge were given he would do his best in London from now until the County Council election to advocate that the County Council should not take this work on unless they were given a sufficient number of men to carry it out. The practical result of the present proposal would be that the daily administrative work would be done by thirty persons not responsible to the ratepayers. The Committee did not realise the enormous amount of work the Council was being asked to undertake, and anxious as he was that the County Council should do it, he could not blindly accept a position in which it would be physically impossible for the Council to carry on the work. Therefore, he would earnestly urge the Committee to consider the absolutely vital necessity of increasing the County Council.
  SIR GEORGE FARDELLsaid he should always advocate the representation of the Borough Councils on the new education authority, because he believed it would be a link between the Borough Councils and the London County Council. The necessity for that link was shown by the fact that the majority of the County Council did not reside in the districts they represented. The non-resident Members were sixty-two as against fifty-two resident Members, and he was very much
  1182
  struck with the observation which fell from the hon. Member for Poplar as to the political aspect of handing over a certain amount of the representation to the Borough Councils. He cordially agreed that it would be extremely detrimental if any such policy were introduced; but he hoped and believed that that would not be the case. He had been a member of one of these local bodies for twenty-seven years, first as a vestryman and then as a Borough Councillor, and he was surprised to hear the opinion so often expressed in the debate that the Borough Councils were fit to be entrusted only with such work as the cleansing of the streets and various matters of that kind. During his twenty-seven years' experience he had seen not only the work but the interest taken in the work by individual members develop greatly. It was true that in the old vestry days things were not always as they should be; but the members of the present Borough Councils were actuated by a real interest in their work; and his chief reason for advocating the linking of the Borough Councils with the County Council in the control of education was that it would induce the best men of the district to offer their services to the ratepayers. If he did not honestly and sincerely believe that it would be to the advantage of London to include the Borough Councils in the work of education, he would not for one moment advocate it. He had not the advantage of the experience, as regarded educational matters, of the hon. Member for North Camberwell, whom they all recognised as a great authority; but he wished to quote the opinion of another authority, Sir Charles Elliott, who in a letter to The Times yesterday wrote—
  "The first principle will no doubt be carried into effect by creating an Educational Committee in which the London County Council will be predominant, aided by a competent body of experts; and if it is found necessary to increase the number of members of the Council in order to ensure this predominance, the Premier has declared himself ready to adopt that course. The second is the far-reaching and vivifying principle of a large devolution of management to the Town Councils."
  That, he believed, was the true way to deal with this question. His hon. and learned friend the Member for the Stretford Division, in a very excellent speech, asked why London should be treated differently from the country.

  1183
  The reason was this—in the county of Lancaster, for instance, the large boroughs were distributed over a large area, but in London the twenty-eight boroughs were all in proximity to one another. Had those boroughs been scattered over the 556 square miles of the County of London, including the water area, there would be no question whatever that each of them would be entitled to be represented. He should prefer the thirty-one members of the Borough Councils rather than the twelve; but if there were thirty-one members of the Borough Councils in addition to twenty-five other members, the County Council would be in a minority, and it might be said that in such a large Committee it would not be necessary to delegate any of the work at all. He would certainly prefer the grouping of the boroughs to no representation at all, and he therefore hoped the Committee would agree to the proposal, and that the Borough Councils would realise that they were coadjutors with the County Council in carrying into effect a great work in the interests of London.
  SIR W. BRAMPTON GURDONsaid he should not have intervened in the debate had not the Secretary to the Board of Education—no doubt under a misapprehension—dragged his own County Council into the fray. The hon. Gentleman stated that the County Council of Suffolk had made provision for the representation of non-county boroughs in their scheme; but those representatives were not nominated by the boroughs themselves. It was thought that if twenty-four members were voted for there might not be a representative of Bury elected, and therefore it was provided that one at least of the elected members should be one of the councillors for Bury. That was not the scheme proposed in the Bill.
  SIR GEORGE BARTLEYsaid this revised scheme did not seem to have a friend anywhere. He thought the Metropolitan boroughs had been utterly neglected and deserted by their parents; and he could not think it fair that such a large borough as Islington, with a population of 350,000, should be
  1184
  represented by half a member. Stoke Newington and Islington were to elect one member, and that would satisfy neither. Under the original scheme he thought the Borough Councils did not get sufficient representation, but the present system gave no representation at all, and he strongly objected to it. He thought they might fairly ask that the Act of last year should be maintained, allowing, as it did, boroughs of 10,000 and upwards to have certain rights. That was the only logical solution, and it was the only scheme that would work. The present proposal would lead to endless friction. It had only lasted a week and a change would be seen before long.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.)said that the Committee had heard a specimen of almost every opinion that could be held on the constitution of the Education Committee. They had heard the views of the hon. Member who had just sat down and who would like to see education confined to the Borough Councils, and the views of hon. Members who would like education taken away from the Borough Councils and given to the County Council, and, though it was possible that there might be further variations of the possible schemes which ingenuity might devise, he felt that his own powers of imagination rather failed to suggest what alterations and suggestions might be made. He would remind the Committee of the fundamental difficulties of the situation. By universal consent he believed that it was admitted the London problem stood so much by itself as regarded the organisation of an Education Committee that it was impossible to discuss it on the same footing and plane with the education authorities which were constructed for every other part of the country. That separation of London from every other municipality showed that London occupied absolutely a unique position; and, therefore, when his right hon. friend the Member for Cambridge University and others, who spoke with great authority on questions of this sort, reproached the Government with having simply transferred the provisions of last year's Act to this year's Bill, they ignored the reasons which made the Government omit London

  1185
  from last year's Act. They forgot the special and peculiar circumstances which had made London in the past, and which was making London in the present, and would make London, doubtless, in the future a problem of very great difficulty for all who had to deal with the problems of local government in this country. When they were dealing with a community of 5,000,000 of persons the ordinary rules governing municipal institutions must have exceptions. They could not treat a community bigger than many European States simply as a considerable borough situated in a county. They must make some modification and introduce what might be called some illogicalities in the system which it was found possible to adapt to other parts of country. That was the problem the Government had to deal with. He was ready to admit at once that it was impossible to have a neat logical solution which every framer of a Bill desired to have, which everyone who had to defend it desired to have, because it made debate so much easier. But it really could not be carried out with regard to London. There were hon. Members on both sides who would like to see the whole of the education of London handed over to the County Council precisely as in Manchester.
  DR. MACNAMARA: No.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That was what they had said. The hon. Member for North Camberwell did not agree with him or with the hon. Gentleman who took that simple and clean-cut issue, and he did not think that the House ought to take it. London was not a great homogeneous body of 5,000,000 of British citizens. It was that and it was much more. It was a body which had not a single central body popularly elected; it was a body which from time immemorial had been broken up into smaller communities with their own municipal institutions.
  MR. CORRIE GRANT: Will the right hon. Gentleman excuse me? It is a perfectly obvious fact that London has not been governed in the way spoken of by the right hon. Gentleman until the Metropolis Management Act of 1855.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that the hon. Gentleman was quite mistaken. The fact of the existence of the City—which, he supposed, the hon. Member had heard of—would alone prove that he was wrong. London had from time immemorial been broken up into communities which had their own municipal life. And the House had, with the common consent of both sides, desired to revive and strengthen and regularise that municipal life in respect of the various communities of which the great Metropolis now consisted. These communities were no small and insignificant bodies; and if the House of Commons were to attempt to centralise the whole work of education on the County Council, ignoring absolutely not only the historic traditions of these districts, and the work which they had done, they would in the name of municipalisation—which was supposed to be the opposite of centralisation—be carrying out a very dangerous work of over-centralisation, which, he thought, if possible, they ought to avoid. That being the general principle, and it being at the same time quite obvious that the County Council must be made the education authority, ought less to be done for the Borough Councils than was proposed to be done by the Amendment before the Committee? The Government originally had proposed to do more; and they had been reproached for changing their plans, as if it showed a singular and extraordinary indecision on the part of the Government not to know precisely what would please every Londoner, and what would be agreeable to all the districts concerned. If any one thought that he could easily discover exactly what every Londoner desired, or what every member of the County Council and of the Borough Councils desired—or might he be profane enough to say, what every Member of Parliament representing a London constituency desired—let him try it, and he would soon find his mistake. He was not ashamed to admit that the Government were impressed during the earlier debates on this Bill with the argument that if the County Council were not given an absolute majority on its own Committee there would be a danger that the Council would find itself in opposition to its own Committee; that it would look upon the work of the Committee with such suspicion as would require it

