Sitting of 20 May 1903

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.

UNOPPOSED PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Cheshire Lines Committee Bill. As amended, considered; Amendments made. Bill to be read the third time.
East Ham Improvement Bill; London County Council (Tramways and Improvements) Bill; London, Tilbury, and Southend Railway Bill; Wellingborough and District Tramroads Bill; West Cumberland Electric Tramways Bill. As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
Great Western Railway Bill. Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

PETITIONS.
  COAL MINES REGULATION BILL.
  Petition from Wardley, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENCES RENEWAL AND TRANSFER BILL.
  Petitions against: from Harrogate; St. Helens; and Hebden Bridge; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSING LAW (COMPENSATION FOR NON-RENEWAL) BILL.
  Petitions against: from Neath Abbey; Eccles; Weston-super-Mare; Galashiels; Hebden Bridge; St. Helens; and Harrogate; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSING (SCOTLAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  Petitions for alteration: from Keiss; Renton; Stirling; Dornoch; West Galashiels; Ochiltree; and Govan; to lie upon the Table.
  LONDON EDUCATION BILL.
  Petition of the Disestablishment Council for Scotland, against; to lie upon the Table.
  POOR LAW OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Govan, against; to lie upon the Table.
  PORT OF LONDON BILL.
  Petitions against (praying to be heard by Counsel): from Free Watermen and Lightermen, Barge Owners, and Ratepayers; and Short Sea Traders' Association; to lie upon the Table.
  PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION BILL.
  Petitions in favour: from Mossley; Woodley; Roe Green; Crosshouse; New Hampton; Rutherglen; Lancaster and Skerton; Birkenhead; Penge; Calstock; Tow Law; Little Lever; Eaglay; Toxteth; Innerleithen; Ripon; Cinderhill; Mauchline; Gilbertfield; Carleton; Stonefield; Norwood; West Calder; Winewall; Barrowford; Hucknall Torkard; Stapleford; Workington; and Brixton; to lie upon the Table.
  PUBLIC LIBRARIES.
  Petition from Aberdeen, for alteration of Law; to lie upon the Table.
  RATING OF MACHINERY BILL.
  Petition from Northallerton, against; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  Petition from Lee, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  SUNDAY TRADING (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Edinburgh, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE DISPUTES BILL.
  Petitions in favour: from Nantmelyn; Werfa; British Rhondda; and, George Collieries; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  FEE FUND (HOUSE OF LORDS).
  Account presented, of the Fee Fund of the House of Lords from 1st April 1902 to 31st March 1903 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  PUBLIC ACCOUNTS AND CHARGES ACT, 1891.
  Copy presented, of Treasury Minute, dated 19th May 1903, directing the appropriation of Colonial Contributions towards the expenses of the Pacific Cable, in aid of moneys provided by Parliament for the service of Telegraph Subsidies and Pacific Cable [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  NAVY (HYDROGRAPHER'S REPORT).
  Copy presented, of Report on Admiralty Surveys for the year 1902 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 7) BILL.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 19th May; Mr. Bonar Law]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. (No. 175.)
  ALIENS (NATURALISATION) (TRANSVAAL AND ORANGE RIVER COLONY).
  Address for "Copy of Ordinances containing Rules and Regulations respecting the Naturalisation of Aliens in the Transvaal and Orange River Colony."—(Mr. John Ellis.)
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Payment of Rates through Landlord—Liability of Tenants.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that some fifty householders living in Stirling Road, South Acton, Middlesex, have been served with distress warrants for sums varying from £1 7s. 6d. to £5 for rates that were paid to the landlord but not paid by him to the local authority; and, if so, whether he will introduce an Amendment of the law to protect such people.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The answer to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative. I am informed that some time ago the overseers adopted the practice of compounding for the poor rates with the owners of properties of a rateable value up to £20. The limit allowed by the statute is, however, only £8, and attention having been called to the matter, the occupiers of properties
  1200
  over this value are now rated instead of the owners as heretofore. I understood that the hon. Member has been furnished with a copy of the overseers' statement as to the circumstances of the case. The position referred to in the Question is unfortunate, but I can only suggest that fresh agreements should be entered into as soon as possible between the landlord and the tenants. I could not at the present time undertake to introduce legislation as suggested.

  Vivisection at University College.
  SIR FREDERICK BANBURY: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what was the nature and amount of the anæsthetic given to the brown dog operated upon consecutively by vivisectors at University College, London, on the 2nd of February last; how long before the animal was brought into the theatre by Dr. Bayliss was that anæsthetic administered; will he state who was the licencee who performed the experiment involving the two cutting operations upon the dog before it was operated upon in another part of its body on the 2nd of last February by Dr. Bayliss; and under what certificate was the experiment involving these two operations performed.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers Douglas.) If, as I understand is the case, there is an action pending in connection with statements which have been made regarding the operation performed at University College on the 2nd February last by Dr. Bayliss, I do not think I ought to go into detailed points such as those mentioned in the first two paragraphs of the Question. I have already in previous answers given fully the main facts of the case. As to the two last paragraphs, Professor E. H. Starling performed the experiment referred to, under Certificates B. and E.E.

  Religious Ministration at South Shields Union.
  MR. TALBOT: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, in view of the fact that the workhouse belonging to the South Shields Union contains about 1,000 inmates, and that the creed register shows them to be distributed as

  1201
  follows: Church of England, 600; Roman Catholics, 300; Protestant Nonconformists, 100; and that the guardians continue to refuse to make any payment for religious ministrations to any of these classes of poor persons, many of whom are aged and sick, he will state what steps, if any, the Local Government Board propose to take to enforce obedience to the law on the part of the Board of Guardians.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) In the case of this workhouse, I understand that there are Church of England services on Sundays and alternate Thursdays (for adults), on Wednesdays for children, and once a fortnight for the sick. Two Nonconformist services for adults and one for children are held every week, and there is a Roman Catholic service weekly. On Friday the sick are visited by the clergy of the different denominations. The circumstances of this case have recently been under my consideration. I have directed the special attention of the inspector of the district to the case, and he has conferred both with the guardians and the vicar of the parish on the subject. I have not, however, seen my way to taking any compulsory action in the matter.

  Regulation of Motor Traffic Bill.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: To ask the President of the Local Government Board when he proposes to introduce the Bill for the regulation of motor traffic.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) I am unable at present to state when I shall be in a position to introduce the Bill referred to.

  Holyrood Palace.
  SIR ANDREW AGNEW: To ask the hon. Member for North Hunts, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, if the First Commissioner of Works will consider the advisability of making such an addition to the Palace of Holyrood as will render it a suitable residence for the Sovereign on any future visit to Edinburgh.
  1202
  (Answered by Mr. Victor Cavendish.) The question of making any addition to the Palace of Holyrood has not arisen. When the sanitary works are completed it will be a perfectly suitable residence for the Sovereign.

  Paving of Constitution Hill.
  MR. BRYCE: To ask the hon. Member for North Hunts, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether any application or applications have been made by the Office of Works to the Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury for their authorisation to the expenditure of a sufficient sum of money upon the paving with wood of Constitution Hill; and, if so, how many such applications have been made, and on what date, and what answer was given by the Treasury to each of such applications.
  (Answered by Mr. Victor Cavendish.) Any suggestions made to the Treasury by the Office of Works as to the expenditure of public funds would necessarily be confidential, and the First Commissioner is therefore unable to give the right hon. Gentleman the information for which he asks.

  Non-renewal of Publicans' Licences.
  MR COHEN: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will grant a Return showing the number of years during which the licences had been held by the licencees in the cases where the renewal of the licence has been refused at the last brewster sessions, and showing the result where the licencee has appealed against the refusal of the magistrates.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) The Return already issued of renewals of licences refused at the last licensing sessions will be completed by a supplementary Return showing the results of the appeals against such refusals. But to call upon the licensing justices' clerks to undertake the additional labour necessary in order to give the information asked for in the first part of the Question would impose upon them a burden which would not, in my opinion, be justified.

  Licensing Act, 1902—Internal Communication.
  MR. D. A. MORGAN: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is now in a position to announce what course of action he proposes to adopt with reference to the term "internal communication" occurring in the Licensing Act, 1902.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) I am not yet in a position to say how this matter will be settled.

  Electric Lighting in Camberwell.
  DR. MACNAMARA: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will explain why the Board of Trade have decided not to sanction the application of the London Electric Supply Corporation, Limited, for an extension of its area in the northern portion of the borough of Camberwell, so as to include the entire borough, such application haying the approval of the local authority, having regard to the fact that an application of the County of London and Brush Provincial Electric Lighting Company made in 1896 to supply the entire parish of Camberwell, including the area then granted to (and in competition with) the London Electric Supply Corporation, Limited, was granted by the Board of Trade; and whether, seeing that the practice of the Board of Trade has been to grant competitive orders throughout the Metropolis when application for them has been supported by the local authority, he will state in what previous cases the Board has refused such applications; and whether the decision of the Board not to grant the order now applied for by the London Electric Supply Corporation, Limited, can be re-considered and the order granted, so that the matter may be decided by Parliament.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) It appeared from the evidence which was submitted at the inquiry that the London Electric Supply Corporation, who obtained parliamentary powers in the northern part of the borough of Camberwell in 1890, executed no works there until 1898, and at the date of the inquiry had only sixty-four consumers. Having regard to this and to other circumstances
  1204
  connected with the case, and also to the fact that the Company had made no survey of the proposed area, and no estimates of cost or revenue, it seemed to the Board that the order ought not to be sanctioned, and if sanctioned, that there was no probability of its receiving the assent of Parliament, In these circumstances they did not think it desirable to put the parties to the expense of fighting the case before a Parliamentary Committee. It has no doubt been the practice to grant competitive powers in the Metropolis, but only in the more urban and populous parts. In reply to the second part of the question, the Board of Trade have refused to grant competitive orders in Clerkenwell, St. Luke's, Hackney, Newington, and Wandsworth. I am not prepared to reconsider the decision.

  Crown Law Officers' Fees.
  MR. WHITLEY: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury, if he can state the amounts paid in fees to the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General during the year ending 31st March, 1903, in addition to the salaries which appeared on the Estimates.
  (Answered by Mr. Arthur Elliot). In the year ended 31st March 1903 the amount of the fees paid in addition to salary to the Attorney-General was £4,816 3s. 2d., and to the Solicitor-General £3,700 14s.

  National Gallery Report—New Pictures.
  SIR BRAMPTON GURDON: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether in the Annual Report of the Director of the National Gallery it would be possible that in the case of pictures purchased or bequeathed during the year the room in which they are hung should be indicated, as is done in the case of pictures lent.
  (Answered by Mr. Arthur Elliot.) I will communicate with the Trustees of the National Gallery upon the point.

  Civil Service—Promotion of Persons Appointed for Special Duties to positions on General Staff.
  SIR GEORGE BARTLEY: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury, whether a person appointed to a

  1205
  Government Department, under Section 7 of the Order in Council of the 4th of June, 1870, with a special certificate of qualification to hold a situation for which professional qualifications are considered requisite, is eligible, after his introduction into the Department, for promotion to situations on the general staff; and whether, in the event of such promotion to a general staff appointment of an officer specially admitted to perform professional duties, the question of the adequacy of the special certificate under which such officer entered the Department should be submitted to the Treasury.
  (Answered by Mr. Arthur Elliot.) Any person appointed to a new post in the Civil Service not in the ordinary course of promotion from that which he previously held requires a fresh Civil Service certificate of qualification for the new post. It is open to the Civil Service Commission, before giving the new certificate under Clause 7, to require the candidate to pass such tests as they think proper.

  Land Revenue in Bengal.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that according to the Report of the Bengal Government, annexed to Lord Curzon's Land Resolution of the 16th January, 1902, the rents received by private landlords in Bengal amount on the average to little more than 11 per cent. of the gross produce of the land, and that according to the last Famine Commission Report the land revenue demanded by the Government from ryots in Gujerat amounts to 20 per cent. of the gross produce; that private landowners in Bengal are prohibited from enhancing rents except on specific grounds laid down by law, but that the power of the State to enhance land revenue from ryots in Madras and Bombay is not so limited; and, if so, will he state whether the Government of India has yet taken measures to reduce the ryotwari assessment in districts of Gujerat when it is found to be excessive, and to prevent further enhancement except upon those definite grounds which regulate the increase of rents in the case of private landlords in Bengal. 1206
  (Answered by Secretary Lord George Hamilton.) The standard of assessment in Gujerat is not considered immoderate, and does not exceed the proportion of the gross produce which has been advocated as a fair limit for the fixation of rents. There are districts which have deteriorated in value since the last settlement, but in these the Government of Bombay have arranged to reduce the assessment. The Government of India have recently laid down principles which secure liberal treatment to landholders in future settlements of the land revenue.

  Management of Remount Farm at Clark's Siding, South Africa.
  COLONEL WELBY: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he has received replies to his inquiries concerning the leasing and management of the remount farms at Clark's Siding, South Africa; and whether he is prepared to make public the circumstances of what took place there.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) The replies have been received. My hon. and gallant friend will be glad, however, to know that the allegations contained in his questions have not been borne out by the facts, and I do not think any good purpose could be served by re-opening the case or making a publication of the proceedings.

  Isolation of Lepers in Ceylon.
  MR. SCHWANN: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the prevalence of leprosy in Ceylon, and of the fact that the ordinances recently passed by the Legislative Council provide for the compulsory segregation of lepers in Ceylon, he will state what is the number of leper hospitals in Ceylon, and how many leper patients can be accommodated therein; and will he consider the advisability of making provision for these people by the erection of additional hospitals in isolated districts, with a view to enable the segregation of all lepers to be properly carried out if the present acommodation is insufficient.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Chamberlain.) There are two leper hospitals in Ceylon,

  1207
  and 312 leper patients can be accommodated in them. The leper ordinances do not require that lepers who can be otherwise properly isolated should be removed to a hospital, and I am not aware that the hospital accommodation is insufficient; but I will consult the Governor on the subject.

  Civil Administration of the Transvaal—Arrest of Dutch Minister at Rustenberg.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the fact that the Dutch Reformed Minister of Rustenberg, in the Transvaal, has been recently arrested upon the complaint of a policeman and imprisoned for several days by the resident magistrate of the district, and was only released in consequence of an order telegraphed by the Attorney-General at Pretoria saying that there was no case against him, he will state whether it is proposed to make any compensation to the reverend gentleman for this treatment; whether the provisions of the Peace Preservation Ordinance for the summary expulsion of British subjects considered dangerous from the new colonies have been just made more stringent; and how many persons have been expelled under the ordinance.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Chamberlain.) I have no information as to the first and last questions. The answer to the second question is in the affirmative, but the ordinance applies to all persons, of whatever nationality, who contravene its provisions.

  Natal—Church Properties Bill.
  MR. MARKHAM: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received any communication from the Governor of Natal or the Natal Government relating to the Church Properties Bill, which was printed in the Natal Gazette of last March; whether, seeing that this Bill seeks to give power to the Bishops of the Church of South Africa to acquire the property of the Church of England, will he say for what purposes and on what conditions, on the granting of self-government to Natal,
  1208
  Crown lands were given by the Imperial Government to the Church of England in Natal; and, seeing that the Archbishop of Cape Town and five of the Bishops of the Church of South Africa openly practise sacramental confession and perform masses for the dead, will he decline to sanction this transfer of Church of England property to these Bishops.
  Answered by Mr. Secretary Chamberlain.) The answer to the first part of this Question is in the negative. As regards the remainder, the information in my possession does not enable me to state whether any Crown lands were on the granting of self-government given to the Church of England in Natal, and I must decline to express any opinion before the Bill is received as to the advice which it will be my duty to tender to His Majesty in respect of it.

  Kaffir Labour in South African Mines.
  MR. BRYN ROBERTS: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the difficulty experienced by the Rand mine-owners in obtaining native labour, and of the fact that the coal mine-owners have obtained Kaffir labour to such an extent as to increase their output since the war by nearly 50 per cent., he will inquire whether the latter result has been obtained by the offer of increased wages; and, if so, will he press upon the Rand mine-owners the adoption of the same method.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Chamberlain.) I am not prepared to offer any suggestions to the mine-owners as to the manner in which they should conduct their business, but I am informed that wages on the Rand have been largely increased during the last three months.

  Education Act—Payment of Government Grants in advance.
  MR. BRIGG: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is aware that owing to the full Government grants for education not being payable sufficiently in advance to meet the expenditure thereon, the local ratepayers will be called upon to temporarily meet

  1209
  the deficiency; that such temporary deficiency in the West Riding of Yorkshire will amount to over £70,000, equal to a rate of over 3d. in the pound; and, if so, whether His Majesty's Government will consider the advisability, in the interests of the ratepayers, of arranging for the payment of the whole of the grants by quarterly instalments in advance.
  (Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour.) The matter referred to in the Question has been fully considered by the Government. The difficulty arising from the circumstances mentioned by the hon. Member will be met by the Bill recently introduced by the President of the Local Government Board, the effect of which will be to spread the amount required to meet the deficiency over a term of years, thus reducing the burden to be borne by the ratepayers to very small proportions.

  QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    The "United Service Gazette."
    CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state the names of the proprietors of the United Service Gazette, to whom the War Office lent Government property for the Naval and Military Exhibition at Manchester and Leeds.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Lord STANLEY,): The correspondence was carried on with the proprietors of the United Service Gazette, and letters on behalf of the paper were signed by Mr. J. Maclean Ankett (sub-editor), and by Mr. Henry Sutton (manager).
    CAPTAIN NORTON: Am I together that these are the proprietors of the paper?
    LORD STANLEY: No; the hon. Member will only gather what I have told him. I do not know who the proprietors are. We dealt with a paper which is well known in naval and military circles, and with those who might be reasonably supposed to be responsible for the paper.
    CAPTAIN NORTON: The noble Lord cannot give me the names of the proprietors?
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That Question has already been asked and answered.

    H.M.S. "Furious."
    SIR WILLIAM ALLAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he will say what is the nature of the repairs to the engines and water-tube boilers about to be undertaken on His Majesty's cruiser "Furious"; what is the estimated cost of these repairs; and what has been the amount spent on similar repairs to this vessel since first commissioned.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER,): The repairs to the engines and boilers of the "Furious" involve refitting of the pistons, slide valves, main bearing brasses, etc; re-metalling of the thrust collars, and refit of the thrust shafts; repairs to the auxiliary engines, testing, and, when necessary, replacing all main and auxiliary steam and exhaust pipes and valves; renewal of uptakes of boilers and lower parts of funnels; renewal of a number of generator tubes in the boilers, and various minor repairs. The estimated cost for labour and materials is £19,000 The total cost of repairs to engines and boilers since first commissioning in 1898 has been £24,617.

    Water-tube Boiler Explosion at Birmingham.
    SIR WILLIAM ALLAN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade a question of which I have given him private notice, viz., will the Board of Trade cause an inquiry to be held into the cause of the explosion of a Babcock and Wilcox water-tube boiler yesterday at the works of Belliss & Morcom, Birmingham, whereby one man was killed and three severely scalded; and whether he is aware that this is the type of boiler being fitted into our latest warships?
    THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. BONAR LAW,): The Board of Trade have already ordered an

    1211
    inquiry under the Boiler Explosions Acts to be held in the case to which the hon. Member refers.
    SIR WILLIAM ALLAN: Will the hon. Gentleman answer the latter part of my Question?
    MR. BONAR LAW: That would be better addressed to the Board of Admiralty.
    SIR WILLIAM ALLAN: I will do so.

    Bloemfontein Conference.
    MR. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies when the Papers relating to the Bloemfontein Conference will be in the hands of Members.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): Papers cannot be published before the beginning of June, when it is anticipated that the draft Convention will be presented simultaneously to the Legislatures of the various States.

    The Colonies and Retaliatory Duties.
    MR. BLACK: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any communications have passed between him and responsible persons in Canada and other colonies as to the imposition of retaliatory duties in this country against foreign countries differentiating against colonial products; and, if so, whether any promise or assurance has been given on the subject.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir.

    Natives in the Transvaal Mines.
    MR. TREVELYAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is yet in a position to give the statistics of mortality, sickness, and desertion per thousand of the natives in the mines of the Transvaal for the last six months.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member was informed, in reply to his question of the 9th March,† that these statistics would be communicated to him when received. There has not yet been time for a reply.† See (4) Debates, cxix., 102.

    Leprosy in Burmah.
    MR. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he will state the number of lepers in Burmah according to the latest available Returns, and whether any provision is made for their compulsory segregation, as is the case in Ceylon; and, if not, will he consider the advisability of causing such an enactment to be passed so as to remove this source of danger to the general health of both the white and the native population of Burmah.
    THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR INDIA (Earl PERCY,): According to the census there were 4,190 lepers in Burmah in 1901. Provision for the compulsory segregation of lepers publicly soliciting alms, or appearing at large without any ostensible means of subsistence, is made by the Indian Lepers Act, which is in force in Burmah. There are three leper asylums in the province.

    German Duties on Canadian Products.
    MR. BLACK: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any communications have passed between the Foreign Office and Germany as to the action of Germany in imposing differential duties against Canadian products; and, if so, whether these communications contain any indication of the possibility of Great Britain retaliating by imposing special duties on German imports into the United Kingdom.
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord CRANBORNE,): The answer to the first Question is in the affirmative. I am not in a position to make any further statement at present.
    MR. BLACK: Can the noble Lord say when the Papers will be available?
    LORD CRANBORNE: I am afraid it is too soon to give any promise as to that.

    Congo State—Case of Herr Rabinek.
    SIR CHARLES DILKEhad on the Paper the following Question: To ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign

    1213
    Affairs whether His Majesty's Government are yet in a position to make any statement with regard to the arrest by the authorities of the Congo State of Herr Rabinek, a passenger on board the British steamer "Scotia." On being called, upon to put it, the right hon. Baronet said the Papers had been circulated that morning, but could the noble Lord say whether the Government had written any despatch upon them?
    LORD CRANBORNE: The Papers have only just been received, so that it has been impossible to write any despatch.

    Wireless Telegraphy for Light Vessels.
    MR. DOUGHTY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he can now state whether contracts have been concluded for fitting the light vessels round the coast of the British Islands with wireless telegraphy apparatus; and, if not, whether he can state when they will be completed.
    MR. BONAR LAW: Negotiations are in progress for fitting a certain number of light vessels in the London district with wireless telegraphic apparatus. The matter will be pushed on with the least possible delay.

    Intoxicating Liquors (Sales to Children) Act.
    MR. CROMBIE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that the attention of police constables has been called recently in Fulham to cases of children under fourteen years old coming out of public houses with beer in vessels not corked and sealed; and, if so, whether, seeing that though these cases were independently reported to the Commissioner no prosecution has been instituted, he will give instructions to the Metropolitan Police with regard to carrying out the requirements of the Intoxicating Liquors (Sale to Children) Act.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. AKERS DOUGLAS,): I am informed that the Metropolitan Police, who are fully instructed in their duties under the Act in question, are not aware of any recent case of violation of its
    1214
    provisions with regard to the corking and sealing of vessels in which beer is sold to young children.

    Conway Infectious Diseases Hospital.
    MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the proposed erection by the Conway Rural District Council of an infectious diseases hospital on a site abutting on the main road from Llandudno and Colwyn Bay up the Vale of Conway to Llanrwst; and whether, in view of the traffic along the road in question, and having regard to public safety, the Local Government Board will take steps to induce the Conway Guardians to adopt a more suitable site.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. GRANT LAWSON,): I have made some inquiry on this subject, and I am informed that the Rural District Council propose to erect an infectious hospital at Glan Conway. It is stated that the site, which has been approved by the Medical Officer of Health, is as near the centre of the district as possible, and that it would not involve any patient being taken through any town or populous part in going to the hospital. I am also informed that the main road referred to in the Question has less traffic than the other main roads in the district. It is further stated that there are no farms or dwelling houses in close proximity to the site, and that the hospital would not in any way be detrimental to the interests of the district. It does not appear whether it is intended to borrow money in connection with the proposed hospital; but if it is my sanction will be necessary, and before giving it I should cause a local inquiry to be held.

    Lindsey (Lincolnshire) Education Committee.
    MR. MANSFIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether he is aware that the Lindsey (Lincolnshire) Education Committee has refused to sanction the estimates for the year ending 31st March, 1904, submitted to them by several Council schools, and that in some cases the Education Committee has reduced

    1215
    the estimates by one-half, and also refused to allow the School Committtee to continue to employ the services of a paid clerk; and that, in consequence of the action of the Education Committee, some of the School Committees have threatened to resign in a body, because they state that it is impossible to carry on the schools under these altered conditions imposed by the Education Committee; and, if so, will he state what steps he proposes to take in the matter.
    THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Sir WILLIAM ANSON,): A local education authority is bound to maintain and to keep efficient the public elementary schools within its area. The Board of Education have as yet no evidence that the Lindsey County Council has failed in this duty.
    MR. MANSFIELD: Will the hon. Baronet give the Return asked for?
    SIR WILLIAM ANSON: I have communicated privately to the hon. Gentleman that we cannot undertake to grant the Return asked for.

