Sitting of 14 June 1904

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.
MESSAGE FROM THE KING.

  MILITARY MANŒUVRES ACT, 1897.
  The Comptroller of the Household reported His Majesty's Answer to the Address, as followeth:—
  "I have received your Address praying that I will make the Order in Council under the Military ManŒuvres Act, 1897, a Draft of which was presented to your House on the 9th March last.
  "I will comply with your advice."

  UNOPPOSED PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  Marylebone Chapels (St. James, Westmoreland Street) Bill [Lords]; South Staffordshire Mines Drainage Bill [Lords]. Read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.
  Alexandra (Newport and South Wales) Docks and Railway Bill [Lords] (by Order). Read a second time, and committed.
  Local Government Provisional Order (No. 4) Bill. As amended, considered; to be read the third time To-morrow.

  STANDING ORDERS.
  Resolutions reported from the Select Committee—

  1. "That, in the case of the Saddleworth and Springhead Tramways (Abandonment) Bill, Petition for additional Provision, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with. That the parties be permitted to introduce their additional, Provision if the Committee on the Bill think fit."

  2. "That, in the case of the Trafford Park Dock and Railway Bill [Lords], the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with. That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."

  9

  3. "That, in the case of the Lancashire Electric Power Bill [Lords], Petition for dispensing with Standing Order 128 in the case of the Petition of the 'South Lancashire Tramways Company,' against the Bill, the said Standing Order ought not to be dispensed with."

  4. "That, in the case of the Metropolitan District Railway Bill [Lords], Petition for dispensing with Standing Order 128 in the case of the Petition of the 'Urban District Council of Chiswick,' against the Bill, the said Standing Order ought not to be dispensed with."

  First Two Resolutions agreed to.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to—Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill, with an Amendment.
  Amendments to—Elysée Palace Hotel Company, Limited, Bill [Lords], without Amendment.
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the sale and disposal of the site of King's College Hospital, London; and the acquisition of lands for and erection of a new hospital; and for other purposes." [King's College Hospital Bill [Lords.]
  Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act for transferring the powers of the West Manchester Light Railways Company, and for providing for the regulation of certain roads in Trafford Park; and for other purposes." [Trafford Park Bill [Lords.]
  And, also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the Manchester Ship Canal Company to vary the levels of and depth of water in their canal and to construct new works; and to alter certain provisions of The Manchester Ship Canal Act, 1885, and The Manchester Ship Canal Act,1896; and for other purposes." [Manchester Ship Canal Bill [Lords.]
  King's College Hospital Bill [Lords]; Trafford Park Bill [Lords]; Manchester Ship Canal Bill [Lords]. Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills
  Preston and Blackburn Tramways Bill [Lords]. Reported [Preamble not proved]; Report to lie upon the Table.

PETITIONS.
  PORT OF LONDON BILL.
  Petition of the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Commons of the City of London, in Common Council assembled, presented by the Sheriffs of the City of London at the Bar, against the Bill and for re-committal (praying to be heard by Counsel); to lie upon the Table.

  LICENSING BILL.
  Petitions against; from Leeds (forty-one); Atherstone; Dipton; Austwick; Dudlestone; Aylesford; Derwent Cottages; Annfield Plain; Dvffryn Bargoed; Bourton; Ellesmere; Bideford; Brain-tree; Easby; Bradwell; Bromley; Eye; Broughton Gifford; Edale; Birchfield; Gunnislake; Birkenhead; Glasgow; Baddesley Ensor; Gorran; Halstead; Blackfriars; Ely; Erith; Blackhall Mill; Esh Winning; Bethnal Green; Forest Gate; Burley; Blackhill; Birtley; Fearn; Fife; Casterton Magna; Chilvers Coton; Farnley; Castleton; Cullompton; Chopwell; Hunslet (two); Kennington Park (three); Hartshill; Kestle Mill; Halifax; Holbeck (two); Hamsteels; Langley Heath; Litton; Hellifield; High Shields; Haswell; Hollingbourne; Huck-low; Leadgate; Ipswich; Harry; Islington; Mosely Common; Melksham; Old Shildon; Oldham; Leytonstone; Nuneaton (two); Partick; Peak Forest; Newcastle, on Tyne (two); New Brance-peth; Portsmouth (four); Nidd Valley; Platt Bridge; Penzance; Padstow; Par; Rishton; Roundhay; Rowlands Gill; Redditch (two); Ryhall; Southville; Tyne Dock; Southsea; Tyne Wearside; Stoke Climsland; Tantobie; Whitswick; Whittleford; Tanfield Lea; Stanley; Trowbridge; Tipton; Willingham; Wig-glesworth; Wingate; Stratford; Seend; Thornhill; Treoone; St. Colnmb Minor; St. Hilary (two); South Shields (four); West Hartlepool (four); Whitley; South Lambeth; St. Luke's; Wookey Hole; Withering; Studley; Warrington; South-moor; St. Mewan: Woodstock; Seven-oaks (two); Sparrowpit; Shotley Bridge;

  11
  Settle; Sutton at Hone; Dundee; Griffy-dam; Great Totham; Haddlesey; West Haddlesey; Carlton; Fleur de lis; New castle on Tyne; Greenock; Stalybridge Bittadon; Rufford; Hove; Knowle; Rishton; Cobbaton; Barnstaple (two); Fremington; Loxhore; Millom; Lambeth Coggeshall; Kirkby in Furness; Braunton; Broughton in Furness; Cullompton; Grenoside; Disgwylfa; Mawdsley; Halifax (two); Nottingham; Broughton; Birmingham (two); New Tredegar (two); Ebbw Vale; Tredegar; Blaina (three), Blackwood; Rhydlwyd; Burnley; Blaenpennal; Eccleston; Hurst Green; Wadhurst; Ticehurst; Lamberhurst; Stalybridge; Belper; Elland; Leslie; Coniston; Hathersage; Holmes; and Portessie (two); to lie upon the Table.