  1187
  to supervise even the minutiœ of the Committee's work, and possibly to throw itself into sharp antagonism with a body which ought to be in no sense the Council's equal and still less its master. Those arguments were powerfully addressed to the House, and the Government was greatly impressed by them.
  There were, therefore, only two alternatives open to the Government consistent with the broad policy of keeping the County Council the supreme authority, and of giving the boroughs not only a place as bodies to whom powers might be delegated, but also some representation upon the Committee. There were two methods by which the Government might obviate the difficulty which he had described. One was so to increase the numbers of the County Council that they would be able to outvote the representatives of the boroughs, even if every borough were represented. The other plan was that which had been adopted. The first was a most attractive scheme, and there was a great deal to be said for it. But there was one thing to be said against it, which was that it would manifestly overtax the County Council. The hon. Member for Camberwell had persistently told the House that, even without that additional burden, the County Council could not undertake the duty. He hoped the hon. Member was incorrect, but he was sure that the hon. Member was right in saying that, if upon the County Council had been thrown the burden of finding a number of men to work this Committee in excess of the total representation of the boroughs and of the "outsiders," as they were called, the Council would have been asked to perform a task for which their present numbers were totally inadequate. In this Bill there ought to be no attempt to deal with the numbers of the County Council. The time might come when not only the County Council but other great municipal bodies might say that with the growth of civilisation, with the increasing decentralisation, and with the additional work which was thrown on them every session, their present numbers were not adequate. That was possible. He did not deny or minimise it; and when that was proved, they would have to come to that House, and that House would have to remedy the evil. But he did not wish, and he was
  1188
  sure the House did not wish, to deal with the numbers of the County Council on this Bill. That being so, they must not deliberately overload the County Council.
  That conclusion being accepted, he would ask the House whether there was any way of giving the municipalities some position upon this Committee except the way which the Government adopted. He himself thought there was none. And, as he would view with the greatest regret the exclusion of these bodies, which he hoped were going to be great bodies, which, he hoped, as their life went on, were going more and more to absorb some of the best elements of public and municipal spirit within their limits, then if they were going to give them their proper place, or rather any place at all on this body, surely they could not have done it in a manner which would produce less friction, overload the machine less, or leave the power of what must be the supreme educational authority in the Metropolis more untouched and unimpaired. Was any plan better than the one the Government had devised to be suggested? He did not think there was; and he ventured to say that that House and that Committee were not spending their time well in proving this or that small logical objection against the scheme. That such objections existed he freely admitted. They existed against any scheme which any Government or any Minister could contrive when dealing with so exceptional and complex an organisation as the great municipal area of London. They would never get a clean-cut, logical system of municipal government for the Metropolis as long as they insisted, as they must insist, both on keeping up municipal life in the smaller areas and having a uniform system of rating over the whole district. Let them frankly admit that; and, when they had made that admission and hon. Gentlemen had absorbed the truths which he had ventured to recommend to them, he thought they would feel that the Government had done their best to meet the special needs of a special situation, and that, on the very grounds on which they excluded London from the purview of last year's Bill, they were justified in making the variations from the scheme of the Bill of

  1189
  last year, which were embodied in the Amendment of his hon. friend. In these circumstances, he would suggest to the Committee that they might take a decision on the broad principle that night and proceed to discuss the special Amendment in which its details were embodied during the course of to-morrow's debate. At all events, he hoped he had said enough to show that the Government had not ignored any current of opinion which ought to influence them, and that in dealing with a very difficult and complicated proposal, they had not varied from the parent scheme of last year's Bill more than the actual necessities of the situation in London compelled them to do.
  MR. BRYCEsaid that, as he understood the Amendment, he did not see any reason why the Committee should come to any decision upon it now, for it was one which would be necessary quite apart from the particular question to which the debate had been addressed. Therefore, he would not argue against the particular Amendment, but would make a few observations upon the speech of the Prime Minister. Except by the right hon. Gentleman himself and his colleagues, no single opinion had been expressed in the debate in favour of this scheme. The right hon. Gentleman said with great truth that London was unique, and that it required special treatment. He could not agree with the right hon. Gentleman in thinking that from time immemorial the communities of different parts of London had had a separate municipal life. Time immemorial meant the time of King Richard I., and surely the right hon. Gentleman would not say that there was more than one municipal Government in London then.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: What I said was, that there were areas of London which from time immemorial had had separate municipal institutions.
  MR. BRYCEsaid if the right hon. Gentleman stated it in that qualified way he would admit that some of them had existed for a long time. The First Lord of the Treasury had argued very forcibly in favour of giving London special treatment, but all his arguments seemed to be in favour of an ad hoc authority. He came now to the practical point before
  1190
  the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the Committee ought not to be led away by small logical objections—that it was very difficult to produce a scheme which would not be open to such objections. He agreed that that was true, and he had no wish to deal with the problem in that way. What he asked was, whether this Bill offered any prospect of a good working body, and what practical benefit it would confer. The argument of the right hon. Gentleman and of the Secretary to the Board of Education had been confined entirely to showing that it was necessary to do something for the Borough Councils. No attempt was made to show that the Borough Councils would contribute to the welfare of the scheme. The argument might have been put forward that, as the Borough Councils were to have duties of management under the Bill, it was desirable to establish some link between the local education authority and the managers. That might be a strong argument or not; but he could understand it being used if the Committee were to have had the Government plan in its original form with a member from every Borough Council sitting on the central authority. But this arrangement was not included in the present scheme.
  Of what value could it be to one of four Borough Councils to have a fourth of a member? The four boroughs of Deptford, Lewisham, Greenwich, and Woolwich were to have one representative. That representative could not be in immediate communication between them and the central authority. He saw no useful purpose that representative could serve, because it would not be pretended that he would bring the element of special value into the central authority which they would otherwise like. He would go so far as to say that the interests in many cases of these contiguous boroughs might be antagonistic. Suppose there was a site to be chosen and that there was a dispute between two of the boroughs on the question where a new school was to be planted. Was the representative of these four boroughs to take the opinion of all the four and endeavour to arrange a sort of compromise, for in many cases the interests of these contiguous bodies might be antagonistic? In this matter, and in the complex method of election which it was proposed to introduce, complications

  1191
  and difficulties would be created for the representation of these boroughs which did not now exist in any part of our local government system. At the same time it had not been shown that any practical benefit was likely to result. There was no reason to think that people specially acquainted with the needs of the different parts of London, educationally, would be better brought in by this highly artificial scheme than by the method of selection by the London County Council. He agreed that the Government had attempted a compromise between two plans, each consistent and logical, but it did not follow necessarily that a compromise was the best solution. There might be objection to walking down the west side of a street and also objections to walking down the east side, but it did not follow that the best way was to go down the middle of the street. To take the middle course might lead to greater evils. He thought the plan of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University would be better than that proposed, viz., to hand the whole thing over to the London County Council and make it omnipotent. They had tried to treat this question altogether apart from any spirit of recrimination, and he ventured to hope that the Government would ponder over the suggestions they had received from their own side of the House as well as from this. The question of the introduction of the twelve members was a detail; it was no more essential to the principle of the Bill than was the proposal in Clause 5 of the Bill of last year, and he could not see why the Government should not leave it to the House to determine. It was a matter which would make a great deal of difference to the smooth working of the central authority. He ventured to say that the London County Council would regard the borough representatives as something of an alien element, and therefore, for the smooth working of the measure, it would be better if that element were not introduced. He earnestly entreated the Government to consider the matter with an open mind, and not to allow any desire to maintain their scheme prevent them from arriving at a solution which would most conform to the general wish of the House.
  MR. WHITMOREsaid that as one who was anxious to increase whenever possible the powers of the Borough Councils, he could not be accused of want of sympathy with them. He had always thought that the whole system of local government in London depended upon the smooth working between two different sets of institutions, the one central, and the other local, and the proper allocation to these of central and local duties; and that as regards the central duties the London County Council should be supreme. For this reason he was sorry to say that on this point he was in conflict with the Government and with the majority of the London Members; but he could not see that the central work of controlling the education of the whole of London could pertain to any but the central body. Much as he wished to dignify the Borough Councils, he believed it would only lead to a confusion of the principles on which the government of London rested if they encouraged the Borough Councils to think that they ought to mix themselves up with the central control of the education in London. At the same time, as the Bill was proceeded with, the Committee would be able to give them such large and interesting powers of local management that the best men and women in the localities would have a new inducement to go on to these bodies. What he had been struggling for was to secure that the London County Council should be supreme and paramount on this Committee, and that the responsibility for this work should clearly attach to that one authority. What he was afraid of was that, under the original scheme of the Government, the ordinary elector would not know whom to attack in case of extravagance, whether to lay the blame upon the London County Council or to the Borough Councils, and the consequence would be that there would be recrimination between the London County Council and the Borough Councils, and between the Borough Councils and the London County Council. He was bound to say that under the remodelled scheme it was clear that definite responsibility would attach itself to the London County Council and that if any of them complained either of extravagance or parsimony in the management of education in London, they must go direct to the London County Council.