    Condition of Elementary School Buildings.
    MR. MANSFIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education if he can state whether, in all cases, the education authorities have received a report from the surveyors of the condition of elementary school buildings and school houses attached; and, if not, will he make inquiries as to whether the surveyors have been instructed to make these reports.
    SIR WILLIAM ANSON: The Board of Education have no information on this matter; and there appears to be no reason why they should investigate the instructions given by local authorities to their surveyors.

    Holland (Lincolnshire) Education Committee.
    MR. MANSFIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education is he aware that the Education Committee of the Holland County Council, Lincolnshire, contains only twelve members out of twenty-eight who have been elected
    1216
    by the ratepayers; and that only five members are Nonconformists, while twenty-two are Churchmen, and four of these clerks in holy orders; and whether, in view of the fact that half of the people in the Holland Division are Nonconformists, he will take any, and if so, what steps, to induce the Holland County Council to grant an equal representation on the Education Committee.
    SIR WILLIAM ANSON: The scheme for the Education Committee of the Holland County Council provides for the representation on the Committee of elementary, secondary and higher education, and also of agricultural education. All these branches of education are represented by persons recommended by bodies competent for the purpose. The three persons representing elementary education are to be appointed—one on the recommendation of the Lincolnshire Diocesan Voluntary Schools Association, one on the recommendation of the Councils of the Free Churches of the administrative county, and one on the recommendation of the Branch Associations of the National Union of Teachers within the said administrative, county. Thus the matters in respect of which the Act imposes any duty on the Board of Education are satisfactorily dealt with, and the Board cannot undertake to address the County Council as to the appointment by the Council of the individual members of the Committee under the provisions of the scheme.

    Aid Grant and the Repairs of School Houses.
    MR. LAMBERT: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether the Board of Education would consider the application of any part of the aid grant under the Act of 1897 to be satisfactorily applied if devoted to keeping the schoolhouse in repair and making reasonable alterations and improvements in the buildings.
    SIR WILLIAM ANSON: Yes, by Schedule II. (12) of the Education Act. 1902, the balance of any Parliamentary grant payable in respect of a period before the appointed day, which is not required by the old managers to meet

    1217
    outstanding liabilities, is to be paid to the new managers and applied by them to those purposes for which they have to make provision under the Act, or for the benefit of any general fund applicable for those purposes. Those purposes are, keeping the school-house in good repair, and making such alterations and improvements as may reasonably be required by the local authority.

    Scottish Licensing Appeals.
    MR. BLACK: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether he will state the number of appeals to quarter sessions under Section 14 of the Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1828 during the years 1901 and 1902; and how many of these appeals issued in the reversal of the original decision.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY,): The hon. Member will find on referring to page 121 of the Judicial Statistics of Scotland for 1901 that there were in all forty-six appeals to quarter sessions, in nineteen of which the certificate was granted, while in twenty-seven it was refused. The figures for 1902 are in course of collection but are not yet complete.
    MR. BLACK: Will they be available for the Committee on the Licensing Bill?
    MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: I am not aware.

    Scottish Aid Grant.
    MR. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate when the Minute of the Scotch Education Department, by which the distribution of the general aid grant is to be made for this year, will be laid before Parliament.
    MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: The Minute providing for the distribution of the general aid grant will be laid upon the Table upon an early day and will be in the hands of Members before the Education Vote comes on.

    Public Offices (Dublin) Bill.
    MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, whether provision will be made under the Public Offices (Dublin) Bill for allocating
    1218
    a portion of the site, now proposed to be acquired, for the purposes of a Gallery of Modern Art and the Royal Hibernian Academy.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (MR. ELLIOT,): No, Sir; the possibility of doing so has been considered; but the demands for accommodation on the proposed site are so great that it is impossible to allocate any part of it for the purpose of housing the Royal Hibernian Academy; and there are also financial objections to making a grant of site or of buildings to the Academy in addition to its present annual grant from Votes.

    Irish National Schools—Inspectors' Reports.
    MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will say whether he has any official reports from inspectors of national schools in Ireland showing how far education in general, and the new scheme in particular, has been assisted in these schools by their managers, and especially by their clerical managers; and, if so, would he state the general tenour of these reports and lay them upon the Table.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,): The general tenour of these detailed reports is given in the reports of the chief inspectors, which are laid on the Table of the House each year. It has been arranged, however, that in future the remarks of the district inspectors on this particular subject will be laid in extenso
    MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: Do these Reports differ from the representations given of them by Dr. Starkie?
    Mr. WYNDHAM: I am not prepared to enter into a discussion on that point.

    Land Commissioner Murrough O'Brien.
    MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will explain why Mr. Commissioner Murrough O'Brien is not now

    1219
    sitting with the other Commissioners to hear appeal cases; and whether he can arrange that Mr. O'Brien shall sit solus to determine cases not involving legal questions.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The composition of the Land Commission when hearing appeals is arranged by the Commissioners amongst themselves, having regard to their other official engagements. I have no information in respect to the matter mentioned in the first part of the Question, and no power to act as suggested at the conclusion of the Question.

    Sale of Trees in County Longford.
    MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to a recent sale of 9,000 trees in Rathcline demesne, County Longford, which practically means the destruction of all the trees in that portion of County Longford; and, if so, can he undertake to introduce some clause into the Irish Land Bill to prevent such destruction of trees in rural parts of Ireland.
    MR. WYNDHAM: 4,000 trees have been sold, to be removed within five years.
    MR. J. P. FARRELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman give favourable consideration to an Amendment to the Land Bill to stop the destruction of trees?
    MR. WYNDHAM: Anything practical to safeguard trees in Ireland will have favourable consideration.

    Longford Drainage Boards.
    MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the names of the members of the Drainage Board or Boards in County Longford, and the method of election or appointment of these Boards; and whether, seeing that no statement of accounts is issued by them nor any official information given of the way in which the money levied for drainage is expended, and that most of the lands affected by drainage operations are now
    1220
    vested in the tenants who pay the charges without representation on the Board, he will introduce legislation to alter the composition and method of election of the existing bodies.
    MR. WYNDHAM: There are nine Drainage Boards in the County Longford. The names of the trustees or members of each Board will be communicated to the hon. Member as soon as I receive the information. Seven of these Boards are constituted under the Act 5 & 6 Vict. cap. 89, which does not require the publication of a statement of accounts. The remaining two Boards are formed under the 26 & 27 Vict. cap. 88, which makes obligatory the publication of accounts. Tenants who purchase their holdings have a right to vote at the election of trustees or members of a Board. Tenants who do not purchase do not pay drainage rates. I cannot give any undertaking to introduce legislation as suggested.

    Royal Hibernian Academy.
    MR. BOLAND: On behalf of the hon. Member for North Wexford, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will consider the question of providing a site for a Gallery of Modern Art and the Royal Hibernian Academy in connection with the Public Offices (Dublin) Bill.
    MR. WYNDHAM: I must refer the hon. Member to the reply by the Financial Secretary to the Question standing in his name.†

    Cork Model Schools.
    MR. J. F. X. O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether, in view of the fact that the alterations carried out in the Cork Model Schools were made at the suggestion of the Commissioners of National Education, approved of by the authorised official sent to inspect them, and completed at the expense of the Cork Technical Instruction Committee, he will call upon the Committee of National Education for an explanation of the letter recently sent to the Committee on the subject of the building at† See page 1218.

    1221
    present occupied for the purposes of technical instruction.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The Commissioners assented to the carrying out, at the expense of the Technical Instruction Committee, of certain alterations in the Model School. The present difference of opinion does not, however, turn upon these alterations, but upon the further alterations proposed by the Committee. I would suggest that further questions should be deferred until after the next meeting of the Commissioners on the 26th instant.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: Will the right hon. Gentleman express an opinion to the Commissioners that the eviction of the Technical Education Committee should not be allowed to take place until we have had an opportunity of discussing the matter on the Estimates?
    MR. WYNDHAM: I will direct their attention to the representations made by the hon. Member. It would not be proper for me to attempt to over-ride them.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: I only ask you to use your influence with them.
    MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the number of children in daily average attendance at present in the Cork Model Schools is only slightly over one-fifth of the number which these schools were constructed to accommodate; and, if so, will he state how many of those in average attendance are classed as infants?
    MR. WYNDHAM: The schools were constructed to accommodate 1,226 pupils. The average daily attendance in 1902 was 260, of whom 92 were classed as infants.
    MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state how many pupil teachers have been trained in the Cork Model Schools since its inception, and how many eventually became certified teachers.
    MR. WYNDHAM: Over 200. A large proportion of them are believed to have become certificated teachers. In the absence of records the exact number cannot be stated.
    MR. FLYNN: How many have been trained in recent years?
    MR. WYNDHAM: I must ask for notice of that.

    Police in Galway.
    CAPTAIN DONELAN: On behalf of the hon. Member for East Galway, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will explain why extra police are stationed at Kilmoredaly, County Galway, in view of the absence of crime in the locality.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The extra force was withdrawn from this district on the 1st April.

    The Royal Commission on the War-Report.
    MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, whether the Royal Commission on the War has completed taking evidence: and whether he will inquire when their Report may be expected.
    THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,); I have been asked by my right hon. friend to answer this question. The Secretary to the Royal Commission informs me that they have practically completed the evidence; but it is impossible to say when the Report, on which they are now engaged, may be expected.
    MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: Might not the Royal Commission be informed of the desirability of publishing their Report before the termination of this Session.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think it is extremely probable that they will publish their Report before the end of the session. I am sure they will make all the expedition they can. But it would be improper and inexpedient to give them the idea that this House was hurrying them on a matter so important.

    Brussels Sugar Convention.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury when is it proposed to proceed with the Notice on the Paper to ask leave to introduce a Bill to enable the Brussels Sugar Convention to be carried into effect; and when, and in what form, do His Majesty's Government propose to ask the assent of this House to the expenditure to be borne by this country for the organisation and working of the permanent bureau and the permanent Commission which, by the terms of the Convention, must hold its first meeting at Brussels at latest by 1st June next.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am not in a position to give a date for the introduction of the Bill to which my hon. friend refers. As regards the second part of the Question, as far as I am able to form an estimate in the matter, it will not be necessary to introduce a Bill into Committee of the Whole House. If, and when, any financial charge should come upon the taxpayer, of course that will be dealt with in the ordinary way on the Estimates.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to incur the expenditure for the permanent Commission, which must meet by 1st June, without first submitting an Estimate to the House. The expenditure must begin to accrue on the 1st June.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I must ask my hon. friend to give me notice of that Question.
    MR. LOUGH: Is there any intention of introducing the Bill before Whitsuntide?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have said I cannot fix a day.

    Trade Disputes.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he expects to be able to announce the appointment of the Royal Commission on trade disputes, which I understand has been promised, before Whitsuntide; and whether the right hon. Gentleman will see that there is a representative of Ireland on the Commission.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I hope to be able to make a statement with regard to the Commission before the holidays. But I cannot give a pledge as to its composition until I am able to make an announcement as to the character of the Commission—whether it is to be merely a judicial Commission, as suggested by the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean, or one of those larger Commissions which have their advantages, but are not so expeditious or so satisfactory. It is only in the latter case, I assume, that the hon. Gentleman would require a representative of a particular country or a particular interest.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
MR. BRYCE: The First Lord of the Treasury has already announced that the House will adjourn for the Whitsuntide holidays on the Thursday of next week. It would be to the convenience of Members who desire to make their arrangements if the right hon. Gentleman can say whether he proposes to take the Motion for the Adjournment on the Wednesday or the Thursday.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is rather difficult to answer that question until I know more about the progress the House is likely to make with the business immediately in hand. I still hope with some confidence that we may be able to finish the Committee stage of the London Education Bill and the Second Reading of the Budget Bill before we separate for the Whitsuntide holidays. [OPPOSITION cries of "Oh!"] Well, I think we ought to do that. Of course it is not in my power, nor is it my desire, to force the House to do so. If I cannot make that arrangement, I will ask the House to take the Second Reading of the Budget on the Tuesday after we return. The Monday will be devoted to Supply; and if we dispose of the Budget before we separate I will take Supply also on the Tuesday. The right hon. Gentleman will see that I cannot at present give him any information as to the day on which we will take the Motion for the holidays. It will depend on the progress we make with these two Bills.
MR. BRYCE: Having followed closely the discussion on the Education Bill, I cannot see any prospect of disposing of it before the holidays in time to allow for other business to be entered on. We are only at the beginning of Clause 2, and on the remaining Clauses and on the Schedule there are many difficult and intricate questions to be raised.
MR. LOUGH: If the right hon. Gentleman would take the Budget before the holidays we would have more time to consider the Education Bill.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: And if we postpone the Budget until after the holidays the hon. Gentleman will have more time to consider the Budget.
MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: May I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that, considering the quarter from which the main opposition to the Budget comes, he should put it down on Derby day?

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES.)
MR. HALSEYreported from the Committee of Selection, That they had discharged the following Members from the Standing Committee on Trade (including Agriculture and Fishing), Shipping and Manufactures:—Mr. Channing and Mr. Garfit; and had appointed in substitution: Lord Dalkeith and Mr. Eugene Wason.
Report to lie upon the Table.

NEW BILL.
  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT (1897) AMENDMENT BILL.
  "To amend the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897," presented by Mr. Joseph Walton; supported by Mr. Burt, Mr. Pickard, Sir Walter Foster, Mr. John Burns, Mr. Tennant, Mr. Shackleton, Mr. John Wilson, Mr. Fenwick, Mr. William Jones, Mr. Emmott, and Mr. Thomas Bayley; to be read a second time upon Wednesday next and to be printed. (Bill 207.)

  COMMITTEES (ASCENSION DAY).
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: Has the right hon. Gentleman made himself acquainted with the practice of the other House, to which I drew attention last year, of allowing its Committees to sit irrespective of its being Ascension Day?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, I am not aware of the practice of the other House.
  Motion made, and Question proposed. "That Committees do not sit To-morrow, being Ascension Day, until Two of the clock."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 108; Noes, 103. (Division List No. 93.)

  AYES

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.

  Cullinan, J.

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Allsopp, Hon. George

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Groves, James Grimble

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway)

  Gunter, Sir Robert

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Dewar, Sir T. R. (Tr. Haml'ts

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Arrol, Sir William

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford

  Atkinson, Right Hon. John

  Doughty, George

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

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

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

  Heath, Jas. (Staffords, N. W.)

  Bignold, Arthur

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Helder, Augustus

  Boland, John

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Ed.

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Bond, Edward

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

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

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)

  Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin Univ

  Flower, Ernest

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

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

  Forster, Henry William

  Joyce, Michael

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Garfit, William

  Kenyon, Hon. G. T. (Denbigh

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Gibbs, Hn. Vicary (St. Albans

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

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

  Cranborne, Lord

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

  Leamy, Edmund

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

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

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Lowther, Rt. Hon. Jas. (Kent)

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

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

  Lundon, W.

  Pryce Jones, Lt.-Col. Edw.

  Stanley, Lord (Lancashire)

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Purvis, Robert

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

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

  Redmond, Jn. E. (Waterford)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. E. M.

  Murphy, John

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham (Bute

  Remnant, Jas. Farquharson

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

  Myers, William Henry

  Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge

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

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. C. Thomson

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

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

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Robertson, H. (Hackney)

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

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  O'Malley, William

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Mr. Galloway and Mr.

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Seely, Chas. Hilton (Lincoln)

  Richards.

  Peel, Hn. Wm. R. Wellesley

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Percy, Earl

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  NOES.

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Greene, Hy. D. (Shrewsbury)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Allan, Sir William (Gateshead)

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

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

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Anstruther, H. T.

  Harwood, George

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Arnold Forster, Hugh O.

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

  Shackleton, David James

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.)

  Black, Alexander William

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

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Brown, Geo. M. (Edinburgh)

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

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

  Bryce, Right Hon. James

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Johnstone, Heywood

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Burns, John

  Jones David B. (Swansea)

  Spear, John Ward

  Burt, Thomas

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Butcher, John George

  Lambert, George

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornall)

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Caldwell, James

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Taylor, Theo. C. (Radcliffe)

  Causton, Richard Knight

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

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

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Leese, Sir, Joseph F. (Accrington

  Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

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

  Leng, Sir John

  Thomas, J. A. (Glamorgan Gower

  Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

  Levy, Maurice

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Crombie, John William

  Lloyd George, David

  Tomkinson, James

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Lough, Thomas

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  M'Killop, Jas. (Stirlingshire)

  Wason, E. (Clackmannan)

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Wason, John Cathcart Orkney

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriesshire.

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Middlemore, Jn. Throgmorton

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Evans, Saml. T. (Glamorgan)

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (Huddersf'd

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith

  Orr Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Randles, John S.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Foster, Sir Michl, (Lond. Univ

  Rigg, Richard

  Mr. John Ellis and Mr.

  Goddard Daniel Ford

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Humphreys-Owen.

  Grant, Corrie

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Question put, and agreed to.

  LONDON EDUCATION BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee)
  [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]
  Clause 2:—
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 8, at beginning, to insert the words, 'As ordinarily constituted.'"—(Sir William Anson.)
  Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. LOUGHsaid he ought perhaps to commence with an apology to his right hon. friend the Member for South Aberdeen, who had given them such valuable assistance on that Bill, for saying something a little impatient on the previous night, in taking exception to the view put forward by the right hon. Gentleman that there was no point of principle in that Amendment. Could he accept that view he would not desire to continue the discussion, but

  1229
  after the most careful consideration he and several of his hon. friends had come to the conclusion that time would be 1st unless the hon. Baronet in charge of the Bill was prepared to make some fuller explanation of the Government intentions with regard to the whole matter than he had yet done. That was a not unreasonable claim, because the London Members felt profoundly the position in which matters now stood. Although the first three words referred to in the Amendment might be necessary whatever the ultimate decision about the exact constitution of the authority, it appeared to him that after all they meant that the authority should be constituted of seventy-nine persons, viz., forty-two Members of the County Council, twelve borough councillors, and twenty five outsiders. He feared that if they accepted those words they would bind themselves to accept the principle of the Government scheme. He could not but think that the debate must have produced some impression on the Government. So far as it had proceeded, not a single London Member, except one, had expressed any approval of the new constitution of the Education Committee, and he appealed to the Prime Minister either to exclude the Borough Councils altogether ["No, no"] or to leave the question to the free and unfettered judgment of the House. The hon. Member for Lime-house had alone said that he was satisfied with the compromise, but how could he be?
  MR. HARRY SAMUEL: When I have an opportunity of addressing the Committee I shall be prepared to state my views.
  MR. LOUGH: Of course. Continuing, he said he understood the hon. Member was honestly convinced that the Borough Councils ought to be represented on the authority. Well, his contention was that they got no real representation under this scheme. It was setting up a bad precedent in local government which they would have cause to regret. The Prime Minister in his speech went far to justify sectional elections.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I never referred to sectional elections.
  MR. LOUGHsaid this Bill introduced the principle of sectional elections, and if the right hon. Gentleman allowed these bodies, constituted for other purposes, to join together to put a certain number on the Education Committee, surely the effect would be, to that extent, to deprive the people of London of any possibility of directly expressing their opinion at the polls with regard to the constitution of the Committee. The people had direct control over the election of members of the London County Council, and would realise that that body had charge of a great educational work, but they would never be able to realise when they were electing the borough councillors that those bodies also were to take part in the great educational work of London. Take Islington, with its seventy borough councillors and its half a man on the Education Committee. Would the ratepayers be able to realise when electing the borough councillors that they were responsible for education. That fact was not at all likely to influence their votes, and, therefore, he asserted that in this plan the Government were departing from the principle of direct election and introducing that of sectional election. He warned the right hon. Gentleman that this body he proposed would satisfy nobody. Would he make a promise? They wanted the borough councillors excluded altogether. Would the right hon. Gentleman undertake not to put pressure upon his followers to vote for the Government plan. Let them give their decision freely and unfettered. Surely that was not too much to ask, seeing that fifty of the Metropolitan Members sat behind the right hon. Gentleman. He believed that if it were left an open question it would be decided as London wished. The speeches of the hon. Members for the Strand Division and for Chelsea, both loyal supporters of the Government, showed how strong was the feeling against this scheme. As to the merits, he could only say that in his opinion the present plan of the Government was worse than the first one. They had been repeatedly told that the County Council

  1231
  were predominant and that they would have a substantial majority. He did not think they would. They had been told that the County Council has to be predominant but it could not be very predominant with a majority of only five members. Another point which had been very strongly argued by the Member for Camberwell was that the forty-two members who were members of the County Council would have many other duties to perform, and that their time would be greatly taxed as members of the London County Council, while the other thirty-seven members would have nothing to do but educational work. That being so, the Committee which was being set up was almost equally divided; that would be a most disastrous thing to do. On the principle laid down by the hon. Member in charge of the Bill, it seemed to him that the Bill would have to be altered in that regard, and as this would be a convenient time to settle it, he appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to leave the matter to the House of Commons to decide in the manner in which they would wish to decide it.
  MR. PEELpointed out that the Committee was in some difficulty in respect of the scope of the discussion. This portion of the Amendment did not raise the whole question. The Committee wished to discuss the composition of the authority, but the debate had been placed upon a different level. The Prime Minister had discussed the whole Amendment the previous evening, and he wanted to know whether he would be in order in following that example.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsuggested that the bad example he set the previous night should not be followed. The words might be accepted, and then the Committee could proceed to discuss something which would have a binding effect.
  SIR JOHN GORSTsaid that the bad example was originally set by the Secretary to the Education Department when he moved the Amendment, and it was impossible for the Committee to avoid following him.
  MR. LOUGHpointed out that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Chippenham, as well as other Amendments, would be excluded if this course was followed.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Chippenham was not in order in this place, because it reverted to the Act of last year in placing the County Council in the same position as any other County Council had been placed by the Act. The proper way to attain the end which hon. Members were seeking was to strike out the second clause altogether.
  MR. PEELsaid he was perfectly ready to accept the suggestion of the Prime Minister, but he must ask for a clear understanding that there would be a full opportunity to discuss the question on a subsequent Amendment.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid it was very important that the Committee should know where it was. He agreed that there must be a convenient opportunity to consider the issue to be raised, whether the Borough Councils were to be represented on the Committee of the education authority or not. He asked for the assistance of the Chair to point out the most convenient course by which that issue could be taken.
  THE CHAIRMANthought that, if the Committee consented to insert the words now proposed, he might then call upon the Secretary to the Board of Education to proceed with his further Amendment, which, of course, would be open to Amendment. That would raise the issue which the Committee was anxious to decide. If hon. Members wished to take exception to the whole scheme, the proper course would be to refuse to insert any other Amendment, or to pass the second clause, which would leave the County Council in the same position as any other council.
  MR. BRYCEasked whether it would be possible on the Amendment of the Board of Education to review and discuss the question as a whole. At present the Committee had been discussing the subject as a whole.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid the question would be discussed as a whole, and the Committee might then proceed with such Amendments as it thought right to suggest.
  MR. PEELsaid that he wanted to go further than the simple question of the representation of the Borough Councils on the authority. There were several points that he objected to beyond that in the Amendment of the Government. He would prefer to see the scheme settled by the County Council itself. He did not think that the Committee was in a position to settle the precise number of representatives of the County Council which should sit on this particular authority. If the discussion was to be postponed the Committee could have an opportunity of discussing that question and others of a similar nature on the issue to be raised.
  MR. LLOYD GEORGEsaid there were two points that ought to be discussed. One was the issue as to whether the Borough Councils should come in at all; the other was the larger issue whether the County Council should be in the same position as any other County Council and have a right of framing its own schemes.
  THE CHAIRMANsuggested that the discussion could be taken on the Motion to leave out the second clause.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that this course might be agreeable to the Committee if the Prime Minister guaranteed that it would have an opportunity of discussing the second clause, for the first clause was closured. Perhaps the best thing to do would be to take the discussion when the Committee could obtain it.
  MR. HENRY HOBHOUSEsubmitted that a great many Amendments on the Paper would be prejudiced by inserting the proposed words. If the words "as ordinarily constituted" were accepted without further debate, the Committee would be precluded from discussing several important Amendments dealing with matters of substance.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he had no objection to the debate going on on the present Amendment, on the understanding
  1234
  that it was the main debate on the broad principle. It was not reasonable to fight the battles over and over again, but if it was understood that this was the main clash of arms between the opposing forces on this question, as far as the big principle was concerned, he was quite ready to adopt that course.
  MR. PEELdesired, as the matter was to be discussed on the wider basis, to refer to certain observations made yesterday by the Prime Minister. The right hon. Gentleman dwelt on the magnitude of the educational problems in London, and pointed out how some of them differed in kind and degree from those in the provinces. All would agree as to the difference in magnitude, but he failed to see how the mere size of London in any way altered the principles by which the constitution of the education authority ought to be governed. As regarded the composition of the authority—putting aside for the moment all questions of delegation and decentralisation—he believed the Act of last year presented an admirable expedient. He took that view, not from any desire, as a Member of the County Council, to give that body any additional powers, but because he wished to throw upon it the fullest responsibility for the education of London. If it was allowed to evade the responsibility for any decision that might be come to, by saying the co-opted and unrepresentative members were responsible, the educational system of London was certain to suffer. It was perfectly clear that, but for other considerations, the best plan would be to let the County Council decide the kind of body through which it should exercise its great functions. It was impossible for Parliament to dictate to the County Council the precise number of councillors it should place on the Education Committee. Who but the County Council could know the capacities of different members, the number that could be spared for a particular duty, or whether the number of members on other committees could be reduced? Against the authority of the hon. Member for North Camberwell as to the capacity of the County Council to undertake this work, he would set the opinion of county councillors, who were