  LICENSING BILL.
  Petition from Newbury, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  VALUATION BILL.
  Petitions for alteration; from Alcester; Newcastle upon Tyne; and Easington; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANKS.
  Accounts presented, of all Deposits received and paid during the year ended 31st December, 1903, and of the Sums received and paid by the National Debt Commissioners on account of the Fund for the Post Office Savings Banks in the same year [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed [No. 211.]
  PERSONAL PROPERTY (LOCAL TAXATION) (MISCELLANEOUS, No. 1, 1904).
  Copy presented, of Papers respecting the Local Taxation of Personal Property in certain Foreign Countries and British Possessions [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  PAPER LAID UPON THE TABLE BY, THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE.
  Arundel Port. Copy of Annual Report and General Account of the Commissioners of Arundel Port for period from 25th March, 1903, to 25th March, 1904 [by Act].
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Cost of Protection of Canadian Fisheries by British Navy.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether any portion of His Majesty's Navy is employed either on the Atlantic or on the Pacific coasts in protecting Canadian fisheries; and, if so, whether the Admiralty can form any estimate of the cost of such services to the Crown after making allowance for the time during which such ships are employed, the cost of maintaining the ships and their crews, and for depreciation and interest on capital; and whether the Canadian Government refunds to the Crown a sum sufficient to cover the whole or part of this cost.
  (Answered by Mr. Pretyman.)In the last three years only one of His Majesty's ships (in each year) has been employed in the sea fishery patrol on the Pacific and none on the Atlantic seaboard of Canada. In 1903 H.M.S. "Shearwater" was employed on seal fishery patrol in the Pacific from 20th July to 21st September, and her cost of maintenance for that period was approximately £2,650; but this patrol involved no additional cost to naval funds as the vessel employed would, in any case, be required as part of the normal squadron on the Pacific station. No portion of this expense has been refunded by the Canadian Government.

  Pensions of Widows and Allowances for Orphans of Men lost in Disaster to Submarine Al.
  MR. REGINALD LUCAS: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty is he will state what is the full amount of pension given to the widows of men who lost their lives in the Al Submarine disaster, and what is the amount taken from the funds of Greenwich Hospital to provide this sum; what allowance is made for the support of orphans in this connection, and whence does the money come; what is the amount of compensation given to parents of those who were unmarried, and whence does this money come; and whether the Royal Patriotic

  13
  Fund Commissioners will be invited to contribute towards the funds required.
  (Answered by Mr. Pretyman.) The full amount of pension to widows is £122, of which the funds of Greenwich Hospital provide about £71. The allowances for the support of children amount to £51, provided entirely by Greenwich Hospital funds. Of the relatives of men who were unmarried, one (a mother) has been awarded a gratuity, equal to a year's wages, from the funds of Greenwich Hospital. The Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation will not be invited to contribute towards the funds required for these grants.

  Infant Mortality and Outdoor Medical Relief.
  SIR WALTER FOSTER: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the high infant mortality in the large towns of the kingdom; whether, with a view to lessening this mortality, he will inquire whether the facilities for granting outdoor medical relief are sufficient in the great provincial towns and in districts like St. George's in the East, Whitechapel, Limehouse, and Stepney; and, if not, whether he will take steps to improve the methods of granting medical out-relief.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) I am aware of the figures referred to as to infant mortality. Except that in some places additional relieving officers might be appointed, I have not at present seen any reason to suppose that the existing facilities for granting outdoor medical relief are insufficient; but, so far as the Metropolis is concerned, a special investigation is at this moment being made by one of the assistant inspectors of the Department as to the arrangements for outdoor medical relief.

  Outdoor Medical Relief.
  SIR WALTER FOSTER: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that some boards of guardians have largely reduced the number of appplications for medical out-relief by means of giving all medical out-
  14
  relief on loan in the first instance (subject to subsequent cancelling of the loan if the guardians think fit), or by compelling parents to appear before the board or a committee; and, if so, whether he proposes to take any action in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) My attention has been called to one instance in London where a system of the kind above mentioned has been introduced, and where it is said that the result has been to reduce the applications for outdoor medical relief. But, as I have stated to-day in reply to another Question by the hon. Member, a special investigation is being made by one of the assistant inspectors of the Department as to the arrangements for outdoor medical relief in the Metropolis.

  Duty on British Woollen Goods and Cordage entering Belgium, Holland, and Canada.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE (Carnarvon Boroughs): To ask the President of the Board of Trade what are the duties levied by Belgium and Holland respectively on British woollen goods and on British cordage as compared with the duties which will be levied on the same goods by Canada under the newly revised tariff.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) The existing duty on woollen goods in Holland is 5 per cent. ad valorem. In Belgium the duties vary from 10 per cent. to 15 per cent. ad valorem The new preferential rate of duty in Canada on woollen manufactures is stated to be 30 per cent, ad valorem Cordage is free of duty in both Holland and Belgium. The new preferential rate in Canada is stxted to be 20 per cent. ad valorem.

  Manufacture of British Cigars.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can give any estimate of the cigars, in pounds, manufactured in this country in 1902–3.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) It would not be possible to give any such estimate.

  Delay in Erection of Labourers' Cottages at Strabane.
  MR. HEMPHILL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the cause of the delay in carrying out the scheme for building labourers' cottages in the Ballymagorry division of Strabane, such delay being productive of inconvenience to the labourers of that district.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) A scheme was recently made by the district council for the erection of nine cottages in this division, but a petition for confirmation has not yet been received by the Local Government Board.