  1193
  If it could be made perfectly clear that the London County Council was to be supreme, and that it was responsible for the administration of the Education Committee they had gained substantially all that they wanted. He quite understood the strong sentiment which had influenced his friends in wishing that there should be still representatives of the Borough Councils on the central Committee, but he believed that under the management of the London County Council as the central authority their interests would be amply safe-guarded, while he did not wish to encourage the unwise idea that the Borough Councils should be mixed up with the functions and work of the central authority. His only object was to make this Bill a thoroughly workable measure for the better education of London.
  MR. HALDANEsaid that, like the hon. Member for Chelsea, he occupied an intermediate position, and there was scarcely anything in the speech of the hon. Gentleman with which he did not agree. The one thing he cared about was to make the best of London education. Many controversies had been introduced which seemed to him not germane to making the best of London education. He had always been of opinion that the Government had a perfectly simple course before them, and that was to incorporate in this Bill the principle of their measure of last year. That was not done, and the question which now arose was why they should take a course which differed, not merely in detail, but in principle, from what was adopted in regard to the education of the country generally. He was not a London Member, but probably he had had as much to do with higher education in London as most Members of this House; and of one thing he was quite certain, and that was, that to make London educational reform a success, it must be treated as a whole. London was not an aggregate of separate boroughs—certainly not for educational purposes, at any rate. They
  1194
  could not take the great London educational institutions and distribute them, and split them up. Therefore, that being so, what was wanted was a single supreme educational authority to deal with the whole question of London education, and not one which represented a compromise of conflicting interests. He did not find himself in agreement with the right hon. Gentleman who led the House when he wanted to make some sort of compromise with the Borough Councils. With the hon. Member for Chelsea he believed it was a great mistake to decry the Borough Councils. These had got a future before them, and he wanted to develop them, and give them every chance; but he did not think that it would be assisting them or giving them a better chance to bring them, in the artificial way proposed in the Bill, into the management of London education. There must be one authority, supreme in London education, which must be dealt with as a whole. He quite agreed that the various bodies were brought in in a less objectionable way by the Amendment now proposed than they had been in the scheme as originally framed; but they were brought in in a fashion and form which, at any rate, lent itself to the possibility of very considerable friction. He should have understood the proposal of the Government in this Amendment if it had been designed to allow the Borough Councils to select representatives chosen for their educational efficiency, because these would be the very best men to add to the central authority. But this Amendment prevented that selection. How were these unequally yoked bodies to work together? How were they to carry on the business of selecting the best representatives to the central authority? The way in which the Amendment was framed allowed no freedom to the Borough Councils to do what he thought was the object of the Government, viz., that when they could not find any educationalist in the

  1195
  Councils they should take some distinguished person outside as the representative of a group of boroughs. As the Amendment now stood, it was quite impossible to carry that out. He must say that while he thought the Government had taken a better course than was originally contemplated under the Bill, they had marred that proposal by the provision that the representative of the Borough Councils must be somebody who was a borough councillor. The whole essence of this scheme was by some means or another to conciliate the interests which were causing the Government difficulty in framing the Bill. He felt that the Government had yielded too much to the pressure put upon them, not in the interests of education, but in the interests of the Borough Councils, and that being so, while he thought, with the hon. Member for Chelsea, that the Amendment made things better, he could not bring himself to believe that they had got in the interests of London education as a whole anything approaching a satisfactory solution.
  MR. LOUGHsaid that a large question had been raised by the Prime Minister when he asked the Committee to accept the principle of the representation of the Borough Councils by agreeing to the Amendment. The Prime Minister knew the ways of Parliament just as well as any other hon. Member, and he did not make that twenty minutes' speech for nothing. The right hon. Gentleman said that he was conceding all that they objected to when he reduced the number of representatives of the Borough Councils. As a matter of fact the difficulty of the situation was rather increased by the reduction in the numbers. The proposal
  1196
  was the most ridiculous ever made, and it would be seen that it was quite impossible for the Committee to accept it. The hon. Member for Chelsea, whom they accepted as a fair exponent of the Borough Councils, admitted that he was entirely opposed to the introduction of the representatives of the Borough Councils on the Education Committee, but the hon. Gentleman said he now occupied a middle position which enabled him to accept the decision of the Government. The hon. Gentleman should have stuck fast to his principles. The hon. Gentleman said that the rights of the Borough Councils were sufficiently preserved, but he maintained that that was not so. The rights of the Borough Councils in these matters were that their prerogatives should extend to all municipal affairs.
  And, it being midnight, the Chairman proceeded to interrupt the business.
  Whereupon MR. GALLOWAY rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put;" but the Chairman withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
  And the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again this day.

  ADDENBROOK'S HOSPITAL BILL.
  Considered in Committee, and reported; as amended, to be considered upon Friday 26th June.
  Adjourned at seven minutes after Twelve o'clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:—
Hyde Corporation; Nelson Corporation; Cork Harbour.
And also the Certificate that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have not been complied with:—
Coventry Electric Tramways.
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE.
Report from, That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the Petition for a Bill by Frederick Ellsworth Kip ought to be dispensed with, and leave given to introduce the Bill.
Read and agreed to.
Coventry Electric Tramways Bill. Examiner's Certificate of non-compliance with the Standing Orders referred to the Standing Orders Committee on Tuesday next.
Dewsbury, Batley, and Birstal Tramways Bill [H L.] Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
Bournemouth Corporation Tramways Bill [H.L.]; Jewish Colonisation Association Bill [H.L.]. Reported, with Amendments.
South Lancashire Tramways Bill [H.L.]. Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
Scunthorpe Urban District Water Bill [H.L.]; Hove, Worthing, and District Tramways Bill [H.L.]. Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
Maidstone Gas Bill. Read 3a, and passed.
Somerset and District Electric Power Bill [H.L.]. The consent of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales signified; Bill read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
Dudley, Stourbridge, and District Tramways Bill [H.L.]. Read 3a, and passed, sent to the Commons.
East Ardsley Gas Bill. Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passes, and returned to the Commons.
Watford and Edgware Railway Bill. Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
Midland Railway Bill. Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
St. Luke's Church and Parish Quoad Sacra Edinburgh Order Confirmation Bill [H.L.]. A Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to St. Luke's Church and Parish Quoad Sacra, Edinburgh—was presented by the Lord Balfour; read 1a; to be printed; and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, Section 7), deemed to have been read 2a; and reported from the Committee. (No. 79.)
Dundee Royal Lunatic Asylum Order Confirmation Bill. Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed, and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899), deemed to have been read 2a—(The Lord Balfour), and reported from the Committee. (No. 80.)

PETITIONS.
  MARRIAGE LAWS.
  Petition for appointment of Royal Commission on; of the Diocesan Conference of Rochester; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
  SHOPS (EARLY CLOSING) BILL [H.L.]
  Petition in favour of; of the Ruridecanal Conference of North Meols; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  NAVY (HYDROGRAPHER'S REPORT).
  Report on Admiralty Surveys, for the year 1902, by the Hydrographer.
  AUSTRALIA.
  Correspondence respecting the Constitutional Relations of the Australian Commonwealth and States in regard to external affairs.
  COLONIAL CONFERENCE, 1902.
  Memorandum on sea power, and the principles involved in it.

  AFRICA, No. 4 (1903).
  Report from His Majesty's Commissioner for British Central Africa respecting the Anglo-Congolese Frontier in the neighbourhood of Lake M weru, and the circumstances attending the arrest of the late M. Rabinek.
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

NEW BILL.
  POLLING ARRANGEMENTS (PARLIAMENTARY BOROUGHS) BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend the law relating to the arrangement of polling districts in Parliamentary boroughs. Was presented by the Lord Ribblesdale; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Friday next. (No 78.)
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING (LONDON) BILL [H.L.]
  The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn. The order made on the 26th of March last discharged, and Bill committed for Thursday next.

  LAND DRAINAGE PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  House in Committee (according to Order). Bill reported without Amendment.
  1048
  Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a on Friday next.

  PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO CHILDREN (AMENDMENT) BILL [H.L.]
  Order of the day read for the House going into Committee.
  LORD ALVERSTONE: Before your Lordships go into Committee on this Bill, I desire to say that my attention has been called to the fact that even in the reduced form in which the Bill comes before your Lordships from the Select Committee, there are many Amendments of the Act of 1890. I shall, therefore, in deference to the wishes of noble Lords opposite, introduce a Consolidation Bill which will make the two measures read together, and which can be sent down to the other House, and be dealt with at the same time as this Bill.
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  Amendments proposed by the Select Committee made and Bill recommitted to the Standing Committee.

  MUSICAL COPYRIGHT BILL [H.L.]
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
  THE EARL OF LYTTON: My Lords, the provisions of this Bill are intended to remedy some defects in the Musical Copyright Act of last year, and I do not think I need detain your Lordships for more than a few minutes in explaining its provisions. As your Lordships are probably aware, the practice of printing and selling pirated copies of musical works, has very largely increased of recent years, and at the present moment is carried on to a general and universal extent. I do not propose to enlarge upon the actual extent to which this particular form of property is pirated, but representations have already been made to the Home Office and to the Board of Trade by the large firms of music publishers in which they have set forth in the clearest possible manner, and with the fullest evidence, the way in which their rights have been infringed, their property