  1235
  themselves experts in London educational matters, and who believed that, given the utmost powers of delegation—that was essential—this work would not impose upon the Council too great a burden. If the number of members of the County Council were found to be too small, they could, as the Prime Minister had said, come to Parliament and ask for the number to be enlarged. Another reason why the County Council should have the power of deciding the constitution of the Committee was, that the greater confidence it had in the Committee the more ready it would be to allow duties to be delegated by it to bodies all over London. In that way they would lighten the duties of the Committee, and, through the Committee, of the County Council itself. The special vice of an ad hoc authority was that it would not decentralise, but insisted on dealing with every detail of the work. But a County Council had no such difficulty. Having so much work to do, it was in the habit of leaving details to its Committees, reserving to itself the decision of main principles.
  As to the inclusion of borough councillors, the amended proposal of the Government really took away the only grounds on which their presence could be defended. He fully sympathised with the desire to increase the power and enhance the dignity of the Borough Councils, but in an Education Bill educational questions ought to come first, local government considerations, manifold and important as they were, being placed in an altogether secondary position. Whatever argument there might have been from the point of view of increasing the dignity and importance of the Borough Councils disappeared when three or four Councils were to share one representative. Under the system of grouping it would be impossible for the Borough Council representatives to have special local knowledge and to act as a link between the schools in the district and the central body. Lewisham, Greenwich, Deptford, and Woolwich were to form one group. He would like to explain to the Committee how the proposal would work out from the point of view of improving the status of the Borough Councils. Those four great Councils were to have
  1236
  one representative, so that it would be fifteen or twenty years before they could appoint a representative for themselves if they took turns. If he wanted to urge some important Gentleman interested in education to submit himself to election he would have to say to him, "Won't you go on the Borough Council, because then you have some opportunity of taking part in educational work? You will have to serve perhaps about fifteen years, and then it will be forty to one against you being appointed." He did not think that would increase the status of the Borough Councils, and if they depended upon considerations of that kind their importance and status could not be worth much. He would assume that the twelve members were not to be appointed out of the borough councillors. That was only another way of enabling the number of experts to be elected. He did not think they ought to unnecessarily enlarge the number of experts. They had got twenty-five experts already, and that was a very large number. Taking the extra twelve as experts they would get thirty-seven experts on a body of about seventy or eighty. That was an immensely large number compared with the kind of bodies they had created all over the country. One would not object so much if these experts were not a kind of foreign body, but were selected by the County Council itself. As regarded giving the majority to the County Council, he had no objection on principle to a small number of borough councillors, if appointed by the educational authority, but the whole ground for putting them on at all had been destroyed by this peculiar grouping system. He pressed the Government to adjust this matter in a slightly different way. Was there any serious objection to this authority being constituted on precisely the same lines as the authorities in any other part of the country, and allowing it to be constituted through the County Council itself, by which means they would secure the greatest confidence and the utmost educational efficiency?
  MR. HARRY SAMUELsaid he was very anxious that the Committee should understand that an overwhelming number of London Unionist Members were strongly in favour of the retention of the Borough Councils.
  LORD HUGH CECIL: What does my hon. friend mean by "overwhelming?"
  MR. HARRY SAMUELsaid he certainly meant more than two to one. This was a most complex question, but hon. Members ought to consider what courses were open to the Government in bringing the Education Act of 1902 to bear upon London. In the first place there was the possibility of creating an ad hoc authority. In the second place there was the possibility of creating the London County Council alone the authority; and in the third place there was the possibility of thoroughly municipalising education by placing upon the Committee representatives of the London County Council and the Metropolitan Borough Councils. He did not want to offend the susceptibilities of any hon. Members of this House, but he thought it was only fair to the London Unionist Members that what he said as to their opinions should be absolutely understood by the Committee. Some hon. friends from the country had objected to this Bill, but he would ask them before forming any definite opinion as to the requirements of London to try and understand the various complex questions of government which affected the Metropolis. He asked them to pay some respect to the opinions of their colleagues who represented London constituencies. The Member for Cambridge University said the system of the Government was not in accord with the scheme of last year. He thought that under the words "subject to the provisions of the Act," every one of the great London Boroughs would absolutely be autonomous for the purpose of education. [An HON. MEMBER: But they are not County Boroughs.] He thought they were entitled to be called County Boroughs. At any rate they would have absolute control of elementary education. [Cries of "No."] The Borough Councils of the Metropolis were being treated far worse than the smallest place in the kingdom, and when they saw the scant courtesy they were receiving they might very well address to the Government the pathetic words which appeared on the tombstone of a little baby—
  "If I was so soon to be done for
  I wonder what I was begun for."
  1238
  The whole of London was covered by municipal boroughs, and every one of them rated themselves for their own purposes, and yet they were told that the County Council was the rating authority for London. The London County Council was the collecting and spending authority, but it was not the rating authority. It they desired this Committee to carry out the educational system contained in the Act of 1902, then it should place upon the central educational authority representatives from the municipal boroughs.
  It had been pleaded by many hon. Members that the whole necessity for placing the Borough Councils upon the central authority had been done away with by reducing their number to twelve. He contended exactly the opposite. He was not prepared to fight for an absolute vote for every Borough Council, but what he pleaded for was that the opinion of the Borough Councils should be voiced upon the central authority. In the near future, when fresh legislation for London came up, they would have the London Education Bill quoted as a precedent for the exclusion for all time of representatives of the Borough Councils upon every body created to deal with important questions affecting the whole of London. This Committee should very seriously pause before it excluded men elected on a popular franchise, who were obliged to be ratepayers or residents in the districts they represented. Whose children were going to attend these schools? Why, the children of the borough councillors and the ratepayers of that particular district. He thought that was one of the greatest mistakes that could possibly be made. Even in such a despised place as East London he knew there was a large number of men fully qualified to give careful and energetic thought to this great question of education. He did not believe that if borough councillors were put on this body there would be any conflict between them and the County Council. He ventured to think that everything would be worked satisfactorily by the representatives of both the great municipal systems of the Metropolis, with the advice of the experts who were to be appointed. He thought he might plead that he had some slight knowledge of

  1239
  the necessities of education, in connection with a body of which he was chairman in Stepney. He had seen the necessity for co-ordination. A vast amount of money was wasted because different bodies were covering the same ground. It would be of inestimable value to have the whole education of London in the hands of one body, and there was no body so eminently fitted to have that control as the London County Council, and the whole of the municipal councils of the Metropolis, with the advice of those gentlemen who had done so much to create the great schools of education which had sprung up amongst them. He had endeavoured to explain why the Borough Councils should be included. They wanted them as a link between the committees of management and the central body. He did not care about votes. He only wished that the voice of the Borough Councils should be heard on the central body, and that they should not feel that they were neglected and that the House of Commons had no thought for the bodies it had created. He appealed to the Committee not to strike a grievous blow at the work of the councils. He asked them to support the views of the majority of London Members of the House, for, after all, they did know something of the views of those whom they represented. He thought the hon. Member for Camber-well would prefer that the members of the Borough Councils rather than a band of experts should have the control. The hon. Member was an advocate of municipalisation and it was some comfort to himself to be in agreement on this matter with one on the other side of the House, who was acknowledged to be an expert on education and a worker in the cause.
  MR. ASQUITHsaid the hon. Gentleman who had sat just down had informed the Committee that he was the spokesman of an overwhelming majority of the Unionist Members for London. [Cries of "No."]
  MR. HARRY SAMUEL: Hear, hear. I said two to one afterwards. That is overwhelming.
  MR. ASQUITHsaid that all he could state was that those Members might be overwhelming in number but they had been singularly modest, not to say inarticulate, during the course of this debate. Really his object in rising was to ask the Government whether it was worth while to prolong this controversy. He was sure that everyone on this side of the House would be perfectly ready to allow the merits of the case to be judged by the arguments which had been adduced by the supporters of the Government themselves. The right hon. Gentleman in charge of this Bill must, after listening to the debate of yesterday and to-day, have satisfied himself that whatever might be the case with regard to the inarticulate majority of London Members, the bulk of Conservative and Unionist opinion was unhappily opposed to this proposal. Speech after speech had been delivered by the most faithful and loyal supporters of the Government, who, departing in no way from the principles to which they were committed by assenting to the Act of last year, and, as he thought, in strict consistency and conformity with the principles contained in that Act, had declared that the present proposal was one which was a new departure, and which it was impossible to reconcile with the legislation which the Government had themselves framed. How did the matter stand? For the purpose of this discussion it was necessary to assume that the County Council was to be the education authority in London, so the simple question was, the County Council being entrusted with these duties, was it, or was it not, in the discharge of these duties, to have an Executive Committee, between which and itself there would be complete confidence, and in whose proceedings it would be able to feel that, without the necessity for constant, minute, and irritating supervision, it could find a reflex of its own voice? In other words, the question was, and it could not be too often repeated, was there any reason why the London County Council should not in this matter have the same power and autonomy which were given to every other County Council? What was the answer to that simple question? What was the ground upon which the Government sought to differentiate the case of London from

  1241
  other cases? He quite agreed with what the Prime Minister said last night, that in many respects a vast community such as that of London was different from any other aggregate of population, however large, in any other part of the country. Many hon. Members thought, and he himself thought, that was a legitimate ground for giving London a separate educational organisation, that was to say, for entrusting the duty of education in London to a body specially elected for that particular purpose. But they had passed from that. For the purpose of this debate at any rate, that was an abandoned position.
  When they once came to reckon that the County Council in London was to be the education authority, he confessed himself totally at a loss to understand the Prime Minister's conception of the difference between the local life of London and the local life of other communities. According to the right hon. Gentleman, from this point of view, London, as a local community, had two entirely different aspects—one represented by the County Council, and the other, which apparently had twenty-nine separate facets, represented by the Borough Councils. The same electors chose the representatives of the one body and the others. There was no man sitting in the County Council who had not been elected by the same class of electors as the man sitting in the Borough Council. What new force of electoral authority or corporate responsibility did they bring to bear on the problems of education when they associated with that popularly elected authority, persons taken from other bodies who derived their mandate from precisely the same source? It appeared to him a most fantastic caricature of every doctrine of representation to suppose that they were giving to the County Council, by adding these borough councillors, any new authority or any fresh illumination for the discharge of their duties. That was an argument which he thought was conclusive as against the scheme of the Government in its original, and, he ventured to say, relatively logical form. What was the form in which it was presented now? What were these groups? The hon. Member for South Manchester in the admirable speech he delivered a
  1242
  short time ago, completely demolished them, and there was very little to add to what he said, but it was sufficient, he thought, to say that these groups had no distinct individuality of any kind, nor had they for educational or administrative purposes any common interest. He did not see how the Committee could escape from the dilemma suggested by his hon. friend that either the representatives of the groups were to be members of the Borough Councils, or they were to be persons chosen by the groups from the outside. If they were confined, as the Bill confined them, to the members of Borough Councils they brought no new element of representative authority into the County Council, and, on the other hand, if they were chosen from the outside, they added most unnecessarily to the unwieldy expert element which the Committee already contained. In using arguments of this kind no one disparaged the Borough Councils or doubted their efficiency for the particular work they were chosen to perform. But their interest here was educational and administrative, and for that purpose it was absolutely essential that the Committee of the County Council should be a Committee in close contact with the body to which it was responsible, and whose executive it would be. So far, even at this stage of the debate, the House remained without a single argument to support the proposal for intruding, for the first time, and contrary to all precedent and example, this alien element into the London County Council, the presence of which must inevitably give rise to perpetual friction in administration, to excessive interference in supervision, and to the taking up of unnecessary time and trouble on the part of the higher authority, and, therefore, in the long run, to the neglect of those educational interests which it ought to be their paramount and primary object to secure.
  MR. FLOWERsaid that it was no part of his intention to refer to the various differences which might exist among the London Members in regard to the Bill, but speaking as an old member of the London School Board he ventured to think that the modified form of representation of the Borough Councils, as

  1243
  provided by the Amendment of the Secretary to the Board of Education, would tend to wise and useful administration. Clause 3 of the Bill showed how wide would be the powers entrusted to the municipalities as managers of the public elementary schools. He had no doubt that these powers before leaving Committee would be extended in some directions and curtailed in others, but it was certainly part of the scheme of the Bill that the Borough Councils should play a very large part in the management of the elementary schools.
  It seemed that the modified representation of the Borough Councils proposed in the Amendment provided a valuable and important link between control and management, and he thought they ought not, in the interest of the successful management of the elementary schools, to part with that link. He quite agreed with many of the criticisms of the scheme as a whole; and if it had fallen to his lot to draw an Education Bill for London, he did not hesitate to say that he would have drawn a Bill which constituted an ad hoc authority. Others had arrived at a different conclusion, and he fancied that his friends who sat on that side of the House, and who represented London constituencies, widely as they might differ amongst themselves as to the merits of the present proposal, would have been practically united in solid antagonism to the creation of an ad hoc authority. That being so, and with the scheme of the Government before them, it was essential, if the Borough Councils were to have the management of the elementary schools, that they should have some representation on the Statutory Education Committee. The Bill proposed to grant very large powers to the Borough Councils. They were to appoint and dismiss teachers, have the custody of the buildings and pupil teachers' centres, select the sites of new public elementary schools. These were the most important tasks which could be given to any body charged with the duty of administering education. For these reasons, and also in the interest of education itself, it appeared to him to be imperative that the Borough Councils should be represented on the Statutory Committee.
  LORD HUGH CECILsaid he did not desire to detain the Committee at any length on subjects which had already been very largely discussed. What he felt about this discussion and previous discussions on the question of an ad hoc authority, was that a very unfortunate element of the amour propre of the local authorities had been introduced. It really was a very practical matter. Nobody, he was sure, on either side of the House, desired to put any slight on any of the local authorities. He quite recognised that the Borough Councils in their proper sphere had done very good work, and were likely to go on doing very excellent work in the future. But if they confused what was essentially a dry, practical question with an appeal to something like sentiment on the ground that they were slighting the Borough Councils, then they diverted their mind from what was really the only question, viz., how they could best make an efficient body for the conduct of education in London. Of course, it might be said of any other important political question that the Borough Councils ought to be consulted because they were meritorious. For instance, it might be contended that they should be consulted in the matter of Army reform, or that in the matter of Church discipline the Borough Councils should control the clergy, if they wished to go on the theory that the object of local government was to pay compliments to different local authorities. He did not agree with that at all. There was no slight to anybody in selecting the best local authority for a particular purpose. Then it was said that the Borough Councils in London represented very great communities — communities, in some instances, even very much larger than large provincial boroughs. It was quite true that the London boroughs were immense communities, but it was not the less true that, in spite of their large size, they were not unities, but parts. A leg of the Colossus of Rhodes remained a leg if separated from the statue. It had no unity apart from the rest of the statue. In the same way, they might cut up one of the London boroughs into a great number of urban

  1245
  districts; but although these urban districts would have some proportion of separate life, they would have no unity of their own. Therefore, in considering the case of the London boroughs, it must be realised that one of the peculiarities of London was that there was a certain unity in the whole body, and that they could not treat these Borough Councils as local government unities for all purposes. That being so, it seemed to him that the natural and reasonable course would have been to give the London County Council all the power they could, consistently with not overloading it with work it could not perform. That was a very obvious principle.
  Some people thought that the London County Council had acted in an unreasonable manner in regard to the water supply just as other County Councils have done in other matters; but, in regard to education, no one disputed that the record of the London County Council was an admirable one; that they had always done their work well and fairly; that they had not been at all a partisan body or oppressive to any section of opinion. Why, then, should they be passed over, and not be treated as any other County Council in the country? There were obvious conveniences in treating them as the other County Councils have been treated. There was, as his hon. friend the Member for Stretford had argued so clearly, the rating question. Then there was also the immense advantage of having one educational policy—but that was ground already traversed. If so, the only deduction they ought to make from the powers of the London County Council were such powers as must be delegated from them, because otherwise they would be overworked. And on Clause 3 they would have to consider how far they ought to delegate the powers of management to the Borough Councils. But let him say that the powers of management were not the same thing as the powers of control. They might perfectly well confide extensive powers of management to the Borough Councils without in the least impinging on the principle of the unity and control of the central body. Then came the consideration whether they ought to bring in representatives,
  1246
  not of each of the Borough Councils, but a small number of twelve selected on what was confessedly a very inconvenient plan. He did not see what advantage there was in that proposal. He was sure it would not please the Borough Councils, which had a strong individuality, and would have no particular satisfaction in being united in groups. Nor would they get any real local representation. The councillor on the Education Committee, who was selected for the group—Deptford, Lewisham, Greenwich and Woolwich, must be a councillor in one of the boroughs, but would not represent the rest of the area at all. He would not be, in fact, nearly so good a local representative as the London County Council representative for the borough. Why then should the Government put in twelve persons, selected by the Borough Councils for no particular reason, not as local representatives, for that they would not be, but merely as the remnant, as the stump of their earlier proposal. He deprecated such a course very strongly indeed. If the Government thought that there was not a sufficient number of persons who would bring to the attention of the Education Committee the different local aspects of the matter, let them increase the number of outsiders and direct the London County Council that they were to have regard to local representation in selecting these persons. That would be a perfectly reasonable proposal.
  He did not think it was at all likely that the claims and necessities of the different localities would be overlooked by the London County Council, but, on the contrary, he was convinced that if they gave the London County Council this power, they would take an honourable pride in carrying out the work as well as possible, and there would not be any attempt in the least on their part to try and spoil this great administrative work. On the impartiality, skill, and efficiency with which they carried out this great power would depend the judgment of Parliament in entrusting to them other powers in the future. He felt strong confidence that they would do their work well as heretofore. He confessed that he disliked setting up an artificial system of returning persons to the

  1247
  central authority from the Borough Councils, which would not correspond with any really good principle, merely because the Government at one time proposed to have a larger representation of the Borough Councils, and when they found they had excited a certain amount of feeling among the Borough Councils, they were now reluctant to disappoint it. Let it be remembered that passing emotions were very transient indeed. Somebody might be offended or annoyed for the moment by some action taken, but by this time next year he would have forgotten all about it. The really important thing was that they should set up an efficient, workmanlike scheme, and he was sure that they would improve the scheme of the Government if they left out the twelve representatives of the Borough Councils.
  MR. KIMBERsaid that two nights ago he endeavoured to call the attention of the Committee to the necessity and importance of realising the magnitude of the object of the subject matter they had now in hand, viz., the education of the vast multitude of the children of the people. They had also to consider and judge of the adequacy of the human machinery which they had at their disposal for accomplishing that purpose. It appeared to him that they were in great danger of losing all sense of proportion in discussing the difference between giving the London County Council thirty-six or forty-two representatives on the Education Committee, or between thirty-one and twelve representatives to be given to the Borough Councils. If he might use a military metaphor, he looked upon the Prime Minister as a leader, and that leader should survey the forces he could bring to bear on the accomplishment of the object in view, because this was not a mere municipal question, it was a national one. What had the right hon. Gentleman got at his hand? The London County Council, an ad hoc body (the London School Board), the Borough Councils—the last expression of the mind of London and of Parliament as to what should be local government for the Metropolis. London was admitted to be unique among the great communities of the country that had to be dealt with for any purpose
  1248
  whatever. They were told that the Government had two objects in view in bringing in the Bill. One was the municipalisation of education, and the other was that that municipalisation was to conform, as far as the circumstances of London were analogous to the circumstances of the provinces, to the Bill of last year. Which was the greater analogy—that between the London County Council and the bodies to which education had been entrusted by last year's Bill, or that between Borough Councils and those bodies? In the country, sixty-seven county boroughs had the supreme control and executive administration of education. Their average population was a little more than 130,000. In London there were twenty-nine boroughs which had sprung into existence, not from London itself but which were merged into London, and were, in some sense, independent towns agglomerated together. Their average population was 160,000; and, therefore, there was a greater analogy for the purpose of applying the Act of last year between them than between the London County Council and the county boroughs. The County Council was a body for the purpose of uniting London together in order to enable one comprehensive view to be taken of subjects which were common to London; but it was never contemplated that the County Council should have to grapple with the administration of the details of all the aggregated cities comprising London. The Government had those two forces at their disposal, and it was for them to choose which they would select. On the Borough Councils there were 1,500 men, who were engaged not in one centre but who were located in twenty-nine different districts, who came from different parts of the districts, and who were far better acquainted than any central body could be with the educational wants and desires of the districts.
  In other circumstances he would be prepared to combat the idea as to whether the County Council was the right body to be given supreme control; but he admitted that that point was now passed, and he would not argue it. Granted that the County Council was to be the controlling body, he would

  1249
  ask the Committee to examine the nature of the co-operation which was to be given to the other bodies. The Borough Councils were to be entrusted with the work of local management; and, admitting that a link of communication was required with the central controlling body, they thought that one nominee from each Borough Council on the central body was little enough. The representative of the Borough Council would be able to communicate to the central body the wants of his own district; and he would be able to bring back from the central body the wisdom resulting from the joint consideration of those wants and the wants of other districts. There was reason and symmetry in that. It was a useful and a symmetrical arrangement. It would enable the controlling body to know how to control, and the administering body to know how best to administer. But under the present Bill that representation was reduced to twelve. It was said that a representation of thirty-one would put the County Council in a minority; but he would readily concede that if the County Council were to be the controlling body they should have an effective majority. All he wanted was that each borough should be heard; and for that purpose one voice was as good as a hundred. Where the representation was reduced to twelve, a system of grouping the boroughs had to be introduced; and it occurred to him that a number of difficulties would at once arise. What, however, he wished to point out was that a man sent from two, three, or four boroughs could not be considered a representative. He could not sit in each of the Councils, and he could not give the controlling body the information it would require. What was the average population of those grouped boroughs. Dividing 5,000,000 by 12, each group had a population of about 400,000. The one gentleman selected would be supposed to know all the wants and interests of those districts, although he could only sit on the Council of one. Then again, how was he to report to his constituents? Was he to call a meeting of the entire population? How could he be a link of the districts of which he knew little or nothing?
  The municipal borough of Wandsworth also included the Parliamentary
  1250
  borough of Clapham, and it was to be grouped with Battersea. The House of Commons might pass a law ordering both sides to agree to Home Rule for Ireland; but it could not compel Wandsworth and Battersea to agree on one representative. Suppose that individual, who would have to represent opposite views, went to the central authority, how was he to bring back the views of the central body? He suggested to the Government that the Borough Councils had better not have any representation at all than such a ridiculous arrangement. He would not use a stronger word, as he did not wish to be offensive to the members of the Government in charge of the Bill. He would ask the Committee to pause before they rejected the link which would perform a very useful service in the harmonising of the plan by which this great question could be grappled with; and by which the sentiment of the local bodies could be conveyed to the central body and the sentiment of the central body conveyed to the local bodies. He hoped the Government would restore the Bill to its original form. They asked for a single voice on the central Council of the Metropolis on the momentous question of education, and he did not see why that reasonable modicum of representation could not be given. He hoped the Government would revert to the original proposal of the Bill in this regard.
  MR. YOXALLsaid it was difficult to believe they were discussing an Education Bill for London. What they were discussing was a Bill for the readjustment of the local governing bodies of London. Not a single argument had been directed to the question of how the best education was to be obtained for London. He protested against this problem being dealt with in this way. The real problem before the House—the real object of the Bill—was to set up machinery for education in London. The Government had approached it not from an educational but a municipal point of view, by adhering to the principle that there must be twelve members of the Borough