  Distribution of Meteorological Grants—Publication of Report of Committee.
  SIR JOHN TUKE: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury when the Report of the Departmental Committee on the Distribution of the Meteorological Grant will be issued to Members.
  (Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour.) I understand that the copies of the Report referred to will be delivered at the House of Commons on the evening of Thursday next, the 16th instant.

  QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    Volunteer Army Service Corps.
    MR. MCCRAE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he now proposes to proceed with the establishment of a Volunteer Army Service Corps, as recommended in the War Office Committee's Report of 31st January, 1903, and by the Royal Commission on the Militia and Volunteers.
    THE SECRETARY or STATE FOR WAR (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTEE,): The detailed recommendations of the Militia and Volunteer Commission are now receiving careful consideration. I am not, therefore, prepared at the present moment to give a reply to this Question.

    Chinese for the Transvaal—Police Arrangements.
    MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the provision of Article 4 of the Anglo-Chinese Convention, which declares that coolies under contract for the Transvaal shall not be permitted to leave the depots provided for their accommodation by the British Consuls from the time they have signed their contract until their embarkation, without a pass signed by the Chinese and English authorities or cancellation of their agreement, will be enforced by the Consular guards, or whether a special police will be enlisted for this purpose.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. LYTTELTON,): I have not before me the precise methods which will be taken to carry out that portion of Article 4 of the Convention to which the hon. Member refers, but I anticipate no difficulty in the carrying out of the necessary steps by the British and Chinese authorities.
    MR. NORMAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can state by what force, civil or military, the compounds of Chinese indentured labourers in the Transvaal will be policed and neighbouring life and property secured in the event of rioting among the Chinese in the larger compounds.
    MR. LYTTELTON: I am making inquiry as to the arrangements to be made for the policing of the emigration depots.

    His Majesty's Minister at Pekin and the Coolie Contracts.
    MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether His Majesty's Minister at Pekin has refused to sanction the form of contract proposed to be signed by coolies recruited in Northern China for the Transvaal mines; if so, on what grounds this action has been taken; and whether any alterations in the form of contract have been made in consequence.
    MR. LYTTELTON: There can be no question of His Majesty's Minister at Pekin refusing to sanction the contract which has been settled by the Transvaal Government subject to the instructions and approval of His Majesty's Government, and the information on which the hon. Member's Question is based appears to be founded upon misapprehension.

    Labour in Indian Mines and Plantations.
    SIR MANCHERJEE BHOWNAGGREE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he will give the Return asked for in the Order Paper this day relating to labourers employed in mines and plantations in India and the provision of medical aid and education for their families and children.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. BRODRICK,): I am afraid that materials do not exist for the preparation of the Return. The statutory returns furnished by mines in British India and tea estates in Assam do not contain the

    Number and description of mines.

    Number and description of plantations.

    Number of labourers employed.

    Number of persons in labourers' families, denoting women and children.

    Arrangements for hospitals or dispensaries.

    Arrangements for education of children.

    where situate.

    Aden Hinterland Operations.
    MR. NORMAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he will state what has been the nature of the military operations conducted for some time past in the Hinterland of Aden; what force has been engaged; what is the total number of casualties; what civilian officers have been engaged; what is the total number of casualties; what civilian officers have been employed, and if there have been any casualties among them; whether these operations are regarded as being of peace or of war; and what is the difference of the pension or allowance made to the relatives of the killed under the two conditions.
    MR. BRODRICK: The Joint Anglo-Turkish Commission, which has been engaged since March, 1902, in de-
    information asked for, and such returns would cause a considerable demand on the owners. Indigo estates are not required to submit returns, as they are not under a special labour law. Mines and plantations in Native States are under no obligation to supply figures to the Indian Government. It may be said generally that mines in British India are required to make medical and hospital provision for the treatment of accidents, and that tea and coffee gardens to which the Madras or Assam Labour Law applies are required to maintain hospitals. There is no special requirement imposed on mines or plantations as regards schools, but ordinary schools exist in the districts, and can be attended by the children of miners and estate hands.
    The Return referred to is as follows—British India and Native States (Coal Mines)—Address for Return, according to the following table, in connection with Coal and other Mines, and tea, indigo, and other plantations, each employing fifty labourers or more, in British India and Native States:—
    marcating the frontier of the Aden Hinterland, has now practically completed its work in the field, the surveys having been carried to the sea. There have been no military operations, but the necessary escort has been provided. The force employed is about 2,000 men. It is now being withdrawn. The casualties hitherto reported to me show four British and twelve native soldiers killed, nineteen British and fifteen native soldiers died of disease, and about forty men wounded. Two civilian officers have been employed without casualty. No deaths having occurred among the officers employed, with the exception of a military officer who was murdered by a police sowar in our employ, the question of pension does not arise.

    Korea.
    MR. NORMANI beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state whether Korea is now recognised as an independent State; and, if not, will he state what is the international status of that country.
    THE UNDER-SECRETARY or STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Earl PEKCY,): The answer to the Question is in the affirmative.

    Wei-hai-wei.
    MR. NORMAN: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the British lease of Wei-hai-wei would determine immediately upon the occupation of Port Arthur by any other Power than Russia.
    EARL PERCY: By the Convention of 1st July, 1898, China agreed to lease to Great Britain Wei-hai-wei and its adjacent waters "for so long a period as Port Arthur shall remain in the occupation of Russia."

    Cost of Accommodation in China for Labourers Recruited for the Transvaal.
    MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the funds needed to enable British Consuls in China to erect the buildings for the accommodation of labourers recruited for the Transvaal mines, as provided by Article 3 of the recent Anglo-Chinese Convention, will be furnished in the first instance by Vote of this House; and, if not, from what source.
    EARL PERCY: The reply to the first part of the Question is in the negative. The reply to the second part is that any money required will be provided from the colony.