  1049
  stolen, and the trade in which they are engaged practically brought to a standstill. In order to remedy that situation Lord Monkswell introduced a Bill last year, and in the form in which that Bill was first introduced I believe it would have gone a very long way to put an end to this particular practice. But, unfortunately, in order to secure its speedy passage into law, the noble Lord had to submit to certain changes in the Bill and to make certain sacrifices of important clauses, with the result that by the time it reached its final stage it became a shadow with very little substance. The law as it now stands only allows a police constable to seize particular copies which he sees being sold in the streets, and those copies, when seized and brought before a magistrate, according to a recent decision of the High Court, cannot be destroyed until a summons has been served on the hawker. The hawkers, as a rule, are a vagrant body, and it has been found impossible to serve summonses upon them. They invariably give false names and addresses, and though a great many summonses have been issued during the last year it has been found practically impossible to serve them. In fact, the time of the owners of musical copyright who have attempted to put the Act in force has been chiefly occupied in serving summonses on empty houses and in looking up and down streets for houses which do not exist. Therefore, the Act of last year, instead of giving a little needed protection to owners of musical copyright, has merely handed them over still more to the mercies of their enemies. The Memorandum attached to the Bill states that there has been an enormous increase in the repertoire and number of pirated copies of music printed and offered for sale, and, incredible as it may seem, this has undoubtedly been the case, because the passing of the Act of last year, and the various futile attempts which have been made to put it in force, have merely acted as an advertisement of the very lucrative nature of the trade; and the utter failure of its administration has given confidence to the classes engaged in it. I think I can best explain the contempt in which the law is held, by reading an extract from a letter of a facetious hawker, whom the Musical
  1050
  Copyright Association were endeavouring to prosecute for having pirated music. He writes—
  "I am of opinion that the ridiculous Act and its comic results would have made a good subject for the forthcoming Drury Lane pantomime."
  In other words, the Act is denounced as a mere sham by the very people against whom it was directed; and not only the hawkers, but the printers and distributors of this pirated music, have equally gained confidence from the failure of the Act. Advertisements have been sent round to houses, and inserted in the newspapers, offering to sell this music, to use their own words, "at ridiculously low prices." I trust that your Lordships will agree that it is time this sort of thing was put a stop to, and that some protection should be given to musical authors and publishers. By Clause 1 of this Bill a penalty is inflicted of 5s. for every copy of this kind of stolen music which is printed, hawked, sold, or imported; every copy is liable to a fine of 5s. up to a total of £50 for one offence. I may mention that some protection is given, under Clause 4, to a bonâ fide purchaser, because, by Clause 4, the name and address of the printer are required to be placed upon every copy of music which is sold. In that way it is possible for an innocent person to have a very ready means of finding out whether the music has been pirated or not. Clause 2 allows a magistrate to issue a search warrant after he has received satisfactory evidence that pirated music is being sold and distributed on a large scale. After issuing a summons he is then able to issue a search warrant in order that these copies may be seized. The Act of last year, which only authorised the seizure of the copies found upon hawkers in the streets, left the whole root of the evil untouched, and by this clause it will be possible to get at the real offenders—the wholesale distributors and printers of pirated music. Clause 3 really consists of two parts. The first allows the copies of music which have been seized from hawkers to be destroyed without evidence that a warrant has been issued, if the magistrate thinks fit to do so. This is necessary because of the impossibility which has been found under the Act of last year of serving warrants on the people who hawk this

  1051
  music. At the same time it provides the owner of these copies with the power of claiming his property within a fortnight. Clause 5 proposes to include in the definition of "pedlar" anybody offering for sale music in a public place. The definition of a pedlar in the Act of 1871, is a man who goes to other men's houses, or from town to town; and as this has been interpreted by some magistrates to apply to hawkers of music who go from borough to borough, and as it certainly applies to hawkers of music who go from town to town in the country, it has been thought necessary to apply this definition generally, in order to secure that all hawkers of music shall be on an equal footing. This clause will therefore require in future all hawkers of music to have a pedlar's licence. In moving the Second Reading I would venture to express the hope that His Majesty's Government will see their way to accept the Bill and give some facility for its being passed into law, because the evil which it seeks to remedy is really a very serious one. The sufferers under the present state of the law include, not merely musical authors, who are unable to enjoy the rights which they have acquired, but the class of small shopkeepers who have sought to act honestly and to sell the legal copies of music, but who have found it quite impossible to meet the pressure of competition of musical pirates, and who are bound, therefore, to give up selling this music altogether. In the interests and on behalf of those two classes I commend the Bill to your Lordships' consideration.
  Moved, that the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Lytton.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBURY): As far as His Majesty's Government are concerned, I do not think there is any objection to the Second Reading of this Bill, though the noble Earl must be prepared for some Amendments, not necessarily of substance, but with respect to drafting, in Committee.
  On Question, Bill read 2a (according to Order) and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

  UNION OF BENEFICES ACT, 1860, AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I need not detain your Lordships for more than a few moments in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, first, because it is already familiar to your Lordships, and secondly, because it really deals with a large number of details which, if they are to be considered at all, would have to be considered in Committee, and not, I think, on Second Reading. The point of the Bill is simply this. The Act of 1860 makes provision, under certain stringent conditions, for contiguous benefices in the Metropolis being united, but the provisions of the Act do not extend beyond the Metropolis. The object of this Bill is to extend to other parts of England powers which have been found to work beneficially and happily within the Meropolitan area. The Bill is practically the same as the measure which was introduced into and carried through your Lordships' House by the late Archbishop of Canterbury in 1890, with the exception of one additional provision which deals with the power of selling a consecrated chapel of case which has become useless—and is sometimes an actual encumbrance. The facilities which the Bill enacts are safeguarded at every turn from the possibility of being used to the unfair disadvantage either of an individual or of a parish. Indeed my only fear in the matter is that the safeguards are so numerous and so potent as to hamper the usefulness of the measure; but that is a fault on the right side. The whole matter was fully explained to the House by the late Archbishop of Canterbury and I need not go over the ground again unless any of your Lordships wish me to do so. I believe the Bill will effect a real and salutary reform, and I hope your Lordships will give it a Second Reading.
  Bill read 2a (according to Order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Friday next.

  ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSIONERS BILL [H.L.]
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, the history of this Bill is as follows. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners, as your Lordships are aware, are a very large body, but by an Act which was passed in 1850 the practical, active, and important business of the Commission was entrusted to a body of five—four laymen and one Bishop. Two of these, including the Chairman, are appointed by the Crown and two by the Archbishop of Canterbury. The Bishop is annually elected by the Board. The present Chairman is my noble friend Earl Stanhope. Two of these lay commissioners are paid, of course out of the funds of the Commission itself. Those two commissioners are the chief commissioner, who is appointed by His Majesty's Government, and a lay commissioner, appointed by the Archbishop of Canterbury. The formation of this Executive Committee, or Estates Committee was the outcome of a Report of a Select Committee of the House of Commons which sat in the years 1848 and 1849. The object of this Bill is to empower the Commission, out of its own funds, to pay a salary to an additional lay commissioner, so that there shall be three paid commissioners instead of two. The Select Committee to which I have referred, recommended that there should be three paid lay commissioners, but the Bill of 1850 though introduced to give effect to the Committee's Report, when it emerged from the House of Commons contained the provision that there should be only two paid commissioners. That was fifty-three years ago. In the debate which arose in the House of Commons, an Amendment was moved that the number of paid commissioners should be three; and to that the reply was given that the time might probably come when the business would require the attendance of three paid commissioners, but that it had not come yet. The business of the Commission is gigantic, the funds now administered by it reaching an annual sum of £1,500,000 sterling, as compared with the sum of about £70,000 in 1850. It was prophesied in 1850 that some day
  1054
  the income might reach £300,000. It is now five times as great as that estimate, and quite an undue amount of responsibility is thrown on the shoulders of the unpaid commissioners. It is vital to the due discharge of these great duties that the number should be increased, and that some one with ripe administrative, and perhaps with legal experience, should be added to the number and paid the prescribed salary. This would, of course, impose no charge upon the public. The whole money would be found by the Commissioners out of the funds at their disposal. The Bill is so drawn as to leave the appointment of this third commissioner with the Archbishop of Canterbury, but I am anxious to make it clear that, personally, I have no desire whatever to claim that this patronage should be in the hands of the Archbishop of Canterbury; and, if your Lordships think it better that it should be vested in the Crown, I should raise no objection. But it has been thought desirable that it should rest with the Archbishop of Canterbury rather than that there should be any risk of its becoming a political appointment.
  Bill read 2a (according to Order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Friday next.

  THE REGULATION OF MOTOR CAR TRAFFIC.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: My Lords, I rise to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he intends to revise the regulations now in force in Scotland with reference to motor-car traffic, and to bring these more in accord with the policy suggested in the following Resolution submitted to him on the 3rd of November 1899, by the County Council of Haddington, viz.:—
  "That it is inconsistent with sound and enlightened policy in the matter of motor-car traffic, to lay down any hard and fast rule as to speed, it being ordered and understood that when driving through towns, villages, turning corners, or passing branch roads, motor drivers shall not exceed the ordinary speed in like circumstances of horse conveyances, and that they shall further, when passing or meeting any horse-drawn vehicle, slow down and, if need be, stop, so as not to frighten the horse or horses drawing the said conveyance, but that, subject to these conditions, a motor driver shall be left free to exercise his discretion as to speed when the road is clear, on the understanding that the driving be not