  1251
  Councils on the Education Committee. The hon. Member opposite said on the other hand they would have the thirty-seven Borough Councils as was originally suggested by the Bill or none at all. Even the decision of the Prime Minister was based not on educational considerations but on bringing harmony between the Borough Councils and the London County Council. In the whole of these debates right through, whatever had emerged from them proved what had been said in the beginning—that they could not make a good educational measure out of this Bill, and therefore before they went further in this matter he would suggest that the Bill should be recommitted and that they should start on a different basis altogether.
  MR. BONDsaid that as a member of the London School Board, and for six years a member and for one year the chairman of the Technical Education Board, he had been perhaps more directly concerned with the actual administration of London Education than most Members of the House. The Committee was on the eve of a great decision. It had become necessary that the educational system, or the want of system in London, should be recast and put on a different footing. Whatever solutions of this question might have been suggested there was only one solution now recognised as possible, and that was to trust the London County Council, acting through their Committee, with the conduct and supervision, if not the control, of the whole education of the Metropolis. The question which was now directly at issue was how the Education Committee should be constituted, and the point to which all criticism had been directed was the question of whether the Borough Councils should have a direct or indirect representation on the Board. Only three reasons could be suggested for the Borough Councils being a component part of the Committee. It might be said that they might thereby enhance the importance of the Borough Councils. That might be so if a representative of each Borough Council was to be put on the Committee, but directly that idea had been disposed of the whole of that argument dropped. Another suggestion was that the Borough Councils should have a person on the Committee who knew the
  1252
  particular and special wants of the district from which he came; but it must be remembered that there was a large proportion of county councillors on the Committee, and that these districts would in all probability be better represented by them. The third reason which might be suggested was that this contingent should be placed on the Committee in order to make its number adequate to the work that had to be done. It was said the London County Council could not spare enough members to make the Committee a working body, but with that he did not agree. His view was that the number of the Committee should be made as small as it possibly could be, consistently with its ability to get through the work it had to do. A great quantity of the work which it would have to perform would have to be performed by delegation, and a proper delegation would enable the work of the central Committee to be efficiently conducted by means of a much smaller number of men distributed into sub-committees having charge of special matters.
  He would just call the attention of the House to the actual work done by the two bodies which were to be amalgamated under this Bill. The Technical Education Board of the London County Council was now composed of thirty-seven members, twenty of whom were members of the London County Council and fifteen of whom were what he would call outsiders. The School Board had fifty-five members and a chairman called in from the outside, making fifty-six. The number proposed for the new Committee was seventy-nine, of whom forty-two were to come from the London County Council, twelve from the Borough Councils, and twenty-five from the outside. The School Board had seven grand committees, of which two met once a week and five once a fortnight. There were also five other committees of a less important character which met only occasionally as necessity arose. There were also twenty-two sub-committees, leaving out those committees which were attached to the industrial schools. Then besides all these committees there were seven education committees belonging to the Technical Education Board of the London County Council, which appointed sub-committees to deal with the details of the work. It might be said that so many

  1253
  committees would require a considerable number of men to man them, but some of these duties could be performed by the chairman, and several of the committees could be merged together so that the actual number of members required to man the committees which would have to be appointed would not need to be more than sixty. The smaller the Committee was, the better work would be done. These duties could not be fulfilled unless men were found who would give up all their time, energy, and ability to the work. He was certain such men would be found. There were men who for years had been working in the cause of education in London, and were anxious to place at the service of the new authority the fruits of their long experience and labour. If their services were enlisted, and the standard of efficiency and zeal of the officials of the new body kept up to its present high level, he believed such a body as he had sketched out would be able satisfactorily to do the work that London required. There was really no reason for the presence of the borough councillors, but their representation having been suggested in the original Bill it might seem somewhat harsh to cut them out altogether. That, however, was a difficulty of the Government's own making, and it should be faced with a single eye to the constitution of the best body under the circumstances. The introduction of any foreign element which tended to make the County Council feel that they were not absolute masters in their own house, and that the Committee, instead of being their instrument, was swayed and directed by forces outside and not altogether in harmony with the Council, would engender or increase the spirit of suspicion with which the operations of the Committee would be regarded. The County Council would not be able with confidence to leave the administration and organisation of London education in the hands of such a Committee, as it had hitherto done in the case of the Technical Education Board. If they insisted on having a weekly or monthly report, and on reviewing the proceedings of the Committee on all points of detail, good-bye might be said to all idea of having a really effective system
  1254
  of education. Under such conditions the County Council would break down, and some other method would have to be devised for carrying on the work.
  SIR J. DICKSON-POYNDERsaid a large proportion of London Members, and of Members interested in education and local government generally, on that side of the House, were agreed that the Borough Councils should be excluded from the central authority, and that the County Council should have a discretion in formulating its own scheme, subject to the approval of the Board of Education. A clear distinction should be drawn between management and control. He desired the central authority to have full power of control and full power of delegation. The fact that upon many of the county authorities throughout England there were to be found representatives of the non-county boroughs, instead of being an argument in favour of the Government proposal, was rather the reverse, because those representatives were there under schemes drawn up by the Councils themselves, and that was precisely the position in which many of them desired to see the London County Council placed. He hardly thought the system of grouping would ensure connection between the localities and the central body. That object would be better secured by instituting the connection from the greater to the smaller rather than from the smaller to the greater, because in the latter case a parochial mind was brought to bear on a body which it was essential should consider questions from a large point of view, whereas by delegating from the central authority to the smaller authorities, a larger mind was infused into the local bodies. He would therefore prefer that the connection should be brought about by power being given to the County Council under Clause 3, to nominate certain members to serve on the local bodies in the several districts. The system of grouping boroughs entirely shut out any idea of paying a compliment to the Borough Councils. It was almost ridiculous to suggest that two districts of such area and rateable value as Westminster and Kensington should each be

  1255
  represented by half a man. He thought it had been clearly proved that the scheme of last year should have been followed in the case of London. It was true that, from the point of view of population, the problem in London was very different from that in the country, but from the point of view of concentration the arguments for last year's scheme applied with even greater force to London.
  While he had the greatest respect for anything the hon Member for North Camberwell said on the question of education, it had to be recognised that he was rather a prejudiced party. He was quite ready to admit with the hon. Member for North Camberwell, that the London County Council had an immense amount of work to do under normal conditions. When it had delegated its members to the Water Board, to the Port of London Commission, and the Education Committee, there was no doubt that an immense amount of work would be imposed upon the London County Council. This would necessitate a rearrangement of the committees of the London County Council. It might be possible for those committees to carry on their work with a smaller number of members, which would liberate other members to do educational work. If it was found after this was done that the number of members was not sufficient, Parliament could address itself to providing for an increase in the number of representatives of the London County Council. The work of the London County Council was so onerous to its members that it was difficult to adequately discharge the duties of a councillor and Member of Parliament at the same time, though he would deplore the day when Parliament was separated from the Council, with no Members to act as a link between the two bodies. He was sure it would be an unfortunate day for good government in London if that ever took place. What they wished to find out was whether this scheme was the best. They wanted an efficient body which would take away as little as possible the members of the County Council from their other work. The Committee thus formed ought to be in complete harmony with and have the full confidence of the London County Council. If they wished to accomplish that, then
  1256
  they must allow the County Council to select the Committee. If the Committee arrived at decisions which were opposed to the views of the County Council, it would lead to long debates which harmonious treatment of this question would avoid. The introduction of twelve borough councillors necessitated a stereotyped number of London County Councillors. Those best versed in the matter had told him that the central body, provided its duty was confined to general control, and provided it was allowed to delegate the management work to local bodies, could perform this work with a smaller number even than that which had been suggested. Undoubtedly the whole argument of the hon. Member for North Camberwell had been that the School Board had such a gigantic work to perform that nobody upon that body could undertake any other work. The School Board had been over centralised, but by this scheme they would have complete decentralisation which would not involve so many meetings or so many Sub-committees, because the local bodies would take over much of the work which was formerly done by the School Board.
  In conclusion he wished to say that it seemed to him most esential in the municipalisation of education that they should not expropriate in any way those members of the County Council who were going to take part in the educational work, from the County Council Committees. They were obliged to do this in the case of the Water Board and the Port of London Commission, and this would take them right away from the work of the London County Council. They wanted a scheme under which those who took part in educational work would still keep in touch with the work of the Council. The moment they introduced alien elements there would be a tendency to draw away that close touch which appeared to him to be of so much importance. He thought during the discussion they had succeeded in bringing some strong arguments forward in favour of a modification of this proposal, and had the Prime Minister been in his place he would have appealed to him to allow the Committee to decide this question upon its own merits. If that

  1257
  course were taken he had not the smallest fear what the decision would be. They all wanted an efficient system of education, and they wished to maintain the best constitutional system of local government in the Metropolis.
  SIR JOSEPH DIMSDALEsaid he thought there were at least twenty or thirty hon. Members of this House who considered that they could deal with educational matters far more competently than Ministers of the Crown. It was little more than a month ago that this Bill was printed. It was placed upon the Table of the House, and the constitution of the Education Committee then consisted of thirty-six London County Councillors, thirty-one representatives of the Borough Council, twenty-five co-opted members, and five members selected from the London School Board. When placing that Bill upon the Table the Prime Minister practically tore to shreds the constitution of that Education Committee by his speech, which led the House to believe that he was quite prepared to accept very stringent and far-reaching Amendments. At that period he protested against the representation of the City, and expressed the hope that in Committee Amendments would be made safeguarding beyond all doubt matters of very great importance to the City of London They now found a suggestion that the London County Council should be supreme, and that instead of thirty-one local representatives there would only be twelve. The City of London, although most inadequately represented before with two, was now to have only one representative. It almost seemed that the Government had lost sight of the fact that the City of London was a county in itself. The country owed a great deal to the City for the efficiency of education at the present time. Centuries ago schools were founded in the City under the administration of the Livery Guilds, which had done splendid service, and the country ought to be proud of them. The City Corporation alone, since the passing of the Elementary Education Act in 1870, had expended £500,000 out of its corporate funds upon its schools; while the citizens of London had been taxed in the aggregate for educational purposes
  1258
  to the extent of nearly £4,500,000 during the same period. Under the Equalisation of Rates Act the citizens of the City of London paid annually £115,000 to assist the Metropolitan taxpayers outside the City area, and this was entirely irrespective of the work that had been done by the large sums which had been expended by the Guilds of the City of London. It surely was not unreasonable that this County of the City of London should ask Parliament specially to consider their unique position. He personally thought that the City might ask to be entirely exempted from the Bill now before the House. Within the City there were only two Board schools. He did not think that one word could be said against the administration of the Ward schools and voluntary schools in the City of London. There were, however, other schools which were not only the glory of the City, but were justly looked upon with pride by the country generally. He spoke as a real citizen when he referred to the excellent work done by these grand old schools. Some of them were carried on by the Corporation, and some by the Livery Guilds, but none of them with rate aid. He was informed that this Bill was never intended to touch these institutions, and that their future would remain untrammelled. But to make this sure beyond all doubt he would move an Amendment to that effect when the second schedule came up. He presumed the Government would not hesitate to accept that Amendment. He would appeal to the House as a matter of justice to accept it. That the City of London felt very keenly the manner in which it had been treated by the Government in the framing of this Bill was sufficiently shown by the fact that they claimed their ancient privilege yesterday by coming to the bar of the House and presenting their petition against it. He could only hope that the Government would see its way not to consider how they would propitiate every single interest, thought, and idea, of individual Members of this House, but how they could carry out a consistent and thorough policy which would eventuate in a useful and lasting Education Act for the benefit and happiness of the children of the Kingdom.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Sir WILLIAM ANSON,)rose for the purpose of asking the Committee whether it was not time to get to the Amendments which raised some of the serious issues which were to come before it. There were really important matters which they would have to discuss as to whether or not the Borough Councils should be excluded from the Committee, and, if included, what representation they should have. If he was right in interpreting the view expressed by the Chairman, he believed that the Amendment which stood in his name would afford an opportunity for that discussion, and it would really mean that they would have a sort of Second Reading debate on that Amendment. He asked the Committee to allow the proposal now before them to pass without a division in order that they might proceed at once to deal with the Amendment which raised the real issue, namely, the question of the inclusion or exclusion of the Borough Councils.
  MR. SAMUEL EVANSsaid he thought there was a great object to be attained by allowing this discussion to proceed further than it had done. If it had not been for the course taken with the assent of the Chairman this afternoon, the Government would not have felt how strongly views were held on the two important topics mentioned by the hon. Baronet. He quite agreed that a decision by division on the particular words which were being discussed now, would not be a decision on either of these points, but surely there was very great advantage in having a free discussion now, away from the Amendments, which were afterwards to be discussed. They had not been tied in the discussion to these particular words, and there had been an opportunity, of which the House had freely availed itself, of discussing the general principles underlying the two particular topics which must come up for immediate decision afterwards. This debate had been rendered necessary also by the course the Government had taken. It was because the Government themselves
  1260
  had changed their plan by the Amendment on the Paper that their own supporters felt compelled to carry on the discussion this afternoon. There was this advantage in allowing the discussion to continue further. The Government would know, not merely by speaking with hon. Members in the Lobby, or by private representations, but by hearing their own supporters declare freely in the House, what were their views on vital parts of the Bill. That was the only way in which they could feel the force of opinion against particular proposals embodied in the Bill. If the Committee proceeded at once to the discussion of the particular points, then of course the discussion would be narrowed, and Members would be obliged to deal with the matters raised in the Amendment. For instance, if they proceeded to discuss the question whether or not the scheme was to be developed in the Act of Parliament, or whether it was to be a scheme put forward by the County Council, they would be tied to that question. If they came to discuss the question whether borough councillors were to be represented on the Committee and what that representation should be, they would be confined to that question. He ventured to say that this general discussion, which had been a very useful one, should be allowed to continue longer, so that the Government might see the real strength of the views held by their own supporters in regard to these proposals.
  CAPTAIN JESSELsaid the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife had taunted the London Members with silence on this occasion. He could assure him that it was not because they did not feel strongly on the subject, but because they recognised that their views had been pretty well made known to the Government. He was somewhat astonished at the course taken by his hon. friend the Member for the Chippenham Division. He had the honour of nominating the hon. Baronet for the division he represented on the County Council, and he very much regretted that he did not represent his views on this important subject now before the Committee. In the first place, the hon. Baronet totally

  1261
  objected to the retention of the Members of the Borough Councils on the Committee; and, secondly, he thought that the County Council should have the framing of the scheme. In regard to the first point, he could only say that personally he was very much better pleased with the proposals as they originally stood in the Bill. He thought there was great force in the argument that there should be one member representing each Borough Council. He thought also that the County Council should have a considerable number of members, and that they should nominate the experts. It seemed to him that would give the County Council a majority, but the contrary view was taken by the House, and, while admitting the force of the argument that the London County Council should not only be the education authority but should have a majority on the Committee, he wanted to know how this was to be arrived at. Was it by the excision of the Borough Councils, or was it to be by the method which the Government had decided to adopt? They had agreed to retain the borough councillors to represent groups of boroughs. It did not seem to him that too much stress need be laid on the particular method in which the boroughs were grouped. That seemed to be a matter for discussion when the Schedule was reached. It might be asked what was the advantage of having these borough councillors upon the Committee at all. He thought too much stress could not be laid on the fact that the borough councillors were going to have a large share in the management of the schools, and that there must be some connecting link between the London County Council, which was the controlling authority, and the Borough Councils, which were going to look after the management. It seemed to him that that arrangement, instead of militating against the work, would considerably expedite matters. The same argument would apply to the members of the Borough Councils. They would, he was sure, instead of being a cause of friction, be a sympathetic link between the two great forms of the municipal Government of London. The estrangement which existed
  1262
  arose from the fact that the two bodies did not quite realise their wants. It had been said that the number of twelve would not satisfy the Borough Councils; he did not think it would entirely, but if they could not get all they wanted they ought to be satisfied that they had secured on the Education Committee some voice and some representation. He had seen less than twelve hon. Members opposite voicing the opinion of their Party in a manner which nobody could overlook. In the same way the representation of twelve members would be a most effective method of voicing the wants of the boroughs when difficulties arose, or when questions of organisation were discussed at the first constitution of the Education Committee.
  He thought that the placing of representatives of the Borough Councils on the Education Committee was an augury of a new departure in London local administration, and he very much welcomed the introduction of the principle in regard to the Education Committee, which had been carried out on the Water Board. It ought to be borne in mind that the City of London and the City of Westminster between them paid one quarter of the rates of London, while they had only 23,000 children out of the 623,000 children who were in the provided and voluntary schools in the Metropolis. It seemed to him rather hard that Westminster should only have half a man, and the City of London one man to represent them, when they had paid such a large proportion of the taxation. An hon. Member had expressed regret that there was very little local life in London. He was very much astonished to hear that. If the hon. Member went down to Greenwich and told the people there that there was no local life in the borough his remarks would not be well received. As a matter of fact, local life in London had been very much increased of late years. He maintained that the representatives of the Borough Councils would serve a very useful purpose; they would be representatives of the ratepayers as much as the representatives of the London County Council. With the hon. Member for Camberwell he believed that the balance of the experts would be very much redressed by the inclusion of the representatives of the Borough Councils.

  1263
  This was an opinion which was held not only from a political point of view. A gentleman in his constituency, the Rev. Mr. Coxhead, who is well known in educational matters, and who was long a member of the School Board, was strongly in favour, from an educational point of view, of the representation of the Borough Councils on the Education Committee. He thought the course the Government had taken was wise. They had given the London County Council complete control, because, after all, the power of the purse in the long run would be the controlling power; and they had placed upon it also representatives of the great local bodies in London coupled with the experts. For these reasons he gave his hearty adhesion to the scheme of the Government, although he regretted that they had not seen their way to carry out their original proposal.
  SIR MICHAEL FOSTERsaid if he might be allowed to intervene in the debate, it would be to say a very few words from a purely educational point of view. It was an essentially educational question with which they were dealing. They were not concerned in seeing what respect they could pay to this or that body; how much dignity, honour, privilege or distinction they could confer on this or that body; they were met simply to do their best to select the very best body to carry on the great task of the education of London. For a great task it was. He knew many Members realised how great it was. He doubted very much, however, if all of them realised how very great it was. The body they were about to constitute must carry on and extend the elementary education which already existed; it must also do what at present was done only in a fragmentary way—build on that elementary foundation an education for all classes in London, fitting them for all paths of life, and leading on to the very highest steps of learning. A body which had that great task, great as it was now, and even greater as it might be in the future from an educational point of view, must be homogeneous and solid, it must know its own mind, be its own master, and have the full confidence of the authority which held the purse. Taking that position from a purely educational
  1264
  point of view, it seemed to him that there could be no difficulty in choosing between the two plans—the one plan of allowing the education authority to be the County Council alone, and the other complicated scheme which had been offered by the Government. They had read in the papers lately about a "fortuitous concourse of atoms," which they were told might make a crystal, but could not form a living organism The educational authority which they sought to establish must be a living organism. Now, he would not be so rude as to compare the scheme which had been presented to the Committee to a "fortuitous concourse of atoms," but he would venture to say that there was an element of uncertainty about the prospect which lay in the working of that scheme which, from an educational point of view, would lead one to dread its effect. He must confess, feeling intensely the great educational interests of London, and he trusted the Committee and the Government itself would concede the point—that the education authority must belong to the County Council itself alone, and that if they were to have education carried on well and completely for the benefit of the nation that was the body who could do it, and not the complicated body which was now offered by the Government. He would go further, and say that this great education authority must have a very free hand. He would leave the whole thing in the hands of the London County Council. It was a great responsibility, but the London County Council would feel that responsibility, and he believed they would rise to it. If Parliament trusted the Council, he believed they would have an educational authority which would produce a change in the education of London, which might be even more than one could hope for.
  MR. HENRY HOBHOUSEsaid that the speech of the hon. and learned Member for London University was a deliverance of great force, dignity and knowledge; but he suggested that it would have been still more forcible if it had been spoken from his old seat on the Ministerial Benches, and not from a seat below the Gangway on the Opposition

  1265
  Benches. Since the debate began the members of the Government must have been impressed by the expressions of opinion which had been given from both sides of the House. As an independent listener he confessed that the arguments he had heard all tended in one direction, and that was, that the Government scheme, however well intentioned, had succeeded in pleasing nobody. He wished to point out that in one respect it fell short of even their own design in framing it—a design which he thought, in the abstract, commanded the almost unanimous approval of the House. The idea of the Government, as he understood it, was to give an absolute majority to the London County Council. Out of seventy-nine members, forty-two were to be appointed by the London County Council, but, in the first instance, there would be five other members who must be added. [HON. MEMBERS: May.] Well, his hon. friends could take refuge in the word "may." Could the Committee consider any enlightened County Council, as he knew the London County Council to be, declining to perform what was really a moral if not a legal obligation, and adding to the first Committee men really acquainted with the machinery and the detailed work of the outgoing School Board? He considered the Government, and the majority which supported the Government in the Second Reading, were under a very serious responbility in the matter. They had taken on themselves in the defence of the municipalisation of education the task of destroying a great educational organisation which had existed for whole generations in this Metropolis, and which, from a broad point of view, had admittedly done admirable work. If that were so, it behoved the Government to see that they set up in its place a body the very best they could conceive, and framed to carry on, with no more loss of continuity than was absolutely necessary, the great work of the School Board. The machinery would be very elaborate, and the men who would have to conduct in the future ought to be well advised, and ought to include many who were acquainted with the work of the past. The very least the County Council could do, would be to add five members of the outgoing School Board. His hon. friend thought they might
  1266
  rely on the word "may," but "may" ought to be "shall"; and if it were not "shall" in the Act it would be "shall" in the mind of every enlightened member of the County Council. That being so the County Council would be only able to appoint during the first five years from its own members a bare half of the Committee. That would not be a clear substantial majority, and would not give the County Council any real control. The County Council would not care to delegate to the Committee any very large powers; and secondly they would closely watch the proceedings of the Committee. Whenever members of the Council were absent through other municipal engagements and the other members of the Council were in a temporary minority in the Committee, the decision arrived at, if of any importance, would be reversed in the County Council, with what expense of trouble, time, and temper, the Committee could realise. Therefore, the scheme did not carry out the design of the Government itself in framing this Committee. It certainly did not carry out the clear views of the great majority of the House.
  There was an easy remedy. If the Government would only make up their minds to exclude those twelve unfortunate members who were supposed to represent groups of huge urban boroughs, but who really represented nobody in particular, then there would remain a workable body on which the County Council would have a substantial majority. It was not quite true to say that the Bill satisfied nobody; because it appeared to satisfy the hon. Member for Limehouse. But there were hon. Gentlemen like the hon. Member for the Strand Division, the hon. Member for Chelsea, and the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich. It did not require much courage to proclaim in this House the virtues of an hon. Member's own borough, or the importance of its being represented in the Committee; but when hon. Members, loyal supporters of the Government, appealed to the Government to exclude from the scheme the representation of their own boroughs, their voice ought to be heeded. London had been united for educational purposes for thirty-three years. Surely that unity ought not in a hurry to be disintegrated and broken