    Railway Transit of Cattle.
    MR. FIELD (Dublin, St. Patrick): I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the railway companies of Great Britain have combined in refusing to allow a patented humane car to run on their lines; whether he is aware that this car obtained a certificate from the Board of Trade and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, that it
    20
    was granted a gold metal by the French Board of Agriculture and that many leading railway officials signed an approval of the car when exhibited at the Royal Show, Birmingham; and, if so, whether he will make inquiry into this refusal of improved transit by the railway companies of Great Britain.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): Communications in this matter were addressed to the Board of Trade in 1899 and 1900 by the company interested in the car referred to. Beyond this I have no information on the subject other than that with which the hon. Member has himself supplied me, and I do not know to what "Certificate from the Board of Trade" he refers. I may remind the hon. Member that a similar Question was put by him and answered on behalf of my noble friend the President of the Board of Agriculture on the 8th of July last.† I am unable to add to the answer then given except to call the hon. Member's attention to Section 117 of the Railways Clauses Act of 1845.
    MR. FIELD: If I give the right hon. Gentleman further information will he make inquiries as to the accuracy of the statements in the Question?
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I will consider any information placed before me, but I can give no pledge beyond that.

    Housing Loans—Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1903.
    DR. MACNAMARA (Camberwell, N.): I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board how many applications have been made by local authorities for housing loans to be repaid over a period extending beyond, sixty years in accordance with Section 1 of The Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1903; and in how many such cases have loins been granted to be repaid beyond the limit of sixty years and at the maximum of eighty years respectively.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. WALTER LONG, Bristol, S.): I have received
    † See (4) Debates, cxxv., 25.

    21
    application, for purpose mentioned in the Question, from twenty-two local authorities. An extension of eighty years has been granted to eleven of these authorities so far as the loans related to the purchase of land, and in the case of one of the eleven the period for a loan for land and buildings together has been extended beyond sixty years, but not for the maximum of eighty years. As regards the remaining authorities, in five cases there were circumstances connected with the original borrowing which rendered an extension to eighty years of the period of repayment impracticable; in one case the application related to a loan for buildings only, in another the application was not proceeded with, and in three cases a decision has not at present been given.

    Small Dwellings Acquisition Act, 1899.
    DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board how many applications have been made to local authorities for loans for the purpose of acquiring the ownership of small houses under the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act of 1899; how many such loans have been made; and what is the total amount so advanced.
    MR. WALTER LONG: My information is limited to cases of applications for sanction to loans for the purposes of the Act in England and Wales. The Local Government Board have received seventy-nine such applications and have sanctioned the borrowing of £63,514 in respect of seventy-five of these applications. As regards London, the sanction of the London County Council is required to any such loans. I am informed that they have received ten applications and have sanctioned five, amounting in the total to £960, and that they have one application still under consideration.

    Tramway Traffic in Westminster Bridge Road.
    DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the clause introduced at the instance of his Department into the London County Council (Tramways and Improvements) Bill, empowering the stopping of trams in the Westminster Bridge Road at
    22
    York Road instead of at the Westminster Bridge terminus, he will consider the desirableness of requiring the halfpenny buses which run across the Westminster Bridge to start from York Road instead of as at present from the Westminster Bridge terminus.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. AKERS-DOUGLAS,): I am not in a position at the present time to make any statement on the subject, but I may assure the hon. Member that when the arrangements under the new clause are being settled, care will be taken to consult the public safety and convenience as fully as possible.

    Post Office Administration—Dual system.
    MR. DOBBIE: (Ayr Burghs) I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the fact that the amalgamation of the postal and telegraph staffs, known as the dual system, has been abandoned in the large telegraph offices of the country, he will state the reasons for the retention of that system in the Glasgow office, and take steps to place this office on a similar footing to offices in the same class.
    THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (LORD STANLEY,): The hon. Member is under a misapprehension in thinking that the amalgamation of the postal and telegraph staffs has been abandoned at the large offices in the country.

    Ayr Sheriff Court House.
    MR. DOBBIE: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether, in view of the fact that plans and specifications were lodged by the County Council of Ayrshire with the Secretary for Scotland, in 1902, for the purpose of providing improved Sheriff Court House accommodation, in terms of the Ayr County Buildings Order of 1901, and that the existing Court House accommodation has since been condemned by the sanitary authorities and by His Majesty's Board of Works, he will state what steps he proposes to take with the view of compelling the county council to provide adequate Sheriff Court House accommodation in the county buildings at Ayr.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. SCOTT DICKSON,): The rectification of defective sanitary arrangements is already proceeding. As regards general improvement of the Sheriff Court House accommodation the statutory re-pesentation in terms of Section 3 of the Sheriff Court House (Scotland) Act, 1860, without which no action could be taken, was lodged in my office on the 11th instant. I shall do everything in my power to hasten subsequent procedure.

    Moyode Castle, Athenry.
    MR. REDDY: On behalf of the hon. Member for South Galway, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the fact that recently an inspector from the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction, Dublin, visited Moyode Castle, near Athenry, to inquire into its suitability for an agricultural college for the county Galway, and that in April, 1903, the chairman of the county Galway committee of agricultural instruction and the chairman of the county Galway committee of technical instruction strongly advocated the establishment of such a college in the county Galway, the Department in Dublin will see their way to purchase Moyode Castle, in view of its suitability for the purpose, and its proximity to the town of Athenry and railway accommodation.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,): The results of inquiries and inspection have satisfied the Department that this property would not be suitable for the purposes of an agricultural station or a college, and the Department does not propose, therefore, to acquire it.

