Sitting of 25 May 1903

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

  PRIVATE BILLS [LORDS] (STANDING ORDERS NOT PREVIOUSLY INQUIRED INTO COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKERlaid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of
  1616
  Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, viz:—
  Belfast Water Bill [Lords]; Shepshed Urban District Gas Bill [Lords]. Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time.

  PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS (STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE THERETO COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKERlaid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, viz:—
  Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 7) Bill. Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time to-morrow.
  Cheshire Lines Committee Bill. Read the third time, and passed. (New Title.)
  East Ham Improvement Bill; Fishguard and Rosslare Railways and Harbours Bill. Read the third time, and passed.
  London County Council (Tramways and Improvements) Bill (King's Consent signified). Bill read the third time, and passed.
  London, Tilbury, and Southend Railway Bill (King's Consent signified). Bill read the third time, and passed. (New Title.)
  Plymouth and Stonehouse Gas Bill [Lords]. Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
  Wellingborough and District Tram-roads Bill; West Cumberland Electric Tramways Bill. Read the third time, and passed.
  Baker Street and Waterloo Railway {Transfer) Bill; Dublin, Wicklow, and Wexford Railway Bill. As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  Great Southern and Western Railway Bill. As amended, considered; Amendments made; Bill to be read the third time.
  Mullingar, Kells, and Drogheda Railway Bill; Plymouth Corporation Bill; South Yorkshire Joint Railways Bill; Woolwich Borough Council Bill. As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  Baker Street and Waterloo Railway (Extension of Time) Bill; Birmingham Corporation Bill [Lords]; Rickmansworth Gas Bill [Lords]; Sutton Coldfield Corporation Bill [Lords]. Read a second time, and committed.
  Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 6) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 7) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (Gas) Bill; Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (Housing of Working Classes) Bill. Read the third time, and passed.
  Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill. As amended, considered; to be read the third time to morrow.
  Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 14) Bill; Local Government Provisional Order (No. 16) Bill. Read a second time, and committed.
  Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 17). Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to Bury and the Bury and District Joint Hospital District, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Grant Lawson and Mr. Walter Long.
  Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 17) Bill. "To confirm certain Pro-
  1618
  visional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to Bury and the Bury and District Joint Hospital District," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills and to be printed. (Bill 210.)

  PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP E).
  Sir ALEXANDER HARGREAVES BROWN Sir ALEXANDER HARGREAVES BROWN reported from the Committee on Group E of Private Bills, That Mr. Arthur Lee, one of the Members of the said Committee, was not present within one hour after the time appointed for the meeting of the Committee this day.
  Ordered, That Mr. Arthur Lee, one of the Members of the Committee on Group E of Private Bills, do attend the meeting of the said Committee To-morrow, at Eleven of the clock.
  Wood Green Urban District Council Bill, reported from the Police and sanitary Committee, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the—Table, and to be printed.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to, Land Drainage Provisional Order Bill, without Amendment.
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to empower the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the Borough of Worthing to construct tramways in and adjacent to the borough; and for other purposes." (Worthing Corporation (Tramways) Bill [Lords].)
  Worthing Corporation (Tramways) Bill [Lords]. Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

PETITIONS.
  LICENCES RENEWAL AND TRANSFER BILL.
  Petition from Darwen, against; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSING LAW (COMPENSATION FOR NON-RENEWAL) BILL.
  Petitions against: from Darwen; and Brighouse; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSING (SCOTLAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  Petition from Fetteresso, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION BILL.
  Petitions in favour: from Westminster; Stratford-on-Avon; Summer-seat; Heywood; Llandudno; Bolton; Brierfield; Dundee; Yardley Hastings; and Kingston-upon-Hull; to lie upon the Table.
  PUBLIC LIBRARIES.
  Petitions for alteration of Law; from Hyde; and Clitheroe; to lie upon the Table.
  THAMES CONSERVANCY.
  Petition from Buckinghamshire, for alteration of Law; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT, 1894.
  Copies presented, of Orders in Council of 20th May, 1903, (a) providing that the powers and duties of a British Consular Officer under the Act shall in the New Hebrides be exercised by the Resident Deputy Commissioner; (b) approving By-laws made by the Cardiff Pilotage Board; and (c) fixing the Engineering Establishment of the Corporation of Trinity House [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  FOREIGN JURISDICTION ACT, 1890.
  Copy presented, of Order in Council of 20th May, 1903, amending the Order in Council of 19th November, 1902, respecting the currency of the Protectorate of Southern Nigeria [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

  COLONIAL PROBATES ACT, 1892.
  Copy presented, of Order in Council of 20th May, 1903, applying The Colonial
  1620
  Probates Act, 1892, to the Colony of Newfoundland [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

  FACTORIES AND WORKSHOPS.
  Copy presented, of Report of the Chief Inspector for 1902, Part I., Reports [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (INTELLIGENCE DIVISION).
  Copy presented, of Annual Report of Proceedings under the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875 to 1899, the Merchandise Marks Acts, 1887 to 1894, and other Acts for the year 1902 [by Command], to lie upon the Table.
  NATIONAL DEBT ACT, 1883 (TERMINABLE ANNUITIES).
  Copy presented of Treasury Warrants dated 18th May, 1903, for the adjustment of the Terminable Annuities created under the Finance Act, 1899, and held by the National Debt Commissioners on account of the Trustee and Post Office Savings Banks [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (MISCELLANEOUS SERIES).
  Copy presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Miscellaneous Series, No. 591 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 2984 to 2986 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  ALLOTMENTS (SCOTLAND).
  Return ordered, "of Allotments made in Scotland, showing (1) the proceedings of parish councils in regard to Allotments and common pasture under Section 26 of The Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1894; and (2) the proceedings of County Councils in regard to representations by parish councils for orders under The Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1894, Section 26, authorising land to be taken on lease compulsorily for Allotment, since the date of the last Return on the 8th day of August last."—(Mr. Eugene Wason.)

  ARMY PROMOTIONS.
  Address for, "Return showing the average time taken from the date of first commission, in attaining respectively the ranks of Captain and of Major of Officer

  Captain.

  Major.

  Year.

  Months.

  Year.

  Months.

  1898:—

  Cavalry

  Artillery

  Engineers

  Infantry

  Indian Army

  1903:—

  Cavalry

  Artillery

  Engineers

  Infantry

  Indian Army

  —(Major Evans-Gordan.)

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Alien Immigrants into East London.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to prevent the anti-Semitic disturbances in Russia increasing the number of Russian and Polish immigrants into the East End of London; and can he state what increase, if any, in the number of immigrants by the German line plying between Hamburg and London has taken place since March last.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) I think my honourable and gallant friend must be aware that the Board of Trade possesses no such power as his Question suggests. There has been no increase since March in the number of Russians and Poles arriving in London from Hamburg, whether in German or other vessels. The total figures are:—March 368; April, 172; May (up to the 18th), 104. These figures include persons in transit.

  Income Tax
  Mr. WHITLEY THOMSON: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will
  in the Cavalry, Royal Artillery, Royal Engineers, Infantry, and Indian Army, before the late war and subsequently, in the following form:—
  state for the last financial year for which the figures are available the numbers of Income Tax payers who paid Income Tax on incomes under £400, £500, £600, and £700, respectively; the net yield of the Tax from each of the above classes of Income Tax payers; and the gross amounts which would have been payable by each class had there been no abatements allowed.
  (Answered by Mr. Ritchie.) It is not possible to give the numbers of persons who pay Income Tax in any class, nor the amount of tax paid by them. Bat the numbers of persons who claim abatement of Income Tax can be given. The figures for the year to 31st March, 1902, are not yet complete; but the following, figures for the several classes named in the Question may be taken as approximately correct:—Class £160–400, Number of taxpayers claiming abatement, 555,000; Class £400–500, Number of taxpayers claiming abatement, 47,000;. Class £500–600, Number of taxpayers claiming abatement, 24,000; Class £600–700, Number of taxpayers claiming abatement, 10,500; Total, 636,500. The amounts of Income Tax at ls. 2d. in the pound allowed in the several classes were approximately:—Class £160–400, £5,180,000; Class £400£500, £411,000;

  1623
  Class £500–600, £168,000; Class £600–700,£43,000; Total, £5,802,000. The sums actually paid by each class are not .ascertainable, but would have been increased by the above amounts, had no abatements been allowed.

  Medical Officers in Crofting Districts.
  MR CATHCART WASON: To ask the Lord Advocate if he will say how many parish councils in the crofting counties of Scotland have at present no parochial resident medical officer; and what steps are being taken in such parishes to secure medical attendance for the poor.
  (Answered by Mr. A. Graham Murray.) Parish councils are bound to provide medical attendance for paupers. I am informed that all the parishes in the counties in question, with the exception of Gigha, have regularly appointed medical officers who reside either in or near the parishes for which they hold office. In the case of Gigha a doctor is employed by the parish council when necessary.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: To ask the Lord Advocate if the Committee of the Scottish Local Government Board, who have been making inquiry into the subject of Poor Law medical relief, have also inquired into the grievances of the parochial medical officers in the highlands and islands of Scotland; and, if so, will he state what steps the Government proposes to take in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. A. Graham Murray.) The Committee in question is a Departmental one to inquire into and report on the methods and conditions under which Poor Law medical relief is at present administered in Scotland, and on what changes, if any, it is advisable to make in regard thereto, or in the regulations for distributing the sum contributed from the local taxation account to the cost of Poor Law medical relief and trained sick nursing, or in the rules and regulations for the management of poorhouses; and it is only incidentally, therefore, that the subject of the hon. Member's Question can come within the terms of reference. In any case the Committee not having reported it is not possible as yet to say what steps it may be the duty of the Government to take in the matter.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: To ask the Lord Advocate if his attention has been called to the fact that certain parishes in the crofting counties have difficulty in procuring the services of a medical officer for any length of time; and, whether, in the interests of the poor, the Government intend to introduce legislation on the subject.
  (Answered by Mr. A. Graham Murray.) I can only refer the hon. Member to my Answers to his previous Questions, and as in my reply to his second Question to add that it is not possible to promise any legislation in the matter at present.

  Conveyance of Mails from Longford Station to Post Office.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the heaviness of the parcel and mail traffic at Longford, he will sanction the employment of some mode of transit of mails and parcels from the station to the post office other than requiring the letter carriers to drag them on trucks from the station.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) I am making inquiry into the matter, and will communicate the result to the hon. Member in due course.

  Postage Rates in the Transvaal.
  MR. LOUIS SINCLAIR: To ask the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to the fact that the postage of newspapers from Barberton and other towns in the Transvaal to England is at the rate of 1d. per two ounces, whereas the charge from England to the Transvaal is ½d per two ounces; and, if so, whether he will take steps to assimilate these rates.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) Yes, Sir, I am aware of the facts stated in the Question; but I have no control over the rates charged in the Transvaal. Any representations which the hon. Member may wish to make on the subject should be addressed to the Transvaal Government.

  Electricity in Mines—Report of Committee.
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he anticipates the Report of the Departmental Committee on the Use of Electricity in Mines will be in the hands of Members.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers Douglas.) I understand that the Committee have completed the evidence which they propose to take. The preparation of their Report involves the consideration of technical details of some complexity; but it is hoped that it will be concluded within about two months.

  Rule of Succession in State of Hill Tipperah, India.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether he will explain why an Order was recently passed by the Government of India interfering with the established rule of succession in the Native State of Hill Tipperah, and declining to recognise Samarendra Chandra as Jubaraj upon the death of the previous ruler of the State, in view of the fact that by the law of succession in this State the Bara Thakur is entitled to succeed as Jubaraj under such circumstances, and that Samarendra Chandra had been for twenty-five years regarded as the Bara Thakur of this State by the Government.
  (Answered by Secretary Lord George Hamilton.) The present Raja of Hill Tipperah was installed in March, 1897. In February, 1899, he appointed his eldest son Birendra Kishore Thakur to be Jubraj. The Bara Thakur (Samarendra Chandra) appealed to the Government of Bengal and subsequently to the Government of India against the Raja's selection of his son to be Jubraj, on the ground that he himself was entitled to this appointment, which carries with it the right of succession to the chiefship. The matter has been very carefully considered by the Government of Bengal and by the Government of India The Government of Bengal came to the conclusion that the alleged family custom making it obligatory on the Raja to pro-
  1626
  mote the Bara Thakur (if there be one) to the appointment of Jubraj had not been established, and recommended that the Raja's son should be regarded as Jubraj and successor designate to the chiefship. The Government of India concurred in the view of the Government of Bengal, and declined to interfere with the Raja's action in appointing his son to be Jubraj, a measure which in their opinion was in the public interests of the Hill Tipperah State.

  Foreign Ministers of Commerce.
  MR. LOUIS SINCLAIR: To ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether he is in a position to state when he can lay before the House the information on the constitution and functions of Foreign Ministers of Commerce, as promised on the 15th December last.†
  (Answered by Lord Cranborne.) Most of the Reports have now been received and are being prepared for presentation, but we are still awaiting those from Italy and Hungary and from a few less important countries.

  Cusack Estate, Longford.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will say what is the present position of the Cusack, county Longford, Estate; and whether, seeing that the evicted tenants on the estate who until recently were allowed to take grazing tenancies, have now been refused these privileges because they wanted to purchase their holdings, he can take any steps to assist the tenants to purchase their farms.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) I am informed that the persons who formerly took grazing on the Cusack Estate were, nearly all of them, tenants on adjoining estates. Only four were tenants on the Cusack Estate. These persons refused to pay for the grazing this year the same rates as formerly. The incumbrancers were of opinion that the most remunerative method of dealing with the lands in the circumstances would be to authorise the receiver to stock the lands. The Land Judge on the 12th instant made an order
  †See(4)Debates, cxvi, 1198.

  1627
  to this effect. I do not understand what the latter part of the Question is intended to convey.

  Ireland—Hospital Relief for Policemen.
  MR. MURPHY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he will consider the advisability of amending the law to relieve boards of guardians in Ireland from the obligation of affording hospital relief to policemen in receipt of full pay, without being able to enforce payment by such policemen of the cost of such relief.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) This Question is founded on a misconception. Under Section 5 of the 25 and 26 Vic., chapter 83, a board of guardians is entitled to he repaid "the full average daily cost of maintenance and establishment charges, medical and surgical treatment," incurred by police constables in the circumstances mentioned. No amendment of the law is called for.

  Musketry and Mounted Infantry Course for Sandhurst Cadets awaiting Commissions.
  MR. HENRY HOBHOUSE: To ask the Secretary of State for War what is the number of Sandhurst cadets who have passed the final examination and are now waiting for commissions; and whether he will consider the practicability of giving these young men a course of training in musketry or mounted infantry drill during the summer months, so as to increase their value as soldiers when they join their regiments.
  (Answered by Hr. Secretary Brodrick.) The total number of the last batch of cadets from the Royal Military College who are fully qualified and not yet gazetted is 33. These cadets have been allowed to wait, for their own convenience, for special regiments in which at present there are no vacancies. The Army is at present largely in excess of its establishment of Officers.

  Militia Rations at Maryborough.
  MR. DELANY: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the
  1628
  rations of the Militia recruits at present assembled at Maryborough have been curtailed; and, if so, will he state what system exists for checking the rations issued and seeing that every man gets his allowance; and whether, seeing that the recruits are now drilled before breakfast from 6.45 to 7.45 a.m., he will explain why the allowance of coffee and biscuits given to recruits before first parade has been discontinued this year.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) The hon. Member has been misinformed. The rations of the Militia recruits have not been curtailed, and the men appear to be satisfied with them. A board of two officers inspects and witnesses the issue of Government rations daily. There is no parade before 9 a.m., but half an hour from 7 to 7.30 is employed in cleaning the barracks. Breakfast is at 7.45 a.m.
  MR. DELANY: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will explain why the food allowance given at night in past years to the guard of the Militia (4th Leinster Regiment) in training at Mary. borough has been discontinued this year.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) The system by which military police supersede the guards being in vogue, the recruits are not taken for this duty, and therefore no light refreshments are necessary.

  Pay of Queen's County Militia Recruits.
  MR. DELANY: To ask the Secretary of State for War if he will say who is the officer responsible for paying Militia recruits; and how are the recruits of the Queen's County Militia paid, and by whom.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) Militia recruits, if drilling on enlistment, are paid by the company officers of the depôt at which they are drilled, and if drilling on preliminary drill, are paid by the. officers called up to assist in the preliminary drill. There is no information at the War Office to show that the regiment mentioned is adopting a system not in accordance with the usual procedure.

  Cost of Military Operations in Nigeria.
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any charge is expected to fall on the National Exchequer during the financial year 1903–04 in consequence of the military operations in Nigeria; and, if so, what sum.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Chamberlain.) It is not anticipated that any additional charge will fall on the National Exchequer on account of these operations during the current year.

  Commission on Amalgamation of Unions in Ireland.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he will state whether any, and, if so, what steps have been taken to form the Commission on Amalgamation of Unions in Ireland, the terms of reference to the Commission, and the names of the Commissioners; and will he undertake that in case the Commission is not wholly departmental or judicial, some Irish Members of Parliament will be asked to serve on it.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The Commission was appointed on the 12th instant. The Commissioners are—Mr. G. Murnaghan, M. P., Dr. Coey Bigger, Medical Inspector of the Local Government Board, and Mr. W. L. Micks, Chairman. The terms of reference are as follows:—I. Whether any Poor Law unions could he dissolved with advantage to the ratepayers, and without hardship to the sick and destitute poor; and if any such dissolution be deemed desirable, what arrangements, by amalgamation of unions or otherwise, should be substituted therefor. II. Whether, in the event of any unions being amalgamated and the workhouses thereof being no longer required for Poor Law purposes, such workhouses could, with advantage, be taken over by County Councils for auxiliary lunatic asylums under Section 76 of the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898, or could be otherwise utilised for any public purpose. III. Whether it would be possible, either by an arrangement for the maintenance of paupers in adjoining workhouses, or by combining a number of unions for the purposes of indoor relief, to make better provision for the classification and treat-
  1630
  ment of the inmates, specially the aged and infirm, sick, lunatics, and children chargeable to the said unions; and whether any changes in the law and procedure as to the administration and chargeability of relief would be desirable in the event of such combination of unions being carried out. IV. Whether, having regard to the number and capacity of workhouses, hospitals, and infirmaries existing in any county, union. district, or locality, and to the other provisions for the relief of he sick poor, any additional accommodation is now required for the proper treatment of the sick poor, and if additional accommodation is necessary how it might best be provided. V. Generally to inquire and report Whether any, and what, administrative and financial changes are desirable, in order to secure a more economical system or the relief of the sick, the insane, and all classes of destitute poor in Ireland, without impairing efficiency of administration.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Disease-Infected Army Blankets.
  SIR THOMAS DEWAR: I beg to ask the secretary of State for War whether he s aware that a number of Army blankets which were condemned in South Africa were sold to the training ship "Cornwall," where an outbreak of enteric fever has occurred among the boys on the ship and is directly traceable to the infected blankets; that the Public Health Department of the Metropolitan Borough of Stepney has detained forty tons, probably 30,000, of the same consignment in a warehouse in Assam Street, White chapel, as they were found to contain the enteric fever bacilli in large numbers; and that the blankets sold in South Africa are stored in Whitechapel; and if so, will the War Office consider the advisability of having them returned in order that they may be either destroyed or disinfected.
  The following Question also appeared m the Paper—
  CAPTAIN NORTON: To ask the Secretary of State for War

  1631
  if he will state how goods no longer required by his Department are disposed of; and what steps, if any, are taken in the case of goods as regards which there are grounds for presuming that they may carry infection, to prevent the spread of disease; and will he also state what steps were taken with this object in the case of blankets used by the troops in South Africa recently disposed of by the War Office.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,): I have ascertained that a large number of blankets have been sold by tender in South Africa. I have no power whatever to recall those blankets which have been sold. The ordnance regulations lay down that no condemned blanket should be sold before it has been torn in four pieces, and complete instructions are also included in medical regulations as to disinfection in every case of infectious disease. I also issued special orders to South Africa two years ago, neither to sell these nor to send home any textile fabrics which might convey infection, and I have called upon the General Officer Commanding to investigate and report fully on the matter, and to take steps to have any condemned blankets still remaining in South Africa destroyed.

  Barrack Expenditure in South Africa.
  MR. BLACK: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the estimated cost of erecting buildings for the housing of troops in South Africa; and whether, in view of the fact that these buildings will form a permanent addition to the assets of the colonies where they are situated, he proposes that the colonies should pay the cost of erection; if not, upon what fund will the cost be placed, and does the cost appear in this year's estimate.
  MR. BRODRICK: The expenditure on accommodation for the garrison in South Africa (mainly consisting of hutments) has up to 31st March last amounted to about £1,025,000, the necessary provision having been made in Army Estimates for the last three years. Such further expenditure as is
  1632
  required on accommodation of a permanent character will be provided in the Military Works Loan: the amount cannot at present be definitely stated. I am not in a position to make any statement at present as to the incidence of cost, as no decision has been arrived at as to the future garrison of South Africa.
  MR. BUCHANAN: When will the Military Works (Loans) Bill be introduced?
  MR. BRODRICK: A similar Question was put to the First Lord the other day and the right hon. Gentleman then said he was not in a position at present to make any statement.†

  Royal Visit to Edinburgh—Military Arrangements.
  MR. CROMBIE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that Volunteers sent from the North of Scotland to line the streets during His Majesty's visit to Edinburgh were thus kept on duty two hours after contingents from Edinburgh and the neighbourhood were dismissed, and that the contingent from Laurence-kirk had to mobilise at Banchory, entailing their starting the night before and making the journey to and from Banchory before leaving for Edinburgh; and will he say who is responsible for these arrangements; and whether steps will be taken to prevent similar inconvenience in future.
  MR. BRODRICK: The arrangements referred to rest entirely with the local military authorities, in conjunction with the railway companies.

  Mediterranean Fleet—Alleged Waste of Ammunition.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, has he now received the Report on the alleged waste of ammunition in the Mediterranean Fleet on 29th April last by eight battleships firing away over 7,000 rounds at distances and under conditions depriving the practice of utility as gunnery training for accuracy in marksmanship; what was
  † See page 1357.

  1633
  the range at which the practice was conducted, the time it took, and the number and approximate value of the rounds fired; in what respects did this practice depart from the Admiralty regulation that the attainment of good shooting and proficiency in gunnery are always to be considered as taking precedence over all other duties; by whom was this practice ordered and its conditions prescribed, and by whom has the Report thereon been made; in view of the practice which had been adopted on 14th May last that the reasons of failure in gunnery practice are reported on by the admirals under whose orders the ships are acting, that the Reports are considered by the Admiralty, and such steps taken with regard to the individual officers concerned as in the opinion of the Admiralty are required, will he say whether any, and if so, what steps have been, or will be taken, in this case.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER,): As I stated in my reply on the 13th inst., † a Report on this subject has been called for, but owing to the Commander-in-Chief having proceeded from Malta to Alexandria sufficient time has not yet elapsed for the Report to be received. I must therefore ask my hon. friend to kindly postpone the Question for a few days longer.

Transvaal Mines—Asiatic Labour.
MR. KEIR HARDIE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether His Majesty's Government has sanctioned or is lending support to the movement of the mine-owners to import Chinese or other Asiatic labour into the Transvaal.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): No, Sir.
MR. JOHN ELLIS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received reports of the meeting held at Johannesburg early in April, and attended by about 5,000 men, at which a resolution was adopted, with practical unanimity, against the introduction of
† See page 536.
1634
Asiatic labour for the mines or other industries in the Transvaal; whether the Government have expressed any opinion on this question in despatches to Lord Milner or otherwise; and, in that case, when Papers on the subject may be expected to be laid upon the Table.
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I have seen a report of the meeting referred to. The opinions which I expressed to Lord Milner, when I was in South Africa, are the same as those contained in my statement in the House of Commons on 19th March.†

Transvaal Legislative Council.
MR. LAMBERT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state the numbers and composition of the Transvaal Legislative Council; whether Generals Botha, Delarey, and Smuts are members; and how many Boers are included.
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The Council consists of thirty members, of whom sixteen are official and fourteen non-official members. Five of the latter are Boers. The three gentlemen mentioned by the hon. Member were invited to serve on the Council, but declined for reasons which have been already published.
MR. LAMBERT: Where were they published?
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Oh, in every single newspaper in the country.

British Trade with Foreign Countries.
THE MASTER OF ELIBANK: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can furnish a Return showing the volume of the import and export trade between British Colonies and foreign countries.
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir, I shall be prepared to furnish this Return.

Labour in the Transvaal Gold and Coal Mines.
MR. D. A. THOMAS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for
† See (4) Debates, exix., 1283.

1635
the Colonies if he has any official information showing separately the number of white men and Kaffirs employed in and about gold mines in the Transvaal at the commencement of 1898 and 1903, respectively, and any similar information in respect to the number of persons employed in and about coal mines in the Transvaal; and, if not, will he obtain the information.
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I am unable to give complete figures for the dates mentioned by the hon. Member. On the 31st December, 1897, there were 8,060 whites, and about 70,000 natives employed on the gold mines. The average numbers employed on the coal mines during 1897 were 472 whites and 6,661 natives. For January last the figures are: On gold mines, 10,766 whites and 42,994 natives; on coal mines, 378 whites and 6,542 natives.

Finances of Burmah.
MR. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the surplus shown by the finances of Burmah of £1,800,000 in the year 1901–2 is spent in Burmah or transferred to the credit of the finances of India; and will he state why the course selected was adopted.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON,): The revenue received in Burmah and in the other provinces of India forms part of the revenues of India, although, as a matter of administrative convenience, the local authorities are entrusted with its collection, and with control over certain portions of it. This is, and has long been, the established practice, and I am not aware of any good reason why it should be changed.

Indian Imports and Exports.
THE MASTER OF ELIBANK: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he can furnish a Return showing the volume of the import and export trade between India and foreign countries.
LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: Full and detailed information as to the quantity and value of the import and
1636
export trade between India and each foreign country is given in the Tables relating to the Trade of British India with British Possessions and Foreign Countries which are annually presented to Parliament. The Tables for 1903 were dated the 29th January and were presented during the recess.

Advertisements in Consular Reports.
MR. D. A. THOMAS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether, in sanctioning the advertisement of particular firms in Consular Reports, the Foreign Office makes previous inquiry and accepts any responsibility for their financial stability.
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord CRANBORNE,): The hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension in assuming that the Foreign Office sanctions the advertisement in the Consular Reports of particular firms. That would be entirely contrary to our practice.

Postage Rates to the Continent.
SIR THOMAS DEWAR: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General, having regard to the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget Speech in 1897 stated that the Government desired to reduce the rate of postage from this country to the Continent from 2½d. to 2d. the half-ounce, and that efforts to secure the assent of the Postal Union to the proposed reduction have hitherto failed, will arrangements be made to again bring the point forward at the next meeting of the Postal Union.
THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): I do not propose to initiate any discussion on this point at the next Postal Union Congress.

Wapping Telegraph Office.
SIR THOMAS DEWAR: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General, having regard to the fact that the Wapping Telegraph Office, situated at Old Gravel Lane, east of Wapping Bridge, is not available to firms in business west of the bridge on the occasions when the bridge is open, will he take such steps as may be

1637
necessary to secure the establishment of a telegraph office in Wapping west of the bridge.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: As I informed the hon. Member by letter last month I shall be quite willing to remedy the inconvenience complained of if any reasonable method of so doing can be devised, but up to the present no premises suitable for a post office and centrally situated can be found. I also suggested to the hon. Member that some of the firms having suitable premises in the district might think it desirable to offer facilities for the establishment of a post office, but apparently the suggestion has not been taken up.

Swine Fever—Compensation for Compulsory Slaughter.
MR. STEVENSON: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, in view of the fact that the seizure and condemnation of swine on the ground that they are unfit for human food takes place, not under the Diseases of Animals Act, 1894, but under the Public Health Acts, he will consider (in conjunction with the Board of Agriculture) the desirability of amending those Acts, with the object of securing that compensation shall be paid out of the National Exchequer for pigs condemned as unfit for human food by reason of the existence of tuberculosis, in cases in which the presence of the disease is undiscoverable until after slaughter.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. WALTER LONG,): Perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to refer him to the answer which I gave to a Question on this subject on the 29th of April last. † As I then stated, I cannot give any promise on the subject of compensation, especially pending the Report of the Royal Commission on Tuberculosis.

Inspection of Poor Law Schools.
MR. CROOKS: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he will consider the advisability of placing the inspection
† See (4) Debates, cxxi. 791.
1638
of all Poor Law schools under the Board of Education.
MR. WALTER LONG: I am in favour of the inspection of education in Poor Law schools being placed under the Board of Education, and I am at present in communication with that Department on the subject.

Nottingham Smallpox Hospital.
MR. JOHN ELLIS: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the erection by the Corporation of Nottingham of a smallpox hospital on the extreme northern boundary of their area, in close proximity to a road along which numbers of persons are daily passing, and to a number of dwelling houses and a growing population; and whether he can take any steps in the matter for the protection of the public outside Nottingham.
MR. WALTER LONG: The Nottingham Town Council have erected a smallpox hospital on a site which they consider the most suitable that could have been selected within the borough. I am informed that the neighbourhood is the most sparsely inhabited part of the borough, that there is no considerable population within a radius of two miles of the site, and that within this radius there are only a few scattered houses and the Bestwood Colliery and Ironworks, the latter being half-a-mile from the hospital. The Town Clerk informs me that the road referred to in the Question is used almost solely by men working at the colliery and ironworks, most of whom drive by in brakes when going to and from work and have no need to pass at any other time. He adds that there is no evidence of any increase, or likelihood of increase, in building operations in the neighbourhood. The Town Council have not applied to me for sanction to a loan in connection with the hospital and I have no jurisdiction in the matter. I should gather that the conditions which the Local Government Board require in the case of hospitals provided by means of loans sanctioned by them have been complied with, but I will make further inquiry as to this.

Disease Infected Blankets—Typhoid on the Training Ship "Cornwall."
MR. DAVID MORGAN: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if his attention has been called to an outbreak of typhoid on the training ship "Cornwall," lying off Purfleet, which has been reported upon by the port sanitary officer of the Corporation of the City of London; and, if so, will he state what steps he proposes to take.
MR. WALTER LONG: My attention has been called to this matter, and the acting medical officer of the Port of London has been in communication with my Department on the subject. The blankets which were considered to be the cause of the outbreak were all removed to the disinfecting station of the port authority and thoroughly disinfected and cleansed. In addition, every article of bedding was removed from the ship and submitted to the same process. The infected quarters on board have also been thoroughly disinfected. I understand that not more than ten cases of fever occurred on board the vessel, and I am glad to be able to say than no fresh case has been notified since the 4th instant.

Argentine Cattle Trade.
MR. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the hon. Member for North Huntingdonshire, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, if he will say whether the origin of the alleged cases of contagious disease, said to have occurred amongst cattle in Argentina, has been discovered; what the nature of the disease is supposed to have been; whether it is now considered to be at an end, or what stoppage of live cattle exports from the River Plate will be entailed, and what is the extent of the district of Argentina supposed to be affected; and what is the number of cattle actually ascertained to be affected and destroyed.
MR. AILWYN FELLOWES: The Board were informed by the Argentine Government on the 8th inst. that foot-and-mouth disease had been reported to exist amongst imported cattle then undergoing quarantine at Buenos Ayres, and that the exportation of animals from that port
1640
had been prohibited. The animals affected appeared to be healthy on their arrival, but the disease broke out among them eleven days afterwards. The outbreak is attributed to green alfalfa from a small holding in the province of Buenos Ayres where a few cases of the disease have since been discovered. These facts point to the probability that foot-and-mouth disease still lingers in a few centres unknown to the Argentine Government. It is not possible to forecast the future course of events in the case of a disease of such extraordinary infectivity as foot-and-mouth disease, but we shall, of course, use every possible means of obtaining full information on the subject.