  1267
  up into sections in order to encourage what the hon. Member for St. Pancras seemed to think such an excellent development of local government, viz., the creation of Water Boards for every purpose in London. He would humbly suggest that there were two alternatives open to the Government. One was to leave the London County Council in the same position as other County Councils, to form their own scheme with the approval of a Government Department. That was now answering well all over the country; and he really did not see why it should not answer in London. The other was to leave the House to give a free vote on this question. Surely the Government might treat their supporters as they treated them last year with reference to the Option Clause, and allow them to vote for a simple scheme rather than for a complicated, unsatisfactory, and hybrid scheme.
  SIR EDWARD GREYsaid that the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down appealed to the Government to either withdraw the proposal or leave it an open question. He did not know how far the Government would be pliable in the matter but the present scheme was not the first proposal of the Government. It was a second thought, a compromise; and therefore one upon which they might respond to the appeal of the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, to leave it to the opinion of the House and allow their supporters to vote freely, without any loss of prestige to themselves. If it had been their own original proposal, he admitted it would be a more difficult matter; but it was not. It had been put forward in a tentative way, and should be left to the general sense of the House. The right hon. Gentleman said that the speech of the Member for London University would have been more effective if delivered on the Government side of the House. He did not see that appeals from the Government side were a bit more effective than appeals from the Opposition side. Yet it was not that the appeals from the Government side were lacking in numbers or in cogency of argument. He would suggest to the
  1268
  right hon. Gentleman, if he found that the Government were deaf to his appeal on this matter, to try the effect of crossing the floor himself.
  MR. HENRY HOBHOUSE: There is one difficulty. I could not canvass my constituents by the reply post-card.
  SIR EDWARD GREYsaid the right hon. Gentleman was not so separated from his constituents that he could not take their opinions. He was greatly impressed, and he thought that the House generally was greatly impressed, by the strength and persistency with which the right hon. Gentleman treated last year's Bill in the most single-minded way from the point of view of the County Councils and of education. That was exactly his own point of view. He agreed with the Government that there must be unity and co-ordination in our educational system. But vigour and energy in the authority were wanted, as well as unity and co-ordination; and a great risk was run, in a large place like London, in attempting to give unity and co-ordination, of losing vigour and energy, unless responsibility was clearly established. It would have been better if the Government had simply said to the London County Council, "There is the education question; set your brains at work and draw up a scheme." He believed the London County Council would rise to the responsibility of developing an educational system for London provided it was given full powers. It was said that the London County Council were too much overworked to undertake the control of education. He believed the great municipalities would have to undertake more and more work, and that probably they would have to revise their methods of administration in order to deal with it. But the proposal to bring in the Borough Council element did not in the least relieve the London County Council of any portion of the burden. What it might do was to diminish the sense of responsibility of the County Council, and that would be a very serious thing, for with their responsibility would be diminished their enterprise and energy in their work. No strength was gained by the introduction of the representatives of

  1269
  the Borough Councils, for they would not be experts in education. All the Government got was that they paid a sort of compliment to the Borough Councils; and that they should not have done, because the Borough Councils did not feel it as a compliment. It was so small that it was not taken as a compliment at all. When the Borough Councils' representatives were there they would not know what they represented; they would have no local patriotism, no special knowledge. The Prime Minister had referred to the largeness of London as a reason why it should be treated on different lines: but, on the contrary, that was a reason for keeping to the line of making the County Council the only authority. Precisely because of London's size—bigger, as the Prime Minister said, than some of the nations of Europe—it was desirable that it should have some feeling of corporate life. They must place the main responsibility on it. It must, speaking locally, embody the national spirit of London. Give it ample powers to delegate, but let it feel that it is responsible, either directly or through its delegated powers, to the Metropolis. The work of drawing up education schemes for London would be more difficult and complicated than that of any other education authority; and the County Council, although made nominally the education authority, was to be hampered with qualifications which did not exist in other parts of the country, and to be given more restricted powers. He joined in the appeal of the right hon. Member for Somerset to the Government. Having regard to their own past attitude—how variable it had been, how little even they had seen any fixed point in this matter—and having regard to the weight of argument on their own side, they should at any rate consider whether they could not meet the right hon. Gentleman to the extent of leaving this an open question to the Committee.
  SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid he did not propose to argue in detail the important questions which they would have to decide later, but would simply urge the Committee to let the words before them form part of the Amendment, and so get regularly to the discussion of the questions with which they were so anxious to deal. The Amendment before the
  1270
  Committee did not decide, and they were not discussing whether the Committee of the London County Council should be constituted by statute or by scheme, whether the boroughs should or should not be represented on the Committee, or whether the London County Council should not have a majority on the Committee. They were discussing matters at large. They were having a Second Reading debate on the general question of the constitution of the Education Committee. It was idle to appeal to the Government to make this Amendment a non-party question because it would carry nothing with it. As to the supposed silence of the advocates of borough representation, thirty Members for London in that House had requested the Prime Minister to retain in one form or another the borough representation, and at least one hon. Member on the other side of the House had last night said a good word for the representation of the boroughs. He assured his right hon. friend the Member for Somerset that when the time came they would ensure that the London County Council should have a majority on the Committee, and, if necessary, over its own selection from the School Board. That was another matter to be discussed later. Meanwhile he urged them to deal with the Amendment so that the discussion could become practical.
  MR. CLAUDE HAYexpressed great astonishment at the remarks of the hon. Gentleman, who had given the direct go-by to the pledge given by the Prime Minister that the Committee should discuss the general form now, after which the discussion could be carried down into details. He sincerely hoped this Motion would not be rushed through the House as the Second Reading of the Bill was. Not only were Members for London constituencies thus deprived of opportunities of discussing the Bill, but outside representative bodies had not had time to bring their opinion to bear on the House of Commons. His constituents, irrespective of party, were unanimously against the inclusion of the borough representatives on this Education Committee. He earnestly appealed to the Government to listen to the weight of criticism which had fallen from hon. Gentlemen opposite and to take heed of the advice which had been offered on the Unionist side.
  MR. CAUSTONexpressed surprise that the right hon. Gentleman had given no expression of his views with regard to the question which had been under discussion all the afternoon.
  SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid he made his speech when he introduced the Amendment.
  MR. CAUSTONsaid the Committee had been indulging the hope that some impression had been made on the right hon. Gentleman by the speeches delivered. During the whole of the day only two speeches had been delivered in support of the proposal to add the twelve borough councillors to the Committee, and one of them was the half-hearted support of one whose view was that he had received but half a loaf. As a London Member he himself wished to say that it would be simply absurd to add these twelve borough councillors to the Committee. They had not been told in what way these gentlemen were to be elected. The scheme would bring about great discord between the Borough Councils themselves. The Committee ought to know what the views of the Government were on this matter. Personally, he would like to move the adjournment of the debate, and if he had the permission of his leaders he would certainly do so. It was much to be regretted that the Prime Minister had been absent from the House since the beginning of the proceedings, for he was sure that the speech of the hon. Member for South Manchester had impressed him, as it did the whole House; if he had been present through the whole debate he would doubtless have had a conference with the President of the Local Government Board and the Secretary to the Board of Education, and probably on Monday the Committee would have had a re-framed Bill to consider. He hoped that, unless some declaration were forced from the Government, the adjournment of the debate would be moved.
  GENERAL LAURIEsaid that as a member of a Borough Council, he was puzzled as to what the borough councillors were to
  1272
  be sent on this Committee to do. It had been distinctly declared that the authority was to be the London County Council. Either they trusted that authority or they did not. If they did not, twelve members from outside would not keep them straight. In any case, twelve members could not represent twenty-nine Borough Councils. One borough would be called upon to vote for a man living in another borough, and there would be no local touch between the central body and the Borough Council. If an authority was created it should be a real authority. In the polytechnic body of which he was a member, he moved a Resolution in favour of the London County Council being the education authority, and that Resolution was carried because, knowing what the County Council had done in that particular branch of education, it was believed it would do equally well in other branches. He sincerely hoped the London County Council would be the authority, and that it would not be thwarted by men being sent to hold it back in its work, and, on the other hand, that the Borough Councils would not be asked to appoint men for that purpose, though he believed that the Borough Councils could do good work if properly utilised as local managers.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid the Government had pursued an extraordinary course. On one of the most important points in the Bill they had been subjected to a raking fire of criticism from their own supporters, and the President of the Local Government Board had sought cover in his trenches, the Secretary to the Board of Education had pleadingly asked the attacking party to cease firing, while the Commander-in-Chief—the Prime Minister—had simply retired out of range. The Government were proposing the extension to London of an Act of Parliament in regard to the working of which they had before them the experience of practically all the County Councils of England. Of those County Councils only that of Hertfordshire had adopted the plan which, in the face of all experience, the Government proposed to apply to London. They were going to say to the County Council, not only that they would constitute the

  1273
  Committee, but that they would constitute it in a way which had been repudiated by every other County Council in the country except that of Hertfordshire. The only defender of the proposal in London was Limehouse, which comprised one-fifth of a borough, and the Government actually proposed that this Hertford-cum-Limehouse policy should govern the educational system under which London was to be brought up. Why was the London County Council to be deprived of a power enjoyed by every other County Council? Simply because London was large and important she was to be treated as though she were more insignificant than the smallest Urban Council. Experience of the grouping process in Wales showed that this foreign element of twelve borough councillors would be responsible to nobody; they might as well be selected by the twelve tribes of Israel. In this respect it was not a question of population. London was compact and accessible, and the schools in a particular district could be visited in a few hours, whereas in such districts as Lancashire and Yorkshire the schools were so scattered that the authority was forced to rely upon reports. The whole scheme was due simply to a mean and contemptible prejudice against the London County Council. The Government had achieved what he had thought was the impossible; they had made the Bill more ridiculous than before, but he hoped they would even now reconsider their position.
  MR. BURDETT-COUTTSsaid that he rose for the purpose of putting a question, particularly now that the Prime Minister had come back to the House. Where were they? The remarkable utterance of the Secretary to the Board of Education had left the Committee in as great a fog as Ministers had been in when framing and then completely changing this Committee of Education. He understood from that speech that the Committee were not about to vote upon the subject which had been under discussion for several hours, viz., the constitution of the Education Committee. If that were so, he was not very anxious about his own vote. If they were
  1274
  about to vote on the question that had been discussed, it was a different thing. He objected to the suggestion that the Government should take time to consider this matter, because he was afraid if they did, they would alter their mind a third time. His own opinion was that the Government had introduced a good Bill, but that, so far as this Clause was concerned, they had made it a bad Bill, and he suggested that, if they were to make any further changes, they should direct their attention to the possibility of restoring the Bill to its original form.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If the hon. Member is in doubt as to the issue on which the Committee are about to divide, he could hardly have been in the House about three o'clock when we had a discussion as to procedure.
  MR. BURDETT-COUTTS: The right hon. Gentleman was not in the House when the Secretary of Education made his last speech.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It was then felt on both sides that it would be for the convenience of the Committee if, instead of repeating the discussion and arguments over and over again on different Amendments, we had one full and adequate discussion on the important question of whether or not the Borough Councils should have on the Education Committee the representation proposed by the Government. It is to that question the Committee addressed itself last night, and it is to that question the Committee has addressed itself throughout the hours of this afternoon.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he understood the principle involved was the absolute right of the County Council to select its own Committee. They were not now judging the question of the twelve. The question was purely and simply the Bill of last year.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I agree that the decision about to be taken will not deal with all the details of my hon. friend's subsequent Amendment. It does not mean that if the Committee carried this Amendment hon. Members

  1275
  would be precluded from suggesting modifications to my hon. friend's scheme. What, I think, by agreement will be decided is whether or not the London County Council is to be treated precisely as the County Councils of some other counties, or whether there is to be a representation of the Borough Councils upon the Education Committee. If that is not admitted, I hope hon. Members will interrupt me.
  MR. BRYCEpointed out that there had been a general discussion ranging over the whole of the substituted clause proposed by the Government.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman was in the House when the informal arrangement was come to between both sides of the House as to whether we should take this discussion now, or upon the question that this clause stand part of the Bill.
  MR. BRYCEsaid he understood what was arranged then was that, at the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman, a general discussion upon the whole proposal of the Government embodied in the Amendment of the Secretary to the Board of Education should be taken, but that had nothing to do with making the Amendment itself a test question in any way. The Amendment itself did not raise any substantial issue, and it was understood that this was to be a sort of Second Reading debate, and specific questions would be raised upon the proper Amendments.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not think that is quite an accurate description of what took place. I begged the House not to repeat the same discussion again and again, and not to have votes which decided nothing. Then the question arose as to whether the broad principle of this proposal is to be accepted or not. That could be discussed on the question that the clause stand part of the Bill. But the hon. Member for Carnarvon urged that sometimes the discussion on that question was not very adequate; and he preferred the present opportunity. I agreed, but on the understanding that the question was decided now. Of course, that does not carry with it an assent to every detail of my hon. friend's Amendment. The division is going to be taken
  1276
  upon the general question. I hope, after the discussion which has taken place—from 3 o'clock to 12 o'clock yesterday, and from 3 o'clock to 7 o'clock to-day—the Committee will consider that this question has been adequately dealt with. I think the amount of heat and passion which this question has aroused is far in excess of the actual intrinsic importance it will have when the new body comes into working order. I do not think the compulsory addition of twelve representatives from the Borough Councils will have this extraordinary far-reaching effect which has been suggested by the speeches to which we have listened. I do not pretend to exaggerate the importance of this Amendment, but I do think that it is in accordance with the general principles which we have advocated from the beginning; and that, having regard to the special position of the London boroughs, which find no parallel anywhere else in the country, we are justified in extending to them exceptional treatment. If this exceptional treatment destroyed the supremacy of the London County Council, or if it were an instance of our distrust of the London County Council, if it were intended to cripple its wings and hamper its action, I could understand all this feeling in regard to our proposal. But that is not the object we have in view, and that will not be the effect of the Amendment. The London County Council will not only be supreme as the education authority, unhampered by any extraneous elements, but even in regard to those extraneous elements we shall take care that the County Council is also supreme. Its supremacy will remain untouched, and why this extraordinary grudging spirit should be displayed in regard to the comparatively small representation we propose to give to the Borough Councils I find it hard to understand. I respectfully venture to say that upon the large question of policy raised by my hon. friend's Amendment we are now perhaps ripe to come to a decision, and I trust the Committee will consent to take a vote upon it.
  SIR JOHN GORSTsaid the Committee embarked on this discussion on the invitation of the Secretary to the Board of Education. When the hon. Gentleman moved the innocent Amendment before the House he said that it would be in order to enter upon the

  1277
  whole general question of his Amendment, and he invited the House to take part in that discussion. The Committee were now invited by the Prime Minister to take a division which was to decide the question, but they could not possibly do it. They had no objection to inserting those harmless words, and he hoped there would be no division; but when the Secretary to the Board of Education moved his Amendment they would move Amendments which would raise the real issue and enable the Committee to pronounce an opinion, which it could not pronounce upon the Motion now before them.
  MR. BRYCEsaid there was no desire to divide the House upon this Motion, because it would settle nothing whatever. The material questions would be decided hereafter. He thought the Government had benefited by the discussion, which had been conducted without heat or passion. A great deal of counsel had been tendered to the Government which if they would ponder and weigh would very much abridge the subsequent proceedings of the Bill. He hoped the Government would give them some indication that the arguments which had been used had impressed them, and he trusted that the Committee would be left free to decide upon the Amendment of the Secretary to the Board of Education.
  DR. MACNAMARAasked, as a point of order, whether, if the words under consideration were added to the clause, he would be precluded from moving to strike out from the Government's subsequent Amendment the words "and twelve shall be members of the metropolitan boroughs."
  THE CHAIRMAN: That Amendment would not be precluded. I said so before to-day, and I think I also said it last night.
  SIR J. FERGUSSONsaid that it would greatly assist many who earnestly desired to support the Government in their scheme as a whole, if it were understood that the House would be free to decide whether or not the representatives of the Borough Councils should be included in
  1278
  the Committee. It would be a great assistance if the Government would declare that they did not regard the representation of the Borough Councils as a vital question.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 9, to leave out from the word 'shall,' to the end of the Clause, and insert the words, 'consist of seventy-nine members, of whom forty-two shall be persons who are members of the local education authority appointed by that authority, and twelve shall be persons who are members of councils of metropolitan boroughs appointed in manner provided in the First Schedule to this Act, and twenty-five shall be appointed by the local education authority in accordance with a scheme under this Act made by that authority and approved by the Board of Education.'"
  (2) "The local education authority may, if they think fit, appoint not more than five persons from among the members of the London School Board to be supernumerary members of the first Education Committee; but those supernumerary members shall cease to hold office on the expiration of a period of five years from the date of the constitution of the first Education Committee, and any vacancy in their number occurring by death, resignation, or otherwise shall not be filled up."—(Sir William Anson.)
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. WHITLEYsaid he trusted that before they entered on the discussion of the Amendments on the Paper they might have an assurance from the Prime Minister that he would leave the matter open to be decided by the House. That appeal had been made from his own side of the House as well as from the Opposition side, and he was sure if the right hon. Gentleman assented it would tend very much to limit the discussion.
  SIR JOHN GORSTmoved to leave out "seventy-nine Members," and to substitute "such number of Members as the local authority shall determine." That Amendment raised one of the points they had been discussing, and he hoped the Government would give way and not insist upon the retention of the

  1279
  number in their proposal. The simple effect of his Amendment would be that the local education authority itself would be allowed to determine how many members the Committee should consist of.
  SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid that the Government could not agree to the suggested words. He had only seen the Amendment in manuscript, but, if he understood it rightly, it meant that the County Council would have an absolute determination of the numbers of the Committee. Therefore, without regard to the question whether or not they were to have a majority on the Committee, the Council would be able so to regulate the number as to exclude the representatives of the Borough Councils.
  SIR JOHN GORST: Oh no; I must not allow the hon. Gentleman to fall into such an error as that. Perhaps, I had better read how the clause would stand. It would read as follows—
  "The Education Committee of the local education authority shall consist of such number of members as the local authority shall determine …"
  SIR WILLIAM ANSONapologised for not having fully apprehended the purport of the Amendment. He understood that the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment left the question of the borough representation perfectly open. On behalf of the Government he was prepared to accept that.
  SIR JOHN GORSTthen moved a consequential Amendment to leave out "forty-two" and to substitute the words, "a majority."
  MR. SAMUEL EVANSasked the right hon. Baronet whether the words "a majority," would mean a majority not of the body constituted under Clause 1 of the Bill, but an absolute majority of the whole body.
  SIR JOHN GORST: I think it would be a majority of the whole body.
  MR. LOUGHsaid the Committee ought to understand this matter fully. He thought the words would mean that the number was left to be determined by the local education authority. If
  1280
  that was so, he thought the proposal was fairly satisfactory, but if the Government meant that it was merely to be a majority of one they ought not to pass the words without a little more consideration, for a majority of one was not an effective majority.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURwas understood to state that it would not mean simply a majority of one.
  Proposed Amendment amended.
  "By leaving out the words, 'seventy-nine members,' and inserting the words 'such number of members as the local education authority shall determine,' and by leaving out the words 'forty-two,' and inserting the words, 'a majority.'"—(Sir John Gorst.)
  MR. GEORGE WHITELEY (Yorkshire, W.R., Pudsey)MR. GEORGE WHITELEY (Yorkshire, W.R., Pudsey) moved an Amendment to omit the words—
  "And twelve shall be persons who are members of councils of Metropolitan boroughs appointed in manner provided in the first schedule to this Act."
  He said that his object was to prevent the constitution of the Committee being of the heterogeneous and nondescript character which the inclusion of these words would make it. He did not think it would be denied that if this Education Committee were created according to the ideas of the Government it would be nothing but a patchwork Committee. There was a time when hon. Members opposite did their best to thwart the London County Council in connection with anything proposed by that body. He thought the Amendment devised by the Government in regard to the constitution of the Education Committee showed that the Tory Party had neither changed its skin nor its spots. This Amendment showed the same jealousy and spleen towards the County Council which were manifested in former days. If it was passed, he County Council would be in some measure disgraced, while the Borough Councils would be glorified. Why should the Government treat the London County Council in a different fashion from the County Councils all over the country? Why should there be any Borough Council representation on the Committee? It was unworthy of the Government to treat the London County Council in this fashion. He believed himself that if the

  1281
  Government were to allow this matter to be settled by the good sense of the majority of the Committee, without introducing into it party politics, a very large majority of the Committee would decide to treat the London County Council as the other County Councils in the country bad been treated, and that they would be given the sole control of the education of the City of London. The Government were taking an unwise step. This was not a party question which would affect the one side of the House or the other. They were all desirous to make the London Education Bill a good, workable, practical measure, and to place the education of London in the hands of those who would worthily carry it out. He insisted that this Government mosaic of London County Council and Borough Council representatives, with an admixture of experts from the outside, would make the Committee unworkable and inefficient. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to consent to the London County Council having the supreme control of education in London. Under these circumstances he ventured to move the omission of the words "forty two" and the insertion of the words "fifty four."
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, as amended—
  "To leave out the words 'and twelve shall be persons who are members of councils of metropolitan boroughs appointed in manner provided in the First Schedule to this Act.'"—(Mr. George Whiteley.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment, as amended."
  SIR JOHN GORSTsaid he would fulfil his pledge and not make a speech. He only wished to say that this was the Amendment which raised perfectly, clearly, and distinctly the main subject of their discussion yesterday, viz., whether twelve members of the Borough Councils should or should not be added to the Education Committee statutorily.
  MR. LOUGHsaid that when the Prime Minister came back to the House he stated that they had had a heated discussion on the matter. He wanted to assure the right hon. Gentleman that there had been no heat whatever; it was a businesslike discussion, and
  1282
  all the most powerful speeches had been delivered from the Government benches. Only two Members entirely objected to the Amendment, and other two had partly objected to it. He most earnestly appealed to the right hon. Gentleman, who had not the advantage of hearing the whole of the arguments, to listen to one single point. In his own speech the right hon. Gentleman placed his argument for the twelve members on the desirability of increasing the dignity of the Borough Councils; but the right hon. Gentleman would remember that when these Borough Councils were being established every Member on that side of the House did everything they could to increase the dignity of these bodies. But the right hon. Gentleman then laid down the principle that the duties of these bodies should be confined to the localities for which they were constituted. The right hon. Gentleman was gradually departing from his own principle, for he was giving them a share of the work which belonged to the whole Metropolis. What could Greenwich have to say to the affairs of Wandsworth or Clapham?
  SIR WILLIAM ANSON, who spoke amid much interruption, said that he had been accused of not having given any expression of his own views or those of the Government on this matter. He stated in extenuation that the previous night he had explained his Amendment to the best of his power and ability, and he was prepared now to defend it. He must confess that he could not under stand the extraordinary animus which had been displayed against these unfortunate twelve Members who were to represent the Borough Councils on the Education Committee of the London County Council; and all the more because the Government had never left the Committee in any doubt that it was their intention that the London County Council should be in reality, in fact as well as in name, the local education authority for London; and that they were prepared to constitute the Committee so that the London County Council should be able implicitly to trust it. They had had many forcible speeches on that side of the House against the representation of the Borough Councils,

  1283
  but he was still quite prepared to defend it. His hon. friend the Member for Chelsea, arguing the previous night in a powerful speech against the representation of the boroughs, stated that the Borough Councils represented local interests, and that the London County Council represented general and central interests; that matters common to the whole of London should be dealt with by the London County Council, and that the special interests of localities should be represented by the Borough Councils. He could not help thinking that that was a strong argument for giving the Borough Councils an interest in the management and direction of the general policy which not only concerned the whole of London, but the special concerns of particular areas which differed the one from the other. The education necessary for one area might be perfectly different in some of its branches from that of other areas, because the trades in different parts of London were so distributed over London that industrial education of one form would be better for one part, and another sort for another part of London. He did not think the fact that there were distinct local interests and distinct central interests was any reason for ignoring the local interests when they were dealing with the interests of the whole of London and the interests of diverse parts of London.
  Then, some hon. Members had told them that this representation of the Borough Councils was not worth having and that no Borough Council would care to be represented by a third or a half of a member. He noticed that that argument came from gentlemen who were members of the London County Council and were not members of Borough Councils and not interested in the local affairs of the boroughs. It was very easy to say that the thing was not worth having; but he took the opinion of the representatives of the Borough Councils. A considerable majority of these had expressed themselves in favour of any sort of representation of the boroughs, however these might be grouped, and however much their representation might be rendered difficult by the necessary condition of numbers. What local interests wanted in London was not so much large representation as
  1284
  some one to speak up for the requirements of the different localities. The Borough Councils did not wish—and he did not desire that they should in any way act as a counterpoise to the London County Council. What they desired was that local interests, as distinct from central interests, should be regarded. They must bear in mind that the London County Council did not always represent the local interests of London. Many members of the London County Council were not Londoners in the sense that every member of the Borough Councils was a Londoner. The borough councillors very distinctly represented the local interests of the area. The London County Councillors represented an intelligent interest in the whole of London A fear had been expressed that the London County Council would be embarrassed by the presence of Borough Council members on the Committee of the local education authority, but that fear must have been dispelled by the acceptance by the Government of the Amendment of the right hon. Member for Cambridge University. The Government felt that the Borough Councils needed that a link should be constituted between the central education authority and the boards of management. The Government could not consent to leave it an open question whether the Borough Councils should be included or not, and they adhered to the proposal in the Bill that there should be twelve representatives on the Education Committee.
  MR. CROOKSsaid that after the speech of the hon. Baronet the Committee ought to know where they were being asked to go in accepting the proposal of the Government. How could the twelve borough councillors know anything about the districts they would be supposed to represent? Stepney had five separate divisions, and there would be added Bow and Bromley, and Poplar. How was it possible that one man could represent such an enormous area? It was not reasonable. Supposing Poplar elected the representative, Whitechapel, St. George's in the East, Stepney, and Limehouse would ask what he knew about their needs. He was a Member of a Borough Council, of which he had been

  1285
  mayor, and that council absolutely declined to accept the responsibility it was sought to put upon it. Woolwich had also given no unmistakable vote on the question of an elected central authority. Were those districts to be totally ignored. It was the first time he realised how a man coming from a University could know nothing about local affairs, except the affairs of his own University. In Poplar and Stepney there were 109 councillors, Stepney having sixty and Poplar forty-nine. Was Poplar to dictate to Stepney as to the representative to be selected? If it did it would be ruled out immediately. What then became of the argument of local feeling? Woolwich had been included in four divisions with 120 or 130 councillors. Who was going to represent the locality there? If Deptford selected the representative, what would villadom, in the shape of Lewisham, have to say? If Lewisham elected the representative, what would he know about the needs of Deptford. Only half an hour ago a free and independent Member of Parliament appealed for permission to vote as he liked. Where were they? They were told that trades unions were
  tyrannical; but here, in the British House of Commons, a man had to ask to be allowed to give an honest vote, and not be dictated to. He thought, in the circumstances, he was entitled to ask that the Government should leave the House of Commons to give a free expression of opinion on the Amendment. It was not a party question. It was a question affecting the education of London; and if hon. Members did not vote according to their consciences, he wanted to know what the House of Commons existed for at all.
  Question put.
  MR. CORRIE GRANTasked, on a point of order, if the Chairman would merely put the first two words as he wished to move an Amendment to substitute for "twelve" the word "some."
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman is too late.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 195; Noes, 154. (Division List, No. 94.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Chapman, Edward

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

  Allsopp, Hon. George

  Charrington, Spencer

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

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Goschen, Hon. Geo. Joachim

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

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

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Groves, James Grimble

  Arrol, Sir William

  Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready

  Gunter, Sir Robert

  Atkin-on, Rt. Hon. John

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Hain, Edward

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon Sir H.