    Outdoor Relief in Ireland.
    MR. JOHN CAMPBELL (Armagh, S.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that at present a board of guardians in Ireland is precluded from granting outdoor relief to any person in occupation of more than one quarter acre of land, no matter how that person may be afflicted, and even if certified unfit
    24
    for removal to the workhouse hospital; and whether, considering the hardship worked by this limitation, he will consider the advisability either of abolishing it altogether or of greatly enlarging it.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The facts are not as stated in the Question. The hon. Member does not appear to have seen my reply to the similar Question, on Thursday last, by the hon. Member for South Down.†

    Iveagh-Pirrie Motor Scheme.
    MR. JOYCE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has any information as to the Iveagh-Pirrie motor scheme being started in any part of Ireland; if so, will he say where; also, can he say if any routes will be chosen in the near future; and, if so, where.
    MR. WYNDHAM: Yes, Sir. But it is information which cannot well be compressed into a reply to a Question. A not unnatural reluctance on the part of county councils, and more especially of district councils, to strike rates commensurate with the cost of repairing roads to carry the greater loads indicated in the announcement I made on the 23rd February last will, I believe, give place to some practical compromise, and the more surely if the suggestion which has reached me from Galway County Council is adopted by this House. If that be so, I have little reason to fear that the routes indicated in that announcement will not be proceeded with without much further delay.
    MR. CULLINAN: Is it not the fact that several county and district councils have volunteered to put their roads in suitable repair for a motor service, but no notice has been taken of their offer.
    MR. WYNDHAM: Certain districts were suggested as suitable for the experiment, and with respect to some of them there has been a certain amount of demur on the part of the council, but I believe there are prospects of a reasonable arrangement being come to.
    † See (4) Debates, cxxxv., 1228.

    Captain Caldbeck's Estate, Queen's County.
    MR. DELANY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that negotiations for the sale of the estate of Captain Caldbeck, Ballacolla, Queen's county, are in progress, and that an attempt is being made to create tenancies in favour of large farmers and shopkeepers in the untenanted land; and in view of the fact that there are a number of small holdings upon the property requiring enlargement, and some landless houses in the occupation of labourers, he can state whether the Commissioners are prepared under the circumstances to sanction the sale.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The Estates Commissioners have not received any application for the purchase of this property. Before sanctioning advances in respect of tenancies created since the 1st January, 1901, the Commissioners cause special inquiries to be made as to the circumstances of other persons in the neighbourhood.

    Administration of Arms Act at Maryborough.
    MR. DELANY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a gun, the property of Mr. Peter Dowling, Straboe, has found its way into the possession of the police at Maryborough, having been taken by a local gamekeeper from a servant of Mr. Dowling's, who was carrying the gun without his employer's knowledge; and whether, in view of the fact that Mr. Dowling holds a licence from the resident magistrate and also an Excise 10s. licence, he will state upon what grounds the police refuse to restore the gun to the owner.
    MR. WYNDHAM: I am still in communication with the police in reference to this gun, and will ask the hon. Member to postpone the Question until Thursday next.

    White Estate, Clare.
    MR. SHEEHY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have sanctioned the sale
    26
    in the Land Judge's Court of the White Estate, in Clare, although the farm held by Michael Moloney, an evicted tenant, has not been sold to him; and whether, seeing that Moloney has been excluded from buying by the Receiver demanding two and a half years arrears of rent and costs, in addition to the price which was placed on the farm, the Commissioners have power to withhold their sanction of the sale, or can they in any way assist Moloney to purchase his farm on terms similar to those agreed to between the occupying tenants and the Receiver.
    MR. WYNDHAM: This estate has not come defore the Estates Commissioners to be dealt with. The Land Judge's Court is in communication with the Receiver on the subject, and I regret to have to ask the hon. Member again to postpone the Question till Thursday next.

    Police at Irish Evictions.
    MR. GILHOOLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a body of police, under the command of County Inspector Hamilton, acted as bailiffs at the recent evictions on the Clinton Estate at Rossmaconen, and that, though no serious assault was committed on the sheriff or his assistants, the county inspector ordered men who were in one of the houses to be arrested and handcuffed; and, if so, will he state whether the police in future are to act as bailiffs for the landlords.
    MR. WYNDHAM: There is no foundation for the statement that the police acted as bailiffs on the occasion referred to. The police who were present had been requisitioned by the sheriff for the protection of himself and his bailiffs in the execution of ejectment decrees. Considerable opposition and resistance were offered to the sheriff and his assistants, all of whom were struck several times by missiles thrown by the inmates of one of the houses. At this stage the County Inspector of Police ordered the male inmates (eight men) to be arrested and handcuffed. The handcuffs were very shortly removed, when the police were satisfied as to their identity. It is the bounden duty of the

    27
    police to afford protection to the sheriff and his officers in the execution of legal decrees.
    MR. GILHOOLY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the police entered the house, and not the bailiffs?
    MR. WYNDHAM: They only took the necessary measures for the protection of the bailiffs.
    MR. GILHOOLY: But is it the duty of the police to enter houses, and act as bailiffs?
    MR. WYNDHAM: My statement is that the police did not act as bailiffs.
    MR. GILHOOLY: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to say I was present, and saw them acting as bailiffs.
    MR. WYNDHAM: Seeing that the house was being used as a fort for the purpose of preventing the bailiffs doing their duty, the police had to act as they did in order to protect them.
    CAPTAIN DONELAN: Are the police placed at the disposal of shop-keepers in the same way when they try to enforce their claims?