Sale of Intoxicating Liquors to Children.
MR. CROMBIE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will instruct the constables of the Metropolitan Police to report the cases of breach of the Intoxicating Liquors (Sale to Children) Act which come to their notice to the Commissioner, with a view to prosecution.
THE UNDER SECRETARY TO THE HOME OFFICE (Mr. COCHRANE,): There are standing instructions to this effect and they are complied with. But it does not follow that proceedings can always be instituted. My right hon. friend stated the other day that the police had had before them no recent cases of breach of this Act which they could take up, and the particular case in October last, which, I understand, the hon. Member has in mind, was one in which it was not possible to take proceedings.

Walsham-le-Willows Anti-Vaccinationists.
MR. MALCOLM: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that the Ixworth bench of magistrates has refused exemption from vaccination certificates to residents in the village of Walsham-le-Willows, in the county of Suffolk; and that one person, whose objection to vaccination was stated to be conscientious, was sent upon Friday last to Ipswich Gaol; and, if so, will he say what steps he proposes to take in the matter.
MR. COCHRANE: I am informed by the Ixworth Justices that they have refused to grant certificates of exemption from vaccination to a few persons living at Walsham-le-Willows who failed to satisfy them that they conscientiously believed that vaccination would be prejudicial to the health of the child in question. I understand further that a person was committed by the justices to Ipswich Gaol on Friday the 15th instant for the reason that he failed to comply with an order of the Court for the vaccination of a child in respect of whom he had not applied for a certificate of exemption. There are no steps for the Secretary of State to take in the matter.

Imported Food Supplies.
MR. D. A. THOMAS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he can say when the Return relating to Imported Food Supplies, ordered by the House on 4th March last, will be in the hands of Members.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. BONAR LAW,): The Return is in the printer's hands and will be issued within a fortnight.

John Bright's Statue.
MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: To ask the hon. Member for West Derbyshire, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, if he can arrange to have the statue of John Bright placed in the same lobby as the statues of Mr. Gladstone and other Statesmen.
MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: The First Commissioner regrets that he is not prepared to remove the statue of Mr. Bright to the Central Lobby, which he thinks should be reserved for Leaders of the Houses of Parliament and perhaps, in the future, for Prime Ministers only.
MR. POWELL-WILLIAMS: Will the First Commissioner consider the propriety of removing the statue of John Bright to a better site than it at present occupies?
MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: If any better site is suggested the First Commissioner
1642
will, I am sure, gladly consider it.
MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Can the hon. Gentleman say why the Bright statue has been subjected to the humiliation of being shoved into a corner with Oliver Cromwell?
[No answer was returned.]

Westminster Hall.
MR. TREVELYAN: I beg to ask the hon. Member for West Derbyshire, as representing the Office of Works, what was the date of the closing of Westminster Hall to the public; what reasons then existed which made it desirable to prohibit free access to it; whether any of those reasons still exist; and, if not, whether he can see his way to re-opening it to the public.
MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: The hon. Member is under a misapprehension, as Westminster Hall is now open daily to the public at reasonable hours, except while Parliament is sitting, and exclusive of Sundays, Christmas Days, and Good Fridays. The only other restriction is that persons may not enter or leave by the New Palace Yard door. The First Commissioner does not think it necessary or expedient to make any alteration in these conditions.

Repairs of Voluntary Schools.
MR. LAMBERT: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether, as Clause 7 (d) of the Education Act, 1902, enacts that funds should be provided by the managers for keeping the school-house in repair and making such alterations and improvements in the buildings as may be reasonably required by the local authority, he will explain why the Board of Education have decided that the Aid Grant under the Act of 1897 may be applied to such purposes.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Sir WILLIAM ANSON,): The hon. Member would appear to be under some misapprehension on this point. Schedule 2 (12) of the Education Act, 1902, definitely states that any balances in the hands of the former managers of a voluntary school shall,

1643
after paying outstanding liabilities, be handed over to the persons who are managers of the school for the purposes of the Act, and shall be applied by them for the purposes for which provision is to be made under the Act by those managers. There is no decision of the Board of Education involved.
MR. LAMBERT: Have I not correctly quoted Clause 7 in my Question? Does it not clearly state that the managers shall themselves provide the funds for repairs?
SIR WILLIAM ANSON: But Schedule 2 provides for the handing over of certain balances which can be so applied.

Royal Irish Constabulary—Bicycles.
MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state the number of Royal Irish Constabulary who are provided with bicycles; whether the bicycles are the personal property of the members using them; and if he can say how many of the bicycles are of Irish manufacture.
THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,): Bicycles used by members of the Force are in every case the property of the men except two motor cycles the property of Government. The number of the former is unknown, nor can it be stated where the machines were manufactured. The two motor cycles were not manufactured in Ireland.
MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: In view of the fact that good bicycles are manufactured in Ireland, will the right hon. Gentleman see that they are purchased

Return giving particulars as to Improvement Schemes under above Acts, in the following form:—

1.

2.

3.

4

5.

6.

Name of Union.

Number of schemes proposed.

Total number of cottages proposed to be erected.

Number of cottages annually sanctioned and erected.

Date at which scheme initiated.

Date at which loans sanctioned for cottages.

in that country when required for police purposes?
MR. WYNDHAM: That rests with the men.

Irish Equivalent Education Grant.
MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he intends to apply any of the Equivalent Education Grant of £185,000 to primary education in Ireland; and, if so, how much.
MR. WYNDHAM: I have already stated that inquiries in this matter are still proceeding and that until these have been completed it will not be practicable to allocate the grant.

Labourers' (Ireland) Acts.
MR. MURPHY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, if he will grant the Return dealing with the Labourers' Acts on to-day's Paper.
MR. WYNDHAM: Full information in respect to Columns 1, 3, and 4 of the proposed Return is already published in the annual Reports of the Local Government Board, which are presented to Parliament. The publication of dates under Columns 5 and 6 would be misleading without reasons explanatory of the delays, for which the Board is in no way responsible. For a general statement on this particular subject I refer the hon. Member to the Board's Annual Report for 1901.
The following is the Return referred to in the Question—

Irish Land Bill.
MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland how, under the Land Bill, it is proposed to redeem drainage and other similar charges.
MR. WYNDHAM: The provisions of the existing Acts provide for the redemption of superior interests, an expression which includes the charges referred to. The extension of these provisions proposed by the Bill will be found in the Bill.

Land Purchase (Ireland) Acts.
MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the number and amount of advances applied for under the Land Purchase Acts and sanction to which was withheld by the Land Commission on the ground that the security was inadequate.
MR. WYNDHAM: I hope to be able to give this information on Wednesday, if the hon. Gentleman will repeat the Question on that day.

New Bishopric of Southwark.
COLONEL STOPFORD-SACKVILLE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is now in a position to give a definite reply to the memorial, which was presented to him by certain Members of Parliament in March last, asking him to introduce legislation for the purpose of constituting a new Bishopric of Southwark, in accordance with the provisions of the Bill which was read a second time in the House last session.
THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): The question is still under consideration, but I hope very shortly to have the matter settled and to make an announcement.

Upkeep of Voluntary Schools.
MR. LAMBERT: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he will give the House an early opportunity of discussing the decision of the Education Department that public money may be used for the upkeep and alteration of voluntary school buildings.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The point referred to by the hon. Gentleman is, as I understand, not a decision of the Board of Education at all. It was laid down specifically in the Act passed last year. If the hon. Member will refer to Schedule 2 in that Act, I think he will see that it is not the Board of Education, but Parliament, which is responsible for the decision to which he appears to object.
MR. LAMBERT: Will the right hon. Gentleman give us an opportunity of discussing the action of the Board of Education in allowing public funds to be expended on private property.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not think the Board of Education are travelling, in this respect, beyond what they are obliged to do by Act of Parliament.
MR. LAMBERT: Is it not a matter within their discretion?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If so, they are clearly not going beyond their powers.

The Whitsuntide Holidays.
MR. BRYCE: When does the right hon. Gentleman propose to take the Motion for the Adjournment for the Whitsuntide holidays?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am afraid I cannot say at the present moment. I should have liked to have felt more secure as to the course of the Committee of the Bill on which we are now engaged. I hope, however, to be able to answer to-morrow.
MR. BRYCE: There has been no indication as to what will be done on Thursday?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Supply, I should hope.

Brussels Sugar Convention.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, in view of the fact that the Brussels Sugar Convention prescribes that the first meeting of the Brussels Permanent Commission shall be held not later than 1st June next, and that the expenses incurred forits organisation and working are to be borne in part by this country, and of the

1647
fact that the assent of this House has not yet been obtained, or asked for, to any such expenditure, do His Majesty's Government propose to incur the expenditure in question without previously obtaining the assent of this House; and, if so, out of what funds and under what conditions do they propose to provide for it.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: As my hon. friend is aware, the House in November last passed a Resolution in these terms. They undertook to adopt the necessary measures to enable His Majesty's Government to carry out the provisions of the Brussels Convention. In view of that undertaking, it will be competent for the Departments concerned, with the consent of the Treasury, to charge any necessary expenses out of the moneys voted for their services. The usual practice in such a case is to call attention by a note on the Appropriation Account of demands which are not expressly provided for in the Estimate. Of course, if the money is not sufficient, a Supplementary Estimate will have to be presented.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Has the right hon. Gentleman consulted the authorities of the House in order to ascertain whether such a Resolution authorises the expenditure of public money by the Government in this way?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is not in my province to answer for the authorities of the House, but I have done my best to discover whether the procedure is one in consonance and harmony with the general practice of the House.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Which are the Departments immediately concerned — the Board of Trade or the Foreign Office?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I should think the Foreign Office mainly.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Out of what funds will money be provided?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: In view of what I have said, I apprehend it will be competent for the Department concerned, with the consent of the Treasury, to
1648
charge any necessary expense to the money voted for their service.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Will there be any opportunity of discussing the expenditure on the Sugar Convention at all this session?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes, on the Bill.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: When will it be introduced?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not think there will be any long delay in introducing the Bill.
MR. BUCHANAN: Will the money be spent before the Bill is introduced?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have explained that the Treasury are of opinion that they have adequate authority for such expenses—travelling expenses entirely, as a matter of fact—under the Resolution already passed by the House.
MR. JOHN ELLIS: That may be the opinion of the Treasury, but can the right hon. Gentleman quote any precedent for that?
MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! This is really becoming a debate.
MR. JOHN ELLIS: It is a very important constitutional matter. [Cries of "Order!"]
MR. SPEAKER: It may be a very important constitutional matter, but it does not arise out of this Question.

MOTION FOR THE ADJOURNMENT.
MR. LOUGH: I beg to ask leave to move the adjournment of the House in order to call attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance—namely, the determination of His Majesty's Ministers to spend public money in connection with the Brussels Sugar Convention without the sanction of Parliament.
MR. SPEAKER: I do not think I can accept that Motion, because, as I understand, a Bill is already down upon that subject, and the matter can come on for discussion then.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: With submission, I do not understand that that Bill has anything whatever to do with that expenditure. I understood the Prime Minister to say that the Bill was not required at all for the purpose of the expenditure. The point we wish to press is the right of Government to spend money without the sanction of Parliament.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: May I remind you, Sir, that the Government has already announced that the Bill with regard to the Convention will not be introduced in Committee of the House, and, therefore, will not presumably authorise the expenditure of public money?
MR. SPEAKER: Nobody knows better than the hon. Member that Bills authorising the expenditure of money are constantly introduced in the ordinary way, and that it is only when their main object is expenditure that they must be introduced in Committee. As regards the other point, it seems to me that the Convention which is to be carried out by the Bill is the cause of the expenditure. It necessitates organisation, travelling expenses, and other matters.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I understood the Prime Minister to say it was proposed to spend the money before introducing the Bill. Surely it is open to the Opposition to contest the right of the Government to spend money without the sanction of Parliament merely on a promise to carry through a Bill.
MR. LOUGH: The Convention is to meet on the 1st of June and the Prime Minister said the Bill would not be introduced before that date.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I said just the contrary.
MR. WHITLEYasked whether a Resolution passed last year could be taken under the rules of the House as authorising this expenditure of public money.
MR. SPEAKER: That is not a matter which arises on this Motion. In fact, I
1650
do not know to what Resolution the hon. Member refers.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: It is not on the Order-book.
MR. SPEAKER: Notice has been given to the House by the Government. [Several HON. MEMBERS: No!]
MR. BUCHANAN: Can we be prevented from discussing this Motion because of a mere verbal promise to introduce a Bill dealing with a subject not yet on the Order-book?
MR. SPEAKER: Although my statement has been contradicted I may point out that notice of a Bill to enable the Government to carry into effect the Convention is on the Order-book, and has been there many weeks.
MR. BRYCE: We have heard from the Prime Minister that the ground on which the Treasury consider that they are authorised in entailing this expenditure is a Resolution passed last session. What my hon. friend desires to discuss is whether the Treasury is right and whether it has the power on a Resolution of last session to take action. That is quite irrespective of the introduction of the Bill.
MR. SPEAKER: I do not understand that to be the point.
MR. BRYCE: Did not the Prime Minister say that the Treasury conceived that they were allowed to spend the money on the strength of the Resolution of last session.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. RITCHIE,): Yes, Sir. A Resolution has been accepted by the House which puts on the Government the necessity of introducing a Bill to carry out the Convention, and that Bill will be introduced. ["No, no!"]
MR. SPEAKER: I have given my opinion, right or wrong, to the best of my judgment. I have to decide these questions as they appear to me on the spur of the moment. I hold that the proposed Motion is out of order.

ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (BLIND AND DEAF CHILDREN) BILL.
"To amend The Elementary Education (Blind and Deaf Children) Act, 1893," presented by Mr. Cripps; supported by Mr. Henry Hobhouse, Mr. Lyttelton, and Sir Charles Renshaw; to be read a second time upon Monday, 8th June, and to be printed. (Bill 211.)

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 9, after the word 'shall,' to insert the words 'consist of such number of members as the local education authority shall determine, of whom a majority 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 live 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 again proposed, "That those words, as amended, be there inserted."
MR. BRYCEsaid he found on page 26 of the Amendments one in the name of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education to omit Clause 2. He thought it would be to the convenience of the House if the Government made a statement of their intentions in this greatly altered position of affairs.
THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I think that the request of the right hon. Gentleman
1652
is eminently reasonable; and I can explain in a few words both the intentions of the Government as regards this clause and the precise effect of leaving it out. The House will remember the general principles which I ventured to lay down as being those which ought to govern us in dealing with this complicated and difficult problem of London education and of London government generally. Those two propositions were certainly as regards education that it would be impossible, for many reasons which I need not recapitulate, to have other than a central single authority for dealing with London. That, I think, was accepted by all sections of the House. But we had a Second Reading debate, and a very important division as to whether that central authority should be elected ad hoc or whether we should avail ourselves of the existing municipal institutions of the Metropolis for carrying out this great policy. The Government were always of opinion that the existing institutions should be utilised. That was the first proposition which I think the House after debate affirmed. The general proposition that it ought to be a single authority was held unanimously or almost unanimously; and we on this side of the House thought that this single authority should be the County Council. Then the second proposition I laid down as being that which ought to guide us in determining this matter was, also for a variety of reasons, the cogency of which is not denied in any quarter, that the London boroughs should have their share in working the educational machinery of the metropolitan area. I do not think that any one dissents from that broad proposition. Even those who have, perhaps, less regard and less parental affection than I should naturally be supposed to have towards the Borough Councils of the Metropolis were strongly of opinion that there should be no temptation on the part of the County Council to fall into that over-centralisation into which even the greatest friends of the School Board admit that distinguished body has fallen. Over-centralisation becomes a very great danger when you are dealing with so vast a population and an enormous number of schools as the education authority of London must necessarily deal with. We were, therefore, of opinion that the metropolitan boroughs should

1653
have some share in the general work; but, as I stated on the Second Reading, the exact character of the apportionment of these duties must be one for discussion in Committee, and it is impossible to say beforehand, as a matter of absolute principle, one way or the other, which scheme is to be adopted until the views of the House in general, and those of the London Members in particular, are known.
The plan which we hoped to see adopted was in the nature of a com promise. We felt the argument addressed to us on the First Reading of the Bill, that it was quite impossible to give such a representation to the boroughs on the Education Committee as would practically make the boroughs, if they acted together, almost supreme, or at all events practically supreme, by giving them the overwhelming voice on the Committee. We felt again, for reasons which I need not recapitulate, that that might lead to friction between the County Council and its own Committee; and if there was jealousy between these two bodies it would greatly hamper the successful working of the Act, would produce a great deal of unnecessary heat, and would not tend either to smooth administration or to the true interests of education. We therefore endeavoured to find a compromise which should leave the boroughs some representation on the Education Committee without giving them that very great authority on the Committee which a representative of each borough would necessarily do. All compromises are open to the objection that they do not carry into effect some logical principle, and they do not carry the extremest consequences of some view which is or may be held. That is a defect common to all compromises. But there is an advantage which some compromises possess when the two sides are willing to give up something—to diminish the full and logical effect of their views in order to produce harmony, and to come to some common agreement with those with whom in many respects they are probably at one. Unfortunately the compromise of the Government has turned out as possessing not even this advantage, without
1654
which a compromise is quite worthless. The compromise, unfortunately, pleases nobody, or fully satisfies nobody. And if anyone will study the division lists as I have studied the list in the division which took place on Wednesday, he will see that we had the misfortune of finding against us in the lobby, or deliberately abstaining from voting, hon. Gentlemen who thought that we were giving too much representation to the boroughs on the Central Committee, and hon. Gentlemen who thought that we were giving too little. Those Gentlemen, though holding very different and opposite views, joined together in order to condemn to the best of their ability the course taken by the Government. I do not know whether that would have been necessarily a matter which we could have avoided in any circumstances, but it is especially important when we remember the result if this compromise is to be carried out. It will involve on the first schedule of the Bill an elaborate discussion of the kind of question which in my experience produces great heat and difficulty, above almost any other class of questions with which the House is concerned—namely, the local question, in which the local likings and dislikings come to the front, and in which there is no real strong principle to guide the House, or to enable it to decide between the opposing views. I do not think it would be possible to work through that schedule except the House is convinced, as far as its majority is concerned, that it is worth a struggle to carry out a principle which the great majority desire to see carried out. It is evident that we have no such support behind us. I never refuse to accept the facts of a situation when they are presented to me clearly; and it is quite evident, not only that the great body of the House, unconnected directly with London, look with considerable suspicion and dislike on this plan, but the majority of London Members themselves, for one reason or another, very often for different reasons, do not approve it. In these circumstances it was not possible to carry out the compromise that we had hoped, but hoped in vain, would bring peace to the two parties; and we thought therefore that the best plan was to put the London County Council, as far as regards the constitution

1655
of this Committee, precisely in the position of the other County Councils in the country. That will be the effect, and it will be the only effect, of carrying the Amendment of my hon. friend in charge of the Bill. In the Press there has been, I believe, a great misunderstanding as to what the result of this Amendment will be. The whole result of omitting Clause 2 is that the London County Council will be in precisely the position of other Councils under the Act of last year as far as the constitution of its own Committee. In other words, they will have to produce a scheme which will have a majority of members of the County Council, unless the County Council shall otherwise determine; and which will provide for the appointment of experts, the inclusion of women, and the appointment of some members of the London School Board, if it is thought desirable, on the first Committee. These are the provisions in the present Bill, and they will be transferred, without amendment, diminution, or modification of any kind, to the London County Council. Undoubtedly the result will be a great simplification of the Bill; and although it is perfectly vain to hope that we can carry the whole body of London opinion with us, yet I believe it is on the whole the course which the Committee will be best advised to adopt in the circumstances.
My hon. friend in charge of this Bill has received some very undeserved criticism for not having adequately consulted London opinion on this subject. Any one who levels that criticism at my hon. friend can only do so in total ignorance of the facts. I am certain that all London Members, and all who have any special title to speak on metropolitan education, will agree that my hon. friend has been unwearied in his efforts, both to collect views and opinions, and to adopt suggestions which would be as far as possible in harmony with their views, in a matter which is more or less a question of details. If my hon. friend has not been successful, it is not his fault, nor that of the London Members. It is the fault of that division of opinion which exists over the whole Metropolis. I am sure that the House will acquit my hon. friend of having failed either in desire or in effort to settle this matter without prolonged controversy. I have been quite frank with the House. I have
1656
told the House exactly by what stages we have arrived at the present position; and I hope the House will accept the plan which we now propose, and that even those who would prefer an ad hoc authority will now bring themselves to give the present scheme its best shape, and will not endeavour either wholly to exclude the Borough Councils or hamper the County Council. Perhaps we may make more harmonious progress in regard to this measure of local government than we have made recently in the hours we have spent on this thorny topic. I hope I have answered the appeal of the right hon. Gentleman, and that my explanations of the Government's position may be satisfactory to both sides of the House.
MR. BRYCEsaid that the House was much indebted to the right hon. Gentleman for his statement. On Wednesday last they had a sort of Second Reading debate, and the result was seen in the action which the Government had now taken. After the complete change which had been made by the Government, and after such a transformation in the character of the Bill, it was impossible to proceed with the discussion of the Bill at once. [MINISTERIAL cries of "Oh!" and OPPOSITION cheers.] The Committee required an interval before resuming its discussions.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Why?
MR. BRYCE: The Government had done very wisely in altering their Bill. They had listened to the voice of reason, as it was so largely expressed by their own supporters; and he hoped that they had not been wholly unaffected by voices which had made themselves heard elsewhere than in the House of Commons. For the changes whcih they had made the Government deserved all possible credit. [Cries of "No."] They had completely altered the whole character of the Bill in one vital point.
DR. MACNAMARA: It does not make it much better.
MR. BRYCE: But that was not by any means the only point in controversy. There remained a clause which would make just as much difference to smooth working

1657
of the Bill as the clause which has disappeared. They had heard frequently from the right hon. Gentleman that London required different and special treatment, and that it was unlike other bodies. Was the right hon. Gentleman justified in giving the Committee no opportunity of discussing any alterations in the conditions which should be attached to the London Education Committee, as distinguished from other Education Committees? That question could have been discussed if Clause 2 had remained, but now the opportunity of moving Amendments would be gone. There ought to be such an interval of time as would allow Members to consider the altered circumstances, and their effect on Clause 3, which would hand over management, in a sense very different from that of last year's Bill, to the Borough Councils. But, although the Borough Councils were driven out in one direction, they came back in another. The Committee did not know where they were. They wanted to consider what difference the omission of Clause 2 would make, and how far it would effect the question of management. Whenever a vital and far-reaching change of this kind was proposed by a Government, it was customary to adjourn consideration for a time, to allow of Amendments being put down. There were two bodies of great weight and influence which had a right to address representations to the House on the subject. The London County Council and the London School Board ought to have an opportunity of considering the Bill in its new aspect, and of addressing communications to the House upon it; and with a view of securing an interval which would ultimately conduce to the smooth conduct of the proceedings, he begged to move that progress be reported.
Motion made and Question proposed. "That the Chairman do report progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Bryce.)
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The right hon. Gentleman is amazingly unreasonable. He talks of some vital and fundamental alteration of the Bill in deference to debate in this House, and I think he said in deference to some body outside. I do not quite know what he means. I am not aware that either of the two bodies he has mentioned have dealt with this
1658
question since Wednesday last. Whom he takes his inspiration from he is avowedly reluctant to say himself. Whatever body it was, it must of course have sat on Thursday or Friday, because the Amendment was put down for Friday. I do not know whether subsequent to Friday the right hon. Gentleman has received inspiration from any other quarter; if so, that other quarter must have received its own inspiration from the Government. In truth I think the right hon. Gentleman is, if I may venture to say so, not acting a very reasonable part. He says he wants to make a lot of other changes in the Committee. I think the Amendment put down in the name of my hon. friend was also put down in the name of several hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House, and when a concession is made to the Opposition, I do not know that it is usual for them at once to get up and say, "This is an outrage on the House of Commons," and that the adjournment must at once be moved so that the House may have time to go into retreat to consider the novelty of the situation thus presented. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is far too ardent a worker not to have considered the effect of an Amendment so long on the Paper. The right hon. Gentleman wants a long time now to consider Clause 3 because the modifications in Clause 2 find an echo in Clause 3 and because it is perfectly impossible to consider now what Clause 3 is to be. I do not believe it will be possible for the hon. Gentleman to frame an Amendment to Clause 3 which would have been in order if Clause 2 had remained and which would be out of order now that Clause 2 has been removed. The truth is that Clause 3 does not depend on Clause 2. It belongs to a wholly different branch of the subject. It has no intimate or logical relation with Clause 2, and to say that this House is so slow of comprehension and dull of apprehension as to be incapable of continuing the discussion on this Bill because it is stunned, astonished, and befogged by the change the Government announced forty-eight hours ago, is really to trespass on our common sense, and I am sure the right hon. Gentleman is absolutely incapable of suggesting any course for the sole purpose of delaying this Bill. But had the right hon. Gentleman been of less

1659
weight and character in this House I should really almost have been betrayed into the supposition that there was some obstructive intention behind his action. I am happy to think that he has gradually built up a character which makes such a suspicion quite absurd. But I must remind the right hon. Gentleman that even the best of characters may be shattered by evil communication, and that it would conduce to his dignity and influence, as well as the dignity of the House at large, if we were now to proceed to discuss the Bill, with every detail and bearing of which I am certain all the Members of the House are familiar.
DR. MACNAMARAsaid he had not much character to lose, and he confessed he was not afraid of what the Prime Minister had said. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken of the Motion as amazing and unreasonable. Let him say with all respect that he considered the conduct of this Bill by the Government as amazingly grotesque. He considered that the Government had played with the House of Commons. He had sat through these debates, and the thought that had constantly occurred to him was that this sort of thing would have been better if it had been acted at the Savoy Theatre than in the House of Commons. He would recommend the conduct of this Bill to Mr. Gilbert as affording the materials for a screaming farce. What was their position with regard to the conduct of the Bill? The Second Reading was taken four Parliamentary days after the First Reading, and the Committee stage was rushed before either the School Board or the London County Council had an opportunity of examining its details, in distinct defiance of the Prime Minister's own pledge.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I cannot allow that statement to be made. It is not so.
DR. MACNAMARA: Will hon. Members allow me to prove the statement?
THE CHAIRMAN: This has nothing to do with the Motion before the Committee. I must remind the hon. Member that a Motion having been made to
1660
report progress, the debate must be strictly confined to that matter.
DR. MACNAMARAsaid he was in a difficulty now. He had stated a fact which, by the ruling of the Chairman, he could not prove.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Well, never mind about it.
DR. MACNAMARAsaid he would confine himself strictly to the question before the Committee, namely, Clause 2. The Government got Clause 1 through Committee on the understanding that the Act of last year was to apply to London. But there was one vital exception to that. The constitution of the Education Committee for London was to be left over for consideration until Clause 2 was reached. Therefore, now that Clause 2 was to be struck out, the Committee were thrown back on Clause 1, which was to give them an authority for London. But the Government had got Clause 1 under false pretences, because if it had not been for the existence of Clause 2, providing for the constitution of an Education Committee, hon. Members would have had something to say about the constitution of the Committee as set up under last year's Act. Now, Clause 2 was to be withdrawn, and Clause 1 was widened. That, he considered, was a dishonest mode of procedure. [Laughter.] He did not use the word in a bad sense, he hoped. [Laughter.] Very well, he would use it in any way they liked. He felt very strongly on this matter. London was not being properly treated in this matter. He asked the Committee to consider the kaleidoscopic changes it had undergone. The original form of the clause was as follows—
"The Education Committee of the local education authority shall be constituted in manner provided by the First Schedule to this Act."
The First Schedule originally provided that there should be thirty-six persons who were members of the local education authority; thirty-one who were members of the Councils of the Metropolitan boroughs; and twenty-five appointed by the local education authority. That was how the schedule stood when the Committee passed Clause 1. Last Tuesday

1661
night, after nine o'clock, he was astonished beyond description by hearing the hon. Baronet say, on behalf of the Government, that Clause 2 of the Bill and the First Schedule were both to be dropped. The second edition of the clause would, the Parliamentary Secretary announced, make the Committee consist of seventy-nine members. The Government proposed to ask the London County Council to contribute forty-two members; there were to be twelve representatives of the boroughs and twenty-five outsiders The proposed constitution of the Committee stood in that condition until six o'clock last Wednesday, and when they resumed the discussion of Clause 2, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University got up and moved the third edition of the clause. In view of these facts, which must be in the memory of the Committee, he maintained that he was justified in saying that the House was being played with in this matter. They were entitled, on Clause 1, to discuss the constitution of the Committee, but that clause was passed under false pretences. They understood that they could discuss the constitution of the Committee on Clause 2, and that clause, having undergone a series of changes, now disappeared altogether. He would ask the Government why they did not bring their courage up to the sticking point and drop the thing altogether. He would suggest respect fully that they should try again, and take longer time over it, and then they would have something definite to discuss. They would then be thrown back on Section 17 of last year's Act, and the constitution of the Education Committee for London would be carried out by that Act. He ventured to say that this was the feeling of the House of Commons. The Prime Minister had just said that what was now proposed would give the County Council complete control over the appointment of the Committee. It would do a lot of other things which he ventured to say the Committee had not realised. He protested against the dropping of the clause now, because they could not constitute a Committee in London in the same way as in the counties. Clause 2 did give them a chance of getting a special Education Committee for London. They ought to have had an opportunity
1662
of discussing that when they determined to apply last year's Act to London. It was grossly unfair to the people of London that the House had been driven into the position of passing Clause 1 under false pretences. It meant a serious breach of faith. He, for one, would protest as long as he could against this after-thought of adapting Section 17 of last year's Act to London. He thought that the conduct of the Bill had been grotesque and unworthy of the Government or the House. If it were not a fact that London sent to this House a large majority of Tories, this would not have been proposed, but in the circumstances the Government did what they liked.
MR. BOUSFIELDrose to a point of order, and asked whether, if the Committee agreed to strike out Clause 2, it would be in order to bring up a new clause. He submitted that any Member could bring up a new clause dealing in a different manner with the constitution of the Committee.
THE CHAIRMAN: I think if the Committee strikes out Clause 2, it intends thereby to say that the Act of last year is to be applicable. That is the view I held last Wednesday, as the hon. Member will recollect if he was here.
MR. BOUSFIELDsaid that those who desired an alternative to Clause 2 would have to vote in the same lobby with those who desired to introduce the previsions of last year's Act. He submitted that the Committee would be stultified unless they could make their views heard in reference to some alternative.
THE CHAIRMANsaid he was afraid that the working out of Parliamentary procedure often resulted in hon. Members of totally different views voting for the same Motion.
SIR W. HART DYKEsaid that of course it was not unnatural that there should be irritation caused by these changes made on the part of the Government. He had been long enough in Parliament to know that a similar thing had happened before and would happen again. So far