  Cox, Irwin Edwd. Bainbridge

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Austin, Sir John

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Heath, James (Stafford's. N. W.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Cullinan, J.

  Helder, Augustus

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

  Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chatham

  Henderson, Sir Alexander

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

  Devlin, Chas Ramsay (Galway)

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Barry, Sir Fras. T. (Windsor)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benj.

  Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir J. E.

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Michael Hicks

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Howard, Jn. (Kent, Fave'h'm)

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tott'ham

  Bignold, Arthur

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  Boland, John

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Ed.

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Joyce, Michael

  Bull, William James

  Fison, Frederick William

  Kenyon, Hon. G. T. (Denbigh

  Butcher, John George

  FitzGerald, Sir Robt. Penrose

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop)

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

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edw. Algernon

  Knowles, Lees

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Lambton, Hon. Fredk. Wm.

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Flower, Ernest

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow

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

  Forster, Henry William

  Lawson, Jn. Grant (Yorks. N. R.

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Fvler, John Arthur

  Leamy, Edmund

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon J. (Birm

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Lee, A. H. (Hants, Fareham)

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

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

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Chaplin, Right Hon. Henry

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

  Leveson-Gower, Fredk. N. S.

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Percy, Earl

  Stanley, Lord (Lancashire)

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

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Lundon, W.

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Stock, James Henry

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Pym, C. Guy

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

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinbur'h W.

  Randles, John S.

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  M'Killop, Jas. (Stirlingshire)

  Rankin, Sir James

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. E. M.

  Maple, Sir John Blundell

  Rattigan, Sir William Henry

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

  Redmond, Jn. E. (Waterford)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Walroud, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Webb, Col. William George

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Richards, Henry Charles

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

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

  Ridley, S. F. (Bethnal Green)

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. J. Lloyd

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

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

  Morgan, Hn. F. (Monm'thsh.)

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Wilson John (Glasgow)

  Murphy, John

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

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

  Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham (Bute

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

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

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Myers, William Henry

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Wylie, Alexander

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, S.)

  Seely, Chas. Hilton (Lincoln)

  Younger, William

  O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Ren-

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Sir Alexander Acland-

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.)

  Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

  O'Malley, William

  Spear, John Ward

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Spencer Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

  NOES.

  Allan, Sir William (Gateshead)

  Emmott, Alfred

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Allhusen, Augustus Hy. Eden

  Evans, Sir F. H. (Maidstone)

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Evans, Saml. T. (Glamorgan)

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbt. Hy.

  Fenwick, Charles

  Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington)

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

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

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Leng, Sir John

  Beckett, Ernest William

  Foster, Sir Michl. (Lond. Univ

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Bell, Richard

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Lloyd-George, David

  Black, Alexander William

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Lough, Thomas

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J.

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Bond, Edward

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Eldon

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Bowles, T. Gibson (Lynn Regis

  Grant, Corrie

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Berwick

  Mappin, Sir Fredk. Thorpe

  Burns, John

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Mellor, Rt. Hn. John William

  Caldwell, James

  Cuthrie, Walter Murray

  Newnes, Sir George

  Cameron, Robert

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Norman, Henry

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tyd

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Cawley, Frederick

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Palmer, Sir Charles M. (Durham

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Harwood, George

  Partington, Oswald

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick G.

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Chaining, Francis Allston

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Havter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Perks, Robert William

  Cremer, William Randal

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H.

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

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

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Crooks, William

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardign

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, Went)

  Price, Robert John

  Denny, Colonel

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Priestley, Arthur

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

  Rea, Russell

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries)

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Rigg, Richard

  Dunn, Sir William

  Kitson, Sir James

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.

  Dvke, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. Hart

  Labouchere, Henry

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Edwards Frank

  Lambert, (George

  Rose, Charles Day

  1288

  1289

  Runciman, Walter

  Thomas, A. (Carmarthen, E.)

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

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

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

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Shackleton, David James

  Thomas, J. A. (Glam., Gower

  Williams, O. (Merioneth)

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

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

  Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid.

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.)

  Toulmin, George

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Woodhouse Sir J. T. (Huddersf'd

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Walton, J. Lawson (Leeds, S.)

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Warner, Thos. Courtenay T.

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Wason, E. (Clackmannan)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

  Mr. Peel and Mr. Henry

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Weir, James Galloway

  Hobhouse.

  Taylor, Theo. C. (Radcliffe)

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.

  Question again proposed, "That those words, as amended, be there inserted."
  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 upon Monday next.

EVENING SITTING.

  CONGO FREE STATE.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid, on moving the Motion standing in his name, it would naturally be asked what was the right of intervention which the Government of this country had in the affairs of the Congo Free State. The Motion asked the Government to intervene in the affairs of that country for the purpose of mitigating the evils under which the Congolese suffered at the hands of the Government of the Congo Free State. The Congo Free State stood in a position unique in the history of the world. It was not a State created by gradual evolution or by right of conquest, or by fission from some pre-existing State, but it had been created by common consent of all the great Powers, and had been entrusted not to any of the existing Powers but to an individual. A large area in West Africa belonged to no Power, and the Powers of the world assigned it to the King of the Belgians, chiefly in order that none of the other Powers should possess it. But it was assigned under certain conditions, first of which was the furtherance of the moral and material well-being of the natives, and second that the trade of all nations
  1290
  should enjoy complete freedom. Article 5 of the General Act of Berlin said—
  "No power which exercises or shall exercise sovereign rights in the above mentioned regions shall be allowed to grant therein a monopoly or favour of any kind in matters of trade."
  And again—
  "The trade of all nations shall enjoy complete freedom."
  Those conditions were solemnly made by the Powers in conference at Berlin, and this country is one of those Powers and had a right to insist on those conditions being carried out. Moreover, the Congo Free State adjoined no less than four of our African possessions, Rhodesia, British Central Africa Protectorate, the Uganda Protectorate, and the Soudan. At one point its territories not merely adjoined our own but overlapped, for the Lado enclave was an area belonging to Britain which was leased to the King of the Belgians. Everything which happened in a country which was so closely connected with our possessions could not be a matter of indifference to us. With regard to the question of trade rights and infringement of those rights, he would deal with that first as being the less important and the easier to deal with. As soon as the Congo Free State was created, steps were taken by the Government of that country to annex to the Government all vacant land within the area of the State; that meant all lands except those actually occupied by natives for their villages and plantations, and a few small patches of soil in the occupation of Europeans. By a series of decrees from 1885 to 1889 all land was vested in the Government. In 1892 what was called the Domaine Privé was established. Out of 900,000 square miles of this territory, no less than 800,000 now formed what was called the

  1291
  Domaine Privé. The whole of the Congo Free State, with the single exception of a very small portion west of Stanley Pool, was regarded as a private possession. Measures were soon adopted for exploiting this vast area. A large amount of it was worked directly by the State, which had the rubber collected and brought in to its officers, and large tracts had been let to concessionary companies, in which the State held half the shares; and within the area assigned to those companies no outside trader was allowed to carry on his business—in direct defiance of the Article 5 of the Treaty of Berlin. There was an absolute monopoly in all these huge areas. A proof of that had been furnished by the Parliamentary Paper issued last night. An unfortunate man named Rabinek was arrested on a British ship and was sentenced to a year's imprisonment and a fine. He never served the imprisonment because he died from exposure to the effects of the climate, but he was convicted, as was definitely stated in the official papers, of trading in a district in which public trade was forbidden. British merchants were constantly complaining that it was absolutely impossible to carry on a legitimate trade. The exports of the Congo Free State amounted to £2,000,000, the exports to Belgium, £1,860,000, and to England, £11,400, which were considerably below what they were in 1888. It was interesting to contrast those figures with the French West African possessions, where it would be remembered there was no free trade except in part of the French Congo. The total trade there was £6,880,000, of which the trade with Great Britain was £936,000, or 14 per cent. The population of French West Africa was about the same as that of the Congo Free State, estimated at rather over 20,000,000. On the other hand, the Congo Free State was supposed to be under a free trade régime. It had a total trade of nearly £3,000,000, of which the trade with the United Kingdon was only £104,000, or 3·5 per cent., so that in French West Africa, under a protective régime our trade was four times as large in proportion as it was in the Congo Free State. This was sufficient to show how completely the conditions were violated as regards Free Trade to all nations.
  He would now turn to the treatment of the native population living under the dominion of the Government of the Free
  1292
  State. When the Congo Free State was founded the world looked on with sympathy, and philanthropists with enthusiasm. At last, it was said, we should have a State with a humanitarian on the throne; in these vast regions philanthropic principles would have full scope. At the Berlin Conference, Baron de Courcel spoke of "the generous aspirations" with which this State had been founded. Sir Edward Malet said its founders were "dominated by a purely philanthropic idea," while Bismarck spoke of the "noble efforts" which would "render great services in the cause of humanity," and King Leopold himself said "our only programme is the work of moral and material re-generation." An atmosphere of goodwill and high principle surrounded all these proceedings, and it was expected and believed that the Congo Free State would play the part of a kindly guardian, govern its subjects with infinite kindness, guard them from the evils from which they had suffered, and lead them to the light of civilisation. At the present moment there was forced labour of many kinds authorised by law; forced military service; cannibal troops had been let loose to raid their neighbours, and there had been a never-ending tyranny and constant atrocities. Guizot said of the French Republic of 1848, that it began with Plato and ended with the gendarme. The same might be said of the Congo Free State. Men required for carriers were kidnapped in the woods, and the rubber companies coerced natives to work in the same way. Soldiers were needed for the great armies raised; they had been demanded from the chiefs and enlisted by force, and carried off to distant parts of the country, and compelled to serve for five years in the regular forces and two years in the reserve. Out of 16,000 men 11,000 were obtained in this fashion. It was a very different thing to conscription in a European country, where a man was called upon to perform a patriotic duty to the State to which he was usually devoted, and for a limited period. In the Congo natives were forced to enlist, and were sent 500 or 600 miles away to distant parts of the territory, among people who were practically foreigners to them, and kept

  1293
  there for five years. For the collection of rubber there was introduced a system known as the sentry system, under which native soldiers, without the control of white officers, were stationed in the villages with the duty of compelling the natives to work. The consequences of all this were continuous resistance, smuggling, mutinies, wars, punitive expeditions, constant seething turmoil, and barbarous acts of repression.
  The House would naturally expect some instances of the evils of which he now complained. He would first take the case of Mr. Morrison, of the American Baptist Mission, who was seven years in the Congo, who had lately returned, and who had furnished a statement which was now in the hands of the Foreign Office. He said:—
  "In the months of August and September of the year 1899 occurred, about three days from Luebo, one of the most shameful affairs that has come within my knowledge. By way of explanation it is necessary to say that at the State post of Luluaburg, which is about five days march from Luebo, is located a large village of people called Zappo-Zapps. They are cannibals, and were brought from far to the east, and settled there by a State officer named Paul Le Marinel about the year 1890. Ever since their coming to Luluaburg they have been a terror to the whole surrounding district. In fact, having guns and being known to be cannibals and very brave warriors, they have all these years been the great slave-dealers and slave-raiders of the district.
  "During the last days of July, 1899 (or about that time), news reached us at Luebo that a large band of Zappo-Zapps, under a famous warrior chief named Mlumba Nkusa, was proceeding into the Bena Pianga country, not far from one of our Mission stations, in order to collect tribute and get stores for the State. Upon hearing this news I wrote at once to our missionary at Ibanj, the Rev. W. H. Sheppard, F.R.G.S., warning him to be on the look-out for trouble. He had not long to wait, for soon the news began to come in from the region only one day from the station that the Zappo-Zapps had established themselves in a strong stockade near a village named Chinyama, from which they were almost daily sallying forth to catch slaves, demand tribute from villagers, and kill all who dared oppose them. This condition of affairs went on uninterrupted by the officer at Luluaburg, though only four—or at the most five—days distant. The greatest terror prevailed throughout the whole region, extending even as far as Luebo and beyond. Many thousands of people had deserted their villages and fled to the forests for safety.
  "At last word came to Mr. Sheppard that the Zappo-Zapps had treacherously invited a large number of the prominent chiefs of the region to come inside the stockade, and that there they had been shot down without
  1294
  quarter. The mission than asked Mr. Sheppard, who was also a friend of many of the Zappo-Zapps, to go and carefully investigate the whole affair, taking with him some reliable native men, who could, if necessary, corroborate the statements he made.
  "Mr. Sheppard saw along the way several burnt vilages, also some wounded persons. He reached the well-arranged stockade, and was received in a friendly way by Mlumba Nkusa and his 500 or more followers. Inside the stockade Mr. Sheppard saw and counted eighty-one human hands slowly drying over a fire." [He might explain that what the scalp was to the North American Indian the hand was to the Congo native—the proof that his enemy had been killed.] "Outside the stockade he counted more than two score bodies piled in a heap. Some of these bodies had the flesh carved from the legs. Upon asking what this meant he was informed by Mlumba Nkusa that his people had eaten the flesh. Mr. Sheppard also saw several Albini rifles and a pistol, with cartridges—all of which natives are forbidden to have. Mlumba Nkusa said plainly that he had been sent by the State officer at Luluaburg, and that he had already despatched to him sixteen slaves."
  An inquiry was held into the matter but none of the Belgian authorities were punished. Another missionary, whose name he was not at liberty to give, confirmed Mr. Morrison's statement and added—
  "These men had been pillaging and murdering with the same place as headquarters for over a month, three days easy march from the headquarters of the Chef de Zone."
  And he went on to say that "the native chief of the expedition was kept under arrest for a short time and then turned loose, which I believe is not far wrong, as he being only a savage chief was simply doing what his chief officers had ordered him to do. I understand to his credit, moreover, from reliable information, that the State wanted him to go out on another such expedition and he refused to go." He would now continue Mr. Morrison's statement—
  "During the months of June, July, and August of last year we had at Luebo—and in fact throughout the region between Luluaburg and Luebo—another reign of terror. A new officer, named Deschamps, had just come into power at Luluaburg. During my absence he came to Luebo, and there, without a warning to the chiefs or villagers, sent out his soldiers to catch men by force wherever they could be found. The people fled at once to the forests for safety; some of the women and children, as is their custom in such times of fear, found refuge about the Mission premises. He went away with a number of men thus caught. Upon my return to Luebo, only a few days after the departure of the officer, and finding the whole community naturally in a state of unrest, I made complaint to the authorities

  1295
  about the matter. Scarcely had my letter been despatched when another officer, named Ducès, sent by Deschamps, came to 'recruit' soldiers, as he said. I went to him, and in person demanded protection for the natives, and urged that none be taken by force. This M. Ducès promised, and I in turn told the natives what he had said. Within a few days, however, he received imperative orders from his chief, Deschamps. Consequently he began catching the people by force. They fled to the forests for safety; but day after day, for perhaps a week or ten days, the soldiers scoured the woods in search of men. They succeeded in catching about eighteen or twenty, and these I saw taken away under guard, tied about the necks with ropes.
  "This whole affair I reported to the Native Protection Commission appointed by the King some years ago, of which the Rev. George Grenfell is the secretary, asking it to see that the natives were protected in their rights. The only answer I received was that the State had established forced labour by law, and that doubtless the officers were acting entirely within their powers, the Commission thus sheltering itself and the officers guilty of these outrages under a form of legality."
  Mr. Morrison's statements were confirmed by eight witnesses, whose names he had seen, but which, for obvious reasons, he was not able to give. Another case was that of Mrs. Banks, who described in 1895 how "she saw a native sentry beating and loudly abusing a poor woman who was crossing the station with a basket on her back. On investigating the cause of the disturbance she found that the basket was full of hands which had been cut off in one of the rubber palavers, and that instead of nineteen hands only eighteen could be found, the woman having dropped one en route. Mrs. Banks herself counted the smoked hands, and found some of them to belong to children, others to women, and to men. Many of the victims were relations of the poor creature who was bearing the basket to the local agent." He had seen letters from a missionary, who was stationed in the Bangala district, written within the last year, but whose name he was not able to give, for he said—
  "I am not afraid of what the State may do to me personally, but I fear that some officers might try and worry me through the people with whom I work—hence my reticence in appealing in any of these matters."
  Those who were interested in this matter felt that this was a most unfortunate thing, as there were many missionaries who had not the courage to speak out as to the facts. The Armenians had a
  1296
  saying that when a man told the truth he must mount his horse and ride as far as he possibly can from the person to whom he has spoken the truth. Apparently some of the missionaries held the same view. That missionary went on to speak of the taxes, and described the meaning of the sentry system. "The State has every two miles a sentry, with a subordinate or two, and two or three servants from the locality. It is a part of his duty to see that the tax is taken up regularly, and if he does not do so he is severely rebuked by the commissionaire. Now, a keen-witted soldier will see that he is not reprimanded, and an unprincipled soldier will do anything to the people to get the tax out of them rather than run the risk of a reprimand and so making himself a marked man in the commissionaire's book. I leave you to imagine all the oppression and misery which arises out of this system." But the evidence they had was not only from missionaries. Mr. Pickersgill, who was British Consul in 1898, said—
  "A sentry on the Congo is a dare-devil aboriginal chosen from troops impressed outside the district in which he serves, for his loyalty and force of character. Armed with a rifle and pouch of cartridges he is located in a native village to see that the labour for which its inhabitants are responsible is duly attended to. If they are india rubber collectors, his duty is to send the men into the forest and take note of those who do not return with the proper quantity. When food is the tax demanded, his business is to make sure that the women prepare and deliver it; and in every other matter connected with the Government he is the factotum, as far as that village is concerned, of the officer of the district, his power being limited only by the amount of zeal the latter may show in checking oppression."
  Some years ago many hundreds of British subjects from Sierra Leone and the Gold Coast were recruited as labourers and artizans in the Congo Free State. Those that went sent home such frightful accounts of what they suffered that in 1896 our Government had to stop the recruiting. In 1896 the present Colonial Secretary said in that House that—
  "Complaints had been received of these British subjects having been employed without their consent as soldiers, and of their having been cruelly flogged and in some cases shot. They were engaged with the knowledge of Her Majesty's representative, and every possible

  1297
  precaution was taken in their interests, but in consequence of the complaints received the recruiting for the Congo and the West African colonies had now been prohibited."
  Mr. Robert Codrington, the Administrator of North Eastern Rhodesia in 1902, reported that there was
  "No trade properly so-called on the Congo coast of Tanganyika, but that all rubber and ivory are regarded as the property of the State, and have to be surrendered by the natives in fixed quantities annually; the natives are, however, continually in rebellion, and the country is unsafe, except in the immediate vicinity of the military garrisons and within the sphere of influence of the missionaries.
  "When they could do so, the natives fled to the territories governed by other Powers. M. de Lamotte, the Governor of the French Congo, said in his evidence before a Commission on Colonial Concessions held in Paris in 1900—'The agents of the Abir (one of the great rubber companies) have used their powers to such effect that they have succeeded on inducing 30,000 natives to leave their territory and take refuge on the French bank of the Congo.'"
  Mr. Hall, a missionary who had recently returned, said that those natives who lived near the Portuguese boundary were steadily migrating into Portuguese territory. When he was in Uganda a year ago he was told by a British official that it was a frequent occurrence for natives to cross over to British territory in order to be free from the treatment to which they were exposed across the border. Those instances were very far from being the whole of the cases that could be quoted. Were he to read all the instances he should keep the House until the late hours of the next morning. There were very many witnesses who had testified to these atrocities. [Mr. Herbert Samuel here read the names of a large number of persons whose evidence might be consulted.] When they remembered that no one had an interest in exposing these misdeeds, while many had an interest in defending the Congo Free State, when they remembered that it was almost by chance that these things had come to light, they might shudder at the thought of how many crimes had been committed in secret in the darkness and silence of the great forest. He was not one of those short-sighted philanthropists who thought that the natives must be treated in all respects on equal terms with white men. In the speeches he had made on behalf of the negro population of Africa he had never put forward such excessive
  1298
  claims. But there were certain rights which must be common to humanity. The rights of liberty and of just treatment should be common to all humanity, and especially should those rights be received from a State which was avowedly founded for the purpose of elevating the negro population, and introducing among them the benefits of civilisation. If the administration of the Congo State was civilisation, then he asked, what was barbarism? Financially the activity of this government had been a brilliant success. There was never a deficit in the finances. The companies which had been founded to exploit the rubber industry had prospered amazingly, and the State had a share of the enormous profits which they had made. One great company, which started with a capital of £1,000,000, paid a dividend in 1899 of 270 per cent., in 1900 470 per cent., and in 1901 245 percent. When it was remembered that the State held half the shares and received half the profits it was obvious that the Congo Free State had proved a remunerative undertaking. King Leopold had said that "the wealth of a Sovereign consisted in the prosperity of his people." They might suspect that there were sometimes other sources also!
  He had done his best not to exaggerate the case. He had been anxious not to do injustice. It was only fair to say that the Congo State had done good work in excluding alcoholic liquors from the greater part of their domain, that they had established a certain number of hospitals, had diminished smallpox by means of vaccination, and had suppressed the Arab slave trade—although, in the words of our consul, Mr. Pickersgill, the system that had been introduced was "a mere modification of the evil that had been attacked." He could not but believe that King Leopold would desire that these atrocities should be stopped, but they were the invitable outcome of the system which was authorised. In punishing those who were guilty of those atrocities they were merely dealing with symptoms and not causes. They could not have forced labour, heavy taxation, the sentry system, and these immense profits without disastrous results. Even under the best circumstances this would be so, even with officials of the very highest standard. But Belgium had no colonisation experience, and the class of Belgian officials was not

  1299
  of the type which many of them would wish to see placed in command of large native populations. These officials were scattered over vast areas and were subject to the influence of a deadly climate, affected by malaria, were depressed by loneliness, and were entrusted with despotic power over greatly inferior peoples. Therefore, it was not to be wondered at that the results were disastrous. He was glad to think that public opinion was waking up to the evils of which they complained. The Associated Chambers of Commerce of England last March passed a resolution asking the Government to take action on behalf of British merchants. The Free Churches had passed resolutions. In Germany a congress had been held last year which called for international action. The exact course which should be adopted was a matter for those in authority. The Act of Berlin provided that an International Commission should be appointed, primarily to regulate the navigation of the Congo, but also to investigate any charges made of breaches of the Act. That Commission had not been appointed. His Majesty's Government might propose to the other Powers concerned that that International Commission should be established and that through its agency steps should be taken to abate these evils. It would shortly become necessary for the Powers to decide whether the duties on goods imported into the Congo State should be allowed to continue, and His Majesty's Government would then have an opportunity of taking action in concert with the other Powers. He trusted the Government would realise that in this matter apathy and delay were intolerable. Even on commercial grounds the Government could not refuse to take action. But there were many people who were stirred more by consideration of the sufferings of the negro populations than by the material considerations of matters of trade. It was to those people, inside and outside of the House, that he appealed. It had always been the boast of this country, not only that our own native subjects were governed on principles of justice, but that, ever since the days of Wilberforce, England had been the leader in all movements on behalf of the backward
  1300
  races of the earth. Here was an occasion when those responsible for our policy, basing themselves on a treaty publicly and solemnly made, publicly and flagrantly violated, might pursue those great traditions, and by taking the initiative in this matter might add to the annals of the good deeds of our country. He begged to move the Resolution standing in his name.
  SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid it must not be supposed that the vast district of the Congo was unknown to British trade and British missions before the King of the Belgians went there. In 1874 Lieutenant Lovett Cameron traversed the territory from end to end, and made treaties with the chiefs in the upper and lower portions of the Congo for the annexation of the Congo basin. Those treaties were subject to ratification by the Cabinet. They were submitted to the Cabinet by Lord Carnarvon, but assent was refused. In a despatch of 1876 the Government laid down the position with regard to our trading rights in the Congo State. They directed Sir William Hewett to make fresh treaties with the chiefs on the south bank of the Congo for absolute free trade, and similar treaties were made by other naval officers on the north bank. Those treaties would be found in Hertslet's "Map of Africa by Treaty," and they were intended to make it clear that we should continue to have in future and for all time those large rights by which we had profited up to that time. In 1876 Sir T. F. Buxton and the right hon. Member for the Honiton Division took part in starting at Brussels the International African Association. In 1880–81 De Brazza for the French and Mr. H. M. Stanley for the King of the Belgians made treaties on both banks of the river; and in the struggle that developed assurances were given of the utmost freedom for all who wished to extend their trade there in almost the terms of the Berlin Act. The personal assurances of King Leopold were as could be conceived. In 1882 the King informed us that his
  "Sole object was to open Africa to the trade of all nations and to allow the penetration of civilisation."