    Re-Election of Ministers.
    MR. LODER: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury when he proposes to introduce the Bill, promised in the King's Speech, for removing the necessity for re-election in the case of acceptance of office by Members of the House of Commons.
    THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): The Bill to which my hon. friend refers is ready, and, of course, will be introduced either under the so-called Ten Minutes Rule, or without any introductory speech at all. Though I think it is a very desirable and, in some cases, an important change, it undoubtedly has a constitutional aspect, and, therefore, should be prefaced by some statement of the reasons which make
    28
    it desirable, in the opinion of the Government, to depart from this ancient practice. In these circumstances, I should certainly not feel justified in introducing the Bill without a statement. Whether that statement can be compressed within ten minutes I really cannot say; but it is perfectly clear that the Bill cannot pass, except by consent, and I do not know whether there is any chance of that consent being obtained. The Bill has been carefully framed so as to avoid giving any advantage to the present holders of office, and it is introduced as a general and much-needed constitutional reform; but whether there will be time to carry it out in the present session, I have some doubt.

    Proposed Minister of Commerce.
    MR. D. A. THOMAS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury what steps the Government propose to take in order to give effect to the recommendations contained in the Report of the Committee appointed to consider the position and duties of the Board of Trade and of the Local Government Board and particularly the recommendation in favour of substituting a Minister of Commerce and Industries for the present Board of Trade.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I believe the Report of the Committee will not be in the hands of hon. Members until this afternoon or to-morrow. The matter is under consideration by the Government, and I can give no pledge as to the course we shall pursue in reference to the recommendations of the Committee.

    The Finance Bill.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Has the right hon. Gentleman any information to give to the House as to next week's business?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I find that it would be inconvenient to the commercial interests of the country to defer any longer the consideration of the Budget Bill in Committee, and therefore I shall have to ask the House to take the Committee stage on Monday next.

    The Cunard Agreement.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Has any arrangement been made for the Committee stage of the Cunard agreement?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, Sir, I have not yet made any arrangements as to that.

    SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
    Mr. WODEHOUSE reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had added to the Standing Committee on Trade (including Agriculture and Fishing), Shipping, and Manufactures, the following Member in respect of the Shop Hours Bill:—The Lord Advocate.
    Report to lie upon the Table.

    SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
    Mr. WODEHOUSE reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from the Standing Committee on Trade (including Agriculture and Fishing), Shipping, and Manufactures:—Sir John Barrington Simeon. Mr. Baird, Mr. Hare, Mr. Garfit. and Sir Charles Renshaw; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. O'Neill, Mr. John Gordon, Mr. Goulding, Captain Balfour, and Mr. George Montagu.
    Report to lie upon the Table.

    SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
    Mr. WODEHOUSE reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from the Standing Committee on Law, and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure:—Mr. Solicitor-General and Mr. Lloyd Morgan; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Attorney-General and Major Seely.
    Report to lie upon the Table.

    SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
    Mr. WODEHOUSE reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had added to the Standing Committee on Law and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure, the following fifteen Members in respect of the Aliens Bill:—Mr. Trevelyan, Mr. Hayes Fisher, Mr. Stuart Samuel,
    30
    Mr. Forde Ridley, Sir Henry Seton-;Karr Mr. David MacIyer, Mr. Renwick, Mr. Runciman, Mr. John Johnson, Mr. Norman, Mr. Herbert Robertson, Mr. Winston Churchill, Mr. Guest, Major Evans-Gordon, and Mr. Shackleton.
    Report to lie upon the Table.

EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
(Considered in Committee.)
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]
Clause 3.
Question proposed, "That Clause 3, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
MR. McCRAEsaid he thought they were entitled on this clause to get some more definite statement from the Government as to their reasons for adopting the ad hoc policy in regard to Scotland. Personally, he was not in favour of ad hoc administration, and he expected that the Government would apply to Scotland the principle which they professed to apply, but, by introducing clerical control, did not, in the case of England, viz., that town and county councils should be the education authority. He thought they were entitled to some explanation on that point when they considered that the Prime Minister himself, on the 28th April, 1903, said—
"I am clearly of opinion that it is a most retrograde policy to go in for the principle of ad hoc election to deal with particular subjects authoritatively and with power to draw on the rates."
Then they had the President of the Local Government Board on the following day announcing that, whether for good or for evil, the Government had decided that it could no longer support the ad hoc principle. Again, the late Vice-President of the Board of Education, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University, said that they could no longer support an ad hoc authority in this or any other country and, of course, he presumed that that included Scotland. He thought they were entitled to demand

31
from the Government a specific explanation why they had departed from the principle of the town and county councils being the education authority, and why they had reverted to what they themselves called a retrograde principle. Those who had any experience of municipal administration must be impressed with the fact that an ad hoc authority was not conducive either to economy or efficiency. They had a much clearer field for applying the principle in Scotland than in England. They were hampered in England by the religious difficulty; in Scotland there was no such difficulty, and, therefore, they had a clear field for applying the principle of creating one authority for all local purposes. He himself had never looked upon the ad hoc authority as a fetish. He thought ad hoc bodies were an antiquated system of administration. They were merely a phase in the evolution of local government, and the very fact of the small interest that had been taken all over the country in the elections to those ad hoc bodies showed that there was no real feeling in their favour on the part of the great body of the people.
Twelve years ago he had the honour, when a member of the Corporation of Edinburgh, to propose a scheme for that city whereby there was to be an enlarged municipal authority to deal with all purposes, municipal, school board, etc. He maintained that the larger the powers of self-government they could give, and the more important they made the local body, the better the man they would attract to take part in the administration. School boards and parish councils had been looked upon very much as mere training grounds for municipal work. In regard to Edinburgh he thought the Secretary of State would bear him out in saying that the principle would have simplified educational administration very much. On the one hand, they had the school board, which had now got large power in regard to secondary education, and on the other hand, they had very many efficient secondary schools as the result of private endowments and voluntary effort. In regard to some of these schools they had at present on the
32
boards of management a large representation of town councillois, and it certainly would have tended to simplify and co-ordinate educational administration if the town councils had been made the local educational authority. There was a danger of friction between the school boards and these other secondary education bodies, and there was also the danger of overlapping and of wasteful expenditure of money. He could not understand why the Government, having such an opportunity, had not attempted to carry out this principle of co-ordination in educational matters. It appeared to him that they had tried to evade the responsibility. They had given evidence of tha tshifty and shiftless policy which had obtained in other parts of their administration. That might be paradoxical, but, after all, the present Government was altogether a paradox. If those who agreed with him accepted this Bill, they would merely do so as a stepping stone to a complete scheme of uniformity of local administration. He really thought that the levity which the Secretary for Scotland displayed on the previous night in replying to the hon. Member for Camberwell was not justified. A serious proposition was put to the right hon. Gentleman by that Member, and either he or the Prime Minister ought to have replied to it. He would now make an appeal to the Secretary for Scotland to explain this sudden change on the part of the Government in regard to the ad hoc principle, and he hoped that such an explanation would be forthcoming before they went to a division on the clause.
THE SECRETARY FOB SCOTLAND (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY,)said he would like the Committee in no spirit of levity to seriously consider what was the use of the speech they had just listened to. He believed they were all at one in the House in wishing that this Bill should pass. A great deal of very necessary and very useful discussion had taken place, no doubt, but still they had had a speech from the hon. Member which, so far as he could see, would serve no useful purpose whatsoever. As to the suggestion that he had answered the hon. Member for Camberwell in a spirit of levity, he would say at once that the hon. Member was perfectly justified