1663
as he was concerned he was thankful to feel that they had at length moved some of these miserable barbed wire entanglements which had raised one or two heated debates, and that they found themselves in smooth water at last. He was perfectly content with the situation as it now stood. The hon. Member opposite had made a very excited speech; in fact this Bill seemed almost too much for his brain. But, after all, he would remind the hon. Member that when he had been longer in Parliament he would find that great and even serious changes were very often made in Bills in Committee. It was as easy as possible for any partisan, in attacking the Government, to find any amount of cases of breach of faith and all those other terrible accusations that he had been bringing against the Government. After all they were dealing with a very tangled and difficult question, and they should take credit to themselves, on whichever side of the House they sat, that their object was to secure what would be best for the State and the purpose in view; and they ought to dismiss those very serious charges in which the hon. Member had indulged—especially the charge of breach of faith against the Prime Minister. He believed that the hon. Gentleman and himself were both anxious to deal with educational matters on very nearly the same lines, but there was one point on which he was at issue with the hon. Member. The hon. Gentleman indicated that he thought it was very hard indeed that under the new state of affairs the Committee would not have an opportunity of discussing the constitution of the Education Committee. Now, he felt most strongly that the more the formation of that Committee was left to the central authority, that the less it was left to the discussion of this Committee, the better the Committee would be and the more efficient and beneficial work it would do for education. He had all along struggled for the London County Council being made the one authority for education in the Metropolis. He had lately been attending many meetings of the Education Committee in his own county of Kent, and had been very keenly anxious to see how the Act was likely to work
1664
out. In Kent they divided the work into sub-divisions, and he had been astonished at the extreme facility with which the work had been performed. They had formed small sub-committees of 6, 7, and 8.
THE CHAIRMANsaid he must remind the right hon. Gentleman that the merits of the Question were not now under discussion. The only Question before the Committee was whether they should report progress or not.
SIR W. HART DYKEsaid he was sorry he had been led away by the remarks of the hon. Member for Camberwell in regard to the danger of not allowing the Committee to discuss the formation of the Education Committee. Under the circumstances, he did not think it would be advantageous to report progress, and for this reason, that he did not think that there was a single Member who was not clearly and positively aware of what the new position was. Clause 2 had been criticised and condemned again and again on both sides of the House. But what about his right hon. friend who moved to report progress? Did he not understand the new state of things? And, if not, why did he put down an Amendment on the Order Paper to leave out Clause 2 and insert Section 17 of the principal Act? That was the very proposal of the Government. Therefore, his right hon. friend was placed in this dilemma—either that in making his Motion to report progress he was obstructive in his tactics, or that he had put on the Order Paper an Amendment the effect of which he had not studied.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that the object of the Motion was to know distinctly where the Government was at the present moment. In his first explanation the right hon. the Prime Minister said that the compromise was nowhere; but he thought the compromise was where the Government was. They did not know exactly where they were. The Bill had been under discussion for three days, and they had had three different proposals. They started with the Borough Councils each being represented by one member; these were

1665
cut down to twelve by the grouping process, which nobody understood—not even His Majesty's Government—and there was nobody even to defend it. Now the final representation of the Government's views on the subject—as he understood the Prime Minister—was practically to put the London County Council in the same position as the County Councils in the country.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: As regards the Committee.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Then it was not proposed that the London County Council should have the same powers even now as the County Councils in the country?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: As regards Clause 2.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that the Prime Minister had given a most important explanation, but if that was all that he intended his explanation was incomplete. The London County Council was not in the position which the County Councils in the country were in, for although the nomination of the Committee was in the hands of the London County Council, that Committee was deprived of all its powers by Clause 3. He did not despair, after what had happened, of the Government altering their mind again, for they did not seem to have the power of sticking to anything except office. He was not complaining. It was military tactics according to the latest development. It was Boer tactics to stick to your kopje; and one kopje was just as another. The Prime Minister said that one principle was just as good as another. One kopje was just as another so long as they had got cover and forage. He was, therefore, very glad of that explanation from the Prime Minister. With these principles there was no real necessity why they should not get something in the shape of a Bill after all. The Prime Minister said there was no principle involved—he would quote the hon. Gentleman's exact words—
"It was not a matter of principle one way or the other."
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Quite right, on Clause 2.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: What is the principle? It seemed to him that the principle was just as elusive as De Wet, because on Clause 1, they thought that was the principle of the Bill; but the Prime Minister said, "No, we go further and chase the principle into Clause 2."
Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not like to interrupt the hon. Gentleman especially as he is affording the Committee so much entertainment, but let him have his entertainment upon somebody else than upon me. When the hon. Gentleman wants to invent a speech and put it into somebody's mouth, do not let him choose me, that is all. I never said anything like that.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he simply quoted the exact words of the Prime Minister. It was perfectly clear that, after a good deal of scouting, the principle of Clause 2 was chased into the illimitable veldt of the schedule. They all thought they had surrounded it with the barbed wire entanglements spoken of by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and had captured it. He supposed they would get it at some time or another; but at the present moment, after the Prime Minister's speech, there was really no particular principle in the Bill at all. He rather agreed with the Prime Minister. There was a very extraordinary statement as to why the right hon. Gentleman was abandoning his position on this particular kopje. The right hon. Gentleman said he had no support; his reserves had retired, and therefore he felt that he had been outflanked by the hon. Member for Limehouse and others, and that he did not consider he had sufficient support to face the attack. What was desirable to be known was, what was the Prime Minister's idea of support? No support! The right hon. Gentleman had the support of the majority of the London Members. Did the right hon. Gentleman consider that the majority of the London Members represented the views of London? Evidently he did not, because the majority of the London Members supported him on this particular clause. The Prime Minister had come to the conclusion that they did not represent London and that was exactly the conclusion to which his friends had come.

1667
He asked the right hon. Gentleman to carry the position a little further. He was still on Clause 2.
THE CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Gentleman desires to discuss the substance of the clause, the Motion to report progress had better be withdrawn, otherwise the debate would be very limited. It is obviously difficult for the hon. Member to confine himself to the Motion before the Committee.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he did not think the Committee was in a position to discuss anything, and therefore he was supporting the Motion to report progress. The Government had escaped from the battlefield and they did not know where their Army was. He was discussing the question of progress from the point of view of the Government supporters. The Government had come to the conclusion that, for one reason or another, learned Gentlemen sitting behind them did not represent London, so they abandoned this clause. If they did not represent London whom did they represent at all on this Bill?
THE CHAIRMAN: Not by the widest stretch of the imagination can the hon. Member's observations be held relevant to the Motion before the Committee. I ask the hon. Gentleman to confine himself strictly to the question of adjournment.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he would submit that the Government ought to accept the Motion in order that they might reconsider the whole position. It was perfectly clear that the Government were not sure of their own position. They ought not only to reconsider Clause 2, but the whole position. The Bill had been changed three times in Committee on one clause. Wednesday last was devoted to one Amendment to the clause, and they were to be asked to devote that day to the abandonment of the entire clause. It was perfectly clear that the Bill had not the support of London. He did not believe that even the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich would support it. Therefore, he submitted that there was a good case
1668
for adjourning the discussion in order to afford the Government an opportunity of reconsidering their position.
MR. COHENsaid he thought the hon. Member for North Camberwell would regret some of the epithets he had used in his speech, which was totally incomprehensible. The present proposal of the Government would go far towards meeting the objections which had been urged from the other side of the House, by no one more repeatedly than by the hon. Member himself. The hon. Member said that last week's proceedings partook of the nature of comic opera; but the hon. Member had a very considerable part in those comic proceedings. He hoped the Committee would proceed to the discussion of the Bill without unreasonable delay; and try and amend it in any manner which they might deem conducive to the object in view.
MR. CHANNINGsaid the ruling which had been given from the Chair would deprive the Committee of any opportunity of carrying out modifications of Section 17 of the Act of last year. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dartford, in his interesting contribution to the debate, dwelt on the fact that Clause 17 was amply discussed last session; but it was discussed in connection with education in the country, not in London. Clause 1 of the present Bill was passed on the definite understanding that they should have an opportunity of discussing, at a later stage of the Bill, modifications of Section 17 of the Act of last year. He would put it to the First Lord of the Treasury, whose fairness of mind on such matters was never at fault, whether the Committee was now in the position which the right hon. Gentleman contemplated when he asked the Committee to accept Clause 1. By the withdrawal of Clause 2 the Committee would be deprived of any opportunity of discussing the particular application of Section 17 of last year's Act to the circumstances of London, which the right hon. Gentleman distinctly wished the House to have a chance of dealing with. No consideration pointed more clearly to the claim of the Committee to have the question adjourned than the necessity for modifying Section

1669
17. The Chairman had ruled most distinctly, and of course the Committee would accept that ruling, that the Committee would be precluded by the elimination of Clause 2 from discussing any modifications of Section 17 in its application to London. That was a peculiar position which was almost unconstitutional in the conduct of Bills through Parliament. He would challenge the Prime Minister to this issue—if Clause 2 were eliminated the Committee would be deprived of an opportunity which the right hon. Gentleman distinctly said it should have. The right hon. Gentleman would, therefore, be obtaining an entirely new set of principles under false pretences; and in such a situation it was the duty of the right hon. Gentleman to frankly withdraw the Bill, and present the Committee with a clear and logical set of proposals to be discussed ab initio. He thought that a Motion for the adjournment of the debate was never more justly made than on the present occasion.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid said that hon. Gentlemen opposite appeared to him to be not only unreasonable, but ill-advised. What would happen if the Motion were carried? Supply would be taken, and the entire Front Opposition Bench would leave the House, and Supply would be discussed by two or three hon. Members. As one of those who voted in the minority in the division on Clause 2 the other night, he welcomed the openness to conviction which the Government had now shown. He was extremely pleased that the Government had now followed the views of the minority; although that might be a little hard on the majority who supported them. He had heard Members of that majority, with, he thought, reasonable irritation, saying they liked a Minister who knew his own mind. He would ask the Secretary to the Board of Education where he had left those sheep in the wilderness. They supported the clause; were they now to be expected to support its abandonment. He confessed he did not know what had occurred; but it was quite clear that they were applying the Act of last year to London with modifications; and he took it that it was perfectly open to introduce such modifications either by new clauses or by Amendments to Amendments.
1670
He would remind the Committee that they could not consider the question of postponing Clause 2 until they had disposed of the Amendments. A fragment of Clause 2 was before the Committee; and the entire clause should be before the Committee before it could be either postponed or abandoned. He thought the Committee were prepared to proceed with the discussion of the Bill. Surely the hon. Member for North Camberwell, who was full of the details of the measure, would not feel himself incompetent to deal with what would follow if Clause 2 were abandoned.
MR. LOUGHsaid that the Chairman had stated that if the present Motion were disposed of, it would be possible to substitute a broader Motion, on which the merits of the question might be discussed. He would strongly press that course on the Government. The Committee were really in the greatest difficulty in proceeding at the present moment. Assuming that Clause 2 was disposed of, they would commence Clause 3; but Clause 3 was constructed with a view to Clause 2, and was the complement of it. Clause 3 absolutely depended on Clause 2; and the Committee would be in a great difficulty in considering Clause 3 without Clause 2. He would, therefore, ask the Prime Minister, if this Motion were withdrawn, would he submit a broader Motion in order to enable them to discuss the position that would be established by the withdrawal of Clause 2. The position into which the Government had brought the Committee rendered their previous debates ridiculous; and he thought the Government ought to do something to put the debate in order.
SIR JOHN GORSTsaid he would appeal to the Committee not to waste any more time. It was quite clear that the Motion was premature, because Clause 2 was still before the Committee. There were a number of Amendments to Clause 2, which, he supposed, could be moved. After they had been disposed of, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education would move that Clause 2 be omitted, and the whole conduct of the Government could then be discussed. After that the Committee could proceed with Clause 3, which did not in any way

1671
depend on Clause 2. A great many hon. Members had urged the Government to drop Clause 2; and that course had now been adopted.
MR. LABOUCHEREsaid he looked at the facts before the House. A few days ago they were discussing Clause 2, and the Government were exceedingly anxious that Clause 2 should be passed. Now they asked that Clause 2 should be withdrawn. He, however, understood that that could not be done. The Government would move that Clause 2 should be withdrawn and hon. Gentlemen who were opposed to the Clause would oppose that, and the hon. Member for Camberwell would come
down and make one of the many valuable speeches he had made in this debate against it. Was that the way in which an afternoon ought to be spent? When the Government made a declaration that they ought to withdraw Clause 2, the hon. Member for Camberwell should have sufficient time to consider what his attitude should be. There was other business on the Paper to which the House might go, and therefore he applied to the Government to accede to the Motion of the right hon. Member to report progress.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 111; Noes, 234. (Division List No. 98.)

AYES.

Ashton, Thomas Gair

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

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbt. Hy.

Holland, Sir William Henry

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

Rose, Charles Day

Black, Alexander William

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

Runciman, Walter

Brown, Geo. M. (Edinburgh)

Jacoby, James Alfred

Russell, T. W.

Bryce, Right Hon. James

Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

Schwann, Charles E.

Burt, Thomas

Kearley, Hudson E.

Shaw, Charles E. (Stafford)

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Labouchere, Henry

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Caldwell, James

Lambert, George

Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

Cameron, Robert

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

Stevenson, Francis S.

Causton, Richard Knight

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Strachey, Sir Edward

Channing, Francis Allston

Leigh, Sir Joseph

Tennant, Harold John

Cremer, William Randal

Leng, Sir John

Thomas, A. (Carmarthen, E.)

Crombie, John William

Lloyd-George, David

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

Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardign

Lough, Thomas

Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

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

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

M'Kenna, Reginald

Toulmin, George

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

Mansfield, Horace Rendall

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Edwards, Frank

Mappin, Sir Fredk. Thorpe

Wallace, Robert

Elibank, Master of

Mellor, Rt. Hn. John William

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Ellis, John Edward

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

Warner, Thos. Courtenay T.

Emmott, Alfred

Morley, Rt. Hn. John (Montrose

Wason, E. (Clackmannan)

Evans, Sir F. H. (Maidstone)

Norman, Henry

Wason, J. Cathcart (Orkney)

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Weir, James Galloway

Fenwick, Charles

Nussey, Thomas Willans

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith

Palmer, Sir C. M. (Durham)

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

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

Palmer, G. Wm. (Reading)

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Partington, Oswald

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Fuller, J. M. F.

Paulton, James Mellor

Williams, O. (Merioneth)

Grant, Corrie

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

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

Grey, Rt. Hn. Sir E. (Berwick

Perks, Robert William

Yoxall, James Henry

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Priestley, Arthur

Harwood, George

Rea, Russell

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

Reckitt, Harold James

Mr. Herbert Gladstone

Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries)

and Mr. William M'Arthur.

Helme, Norval Watson

Rickett, J. Compton

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H.

Rigg, Richard

NOES.

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

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Baird, John George Alexander

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

Baldwin, Alfred

Allhusen, Aug. Henry Eden

Austin, Sir John

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

Allsopp, Hon. George

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benj.

Bignold, Arthur

Graham, Henry Robert

Pease, H. Pike (Darlington)

Bigwood, James

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Peel, Hn. Wm. R. Wellesley

Bill, Charles

Greene, Sir E. W. (Bury St. Ed.

Pemberton, John S. G.

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Greene, Hy. D. (Shrewsbury)

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Bond, Edward

Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs

Plummer, Walter R.

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Grenfell, William Henry

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Bousfield, William Robert

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Pretyman, Ernest George

Bowles, Col. H. F. (Middx.)

Gunter, Sir Robert

Pryce Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Bowles, T. Gibson (Lynn Regis

Hain, Edward

Purvis, Robert

Brassey, Albert

Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

Pym, C. Guy

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashfd

Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

Brown, Sir Alx. H. (Shropsh.)

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Rankin, Sir James

Bull, William James

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

Rattigan, Sir William Henry

Burke, E. Haviland

Healy, Timothy Michael

Redmond, William (Clare)

Butcher, John George

Heaton, John Henniker

Remnant, James Farquharson

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Helder, Augustus

Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Hoare, Sir Samuel

Renwick, George

Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

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

Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge)

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

Ridley, S. F. (Bethnal Green)

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Howard, J. (Midd., Tott'ham

Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas Thomson

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Hozier, Hon. Jas. Henry Cecil

Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm

Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)

Robertson, H. (Hackney)

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

Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

Round, Rt. Hon. James

Chapman, Edward

Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Charrington, Spencer

Johnstone, Heywood

Rutherford, John (Lancashire

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H.

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

Clive, Captain Percy A.

Kenyon, Hon. G. T. (Denbigh

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

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

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop)

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Coddington, Sir William

Kerr, John

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

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Keswick, William

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Kimber, Henry

Seely, Chas. Hilton (Lincoln)

Colston, Chas. Edw H. Athole

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasg.)

Knowles, Lees

Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

Cox, Irwin Edwd. Bainbridge

Laurie, Lieut.-General

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Cranborne, Viscount

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.)

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Lawrence, Sir Jos. (Monm'th)

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks)

Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool

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

Cullinan, J.

Lawson, John Grant (Yorks. N. R.

Spear, John Ward

Cust, Henry John C.

Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset

Dalkeith, Earl of

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir Jn. M.

Denny, Colonel

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Stock, James Henry

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

Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Dickson, Charles Scott

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

Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

Dickson-Poynder Sir John P.

Lowther, C. (Cumb. Eskdale)

Sullivan, Donal

Dimsdale, Rt. Hon. Sir Jos. C.

Lowther, Rt. Hon. Jas. (Kent)

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

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

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Macdona, John Cumming

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

Thornton, Percy M.

Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart

Maconochie, A. W.

Tomlinson, Sir Win. Edw. M.

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W.

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Faber, George Denison (York)

M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

Fardell, Sir T. George

Malcolm, Ian

Valentia, Viscount

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Martin, Richard Biddulph

Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

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

Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.

Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

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

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Middlemore, Jn. Throgmorton

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

Fisher, William Hayes

Mitchell, William (Burnley)

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

Fitzroy, Hon. Edw. Algernon

More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Flower, Ernest

Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

Williams, Rt. Hn. J. Powel (Birm.

Flynn, James Christopher

Mount, William Arthur

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Forster, Henry William

Mowbray, Sir Robt. Gray C.

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Fyler, John Arthur

Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham (Bute

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

Gardner, Ernest

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Wolff, Gustay William

Garfit, William

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Worsley-Taylor, Hry. Wilson

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

Myers, William Henry

Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart

Gibbs, Hn. Vicary (St. Albans

Newdegate, Francis A. N.

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

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

Nicol, Donald Ninian

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

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, S.)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

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

O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

Sir Alexander Acland-Hood

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Eldon

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

and Mr. Anstruther.

Goschen, Hon. Geo. Joachim

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

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

Question again proposed, "That those words, as amended, he there inserted."
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Sir WILLIAM ANSON (): I wish, after what has occurred, to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid there was one point which he hoped his hon. friend would insist on discussing, viz., the representation of women on the new authority. By the withdrawal of Clause 2 the London County Council would be put in the same position as other County Councils, whereas there were unquestionably certain respects in which differences should be made. Unless the Committee discussed this question before the withdrawal of the clause there would be no opportunity of raising it; he therefore hoped the matter would be now debated, in order that the views of the Government might be ascertained.
MR. LOUGHmoved to insert after "Act" in the proposed Amendment the following "with such number not exceeding one-third of the whole Committee of whom not less than six shall be women and who." By the proposals of the Government the London County Council were to be left to constitute its Committee as all other County Councils had done. But most County Councils had appointed only one woman on their Committees, or, at most, two, so that there was no surety that women would be adequately represented on the new authority unless the Bill specially provided for it. On the present School Board there were eight or nine women members, and ever since 1870 there had been a distinguished band of women who had rendered most excellent service to the cause of education in London. Section 17 of the Act of 1902 would not ensure continuity in that respect, as one woman would satisfy the requirements of the clause. The Committee had been rushed into a most unsatisfactory position in this matter. By a consequential Amendment he proposed to omit the words "and twenty-five," leaving it to the County Council to fix the number
1676
of outsiders to be appointed, subject only to the condition that the number should not exceed one-third of the Committee.
Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, as amended—
"After the first word 'Act,' to insert the words 'with such number not exceeding one-third of the whole Committee of whom not less than six shall be women and who.'"—(Mr. Lough.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I hope the hon. Member and others will not persist in discussing this question. I do not think it is sound procedure or one which it is to the dignity of the Committee to debate. I am not going into the details of the question, but I would remind the Committee that the London County Council will be in the same position as all other County Councils as regards fixing the number of women that should be appointed, and I have no reason to believe that they will fail in their duty to the cause of education or deprive themselves of the services of an adequate number of the accomplished ladies, of whom the hon. Member has spoken in terms not the least too strong. But we are only wasting time by discussing a clause which is not to be proceeded with. I would ask the hon. Member to withdraw his Amendment, and the Committee either to allow my hon. friend to withdraw his, or to come to a decision on the Amendment as a whole. Do not let us go on discussing Amendments to Amendments in endless debate which cannot possibly bear any fruit to the benefit of the Bill. I hope the hon. Member will see the reasonableness of my request and withdraw.
DR. MACNAMARAthought that in the interests of London some form of Clause 2 would be preferable to Section 17 of last year's Act, and if the Government would look into the matter they would come to the same conclusion.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No.
DR. MACNAMARAsaid that that, at any rate, was his opinion, because Section 17 of the Act of 1902 would have to be accepted with all its faults;

1677
they could not amend a single comma. He desired to discuss Clause 2, not from any wish to obstruct, but simply with a view to making it a good clause. The Prime Minister was probably correct in thinking that the London County Council would appoint a sufficient number of women. The present Council certainly would, but that body would not last for ever, and this was not a matter which should be left to the chances of an election. The second part of the Amendment—the omission of the "twenty-five"—was even more important, because the County Council would probably do the right thing with regard to women. The Government insisted, so far as the clause had gone, that on the Education Committee there should be twelve borough councillors, and that the County Council should have a majority. If there were to be twenty-five outsiders and five members of the School Board, it would mean that the County Council would have to appoint at least forty-three of their own members. He held that the Council could not spare so many for the work; therefore, it was necessary that they should be given a discretion as to the number of outsiders to be appointed.
MR. BOUSFIELDpointed out that the first clause was subject to modifications made in the schedule. The second schedule set out modifications of the principal Act. He suggested that the matters left to be dealt with in reference to Clause 1 would be in order on the second schedule where modifications might be introduced. This course would very much shorten the discussions on Clause 2. There was one modification which he wished to suggest, viz., that the County Council should appoint the whole of the Committee, but should appoint twenty-nine of them from the boroughs. That was a modification which he should like the Committee to discuss. He wished to know whether that course would be in order when they reached the schedule which dealt with modifications of the principal Act.
THE CHAIRMAN: There is some difficulty in construing what the word "modification" means. If the modification is an entire reversal of the Act of
1678
1902 it cannot come under "modification." The modifications of Schedule 2 depend upon Clause 4. I am not prepared now to decide whether a matter which I have not yet seen is a modification; if it is a complete reversal of the spirit of the Act of 1902 it cannot be a modification. I should, however, imagine that there are some slight changes which might be made.
MR. BOUSFIELDasked if the present Amendment could be discussed as a modification to the principal Act.
THE CHAIRMAN: The question resolves itself into whether six is a modification of one. Under the Act they are bound to put one on, but is it a modification to say that they shall put six? That is a matter I shall have to take a little more time to consider.
MR. BRYCEcalled attention to the provision with regard to the supernumerary members, to which they attached great importance, because they thought such members would very much aid the new Committee. He wished to know if it would be in order to make a proposal to put on supernumerary members in addition to the ordinary members of the Committee.
MR. TREVELYANsaid this was an extremely serious question, and he could not help thinking that if the Government would accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Islington it would be the easiest way out of the dilemma. This was the only place where they could raise this question, and it would permit the Government to bring forward modifications which would provide for more women representatives.
SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid ample provision was made by the Act of 1902, and there was no reason to suppose that the London County Council would be less attentive to the importance of placing women on the Committee than other County Councils. Already there were Councils which had elected five, four, three, and two women, the cases in which one woman only had been appointed were very

1679
few in counties. The needs of London would be very much greater than in the Councils which had already come before the Board of Education. He could not believe that the London County Council would fail to place an adequate number of women upon the Committee.
MR. YOXALLsaid that in order to prevent a narrow interpretation being placed upon the term "women" the House should modify the term by adopting a number like six. He thought it would be a proper addition to the schedule.
MR. MIDDLEMOREsaid he was glad to find himself in agreement with the Government upon this point. He had been opposing the Government in regard to certain proposals because he had been fighting for the absolute freedom of the County Council. Now the hon. Member for Islington, as soon as they had secured what they had all been longing for, wished to impose fresh conditions. He regretted this Amendment, for they were now fighting for a very fair principle which everybody could understand, viz., the freedom of the local education authority, and for that principle he was prepared to vote.
MR. HUMPHREYS-OWENthought that when the County Council came to form their Committee their choice would fall upon the more conspicuous men on their Council, whose names would be more favourably received, and in that way the claims of the women would be gradually overpowered. He thought it would be well to declare that the Council must appoint six women, and then they might exercise their full choice among the men.
MR. ERNEST GRAYhoped the hon. Member for Islington would not press this question to a division, because by so doing he would only do injury to his own cause. He was quite as keen as the hon. Member opposite about seeing women represented on the Education Committee, and he appealed to the Government to leave this question in a
1680
satisfactory condition. The questions he wished to see dealt with were the supernumerary members, the women, and the list of organisations from whom persons might be selected. When upon the Bill of last year he voted in favour of women finding a place, he never anticipated that the selection of one woman would satisfy that Act. When he found that a scheme with one woman representative was accepted by the Board of Education he could not understand it. He was not prepared to have the question of the representation of women in that condition for London, and he was not willing either to leave it to chance or to the interpretation of the Board of Education. He hoped the Prime Minister would be able to suggest some means by which this question could be fairly dealt with. He appealed to the Prime Minister to lend a hand in that work. It was true that under the parent Act they would have the power of co-opting a certain number of the members of the School Board, but that was not satisfactory, for many of the County Councils had only co-opted the chairman of the Board. That would not be sufficient in London. An obligation should be imposed on the County Council to include in the membership a large proportion. It would be futile to spend the afternoon debating a clause which was subsequently to be withdrawn. He asked whether the Government could by a modification of the schedule or by a new clause moved in Committee, or on he Report stage, give the House an opportunity of dealing with this matter.
MR. BRYCEsaid the question was one of great importance, and he appealed to the Government to give some indication that they would take an opportunity of allowing the House to express its opinion on the inclusion of women and the fixing of the minimum.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am certainly not in a position to give the hon. Gentlemen the pledge they desire, for I do not know what opportunities there may or may not be legitimately at later stages of the discussion. I venture to tell the Committee very respectfully that they are going on the wrong track. The

1681
original idea of the Government, no doubt, was that the Committee should be more or less a statutory Committee, and that it should in that respect differ from other Education Committees throughout the country. If it was a statutory Committee I confess that it might be right to fix the number of women, and I think it would also be right to fix the number of representatives of Borough Councils on the Committee. I believe the London County Council would probably select some gentlemen qualified to represent the opinions of the Borough Councils, but we have decided that we shall not force them. The plan that we are now going on is that the County Council is competent to appoint its own Committee, with the aid and advice of the Education Department, and I feel that if the House is again going to start an elaborate description of what it is to be, it will get into the difficulty which we were in on Tuesday and Wednesday last. Hon. Gentlemen perhaps thought that the discussion then resulted from the fact that the Government's plan was bad. I do not wish to enter into controversy now on the matter, but I may be allowed to say that was not the reason. The reason is that if you are going in this House to determine the numbers of a Committee of this kind, opinion is not organised; there are an enormous number of gentlemen each with his own scheme, and the House is apt to get adrift in one scheme after another. We have found after prolonged experience the futility of the attempt to lay down in this Bill precisely what the constitution of the Committee of the London County Council is to be. The House had better take the other course which, I am convinced, in practice would not have the effect of depriving education in London either of the services of women, the representatives of the Borough Councils, or any other interest that ought to be represented. That is a clear-cut and perfectly logical position, and I think it would be a mistake if we now travelled again into the wilderness of difficult detail. I would, therefore, beg the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his Amendment, and let us proceed to the discussion of the remainder of the Bill.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONagreed with the general principle laid down by the
1682
Leader of the House, but he thought, in this case, there was a special reason for dealing with the question of the inclusion of women now. He desired to point out that, on the London School Board, there had always been a considerable number of women who had done most admirable work. There were 100,000 girls and infants in the London Board schools, and it seemed to him that it was absolutely essential that there should be women on the central body. This was a matter of much greater importance than borough representation, and he thought they ought to fix the minimum number of women to be placed on the central authority. He trusted his hon. friend would take a division on this, in order to give the Committee an opportunity of expressing an opinion regarding it.
MR. LOUGHasked whether the question of the inclusion of women could be raised by Amendment to the schedule.
THE CHAIRMANsaid that the question could be raised on the schedule if the present Amendment were not pressed.
Amendment to the proposed Amendment, as amended, by leave, withdrawn.
DR. MACNAMARAasked whether the Government would, on the schedule, accept an Amendment, altering the provisions of Section 17 of the principal Act, so as to make the meetings of the Education Committee public meetings.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I want to be quite honest with the House in this matter. It is not for me to decide what modifications to the schedule may be in order. But, frankly, I wish to discourage, as much as I can, any modifications of the parent Act in dealing with the application of that Act to London. That being my general view, we will get into an illimitable deep if we attempt to discuss the whole Act on the schedule, and we will spend an intolerable amount of time.
DR. MACNAMARAsaid he understood the Prime Minister would be prepared to receive suggestions on this question. He hoped the Committee

1683
would have an opportunity, when discussing one of the schedules, of making some recommendations as to the conduct of the meetings of the Committee. He asked whether it would be in order to move an Amendment on Schedule 2.
THE CHAIRMAN: Under the original Act, I take it, the Education Committee would have the power to decide for themselves whether their proceedings should be in public or in secret. When the hon. Member proceeds, by his Amendment, to deprive them of that power, that is a modification clearly; and if it be a modification, I suppose it can be brought up in the consideration of the Schedule.
Proposed Amendment, as amended, by leave, withdrawn.
THE CHAIRMAN: Is there any other Amendment to be moved?
There being no response—
MR. YOXALLsaid that for several days past he had had an Amendment on the Order Paper to leave out Clause 2. He did not know whether that notice on the Paper took precedence of the Motion of the Minister in charge of the Bill, but if so he begged now to move it. Prom the outset of these debates he had said that Clause 2 was a great mistake. The Clause was now dead; the Government had killed it; and he had now very much pleasure in moving that it be deleted from the Bill.
MR. STUART SAMUELsaid he had listened with the greatest attention to all the arguments adduced by hon. Members opposite, by his own colleagues in the representation of London, and his other hon. friends on that side of the House, but he did not feel in the slightest degree weakened in his opinion as to the absolute justice of the claim of the Borough Councils to have representation on the central Education Committee. However, he did not see how they could reasonably ask the
1684
Government to take any other attitude in regard to this clause than they had done that day. The Government had shown their belief in the true principles of local government, and had recognised in the Bill, as originally introduced, that there were two authorities having jurisdiction in the same area; but he acknowledged that a house divided against itself was sure to fall, and that the Government were justified in the course they had taken. While the overwhelming majority of the London Members were in favour of the inclusion in the Education Committee of representatives of the Borough Councils, the responsibility for that not being carried out rested not with the Government but with other Gentlemen on the Government side of the House more than with Gentlemen on the Opposition side, and he was absolutely confident that they would regret their action in the days to come. Hon. Members from the provinces had, in fact, not taken the trouble to thoroughly understand the enormous difficulties of the educational problem in London.
DR. MACNAMARAsaid he had received a communication from the Conservative Association of Camberwell and Peckham, stating that that Association had passed a resolution expressing regret that the Government intended to reduce the representation of the Borough Councils on the Education Committee, objecting altogether to the proposed system of grouping, and urging the Government to restore the original representation given to the Borough Councils. He supposed it would be the last time he would be ever called upon to read such a resolution to the House. As to Clause 2, he objected to its being dropped, because that would drive the Committee back upon Section 17 of last year's Act. He wanted Clause 2 to stand and be converted into a good clause. He was profoundly convinced that Section 17 of last year's Act was not applicable to London, and it would raise administrative difficulties. By that section, County Councils had to prepare a scheme to provide for the appointment by the County Council of a Committee, the majority of which should be members of the Council, unless, in the case of