  1055
  reckless. For the purpose of identification, a large number shall be attached to the motor before and behind, and illuminated at night. That this Resolution be forwarded to the Secretary for Scotland."
  Perhaps your Lordships will allow me, in putting this question, to say a few words upon the matter at issue. We boast that we are a very practical nation, but I am bound to say we have not shown it in our dealings with motor-car traffic, because in 1896 it was laid down as a hard and fast rule that these cars, which we now learn can go at the rate of sixty, eighty and even ninety miles an hour, were to be confined under all circumstances to twelve miles an hour. That, my Lords, appears to me to be contrary to common sense, and the result of this retrograde legislation has been that the law is constantly broken, and the great lawbreaker is the present Prime Minister. So much so that Mr. Long has given notice in another place that he intends to bring in a Bill to deal with this question. Mr. Long has no jurisdiction over Scotland, and what I want to know is whether my noble friend, the Secretary for Scotland, intends to legislate also for Scotland, remembering that Mr. Balfour lives in Scotland, that he motors a great deal in that country, and that the law at present is the same as regards speed on both sides of the Tweed. If my noble friend, as I hope, intends to bring common sense to bear on the question, I want to know on what line he proposes to go. The Resolution which was passed by my County Council states that it is inconsistent with sound and enlightened policy in the matter of motor car traffic to lay down any hard and fast rule as to speed. That is what you have done, and Mr. Long has declared that the present state of the law is simply absurd. Therefore it would be a fallacy to lay down any special speed in your regulations, but plenty of security should be taken for the safety of the public and those travelling in motor-cars.
  The Resolution goes on to say that it should be ordered and understood that when driving through towns, villages, turning corners, or passing branch roads, motor drivers should not exceed the ordinary speed in like circumstances of horsed conveyances, and that they should, when passing or meeting any horse-drawn vehicle, slow down, and, if need be, stop, so as not to frighten the horse
  1056
  or horses drawing the said conveyance, but that subject to these conditions a motor driver should be left free to exercise his discretion as to speed when the road is clear. That seems to me the common sense of motor-car traffic up-to-date. It is absurd to say that when the road is clear, and there is no danger, they should not take advantage of the speed that science has given them, and should be tied down to any fixed limit. Take the ordinary road traffic. You may not drive to the injury of human life, but there is nothing to prevent an American trotter going twenty-five miles per hour on your roads. In my own country I have been driving steadily at ten miles an hour, when one of these American trotters, to use an American expression, has passed me like a greased flash of lightning. It did me no harm; the road was clear. Why should not the same rule apply to motor-cars? I think it would be unwise to fix any speed, but there should be a general understanding that when passing through villages motor drivers should not exceed the ordinary speed of horsed conveyances. I think that would be found to work well. My Resolution stopped at the words "when the road is clear," but my County Council added the words "on the understanding that the driving be not reckless." I think it would be difficult to say what was reckless driving; in my opinion, "dangerous" would be a better word. Horses, we know, are getting gradually accustomed to these motors. Some of them do not like the stink any more than we do, and I think that on meeting horses motors should slow down. These seem to me to be the lines on which it would be well to work. A further addition to my Motion was made by my County Council providing that for the purpose of identification a large number should be attached to the motor before and behind. My impression is that it is only behind that the number would be any good. The other day, when leaving this House, I was passed by a motor which was certainly going at thirty miles an hour. It had passed me before I could have detected any number on the side, and I could not possibly have seen a number on the front, but I noticed that it had a low red box behind. If a number had been there I

  1057
  should have been able to see it. I would suggest that the number should be fixed behind and should be below the foot board. The extent to which the law is broken in London is disgraceful and intolerable. Motor cars are driven, regardless of everyone, at twenty-four miles an hour. In my opinion nothing can keep motor-car drivers in order except some means of identifying the car, and I think some of the police should be provided with cycles so that they could watch these drivers and overtake them. The noise of these machines is a public nuisance, for they groan, grunt, shiver, shake, and stink. The wearing of glasses and leather coats is an affectation, and the use of the word chauffeur is intolerable and should be prohibited. The introduction of these needless foreign expressions is odious. Thus we have Hotel Cecil instead of Cecil Hotel, Hotel Albemarle instead of Albemarle Hotel, and even the German word hinterland is in diplomatic use. I am afraid my noble friend can hardly deal with this, but I hope he will legislate in the spirit of the first part of the Resolution. We are in the infancy of motor traffic. It is impossible to say, if it is not interfered with by the State, to what it may lead. One thing is certain, that in time all traction will be by motor. Horses will be kept for Rotten Row and for the parks; for traction horses are doomed, and if it were not for the fact that they are wanted for the infantry and cavalry and other purposes I am afraid they would die out. This constitutes a bad look-out for agriculture. We grow corn, oats, hay, and straw. Motors do not eat oats, they do not eat hay, and they do not lie on straw, and when horses are done away with it will not be worth while our growing these agricultural articles of consumption, having lost our best customer the horse. But be that as it may, motor traffic is a great boon to humanity, and I think it is the duty of the Government not to interfere with it needlessly, but to encourage it, at the same time making ample provision for the safety of the public.
  THE MARQUESS OF GRANBY: My Lords, before my noble friend answers the question put to him by the noble Earl, may I, as one who some two years ago took a somewhat prominent part in the discussion with regard to legislation
  1058
  affecting motor-car traffic, say one or two words to your Lordships on the subject. Although the resolution of the County Council of Haddington only affects Scotland, the legislation which must be introduced before long on this subject must affect all classes of the community on both sides of the Tweed. In the main I entirely agree with the terms of the Resolution. Legislation on this subject is much more important in many ways to the general public than many of the measures with larger-sounding titles that have been brought in by the present Government, because motor-car traffic has come to stay, and undoubtedly the roads will day by day become more and more used by motor-cars. I agree that an unlimited speed should be allowed to motor-cars provided proper precautions are taken to ensure the safety of the public in places such as those mentioned in the Resolution. A horse which is well broken to motor-cars in London is frightened to death by them when it goes into the country. The reason is that the traffic with which horses are surrounded in London is absent in the country, and they see and hear these noisy things coming along, with the result, as I have said, that they are greatly frightened. The size of motor cars is now so large, and their speed so rapid, that they are practically small railway trains; and I think it is a moot point whether it will not be necessary a few years hence to extend or double the main roads in places where motor-car traffic is increasing. With regard to the question of identification, which I had the pleasure of taking up some two years ago in the Press, and for which I was very violently abused by the budding motor-car industry, I am happy to find that the more important motor-car clubs are in favour of identification. In addition to numbering for the purposes of identification, motorcars should bear the letters indicating the county to which they belong and they should be registered. Every driver of a motor-car should be licensed. He should always have that licence upon him, and if, after a first offence, he has done serious damage to life or limb, or to property, it should be a question of imprisonment without the option of a fine. I think if those points are carried out in any Bill which the Government may bring forward, you will only be

  1059
  doing justice to the general public. I think it is most important that there should be means of identification, and I cannot see why the owners of motorcars should object, as I understand they do. The Chief Constable of one county, Hampshire, reports that he, during the Easter holidays, received thirty or forty complaints as to motor-cars having done serious damage, but in only three or four cases were the police able to identify the drivers; they drove away. Legislation on this subject is undoubtedly necessary.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: Do you mean that every man or woman who drives a motor-car should be licensed?
  THE MARQUESS OF GRANBY: I should like to see them all licensed.
  LORD LAMINGTON: The other day I had the honour of calling attention to this question in your Lordships' House, and I laid special stress on the point mentioned by the noble Marquess, that drivers should be licensed. I may say that the very next day I was run into by a tyro in the art of motor-car driving, and a very serious accident nearly resulted.
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Lord BALFOUR of BURLEIGH): My Lords, so far as the actual Question is concerned which appears on the Notice Paper the noble Earl who brought this subject forward, I think, supplied the answer. The question he asks is whether the Secretary for Scotland intends to revise the regulations now in force. The noble Earl knows perfectly well that the regulations as to speed are statutory regulations, which it is not in the power of the Secretary for Scotland or any other official to alter or vary without legislation. The noble Earl went on to say that he did not think we had been very practical in dealing with this matter, and he said the law as it now stands is not observed. So far as the latter of those two statements is concerned, it is a matter of common knowledge that the law as now laid down is not observed; and I am bound to agree with the noble Earl and the noble Marquess that the present state of matters is extremely unsatisfactory
  1060
  and does very urgently call for a remedy. The noble Earl then asked whether the change in the law, which has been announced in another place by the President of the Local Government Board as likely to be suggested to Parliament, would apply to Scotland. My answer to that is, as a matter of course, in the affirmative. I have been in communication with the President of the Local Government Board as to the details of the Bill which is being prepared, and I am sure your Lordships will agree with me that it would be the height of absurdity not to make the law, as far as we can having regard to the different circumstances as to local Government, uniform. I am asked by the noble Earl what lines the Bill is likely to go upon; but I venture to say that it would be irregular for me to attempt an explanation of the whole policy of the Government in regard to this matter or what the Bill is which will probably be introduced in another place. But speaking quite generally, I cannot see that there is much to object to in the suggestions of the noble Earl or in the resolution of the Haddington County Council. I do not bind myself to the absolute terms either of that Resolution or of the suggestions made by the noble Earl and the noble Marquess; but I entirely agree that, while I think there should be some limit to speed in populous places, narrow parts of the road, and under other special circumstances, that if you have distinguishing marks upon motor-cars, so that those who do wrong may be easily identified, a very much more liberal allowance may be made in the matter of speed than exists at present.
  I attach the greatest possible importance to having distinctive marks on the motors, so that those who misuse their privileges may be identified, and, if necessary, punished, and that the whole fraternity should not be prejudiced by the action of what I believe to be, comparatively speaking, a small minority. I think there has been unnecessary prejudice created against motor-cars by this evil conduct on the part of some of the drivers. I have had a great many complaints from different counties in Scotland of the action of persons who hire cars for a