33
in his intervention in view of the part he had taken in the passing of the English Act through Parliament. Remembering what were his views on the question of an ad hoc authority, it would have been less than natural had the hon. Member missed the opportunity of pointing out that this Bill differed in one very essential particular from the English Bill—in the respect that it created an ad hoc authority, which the English Bill did not. But what was the use of an hon. Member getting up, as the hon. Member for East Edinburgh had done, to speak of the ad hoc authority as a retrograde principle.
MR. McCRAE: I did not call it that; it was the Prime Minister who said that it was a retrograde principle.
MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAYsaid the hon. Member no doubt attributed the phrase to the Prime Minister, but he also added that he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman.
MR. McCRAE: Well, I was only supporting the Prime Minister.
MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: At any rate, the hon. Member was running in very curious double harness with the hon. Member for Camberwell.
DR. MACNAMARA: Really I must object.
MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY,continuing, asked why had not the hon. Member for East Edinburgh had the courage of his convictions, why had he not put down Amendments to give practical effect to his convictions. He had never put down a single Amendment. Had he done so, he would soon have found out how much support he would have obtained on the Benches around him. Yet that was the course he should have taken had he been speaking from conviction and not in a spirit of levity. The hon. Member urged the House to municipalise their educational institutions, but what title had he to say, as he did, that those of his friends who accepted the Bill only accepted it as an instalment of a complete scheme for the entire municipalisation of the system of
34
administration. Before he was entitled to say that surely he must get rid of the hon. Member for Camberwell. He did not know which hon. Member would live the longer, the hon. Member for East Edinburgh or the hon Member for Camberwell. He was not quite sure, but he would not put his—Well, he did not bet and did not go to race meeting like some right hon. Gentlemen opposite. [Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNER-MAN here shook his head.] He noticed that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition dissented, but then the right hon. Gentleman only came into the House on the preceding night after the hour at which the last race was run.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I did not go to the races. I was here all the time that the House was sitting, although not perhaps in the Chamber itself.
MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAYintimated that he would not pursue the subject further. He could only say that, joking apart, he did not believe that the hon. Member for East Edinburgh would really have the power to carry out the boast which he had made of treating this Bill as only a step towards entire municipalisation. He would not detain the House at any further length on that point. It was quite well known that, acting to the best of his judgment, he had chosen to adopt the ad hoc principle for Scotland. [Several HON. MEMBERS: Why?] There were many reasons why he had done so. It was necessary, for one reason, because the Scotch burgh system had no analogy in the English system. In Scotland they had an intricate network of police and Royal burghs which were exceedingly jealous of their responsibilities and their powers, and which would never have consented to have been represented in educational matters by county councils. Reference had been made to the views of certain Ministers and of the late Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education. He had sins enough of his own to be responsible for, without being called on to defend the general expressions used by other Ministers in debate on previous Bills, or the perhaps too general expressions of

35
the former Vice-President of the Council, who was well able to defend himself and to repudiate any unwarranted interpretation which might be put upon his words. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman would repudiate the general meaning which had been placed upon his words—words quoted, as they had been, without referene to the context. He hoped that the Committee would be allowed to get on with the work of the sitting with as little delay as possible.
SIR JOHN GORSTsaid that after the very pointed reference which had been made to him by the right hon. Gentleman he was bound to explain in one or two words his position. The phrases which had been quoted by the hon. Member for East Edinburgh were not his words, they were the words of the Prime Minister and of the President of the Local Government Board, and they were words uttered in the debate on the English Education Bill in general condemnation of the ad hoc principle. On that occasion he, too, no doubt, did express a desire to see the municipalisation of education. Possibly his opinion was not now so important as it was when be uttered the words which had been attributed to him, but he would like to point out that he had most consistently life advocated the municipalisation of every kind of administration wherever it was possible, and he would give his reason for that in a very few words. He looked upon the municipalisation of a great deal of our administrative work as the only way out of the extraordinary impasse in which Parliament now found itself. Parliament was now quite incapable of pressing on with that social legislation which was so much demanded by the people, and the only way out of the difficulty was to give greater powers to municipal and local bodies and to trust them to perform a great deal of the work which was now vainly attempted to be performed in Parliament. They could not have a great number of different local bodies, they wanted to have one strong self-contained body which would have charge of the finances of a district and be able to weigh one necessity against another and see where the product of the district
36
rates could be most wisely spent. It should also at the same time be responsible to the ratepayers for the finances of the district and for the proper application of the methods of local self-government.
MR. BRYCEsaid he did not desire to detain the Committee, but he was bound to express his opinion that this discussion had served a very useful purpose. It would help them to learn how to measure the sincerity and consistency of the Government. Possibly his hon. friends the Members for Camber-well and East Edinburgh were just a little hard upon the Secretary for Scotland. It was not he who made those broad sweeping declarations about the ad hoc principle. It was the Prime Minister who did that, and he strongly suspected that the Secretary for Scotland himself, with his acutely critical mind, was not so very much imposed upon by those declarations of the Local Government Board as were his ingenious and simple-minded friends the Members for Camberwell and East Edinburgh. The House knew pretty well what was the reason why school boards were destroyed under the English Act. They were destroyed because the clergy did not like them and because it was desirable to curry favour with the clergy. An excuse was wanted for throwing the charge of the maintenance of voluntary schools on the rates, that was the reason for the destruction of the school boards in England. But in Scotland no such necessity existed. And as the system there obtaining was working well it had been allowed to continue, whereas in England, although there it also had worked well, it had been ruthlessly destroyed. That was a very simple explanation of the whole matter. He was bound to say that no Prime Minister within their recollection had displayed such a capacity for suddenly invoking great principles for the nonce as had the present Prime Minister, and then throwing them away when they had served his purpose. The example given them in the different policies pursued in regard to the English and Scotch Education Bills would be of some value to the House when it came