1685
agricultural counties, the Councils should otherwise determine. That was to meet the geographical difficulty of rural areas; but the essence of the section was that in every town, at any rate, the majority of the Education Committee must be members of the Council. He dared say that the present County Council would always agree to a majority of the Committee being composed of its own members, but, conceivably, another Council might arise to whom there would be a temptation to appoint a majority of outsiders on the Committee. That, he insisted, would be disastrous to London, for London education would then be managed by people who were not responsible to the ratepayers. The scheme, according to last year's Act, must provide for the appointment by the Council on the nomination or recommendation, where it appeared to be desirable, of representatives of other bodies, including associations of voluntary schools, of persons of experience in education, and acquainted with the needs and the various kinds of schools required in the area. He wished to know from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether, under Sub-section 3 (b) of Section 17, the London County Council would be compelled to select "persons experienced in education, and acquainted with the needs and the various kinds of schools required in the area" to serve on the Committee from the ranks of the outsiders, or whether they could choose them from their own members, if such persons were on the Councils?
SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid it was perfectly easy in a properly constructed scheme to meet the difficulty. He rather thought that at first the Councils would appoint on the Committee such of their own members as possessed the necessary experience. But Councils might not always possess persons qualified under the Act, and the Board of Education had endeavoured to meet the difficulty by suggesting to the County Councils that certain sorts of experience and acquaintance with the schools should always be represented on the Committee, whether by members of the Councils or by outsiders.
DR. MACNAMARAsaid there was another difficulty in regard to Section 17 of last year's Act. Schemes were to be prepared by the County Council to be afterwards approved by the Board of Education. Would it be competent for the London County Council to prepare a scheme under which fifty-nine persons, directly elected, one from each of the County Council divisions, should form the Committee? If not, why not? Would not the County Council be in a position to say that they would allow the Technical Education Board to continue for the control of the higher education, but that for elementary education they would permit a scheme under which one person would be elected from each of the County Council divisions, specifically for the purpose of controlling elementary education. There was another matter which would constitute a real administrative difficulty. Sub-section 7 of Section 17 provided that if a scheme had not been made within twelve months after the passing of the Act and approved by the Board of Education, that the Board might make a provisional order for the purposes for which such a scheme might be made. The Act was passed on 19th December, 1902, and he should be glad to know if the Board of Education would be in a position to say to the County Council on the 19th of December, 1903, "You have not got your scheme ready; you must accept this scheme." That would be the result of adopting, as it stood, Section 17 of the Act which they were told did not require to be modified in its application to London. Could the Board of Education thrust down the throats of Londoners a scheme in the manner he suggested?
SIR JOHN GORSTsaid that the difficulty was provided for in the second schedule.
DR. MACNAMARAsaid the right hon. Gentleman did not appreciate the effect of certain proposals in that schedule, which would keep alive the date to which he referred. Again, under the parent Act any urban district or municipal borough in one case of over 10,000 inhabitants, and in the other of

1687
over 20,000, could have a separate Committee for elementary education. If the Act was to be applied to London, he wished to know whether every urban district with a population of over 20,000 would be entitled to assist on a Committee for elementary education appointed by itself. It was very desirable in the interest of wise administration that they should know exactly where they where; and he thought he was entitled to an answer to the question he had put to the Government.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that answering the last question first, he thought the fears which the hon. Member had expressed were entirely groundless. With regard to the question whether it would be competent for the London County Council to appoint a Committee dealing with elementary education selected from the boroughs [Dr. MACNAMARA: Elected ad hoc] and a Committee dealing with secondary and higher education which should be practically equivalent to the existing Technical Education Committee, that he had to say would be impossible; because the Board of Education were bound to see that the Committee could co-ordinate the various forms of education. With regard to the question whether the Board of Education could force upon the London County Council in the course of seven months a scheme of its own if the London County Council had not framed a scheme, he said he would have to look into the Act before he could give an answer. He ventured, however, to deprecate a form of argument which always went on the hypothesis that every authority which had duties under the Act was going to make as great a fool of itself as possible. Could anyone conceive the Board of Education, which had certainly not shown any excessive desire to impose its own views on reluctant authorities, entering upon a conflict with the London County Council, with the London Members, and with the House of Commons, in order to force a scheme on the Council hurriedly in anticipation of the decision at which that body would be likely to arrive? Neither the Board of Education nor the London County Council were composed of lunatics at large. These great bodies
1688
ought no doubt to be guarded against the mistakes into which they were likely to fall, but surely it need not be supposed that they were going to fall into every kind of error in the discharge of the public duties which this House had imposed upon them; or would not be likely to fulfil their obligations to those who elected them. He thought the fears of the hon. Gentleman were groundless; and he was convinced that if they allowed Section 17 to work in its own way, a very good scheme would result. No doubt they were anxious at one time to give a fixed statutory position to the Borough Councils, because the boroughs themselves might have been of opinion that their interests could not be otherwise safeguarded. They had abandoned that; and he hoped hon. Members would not strain their ingenuity in suggesting possible follies which the London County Council, or the Board of Education, or both, might commit. He ventured to suggest that the Committee might allow that branch of the discussion to now close.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid he did not think the right hon. Gentleman quite appreciated the position of his hon. friend. It was not a question whether the London County Council would commit this or that folly; but he was afraid a very great difficulty would arise in the administration of the Act, and that the County Council would find itself in a very difficult position indeed. He sympathised very much with the remarks which fell from the hon. Member for Limehouse. He thought the hon. Member and other hon. Members who agreed with him had been very badly treated by the Government, and he could only say that the hon. Member showed great Christian forbearance. The First Lord of the Treasury said, with regard to the choppings and changes in the Bill, that the Government had consulted those specially interested in the question. As far, however, as he was able to ascertain, the Government only consulted a limited number of London Members, and did not consult the County Council or the School Board before they brought in the Bill. He, therefore, did not wonder that they came to grief in the matter. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that the Government were now out of the

1689
breakers and in smooth water; but he wished to assure the right hon. Gentleman that they, on that side, had just as much objection to the grotesque proposals which remained in the Bill as they had to Clause 2, and they would still continue to give it their most strenuous opposition. The right hon. Gentleman said that Clause 2 and Clause 3 were not in any way interdependable. So far as he could see, they were absolutely interdependable. The original scheme of the Government was that the Borough Councils and the County Council should be linked together on the Statutory Committee. That link had now disappeared. He was heartily glad that the Government had seen their way clear to drop Clause 2, but they ought to propose something in the nature of a workable clause, so as to avoid difficulty and friction in administration.
MR. BOUSFIELDsaid he was one of those who viewed with very great regret the disappearance of Clause 2. He was convinced that the Government were right in the beginning; and that his hon. friends who agreed with him were right now, though doubtless they would be in a small minority. Nothing he had heard had shaken that conviction. It seemed so reasonable that he should not be surprised if the County Council did approve of the scheme provided that there should be twenty-nine people on the Education Committee, each of whom should be selected by one of the boroughs. That seemed to be essential to the Bill. The essential principle of the Bill was that London was to have a central authority, the County Council, and that round that central authority there should be local authorities who were to have the local management. It seemed absolutely essential to the smooth working of the Bill that these boroughs should have a man who could speak with the voice of the local authority in the central authority, and who in the borough could speak with the voice of the central authority.
MR. ALBAN GIBBSexpressed his regret at the fact that the right hon. Gentleman had not seen his way to accept the proposal submitted
1690
to him. He did not think there had ever been a case in which the City had not been given exceptional representation. And having regard to the great amount they contributed to the rates, and the interest they took in education, they were entitled to exceptional representation. He had intended to move that the City be the central authority for its own district, but the forms of the House had prevented his doing so; therefore, he hoped the Government would consider this matter and introduce some clause to that effect. The City did not desire to get rid of the responsibility for education or the rates they paid in respect of it, but they thought their interest entitled them to some exceptional representation, and he hoped their wishes might be met in some degree.
MR. LOUGHthought the Government were entitled to be congratulated on the way in which they had treated this clause. He was quite sure if the authority were built up in accordance with the new plan rather than the old it would be a good thing. The Prime Minister had said he would discourage anything which disparaged the Act of 1902, but there would have to be adjustments to make it suit London. When they came to Clause 3 that would easily be seen. He applied to the Prime Minister not to drop the work he had commenced, and that having adopted the principle he would be guided a little by public opinion in London. But the right hon. Gentleman should be careful if he followed the policy which recommended him to drop this clause because he would have to follow it out in many other ways. The County Council of London was not like any other body in the country, and there were no Councils in the country like the Borough Councils, yet this Act of 1902 was to be applied to London.
MR. BURDETT-COUTTSsaid he desired to enter a strong protest against the way in which the Government had dealt with the Borough Councils in this matter. The Government, he complained, had not shown sufficient courage. He had been in the House of Commons for eighteen years, and had

1691
never witnessed so humiliating a surrender on the part of a Government of a policy put forward to the House. Those who supported the Government on the Second Reading of this Bill were placed in a very unpleasant position by the action of the Government, and he thought the Government had no right to place even a section of their supporters in such a position. He had supported the Borough Council element in the Second Reading not only because that policy commended itself to him, but also because he was delighted to render what assistance he could to his Party, but he never dreamt that the Government were going to leave him in the ditch. His complaint was that the Government had by their action enormously strengthened and encouraged the Members of the County Council to become something in the nature of political inspectors. To him there always appeared to be a great danger of that; they had belittled—almost insulted—Borough Councils; and, lastly, they had left the question of London education largely in the hands of the National Union of Teachers, at a word from whom the London County Council in the early part of the year abandoned its claims to municipal dignity in regard to education and consented to be placed in a position inferior to that of every other County Council in the country. Was it to be supposed that the body which could so lead the County Council by the nose would not practically control the appointment of the Education Committee? That the National Union of Teachers worked for political ends was obvious from the speeches at the so-called education, but really political, demonstration on Saturday, and it was in obedience to such political clamour the Government had surrendered their policy. By their action the Government had given the impression of weakness and vacillation, but that impression might yet be removed if they would adhere to the remnant of their attenuated Bill, and yield no further in the matter of the Borough Councils.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: My hon. friend seems to be distressed by attacks on the Government which were made by gentlemen who took part in the demonstration in Hyde Park. I am quite sure that those gentlemen made able and eloquent speeches against their political opponents,
1692
as they were entitled to do. But, if I may speak my mind quite frankly, it is not the speeches of political opponents to which I object; I sometimes find more to complain of in speeches made by political friends. My hon. friend has politely accused the Government of extreme vacillation and of extreme weakness. He has also declared that we have abandoned our friends in London municipal life and surrendered ourselves to our municipal enemies. What are the facts of the case? In the first place, let me point out to my hon. friend that no change has been made in the Bill which in any way contravenes the fundamental principles of policy which I laid down in my speech on the Second Reading. The change proposed this afternoon is certainly an important change—I do not in the least wish to minimise it—but it is a change in detail, and that is not a new view of detail; it is a view which I publicly expressed on the Second Reading. The complaint of my hon. friend is that we did not retain the original proposal of thirty-one representatives of the Borough Councils on the new central authority. If he has listened to the debates, he must know perfectly well that that was impossible. It was a policy which I believe we could not have carried even if the Opposition abstained altogether from speaking and voting on the question. I do not think it was our fault that we were not aware of the feeling that that policy excited. But, anyway, it is the fact that it really met with no favour except from some political friends of mine for whom I have the greatest regard, and that it was not only not supported by representatives from other parts of the country, but was unsupported by a vast section of Unionist and Conservative London opinion. It was impossible to carry that proposal.
Then, was it possible to carry the compromise of twelve representatives of the Borough Councils, which we debated last Wednesday? I think it possible that if everybody who liked the original proposal of thirty-one Members had combined with everybody who was reconciled to the substitution of twelve Members, and had backed up the Government in that compromise, we might have carried it. But did they do that? What did my hon. friend do?

1693
He walked out. He did not vote for the Government, whom he now accuses of vacillation. We hear a great deal about the strongest Government of modern times with a majority of 120 behind it. But if the 120 walk out, like my hon. friend, I venture to say it would be absolutely impossible for the Government to maintain the details of their measures against the Opposition. I hope, therefore, it will be thoroughly understood by those outside the House, as I am sure it is thoroughly understood by those inside, that, however much the Government may be to blame for not having known by intuition of that London opinion which has since become known, we are not to be blamed for the course we have adopted as regards the modifications in the details of the scheme. I frankly admit that I was largely moved by the arguments used against the proposal to give the Borough Councils thirty-one representatives; it was extremely difficult to sustain it in argument. As regards the compromise of twelve representatives I think a good deal too much was made of it by those who were opposed to it. But that compromise was not supported by the friends of the Borough Councils; and, that being so, how was it possible for the Government to carry it in a House of Commons in which not merely the Opposition, with their natural desire to embarrass the Government, but hon. friends behind me were arrayed against it? Therefore, I think my hon. friend should not accuse us of vacillation because we modified the details of our measure. My Parliamentary experience goes further back than that of my hon. friend, to the times of Governments which were not less strong from the point of view of numerical support than the present Government; and I have never known a House of Commons in which great Bills have been carried with less modification than they have been in this. If my hon. friend will contrast the Education Act of 1902 with the Education Act of 1870 he will abandon these charges of vacillation. At all events, no hon. Gentleman should bring such charges against the Government unless he can show by his record that he is one of their stalwart supporters—that through thick and thin, through
1694
foul weather and fair, he has been found supporting his leaders.
MR. BURDETT-COUTTSpointed out that the Bill in its original form was supported by a majority of London Members, and that the right hon. Gentleman had not put the support of the Party to the test over the question. There was no ground for supposing that they would have turned the Government out rather than admit this very reasonable demand of the Borough Councils.
MR. SAMUEL EVANSsaid it was curious the Prime Minister should chide his faithful follower for having walked out, because on that particular occasion the hon. Member was consistent, while the Government were not. The Government themselves ought to have walked out. The natural and necessary result would have been that they would have walked out in another sense, and people who took an enlightened view in educational matters would have been able to occupy the Treasury Bench. In all seriousness, however, he congratulated the Government on their courage. So far from displaying a lack of courage, he thought the Government had shown the best courage, for they had shown that they were strong enough to say that they had made a mistake. There was another sort of courage which was best described as obstinate tenacity, and whenever there was a general difference of opinion, it would be far better in the future if the Government would let the matter be freely discussed. If they had not had the discussion last Wednesday they would not have had the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Somerset and the Member for Cambridge University. He ventured to congratulate the Government upon having come to the right decision. He valued very much the advice of the National Union of Teachers, who were represented by three very enlightened hon. Members. Therefore he listened with surprise to the attack made by the hon. Member opposite who said that that Union was composed mainly of Radicals, forgetting the hon. Member for West Ham. He hoped the Government would do their best to make this a good scheme for London.
Clause 2, as amended, negatived.
Clause 3:—
MR. YOXALLmoved the postponement of Clause 3. He had said upon a former occasion that the construction of this Bill should have been totally reversed; the commencement should have been put at the end and the end should have been placed at the commencement. This clause proposed to empower the Metropolitan Borough Councils with certain rights, duties, and privileges, and therefore it ought to receive the most careful consideration. What had happened that afternoon reinforced his original contention that they should not discuss this question of the Metropolitan Borough Councils until they had discussed what were to be the principal modifications of the Act. Until they had discussed Clause 4 and the schedule, and concluded the agreement with regard to the constitution and power of the Education Committee, and until they had clearly arrived at an exact knowledge of what the Education Committee was to be and what modifications were to be made, they ought not to consider what should be the powers of the Metropolitan Borough Councils in the management of elementary education. He heard nothing in the speech of the Prime Minister which would lead the Committee to suppose that he recognised the connection between Clauses 2 and 3, or that he felt, having abandoned the representation of the Borough Councils, the Committee ought to modify very seriously indeed the powers proposed to be given to the Borough Councils under Clause 3. He regretted very much that the Committee had refused to report Progress, for that would have given the Prime Minister and his colleagues time to consider the natural result of the withdrawal of Clause 2. He thought he was justified in his present Motion because he thought it would give the Government an opportunity to consider how Clause 3 might be modified. The postponement of this clause would enable the Borough Councils to express an opinion upon the change. When the Bill was first printed expressions of opinion upon it were given by some of the Borough Councils, some of which disapproved of it and others criticised certain parts of the Bill. The Borough
1696
Councils of Bethnal Green, Battersea, Camberwell, Southwark, Stepney, Poplar, Shoreditch, Fulham, Lambeth, and Woolwich had passed resolutions condemning the Bill, and other Borough Councils which had not expressed an opinion were about to consider the matter. If, as was now proposed, the Borough Councils would not be represented on the Committee, and would not have a spokesman to voice their views, then those Borough Councils might reasonably come to the conclusion that they could not undertake the responsibility of managing the elementary schools. The expression of opinion on the part of several metropolitan boroughs was already pending, and in several instances meetings were being arranged, and therefore they ought to postpone this clause.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Clause 3 be postponed."—(Mr. Yoxall.)
SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid it was important that they should decide the position of the Committee and the local education authority before they went into the details of management of these public elementary schools. They had discussed the position of the Committee and they had decided that it should be precisely the same as that of the other Committees constituted under the Act of last year. He really did not know why they should consider Clause 4 before they discussed what was the only serious modification proposed to be made in the Act of 1902, namely, the relation of the managers and the Borough Councils to the schools under the local education authority. It seemed to him that this proposal was really nothing more than a Motion to report Progress.
MR. EMMOTTthought that on this occasion a strong case had been made out by his hon. friend, and it did seem to him that the Government would be wise to postpone the clause for the same reason that they would have been wise to postpone Clause 2. He fancied that when they came to the discussion of the clause nearly the whole of it would have to be dropped.

1697
He believed that if the County Council was to be the education authority they must make it a real authority. He believed this clause would cause as much friction as Clause 2 would have done if passed. They were going to hand over the management to the Borough Councils, on which there were no women at all. He would support the postponement of the clause because he considered the Government ought to give themselves more time to think over the question. It seemed to him that they had to have days of discussion before the Government could grasp the elementary objections to the Bill. Fortunately there were men who had seen the objections to Clause 2 and the Government gave way. He hoped that they would also give way on Clause 3.
MR. WHITLEYsaid there was only one sound argument in support of the clause, and that was that the Government should be spared more than one change per diem. If the Government imagined that by dropping Clause 2 they had met the objections to the Bill they were perfectly mistaken; the objections to Clause 3 were tenfold stronger than those to Clause 2. The possibility of the education authority working for more real progress was far more hampered by the proposal in Clause 3 than it could have been by Clause 2. Clause 3 really went to the root of the question whether they were to have any chance of an efficient education authority in London, and the reason why this clause should be postponed was that the Government might continue the process shown to-day of endeavouring to understand the pressure, not only from the Opposition side, but from their own side of the House, in favour of putting the education authority in London on all fours with the authorities in other parts of the country. He felt that if they persisted with this clause to-day, after giving way on Clause 2, they might stiffen their back and refuse to make any further concessions. He urged the Government, if they really meant to make this Bill as nearly a good one as it could be made—he did not admit that any copy of last year's Act could be a good one—to take the
1698
opinion of their own supporters, whose vote last Wednesday had been to them a matter of such great moment. It really would be better for the progress of the Bill if they would take the next twenty-four hours for the purpose of considering the whole question of the direct authority of the London County Council. There was no use persevering with this half-and-half proposal, which gave the management to the Borough Councils and incomplete control to the County Council.
MR. ROBSONsaid it was not respectful to the House to go on with the Bill without ascertaining what was the feeling in regard to this particular clause on the part of those who supported the Government. It was important that the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Board of Education should ascertain what the followers of the Government themselves thought about this management clause. He ventured to say that instead of rushing the Bill in the way that it was now being rushed, the hon. Baronet ought to postpone it for a day or two in order to ascertain their feeling. He would find the objections which the Government supporters had to the proposal in regard to borough councillors on the Committee, applied equally to borough councillors in connection with the management. If the hon. Baronet found that state of feeling prevailing among his own supporters he would remodel the clause. Surely it was better to ascertain the feeling of his own supporters by postponing the clause for a short time than to ascertain it by debates in the House which, under the circumstances, were a sheer waste of time. It would be better to discover what the state of their feeling was by private inquiries than by means of debate.
MR. WHITMOREsaid he wished to state plainly, frankly, and emphatically that he approved of the principle of Clause 3, and he hoped with all his heart that the Government would not dream of departing from it. He hoped, however, that the clause would be amended in Committee. He wished to make it perfectly clear to hon.

1699
Members on both sides of the House that he believed that the Borough Councils should have the responsibility of the local management of the schools.
LORD EDMUND FITZMAURICEasked the hon. Member for Chelsea what he meant by the essential principle of the clause.
THE CHAIRMAN: We shall find that out when the Committee gets to the discussion of the clause.
LORD EDMUND FITZMAURICEsaid he agreed with that ruling, but he thought he might be allowed to make the observation without following the matter further. What he desired to impress upon the Government was that in desiring the postponement of this clause, they were not desiring to place any undue obstacle whatever in the way of the progress of the measure. What would be the result if this clause was postponed? They should then immediately pass to the consideration of the fourth and fifth Clauses and the Schedules. They had already heard, in the course of to-day's debate, of the Amendments which were adumbrated as likely to be demanded, and which were likely to be conceded by the Government in regard to certain points which could be dealt with on the schedules. These points were fresh in the mind of the Committee, and surely it would be far better, while these arguments and facts were before them, that they should proceed in that way, and then the Government would be able to ascertain what were the real views of their own friends, both inside and outside the House, in regard to the proposal in Clause 3. He thought he was really justified in holding that view all the more when he looked at the Amendments on the Paper, because it was quite clear that if they did not dispose of this clause they would be brought face to face with the Amendments to be moved from the other side of the House by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Somerset, and the Amendment which stood in the name of the hon. Member for the Chippenham division. He could not help hoping that the Committee would not be met
1700
with what he would call a policy of melancholy silence from the Treasury Bench, and that the Government would really explain why they should be forced to enter on a discussion with every conceivable disadvantage, whether on this or the other side of the House. Bearing in mind, as they did, that they were met the other evening with the same non possumus and that they then wasted two whole days in discussing Clause 2 which was now withdrawn, they might be forced by superior numbers to proceed to the discussion of Clause 3 but he believed it was not a rash prophecy to say that, as in the case of Clause 2, their arguments would prevail, and that the Government would come and propose to strike it out of the Bill altogether.
MR. BRYNMOR JONESsaid that the question now before the Committee was simply the convenience of discussion. He was in favour of postponing the Clause, for if they were to have a rational discussion of the remaining clauses they ought to deal with Clause 4 before Clause 3. Clause 4 said—
"The modifications of the principal Act set out in the second schedule of this Act shall have effect for the purposes of this Act."
Now, what was the position of the Bill at the present moment? The Government had got Clause 1—the clause which made the Education Act of 1902,
"so far as applicable, and subject to modifications made by this Act,"
apply to London. He understood the general effect of Clause 3 was—
THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member has no right to go back upon and discuss Clause 1 which has already been passed. I must ask him to give his mind to the Motion before the Committee and also not to repeat arguments already used.
MR. BRYNMOR JONESsaid that in the changed circumstances the Committee ought to discuss the modifications of the Act of 1902 which would determine the relations between the London County Council and the Education Committee before they came to discuss Clause 3.
THE CHAIRMAN: That argument has been used two or three times already, and I therefore warn the hon. Member

1701
not to fall into the error of violating the Standing Order against repetition.
MR. BRYNMOR JONESsaid that he was not using the same form of words. Hon. Members come and go, and he ventured respectfully to say that he had a right, on behalf of his constituents, to state his reasons for postponing the consideration of Clause 3.
THE CHAIRMAN: If every hon. Member claimed the same right there would be no termination to the debate at all. That was why the Standing Order was passed.
MR. BRYNMOR JONESsaid he thought that Standing Order was to be restrictively construed; that it should only apply when an hon. Member was repeating his own arguments.
THE CHAIRMAN: The Standing Order refers to any hon. Member repeating his own arguments or those of others.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 121; Noes, 243. (Division List No., 99)

AYES.

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

Helme, Norval Watson

Reckitt, Harold James

Asher, Alexander

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H.

Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries

Ashton, Thomas Gair

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

Rickett, J. Compton

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbt. Hy.

Holland, Sir William Henry

Rigg, Richard

Atherley-Jones, L.

Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

Robson, William Snowdon

Black, Alexander William

Jacoby, James Alfred

Rose, Charles Day

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea

Runciman, Walter

Bryce, Right Hon. James

Kearley, Hudson E.

Russell, T. W.

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Kitson, Sir James

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Burns, John

Lambert, George

Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Myles

Burt, Thomas

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

Schwann, Charles E.

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Layland Barratt, Francis

Shaw, Charles E. (Stafford)

Caldwell, James

Leigh, Sir Joseph

Shipman, D. John G.

Cameron, Robert

Leng, Sir John

Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

Causton, Richard Knight

Levy, Maurice

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Channing, Francis Allston

Lewis, John Herbert

Stevenson, Francis S.

Cremer, William Randal

Lloyd-George, David

Strachey, Sir Edward

Crombie, John William

Lough, Thomas

Tennant, Harold John

Crooks, William

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Thomas, A. (Carmarthen, E.)

Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardign

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

M'Kenna, Reginald

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

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Mansfield, Horace Rendall

Toulmin, George

Duncan, J. Hastings

Mappin, Sir Fredk. Thorpe

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Edwards, Frank

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Ure, Alexander

Elibank, Master of

Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

Wallace, Robert

Ellis, John Edward

Moulton, John Fletcher

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Emmott, Alfred

Norman, Henry

Warner, Thos. Courtenay T.

Evans, Saml. T. (Glamorgan)

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Wason, E. (Clackmannan)

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Fenwick, Charles

Palmer, Sir C. M. (Durham)

Weir, James Galloway

Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith

Palmer, G. Wm. (Reading)

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

Partington, Oswald

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

Foster, Sir Michl. (Lond. Univ

Paulton, James Mellor

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Fuller, J. M. F.

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J.

Perks, Robert William

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Philipps, John Wynford

Grey, Rt. Hn. Sir E. (Berwick

Pickard, Benjamin

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Price, Robert John

Mr. Yoxall and Mr.

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

Priestley, Arthur

Corrie Grant.

Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

Rea, Russell

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

Allsopp, Hon. George

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Allhusen, Aug. Henry Eden

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

Austin, Sir John

Gardner, Ernest

Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Garfit, William

Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

Bailey, James (Walworth)

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

Mowbray, Sir Robt. Gray C.

Bain Colonel, James Robert

Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)

Muntz, Sir Philip A.

Baird, John George Alexander

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

Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham (Bute

Baldwin, Alfred

Gordon, Maj Evans- (Tr. Hmlts

Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

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

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

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Eldon

Myers, William Henry

Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Graham, Henry Robert

O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

Beckett, Ernest William

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Bignold, Arthur

Greene, Sir E. W. (Bury St. Ed.

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

Bigwood, James

Greene, W. Raymond- (Cambs

O'Malley, William

Bill, Charles

Greville, Hon. Ronald

O'Shee, James John

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Gunter, Sir Robert

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

Bond, Edward

Hain, Edward

Parker, Sir Gilbert

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

Hall, Edward Marshall

Pease, H. Pike (Darlington)

Bousfield, William Robert

Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

Peel, Hn. Wm. R. Wellesley

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

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

Pemberton, John S. G.

Bowles, T. G. (Lynn Regis)

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashfd

Pierpoint, Robert

Brassey, Albert

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Brown, Sir Alx. H. (Shropsh.)

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Plummer, Walter R.

Bull, William James

Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Hatch, Ernest Frederick G.

Pretyman, Ernest George

Burke, E. Haviland-

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Carew, James Laurence

Healy, Timothy Michael

Purvis, Robert

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Helder, Augustus

Pym, C. Guy

Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

Henderson, Sir Alexander

Rankin, Sir James

Cautley, Henry Strother

Hoare, Sir Samuel

Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

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

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

Rattigan, Sir William Henry

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

Hogg, Lindsay

Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

Renwick, George

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm

Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge

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

Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred

Ridley, S. F. (Bethnal Green)

Chapman, Edward

Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. C. Thomson

Charrington, Spencer

Johnstone, Heywood

Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H.

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Kenyon, Hon. G. T. (Denbigh

Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

Clive, Captain Percy A.

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop

Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

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

Kerr, John

Round, Rt. Hon. James

Coddington, Sir William

Kimber, Henry

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Coghill, Douglas Harry

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Knowles, Lees

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

Colston, Chas. Edw H. Athole

Laurie, Lieut.-General

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

Lawrence, Sir Jos. (Monm'th)

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Cust, Henry John C.

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool

Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

Dalkeith, Earl of

Lawson, John Grant (Yorks, N. R.

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Leamy, Edmund

Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew

Dickinson, Robert Edmond

Lee, Arthur H. (Hants. Fareham

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Dickson, Charles Scott

Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Llewellyn, Evan Henry

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.)

Dimsdale, Rt. Hon. Sir Jos. C.

Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.)

Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

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

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

Spear John Ward

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

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

Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

Duke, Henry Edward

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hatr

Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir Jn. M.

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Macdona, John Cumming

Stock, James Henry

Faber, George Denison (York)

MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Maconochie, A. W.

Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

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

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W.

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

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas

Malcolm, Ian

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Fisher, William Hayes

Manners, Lord Cecil

Thornton, Percy M.

Fison, Frederick William

Martin, Richard Biddulph

Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

FitzGerald, Sir Robt. Penrose

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

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Fitzroy, Hon. Edw. Algernon

Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.

Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

Flower, Ernest

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Valentia, Viscount

Forster, Henry William

Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

Fyler, John Arthur

Milvain, Thomas

Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

Galloway, William Johnson

More, R. Jasper (Shropshire)

Wanklyn, James Leslie

1704

1705

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

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

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

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

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

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

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

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Sir Alexander Acland-Hood

Wilson John (Glasgow)

Worsley-Taylor, Hry. Wilson

and Mr. Anstruther.