  1061
  limited time and visit districts where they are not known and cannot be identified, with the result that a very bitter feeling has been created in many parts of Scotland on account of this conduct. I think it perfectly reasonable that if there is a liberal limit allowed in the matter of speed there should be a distinguishing mark affixed to the cars in some way that will not be objectionable to the owners. I further say that the obligation to have due regard to the safety of others must be distinctly laid upon those who use and drive motorcars, and they must be made distinctly responsible for their own acts as far as it is possible to make them. With these conditions, I do not see any reason why there should not be a liberal alteration in the question of the limit of speed. I can hold out no hope that the Bill will deal with the question of the King's English, as suggested by the noble Earl. Nor can I hold out any hope of double roads, at least at the expense of the ratepayers. I would venture to put in a word on that matter for the unfortunate ratepayer, and say that if special tracks are to be made for motor-cars the money must be provided out of some other fund than the rates. It is the desire of the President of the Local Government Board to introduce the Bill at as early a time as possible, and I sincerely hope it will be passed. I have no objection to coming under the obligation of telling my colleague what has passed here to-day, and I have no doubt he will be encouraged in the line which I know he proposes to take in regard to this matter.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, I gather from what the noble Lord has said that a Bill is in course of preparation by the President of the Local Government Board, and that it is not far from being ready. At all events, he holds out some hope that it may be introduced during the present session of Parliament. I should like to ask the Government whether it would not be possible to introduce that Bill, when it is ready, in this House, where there is no pressure of business such as exists in the other House. It would be just as well that a matter of this kind, which, after all, is of
  1062
  great public importance, should receive a considerable amount of public consideration before it becomes law, and with that object I would ask the Government whether they could see their way to introduce the Bill in this House. Enough has been already said to show that it would be amply considered, and from every point of view in this House, and I think it would be to the public advantage if your Lordships had the Bill placed under your consideration. With regard to the question of speed, I quite agree with noble Lords who have spoken, that it is undesirable to limit speed in any unnecessary manner, and that much more considerable latitude should be given than is given by the present law, which makes no distinction between open country and a crowded town. The noble Earl stated that a motor-car passed him outside this House the other day at a speed of nearly thirty miles an hour. Of course, no motor-car ought to be allowed to go at that speed in a crowded place like London, nor is there any reason why it should. There is another matter which has to be considered. It is utterly impossible to train horses to face in the open country a motor-car travelling at thirty or forty miles an hour. That is a point which will have to be considered. In order to enforce any regulation with regard to speed you will have to impose very heavy penalties on drivers who place the public in danger. I believe it is in that way, and in that way only, that you will be able to enforce any provision you may make with regard to speed. I should like an answer with regard to my suggestion that the Bill should be introduced in your Lordships' House.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: As to the introduction of the Bill in this House, I can, of course, give no pledge, but I think the suggestion is one well worthy of consideration. The Bill is not, strictly speaking, under my control, and I have not exactly in my mind the terms of the pledge which was given by my right hon. friend to the other House with regard to the introduction of the Bill. If the question is deferred till later in this week, or till next week, I will undertake to confer with Mr. Long and see whether the suggestion can be given effect to.

  FOREIGN WARSHIPS IN BRITISH HARBOURS.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: My Lords, I rise to ask His Majesty's Government under what regulations and restrictions the ships-of-war of Foreign Powers are admitted to British and colonial harbours and coaling stations; whether any change has recently been made in respect to such regulations and restrictions; under what conditions British ships-of-war are admitted to the harbours and coaling stations of Foreign Powers; and to move for Papers. This subject is one which involves various points of considerable difficulty and great delicacy in relation to international politics, but it is one which is altogether removed from the domain of party controversy; and I hope to be able to show your Lordships that it is one which merits the attention of His Majesty's Government. The question has this peculiarity, that it concerns a number of public Departments. It concerns, of course, both the Admiralty and the War Office—the two Departments responsible for the defence of our harbours and coaling stations. It concerns the Foreign Office, because it deals, as I said, with delicate points of international policy. It concerns the Colonial Office, because many of these places are under the jurisdiction of that Department, and last, but not least, it concerns the Committee of Imperial Defence, over which the noble Duke the Leader of the House presides, and from the re-organised labours of which we all hope so much. I think that if any excuse were required for bringing forward the question, the facts I have mentioned would be sufficient excuse, because questions which concern more Departments than one are just those most likely to escape due attention.
  With regard to the first two Questions I have placed on the Paper, I cannot do better than instance a case which came recently under my own observation. The other day, in our harbour of Colombo, there was present for nine days a squadron belonging to a friendly Power, consisting of eleven ships of war. The sight of so many foreign flags in the harbour, and so many foreign faces in the streets, might make one doubt whether one were in a British possession at all. But, that, of course, is merely a matter of sentiment. What is important is the
  1064
  fact that, if that friendly Power had been transformed into a hostile Power, there could not be, I think, the slightest question that the port of Colombo would have been absolutely at the mercy of that squadron. The squadron consisted of one battleship of nearly 13,000 tons, three cruisers ranging from 6,700 to 7,200 tons, and seven destroyers — all ships very powerfully armed and of the latest pattern. Their complement of crews could not, I imagine, have been less than 2,500 men, and among their armaments were four 12-inch guns, and upwards of thirty 6-inch guns. The available force, so far as I know, for the whole of the Island of Ceylon consists of two battalions of British infantry and one battalion of native infantry, and, so far as the defences of Colombo are concerned, of a battery and a half of artillery. Therefore, this foreign force, in the event of its developing hostile intentions, must have become the master of this supremely important place. It should further be mentioned that a squadron lying in the harbour does not come under the guns of the batteries of Colombo at all. I am not acquainted with the details of the defences of Colombo, and if I were I imagine it would not be proper to describe them in this House. But to anybody who has seen the place, it is evident that if such a squadron came under fire of any of the guns of the batteries it would only be at the risk, in firing on this fleet, of destroying the principal buildings in the town.
  I need not dilate, I think, on what the fall of Colombo at the beginning of a war would mean to the Empire. The moral effect of such a loss would be enormous. The relations between Ceylon and India, especially Southern India, are exceedingly close, owing to the fact that hundreds of thousands of coolies pass backwards and forwards from India to Ceylon for the purposes of the tea plantations in the island; and I think it is not overstating the case to say that the fall of Colombo would be regarded in India as as great a misfortune as the capture of one of the Indian seaport towns. Again you must remember that Colombo is a very important link in the chain of our fortified possessions between this country and the East. From Aden to Colombo is a distance of 2,093 miles;

  1065
  from Colombo to Singapore, the next important port on the way to the far East, is 1,673 miles, making a total of 3,766 miles; and I do not know if my noble friend the First Lord of the Admiralty will contradict me when I say that I imagine there are very few ships in His Majesty's Fleet, except one or two cruisers, which are capable of making a journey of 3,766 miles without a stop for coaling. It is, of course, true that Colombo is not the naval station for that part of the world. The naval station there is Trincomalee, but it is a question, I think, how far, under the possible circumstances that I have indicated, Trincomalee would be available for the purposes of the Fleet. For one thing, Trincomalee is nearly 100 miles from the railway. A hostile squadron in the harbour of Colombo would be on the flank of our reinforcements sent out to the East, and it must further be remembered that if some of the heavy guns which I have mentioned were landed from a hostile fleet, Colombo would be made almost impregnable from the sea. I mention Colombo as a single instance, but I am not sure that the observations I have made do not apply with varying degrees of force to other places, particularly to Hong-Kong, and possibly to some extent to Singapore, Mauritius, and the Cape of Good Hope.
  I ask your Lordships to consider a hypothetical case, which can be put, I think, by a private Member of your Lordships' House, without involving an offence to any foreign Power. Suppose it to be the case, as it is now, I am given to understand, that these powerful foreign squadrons have unrestricted access to the inner harbours of our important coaling stations; suppose that negotiations of an anxious and critical character were taking place between ourselves and some foreign Power on a question which might conceivably lead to war; and suppose by a singular coincidence that at the moment of those negotiations a powerful foreign squadron appeared off one of those harbours. If it is the invariable habit to admit them in times of peace, would it be possible to exclude them when negotiations of that kind were going on? If it became known
  1066
  that a foreign fleet had been excluded from a British port, the fact would be telegraphed all over the world; the effect would be felt in every Bourse in Europe, and it is possible that a war which might otherwise have been avoided would be precipitated. It may be said that wars are not declared offhand, and that it would be possible, and, indeed, easy, when war was pending, to refuse these facilities to a foreign fleet; but, after all, there have been in history such things as coups de main of a successful kind before wars have been declared. I would mention the action of this country in 1807 against the Danish fleet, and the action of France against China in 1884, while conflicting negotiations were pending and war had not been declared. What has happened once or twice might conceivably happen again, and it cannot be disputed that in some of our colonial ports considerable local uneasiness exists as to possible danger. I would, therefore, add to my Questions one of which I have given the noble Lord opposite private notice—whether any representations have been received from responsible authorities at any of these ports expressing a sense of danger such as I have indicated, and if so, what has been the nature of those representations? So far as I know at present no leave is asked before a foreign squadron of any strength enters one of these colonial harbours, all that is necessary being to ask formal leave of the harbour master, who, of course, is merely guided by the amount of shipping in the harbour at the time, and the possibility of berthing the ships in a convenient way.
  Such being the position, the question arises, how do you propose to meet it? I should like to guard myself against being supposed to favour the principle which I know is advocated by some persons interested in the defence of the Empire, that every possible place that might be attacked in time of war should be fortified. There is a school—I think it is chiefly a military school — who would like to see Brighton bristling with big guns, and would urge the noble Duke, in his double capacity of ground landlord of Eastbourne and Chairman of the Committee on Imperial Defence, to turn that watering place