  1301
  His association had "no commercial character" but was
  "An association of wealthy philanthropists who, in the disinterested aims of civilisation and for love of progress, sought to open the basin of the Congo."
  That was the first solemn assurance, and that "sole object" was put before all the trading classes in this country. The Commercial Department of the Foreign Office was directed to give assurances to Hatton and Cookson, of Liverpool, who had great interests there, and to Holt, of Liverpool, and the Cumbers of Commerce of Liverpool and Manchester, that continued complete freedom of trade would be in any case maintained. The Government were a party to these assurances; and it was their bounden duty to see that these assurances were continued and maintained. King Leopold was in the position of despotic ruler in the country, and could not approach the Government through his Belgian Ministers. He could only approach the Government in a private way. Sir William Mackinnon, whose philanthropy could not be doubted, was the intermediary, and on behalf of King Leopold he informed all the Chambers of Commerce of the personal pledge by the King as to his "sole object." The King offered an International Commission upon which we were to be represented, the King being first President. The Portuguese then offered a similar plan. M. de Serpa, the Portuguese Minister, used language which confirmed the view which he had put before the House on this subject, for he said—
  "There exist already there commercial interests without privilege and without distinction of nationality. The Congo is already the seat of an important commerce and of European establishments."
  Those were the establishments well known in Liverpool and Manchester, and they were almost all British. That was the situation then. In 1884 Sir W. Mackinnon was the intermediary, and he, on behalf of the King, promised "absolute freedom of trade" and "absence of privilege."
  In 1884–85 came the Berlin Conference. Sir J. Pauncefote was sent direct from the Foreign Office. Sir E. Malet was our principal plenipotentiary, and Baron de Courcel was the principal French plenipotentiary; and the two
  1302
  latter were still living and could confirm the statement that the assurances were repeated. The basis of the Conference was "freedom of commerce within the basin of the Congo," and, "to bring the natives within the pale of civilisation." Note was taken of the declarations of the King by the Berlin Act and protocols, and two sets of words were used. One declared against "monopoly or favour of any kind in matters of trade," and the other form was "no monopoly or privilege of any kind in commercial matters." Baron de Courcel, on behalf of a Committee of the Conference, explained that this included trade in "all products of the soil." The House would now see the importance of that admission when it was remembered what was the subject of those concessions and monopoly rights of which they had heard to-night. There was one point not referred to by the hon. Member for the Cleveland Division. The House had seen the correspondence with regard to missions asking for stations. There was a distinct expression of the right of foreigners to acquire "immovable possessions" in the Congo Basin. But they did not rest their case on personal assurances, or even on the protocols of the Conference; this country had a Convention with the Congo State embodying the conditions of our recognition of the existence of the State. That Convention, in language which he would have thought strong enough to cover anything, gave British subjects the "right of buying, selling, letting, or hiring lands," and from this it was evident that missionaries ought not to be obliged to beg for land; they had the most complete right to acquire stations. In the American Convention the words were equally strong, though in a different form. Our Consuls had reported to the Government on these matters, and in reply to a question with reference to representations from the Chambers of Commerce of Manchester and Liverpool, the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs said these matters "had been the subject of repeated attention by the Consul." But these things had been going on for a long time, and it had been notorious to the world that there had been violations, not only of plighted word, but of solemn treaty

  1303
  engagements. It was not enough to say the subject had had attention. There must be Reports on the subject, but the House had not had them. Undoubtedly, for one reason or another, there had been a certain timidity on the part of the Government in regard to taking action.
  The decrees of the State had been alluded to, and these decrees in effect made the whole land and all the products of the soil in this vast region the personal property of King Leopold. More than that, as though that were not enough by way of monopoly, almost the whole field had been covered by nine concessions to large companies. It was not a question of diminishing trade; our trade had been killed by these operations. There was nothing but monopoly; no open trade was left. These concessions covered everything worth having in the Congo Valley. One of the concessions extended even to the Bahr-el-Ghazel in the Anglo-Egyptian sphere, though this was not now being worked. It was a theoretical concession, but it showed that there was no limit to the pretensions of the Congo State. As regarded seven out of the nine concessions, the 50 per cent. arrangement prevailed; there was one about which little or nothing was known. But even in regard to those in which the State took 50 per cent., a large proportion of the remaining shares were held by the other companies. They were all tied together—a mode of operation well known in the least reputable financial quarters. There was one exception. In the case of the Katanga concession the State took two-thirds of the whole of the shares. That was a gigantic concession covering the whole of the district nearest to our own possessions, coming right up to our territory, and therefore having a closer and more immediate bearing on the development of our own territories than any other. As a specimen of the way in which this Katanga concession was likely to work in the neighbourhood of our possessions, let the House take the Rabinek case, the Papers in which had been laid on the Table. This man was arrested for the crime of desiring to trade, not in arms, not in liquor, not in any of the prohibited articles, but for
  1304
  merely desiring to trade. There was, it seemed to him, the most absolute monopoly in these cases of the products of the soil, and the most absolute and direct violation of the principles laid down by Baron de Courcel. He could not imagine that the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs would deny that there had been a complete violation of the Berlin Act; and, if he admitted that, he thought they had established a case where we must insist on our treaty rights being fulfilled. It would not do for years to go on without anything being said in the matter by the Government.
  As to the question of the natives, the whole anti-slavery world had been swindled by the Administration of the Congo State. There could be no doubt that the founders of the State—especially this country, the mother country of the liberty of the native, and the leader in the abolition of slavery—were honest in their original intention; they desired to improve the condition of the natives, but, as he had said, they had been swindled by the Administration of the Congo State. In 1897 he raised a debate in this House on that question, the only occasion on which the Congo question had ever been debated. At that time they had no evidence before them of the horrors of which they could now speak. They went upon what they knew must be the state of things from the decrees. It was obvious that there was a complete enslavement of the whole population, and that it could lead to nothing but a system of horrors. They had the facts of the military system before them, because Captain Hinde had written a book showing with awful simplicity that the military system in the Congo State consisted of bringing in cannibal tribes, marching them without any commissariat through the country to be attacked, and rationing them on the bodies of the killed, carrying dried bodies with them for the purpose. The Congo State had palliated, but had never attempted to deny, the charges incidentally made by Captain Hinde. Within a month they received evidence that they did not possess at the time of the debate. There came to this country the Swedish Baptist missionary, Sjöblom—a man whom everybody who heard him believed—and he

  1305
  told them that everything that had been foreseen, as the result of the decrees, had existed and did exist. He described to them the sentry system, under which a wild man was brought a long distance and put down in a native village with instructions that so much rubber was to be brought to him every day. The people were given to understand this, and if any went fishing they were shot down as a warning to others. When the rubber in that particular district was exhausted, the wretched people were driven to raid the territories of neighbouring tribes, and horrible scenes of bloodshed were the result. Then a force of twenty or thirty men, armed with repeating rifles, would be sent among the people, and they would preserve the hands of the people shot to show how many had been killed. Although the Congo State had been spending money like water within the last few weeks in publishing denials of all sorts of things, and in sending lying books to Members of this House, no attempt had been made to answer the charges either of Dr. Hinde or of Mr. Sjöblom. Missionaries had been blamed, perhaps with justice, but at all events they had something to say for themselves in this matter. It was not a climate in which men would lightly take the responsibility and run the awful risk of making such charges. Mr. Sjöblom was threatened. In one book, "By a Belgian," defending the Congo State, it was said that "no clear and precise statement had ever been made to the administration of justice, and that no one would take openly the responsibility of the charges." Mr. Sjöblom did take openly the responsibility, and he had never been contradicted. But while in the State he was threatened by one of the highest officials. He was accused of having told the natives not to bring in rubber. Answering that he had never done such a thing, these words were used to him—
  "If you go on with this, that charge will be brought against you, and that means five years penal servitude."
  On pages 71 and 72 of the same book there were quoted as defending the State, men who would be shocked to see their names used in such a connection. Sir Harry Johnston, who had never been through the State, and had simply said some civil things about a station on the edge of the State, was cited as if defending
  1306
  it. He ventured to say that Sir Harry Johnston would be the first to condemn such proceedings. Among those quoted as having spoken for the Congo State was Dr. Grenfell, the Baptist missionary, who had been put on to the Commission of Inquiry. The quotations were from a letter which he wrote in i896, before definite charges were made. But in 1897—and this was not quoted in the book—Dr. Grenfell wrote to Mr. Sjöblom, and said—
  "I am very sorry to learn that my letter of a year ago has been used to throw discredit upon your communication … So far as I am aware, the State has not seriously denied the truth of the statements you made.… I think you may congratulate yourself for having very effectively discharged a very onerous responsibility and … materially contributed to the commencement of a new and better régime."
  But the letter repudiated in these words was still quoted against Mr. Sjöblom. What evidence was there of the improvement of the new régime? What was said to have taken the place of the horrible régime of the past? Not one of the horrible decrees had been withdrawn. All these new concessions had been added, and the collection of rubber, out of which the sentry system grew, had been extended to the whole territory. The new régime was thus an extension of the old. Concerning the responsibility of this country, he suggested we were responsible in a higher degree than others. As the suppressers of slavery and the slave-trade we had always led Europe, and had the highest degree of responsibility under the engagement of the Bowers at Berlin to watch over the execution of the Berlin Act for the protection of the natives. The Congo State, as he thought, had acted treacherously in the matter of the leases granted in 1894. We, through their treachery, had failed to receive the considerations for which those leases were granted, and had left the Congo State in occupation of the Lado enclave in the Anglo-Egyptian sphere. Possibly what had made us hold our hands and rather shamefully neglect to do what otherwise any British Government must desire to do might be timidity as to what might happen to the Congo State if we interfered. As an unofficial Member he could face the delicate question in a way an official Member might hesitate to do. He would say, speaking for himself, that

  1307
  if the choice lay between the Congo Valley going to France and the present state of affairs continuing, it would be better in our own interests, and in the interests of the natives, that it should go to France. We did not desire this vast territory; we had declined it. All we desired was security for the natives, regard for their rights, and security for British trade against monopoly and restriction. He begged to second the Resolution.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Government of the Congo Free State having, at its inception, guaranteed to the Powers that its native subjects should be governed with humanity, and that no trading monopoly or privilege should be permitted within its dominions, and both these guarantees having been constantly violated, this House requests His Majesty's Government to confer with the other Powers, signatories of the Berlin General Act by virtue of which the Congo Free State exists, in order that measures may be adopted to abate the evils prevalent in that State."—(Mr. Herbert Samuel.)
  SIR JOHN GORSTsaid he hoped the Government might be able to accept this Motion, and that, strengthened by resolution of the House of Commons, they would take some practical step for the deliverance of the Congo territory from the evils which had been described. He did not think anybody now could doubt the substantial accuracy of the description given by the hon. Member who moved the Resolution of the condition of the natives in the Congo State. The evidence was perfectly overwhelming. In his early days he was in a position to test the accuracy of the evidence of missionaries as to semi-civilised races, and he formed the opinion that on the whole they could not have more reliable testimony as to anything which had happened among semi-civilised people than that given by missionaries, and in this case their evidence was amply confirmed. In that particular case one could well understand the reticence of the missionary, and he thought that what had been stated by the mover and seconder of the Resolution would convince the House that a man required a great deal of
  1308
  courage and resolution to enable him to make a definite complaint while he had still to live in such a country. Besides his own safety, he would probably be animated by a fear that any hostile action on his part towards the Government might lead to reprisals against the natives. But in this case the evidence of the missionary was abundantly confirmed by natives from our own provinces, by Rhodesian officials, by the emigration of natives from this territory into French and Portuguese territory, and by perfectly independent travellers passing through Congoland and noting the extraordinary diminution of population. All this amounted to a volume of testimony which nobody could fail to credit. He would like to ask the House to consider that not only was that what was to be expected, but that things would go on growing worse unless some steps were taken to alter the state of affairs. There were plenty of such lessons in history, if people would look back on similar occurrences. There was the great example of what happened when the discovery of America took place. At that time there was no desire to enslave or exterminate the populations of the territories occupied by the Spaniards. But there was a necessity, arising out of the desire for the acquisition of property, to make use of native labour. The Spaniards first endeavoured to induce the natives to work, but when mere inducement failed, they began to try force, and when force was not altogether successful, they degenerated into a system of slavery which became so cruel that the greater part of the natives in those territories were exterminated. And that was so in spite of the most earnest efforts made on behalf of the people by the King of Spain, Emperor Ferdinand, Queen Isabella, and Charles V. All these made the most desperate efforts to prevent the enslavement and extermination of the natives. But they failed because they could not stop the covetous desire for gold and furs. The colonists said, "We must get these articles, and the only way to get them is by enslaving the natives and forcing them to work"
  It appeared from the statement which had been made that the Government had power to interfere in this

  1309
  matter, and they not only had the power, but they also had the right to interfere on behalf of the natives under the terms of the Berlin Act. The treaties made between the Congo State and ourselves had undoubtedly been overridden, and therefore he supposed the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs would not deny their right to interfere. Then arose the question, was it expedient that they should do so? His answer to that was in the affirmative. He believed it was not only expedient, but it was also in the interests of our trade to interfere. We had a duty as well as a right to do so, because of our Imperial position, and of the policy which we had always asserted in the face of the world as regarded the slavery and treatment of native races. We had an Imperial position, and we ought to assert our Imperial right, and to stand forward in the face of the world as the protectors of these tribes, for whom we had, in some sense, made ourselves responsible In the interests of our trade, and in fulfilment of our duty as a great Imperial Power, toward those natives races, we had, he asserted, an undoubted right to interfere. As to what course the interference should take, that was a matter for the Government, on which he would not venture to give a positive opinion. Clearly we had to remember that other Powers were nearly equally responsible with ourselves, and possibly a conference of the Powers, or an appeal to those Powers who were parties to the Berlin Act, would be a perfectly legitimate and inoffensive step to take in the first instance. The President of the United States, who were not parties to the Berlin Act, had, he believed, taken some steps to protest against the condition of affairs in Congoland. The interest of America in the preservation of the lives of American missionaries seemed to the President of the United States a sufficient ground for intimating the interest which they took in this question. And if a Power like that, which was not a party to the Berlin Act, deemed it right to interfere, surely we, who were responsible under the Berlin Act, and who were responsible for the existence of the Congo State, had a perfect right to take such steps as might
  1310
  bring this dreadful state of things to an end.
  MR. EMMOTTrose to say a few words in support of the Motion of his hon. friend the Member for the Cleveland Division. Both the mover and the seconder, as well as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Cambridge University, had borne ample testimony to the truth of the stories which had come to us from the Congo State—and ghastly stories they were, of murder, mutilation, and atrocities of every kind. To many hon. Members they were far too familiar, and he would ask hon. Gentlemen, who, on first hearing them deemed them to be so horrible as to be untrue, to investigate the history of these statements themselves, for he knew they would be as convinced as he was of the iniquities which were being perpetrated there at the present time, and which had been going on for some years past. A few months ago he knew nothing about this matter at all, and when it did reach his ears he was utterly incredulous. But friends of his, to whom he expressed his doubts, begged him to investigate the matter for himself, and it was because he had done so that he felt and spoke so strongly. He did not want to deal further, for the moment, with those horrors, nor would he dwell on the Stokes affair or the Rabinek affair. The Stokes affair was closed, but it afforded a good illustration of the kind of justice and fair play which one got in the Congo State, while the Rabinek affair was significant, because it showed that the only crime with which he was charged was that of trading in the territory monopolised by the Katanga Company. He believed these atrocities to be the direct, necessary, and inevitable result of a wrong system. The state of affairs in the Congo was not a case of the white agents who were in charge there being specially inhuman. It was due to a system which could only be worked successfully from a financial point of view by inhumanity, and that system brutalised both natives and white agents. He knew that the problem before Europe with regard to tropical Africa was one of great difficulty. They could not get rid of the negroes if they would, and did not want to if they could, because they were the only people

  1311
  who could do hard manual labour there. But the problem, though difficult, was not insoluble, because the methods which were best for the negroes were also beneficial for our own people at home. The best method of civilising natives was by trade, by the gradual permeation of honest and upright trade methods. These people had old laws and customs of their own, which, in many cases, were far better than supposed by the young soldiers or supercilious civilians who were sent out from Europe to govern them. These tribes were often born traders, and he believed the right policy in regard to this question was to stand at the back of our John Holts, and men of that kind, and to help them to develop their trade—to help them here and there with railways and steamers, so as to get rid of the present deficiencies of carriage. He for one did not like the great tendency to military civilisation. These military punitive expeditions, of which there had been so many in Africa, and many of which might have been avoided by more careful treatment, caused debt, debt caused taxation, taxation sometimes brought about revolt, on top of revolt came fresh military expeditions, and following them was more debt. Yet in spite of too many military expeditions both France and ourselves had done much in Africa in building up trade.
  The essence of trade in these tropical countries was that they should have materials which could be exported, otherwise no trade was possible. We had made our trade, not by taking the land of the natives without compensation, but by encouraging the natives to produce on their own lands, and thus by slow degrees we had expanded the trade and given it that sure and permanent basis which, after all, was the only method of developing the country. Judged by this standard, or by any decent standard, what were they to say of the Congo State? Look at its system. First there was the expropriation of the natives from the land without compensation; secondly there was a monopoly of the products of the soil; thirdly, the natives were forbidden to collect the products of the soil except for sale to the State; fourthly, there was a forced collection of those products, and the forced sale, at most unsatisfactory prices, to the State. The forced collection of the products necessitated
  1312
  the employment of a cannibal army, while the whites had been ordered to devote all their energies to the collection of the products of the soil. They were at one time paid a commission on what was collected, but he was glad to say that that system had now been stopped. In addition to that, there was a system of forced levies, both for the army and for the huge number of labourers employed on the plantations of the State. Now he ventured to say that that system was not trade at all, and it was wrong to call it trade. The land was the property of a small clique, and the products of the land belonged to the State or to that clique. No satisfactory payment was made for the collection of rubber; the natives were given about 1d. per lb., although it was worth 3s. or 4s. in Europe, and, as a consequence of their being so imperfectly paid, they had nothing wherewith to buy. There was as a result no legitimate trade, and even our Rhodesian merchants could not go into the Congo Free State in order to conduct commerce. This system of so-called trade rested upon force, and that it was profitable was shown by the fact that one of the Belgian companies paid 250 per cent. per annum. Let them compare that with the profits which the French companies were making in the French Congo, where he regretted to state the same monopoly system was being introduced. The French companies were for the most part making a loss, while the Belgian companies were making a huge profit in the Congo Free State, because the former did not enforce collection while the latter did. Stanley, speaking in Manchester, he believed in 1884, promised that, in a comparatively short number of years, the Congo Free State would require from this country £25,000,000 worth of cotton cloth per annum. At that time our trade with the Congo amounted to £180,000 a year, but it had now decreased to about £100,000. We were promised free trade in the Congo State, but that free trade had proved to be the forced collection of the products of the soil and the sale of them in Europe.
  What about the condition of the country? He did not for a moment maintain that it was a paradise at any time, but he did venture to say that,

  1313
  on the whole, that condition was ten times worse now than it was before. Here and there there might be spots where law and order prevailed, but the greater part of the 900,000 square miles of territory was in a worse condition than ever. There was no safety outside the stations, large districts of the country were in revolt, and the authorities had been unable to put down those revolts for many years. Apologists said that the stories with regard to the Congo Free State were exaggerated, but he would ask why had £200,000 worth of arms and ammunition been imported into that territory during the last four years? For what purpose had it been used? It could not have been wanted in such large quantities for any other purpose than to employ force with the populations. The whole industrial system of the country rested on force. Villages were burnt out, large districts were depopulated, some of the natives were terrorised, and others terrorised the whites. Slavery went on unchecked under the system of forced labour, and slaves were even offered openly for sale in certain parts of the State, as had been stated by the Missionary, Mr. Morrison, who was recently in this country. There was something which was much worse than the slavery of men; there was the slavery and prostitution of women. He had had sent him three sworn statements on this subject, none of which he believed had yet been published. They were all from the South-Eastern portion of the State. The first was by Mr. Yule, who said:
  "In the daytime they (the women) do all the usual station work, such as carrying water for the Government officials, cleaning their rooms, etc, etc., and during the night they are obliged to be at the disposal of the soldiers. The soldier must live with the woman as long as he is at the station; should he be removed, the woman must remain at the station whether she has children by him or not. The women are slaves captured by the Government soldiers when raiding the country, they are there to facilitate the ordinary requirements of labour, and to prevent the soldiers from their usual customs of raping in the native villages."
  The next sworn statement was that of a woman which had been translated, and which showed how the women were treated. This woman said:
  "My name is Chewema, and I belong to the Mahusi Tribe in the Congo Free State. I
  1314
  remember my mother, the people in our village, but have forgotten its name. When we were transported to Lukafu we were fastened together by a rope round our necks, and at night-time our hands and feet were tied together to prevent us from escaping. At Lukafu the elder women were forced at first by the soldiers to sleep in their huts until Commandant Kasiera prohibited this. At M'pwetu I witnessed the killing of two natives who had stolen rubber from the Government stores. By the order of the white man called Lutina, the two natives were beaten by his soldiers with a hippo-hide whip, after this they were made to stand up, the soldiers then threw bricks on them till they died. One native was from Chewer chewera's village, very near M'pwetu, and was buried by his relations; the other, who had no relations so near, was thrown into the Lake Mweru."
  The third sworn statement was by two natives, John and Johan, and it was dated the 19th March, 1903. It was as follows—
  "We, John and Johan, natives of Karonga, Lake Nyasa, British Central Africa, do hereby declare that about four years ago we were engaged by Mr. Mohun to serve him as soldiers for the period of three years, during his constructing of a telegraph line in the Congo Free State.
  "On our arrival in the Congo Free State we learnt from the inhabitants and the Government soldiers that there is always war between the white men, the soldiers and the natives. The reason of a war and the constant troubles are as follows:—
  "Long ago the Belgium officials hanged the soldiers for their bad behaviour. They hanged so many that this created a vengeance to such an extent that all soldiers formed a ring under the headman, at that time the sergeant called Yankoffu, with the object to kill all officers at the different stations on or near the Lake Tanganyika. This they did and tool all the guns and ammunition. They then formed a stockade and made Yankoffu their chief. Later on they were attacked by a strong force of the Belginms, also we under Mr. Mohun attacked them, we killed many people but could not get Yankoffu. Most of his people crossed the Lake to German Territory taking with them the captured guns and ammunition. After this other Belgium officers re-occupied the plundered stations, but from that time the officers became afraid of the soldiers. When we were there one officer of Marabu station, about ten days from Lake Tanganyika, thrashed a soldier with a hippo-hide whip. Sometime later the same officer received from the same soldier a letter and when reading the same the latter shot him dead. We, too, and many other soldiers, were given orders to catch the murderer, we went after him for many days but could not find him. The white men are so afraid of the soldiers that they let them do whatever they like, they rape, murder and steal everything of the inhabitants, and if the chief or villagers object they are often shot dead on the spot. The officers all know this, but they never take any notice of it as they are afraid to punish the soldiers."