MR. MANSFIELDsaid he desired to move the Amendment standing in his name to insert at the beginning of Clause 3 the words, "Unless the local education authority otherwise determines." The object of the Amendment was to make the County Council the real authority. The atmosphere of the House had been very much changed in regard to the London County Council during the last few days. At one time the Borough Councils were regarded as the pets of the Government, but now the First Lord of the Treasury said it was necessary to make the London County Council the real authority. His idea was that the London County Council should be masters of the situation. He should be prepared to agree to the proposal in the clause if the Borough Councils knew anything about education; but they were not educational authorities; and his Amendment would give the London County Council the right to say whether any particular Borough Council should be acknowledged as the authority to carry out the work. A great point in connection with the Bill was that co-ordination was wanted. The clause as it stood, however, put the management in one set of hands and the authority in another; and it was quite impossible to see where co-ordination came in. The main reason given for extinguishing the London School Board was that there might be co-ordination; but the clause would not co-ordinate education. It would create a rivalry between the Borough Councils and the London County Council; and under it the Borough Councils would have the right to appeal to the Board of Education, which would help them in their rivalry of the London County Council. The object of the Amendment was to make the London County Council independent of the Borough Councils, and give them power to choose their own Committee. Unless that were done, it would put a premium on disputes between the
1706
London County Council and the Borough Councils; and, instead of co-ordination, it would be like tying the tails of two Kilkenny cats together and letting them fight the matter out. The Amendment proposed to restore, as far as possible, the old order under which the London School Board appointed its own managers, regarding whom they had ample evidence as to their ability and earnestness in educational work. What they wanted was that a system which was admittedly successful in the past should, as far as possible, be grafted on to this Bill. He would not object to the Borough Councils being the managers if they knew anything about education; but he objected to the Borough Councils being placed in such a position, for while the London County Council would have to provide the money the Borough Councils would be able to practically dictate the situation. He hoped the Government would adopt such a very reasonable Amendment.
Amendment proposed.
"In page 1, line 11, at the beginning to insert the words, 'Unless the local education authority otherwise determines.'"—(Mr. Mansfield.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid he was sorry he could not accept the Amendment on behalf of the Government, for the reason that it would not carry out that policy of decentralisation, which was one of the main principles of the measure. They desired that the new authority should not be encumbered with administrative duties such as the London School Board allowed itself to be encumbered with. It should be borne in mind that the new authority would have work almost infinitely wider in scope and far more serious in character than anything the London School Board had to deal with. They felt that the new authority would not be able to give its attention to the great problem of London education unless it

1707
was substantially relieved of such part of the work of administration as was susceptible to such treatment. That form of decentralisation could best be accomplished in connection with public elementary schools. The work would no doubt be considerably diminished under the new legislation, because the London School Board had introduced into the region of public elementary schools various matters which are not connected with elementary education, and which would cease to form part of it when the Bill became operative. The hon. Member spoke of the London County Council as not being the real authority. He thought the hon. Member had not considered how full and complete the control of the London County Council would be over the managers of the schools. It would have complete financial control. Not a penny could be spent without its sanction; and no money would be received by the managers except what the London County Council gave them. The London County Council could lay down a general code, and make such rules as they pleased, and these directions the managers must accept; and to say that the London County Council would not be a real authority was a misapprehension. All the proposals for constituting boards of management which appeared on the Notice Paper left it optional to the County Council to give such boards from time to time such work as they pleased. What was required was that the Boroughs should have some work to do, should always be ready to receive more if delegated, and that the County Council should be bound to give up a stated amount of its labour to these bodies. That being the principle, the amount of management to be handed over to them and the mode in which it should be exercised were matters of detail, as to which the Government would be fully open to consider Amendments lower down on the Paper. There was, for instance, an Amendment, in the name of the hon. Member for Chelsea, providing that the statutory management should be arranged by a scheme agreed upon by the Borough Council and the County Council, or, if not so agreed upon, subject to arbitration by the Board of Education. That seemed to him a reasonable proposal, because it would give variety to the schemes. He hoped the Committee would not agree to the Amendment.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid that nobody on the side of the House on which he sat would have any objection to Borough Councils having some of the management of the schools, so long as the central authority had full and complete control in any scheme that was proposed, but he did not see his way to accept such a proposal as had been suggested—a proposal by which the Borough Councils and the County Council were to come to some agreement, or in default the Board of Education were to arbitrate. The County Council must be put in the same position as any other County Council throughout the country. They should prepare a scheme into which they could either bring in or leave out the Borough Council. He was glad to see the hon. Gentleman trying to meet the views expressed on both sides of the House. If they were to bring Borough Councils into the scheme without giving the County Council full complete control, it would lead to considerable friction. The most important question of all was that of the appointment and dismissal of the teachers. If that duty were retained in the hands of the central body, he had no great fear of the friction that would otherwise arise. The hon. Baronet had delivered a speech which showed a most friendly and conciliatory spirit; and if the hon. Baronet meant, as he understood him to mean, that the London County Council was to be the supreme authority in the matter of management, as well as in the superior Committee, he did not think it much mattered who might be the subordinate authority.
MR. ALFRED HUTTONsaid it appeared to him that the speech of the hon. Baronet opposite, instead of being a conciliatory speech as had been suggested by the hon. Member for Poplar, was the other way about. The hon. Baronet had for once apparently tumbled upon one of the questions of principle upon which the Government were prepared to take their last stand, and that being the case, he saw nothing particularly conciliatory in the speech. The Committee sometimes had an expression of opinion from the hon. Baronet in favour of co-ordination and at other times in favour of variety. In the speech which the hon.

1709
Baronet had just made both opinions had been expressed. The hon. Member for Poplar had taken comfort to himself because the hon. Baronet had expressed himself as desirous of preserving intact the position of the County Council. How was the authority of the County Council to be exercised through a statutory and irremovable body of managers? The argument of the Government last year was that the managers were to be the creatures and servants of the authority. Then how was it possible, under the scheme of this Bill or the suggested amended scheme of the hon. Baronet, to assign that position to the Borough Councils and make them the masters of the elementary schools and not of what were the Cockerton schools—that is to say, the evening schools and the technical schools? There was to be one body of managers for elementary schools and another for evening schools. He was puzzled to think what the question of principle was upon which the hon. Baronet had taken his stand. They had a right to ask for some elucidation of this matter. There might be great difference of opinion between municipal boroughs and the County Council in regard to the appointment of teachers, but the County Council had no means of enforcing its opinion. The Council needed to have the power of taking back the management which it delegated in order to make its authority effective. He should have thought after the Act of 1902 that the hon. Baronet might have had enough on hand without taking on his own shoulders all these matters. Not content with the work he had to do under the Act of 1902 he had hit upon a plan whereby each Borough Council should have a different scheme. The County Council would never know whether it was dealing with a matter in which it had control, or one in which, under some precious scheme, it had merely management and not control. They were really drifting into confusion worse confounded, and it would be a matter much to be deplored if the Borough Councils were given a constitutional power to retain the management in their own hands, without there being
1710
given to the County Council complete control in all eventualities of dispute or discussion.
MR. HALDANEsaid the Bill, in its original form, divided London education between the County Council and the Borough Councils. This clause, to some extent, fitted in with that idea, but it was now difficult to understand how it got into the Bill at all. Taking the measure as it stood, the proposal was not intelligible, and, in the interests of London education, incapable of justification. The Government had adopted the principle of giving the control of London education to the County Council; they had eliminated the share of the authority originally proposed to be given to the Borough Councils, and yet this clause was left in such a form as to put a hard and fast barrier in the way of the County Council carrying out the policy for which it was now completely responsible. If any one principle ought to prevail in the Bill, it was that they who called the tune should pay the piper, but here the Borough Councils would have to carry out matters of which they would not bear the cost, and the responsibility for which would rest with the County Council. The working out of the proposal would result in a condition of things which would be simply intolerable. He looked forward to the day when the relations between the Borough Councils and the County Council would be much better than they now were. Such better relations, however, could be brought about only by putting those authorities into positions which did not naturally breed friction and difficulty, whereas the clause under discussion was cast in a form calculated to provoke the most acute controversy. The Government had met the opposition to a certain extent, but if the Bill was to be a workable Bill, it should be made workable all through. It was impossible to leave Clause 3 as it stood, and put the control of education in London into the hands of the County Council. He hoped, before the Bill passed, the Government would make the new educational machine workable and intelligible. By adopting the principle of the Act of last year, and only by so doing, the Government would provide for the carrying out of these matters, their difficulties would disappear,

1711
they would have no trouble in the future, and they would carry out the wishes of their own supporters. It was because the Government had slipped away from the interests of education, and listened to the voice of the wirepullers, they had got into this difficulty, and he hoped they would yet remodel the clause so as to bring it into accord with the rest of the Bill as it stood.
MR. LOUGHsaid the object of the Amendment was to make the arrangements between the County Council and the Borough Councils voluntary. His hon. friend did not desire to prevent the local Councils giving any assistance they could in the work of education, but he did object to any statutory rights or powers being given them which the County Council did not willingly confer. The answer of the Secretary to the Board of Education was really appalling. The hon. Baronet had said that the Government were resolved to decentralise and give large powers to the Borough Councils who had the machinery to carry them out. They had not a scrap of machinery for the purpose, as the hon. Baronet would be aware if he knew anything about a single London division.
SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid the hon. Member had misunderstood him. What he said was that in the Borough Councils they had the machinery for decentralisation. He did not say that the Borough Councils had the machinery, but that they were the machinery.
MR. LOUGHsaid the more the hon. Baronet explained his meaning the more intolerable the proposals appeared. The management of these schools was no small business. The task in Islington alone would probably be as great as that in Birmingham or Manchester. Knowing the districts, the work, and the Councils, it really shocked him to hear the hon. Baronet say the Borough Councils were the machinery. He knew the busy men who formed the Borough Councils, and how they patriotically hurried from their shops or employment to give the time necessary for the work of the local authority, but to propose that such bodies, which were striving so hard to discharge their present duties, should be installed as the education authority of
1712
a great city—if that was what it amounted to—was simply monstrous. Whatever delegation there was should be by permission of the County Council. As the clause stood, each Borough Council would be a little School Board, and there would be twenty-nine small and helpless School Boards instead of one great central institution. Where was the machinery? It was in a noble building on the Embankment, managed by the London School Board, and would be taken over by the London County Council. The Borough Councils had not a scrap of machinery, and would be bound to do the work badly. ["Why?"] Because there would be no unified control. London, after all, was one city, but instead of one central idea running through the whole system of education there would be twenty-nine different authorities. According to the hon. Baronet, on April 29th, there was to be "greater elasticity imported into the curriculum of elementary schools." That meant there was to be one curriculum in Islington, another in Southwark, another in Paddington, and so on through the twenty-nine boroughs. The system was really impossible of working. Let there be devolution by all means, but let the County Council select its machinery and do it voluntarily. That was the question on which the Government would be forced to take issue.
And, it being half-past Seven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his report to the House.
Committee report Progress; to sit again this evening.

EVENING SITTING.

  LONDON EDUCATION BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]
  Clause 3:—
  Amendment proposed.
  "In page 1, line 11, at the beginning, to insert the words 'Unless the local education authority otherwise determines.'"—(Mr. Mansfield.)
  Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. CHANNINGsaid the speech of the hon. Baronet, the Secretary to the Board of Education was a frankly anti-educational speech in favour of a frankly educational programme, and a too charitable interpretation had been placed upon that speech by the hon. Member for Poplar. He regretted that too charitable interpretations were too frequently placed upon statements such as that just now made by the Secretary to the Board of Education, by the Front Opposition Bench. The speakers on the Front Bench of the Opposition did not in this matter represent the opinion of the back benches nor the vast volume of opinion outside the House, which demanded more sweeping Amendments and a much more drastic procedure towards this extraordinary Bill than had been suggested in mild, congratulatory tones from the Front Bench of what was the great Opposition Party. As a member of the rank and file of that Opposition he thought they should approach this question in a very different spirit. It seemed to him that the speech of the hon. Baronet had aggravated the situation. They all contended that Clause 3 was a bad clause and made the Bill worse than it otherwise would be, and the intimation of the hon. Baronet that he was prepared to accept the principle of the Amendment deepened the objection to the proposal. To accept that proposal meant that the Government was prepared to greatly extend the powers of delegation contained in the Act of last year. It would be practicable for the Board of Education to act as a despotic authority in dealing with this question of defining the duties of management, and in determining the manner on the failure to agree on the part of the County Council and the Borough Councils. An Amendment of this kind would infinitely increase the evils of this clause. In this education debate the Committee were becoming the victim of phrases. Phrase after phrase had been used in a most contradictory manner to enforce the arguments of the Government. "Municipalisation," "Co-ordination," "Central Authority," had all been ridden to
  1714
  death and now they were to have "decentralisation" used in the same way. These phrases were being used as a sort of Moloch, to whom they were sacrificing the millions of children in London. Last year the Opposit on was denounced for resisting centralisation and advocating decentralization. A similar denunciation was now made. They were now denounced for favouring centralisation, and were asked to adopt a different principle The Government asked for centralisation last year and decentralisation this year. It was because of centralisation in London that the School Board had done more than anybody else to organise the unorganised masses of London and give them a conception of educational duties such as they could not have attained if split up in small separate bodies. The situation was absolutely different from what it was in the Bill of last year, and to compare the separate municipal bodies which had certain duties to perform in the separate areas of London with the units of educational life in such towns as Manchester, Bradford and Leeds, was absolutely illogical. The success of the London School Board had been due to the close attention which it had given to detail, which would be absolutely destroyed under this Bill. They could not contemplate with equanimity the handing over to the County Council as a mere shadowy reproduction of the Board of Education, of the control of education of this great area. They should have a real controlling power, with out which the Bill would do more harm than good to education in London The clause now under consideration undoubtedly gave very considerable powers to the Borough Councils to create large expenditure in respect of education. It was absolutely impossible for the clause to be worked in the sense of the hon. Member for Chelsea unless the Borough Councils submitted estimates for considerable outlay in order to carry out adequately the purposes they wished to take upon themselves with the help of the Board of Education. Such a co-ordinating of the power of rating in London could only result in an enormous increase in the burden of the rates.
  MR. BOUSFIELDsaid it was pretty obvious from the speeches made that the Committee was to have a Second Reading debate upon this clause, and members on the Unionist side of the House would be misunderstood if they allowed the Motion to go through without replying to the arguments of the hon. Gentlemen opposite. Every one would no doubt like to see some Amendment or other in this clause. It was very improbable that the Government could succeed in framing a clause with which everyone would agree; and he would like to hear a more complete statement as to the way in which it was proposed to divide the work between the central body, the intermediate bodies of borough managers, and the subordinate bodies of managers of groups of schools who had to perform those functions which they now performed. He appealed therefore to the Secretary to the Board of Education to put them in possession of a complete statement of the way in which it was proposed to divide these duties Everybody was agreed that there must be some sort of devolution. Devolution was wanted to get the details of the work done in every district. Centralisation was important for three reasons—first of all, with reference to uniformity of expenditure and educational policy. It was also important with reference to the co-ordination of primary, secondary, and technical education; and thirdly, with reference to the free circulation of head teachers throughout London. It was, however, absolutely consistent with these purposes to have the details of educational work in each borough done by a Borough Committee. Those Borough Committees, subject to the reasons he had given, should do the local work in the boroughs. He hoped they would have a little more light thrown upon the relations between the different authorities. They would have to have three grades of authorities. The primary duties would be in connection with a group of one, two, or three schools managed by a body of managers in the present style. Something had been said about the Borough Councils being the managers, but that was not intended to interfere with what were known as managers now who took such a keen
  1716
  interest in the schools and all the details of educational work, and upon whose efforts a great deal of the success of education depended. He did not think it was intended to alter those primary duties under the Bill. Above the primary unit came the secondary unit intended to be the group of schools within the borough. That was a matter of the very highest importance. He supposed that the managers of the group of schools would have the appointment of the assistant teachers subject to the approval of the Borough Committee. Of course the appointment of head teachers should be made by the Borough Committees subject to the approval of the County Council.
  If they were to have decentralisation, as they must, having regard to the size of London, then between the ultimate and primary groups of schools they ought to utilise the services of Borough Committees. He had heard one hon. Member after another snub the Borough Councils, and this he deprecated. Borough Councillors had been described as small shopkeepers without any knowledge of educational matters, but he should be very sorry if the small shopkeepers were not represented. The way to keep down the standard and character of local representatives was to deprive them of important functions. If they formed the educational plan upon that basis they would never get the most capable men to come forward to discharge the functions required. It would be open to the County Council to put a certain number of members of the London School Board on the central authority, and there was room for several of those men of experience on the Borough Committees. When they once started their Borough Committees in that way they would form an excellent training ground for educational administrators who would combine business experience with educational work. He did not quite know what was meant by an educational expert, but he should like to see a body composed of men with business capacity. Those sort of men would be the product of the scheme of this Bill. From the point of view of devolution and securing a regular flow of persons of experience in educational

  1717
  matters the proposal of the Government was the right policy.
  MR. YOXALLthought the Borough Councils should be done away with in this clause as they had been in Clause 2. The Opposition did not object to Borough Councils or their Committees having managerial powers over schools within their area, but they objected to such powers being statutory under this Bill. He had listened with great regret to the speech of the Secretary to the Board of Education. In the provinces within the area of an administrative county, although the powers possessed by the County Council were dual—the powers for primary education and education other than primary—still those powers rested in the hands of the same set of people under the Act of last year, and the co-ordinating principle was adopted as the quickest and the most satisfactory method of getting over the difficulty set up by the Cockerton judgment. The higher grade Board schools in Sheffield were under the same management as the other Board schools, and although the finances did not come from the same source, still they were spent upon the schools within the area. The difficulties of the Cockerton judgment and the dislocation it set up in education were confessedly and professedly removed last year for the whole area of the provinces, but now the hon. Baronet was laying down the principle that, because of the Cockerton judgment they must put the management of the secondary and evening schools under the London County Council and the Board schools in the hands of the Borough Committees. Apparently there still remained some Cockerton microbes at the Board of Education office and the hon. Baronet was receiving attention from them. Not only would the management of the Board primary schools not be in the hands of the London County Council or of the Committee it might appoint, but the denominational primary schools within the area of the Borough Councils were to be under a totally different management to the Board schools. In drawing up this Bill the last thing that was considered was educational fitness and progress. The framing of the Bill seemed to him to have been a
  1718
  set of most unprincipled compromises between the Borough Council champions and the County Council champions on that side, and between the Borough Councils and the Established Church. The Bishops had said to the Government, "We will not have the Borough Council Committees to manage our voluntary schools." The result was that in a place like Marylebone, where there were more denominational schools than Board schools, the Borough Council would not manage the denominational schools. They would be allowed to manage the Board elementary schools but not the higher Board schools. That was the sort of co-ordination which London was to have meted out to it. The result would be that in the metropolitan area, where there would always be a rich harvest of brains, they would not have that co-ordination, that system, that easy passage for the clever lad from school to school, that common knowledge of the wants of the schools and of the scholars, which they would have in the provinces under the Act of 1902. They were to have in London instead a chaotic arrangement, no better, and perhaps worse, than the present arrangement, because the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education had been bitten with the microbe of the Cockerton judgment.
  There was also the most important question of the curriculum to be set up in the various parts of London. He believed hon. Members were under the impression that the Board of Education would take care that, alhough all over London there might be twenty-nine different sets of managers for primary schools, the curriculum should be practically the same. He wished to point out that the Board of Education had not power to take that care. What the Board of Education did at the present moment was to put down in the code a maximum curriculum, and leave the managers of a school, or group of schools, to arrange the minimum curriculum. The Board of Education could prevent managers from getting, on false pretences, the grant which was common to all schools by instructing the the inspectors to say—"Your school is not in a slum district; it is fairly well and regularly attended, you have good premises, and a good staff, and therefore

  1719
  you will only get the normal grant of the Board of Education if you present to us a fairly full curriculum." In regard to other schools, the inspector could say—"Your school premises are poor, the staff inferior, and the location is such as to make it practically impossible to get a high level of physical and mental ability. We will be satisfied, in your case, with a moderate curriculum, but do it thoroughly, and do it well." But at the present moment the Board of Education could not say to managers that they should or should not do any particular degree of work.
  Referring to the cost which would be incurred under this Bill, the hon. Member said he would not deal with the expense to the London County Council in connection with the management of denominational schools all over the area, though that was a new expense which would, no doubt, cause an elevation of the rate. A multiplication of expenses would arise from having twenty-nine centres for the management of elementary education. There would be twenty-nine different sets of officials, inspectors, book-keepers, accountants, high rentals, and records to keep. There would be a multiplicity of unnecessary letters and correspondence. Clerks without number would be required, and that would increase the expense. We were not too willing to spend money on education proper. Why waste money on unnecessary machinery, and which was not called for by anybody but the framers of the Bill? The hon. Member pointed out that the proposed system would operate adversely alike for teachers and the interests of education in regard to the promotion of teachers. What was wanted was that there should be free play and opportunity for the circulation of all grades of teachers from one district to another. It was an unfortunate thing that a teacher should be located in one area during the whole of his or her professional life. He understood that under the parent Act and the Bill now before the Committee, it would be impossible for the Borough Councils to manage any of the higher elementary schools. They were going to have a system of management of primary schools which would set up division and disorder, prevent efficiency, and introduce undue
  1720
  variety. It would bring about not an improvement in the present position, but a declension from the present standard of efficiency all over London. They were going by statute to prevent the authority for higher education from being in fact the authority for elementary education as well, and they were going to do all this in the sacred name of co ordination. He submitted that since the Borough Councils had been cut out of Clause 2, the statutory powers given to the Borough Councils ought to be cut out of Clause 3. The retention of these powers in Clause 3 could not be explained on educational grounds. It could only be explained on Party political grounds, but even then it seemed to him to be an unwise thing to do. The power to manage ought only to devolve on the Borough Councils by resolution of the central authority.
  MR. CRIPPS, said the hon. Member opposite had not quite accurately interpreted the Bill of 1902 with regard to minor authorities. Undoubtedly there were six managers—four of them put on under statutory power by the central local authority, and two by the minor local authority. There was no objection in principle to adopting the same idea in the case of London. With regard to education in London, which was one of the largest Imperial questions with which they could deal, they ought to have a thoroughly sound managing body, and in order to have that, in the first place they must have some relation between the central body and the managing body. As the Bill stood at present there was no connection whatever between them, and if there were no representatives of the Education Committee on the managing body it was impossible to conceive how the scheme could work in a satisfactory and effective manner. They ought to come to some determination which might give due weight to the position of the Borough Councils, and at the same time get a managing body which would be in touch with the central education authority and guarantee the proper management of the schools. There must be some

  1721
  representatives directly appointed by the central authority on the managing body. When they had accepted the central authority, they must not only fasten responsibility upon it, but give it due means of carrying out that authority in the actual management of the schools. He thought it was a great mistake on this educational question to raise anything like antagonism between different local authorities in London. When they spoke of the dignity of certain local authorities, they were going wrong in dealing with any question of this sort. He asked the hon. Baronet whether he could not see his way to have such a connection between the central authority and the managing body as would get rid of any possible friction. He repudiated all idea of anyone having the slightest feeling against the Borough Councils. They had to do with education and education only, and he urged the Government not to deal with the question as between the County Council and the Borough Councils.
  MR. BRYCEsaid he wished to advert for a moment to some words which fell from the Secretary to the Board of Education earlier in the evening. The hon. Baronet said the Government had an open mind on the details. So far as he could make out, everything was detail which could be thrown overboard and everything was principle which could not be sacrificed at the moment. This was an Amendment which did not settle anything, but it was treated by the Secretary to the Board of Education as one on which they could have the opportunity of a Second Reading discussion. It was not reasonable that they should refrain from endeavouring to give the Government their views as to the way in which the clause should be dealt with. The Secretary to the Board of Education indicated a disposition to accept a different scheme for the different divisions of London. That seemed to him to be a most extraordinary suggestion, and he desired to take the first opportunity of entering his protest against any method which would introduce wholly unnecessary complexity and confusion into the educational
  1722
  system. He could not see that anything would be gained by setting to work different schemes in Marylebone and Paddington. When the hon. Baronet came to the practical question of the constitution of the managerial body, he said it was very desirable to have decentralisation. He agreed that decentralisation was a blessed word, but what did it mean? If it meant that the London County Council and its Committee would not be able themselves to undertake and grapple with the vast mass of work thrown upon them, then he entirely agreed. If it meant also that the School Board might have, perhaps, tried to do too much, and that they might, with advantage, have thrown more functions upon local managers, then he also agreed. What were the conditions of successful decentralisation? The powers should be delegated in such a way as to retain unity of supreme control. If they were to require, or to suggest to the central authority that its administrative powers were to be delegated to a subordinate authority, they must see that there was a subordinate authority fit to discharge those powers. The Secretary to the Board of Education said that the Borough Councils were the obvious bodies for the purpose, but neither he, nor any other Member who had spoken in the debate, had attempted to grapple with the question whether the Borough Councils were fitted by knowledge, experience, or composition to undertake the management of the schools. They were not created for this work, they had no experience of this work; even the hon. Member for Hackney said he wished to give them this work to induce a better class of persons to enter the Borough Councils and raise them to a sense of their responsibilities. Surely that was not a practical spirit in which to approach this question.
  MR. BOUSFIELDsaid what he suggested was that they should co-opt members of the existing London School Board to start with.
  MR. BRYCEsaid that the criticisms of the hon. Member for Hackney and Stretford were suggestions of

  1723
  alternative plans. He should be the last person in the world to disparage the Borough Councils. His experience of the House showed him that it was most dangerous to make anything like an attack on a public body. He hoped it would not be regarded as a disparagement of the Borough Councils when he said that he should like to know something more about them. He would ask hon. Members how much they knew of the Borough Councils. He was an average normal London ratepayer. He had lived in Marylebone for forty years, and he had always endeavoured to do his duty in the way of electing good men to the Borough Councils; but he really did not know of whom the Borough Council of Marylebone consisted. Hon. Members who were Members for London constituencies perhaps did know, because they came in contact with the members of the Borough Councils. He looked at this question from the point of view of the average ratepayer, who had no time to read the Marylebone Observer, or the St. Pancras Herald or other local newspapers, and who knew little or nothing of the Borough Councils. He dared say that this would change in a few years; that these Councils would become more important bodies than they now were; but at present they knew so little of them that they could not say whether they were fit for the educational duties it was now proposed to throw upon them. Therefore, carrying an open mind on the subject, he wanted more light on the capacity of the Borough Councils for this work than had yet been received. It should be remembered that the managers hitherto have been small bodies of persons who had the time to go in and out of the schools and know everything about them; and a good deal of the best managerial work had been done by ladies. In all parts of the House it was agreed that they should like to see the London County Council and its Education Committee delegate part of the educational work to the local bodies; but it was essential that the control should remain with the central authority. But how could the control of the central authority be effective over bodies on which the central authority had no representatives? There should be a link between the controlling and the managerial authorities,
  1724
  some persons from the central authority, or appointed by it, who would be their agents, represent their views, and keep the managers in touch with the central authority. That would give a certain amount of unity, and prevent that friction which must arise if there was a body of managers entirely independent of the central authority.
  The truth was that in this clause, as in Clause 2, the further they went from the general principles of the Act of 1902 the worse the Bill became. If they were going to carry out the principles of the Act of last year they must carry them out completely, and not introduce elements of friction. The main point was that the local authority should be responsible to the central authority, and the managers should derive their title and power from that authority. They should not have managers who were practically independent, and could go direct to the Board of Education, or refuse to carry out the instructions of the Education Committee. He hoped the Government would take the plan of Clause 7 in the Act of 1902, and give a majority on the managerial body to the central body. A further question was as to what powers were to be given to the managers, but that could not be discussed until they knew who the managers were to be. That was a point on which stress had been laid by his hon. friend the Member for Poplar, whose speech did not seem to be quite understood by those who followed him. That hon. Gentleman was quite as opposed to giving statutory powers to the managers as anybody who had spoken in the debate. He submitted that the Government in dealing with Clause 3 should observe the same openness of mind as they had done in dealing with Clause 2; and that they should allow the Bill to take the form in which that unity and concentration, upon which the First Lord of the Treasury so often dilated, should be realised. Above all they should lay down the cardinal principle that co-ordination and unity could only be secured by giving responsibility and control to the Central Education Committee.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman has given great

  1725
  comfort and consolation to my hon. friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education by the speech just delivered. My hon. friend has been the target for many shafts in the course of these debates, and it must be a comfort to him to know that as soon as this Bill is passed it will be regarded as a model for all other Bills. The reason why I hold out that happy prospect to my hon. friend is that I gather from the right hon. Gentleman that no higher standard of Parliamentary excellence is possible than Clause 7 of the Act of last year, and he reproached the Government with departing from the spirit of that clause, and said that our one chance of salvation was to retain not only the spirit but the letter of that clause. Yet I remember that Clause 7 was fought by the right hon. Gentleman with the same ardour as he is fighting this clause, and no doubt this clause will be praised a year hence with the same ardour as is displayed in dispraise of it now.
  MR. BRYCE: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman is too accomplished a logician not to know what is meant by the argumentum ad hominem.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I was using it.
  MR. BRYCE: And I was using it to show to the right hon. Gentleman that, at any rate, the arrangement of 1902—against which I have never ceased to protest and never shall cease, and which we must keep in mind was a great deal better than that under this Bill—should be carried out. I am entitled to appeal to the Government and their supporters to carry out the principles which they have framed in the Bill of last year and compelled the House to adopt. I may also remind the hon. Gentleman that my remarks on Clause 7 only dealt with the part which refers to the managers of provided schools, and not the part which we fought with so much tenacity.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The right hon. Gentleman has taken three times as long to explain his reasons as I have to attack them. I do not wish to carry on the
  1726
  controversy; as he justly says, the argumentum ad hominem need not be used to excess. Another point of the right hon. Gentleman's speech was the theory that he started, or rather supported, that you cannot make a good system of London education unless you have links between the London County Council and the managers of the schools — whether Borough Councils or otherwise. That was precisely the argument by which we desired to induce the House to accept the representation of the Borough Councils on the London County Council Education Committee. That was the view we took: That if people have got to work together why not link them? That argument, however, found no favour with hon. Gentlemen opposite. On the contrary, they derided it, and said that there was nothing to be gained by having any representation of these subordinate authorities on the Education Committee. The right hon. Gentleman in an earlier part of his speech employed an argument which, from a Member of his great historical knowledge, his great authority in all questions of constitutional law and social evolution, really surprised me. Said the right hon. Gentleman to hon. Members on this side of the House—"Have you any ground for believing that the Borough Councils have got special qualifications for representation on the Education Committee? Was that the intention with which they were brought into existence; was that their historic origin?" All these questions must be answered in the negative. Are they to be answered in the positive in regard to the London County Council? Was that body brought into existence for education? [An HON. MEMBER: The School Board was.] Was it brought into existence to deal with the housing of the working classes? [HON. MEMBERS: Yes.] I beg pardon. Every gentleman who has had the smallest the most elementary, knowledge of the history of local government in this country knows that these great bodies were brought into existence, not merely with the view of carrying out the duties entrusted to them at the moment of their being brought into being, but also