  1067
  into a sort of Cherbourg. I have no sympathy with those views. But there are two main sea roads, so to speak, with the defence of which we are absolutely concerned; the one, of course, being the route through the Suez Canal, on which our points are Gibraltar, Malta, Aden, Colombo, Singapore, and Hong-Kong; the other the route round the Cape, in which the Southern Seas are reached by way of Cape Town and Mauritius. I therefore leave out of consideration altogether any desire to fortify strongly Australasian and West Indian ports, because I believe, from an Imperial point of view, those places are not likely to be seriously involved in any naval war in which we might unhappily be engaged. That being so, there are, it seems to me, three courses open to us—namely, to make the Fleet everywhere so strong that foreign fleets will have no chance of undertaking such operations as I have suggested, to make each place absolutely impregnable in spite of the admission of foreign men-of-war, or to exclude foreign men-of-war altogether from our harbours. As to strengthening the Fleet, it is very doubtful, in the first place, whether any strengthening of the Fleet would succeed in preventing such a coup de main as I have indicated; in the second place I believe it is a maxim of naval strategy that a fleet ought not to be tethered to a port; in the third place it seems to me that it would be more annoying to foreign Powers even than to be excluded from our harbours to have their movements perpetually dogged by a superior fleet in time of peace; and, lastly, in the case of the East India station, the unhealthiness of the station and the impossibility of escaping from extreme hot weather would make it very undesirable to strengthen the Fleet there to any great extent. The second alternative, to make the ports absolutely impregnable, would involve a very large expenditure of money; and consequently I proceed to the third alternative, the exclusion of foreign ships of war from our harbours. This, in my opinion, would be very unwise. In the first place because it would be an act of marked national discourtesy, and in the second place because we should thereby drive
  1068
  foreign Powers to acquire ports of their own in the Far East and other parts of the world.
  The conclusion that I arrive at is that it is necessary in order to secure our safety to combine to some extent the second and third alternatives—that is to say, to increase, probably by degrees, the fortified strength of such important harbours and coaling stations as are at present unsafe under the conditions which I have described, and until that can be done, to place some sort of limitation upon the number of foreign men-of-war to be admitted to any harbour when in the opinion of those qualified to judge there is a risk of its falling into an enemy's hands in the event of war. The fact that foreign Powers do to some extent exclude our ships of war from their harbours has an important bearing on the reciprocal arrangements that may be made. If they exclude us they cannot complain if we place a limit upon them. For instance, I believe that we are excluded altogether from Port Arthur without express permission. I have tried to avoid painting a picture in anything like lurid or sensational colours; but there is a prevalent idea that we are more careless and indifferent in these matters than foreign countries, and are apt to treat these dangers in a more happy-go-lucky manner. The extent of our Empire, and the uncertainty as to the form naval warfare in the future may take, make it imperative, in my opinion, that we should not run any risks. It is just because we are at this moment on good terms with foreign Powers that it seems to me it would be possible to approach the whole question without giving offence in any quarter. In any case I venture to think the question is worthy of the careful consideration of the Committee of Defence, and I hope I may be assured by the noble Earl opposite that such consideration is being fully given to it.
  Moved, "That there be laid before the House Papers relating to the regulations and restrictions under which the ships of war of Foreign Powers are admitted to British and Colonial harbours and coaling stations; and the conditions under which British ships of war are admitted to the harbours and coaling stations of Foreign Powers."—(The Earl of Crewe.)
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (The Earl of SELBORNE): My Lords, my noble friend is quite accurate in charging the Government of this country, using that term as embracing all parties, with a rather haphazard method of dealing with the class of questions which he has brought to your Lordships' notice. But it so happens that this question is one of the exceptions. This is a question that has not been neglected; on the contrary, it has been the subject of frequent and continuous consideration. There have been several changes in the practice of this country in this matter. Up to the year 1887 there were practically no restrictions as to the admission of foreign men-of-war to our ports. In that year, after prolonged consideration between the different Departments concerned, a code of regulations was drawn up restricting the access of foreign men-of-war to our ports, and those regulations were in operation for six years. In 1893, in the light of the experience gained, the subject was again considered with great care and deliberation, and with the concurrence of the colonial authorities, the restrictions were abolished. That was the policy deliberately adopted by the Government of which my noble friend was a member, and adhered to by subsequent Governments. As to the practice of other Powers, so far as I am aware no Power forbids foreign men-of-war to visit their ports. In the case of one or two there are strict regulations in respect of the number of ships that may come at one time without notice, but in most cases I believe there are no regulations or restrictions at all. The noble Earl mentioned Port Arthur as a place to which he understood British ships were not admitted. I am not aware of that restriction; on the contrary, curiously enough, I received a letter only the other day from the British Admiral Commanding-in-Chief on the China station stating where he was going to cruise, and announcing his intention, if possible, of paying a visit to Port Arthur during that cruise. I may say that although it is true that the foreign Powers who mainly use our ports are not those whose ports it is necessary for us freely to use in the ordinary course of the work of the Navy,
  1070
  yet we do benefit very largely indeed from the hospitality of other Powers who give us perfectly free and unrestricted access to their ports; and, therefore, from the general principle of mutual hospitality of Navy to Navy, our share of gain is very large indeed.
  The general view of the Government is that it is to the general interest that friendly Powers should be very accommodating to each other in this matter. Generally, it is certainly to our interest that this interchange of hospitality should exist with as few restrictions as possible. The noble Earl mentioned a rather unusual case of which he had been witness, that of eleven ships of war of a friendly Power lying for some days in the harbour of Colombo. That, I believe, was a completely exceptional case, and one arising altogether from accidental causes. I certainly have never heard of so large a visit of the ships of a friendly Power to one port except as a matter of special invitation, and I do not think it can be taken as any indication of the extent to which these privileges are generally used. The noble Earl has assumed the case of a period of tension between this country and another Power, and has asked what is to hinder that Power, while we were still at peace, from sending a squadron into one of our harbours, and either anticipating by a few hours the outbreak of war by a coup de main, or waiting there inside our defences till war was declared, in order to inflict a great blow to our prestige, and pro tanto to diminish the value of that port as an accessory of our Navy. I admit that the case is conceivable, but there are considerations which make such action very unlikely. I cannot conceive, in a period of tension, any Power being so foolish as to risk sending away an important fraction of its forces and not concentrating them together. Nothing could be more dangerous to any Power at such a time than to separate and scatter its forces. In war the object of Powers will be to concentrate their forces and not to disseminate them. Besides, I cannot conceive any squadron of a potential enemy of any importance being left unwatched by a corresponding British squadron. As to whether we are liable to this kind of

  1071
  action when there is no time of tension and no cause of quarrel, I refuse to contemplate such a contention, and I think that is not the case which the noble Earl meant to surmise.
  Sound as I believe the general principles I have enunciated to be, yet they are only defensible on the ground of real reciprocity. I do not think it would be possible for one to defend the giving of unrestricted hospitality to the ships of a friendly Power in all our ports, if the same welcome were not extended, in a reasonable degree at all events, to our ships when they wished to visit the ports of that Power. And if the time should come when a Power enjoying our hospitality in no mean measure, endeavoured to put obstacles in the way of our ships visiting their ports, beyond what might be called reasonable regulations, then, I quite admit, the whole subject would have to be reconsidered. Before the Committee of Imperial Defence was created there were two other bodies doing most excellent work, the Joint Naval and Military Committee and the Colonial Defence Committee; and I think either of those bodies would be eminently qualified to thresh out this question further, and, if necessary, to review it up to date, and its decision could eventually be reviewed, if necessary, by the Committee of Imperial Defence. I do not promise that that Committee will change its opinion; all I can do is to take care that the arguments the noble Earl has brought forward, and his plea for what I may call a code of regulations, shall be brought under their consideration. I am not aware that we have ever had any representations on this subject from any colonial authority. I am informed that when the change was made in 1893 the colonial authorities concurred in it on the ground, I understand, of their experience of the working of the restrictions.
  The noble Earl touched, in his interesting speech, on some rather large questions on which I cannot now dwell, but which I do not like entirely to pass without notice. He took care to defend himself in advance from the imputation that the natural corollary of his view would be that there should be additional expenditure on fortifications, and he was also careful to make it quite clear that
  1072
  he was untainted with what I may call the heresy, the vicious, abominable heresy, of the localisation of the Fleet. I think the noble Earl went rather far, however, in the matter of coaling stations. Coaling stations are in themselves no source of strength to the Fleet, the Fleet alone is the source of strength; our fortified coaling stations are merely useful accessories; and the amount of money expended on them, and the nature of their fortifications, have all been carefully worked out from the point of view that, if we once lost the command of the sea nothing could save the coaling stations. All that is required of them is that they should be able, in the temporary absence of the Fleet, to resist naval attack, it being understood that such naval attack might vary very greatly according to the different parts of the world in which our stations are. But under no circumstances is the Navy to be considered as a localised Navy. This question has come up in connection with the Australian naval agreement, and I have seen Australian papers that have combated the arguments of the Admiralty by pointing to the fact that in England we have coast-guard and port-guard ships. According to these writers these are vessels which are anchored off Hull, Portsmouth, or wherever it may be, and would remain there in time of war to defend such places; but, as your Lordships know, there is not a word of truth in that. In time of war the only place you may be perfectly certain a coast-guard ship would not be near is the place with which it is connected in time of peace. We have already abolished port-guard ships. I regret that the purely accidental connection should have given rise to such a misunderstanding, because the so-called coast-guard ships in time of war would be just as liable to be sent to China as a China ship would be to be brought home if wanted in the Channel.
  After all, the only thing that matters is general sea power, and in that respect the noble Earl was a little cramped in his perspective of the case. You must consider sea power as one from Suez eastwards; and it is not possible for any foreign Power with which we might be in a state of tension to have a force of the despatch of which to those seas we should not be