  1315
  These were serious statements showing the kind of thing that was going on in that country. They shed considerable light on the results of this system. They showed that the efforts of white men who were trying to do their duty were unavailing. That would continue to be the case, for the system was founded on what he could call by no other names than theft, forced labour, and forced collection under cannibal soldiery. Such a system was an offence to gods and men.
  He would say a word in regard to the interest of Europe in this question. He believed that the system would break down, and that, when it did, there would be danger to ourselves and to other European Powers. He believed the monopoly system was illegal, but whether it was illegal or not, it was certainly entirely against the spirit of the Berlin Act. But even if it was in accordance with the spirit of that Act, be believed it was still the duty of Europe to intervene. The system was self-destructive. All depended on rubber, which formed four-fifths of the exports. The revenue of the country amounted to £1,120,000, and of that sum £660,000 was received from the domains privé £240,000 from Customs, and £120,000 for transport. The cost of the force publique was £310,000 per annum, which was greater than the whole expenditure of the country in 1895. He thought that was a significant comment on the whole system, and showed that it rested on force. He believed that, owing to the forced collection, the resources of rubber were being dried up. He believed that before the replanting could be effected, the whole State would collapse. In other words, the State was exploiting its chief natural resource, and there would be nothing left to trade upon. In this, as in other tropical countries, they must develop the exports, but what would be left when the collapse came if Europe did not step in? A vast region inhabited by fierce Bantu tribes, who had an undying hatred of the white man, and a cannibal army amounting to about 25,000. These would be anything but comfortable neighbours for us in the Bahrel-Ghazel, Uganda, and British Central Africa. What Europe ought to do was perfectly clear. He thought we could
  1316
  do something alone, and that aspect of the question had been well treated by his hon. friend. In any case two things must be born in mind. First, the system must be changed, root and branch, if any good was to be done. The finance and other things rested on this system of monopoly and of forced collection of rubber, and when these were stopped the State must collapse. Next, if we did not intervene now we would be compelled to intervene soon. He would conclude with the eloquent words of Mr. Morel:—
  "There can be no half-way house. Slavery relying upon the rifles of thousands of native levies, or commerce, based upon the recognition that the Negro has the rights of a man to his freedom and property—that is what the European Statesman will shortly be called upon to decide. And as they decide, so the structure which the white people are endeavouring once more to raise up in the land of the Negroes will remain, or the great black wave—inscrutable, mysterious, enduring—will once more roll sullenly forward, even into the ocean, obliterating every trace of a civilisation which, professing to act in the name of the Most High God, has permitted the violation of every law human and Divine."
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord CRANBORNE,)said that he was in a peculiar position, because no general attack had been delivered against His Majesty's Government. He thought it would be agreed that for the most part the debate had consisted of an attack on the Government of the Congo Free State. He was not there to represent that Government, and he could take no responsibility for the acts of that Government. But he asked himself what was the attitude which the representative of His Majesty's Government ought to take in dealing with a discussion of this kind. He did not desire for one moment to defend or to extenuate anything which might be proved to be amiss in the Congolese Government. He wished to approach the question from an impartial and quasi-judicial point of view becoming the Government of this country, which was in amity with the Congo Free State and its ruler. First of all, what right had this Government to deal with the state of things in the Congo Free State? We had undoubtedly a legitimate locus standi, not so much by virtue of the special treaties which the right hon. Baronet the Member for Forest of Dean had referred to as of

  1317
  the General Act of Berlin, which really was more precise and which went further. We had the locus standi which every signatory to the Berlin Act possessed. But the right to comment on the state of things in the Congo Free State did not infer, as some hon. Gentlemen seemed to believe, an obligation to interfere with that Government, except as far as every right did to some extent connote an obligation. There was no question that the Congo Free State had entered into certain obligations towards us; but we had entered into no obligations whatever as to the Government of the Congo Free State. There was nothing more than the duty which belonged to every signatory to the Act of Berlin. Upon what subjects and in what directions did these obligations of the Congo Free State extend? He would treat the subject from the points of view of trade and of government. As to trade there was upon record a clause in the Act of Berlin which bound every signatory, wherever they possessed sovereign powers within the area affected by the treaty, not to grant a monopoly or favour of any kind in matters of trade. The language was very general, but in treaties it would be found that the language always was very general. He could not agree with several speakers who thought that the interpretation of that language was a matter of universal consent. His Majesty's Government were disposed to think that the system which had been established, and which was prevalent in the Congo Free State, was not altogether in accordance with the obligation into which the Congo Free State had entered. But that contention was not universally admitted. On the other side it was contended that, as long as every one was free to buy and sell in the Congo Free State the obligations of the Berlin Act were fulfilled. But the question was whether every one was free to buy and sell. He thought that a monopoly might be said to be created, when in a specified area competition was excluded and a person or a society, or even the State itself, was constituted the sole medium through which any one might buy and sell. He thought that that was not an unfair definition of a monopoly, and, taking it as the criterion, he confessed that it was difficult to escape from the conclusion that the
  1318
  present administration of the Congo Free State did not satisfy the prescribed conditions. It was true, of course, that every concession was in its nature a monopoly; and he begged the House to realise that concessions were really essential to the development of any of these territories, and that it was merely a question of degree how far concessions violated the spirit of such an Act as the Berlin Act. But, of course, the concessions of the Free State were very large; they had been established with special assistance from the State; and they were under special State control. Their privileged position had been brought about largely by the power which the State possessed of disposing of unoccupied land; and he thought it would be fair to say that the administration of these large areas was as much conducted with a view to the profit of those in whose interests the concessions were held as of the natives. He thought the House would admit that it was clear that, on the same principle, the policy pursued in the Congo Free State might have been extended very much further, and that it might have embraced the whole of the State. That would have constituted an absolute monopoly.
  He had said that, in the opinion of His Majesty's Government, they could not admit that the administration of the Congo State was in harmony with the prohibition of monopolies contained in the Berlin Act. We did not, however, stand alone in respect of that Act. We were only one of a number of parties who were signatories to it, and he did not think it would be reasonable to expect His Majesty's Government to act alone in respect of it. They were bound to be guided by the views, not only of themselves, but of their co-signatories of the Berlin Act. The Motion which was before the House urged the Government, among other things, to take steps to find out the views of the other Powers who were signatories to the Treaty of Berlin. The Government could not assent to the Motion as it stood; but he thought that, considering the difference of opinion which existed among the signatories as to the precise effect of the Monopoly Clause of the Berlin Act, it would be a proper and

  1319
  reasonable course to institute an exchange of views with those Powers upon that particular point. He was able to assure the House that that course would be adopted by His Majesty's Government.
  He would turn now to the more important matter of the condition of the natives. There was no question whatever that the civilisation of the natives afforded one of the main grounds, if not the principal ground, of the provisions of the Berlin Act, and that the Powers who signed it bound themselves severally to place in the forefront of their administration of the various areas under their control in Africa, the study of the well-being of the native races. As several speakers had reminded the House, an assurance was given to Europe that that would be the main object of the Government, not only of the Congo Free State, but of all the other territories which were within the purview of the Berlin Act. If the laws of the Congo State were regarded, he thought it would be found that very little was left to be desired, so far as their provisions were concerned. The laws were full of provisions intended to protect the natives from ill-usage and to further their material advantage. There was no doubt that the administration of the Congo Government had been marked by a very high degree of a certain kind of administrative development. There were railways, there were steamers upon the river, hospitals had been established, and all the machinery of elaborate judicial and police systems had been set up. Hon. Gentlemen in this debate had alleged that all this was a whited sepulchre, that the apparent administrative completeness of this system did not really correspond to good government. They said that the officials of the Congo Free State showed no due sense of their responsibility for the native races, and that their government had been accompanied by atrocities of a very heinous character. Now, were these things true? He did not think that the Congo Free State authorities denied the existence of these atrocities. But what they did say was that they had taken the ordinary steps of a civilised Government to punish the perpetrators, and had adopted measures to prevent the recurrence of these acts. It was undoubtedly true that in a large number of cases they had inflicted very severe
  1320
  punishments for atrocities that had been proved. He had had showered upon him within the last few days masses of literature as to the penalties imposed by the Congo Free State. The question was whether the penalties had been adequate and covered all the cases which they ought to have covered. Frankly, he told the House that he did not know. It was, he thought, this very doubt as to what was the real truth in regard to the government of the Congo Free State which made public opinion throughout Europe so anxious, and which he thought the Congolese authorities themselves ought to feel as calling for some action upon their part.
  The right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean had reproached the Government—and this was the only criticism which the Government had received in the whole course of the debate — that our Consuls had not afforded them fuller Reports, and that the Reports which the Consuls did send had been withheld from the House.
  SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid that what he had stated was that the Government evidently, by their own admissions, which he quoted, had received Reports from their Consuls but had not communicated them to the House.
  LORD CRANBORNEsaid that in answer to a Question he had stated that the Government had received Reports, but that they were hardly full and complete enough to be laid before the House. And for this very good reason—that we had only one Consular post in the Congo Free State, and that was upon the coast, and had not been occupied by the Consul for any long period. It must be remembered, in dealing with this case, that the Congo Free State had an enormous area, and that any one only living for a few months on the coast was not in a position to afford evidence of a very reliable kind of what passed in the far interior. He would urge hon. and right hon. Gentlemen not to overstate their case. No doubt there had been atrocities, but the Congo Free State was not the only part of the world where atrocities had been committed.

  1321
  It was much more misgovernment that was to be feared, and if possible corrected by the influence of European public opinion, than isolated atrocities. The question was, was there general misgovernment in the Congo Free State? The Congo Free State authorities urged as a reply to the accusations on this head that their system was a great improvement upon the barbarous government of the native tribes who preceded them. From some of the speeches to which they had listened, the House would hardly believe that that was the case, but he thought that was a somewhat exaggerated way of stating the situation. Of course, there had been great improvement on the former state of things, but that was not a sufficient defence at the present time for a civilised community. There was the question of compulsory labour. There had been charges that compulsory labour had been greatly abused. Then there were charges which had been brought against the armed forces of the Congo Free State, but an armed force—that was to say, a police force—was necessary to the Government of any community. Had this compulsory labour and had this armed force led to atrocities? He had some difficulty in giving a confident opinion about that, but he would refer to a passage in a book called—"The Truth about Civilisation in the Congo," which gave an account of an interview with the Father Superior of a mission in the Free State. This Gentleman was asked, "What do you think of the charges made against the officials of the State?" In reply, he quoted some observations which he said he had seen and which were to this effect. "Do not tell me that these evil customs are no longer prevalent. They are still carried on. Hands, ears, and even heads are cut off. Of course, soldiers with three, four, or five years' service respect our instructions, but can you forbid a young soldier, animated with a desire to show his prowess, to bring back some trophies?" [Cries of "Oh, oh."]
  Mr. EMMOTT: Does the noble Lord defend that?
  Lord CRANBORNEsaid that it was precisely such a passage as that which
  1322
  made one doubt whether the authorities of the Congo Free State realised their responsibilities as the white governors of these barbarous regions. It was an instructive quotation because it was made by a man evidently speaking in perfectly good faith and speaking, of course, from the Congolese point of view. But he was an independent gentleman. He did not belong to the Congolese Government, and he evidently thought that the state of things he described was not a state of things for which any shame should be expressed. All would admit that no such state of things, and no such standard, would be permitted for one moment in any Protectorate of this country, and therefore it was that a feeling of general suspicion had been aroused throughout Europe, and especially in this country—and it had been very emphatically expressed in the debate—as to whether the Congo Free State authorities had really shown that sense of their responsibilities which might be expected from the white governors of a district in Central Africa.
  How did the Congolese authorities meet these criticisms? They said in the first place, and he thought due weight must be given to that reply, that the standard of civilisation which we favoured was not the growth of a single day; that it required time and continuous effort to bring it about. There was some truth in that There was also some truth in their plea that where atrocities were proved they visited the perpetrators with condign punishment. They pleaded also that they had established a Commission whose function it was to investigate any atrocities and misgovernment which might be brought to their notice, and to provide remedies. He was bound to say, in defence of the Congo Free State authorities, that they had been very willing to give them all the information in their power in respect of the operations of this Commission, whose members consisted largely of independent persons, and which had held many meetings and made reports. An inspector had been appointed by the Commission, and it had all the machinery of a Commission such as this country would appoint if misgovernment had occurred. The Congo Free State had also expressed a perfect willingness to consider any suggestions which might

  1323
  be brought before them, and, if charges were supported by sufficient evidence, to investigate them. The Government thought it right to avail themselves of the spirit in which they had been met, and they saw no reason why all the evidence of misgovernment which might have been brought to the notice of the various signatories of the Act of Berlin should not be submitted for investigation to the authorities of the Congo Free State. He thought, therefore, that in the communication which the Government were prepared to make to their colleagues in the signature of the Act of Berlin the latter should be asked whether they had received any such evidence as had been laid before this country, and such as it would be suitable to lay before the Congo Free State for their consideration. He thought the Congolese authorities would be wise to do their best to satisfy public opinion, and that where definite facts were alleged in support of suspicions it would be well in their own interests, as well as in those of the subject populations which they controlled, that they should do their best to clear up and remove those suspicions and reassure public opinion which was sensitive on the subject. He did not regret the debate which had taken place; he thought it probable that what had been said might have considerable influence—
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Not what you have said anyhow.
  LORD CRANBORNEsaid the Congolese authorities and the Belgian people with whom we were so closely associated for many years had always expressed the greatest regard for the opinion of this country, and especially for the opinion of the House of Commons, and he was fully persuaded that what had been said that evening would have a great effect
  1324
  upon them. He did not, however, think it possible for the Government to assent to the Motion in the form in which it was presented to them. They were asked not merely to indict the Congo Free State but actually to condemn them. He did not think that was an attitude they ought to adopt. Let them rather be content with bringing under the notice of the authorities the strong feeling which had been excited by the charges of misgovernment which had been brought against them. Let them be content to let the friendly advice which the British people had thought it right, through their representatives, to express have their full weight but not go the length of condemning the authorities of the Congo Free State without having in any way proved the extreme charges which had been alleged against them. The House would realise that he was not in any way sympathising with any misgovernment which might be proved against the Congolese authorities. Not at all; any British Government, as the right hon. Baronet the Member for Forest of Dean had said, would be anxious to set an example in condemning misgovernment of native races in whatever part of the world, or by whatever authority, it might be carried out. They were anxious to use all the influence they possessed to better the lot of these people. He recognised that the Congo authorities were bound by their signature to the Berlin Act to afford to the signatories of that Act every satisfaction: but the Government could not act alone. They were prepared, as he had said, to consult with their co-signatories as to the evidence of misgovernment which had been laid before them; and he was not doubtful that the strong expressions of opinion which the debate had called forth, voicing as it did public opinion not only in England but throughout Europe, would have its due effect and tend to remedy the evils of which they had, he was afraid, so much cause to complain.
  LORD EDMUND FITZMAURICEsaid that the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs at the opening of his speech stated that he was in a peculiar position because no attack had been made on His Majesty's Government at the moment the noble Lord said that he thought the observation was unnecessary, but as the noble Lord went on he began to feel afraid that possibly it was gradually becoming necessary that some attack should be made on the Government on this matter. They had had a debate which was no doubt long, but well sustained and exceedingly interesting, and dealt with a question of first rate importance. All those who had had the advantage of hearing the speech of his hon. friend who opened the debate, which unfortunately was delivered in a very thin House, would agree with him that it was an exceedingly clear and powerful statement of an unanswerable case. What was it that his hon. friend asked the House to agree to? He asked the House to request the Government to confer with the other Powers, signatories of the Berlin General Act, by virtue of which the Congo Free State existed, in order that measures might be adopted to abate the evils prevalent in that State. That was a very moderate request. The noble Lord said that those who had spoken from that side of the House had jumped to their conclusions, that they had taken every charge made against the Congo Free State for granted, and had generally excluded all other evidence. The noble Lord said that hon. Members on this side of the House seemed to take every statement against the Congo Free State as granted, and that they excluded all other elements. But if he had to sum
  1326
  up the noble Lord's speech he would say that it was rather a lengthy development of the well-known language which chairmen of Quarter Sessions and Judges of Assize were apt to use in criminal cases when they told the jurors that they were to give the prisoner the benefit of the doubt. But in the present case the House was not asked to pass a sweeping set of resolutions dealing with a series of counts.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): Read the Resolution.
  LORD EDMUND FITZMAURICEsaid that the words of the Motion were as follows:—
  "To call attention to the administration of the Congo Free State; and to move, That the Government of the Congo Free State having, at its inception, guaranteed to the Powers that its native subjects should be governed with humanity, and that no trading monopoly or privilege should be permitted within its dominions, this House requests His Majesty's Government to confer with the other Powers, signatories of the Berlin General Act by virtue of which the Congo Free State exists, in order that measures may be adopted to abate the evils prevalent in that State."
  They were not asking the Government to adopt every statement in the pamphlet which had been read to the House; but they said that there was an unanswerable prima facie case against the Government of the Congo State sufficient to justify the Government in bringing the facts before the signatories of the Berlin Act. He altogether denied that they could deal with the Congo Free State as if it was a

  1327
  State like France, Austria, Germany, or any other Power. The Congo Free State was an artificial creation; it was called into being in 1884–85 by the Berlin Act; and it was bound to carry out not only in the letter but in the spirit, the stipulations of that Act. The case against the Congo Free State was that neither in the letter nor in the spirit had it been able to carry out the duties which it undertook to perform under that Act. It was not necessary for his case in the least to assume that in everything the Congo Free State did, or omitted to do, it was actuated by positive malice or ill-will. It was quite sufficient for his case if he could show that it was so badly organised and so weak that it was unable to carry out a complicated a system of laws over a vast territory, and that, even with the best intentions, the Government of King Leopold—it was more regular to call His Majesty that than the King of the Belgians—had been unable to control their representatives in those distant lands. It would be unfair to make King Leopold or his Ministers personally responsible for all the outrages which had been committed by their subordinate officers. There might have been neglect on the part of the Belgian Government, but no one ever suggested that there was complicity, though they could not forget the judicial murder of Mr. Stokes, as to which, if time had allowed, he would have spoken. The result was that atrocities had been committed which curdled the blood, and made civilisation ashamed of its name.
  He should like to refer to one observation of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean. The right hon. Gentleman said that of
  1328
  the hon. Members now present, the right hon. Gentleman and himself were most concerned in the negotiations of 1884–85. Speaking for himself, he was sceptical at the time of the Congo State being able to fulfil its promises. He did not altogether share the beatific visions of universal peace, good-will, and prosperity set out in the preamble to the Berlin Act. The circumstances under which the Berlin Act came into existence were exceedingly peculiar. No doubt this country had very great responsibility; but, after all, the principal responsibility lay with Germany. The Conference was summoned by Prince Bismarck, when Germany, as he thought unfortunately, decided to denounce the Anglo-Portuguese Treaty, and to propose the alternative of some arrangement with the King of Belgians. It would be remembered that a treaty was signed between this country and Portugal on the basis of freedom of navigation, trade and missionary enterprise, and measures directed against slavery; and the Foreign Office realised that in dealing with Portugal this country would stand in a very favourable position. Unfortunately that treaty was not popular in this country in commercial circles. Very few voices were raised in support of it, and the opportunity was taken to denounce it and to drag this country unwillingly to the Conference at Berlin, where no doubt the British representatives, by the good will of the other Powers, succeeded in introducing all the clauses which Portugal had accepted, but they were to be carried out not under the supervision of this country, as was originally intended, but by this newly invented State which was launched with a great flourish of trumpets and which was to bring a message of peace and goodwill to all men. Was it or was it not a fact that

  1329
  the promises in the Berlin Act had been fulfilled? Had the Congo Free State carried out the undertakings they solemnly entered into in the face of Europe? They on that side of the House said "No," and with no hesitating voice they asserted that it was the duty of the Government to bring this matter again before the signatory Powers. They were not asking the Government to complain on their own account, as that might be represented as a selfish attempt to recover control of the country. It should not be assumed, because the Congo Free State was invented under certain circumstances in 1884–5, that it had an international right to allow the existing condition of things to continue, which, without adopting every statement that had been made, was undoubtedly a disgrace to civilisation. He would remind the House that there was a name which they all honoured, which was imperishably associated with the Congo. He meant the name of General Gordon. When General Gordon undertook his last and fatal expedition to Khartoum he was then at the time actually engaged by the King of the Belgians to go to the Congo, and he intended to spend the remainder of his life in promoting the civilisation of that vast region. The only thing that made him hesitate about going to Egypt was that his heart was in the Congo. What would General Gordon think if he knew that "the great philanthropic enterprise of the King of the Belgians," as it then was termed, had been turned into one of the most gigantic engines of oppression against the black races, and that the high hopes which he entertained had turned into failure and disappointment? After what the noble Lord had said he
  1330
  was afraid, unless a different complexion were put on the matter, it would be necessary to divide the House.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he hoped that the noble Lord had not misunderstood an interruption which he made a little time ago, and that he did not think it rude. That certainly was not the intention. He was not inclined to dissent from the position which the noble Lord had adopted in respect to the course which his Majesty's Government ought to pursue on this question. The noble Lord stated, with perfect accuracy, the effect of the last part of the Resolution, and His Majesty's Government recognised, as his noble friend recognised, and as every speaker had recognised, the responsibility of this country as one of the co-signatories of the Treaty of Berlin. They recognised their duty, acting with their colleagues, and, of course, with the Government of the Congo Free State, to deal with the question which had been discussed. That was the practical proposal which had been made, and with that practical proposal they were in agreement. That was the only important matter before them; but there was a question of procedure, he had almost said of Parliamentary decorum, to which he wished to call attention. He did not think it was wise or judicious for them without inquiry to place upon the permanent records of the House a Resolution, not merely asking the Government to take this or that step, but to pass in explicit terms, condemnation upon another Government. Hon. Gentlemen had spoken in very strong terms about the action or inaction of the Congo Government in dealing with matters as to which they had convinced themselves—he expressed no judgment on the matter—that there was an overwhelming

  1331
  case. There was a very great difference in an individual gentleman coming to that conclusion and expressing himself strongly upon it and the deliberate procedure of the House of Commons. The House should not, without anything in the nature of judicial inquiry, and merely upon statements made in debate, commit itself to the condemnation of a friendly Government. It would be impossible for the Government to vote against the Resolution, because it indicated a policy the Government desired to follow. It would be more consistent with the dignity of the House to accept the assurance of his noble friend, which he repeated, that they meant to take action in this matter. He hoped the hon. Member would withdraw the Motion or put it in an amended form, free from the objectionable condemnation of a friendly Government. He suggested to the hon. Member to put the Motion in a somewhat different form, leaving out the condemnation to which he referred. He hoped his appeal would not be superfluous, and certainly it was not inimical to the objects the hon. Member had in view.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid that in view of the request of the right hon. Gentleman, and the assurance that the Government would forthwith take action in the matter he would omit from the Motion the words, "and both these guarantees having been constantly violated."
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I accept that.
  Motion amended—
  "By leaving out the words 'and both these guarantees having been constantly violated.'"
  Resolved, "That the Government of the Congo Free State having, at its inception, guaranteed to the Powers that its Native subjects should be governed with humanity, and that no trading monopoly or privilege should be permitted within its dominions, this House requests His Majesty's Government to confer with the other Powers, signatories of the Berlin General Act by virtue of which the Congo Free State exists, in order that measures may be adopted to abate the evils prevalent in that State."

  CLARE RAILWAYS.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid he regretted he had not now time to move his Motion with reference to railway communication in Clare. He would merely direct the attention of the Chief Secretary to it, in the hope that the right hon. Gentleman would inquire into it, and see if something could not be done in the direction indicated. He hoped the Government would pay attention to the matter, as it was of great importance to his constituents.

  POST OFFICE SITES (EXPENSES.)
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Resolved, "That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of all sums payable by the Postmaster-General under any Act of the present session to enable His Majesty's Postmaster-General to acquire lands in London and Bristol for the public service, and of all expenses incurred in carrying into effect the provisions of such Act."—(Mr. Austen Chamberlain.)
  Resolution to be reported this day.
  Adjourned at three minutes after Twelve o'clock.