  1727
  or other duties which, as being the organ of the community, they may be called upon to undertake. Might not the question asked by the right hon. Gentleman be asked of each of the powers conferred on municipalities since the Municipal Corporations Act of 1834? Local Government is reduced to a farce and an absurdity if, every time the growth of our institutions develops a new function, local and not Imperial, a new ad hoc authority is to be created. It is to be regretted that any one having the authority of the right hon. Gentleman in regard to historic and constitutional matters should have lent the weight of his great name to a fallacy so transparent.
  As to the fundamental point, I must dissent from my hon. and learned friend the Member for Stretford, who seems to think that logic requires us to entrust the education-of the children of the 5,000,000 inhabitants of London to the central authority of that great area alone, and to the absolute exclusion of those great bodies — great now, and greater, I hope, in the future—who have charge of the interests of communities compared with which the ordinary municipality sinks into insignificance. It would be a paradox if, having these boroughs to our hand, and having passed the provisions by which they were brought into existence and their whole system was co-ordinated, we were to ignore them at the very time that we were municipalising our education.
  MR. CRIPPS: I think my right hon. friend was not in the House when I spoke.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Indeed I was.
  MR. CRIPPS: My view was that they ought to be in the majority on the managing body and to have also some representation on the central body.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not see that my hon. friend gets a more logical or a more workable Bill by that scheme. If you imagine that there is to be a perpetual controversy between the County Council and the Borough Councils, I do not see how you will avoid it by putting a minority of the County Council on a
  1728
  body where the Borough Councils have a majority. If his idea is to link the system up, then why was he so opposed to putting a minority of Borough Councillors on a body where the County Council would have had a majority? I cannot conceive that the scheme as we have it, is likely to interfere with the supremacy of the County Council or with the activity of the boroughs; and I do confess that the weakness of some of the arguments used—such as that these Borough Councils were not created to deal with education—makes me think that there may be some motive behind the arguments of hon. Gentlemen other than that which appears. When the right hon. Gentleman asks us in this spirit whether the Borough Councils were created for educational purposes, I must repeat the question which I have put to him before—i.e., Was the County Council created to deal with technical education? When a Conservative Government asked the County Council to undertake that duty, we did not hear any protests from hon. Gentlemen opposite to the effect that the County Council had not been brought into being for the purpose and knew nothing of the work. Yet I have no reason to believe that they were specially expert in the matter. The whole principle of local government in this country is that you choose bodies to do certain work, and expect them to do it, although they may have had no previous training for it. I believe, in fact, that they do it much better for that reason. I no more believe that the Borough Councils are incompetent to deal with education because they are not school teachers, than I believe them incapable of dealing with sewage because they are nto engineers, or housing because they are not architects. That is not the theory of local government in England, and the sooner we accept the fact the sooner we shall do justice to the capacities of our countrymen to carry on the work entrusted to them. I hope that this House, in its new-born passion for education, will not insist that because we make the central authority supreme we are not to give any statutory powers to the subordinate authorities. I am sure that would be a mistake. I cannot conceal from myself the suspicion that

  1729
  if we had adopted the other scheme we should have found hon. Gentlemen opposite just as strenuous against it. I hope we shall now be allowed to get to the details, and to work out some scheme which shall neither detract from the educational control of the County Council, nor dispossess these great local institutions of the powers which, in the majority of cases, they desire to have, which I am sure they are qualified to exercise, and of which if we deprive them they will have reason to complain.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: The Prime Minister has really raised a large question going beyond the limits of the Bill. He has dwelt with great force on the fact that we are now engaged in a great development of local self-government in which we must devolve on existing local authorities powers which were not in contemplation originally when they were first called into existence. I agree with the Prime Minister in that. We are engaged in a great measure of devolution; but precisely because it is a great measure of devolution, because we have to give powers in respect of education to the County Council, which has had hitherto small experience in the matter, we ought to proceed very carefully, and be sure that we are giving to the County Council the best possible chance of dealing satisfactorily with an untried situation. The Government, is really engaged in a great measure of devolution, a larger development of local self government than London has yet had; and they propose to do it, not by giving one undivided responsibility to the County Council, which is the central authority, but by scattering the powers and responsibilities among the different local authorities. That will be the ruin of this great experiment. I quite agree that in giving the County Council these great powers of education there will have to be decentralisation; but the Government are making the mistake of endeavouring to teach the County Council how to decentralise in a matter in which they have had no more experience than the County Council. It will have to decentralise, but it will have to learn how to decentralise.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That is our plan.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: Your plan is that the County Council should decentralise itself. The Secretary to the Board of Education said that there were two matters of detail in this clause to be dealt with. One is the mode of handing over the powers to the managers, and the amount of power handed over. I agree; but are those details? Are you going by a statute of limitations to circumscribe the power of the County Council, or are you going to leave it to the County Council to decide, and to evolve by its own experience and by methods of decentralisation, what particular amount of decentralisation it is necessary to work out in the duty you lay upon it? I agree with the hon. Member for Stretford that I should like to see the Borough Councils, which are the minor local authorities, have ab initio an interest, and be brought into this system of working education as a minor local authority. But I disagree with the hon. Member that it would not interfere with the working of this Bill to give these Borough Councils a majority. They should have a minority on the management, but care should be taken not to freeze the interest of the major local authority, on whom the real responsibility rests, and to interfere with the power of carrying out its duties. You have to interest the minor authority and to preserve the control of the major local authority. The First Lord of the Treasury deprecated the argumentum ad hominem; but last year, when we were discussing the question of the management of the provided schools, an Amendment was moved that the minor local authority should have four persons on the management, and the major local authority should have two. The First Lord of the Treasury pointed out how serious it would be to have a conflict, not between an individual, or a body of individuals, and the County Council, but between two duly constituted local authorities; and he said that if we have a conflict of that kind it will do more than anything else to paralyse the central education authority in the locality. But the Government are not merely giving the minor local authority a majority on the management, but are going to give it the whole, to those very minor local authorities who are suffering under a sense of disappointment at being excluded from representation on the central Committee, and you are establishing at

  1731
  once a certainty of rivalry between these two authorities which is bound to paralyse the working of the Bill. I would appeal to the Government that they should, at any rate, consider whether they cannot meet the hon. Member for Stretford to the extent of bringing the two authorities together on the board of management; and I would urge upon them most strongly that they should look back to the line they themselves took last year on the question of provided schools, and consider whether it is not absolutely necessary that the central authority, on which responsibility is placed, should have a majority on the management of the schools. That is a matter of the greatest importance.
  Take the case of a private individual, who is to be given an estate and is not to be allowed to choose his own agent or any of the personnel to be employed on the estate. No one would take the management of a private estate on these terms, and how can you expect the County-Council to undertake the duties of education in similar circumstances? Stated that way the thing is a farce and an absurdity. How did it get into the Bill? I believe it was because the Borough Councils were to be so largely represented on the local authority; and, being so largely represented, it is natural they should have a great deal to say in the management. But they got on the management in the same way as on the Committee, not because the Government were thinking of education, but because the Borough Councils, being in existence, and being powerful, something had to be done somehow to bring them into the Bill. The Government, looking at the matter from the point of view of education only, would have done better to have stuck to their Bill of last year. That after all was a clean Bill so far as provided schools were concerned. We have but one thing to consider in the Bill. Admitting the question to be decided now, that the County Council is to be the education authority, we have the question as to how to put the County Council in the best possible position to carry out the duty we are insisting upon putting on it. No one can for a moment suppose that to separate the County Council from the management of the schools, and from the appointment and dismissal of teachers,
  1732
  is giving it a fair chance in carrying out this great duty, which must be an arduous duty, and which, I believe, if you retain the clause, will turn out to be an impossible duty.
  SIR JOHN GORSTsaid the Committee had got into the very same position as that in which it found itself last Tuesday. This Amendment raised the whole question of the management of the schools, and at the invitation of the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Board of Education the Committee had embarked on the whole discussion, but the decision on this Amendment would not decide the question at all. They would have to have a further Amendment in order to decide it. He would like to say a few words at this stage because the next Amendment to be moved was in his name, and it exactly carried out the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, and because he wanted to put the present position of the question from a practical point of view before the Committee. It had never been his lot to bring in an Education Bill the principal object of which was to destroy the School Boards. It was quite true that a large proportion of the Education Bills with which he had been officially connected would have had the effect of absorbing School Boards; but they always alleged—and as far as he was concerned alleged with perfect candour and honesty—that they would be most careful not to destroy the work and organisation of School Boards, and he did not believe that the Bill of last Session did destroy either the work already accomplished by, or the organisation of, the great School Boards in the country. It was quite true that a different body took up the work; but it entered into the offices of the School Board and carried on its machinery in the same way as a newly-elected School Board. But if the proposals in the Bill—which, however, he understood the hon. Baronet had admitted he was willing to consider in a candid and open-minded spirit—were carried out they would destroy absolutely the organisation of the London School Board. He had often been complained of in the House because he had not been an

  1733
  extravagant laudator of the London School Board, and therefore the Committee would allow him to say that, with all its shortcomings, the actual machine for carrying out the work of the elementary schools of London which they had established, was one of the most magnificent pieces of constructive work which had been accomplished in our time.
  All the Board schools in London were provided for and managed in an extremely efficient manner—no doubt with a little over-centralisation, but still, on the whole, magnificently managed from that great establishment on the Thames Embankment. If the London County Council were left alone they would, no doubt, appoint an Education Committee which would go into the offices on the Embankment exactly as if it were a new School Board and carry on the work of the Board with the same officers and on the same system. He was in favour of an adaptation of that system, but at the same time he would like to see a great deal more decentralisation. He would like to see the Borough Councils interested in the work of education. The more they diffused the interest in education, the more local people they brought in, the better it was for the education of the country. But it must be done by degrees by a body which had made itself acquainted with the present routine. If they began by splitting up the great establishment on the Embankment into twenty-nine different sections the task of organisation would be so gigantic that he did not believe anybody could perform it. He did not believe that even the Secretary to the Board of Education could do it. Although the present system might be over-centralised, after all, centralisation was economical, and no doubt the schools could be more cheaply managed by a central body than by twenty-nine different bodies.
  He would like to point out some of the difficulties which would attend the handing over of the management of elementary education to the Borough Councils. In the first place the Bill contained an entirely new departure in making a distinction between control and management. Hitherto there had been no such
  1734
  distinction. Clause 15 of the Act of 1870 gave School Boards power to delegate the control and management to local managers. The Act of last session in dealing with provided schools did not separate control and management. A distinction was made in this clause, however, but it had never been explained to the Committee, and there was nothing about it in the Bill. As far as he could make out, the difference was that the business of the County Council was to be confined to legislation, and the work of administration was to be done by the Borough Councils. What was the good of making general rules for the observance of teachers and managers if they could not be enforced? And how was observance to be enforced if the County Council was relieved of all administrative functions? He would give an example that was not unlikely to occur. It would be necessary that promising boys and girls in an elementary school should at a certain age be transferred to a secondary school. If the County Council made rules on this subject, how were they to get their orders obeyed? The teachers of the elementary school would not be disposed to part with promising pupils; the Borough Council, which had the management of elementary schools but not of secondary schools, would not wish to lose its most promising pupils; and this might prevent the rules of the County Council being carried out. If the County Council learned that some of its general legislation was not being observed, what could it do? The teacher was the servant of the Borough Council; the Borough Council could dismiss him, the County Council could not. Being human, the teacher would probably obey the body which could punish his disobedience. A good deal had been said about the appointment of teachers. When the schools of London were treated as a whole, the central authority was able to obtain teachers for schools in undesirable districts, because it could hold out the prospect that if they did their duty there they would be promoted to some better quarter. That could not be done by the Borough Councils. The Borough Council of Limehouse would have no inducement to offer to a young man or young woman to work in their schools, because they would have no

  1735
  power to promote them to anything but a Limehouse school. From this point of view, it was most desirable that there should be a general service of teachers for the whole of London. The Borough Councils would spend the money but would not raise it; and the County Council would raise the money but would not spend it. He failed to understand how an anomaly of that kind could either work to the benefit of education or tend to economy and efficiency of finance.
  Another point which had been referred to was the extraordinarily anomalous position as between voluntary schools and provided schools. It was specifically laid down in the Act of 1902 that the managers of voluntary schools were to obey every order with regard to secular instruction which they got from the County Council. Therefore the County Council would be, so far as secular instruction went, a very much greater authority in the voluntary schools than it would be in its own provided schools. If any teacher in a voluntary school should set himself up against the County Council in regard to secular instruction, the Council could summarily dismiss him; but in a Board school a teacher might do a similar thing, and, sheltering himself under his immediate superiors, the Borough Council, might set the County Council at defiance. Let the Committee think of the number of schools in some of the London boroughs. In Westminster there were seven Board schools in which the Westminster Council would be supreme, but there were thirty-nine voluntary schools in which the Borough Council would have no voice, and where the County Council would have practically entire control in secular education. In the City there would be a similar position with three Board schools and fourteen voluntary schools, and in Marylebone seven Board schools and twenty-seven voluntary schools. He had said enough to show that the scheme required very careful consideration before it could be adopted. His own opinion was that the London County Council was a far better authority to draw up a plan of delegation to the local authority than the House of Commons. But if the Committee were determined to undertake the work, they should
  1736
  accept an Amendment which he would move later. Why would not the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Board of Education propose an Amendment by which the London County Council should be required to draw up a scheme by which considerable powers, with reference to elementary education, should be delegated to local Committees on which the Borough Councils should be represented. That would give the London County Council a means of doing what the Committee was attempting to do now; and which he felt sure it would fail to accomplish. An Amendment such as he suggested would indicate to the County Council that they should take into consideration the desirability of enlisting the services of the Borough Councils. He really believed that if some Amendment of that kind were proposed by the Government, it would meet with the general approval of the House; that they then might finish the Bill before Whitsuntide; and that a really good scheme would be devised for the organisation of the elementary schools of London.
  DR. MACNAMAEAsaid he confessed he would much rather have had the Borough Councils on the central authority either to the number of thirty-one or twelve than that those powers should devolve on them. He thought it would have been better for the actual working of education in London if the Borough Councils remained on the central authority than have those powers. There was so much misrepresentation as to what the School Board did in the way of management that he was very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for pointing out that the School Board had a very fine system of local management indeed. They had 250 groups, each group managing from one to five schools, and they had 2,000 local managers, of whom 699 were women. Anyone who said that the School Board did not devolve enough power on those managers was making a serious mistake. The regulations of the managers extended over 300 pages of closely printed matter; and he defied anyone who wished to get a really effective system for London to safely

  1737
  devolve anything more than was devolved at present. He himself went to the School Board ten years ago, believing that it was too centralised. When the Borough Councils were established he did his best to consider whether they could be utilised. But now he thought that nothing in the way of devolution could be added to the code of regulations for managers. With regard to the appointment of teachers, it was suggested that the School Board kept the matter in its own hands. As a matter of fact, the managers had the sole appointment of assistant teachers. They examined the applications, saw a number of the applicants, and the person they sent up was invariably appointed by the Board. As to head teachers, the Board saw the applications, selected three of the best applicants, sent them down to the managers, and the managers made the final appointment. Would any hon. Member say that the Board could do more than that, if they wished a wise system of selection. If the Borough Councils were to be the managers, the valuable experience of the great bulk of those 2,000 managers would be lost. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the difficulty in certain boroughs with regard to the number of schools. In Camberwell the Borough Council would have to manage 104 departments; but the bulk of the members of the Borough Council were working people. He did not blame them, of course; but they were men who could not afford to give a large amount of time to this work. The Borough Council of Hampstead, which consisted of persons of greater leisure, would only have to manage twelve departments. Again, what was to become of the special schools—the schools for the blind, the deaf, and the mentally afflicted? There was not a special school in each borough, and the question would arise as to which of the Borough Councils would manage the special school that served three or four boroughs.
  SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid that special provision would be proposed for those schools.
  DR. MACNAMARAsaid he imagined there would have to be some modification; but the only modification that would be
  1738
  satisfactory would be that the County Council should have direct control of those schools. Apart from shutting up all Board school teachers in twenty-nine water-tight compartments, this scheme would be atrociously extravagant. If hon. Members who thought the ad hoc authority was extravagant, went in for this scheme on grounds of economy, they were in for a rude awakening indeed. What he wanted was that the County Council should have supreme power and should be supreme in the management of its own affairs. It was proposed that in the event of any difficulty arising between the Borough Councils and the County Council the Board of Education should act as arbitrator. He ventured to suggest that a dispute of this class should be settled under Queensberry rules. It would be much more likely to be an appropriate settlement.
  There was rather a serious matter in connection with the curriculum in the provided schools. The Borough Councils, in respect of the Board schools, were to have a large measure of power in the settlement of the curriculum. As regarded secular instruction, that did not matter much; but with regard to religious instruction, the Borough Councils were to have complete control over instruction in the Board schools. He could mention one Borough Council which would exclude religious teaching altogether if given that power. Was that desirable? He could mention another where the scheme of what was called the "Moral Instruction League" would be certain to be introduced. He did not himself think that desirable; but he desired to point out to the Committee that they were embarking on a very dangerous course with regard to religious instruction if they handed the control over to the Borough Councils. He listened with interest to the speech of the hon. Member for the Strand Division the other night when he described the broad-minded, non - sectarian, non - bigoted manner in which the Technical Instruction Committee of the County Council had dealt with King's College. That was true, but only £200,000 was involved. But here they would have an expenditure of £4,000,000 mixed up with religious controversies and covering the whole field of elementary education. He

  1739
  would ask the hon. Member for the Strand Division to wake up with regard to the manner in which the County Council would deal with the voluntary schools, especially when the people of London began to clamour against rate-aid without public control. He would read the last utterance of the County Council on the subject.
  THE CHAIRMAN: This clause has nothing to do with non-provided schools.
  DR. MACNAMARAsaid that the managers of voluntary schools were excluded from this clause, and Amendments were on the Paper to extend the scope of the clause in order to include them.
  THE CHAIRMAN: If there are such Amendments, let the hon. Gentleman reserve himself until they are reached.
  DR. MACNAMARAsaid he would only add that if hon. Members opposite thought that the County Council would generously deal with the voluntary schools they were in for a rude awakening. The last part of the clause proposed that the Borough Councils should have the right to settle the sites of Board schools. He could not let that pass without a strong protest. He thought the Borough Councils ought to be consulted as to the sites; but he also thought the central authority should have a veto over their decision. Otherwise, what would happen? At present the London School Board bought sites by private treaty; but if those sites were, in every case, a matter of public resolution they would cost considerably more. Another reason why the Borough Councils should not be allowed to have full discretion as to the sites to be chosen, was that they had certain local functions to perform. Let the Committee consider what happened at Stepney. The Blakesley Street site was proposed, but the Stepney Borough Council wanted the Johnson
  1740
  Street site. He, as Chairman of the Accommodation Committee of the School Board, went down to see the sites, but there was no comparison between them. The Blakesley Street site was an open site and approachable by good roads; whereas the Johnson Street site was dirty, and was right up to a railway line where 300 or 400 trains passed per day. It was an insanitary area which the Borough Council had to clear; and if it had been selected as the site, the money would have had to be provided out of the general rate; otherwise it would have to be cleared at the expense of the Stepney Borough rate. That was what would occur in innumerable cases. The proposal of the clause would lead to great extravagance, he would not say jobbery; and if the Borough Councils had an absolute veto, for a number of reasons they would not always choose the best sites. For those reasons he would urge on the Committee that this matter should be put into the supreme control of the County Council.
  COLONEL LOCK WOODsaid that what he and others desired was a connecting link between the Committee of management and the central authority, and if the Government were not prepared to give the central authority a majority on the Committee of management, they should at all events allow them one or two members thereon.
  MR. SAMUEL EVANSsaid the question before the Committee was whether the local education authority was to have supreme control even in the question of management. The Government proposed to give independent powers of management to the Borough Councils, and on that question of principle the Committee had a perfectly clear issue. The Committee had been compelled to discuss questions of principle in an extraordinary way. In the second clause they were forced to discuss an important matter on

  1741
  words which were meaningless in themselves, and the Amendment now under consideration was in itself to a certain extent colourless. Surely the Government ought now to tell the Committee what their plan was. Were the Committee to understand that the Government proposed to give supreme control in matters of management to the local education authority? Were they prepared to do away with the independent powers of management proposed to be given to the Borough Councils, and to say the central authority should have a voice in the matter? The Government were not treating the Committee in a businesslike manner by keeping their plan up their sleeve, and hon. Members had a right to ask that the hon. Baronet should adumbrate his modified proposals before this important Amendment was disposed of.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. WALTER LONG,)appealed to the Committee to come to a decision on this Amendment. The Government had been asked to say what their plan was. His hon. friend in charge of the Bill much earlier in the debate had stated that there were two Amendments on the Paper in the name of his hon. friend the Member for Chelsea which carried out the Amendment of the clause that the Government thought desirable. The Amendment under consideration would leave devolution entirely optional to the education authority. His hon. friend proposed in his Amendment that there should be devolution, but that that devolution should be by scheme. The whole question at issue, therefore, was whether the devolution should be optional and entirely open, or whether it should be made compulsory and settled by scheme. The subject, he thought, could be discussed with greater advantage on the Amendments which raised the precise issue, rather than on an Amendment that raised merely the general question.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid he had understood the hon. Baronet to say that the question of the statutory position of the Borough Councils was a matter of detail which it would be open for the
  1742
  Committee to consider afterwards. He now understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that it was merely a question of what powers should be devolved, and that the statutory position of the Borough Councils remained intact. To have two authorities with conflicting statutory powers would be absolutely fatal to elementary education in London, and he should oppose it as strongly as possible.
  MR. WALTER LONG(interposing) referred the hon. Member to the Amendments on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Chelsea, and read the clause as it would stand if those Amendments were embodied.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONunderstood that the Borough Councils would remain statutory managers, with power to appoint and dismiss teachers, and that then other powers might be left to them as arranged with the County Council. That really made matters worse, and instead of diminishing, would tend to increase the friction between the two authorities.
  MR. WHITMOREhoped the Committee would not take for granted all the hon. Member for Poplar had said, but would wait until he had an opportunity of moving his Amendment, when he hoped to be able to commend it to the general sense of the Committee. He had framed the Amendment with a sincere wish to meet the general views of the Committee with regard to the management clauses of the Bill, and not in any way from a desire to give power to the Borough Councils as against the County Council.
  MR. HENRY HOBHOUSErose, but—
  MR. WALTER LONGrose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."

  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 183; Noes, 99. (Division List No. 100.)

  AYES.

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

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

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Allhusen, Aug. Henry Eden

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham (Bute

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Artwright, John Stanhope

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edw. Algernon

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Forster, Henry William

  Myers, William Henry

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Fyler, John Arthur

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Galloway, William Johnson

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Bailey, James (Waldworth)

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

  O'Shee, James John

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

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

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

  Pease, H. Pike (Darlington)

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

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

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch

  Goschen, Hon. Geo. Joachim

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benj.

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edw.

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Greene, Hy. D. (Shrewsbury)

  Purvis, Robert

  Bignold, Arthur

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Rankin, Sir James

  Bigwood, James

  Grenville, Hon. Ronald

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Bill, Charles

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

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  Bond, Edward

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Renwick, George

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Ridley, S. F. (Bethnal Green)

  Brassey, Albert

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. C. Thomson

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Heath, James (Staffords, N. W.

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Brown, Sir Alx. H. (Shropsh.)

  Helder, Augustus

  Robertson, H. (Hackney)

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Henderson, Sir Alexander

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Bull, William James

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Butcher, John George

  Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

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

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

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

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred

  Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Myles

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Johnstone, Heywood

  Seely, Chas. Hilton (Lincoln)

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.)

  Kenyon, Hon. G. T. (Denbigh

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

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

  Keswick, William

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.)

  Charrington, Spencer

  Kimber, Henry

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

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

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow

  Spear, John Ward

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

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Stanley, Lord (Lancashire)

  Collings, Right Hon. Jesse

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

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir Jn. M.

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Lee, A. H. (Hants, Fareham)

  Stock, James Henry

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

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

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasg.)

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Cranborne, Viscount

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

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. E. M.

  Cust, Henry John C.

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Maconnchie, A. W.

  Valantia, Viscount

  Denny, Colonel

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

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

  Dickson, Charles Scott

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

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

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriesshire

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C.

  Middlemore, Jn. Throgmorton

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir J. E.

  Milvain, Thomas

  Wilson John (Glasgow)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

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

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart-

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. Hart

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

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

  Morton, Arthur H. Aymler

  Sir Alexander Acland-

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Ed.

  Mount, William Arthur

  Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

  NOES.

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

  Black, Alexander William

  Bryce, Right Hon. James

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Brigg, John

  Burns, John

  1744

  1745

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Humphreys, Owen, Arthur C.

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Caldwell, James

  Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Cameron, Robert

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

  Rose, Charles Day

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Russell, T. W.

  Cremer, William Randal

  Kitson, Sir James

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Labouchere, Henry

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Crooks, William

  Lambert, George

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Elibank, Master of

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Evans, Saml. T. (Glamorgan)

  Leng, Sir John

  Tennant, Harold John

  Fenwick, Charles

  Levy, Maurice

  Thomas, A. (Carmarthen, E.)

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Lewis, John Herbert

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

  Foster, Sir Michl. (Lond. Univ

  Lough, Thomas

  Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

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

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  M'Crae, George

  Toulmin, George

  Grant, Corrie

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Grey, Rt. Hn. Sir E. (Berwick

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Moss, Samuel

  Weir, James Galloway

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Norman, Henry

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Whitley J. H. (Halifax)

  Harwood, George

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Partington, Oswald

  Williams, O. (Merioneth)

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden

  Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (Huddersf'd)

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  Peel, Hn. Wm. R. Wellesley

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Price, Robert John

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H.

  Priestley, Arthur

  Mr. Herbert Gladstone and

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

  Rea, Russell

  Mr. William M'Arthur.

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Rigg, Richard

  Question put accordingly, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee again divided:—Ayes, 99; Noes, 174. (Division List No. 101.)

  NOES.

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham (Bute

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edw. Algernon

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Forster, Henry William

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Fyler, John Arthur

  Myers, William Henry

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

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

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

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

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

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Gordon, Maj Evans-(Tr. Hmlts

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch

  Goschen, Hon. Geo. Joachim

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Purvis, Robert

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Rankin, Sir James

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Greene, Hy. D. (Shrewsbury)

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Bignold, Arthur

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Bigwood, James

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  Bill, Charles

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

  Renwick, George

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashfd

  Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge

  Boland, John

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Ridley, S. F. (Bethnal Green)

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. Thomson

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Brassey, Albert

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

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

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Brown, Sir Alx. H. (Shropsh.)

  Helder, Augustus

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Henderson, Sir Alexander

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Bull, William James

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Butcher, John George

  Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)

  Seely, Chas. Hilton (Lincoln)

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

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

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

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)

  Cecil Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Johnstone, Heywood

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

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm

  Kenyon, Hon. G. T. (Denbigh

  Spear, John Ward

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

  Keswick, William

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Charrington, Spencer

  Kimber, Henry

  Stock, James Henry

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow

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

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

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks, N. R.

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Lee, A. H. (Hants, Fareham)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. E. M.

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Crossley, Sir Savile

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

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Cullinan J.

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Walrond, Rt. Hon. Sir W. H.

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

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

  Denny, Colonel

  Maconochie, A. W.

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

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Dimsdale, Rt. Hon. Sir Joseph C.

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

  Wilson John (Glasgow)

  Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir J. E.

  Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfrieshire

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

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Milvain, Thomas

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart

  Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

  Sir Alexander Acland-

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.

  Morgan, David J. (Walthamstow

  Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Ed.

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

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

  Mount, William Arthur

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

  THE TWELVE O'CLOCK RULE.
  On the Motion for the adjournment of the House,
  SIR A. ACLAND-HOODgave notice, on behalf of the Prime Minister, that to-day (Tuesday) he should move that the Twelve o'clock Rule be suspended in respect to the London Education Bill.
  Adjourned at Twenty, minutes after Twelve o'clock.

POULETT PEERAGE.
Petition of Rosa Countess Poulett, formerly the wife and now the widow of William Henry sixth Earl Poulett, as testamentary guardian of her infant son William John Lydston, claiming to be Viscount Hinton of Hinton Saint George, in the county of Somerset, and seventh Earl Poulett, both in the Peerage of England, praying His Majesty to declare that the said William John Lydston Poulett is by right entitled to the said dignities, titles, and honours of Viscount Hinton of Hinton Saint George aforesaid, and Earl Poulett, or to recognise his right thereto by ordering his name to be entered in the Parliament Rolls as a Minor Peer, together with His Majesty's reference thereof to this House, and the report of the Attorney-General thereon: Presented [by Command], and referred to the Committee for Privileges to consider and report.
EDGAR LORD BISHOP OF SAINT ALBANS
Was (in the usual manner) introduced.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLORacquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that no further Standing Orders are applicable to the following Bill:
Kip's Patents [H.L.]. The same was ordered to lie on the Table.
Market Drayton Gas Bill; Scarborough Gas Bill; Committee to meet to-morrow.
Mid Yorkshire Tramways Bill [H.L.]; Birmingham District Tramways Bill [H.L.]; Gosport, Fareham, and Cosham Tramways Bill [H.L.]; Manchester Corporation Bill [H.L.]; Education Board Provisional Order Confirmation (London) Bill [H.L.]; Brighton Corporation Bill [H.L.]; Bury and District Joint Water Board Bill [H.L.]. Report from the Committee of Selection, that the following
1574
Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bills; (viz.) —

E. Lytton,

V. Hutchinson (E. Donoughnwre),

L. Belhaven and Stenton,

L. Hatherton (chairman),

L. Crawshaw;

agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly: The Committee to meet on Monday the 15th of June next, at Eleven o'clock; and all Petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the petitioners praying to be heard by counsel against the Bills to be heard as desired, as also counsel for the Bills.
Taff Vale Railway Bill [H.L.]. Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
Lochnell Estate Bill [H.L.]. Read 2a.
Hyde Corporation Bill; Nelson Corporation Bill. Read 2a, and committed.
Dewsbury, Batley, and Birstal Tramways Bill [H L.]; Chard Corporation Gas and Electricity Bill [H L.]; South-Eastern and London, Chatham and Dover Railways Bill [H.L.]; Hastings Tramways (Extensions) Bill [H.L.]; Bournemouth Corporation Tramways Bill [H.L.]; Jewish Colonisation Association Bill [H.L.]; South Lancashire Tramways Bill [H.L.]; Pontypridd Urban District Council Bill [H.L.]. Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
Stroud and District Tramways Bill; brought from the Commons. Read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
Stoke Newington Borough Council Bill. Returned fromt he Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
Willesden Urban District Council Bill [H.L.]. Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
Tramways Orders Confirmation (No.1) Bill [H.L.]; Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Bill [H.L.]; Gas and Water Orders Confirmation Bill [H.L.]. Read 2a (according to Order).
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order (No. 1) Bill; Local

1575
Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill; Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill. Read 2a (according to Order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
Local Government Provisional Order (Housing of the Working Classes) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill. Read 2a (according to Order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill. Read 2a (according to Order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
Electric Lighting (London) Bill [H.L.]. House in Committee (according to Order): The Amendments proposed by the Chairman of Committees made; Standing Committee negatived; The Report of Amendments to be received to-morrow; and Standing Order No. XXXIX, to be considered in order to its being dispensed with.
Education Board Provisional Orders Confirmation (East Ham, &c.) Bill [H.L.]; Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Bill [H.L.]: Electric Lighting Provisional Order (No. 1) Bill; Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill; Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill. House in Committee (according to Order); Bills reported without Amendment; Standing Committee negatived; and Bills to be read 3a to-morrow.

PETITIONS.
  THAMES CONSERVANCY.
  Petition for formation of a Non-Tidal Authority from Cricklade to Teddington: of County Council of Buckinghamshire. Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

  TRADE REPORTS—I. ANNUAL SERIES.
  No. 2984. Denmark (Faroe Islands).
  No. 2985. China (Canton).
  No. 2986. Brazil (Pernambuco and Ceara).

  II. MISCELLANEOUS SERIES.
  No. 591. Germany (German Technical High Schools).
  BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (INTELLIGENCE DIVISION).
  Annual Report of proceedings under the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts, 1875-1899; the Merchandise Marks Acts, 1887-1894; the Fertilisers and Feeding Stuffs Act, 1893; and the Board of Agriculture Act, 1889 (Section 2, Subsection 3); for the year 1902

  FACTORY AND WORKSHOP.
  Annual Report of the Chief Inspector of Factories and Workshops for the year 1902. Part I. Reports:
  Presented [by Command], and ordered to lie on the Table.