  1073
  aware, and foreign ships could no more be in two places at once than could British ships. And if these foreign ships are taken from European waters and sent eastwards, then British ships of corresponding value can be sent after them; and I do not think there is any prospect, or ought to be any prospect, that in time of war, after the period of tension, we should find ourselves in a position of inferiority in the Ear East. And then I would again remind the noble Earl of the extreme unlikelihood of a foreign Power running the risk of scattering and disseminating its forces at the very moment that it was nerving itself for a conflict with us. I hope I have dealt with the points the noble Earl has brought forward, and that he will not press for Papers. I do not think the public interest would be served by the production of those Papers. I certainly would not pledge myself to their production until the matter had been again thoroughly examined by one of the Committees I have mentioned; and I hope that for the present the noble Earl will be satisfied with my assurance that what he has said shall be brought to their notice.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: I need hardly say that I shall fall in with the suggestion of the noble Earl and not press for any Papers on this subject. But there are two points in his speech to which I should like to allude. In the first place, I confess I was not entirely convinced that a coup de main was quite such a remote contingency as he seemed to think. With regard to the question of reciprocity, it is not genuine reciprocity unless the risks involved are equal; and I should have thought that from an Imperial point of view we had a great deal more to lose under certain possible contingencies, by admitting foreign ships to our ports than they could conceivably have by admitting our ships to theirs. However, I am grateful to the noble Earl for the exceedingly kind manner in which he has answered my questions, and I have pleasure in withdrawing my Motion.
  Motion, by leave of the House, withdrawn.

  PORT OF LONDON BILL.
  Commons message considered (according to Order).
  Moved, "That this House do concur in the following Resolution communicated by the Commons, viz, 'That it is expedient that the Port of London Bill be committed to a Joint Committee of both Houses.'"—(The Duke of Devonshire.)
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: My Lords, I do not rise to oppose the Motion which the noble Duke has moved, but I think I am justified in commenting upon, and asking for some explanation of the difference of procedure that has been adopted in this case, and which was adopted in regard to the London Water Bill of last session. That Bill, so far as two Bills can be alike, was exactly the same as this Bill. Both deal with great London interests, and deal with them in the same way by municipalising them, and by appointing a great body on which the municipal authorities are largely represented; both compulsorily take over great services which have been carried on by private companies; both involve heavy charges on the rates, and transfer great interests from private bodies to these new bodies; both are partly public and partly private Bills, and it is recognised that they require to be dealt with in a special manner. Last session we were told that it was impossible for your Lordships to join with a Committee of the other House to consider the London Water Bill without that Bill being first introduced in this House and read a second time. Some of us took exception to that course, and said we thought it altogether superfluous and unnecessary. That, apparently, is the view that has been taken by His Majesty's Government and by the authorities of the House on this occasion. Of course, we are very glad to find that our views have been adopted, but, at the same time, I do think some explanation is required as to the reason for this change of front, and also as to whether this procedure will be adopted in similar cases in the future. The only reason I can conceive for this change, is that possibly it may be said that the present Bill is less contentious than the London Water Bill. But I do not think that the question of procedure should be governed by the consideration as to whether a Bill is more or less contentious or not, but should be

  1075
  governed by the character of the Bill itself. Indeed, I think that even on this point the Bills are very much alike. It is possible that the London Water Bill did give rise to a little more opposition than the present Bill, but the opposition to both Bills is of the same character. In the case of both Bills the general principle was accepted, and the real contention was and is on the constitution of the authority to be set up. Last year it was rightly insisted that the Committee to which the Water Bill should be referred should be essentially a judicial Committee that should examine it with perfect freedom from bias. I think I am right in assuming that exactly the same sort of Committee will be appointed for the consideration of this Bill, and that it will be a Committee, not chosen so that all sorts of opinions should be represented upon it, but chosen on account of the judicial qualities of the Members to deal with the Bill in an entirely impartial manner. I should also like to ask what will be the form of procedure in the Committee itself. As I understood in the case of last year's Bill, the House of Lords being joined with the House of Commons involved the appointment of a noble Lord as Chairman of the Committee, and also involved the procedure of the House of Lords being adopted in the Committee. I think that gave rise last year to some little misunderstanding which I hope will be avoided on this occasion. At any rate, I should like to be informed as to what the exact form of procedure will be, and whether in the case of this Committee, when the Bill has not come before your Lordships' House, the Chairman will of necessity be a noble Lord.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of MORLEY): My Lords, perhaps I may be allowed to reply to the observations of the noble Lord, because it was somewhat on my suggestion that the course taken with regard to the London Water Bill last year was adopted by the House. I would point out that at the present moment there is no Standing Order referring to procedure before Joint Committees. A Joint Committee is not recognised by any of the orders of your Lordships' House. The consequence is that the procedure relating to these
  1076
  Committees is dealt with according to practice, and practice not of a very old date. My noble friend is perfectly right when he says that up to last year, the practice was that when the other House sent up a message to ask your Lordships' House to join in sending to a Joint Committee a Bill that had originated in the other House, that course was adopted without any further step being taken. That was the case in regard to such Bills as the Railway Rates Bill, which was referred to a Joint Committee two or three years running. Latterly the same course was adopted with regard to one or two private Bills, especially the Dublin Bill, and another relating to an amalgamation of railways in Ireland. But none of those Bills contained any definite principle upon which your Lordships' House would desire to express any opinion. The Water Bill of last year was of a totally different character from any Bill, so far as I know, that up to that time had ever been referred to a Joint Committee. It was, as my noble friend said, a Bill of a hybrid character—that is, a public Bill, but involving interference with private property which made it necessary that, in addition to the public stages in the Whole House, it should pass through the stages that are necessary for a private Bill to go through, namely, a Select Committee. I was consulted on the subject, and it seemed to me that there was this difficulty—your Lordships were sending to a Select Committee a Bill the principle of which you had never approved. I still think there was something in that contention, and that your Lordships' House ought to have an opportunity, if it desires to do so, of expressing an opinion on the principle of a Bill before the details of it are sent to a Select Committee. I quite admit that with that view an absolutely unparalleled arrangement was made. Two identical Bills were introduced, one in each House, and when your Lordships had given a Second Reading to the Bill introduced into this House it was assumed that you approved the principle of the Bill, and that when a message came from the Commons begging your Lordships to refer the Commons Bill which was an identical measure, to a Select

  1077
  Committee, you could do so, having already assented to the principle in your Lordships' Bill. I quite admit that that was an absolutely unprecedented procedure, but, as I say, the object of it was to enable the House, if the House thought fit, to express an opinion on the principle of the Bill on the Motion for its Second Reading. I am bound to say the House did not take that view of it. The House preferred not to discuss the Bill on Second Reading before it went to the Joint Committee, but preferred to defer the discussion until the Bill came up in a matured and altered form from the Commons.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: We only accepted the formal Second Reading on the distinct understanding that we would be able to raise the principle on the Second Reading of the Bill when it came up from the other House.
  THE EARL OF MORLEY: I admit that. But I thought myself that it was right that the House should have an opportunity, before the Bill was referred to a Select Committee, of expressing an opinion upon its principles. As the House did not wish to discuss that Bill on Second Reading before it went to the Joint Committee, it seemed to me, and I think to many of your Lordships, unnecessary to repeat that experiment. Although I quite agree with my noble friend that the question of whether a Bill is contentious or not, should make no difference in the matter of procedure, if the House did not wish to take advantage of a Second Reading debate in the case of so contentious a Bill as the London Water Bill, a fortiori it would not wish to take advantage of a Second Reading debate in regard to this less contentious Bill. It, therefore, seemed to me that it would be better on this occasion to revert to the procedure which was adopted in the case of the Railway Rates Bill. The matter is not regulated by any Standing Order. The procedure by Joint Committee, which I think is a very useful one in many cases, has not been crystallised sufficiently to form any rules upon it. It is usual for a Member of your Lordships' House to preside over a Joint Committee,
  1078
  but there is nothing to prevent the Committee from electing any other Member whom they think fit. As to procedure, the procedure which has been invariably adopted is the procedure which prevails in your Lordships' House.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  And a Message ordered to be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.
  House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before Seven o'clock, to Friday next, half-past Ten o'clock.