  NATIONAL DEBT ACT, 1883 (TERMINABLE ANNUITIES).
  Treasury Warrants, dated 18th May, 1903, for the adjustment of the terminable annuities created under the Finance Act, 1899, and held by the National Debt Commissioners on account of the Trustees and Post Office Savings Banks.
  Order in Council of the 20th May, 1903, applying " The Colonial Probates Act, 1892," to the Colony of Newfoundland.
  FOREIGN JURISDICTION ACT, 1890.
  Order in Council of the 20th May, 1903, amending the Order in Council of the 19th November, 1902, respecting the currency of the Protectorate of Southern Nigeria.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT, 1894.
  Orders in Council of the 20th May, 1903.
  1. Providing that the powers and duties of a British Consular Officer under the Act shall, in the New Hebrides, be exercised by the Residents Deputy Commissioner;
  2. Approving byelaws made by the Cardiff Pilotage Board; and
  3. Fixing the Engineering Establishment of the Corporation of Trinity House.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  THE SITTINGS OF PARLIAMENT.
  LORD NEWTON, who had the following Motion on the Paper—viz. " to resole that in the opinion of this House Parliament ought to rise at the beginning of July, and that the time required for the due transaction of public business should be provided by Parliament sitting during a longer period in the winter than is customary at present," said: My Lords, the Motion I am about to submit is one which, as far as this assembly is concerned, possesses the doubtful merit of novelty, but I lay absolutely no claim to originality because it is word for word the identical resolution which has been moved on several occasions in another place and which upon the last occasion was defeated by only two votes. The superficial observer might, perhaps, be inclined to think that as time occasionally does not appear to be of much value in this assembly, it is not a matter which concerns us at all, but one which solely concerns the House of Commons. I hope to convince your lordships, or some of you, at all events, before I have done, that this is an erroneous impression. I start with the assumption that no reasonable person wants Parliament to sit longer than is necessary, and I fix a period of seven months as a maximum which I do not think in any case ought to he exceeded. The question is how those seven months are best to he apportioned.
  I will, however, briefly recapitulate what happens under the present system. Under the present system Parliament habitually meets about the middle or end of January. The proceedings open with a Speech from the Throne containing a long and imposing list of measures which it is hoped will become law before the end of the session. This speech is debated in this House for an hour, or, perhaps, a couple of hours. We then adjourn for ten days or a fortnight, and from that period until Easter we find absolutely nothing to do except to discuss such proposals as are brought forward by irresponsible persons. We depend, in short, upon the spasmodic activity of these irresponsible persons. In the House of Commons, on the other hand, the Address is debated at considerable length, the big measures of the session are introduced, some progress is made with Supply, and private Members have their fling, with the result, not infre-
  1578
  quently that they are counted out. Then comes the Easter recess, which is the end of the first portion of the session. When the Easter recess is concluded and this House re-assembles, our sittings are rather more frequent, and the Private Bill Committees get to work, but at the same time very Little public business is effected. In the House of Commons, on the other hand, public business begins to show signs of congestion, and private Members' privileges begin to be withdrawn. Then comes the Whitsuntide recess, which forms the second period of the Parliamentary session, and upon re-assembly after Whitsuntide it is invariably quite clear that the elaborate programme shadowed forth in the Speech from the Throne cannot be carried out. Thereupon the operation which is commonly described as the " massacre of the innocents" takes place. The Government takes the whole of the time of the House. The various measures are passed somehow or other, and, finally, Supply is carried with a rush. Then, and not till then—that is to say towards the middle of July—the Bills which have been passed in the House of Commons come up here. They are, so to speak, flung at our heads. We are ordered to pass them in the shortest possible time, and without making any material alteration in them, so that Parliament may be adjourned at a reasonable period in August. This year it is possible that that period may be later than usual, because, as your Lordships know, we met at a later period than is customary.
  Here, I think I may say that this House has a genuine grievance—a grievance upon which, however, personally I do not wish to dwell too long. But I should like to quote the opinion of a man who exercised great influence in his day, the late Lord Russell, who, when examined by the Joint Committee on the Despatch of Business in Parliament in 1869, expressed himself as follows—
  "The conduct of public business, and more especially the legislative business of Parliament, suffers from the late period of the session at which Bills reach the House of Lords. While there are two Houses of Parliament, it is desirable that each should have the power of considering the principle and examining the details of every measure before it becomes an Act of Parliament, but if measures are sent to the House of Lords in the middle of July, when Members of both Houses are hastening out of London, it is impossible that due deliberation can take place. The Lords are therefore placed in the dilemma of refusing to consider

  1579
  Bills which may be of great public utility, or of not performing the functions which the Constitution has entrusted to them."
  I will only quote two flagrant instances. One was the Bill relating to factories and workshops which came up here two years ago; the other was the Vaccination Bill of 1898, and I should like to remind your Lordships that that greatest legislative disgrace of modern times— the conscientious objector—obtained his existence owing to noble Lords not being willing to attend here at the time and vote him out of existence. I think I may say that this House is not treated in a very dignified manner. So far as I am concerned, I do not object to being treated in an undignified manner if it is not inconvenient to me, but, when indignity and inconvenience are combined, then I think the meekest-spirited individual may be justified in raising a protest.
  I do not think any one could have sat long in this assembly without noticing the extraordinary waste of time which prevails at the beginning of the year. I said just now that no public business is done before Easter, and it is perfectly true, because nowadays no important business is introduced in this House. Not only is no public business done, but no Private Bill business is got through. Take the present session. We met this year on 17th February. The earliest possible date for a Private Bill Committee to sit was 12th March. The result was that only one Committee upon Private Bills sat before Easter. What is the natural consequence? I do not know what the natural consequence will be this year, but the almost invariable result in previous sessions has been that private business, like public business in this House, is congested towards the middle or end of July, and towards the end of July you may see the unedifying spectacle of leaders of the Parliamentary Bar, earning Heaven knows how many thousands a year, rushing breathlessly from one Committee to another, vainly endeavouring to do justice to their clients, and effecting the complete bewilderment of the Chairman under whose supervision private business is conducted. One argument, I understand, against my proposal is that it will be impossible to get Private Bills finished by the beginning
  1580
  of July. It is said that to advance the date of the deposition of Parliamentary Bills will be inconvenient to promoters. I should think that very likely it would, but, after all, why should our convenience be sacrificed for the convenience of promoters of Private Bills? It is with great deference that I make any suggestion with regard to such a difficult subject as Private Bill legislation, but I do venture to suggest to the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees, that the date of the deposition of Private Bills should be advanced, that the various formalities which are now obligatory before a Bill can be discussed should be shortened and abridged, and, if the noble Earl is unable to obtain the requisite number of Peers to serve, either that he should reduce the number of Peers who serve on Committee from five to four, or else exercise the powers conferred upon him by the Rules and Standing Orders of drawing on the large reserve of Peers who never serve on Private Bill Committees at all. I know, from information supplied to me by the Chairman of Committees, that the whole of the work upon Private Bills Committees is discharged by between eighty and ninety people, very much on the same principle as we conduct the naval and military defence of this country.
  It will he observed that my Motion offers, with what I venture to term some generosity, two alternatives to the Government. The first alternative, and for my part this would appear to be the ideal arrangement, is that Parliament might meet, say, in November; it might sit for a month or six weeks and do a great deal of work in that time; it might then adjourn for five or six weeks for the purpose of the Christmas vacation, and it might then resume work and conclude by the beginning of July. That is one alternative, but I recognise that there are technical difficulties to be faced. The other alternative is that the House should meet early in January, not later than January 15; that, as I have suggested, the private Bill procedure should be shortened; that the Whitsuntide recess should be cut down to the shortest possible limits, and that we should adjourn at the beginning of July, reassembling in November to finish off such work as still remained over. These are the two, alternatives which are suggested by my Motion.

  1581
  I do not think it is in the least necessary for me to enter upon elaborate arguments in favour of spending the fine and warm months of the summer in the country in preference to London. I think it will be sufficient for me to point out that we are the only people, I will not say in the civilised world, but in the whole world, who deliberately spend the best months of the year in town—a practice which, to my mind, is about as sensible as turning day into night, which is only done by lunatics as a rule. I do not think it would be possible to quote a single people, who, when the hot weather arrives, do not do their best to fly from the town and resort to the country. We alone, who pride ourselves on being common-sense people, reverse the process. We reserve our highest political energies for July, _and our chief social functions for the same month. In the latter part of June, in July, and even in the beginning of August, we gasp and suffocate, not only in the Committee rooms upstairs but in theatres and ballrooms; we sit down in artificially-lighted rooms, as if we were in Monte Carlo, to ponderous banquets, and we even go so far as to listen to ponderous speeches on ponderous subjects, and this we do in the middle of the dog days and in deference to a hoary superstition which I hope to destroy before I have concluded my remarks. I said I would not indulge in any arguments in favour of spending the summer in the country in preference to London, and I think, therefore, it would be better to confine myself to what I imagine will be the arguments of my opponents, if there are any. When this proposal was brought forward in 1859, Lord Palmerston succeeded in getting it rejected on the ground that if Parliament met in November or December so many Members would have colds or coughs that they would make such a noise that nobody would be able to hear anybody else speak, and I think he added that it was extremely dangerous, because a number of Members would come down, would get their feet wet, and would go home and die, and the Government would be placed in a minority. .That is a sample of the arguments with which this proposal was met
  1582
  many years ago, and it was considered good enough for the House of Commons of those days. I think that something more substantial is needed at present in order to refute my proposal.
  I will deal first with what I will assume to be the Ministerial argument. The Ministerial argument, I imagine, will take this form, that I shall be told that if my Motion is carried there will be no time for the preparation of Estimates and Bills. I entirely fail to see the force of this argument myself, because I do not propose to increase the length of the session, and therefore there will be just as many months available for the framing of Estimates and Bills. Although I have the highest respect for the ability and industry of Ministers, yet when they ask me to believe that they spend the whole of the recess in preparing Estimates and Bills, that is making rather a large draft on my credulity, because, as we all know, there are such persons as permanent officials, and I do not think that it is altogether uncharitable to assume that a large part of the preparation of this work devolves on the permanent officials, and the work which devolves upon the Ministers, I expect, in many instances, consists in elaborating those rhetorical periods with which they recommend those measures to the House, and which are to secure their imperishable fame. I would like to point out with regard to this argument that Cabinets do meet in the autumn, and the legal and judicial business is transacted here at that time, and therefore a certain number of persons in both Houses would have to be here in any case. Then there is what I may term the subordinate official argument. I have been assured by the Whips that it would be impossible to secure the attendance of Peers or Members of Parliament in the winter months. A friend has furnished me with some statistics on the subject, and I find that in the month of July last year—July being our busy month—the House sat for eighteen days, and there were 1,475 attendances of Peers, giving an average attendance of eighty-two per day. In December of last year, however, when the House only sat for thirteen days, there were 1,283 attendances, giving an average attendance of no less than ninety-eight persons per day.

  1583
  I will pass from what I term the official objections to the unofficial objections, and the natural objections that will arise to everybody's mind are the so-called sporting objections. I have been told that if my Motion is carried in some mysterious way the prospects of first-class cricket will be seriously injured. Well, if any action of mine could make what is now essentially a dull amusement a little more lively I should consider myself a public benefactor. Personally, I almost think I would as soon sit here and listen, say, to a debate in Committee on a Scottish Bill than be forced to sit out a season of first-class cricket matches played under the present circumstances. I confess I entirely fail to follow this argument. 1 pass from cricket to another sporting objection—the shooting objection. I have been indignantly accosted by various Members of both Houses since this Motion was placed on the Paper, and they have inquired of me, "What do you mean by endeavouring to stop my shooting in the autumn?' I have replied, meekly but firmly, that I had not the slightest intention of doing anything of the kind. If the House adjourned on the 1st of July it would still be open for anybody who wanted to, to shoot very nearly as much as he does now. He could begin, I believe, on 1st August; he could begin shooting ducks, and he could shoot all August and September, all October, the greater portion of November, the greater portion of December, and the greater portion of January, not to mention week-ends. I confess that I think the shooting argument is very much overdone. There is a sort of superstition which still exists, that the English country gentleman, including the Peer, still consists of a kind of modified Squire Western, and that he cannot be happy unless he is killing something. This is, of course, a delusion.
  I pass from the shooting objection to the hunting objection, and whenever I have suggested my proposal to any thoughtless person who had not considered the subject, or to any person who is not interested in the subject at all, he has invariably said to me. "You are only wasting your time; you are embarking on a perfectly hopeless task, because the hunting men will never
  1584
  allow anything of the sort." For generations the proceedings in Parliament, social life, and everything else have been governed by the theory that Parliament, and more especially the House of Commons, is composed of hunting men. Well, this is the hoary superstition to which I recently alluded. There may have been justification for this theory under it we have groaned, or, per- haps, it would be more correct to say, under which we have perspired, for generations, but there is certainly very little ground for it now. I can illustrate that by one simple -fact. During the present session an endeavour was made to organise a point-to-point race for Members of the House of Commons. How many entries do you suppose were received? Just five. I have taken the trouble to examine into the hunting theory, and I cannot find that there are fifty men in the House of Commons, not who are hunting men, but. who go out hunting; and I must confess, although it seems a hard thing to say, that I believe there is much less cruelty involved in preventing a middle-aged gentleman from going out hunting than is generally supposed. But the best argument I have against the hunting people is that my noble friend opposite, Lord Ribblesdale, who is a well-known figure in the hunting world, is one of my warmest supporters, and I might add that I have obtained promises of support from masters of hounds sitting on this side of the House.
  So much for the sporting arguments. I now come to what I may term the social arguments. It is said that if the Motion is carried I shall spoil the London season. Well, my Lords, I must admit frankly that my ambition is not limited solely to improving our procedure here, but to effecting an improvement in the London season. Lord Beaconsfield once wrote—
  "If we could only so contrive our lives as to go into the country for the first note m the nightingale. and to return to town for the first note of the muffin-bell, existence might be more enjoyable."
  I am not going to the length advocated by Lord Beaconsfield. I do not wish to, drive anybody into the country when the first note of the nightingale is heard. If I am not mistaken, the nightingale

  1585
  will have finished his song before I propose that the House should adjourn. But under the present arrangements the early months of the year are not only wasted politically but they are wasted socially, and social congestion sets in concurrently with political congestion in the month of July. I contend that the natural months for social enjoyment are March, April, May, and perhaps June. I have already pointed out that our practice is the reverse of every civilised nation, and I contend, if my proposal were adopted, that existence, in the language of Lord Beaconsfield, would be more enjoyable than it is at present. There is to my mind only one objection which need seriously be considered, and that is the question of whether, supposing this Motion is carried, the session would be prolonged or not. I began by assuming that nobody wanted Parliament to sit longer than is absolutely necessary, and I am sure nobody wishes that it should sit longer than it does at the present moment. Shortly stated, one session is very much like another. Every year we see the same thing. The Government endeavours to pass as many Bills as possible, and the Opposition endeavours to prevent as many Bills as possible from being passed. In former days, this contest resolved itself solely into one of endurance. The House of Commons used occasionally to sit far into September, and when it had arrived towards the end of September a bargain had to be struck with the Opposition in order to obtain Supply. Those conditions have been much improved latterly under the new rules.
  Under the new Jules there is now practically a fixed day—approximately the 12th or 15th of August. What, in effect, I propose, is that we should substitute what would practically be a fixed day six weeks earlier; and, although there are certain authorities upon Parliamentary procedure who believe that this is impracticable, I cannot help thinking that if an autumn session were practically a certainty, the motive for obstruction would be less than it is as long as the prospect is uncertain. As a matter of fact, whatever Government may say, I am convinced that autumn sessions will be the rule in the future instead of the exception, and it always
  1586
  will be so as long as Governments persist in overloading their ship. But when I consider the objections which are raised on this score, I cannot he p calling to mind the prophecies of evil which I have heard indulged in whenever any suggested change was made in Parliamentary arrangements in the House of Commons, and therefore the objections which, no doubt, will be put forward on this ground, are less terrifying to me than they would be if I had had no Parliamentary experience. I think I have more or less exhausted my arguments, and I trust that, at the same time, I have not exhausted your patience. I should like to conclude by assuring you that what I propose to do is nothing startling or rash, and that this Motion is not the offspring of a disordered imagination. This proposal is to be supported by many Members of this House who have considerable acquaintance with Parliamentary procedure. It is warmly supported by the only noble Lord who sits in this House who in former days was a Speaker of the House of Commons. I know that many Members of this House are in sympathy with my object, and I know that many Members of the other House are in sympathy with it. I know also that it would be hailed with gratitude by everybody connected with this House, not only 'by the officials and everybody else, but also by the unhappy individuals whose fate it is to record our utterances. In asking you to give it your sanction I would merely suggest to anybody who has not finally made up his mind on the subject, that he should be actuated, not by his feelings at the present moment, but by what his feelings are likely to be if he is called upon to come here in the middle of August to wrestle with the intricacies of an Irish Land Bill or an Education Bill.
  Moved to resolve. "That, in the opinion of this House, Parliament ought to rise at the beginning of July, and that the time required for the due transaction of Public Business should he provided by Parliament sitting during a longer period of the winter than is customary at present." —(Lord Newton.)
  LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, in rising to say a few words in support of my noble friend's Motion

  1587
  I will endeavour not to traverse any of the ground which he has covered. He has mentioned to your Lordships that we are about the only people whose Legislature sit during the hot months of July and August, and I should like to remind the House that even this practice is one which has only grown up during the last fifty or sixty years. If you search back through the records of Parliament you will find that, with the exception of some exceptional occasions, on which some urgent public business caused it to be done, it was very rare for Parliament ever to sit after the end of June. The argument that I feel will tell most against this Motion is that, after all, the decision of it lies in a great measure with the House of Commons, and one would have felt that this was rather a serious objection if it had not been that the House of Commons themselves, when recently they set to work to rearrange the order of their business, opened a hope to us in establishing the sanctity of the week-end, and we trust that the grace they have accorded to the golfer, the motorist, and the other week-ender may be extended some day to establishing the principle, which is so venerated in the legal profession, of a long vacation. My noble friend has mentioned that the average attendance in this House from day to day is somewhere about eighty, and it is curious to observe that in the reign of Henry VIII., when the Members of this House numbered not more than one third of what they do at present, the average attendance was almost precisely the same. I know that this is explained in the words of the poet—
  "Somemen to business, some to pleasure take."
  But I am sure that it would be a libel on the Members of your Lordships' House to suppose that they are less capable of business and more addicted to pleasure than they were in those days. I wish to urge this Motion for your acceptance as much as anything on the plea of the business of our own House. You have already been reminded of the way in which we come down to this House to transact, in the course of five months, what we could perfectly easily do in the course of five weeks, and that into one week is compressed the business of two or three weeks. As evidence of how the business of this House might be profitably re-arranged, I would like to remind
  1588
  your Lordships of an incident that occurred in 1893–4, when the session ran on late into February. The House of Commons adjourned on the 12th January and assembled again on the 12th of February. During that interval your Lordships' House met from day to day. The attendances were above the average, and the business transacted was a model to any business assembly. If by any means we could curtail the business of this House into a more limited period, it would be far easier for your Lordships to arrange to be present in greater numbers, and it would enable you to transact business in a way which would be beneficial to the country and dignified to yourselves, instead of in the long drawn out agony in which it is at present done. After the speech of my noble friend, who has pointed out to you many of the advantages and the flimsy nature of the difficulties which stand in the way, I hope this subject may be taken into serious consideration. I cannot say that I entertain for a moment very great hopes that we shall at once come to any satisfactory conclusion, but I hope that in the course of time we may see an effort made in this House, as well as in the House of Commons, to transact our business on more business principles.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: I am sure we are very glad that my noble friend Lord Newton has exercised what he called the activity of an irresponsible person and has brought this subject before your Lordships to-night in so fresh and able a speech. With much that the noble Lord said I think we must all agree. I think most of us will agree that it is a deplorable thing that this House should have such small opportunities of exercising its talents and of transacting business. We should all agree, too, that we should like to be able to spend our Julys and Augusts in the country, and to be tied to London in the fine summer weather is extremely unpleasant; but I must confess that my noble friend had at any rate some nerve in raising this discussion in your Lordships' House, because really it is a question that little affects your Lordships. Your Lordships' sittings are brief in the extreme, the number of noble Lords who attend those sittings is not very great, and T think that everybody will agree that should any noble Lord desire to be away from town for sport, pleasure, or

  1589
  business, either in the summer or in the winter, he is very well able to do so, and make his arrangements so that he is able to be in your Lordships' House whenever any important business has to be transacted. This subject is one that must be dealt with from the point of view of the other House of Parliament and not from the point of view of this House. A great deal has been said in this debate, and has on former occasions been said, with regard to the inconvenience caused to Members of Parliament and to Peers, as to the arrangements which should be made to make things easy for them. I do not think that the question of inconvenience or convenience is of much mement. At any rate it is not on the grounds of the personal convenience or inconvenience of Peers or Members of Parliament that this question should be settled. There are in the two Houses of Parliament I think but 1295 men altogether, and we have been chosen, or the Members of the House of Commons have been chosen, and we are ourselves placed here, for the purpose of doing the business of the country, and we must look at this question from the point of view of whether the business of the country is best to be transacted under the conditions that at present prevail, or whether it is desirable that those conditions should be altered.
  When you take my noble friend's proposal and come to its root principle, it will be found to be nothing else but that Parliament is every year to have an autumn session. My noble friend was perfectly frank and admitted it to be so. He said you may either have your autumn session as an appendage to the regular session or as a preface, but an autumn session you should have. I think the question of the time that Parliament should sit must be a question for the executive Government of the day. It must rest with the executive as One of its most important functions to decide at what time of year it is necessary that Parliament should sit, and for how many months of the year Parliament should be called together. Having put aside the question of convenience or inconvenience and considerations of sport, which I look upon as being very subsidiary, and, indeed, matters to which little attention should be given, I would ask you to look at the question
  1590
  from this point of view. Would this change to a regular autumn session be of advantage to the transaction of public business, and would it also be to the advantage of the House of Commons in the way of encouraging men to come into that House who are best suited to transact the business of the House of Commons? Let us look at, it in the first place, from the point of view of the transaction of the business of Parliament. My noble friend has justly described the present procedure. Parliament meets at or about the 1st of February, or a few days earlier or a few days later. It sits on normally till the early days of August, with two breaks at Easter and Whitsuntide. Now, what is Parliament called together for? It is called together for the ventilation of grievances, for the discussion of Supply, and for passing legislation; and what we have to secure is that while abundant time is given to the first of those purposes the necessary business of the country should be transacted fairly rapidly and completely. I maintain that in order to secure this you must sit pretty continuously; that if you break up your session into small portions coming arbitrarily to an end you will take away many of those motives and weapons which enable a Government to get their business through.
  If you introduce a regular normal autumn session, and if that is the regular condition of things, I want to know what security you have, if you meet at the end of January or at the beginning of February, that the business of the House of Commons will be brought to a close by the early days of July, and if you do forcibly bring it to a close in the early days of July, that the business will be completed in the six or eight weeks that you are going to sit before Christmas? We had an experience of that in the year 1893. We met in January of that year and sat on steadily with but a few breaks till, I think, the 3rd or 4th of March, 1894. We met again then, after about ten days used for the reconstruction of the Government, and sat on till August. That shows what is possible. It does seem to me that if you start with assuming that an autumn session is necessary you will put a great weapon in the hands of those who wish

  1591
  to obstruct public business, or, on the other hand, that you will put a great weapon in the hands of Governments who are anxious to get more work done than perhaps they reasonably have the power behind them to carry through. What pressure can be brought on Members of the House of Commons now to get business through? It is perfectly well known that one of the most effective forms of pressure is the threat that holidays will be curtailed, and the statement that by certain days certain business must be got through or else the House will be kept sitting longer. That is done twice or thrice every year, and I maintain that the power held back by the Government, the power they always hold up their sleeve, so to speak, of calling Members to assemble for an autumn session, does have very great effect indeed in bringing business to a close at a fairly reasonable period in the middle of the summer. Further, so long as you have not an autumn session as part of Parliamentary procedure, you have the autumn session to fall back upon in cases of emergency. Then there is another point—the effect that an autumn session will have on the men who come forward as candidates for Parliament. I think we will all agree that the men we want to see in the House of Commons are those who are engaged in every sort of business throughout the length and breadth of the land. We want men as far as possible to belong to the places which they represent. We do not want to see too many men elected who make their business in London, and who, because they live in London, can conveniently give their time to the House of Commons. If you adopt this system of an annual autumn session, you will make your period for the sittings of Parliament synchronise almost exactly with the legal sittings, and you wil more and more make it convenient for the lawyer, who has to be in London during the time the Courts are sitting, to sit in the House of Commons, and I do not think that, distinguished as are many of the lawyers who sit in the House of Commons, their number should be largely increased. I have often had to discuss the matter with gentlemen who are desirous of becoming Members of Parliament, and I have often been told—
  1592
  "I cannot afford to come up to London and leave my business alone. I must have certain time to give to my business down in the country." It does make it to some extent possible for gentlemen who have businesses in various parts of the country to serve Parliament and attend to their businesses also if the Parliamentary session is taken very much en bloc and the holidays very much en bloc. A man is free then for four or five months of the year continuously, and he can give those months either to his business or pleasure or travel. For these reasons, then, I should be sorry to see the Motion of my noble friend adopted. I do not quite know how, if it were adopted, effect could be given to it. I do not know whether he would propose to introduce a Bill to say that Parliament should sit on a certain day until a certain day, and reassemble on a certain day. It seems to me that that question is one that must be left to the executive, but I am sure that if this plan were adopted, the business of Parliament would not be furthered, and I am sure, also, that it would tend to lower the quality of gentlemen who would come forward as candidates for the House of Commons.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: My Lords, I do not think that I ever listened to, or entered upon a more innocent discussion than the one on which we are engaged, and I think we shall always remember it chiefly for the very entertaining and delightful speech by which the subject was introduced to our notice by my noble friend Lord Newton. I am afraid it was innocent, because I confess that there is no getting over the general argument that this matter will have to he threshed out in the House of Commons unless the House of Lords is prepared to make a stand of which I have never observed symptoms during my long connection with this House. He has pointed out that this Motion has very often very nearly been carried in the House of Commons; and I do not know that there is anything in the House of Commons as at present constituted which should debar it from taking a less favourable view than on former occasions. Let me say at once that whatever view I take of this Motion

  1593
  I am wholly unable to enter into the reasons on which my noble friend behind me opposed it. He has said that if this Motion is carried we shall introduce too many lawyers and keep out a desirable class of Members from the discussions in the House of Commons. I think that if the lawyers mean to get into the House of Commons nothing will prevent them except the sternly expressed will of the constituencies. I think if we have no more formidable argument to meet in regard to altering the time of year than the great objection of having lawyers in the House of Commons we may regard this Motion as being almost on the verge of being carried.
  My noble friend went on to point out the objects for which Parliament meets, and these he stated very clearly; but I do not understand the argument which he drew to point out why these objects could not be carried out as well under the proposal of my noble friend, as they are under the present arrangement. He said that Parliament met for three objects. One was Supply. I am happy to say that he laid no stress on the question of Supply, because from want of experience of the House of Commons I should be absolutely unable to grapple with any argument founded on the custom of Supply. He said next that Parliament met for legislation. I know that is the theory. I do not know how far it is carried into effect; but I really am not aware that there is anything in the proposal which would prevent Parliament carrying out legislation as effectively or as ineffectively as under the present system. The third branch of the speech was this —that Parliament meets for the ventilation of grievances. If Parliament meets for the ventilation of grievances, all I can say is, it could not perform its function more imperfectly under the proposal of my noble friend than it does under the present system. I am quite certain that there is not a member of the Opposition in the House of Commons who has not at least a score of grievances which they would like to ventilate, and that there is no member of the Irish Party who has not 100 grievances which he would like to
  1594
  ventilate and which he is debarred from ventilating under the present system. I am not at all sure that Parliament might not devote more time to the ventilation of grievances and less time to legislation rendered abortive by the present system, than it does at present.
  I am afraid that the present system has come down to us with a very illustrious parentage. It was Mr. Pitt, on first coming into office, who changed the date of Parliament meeting. Before that time, under the administration of Lord North —and someone has discovered a fanciful resemblance between his Government and the present —it was the practice to meet early in November with holidays at Christmas and Easter, and to carry on business to the King's birthday, which was the 4th of June. I confess that that is the system which most recommends itself to me. I did not know until I heard the speech of my noble friend that duck shooting began on the 1st of August. I do stoutly maintain that according to every law of nature it is more natural to inhabit the Metropolis in November and December, in the winter months when we have admirably lighted streets —particularly in my own borough of Westminster, where they have recently altered the whole system of lighting at vast expense —admirable shelter from the winds, and all the resources of civilisation to enable us to combat our horrible climate, than to live in it during the hot summer months. At this time we miss all pleasure of the country; and I am not at all sure that if the deprivation of the pleasures of June and July were held as a penalty it would not act as effectually as a curb on debate as do the prospect of holidays in August at the present time. After all what puts an end to debates in the House of Commons is the exhaustion of debaters, and that exhaustion must come whether the session began in November or in February. It is, after all, a matter more for the House of Commons than the House of Lords. I think that the House of Lords has a grievance of its own. The other day, in reading a volume of letters by the Duke of Wellington to his niece, I came on a passage in which it is shown that in the last year of William IV. this subject was being mooted in Parliament. The Duke

  1595
  of Wellington, writing to Lady Burghersh, said—
  "I should think that Lord Melbourne must be aware that in these times he cannot get rid of Parliament one day earlier in summer, assemble it when he may in winter. There are some things which must be done before Easter; and he should assemble Parliament at so early a period as to afford time for them. The duration of the session does not depend upon its early commencement. To Brougham and others whose amusement is in Parliament and who have nothing else to do than to attend there, the early commencement of the session is important; but not so to Ministers who have something to do."
  One serious objection to this Motion is that, however early the session begins, the rhetoricians would insist on going on.
  The House of Lords has a grievance of its own, and that grievance is copiously illustrated in debate every year about the month of August. I think the speeches of Ministers here in August might almost be stereotyped. The House of Lords at the end of the session is treated as a dustheap by the other House, and it is expected to gasp through a London summer only to be refreshed with a flood of Bills at a time when the House should be duck shooting, and when we are wholly unable to give them that deliberate consideration which as a Chamber of revision we are supposed and entitled to do. On the last occasion when a Bill, the Education Bill, reached the House of Lords at the last moment, it was treated in a way which showed that it was considered this House was not worth reckoning with; but we were worth reckoning with, because we added half a million to its charge. But that was an occasional outbreak which is quite an exception. The process by which the House of Lords meekly swallows the measures sent to it fro n the House of Commons, and thereby reduces itself to a legislative nullity is much more the rule than the exception. I should like to see a strike of the House of Lords. I should like to see the House of Lords take its courage boldly in its right hand and adjourn at the time it thought fit—the time suggested by my noble friend—and that it should come back in two or three months time and discuss, more at leisure, the Bills sent up to it. I am quite certain that is the only real remedy for the present state of things. As long as you are prepared to submit meekly to the
  1596
  impositions of the House of Commons and the arbitrary manner in which it sends its measures up to you, it is only human nature to suppose that you will have to submit to them. I suppose there would be some objections on the ground of Private Bills to such a course as I propose, but I think it is the only effective one. The House of Commons sits for several months discussing Bills, and the moment the Bills are out of the House of Commons its Members are anxious to see what effect they will have in the country. If the House of Lords were to adjourn from the month of July, and the Commons found that their Bills would not be considered until October at the earliest, I think we should have more Bills sent up to us in a more timely way than at present. I entirely agree with the suggestion in the Motion of my noble friend, and I hope he will use his influence in the House of Commons, which is, I believe. consider able, to ventilate the subject there, and call on his friends to quote the discussion in this House as showing the natural innocent taste of this House, as well as the intolerable sense of oppression under which we groan.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The' Earl of MORLEY): My Lords, my noble friend, in the very amusing and able speech with which he introduced this Motion, made some reference to the effect it would have on the private legislation of this House. On that ground I venture to address a few words to you. Speaking generally, I can assure my noble friend that, so far from regarding his suggestions as the offspring of a disordered imagination, I admit that the proposals he has put before us are of a very tempting character. I think we should all agree that to spend July in the country would be in every way preferable to spending it in London, but I am somewhat afraid that if my noble friend's Motion were carried the only result would be that we should have an autumn session, and also have the ordinary session carried to its usual length. We have autumn sessions, but at very rare intervals, and it is admitted on all hands that, however necessary autumn sessions may be on certain occasions, they cause a considerable

  1597
  amount of dislocation of business in the country. The noble Lord said it would be very easy to expedite the private business in the early part of the session, and I must say that I entirely agree. I think there are stages in the early part of the session where the progress of Bills might be expedited so that they would come before the Committees at an earlier period than they do now, and I am considering the matter with my right hon. colleague in the House of Commons with a view to ascertaining whether and in what manner the intervals between these stages may be shortened. But when it comes to putting forward the period for the deposition of Bills, I think there are a good many objections to be urged. You must remember, whatever you do here, that our national custom is that there should be holidays. Even Ministers must have a holiday at some time of the year, and I think you will find that all Ministerial bodies and all promoters of Bills will have their holidays, whatever you may do, in August or September, and to cause them to deposit their plans or Bills before the end of November would be extremely difficult and inconvenient. But that does not prevent the other stages being, as I have mid, in some measure shortened.
  I think my hon. friend was rather misleading when he drew attention to the average attendance of Peers in the House of Lords in the month of July and the average attendance last December. He said that last December there was an average attendance of ninety-eight, and that the average throughout the eighteen days of July was ninety-two. But your Lordships must remember that during the month of December last we were engaged in the discussion of an extremely interesting and absorbing Bill, and it is not at all fair to compare the attendance of Peers on an occasion of that kind with the ordinary attendance in July. Then my noble friend spoke of the attendance of Peers on Committees. I think in that he was accurate. About ninety Peers serve on Committees every year. This year he complains that our Private Bill Committees began at an extremely late period. So they did, but your Lordships did not begin to sit; until 17th February,
  1598
  and it takes four or five weeks after the House meets before a Bill is sufficiently matured for a Private Bill Committee to sit upon it. The pressure was also increased this year by the fact that Easter came somewhat early. As a rule, a great deal more private business is done before Easter than was done this year, and even although only one Committee sat before Easter I am pleased to say that at the present period the business is fairly well advanced. My noble friend was not correct when he said that there was great congestion of private business at the end of the session. There is great congestion of public business, and in that I heartily sympathise with my hon. friend, and with Lord Rosebery. I should be glad if he or any other noble Lord had really the courage of his opinions and resorted to the heroic measure of moving the adjournment of the House and leaving the legislation sent up from the House of Commons. to stand over. But I am not quite sure that that heroic measure will be taken. In fact, I think I shall live a good many years without seeing your Lordships take that step. I have very little to say with regard to the private business. I am quite sure you could not get it done completely before the beginning of August, and I think it would be extremely inconvenient to prolong it into an autumn session. I fear that, if my noble friend's Motion is carried, however alluring the prospect of July in the country may be, the result will be that you will have an autumn session and have your ordinary session prolonged as at present.
  LORD RIBBLESDALE: My Lords, I think everyone will agree that Lord Newton has clearly made out his case that public advantage, and, as I think, public convenience, would result from the change he has suggested, and he has received the support of Lord Rosebery and other noble Lords. I do not want to go over any ground which has already been traversed, but I must say a word or two with reference to what fell from my noble friend behind me. I understand the noble Lord (Lord. Tweedmouth) to be actuated by that sort of conservatism of custom which always dislikes any change, but in this

  1599
  particular case it is just possible that he has dressed up the conservatism of custom in an attire which is very natural to him, having held the distinguished office of Whip in the House of Commons. There is no doubt that his appeal to you was that to keep people sitting late was the only way to get business done. I shall not go into the many considerations urged in support of this Motion. The noble Lord appealed to me particularly as a representative of the human family which is known as the hunting man. He asked me what I thought about his proposal from the hunting point of view. I speak only for myself, but I believe he is quite right in saying that a change of this kind would make very little difference to the number of people who hunt, and what little difference would be made would be to the advantage of hunting as an institution I would remind you of that celebrated character in " Handley Cross"—Captain Doleful, who was in the habit of saying that hunting was the only thing worth living for. I believe that the Captain Dolefuls in Parliament are comparatively few, and most of us who like to go hunting also desire, as far as possible, conscientiously to attend to our Parliamentary duties. But here, again, I quote from Mr. Jorrocks that London is one of the very best places you can hunt from. He said that the best of everything came to London, and why not the hunting. At the London railway stations will be found the best cover hacks, and I can assure you, crede experto, that it is perfectly possible now to vote in a Party division in this House, miss all your trains, and yet have an imperial crowner about half-past eleven the next morning; and as for people who want to hunt nearer London, they can amuse themselves very well on the Hampshire hills or the Surrey heaths. I was interested to hear what the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees said about private business. I think one advantage which would accrue from our meeting on a fixed date, say on 15th January or somewhere about then, would be that it would enable Private Bills to be considered before Easter, however early Easter fell. I hope your Lordships will give your vote in favour
  1600
  of the Motion, which I regard as an extremely reasonable and business-like one.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, I venture to hope that the noble Lord will not content himself with having made a very able and interesting speech, but will also take the sense of the House on the question. It is quite true, as has been said, that Parliament cannot meet at a different time without the consent and the approval of the House of Commons, and that perhaps in this matter, the opinion of the House of Commons is more important even than the opinion of your Lordships' House. But, on the other hand, I can see no reason whatever why your Lordships should not declare your opinion on this subject. The noble Earl, Lord Rosebery, told you that we live in a state of oppression, but having done that he advocated a very heroic remedy, a much stronger remedy than is proposed by my noble friend; but he said that that was the only adhesion he was afraid he could give to the Motion. I hope, at all events, and I do not think we really heard anything from the noble Earl which did not justify us in hoping, that he will give his valuable vote in support of the Motion. There is only one matter which I wish to impress upon your Lordships, and that is the scandal that annually occurs in the last three weeks of the session. I have been in this House longer than most of your Lordships, and my universal experience has been that important Bills come up to your Lordships at a time when it is absolutely impossible to consider them properly, and they are always thrust down our throats, generally with promises that the thing won't occur again; but still we have no time to consider them, and the result is that your Lordships do not bestow the amount of time and consideration upon important Bills which you ought and which you would do, I believe, if the time of the session was more convenient. What I support is this, that the House should meet in the autumn, not for the purpose of beginning a session, but of ending it. I feel sure that if we met, say, at the end of October or the beginning of November to consider the one or two important Bills that there are, much more consideration would be given to

  1601
  those measures and a much better result would accrue for the country. More than that, the House of Commons would then have a better opportunity of considering any Amendments which your Lordships might make.
  The suggestion of Lord Rosebery that we should adjourn would have a very drastic effect indeed; it would have the effect almost of coercion, because then the House of Commons would be obliged to consider our Amendments and to meet, and if they did not choose to meet at that time the result would be that the important legislation would have to be dropped. But what always seems to me the greatest scandal in the occurrences of the last three weeks of the session, is that almost any individual Peer could stop the whole business of Parliament. The rule of your Lordships' House is that unless thirty Peers vote in a division the Bill must he postponed and brought up again. There is extreme difficulty in getting thirty Peers together when you are getting far through the month of August, and I remember last year I myself went over to the Government Bench and said that I thought I would stop the Bill then before the House for a day or two, and I was appealed to not to do anything so ill-natured. I believe that at that time I could have made the House sit for a week longer, and it would have been necessary to bring up sufficient Peers to override me. At the same time, I admit that that was the thing which, properly speaking, ought to have been done. This House is reduced at that period of the year to a state of absolute impotence. I am sure that if the course proposed by the noble Lord opposite, or that suggested by Lord Rosebery, were adopted, very great benefit would be conferred on the country. Your Lordships need not be afraid of a revolution in this matter. When it comes to a revolution your Lordships are not such bad revolutionists. I remember that some time after I became a Member of the House, your Lordships used to meet at the hour of half-past five. A noble Lord generally got up at half past five and moved a Bill, speaking till about six o'clock. Then two Members, one from each Front Bench, rose and spoke between them till a quarter to seven. They never
  1602
  failed to say they were particularly anxious that the junior Members of the House should speak, and that opportunity should be given for rising young men; but the result was that when a quarter to seven arrived if any Member of the House got up, he was regarded as a public enemy. Not merely was that the consequence, but it never used to happen in those days that we concluded the business on the Paper. I have known business to go over day after day, and there was not the least certainty when a particular matter would be reached. A Motion was made that we should meet at half-past four. The execrations with which that proposal was greeted were marvellous, but after hearing the whole of the discussion, your Lordships adopted the Motion without a division. That is what I hope you will do with regard to the Motion now before the House.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The Duke of DEVONSHIRE): My Lords, I need hardly say that I do not rise for the purpose of expressing any strong opinion on the part of the Government on this question. As has already been mentioned, it is a question which has been discussed on more than one occasion in the other House; and on none of those occasions has the Government attempted to give to the discussion a Party character or to exercise any pressure on their supporters on the subject; and there is no reason, so far as I know, why the Government should not at the present time keep, at all events, as open a mind on the subject as different Governments have on previous occasions. It has also been stated that this is a question on which, although it is of very considerable interest and importance to us, and one on which we have a perfect right to express an opinion, we are ourselves obviously incompetent to give any final decision. It is one in which the other House is interested to a far larger extent than we can possibly be. The demands made upon the time of the other House so vastly exceed those made upon ours that I do not think any of your Lordships will doubt for a moment that the opinion of that House must be the predominant one in deciding such a question as this.

  1603
  There is one matter which has been referred to by Lord Newton, and still more pointedly by Lord Rosebery, which does greatly affect the character of the proceedings of your Lordships' House, and that is the unfortunate manner in which a great part of the business in this House has to be transacted either in the month of August, or, as recently happened, in the month of December. If it were probable that any change such as that advocated in this Resolution would make any material difference in that respect, that would be a consideration which would entitle your Lordships to express a very strong opinion in the matter. But I do not feel that this aspect of the question is one which is greatly affected by the Motion, which only deals with the times at which Parliament is to sit. I am afraid that until some method is devised by which the other House can be induced to dispose of its business and to send us our business in a more convenient manner, it does not very much matter whether the session terminates in August or in December.
  One remedy that has been suggested is of a very drastic character. I understood the noble Earl to suggest that we should ourselves adjourn in the month of July, informing the House of Commons that we should meet again at a more convenient time to discuss any business they might have ready for us to discuss. I do not think the noble Earl quite foresaw one, at all events, of the reasons which make such a proceeding on our part almost impossible. If we were dealing with legislation only that course might be open to us; we might inform the other House that we should leave the consideration of measures of legislation to some time in the autumn. But it is not a matter of legislation only. As long as the House of Commons does not complete the consideration of Supply until some days into the month of August, and does not send us the necessary Bills connected with Supply until that time, it would be impossible for us to take the course suggested without suspending the whole business of the country. I should like to point out to the House exactly, as it appears to me, the real effect of the suggestion which has been made to us. The noble Lord has suggested, as a
  1604
  plan by which we might secure an adjournment early in the month of July, that Parliament might begin in November. To that plan I think there are very serious objections. It is difficult to bring into operation for the first time. If the Parliamentary session lasted into the month of August and it was proposed to begin the next session in November, there would be no time for preparing the Estimates and the Bills of the Government. That might be got over, perhaps; but it is extremely probable that, even if Parliament did meet in November, the sitting would be protracted during the whole of the summer.
  The noble Lord has neglected to observe that the business of Parliament has now become so vast that it would be almost impossible to bring it to an end, even in the course of a whole year, if it were not for the interposition of some date which brings the session almost automatically to a close. That date is now roughly provided for us by some date in the middle of August. I do not attribute the importance that I know is attributed by some people to the magical 12th of August; I do not believe it is the necessity of going grouse shooting which really brings the session to a close some time in the middle of August. The fact is Members of Parliament have by that time become thoroughly exhausted, that the temperature and atmosphere of London have become almost intolerable, that the social attractions of London have entirely disappeared, and that everyone who feels that he must have a holiday thinks his holiday must begin then or he will not have it at all—it is the combination of these conditions which, under ordinary circumstances, brings the session to a close in August; and all these conditions would not exist at any earlier period. Therefore, I say, the experiment of meeting in November with the hope of being able to rise in July without prolonging the session to the following autumn would be altogether a delusion.
  The alternative plan suggested to us seems to me a much more practicable one, that we should make up our minds to an autumn session as part of our

  1605
  ordinary arrangements, meeting as early as may be in the new year, and sitting till the beginning of July. In my opinion, there is a great deal to be said for such an arrangement as that, if it commends itself to the other House as well as to your Lordships. I entirely agree with those who think it far better to sit for some weeks in November and December to attend to the business of Parliament than to sit in July and August. There are, of course, certain objections to it. In my opinion, the effect of such an arrangement would be that Parliament would sit on the whole for a longer period than it does now, probably three or four weeks longer; for there would not be that pressure, from the conditions to which I have referred, which would bring the session compulsorily to a close. There would also be the objection that there would not then be the long and continuous holiday which we usually get now. In ordinary years we have from the middle of August until the beginning of the following year, and that is a period of time which enables members of both Houses to make long journeys, to visit India and the colonies, and to engage continuously in other forms
  of work. The proposed arrangement would not allow that opportunity. There is also the objection, which must be felt by those who have had official experience, that it would to a considerable extent interfere with the Government in the preparation of their business for the ensuing session. The preparation of measures would, under such an arrangement, necessarily have to be carried on during the time when Parliament was still sitting. There is also the possibility that it would be found difficult to wind up the session before Christmas. I think, however, that by the exercise of judgment and discretion the difficulties might be overcome; and I certainly think that if the experiment should receive the support that it has received on former occasions in the other House, it would be quite possible for us to consider it. The matter, of course, is one not primarily for this House to decide. Without in the least endeavouring to influence the vote of any of your Lordships who support me, I shall give my vote in favour of the Motion.
  On Question, their Lordships divided: Contents, 88; Not-Contents, 26.

  CONTENTS.

  York, L. Abp.

  Goschen, V.

  Elphinstone, L.

  Devonshire, D. (L. President.)

  Hampden, V.

  Farrer, L.

  Bedford D.

  Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore)

  Fermanagh, L. (E. Erne.)

  Glanusk, L.

  Abercorn, M. (D. Abercorn.)

  Powerscourt, V.

  Grenfell, L.

  Ailesbury, M.

  Sidmouth, V.

  Heneage, L.

  Lansdowne, M.

  Kenry, L. (E. Dunraven and Mount-Earl.)

  Zetland, M,

  Chester, L. Bp.

  Lamington, L.

  Abingdon, E.

  Ashbourne, L.

  Lilford, L.

  Camperdown, E.

  Avebury, L.

  Manners of Haddon, L. (M. Granby)

  Carrington, E.

  Balfour, L.

  Chesterfield, E.

  Barnard, L.

  Mount Stephen, L.

  Dartrey, E.

  Battersea, L.

  Muskerry, L.

  Denbigh, E.

  Belhaven and Stenton, L.

  Napier, L.

  Egerton, E.

  Belper, L.

  Newton, L. [Teller]

  Feversham, E.

  Brougham and Vaux, L.

  Oranmore and Browne, L.

  Hardwicke, E.

  Burghclere, L.

  Ribble-dale, L.

  Lathom, E.

  Calthorpe, L.

  Robertson, L.

  Lauderdale, E.

  Carew, L.

  Rosmead, L.

  Lytton, E.

  Carysfort, L. (E. Carysfort.)

  St. Levan, L.

  Malmesbury, E.

  Chaworth, L.(E. Meath.)

  St. Oswald, L.

  Mansfield, E.

  Cheylesmore, L.

  Sandhurst, L.

  Mar and Kellie, E.

  Clifford of Chudleigh, L.[Teller.]

  Sefton, L. (E. Sefton)

  Romney, E.

  Sherborne, L.

  Rosse, E.

  Colchester, L.

  Ventry, L.

  Rosslyn, E.

  Congleton, L.

  Wandsworth, L.

  Selborne, E.

  Crawshaw, L.

  Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)

  Stamford, E.

  Davey, L.

  Wenlock, L.

  Stanhope, K

  de Ros, L.

  Windsor, L.

  Westmeath, E.

  Denman, L.

  Wolverton, L.

  Colville of Culross, V.

  Dunboyne, L.

  Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Halsbury, E. (L. Chancellor.)

  Spencer, E.

  Hatherton, L

  Waldegrave, E.

  Hawkesbury, L. [Teller.]

  Wellington, D.

  Herries, L.

  Churchill, V.

  Lawrence, L.

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

  Cross, V.

  Leigh, L.

  Allerton, L.

  Lyveden, L.

  Clarendon,E.(L.Chamberlain.)

  Ardilaun, L.

  Methuen, L.

  Ancaster, E.

  Ashcombe, L.

  Mostyn, L.

  Bathurst, E.

  Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery)

  Tweedmouth, L.[Teller.]

  Crewe, E.

  Morley, E.

  De Mauley, L.

  DECK LOADS ON MERCHANT SHIPS.
  LORD MUSKERRY, in rising " to call attention to the continuance of the practice of the carriage of deck loads in the winter time, by merchant ships, which subject was brought forward in this House in the year 1901; to allude amongst other cases to the 'Blenheim' and the 'Firth of Forth'; and to move that inasmuch as under the Merchant Shipping Act, merchant ships are prohibited from carrying deck loads to the ports in the United Kingdom in the winter time, this prohibition should now be extended to similar vessels carrying deck cargoes to Continental ports during the winter season," said: My Lords, the subject of my Motion vitally concerns the lives of our seafarers, and I had the honour of introducing it to your Lordships' notice in the year 1901, after the Board of Trade Inquiries into the loss of the steamer " Mobile" with all hands, and the casualty to the steamer " Huddersfield," where it was found that, owing to their carrying deck loads in the winter time in the North Atlantic, both vessels were sent to sea in an unseaworthy condition. I then desired to know whether the Board of Trade intended to take any action to avert such serious loss of life on the facts as stated in the judgments of these two Board of Trade Inquiries. My noble friend, Lord Dudley, in replying, showed that, as usual, the Board of Trade were impotent in such cases. They cannot take action against the owners of the vessels, exactly in the same way as they have admitted they cannot take action in regard to owners who have been found to blame for sending their vessels to sea in an unseaworthy condition through insufficient ballast. For the information of your Lordships I may say that deck loads are never brought to this country in the winter time by merchant ships, because the law imposes upon the
  1608
  master of the ship, and also upon the owner, if he is privy to they offence, a fine not exceeding £5 for every hundred cubic feet of wood goods carried in contravention of the law. A very simple means of evasion is, however, adopted, for what is easier than to pile on as much deck cargo as possible and take it to a Continental port and there discharge it, the remainder of the cargo being then brought into port in the United Kingdom for discharge. I have on a previous occasion pointed out to your Lordships how the " Mobile " and the "Huddersfield" were proceeding to the Continent in this way in the winter time, the former ship, which was lost with all hands, carrying a deck cargo of pitch pine timber estimated at no less than 700 tons. Another case which I might mention, is the loss of the ss. "Cardinal." The Board of Trade Inquiry in this case resulted in the Court finding that the loss of this vessel was caused by the deck cargo being washed overboard by heavy seas, carrying away the bulwarks and steering gear and staving in the after hatches, thus rendering the vessel unmanageable and water-logged.
  I had hoped that after bringing the matter before your Lordships' House this most reprehensible and dangerous practice would have ceased, but from information I have received, and from the cases of the "Blenheim" and the "Firth of Forth," the fact is very plain that it still goes on. In the case of the "Firth of Forth" it is proper for me to say that the disaster was not, at any rate, immediately due to the deck cargo; but still the Annex to the Report of the Board of Trade Inquiry furnishes instructive reading. She left the United States with a deck cargo consisting of no less than 760 large logs, these being consigned to Amsterdam, and the remainder of the cargo to

  1609
  Sunderland. From the Annex to the Report it appears that previous to the stranding of the vessel she had a list, which increased considerably until the ship was almost on her beam ends, and after a consultation with the chief officer the master decided to cut the lashings and sacrifice the deck cargo. I have no hesitation in saying that if he had not done this the ship would have eventually been herself sacrificed and most probably her crew as well. Then, again, there is the "Blenheim" which left Ship Island in the United States in the winter time with a deck cargo of 111 standards of timber. She left Ship Island for Sydney, Cape Breton, to coal, and then departed for her voyage to Fecamp, France. The Board of Trade Inquiry was not prepared to say that when the vessel left Sydney, Cape Breton, she was seaworthy, but on the same afternoon it appears that the master filled up No. 4 ballast tank. The Court thereupon said that they were not prepared to say that after this she was not unseaworthy, from which it seems to me there was considerable doubt existing as to what was actually the case. The vessel met with heavy weather, as is naturally to be expected in the North Atlantic in the winter, and consequently the deck load shifted, causing a great list to starboard and the vessel to ship large quantities of water. The Court stated that the cause of the deck load breaking adrift, and the vessel taking a list to starboard was that she laboured heavily and was struck by a heavy sea on the port side. Great damage was sustained by the vessel then and thereafter, and the Court stated that, although they would have been practically of no assistance, no less than three of the deck pumps were inaccessible in consequence of the deck timber being stowed over them. The Court attached no wrongful act or default to anybody, but desired to state that in their opinion this disaster showed the wisdom of the statutory regulation that vessels shall not carry deck loads of timber to discharge at ports in the United Kingdom in winter, and they wished that other nations would adopt the same course. If then, it is desirable to prohibit such vessels in the United
  1610
  Kingdom, to he consistent it is equally necessary that they should be prohibited from running to the Continent, as in this case of the "Blenheim."
  To revert to the disaster to the "Cardinal." The opinion of the Court was—
  "Although Section 451 of the Merchant Shipping Act prohibiting the carrying of deck loads during the winter season to United Kingdom ports does nut apply, as in this case, to a vessel bound to a Continental port, still, having regard to the weight of the deck cargo curried, and to the length and size of a great proportion of the pitch pine logs of which it consisted, the Court was of opinion that the vessel, as laden, was not in a good and seaworthy condition when she left Pensacola on a, winter voyage across the North Atlantic."
  From the reply of my noble friend the Earl of Dudley, it seemed to me that the Board of Trade were more anxious to fix the responsibility on the unfortunate shipmaster than upon the owner for whose interests he was working. The question arises as to what is the actual discretion of the master, and whether he is able to decline to carry a deck load. The owners say it is at his discretion to carry it or not, but the masters, on their part, contend that they have no option, especially as if others carry deck loads and they do not, they will inevitably lose their positions on arrival home. This is a perfectly reasonable view of the matter, and is a sample of the discretionary powers vested in shipmasters. I will quote from a letter sent by the owners of the "Cardinal" to the master of that vessel before she proceeded from the United States with her deck cargo. The owners wrote as follows—
  "Deck load—I wish you to carry as much as you can safely and legally."
  I may here interpolate that there was really no limit, as she was bound to a Continental port.
  "If you go to the Continent, I think you are entitled to carry a larger quantity than to the United Kingdom. If you are not acquainted with the custom in such cases, doubtless you can procure authentic information from the best authority in Pensacola where timber carrying is a speciality."
  I may state that the custom is that vessels bound to Continental ports carry deck cargoes, so that the master does not seem to have had much option. The following are the instructions from the owners of the "Blenheim" to the captain

  1611
  of that vessel whilst she was lying at Pensacola —
  "We are sorry to say it is a miserable business; the homeward market is simply in a desperate condition, and we fear the present voyage is going to be a very poor one indeed. We rely upon your best being done to prevent, at all events, a loss, and hope a favourable cargo will be shipped. You will, of course, be allowed to carry a full deck load for the Continent compatible with the steamer's seaworthiness, and we trust you will take full advantage of this liberty."
  There is no cause for surprise that the master did take full advantage of the liberty, and I contend very strongly that letters of instruction such as these leave but one course for the master, whilst at the same time they afford a loophole for the owners to escape by stating that the master had discretion when, as a matter of fact he had not.
  The time has now come when the Board of Trade should bestir itself and prevent unnecessary risk to life at sea. I am not inconsistent in holding very strongly that if it is dangerous to carry deck cargoes to this country in the winter-time—a danger recognised by law—there is also serious danger in carrying them to Continental ports. I have no doubt I shall be told that this is another move in the placing of further restrictions on our shipowners, but if these deck cargoes are dangerous to the ships then they are calculated to be detrimental to the interests of their owners, and were all such cargoes prohibited then I do not think the shipowners would suffer, as in that case the competition between them, which causes them to carry the fullest amount of cargo possible, would be at least removed so far as it concerns the carriage of deck loads to Continental ports. A captain with a very extensive experience writes—
  "It is certainly a disgrace to allow steamers to sail from the Gulf ports with deck cargoes as they are at present doing for the Continent."
  And on this another gentleman writes—
  "Steamers load at Pensacola, Mobile, and other Gulf ports, the very same deck load winter and summer. Their voyage in winter is generally to the Continent with a deck load, and then to London or a British port to discharge the under deck cargo—thus evading the law. These ships all take the same Atlantic track, and the results are well known. The master must obey instructions, or very naturally the owners will get someone who will do what is the custom in the trade."
  1612
  In submitting my Motion to your Lordships, I earnestly hope for your support in obtaining an Amendment to the law, which is perfectly reasonable and consistent, and which, if carried out, will undoubtedly add very considerably to the protection of the lives of our mariners whilst following their perilous calling on the high seas.
  Moved to resolve, "That this House is of opinion that, inasmuch as under the Merchant Shipping Act, merchant ships are prohibited from carrying deck loads to the ports in the United Kingdom in the winter time, this prohibition should now be extended to similar vessels carrying deck cargoes to Continental ports during the winter season."—(Lord MusKerry.)
  LORD WOLVERTON: My Lords, as far as British ports are concerned, the law as it now stands is rigorously enforced against British and foreign ships alike. During 1901-2 there were twenty-two convictions, of which no less than seventeen were obtained against foreign vessels. In the case of the "Blenheim" the Court exonerated the master, the officers, the managers, and the owners, and therefore a prosecution was impossible. In the case of the "Firth of Forth" the Court found that the stranding was due to negligent and improper navigation. With regard to the general question, I understand that the noble Lord wishes to make the carrying of deck loads of timber in winter by British ships illegal, wherever the loads may have been shipped or discharged. That would mean seriously handicapping our own ships in their competition with foreigners—already very severe—upon whom, of course, we have no power to impose similar restrictions. The Legislature has hitherto refrained from subjecting British ships to regulations which they would have no power to impose on foreigners. I will give my noble friend the figures of losses as regards the trade between foreign ports for the last four years—namely, foundered or missing, eight ships and thirty lives; and for the four years previous to that, nineteen ships and 129 lives. With these figures in mind I hope my noble friend will not press his Motion.
  LORD MUSKERRY: I wish to strengthen the hands of the Board of Trade and must press my Motion.
  THE EARL OF MEATH: The loss of life involved is such a serious matter that I trust His Majesty's Government will do what they can to induce other nations to take action in this matter by drawing their attention to the serious logs of life which occurs, especially among British seamen. it appears to
  Resolved in the negative.

  REGIMENTAL CANTEENS.
  THE EARL of CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, in Earl Grey's absence I beg to put the Question standing in his name, viz:—" To ask His Majesty's Government whether it is proposed to give effect to the recommendations of the Committee appointed to consider the existing conditions under which canteens and regimental institutes are conducted."
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (The Earl of HARDWICKE): My Lords, I had hoped to have been in a position this afternoon to have given the noble Earl a full statement as to the course that the Secretary of State proposes to adopt with regard to the Report in question. Unfortunately, I am not in a position to make that statement this afternoon, and I hope the noble Earl will understand that the reason I am not able to do so, is simply that the Report to which he refers was not an unanimous Report. The Secretary of State has had to give very serious consideration to the recommendations contained in the Majority Report, and also to those contained in the Minority Report. It is intended, in the course of the next few weeks, to issue regulations regarding the future management of canteens. I need hardly say that this is a question that very
  me that His Majesty's Government have acknowledged the fact that it is exceedingly dangerous that these deck cargoes should be carried, and I think some steps ought to be taken to prevent legislation which has been passed by Parliament being absolutely ignored in the way described.
  On Question, their Lordshipsdivided:— Contents, 4; Not-contents, 18.

  CONTENTS

  Zetland, M,

  Chaworth, L. (E. Meath.)[Teller.]

  Muskerry, L. [Teller.]

  Romney, E

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Halsbury, E. (L. Chancellor.)

  Morley, E.

  Cheylesmore, L.

  Devonshire, D. (L. President.)

  Rosse, E.

  Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

  Denbigh, E.

  Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]

  Heneage, L.

  Hardwicke, E.

  Churchill, V. [Teller.]

  Lawrence, L.

  Lytton, E.

  Belhaven and Stenton, L.

  Windsor, L.

  Mansfield, E.

  Belper, L.

  Wolverton, L.

  closely affects the daily life of the soldier, and if we have taken a considerable time come to a decision in this matter it is because we wish to provide that the new regulations will give satisfaction to he Army generally. I hope that in he circumstances my noble friend will give me the opportunity of making a Statement after Whitsuntide, which I hall be very pleased to do.

  MUSICAL COPYRIGHT BILL [H.L.]
  House in Committee (according to Order). Bill reported without Amendment; re-committed to the Standing Committee.
  POLLING DISTRICTS (COUNTY COUNCILS) BILL [H.L.]
  House in Committee (according to Order). An Amendment made; and Bill re-committed to the Standing Committee.
  POLLING ARRANGEMENTS (PARLIAMENTARY BOROUGHS) BILL [H.L.]
  House in Committee (according to Order). An Amendment made; and Bill re-committed to the Standing Committee.

  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL AND BILLS IN PARLIAMENT.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, in pursuance of the conversation

  1615
  which took place the other day on this subject, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government if they will obtain a Return showing, with regard to the London County Council:—
  1. The names of the Bills promoted in Parliament in each year, with the sums of money spent annually in such promotion; and whether each such Bill passed into law.
  2. The sum of money spent annually in opposing Bills in Parliament.
  At the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Wemyss, I beg to add the words "and the names of the Bills so opposed."
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBURY): The noble Lord who represents the Local Government Board not being in his place, I have been asked to state the view of that Department. The President of the Local Government Board is willing to grant a Return on this subject, but there appears some difficulty as to its precise form. I would suggest that the noble Earl should communicate with the President of the Local Government Board in order to agree upon the form in which the Return should be made.

NEW BILL.

  ALLOTMENTS (LONDON) BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to facilitate the provision of allotments by the London County Council was presented by the Earl Carrington; read la; and to be printed. (No. 82.)
  House adjourned at ten minutes past Seven o'clock, till Tomorrow, Two o'clock.