37
in the future to consider the weight which should be attached to the declarations of the Government on other subjects. He thought that they would do well to remember that when they came to discuss a matter which could not be much longer delayed—the necessity of amending the English Act.
THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! We are not now discussing the English Education Act, and I must invite hon. Members to resume debate on the Scotch Bill.
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONasked permission to give a few words of explanation as to his failure to move, on the previous night, the Amendment which stood in his name upon the Paper in regard to the educational district for Dundee. He had found that the Secretary for Scotland in the clause as amended would have power to make the alteration which he had desired to secure by legislation, and that being so, with the consent of those at whoso request he had put the Amendment on the Paper, he had decided not to move it.
MR. HUNTER CRAIGsaid he was bound to express his regret that the Government had refused the appeal made on behalf of Govan parish that it should be constituted a separate educational district. It had a most excellent record in regard to educational matters, and its school board, as well as the leading representatives of opinion in the parish, including the Burgh Councils of Govan Partick and Kinning Park, were unanimously in favour of the Amendment which had been proposed. But the Amendment having been rejected, he supposed it was a foregone conclusion that their object would not be attained and he, therefore, proposed to enter his protest against the decision of the Government by voting against that clause.
MR. GEORGE BROWNmade an appeal to the Secretary for Scotland as to whether the proposals he had brought forward for the inclusion of certain suburban districts of Mid-Lothian in the area of the Edinburgh School Board could be dealt with as an administrative matter under the clause as it had been amended. If he could get an assurance that that was so, it would not be necessary for him to further trouble the Committee.
MR. BARRANsaid he desired to draw attention to the fact that the Government had taken entirely different areas in the Scotch as compared with the English Bill. When this matter was being discussed on the English Bill—
THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The hon. Member is not entitled to go back to the discussion which took place on the English Bill.
MR. BARRANsaid he was only using the English Bill as a means of comparison. This was the first opportunity they had had of ascertaining the real mind of the Government with regard to large county areas for educational purposes. They seemed now to have decided that the county areas should be split up, where it was desired that smaller areas should be constituted. Were they to take it that the Government agreed that smaller areas were desirable for educational purposes? Did they admit that education would be better served in Scotland by having smaller areas than it was in England, where they had such large areas as in the West Riding of Yorkshire? Did they now say that large areas were unworkable and undesirable? Surely they ought to have a direct declaration to that effect from the Government, so that they might know on what lines educational legislation would proceed in the future. The Secretary for Scotland had commented on the fact that in his country they had Royal burghs to deal with, but was that any reason why Scotland should be treated differently from England? In the latter country they had larger cities and towns. If these areas were to be broken up in Scotland then there was a claim for similar treatment to be extended to England. What was the reason for denying to England that which was granted to Scotland? They were entitled to some explanation from the Government on that point.
SIR JOHN LENGsaid he desired to support the statement of his hon. colleague as to the desirability of extending the Dundee education area to the suburban districts. He regretted that the Dundee people did not move earlier in the matter, so that the point

39
might have been more deliberately submitted to the Secretary for Scotland, and he hoped they would receive an assurance that it would be possible under the clause, as amended, to deal with these cases administratively. He certainly held that in cities like Dundee, Aberdeen, and Edinburgh there should be power to extend the radius, so as to embrace suburban districts.
MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAYpromised to consider the matter before the Report stage.
MR. BLACKrose to suggest a further Amendment, which would, he thought, effect a decided improvement in regard to representations upon which the districts named in the Bill might be altered. A school board was not likely to vote itself out of existence after the Act came into operation. He would therefore suggest the desirability of making it competent for a parish council, or for a body of thirty or fifty ratepayers, to come forward and make representations as to the enlargement or splitting up of areas. That, he thought, would facilitate the working of the Bill.
MR. AINSWORTHpointed out that the words "School Board" in this clause conveyed a different meaning to the words as used in the last Act. There it represented a combination of parishes; now it only represented a single parish. The Secretary for Scotland was now to have power to divide a district, if required, into parishes, or combinations of parishes, for educational purposes. But he would like to point out the difficulties which existed in some large parishes of inter-communication for local government purposes. There was the proposed district including the islands of Mull, Tiree, and Islay, and it was almost as difficult for these Islands to communicate with each other as with the mainland. The same applied to Colonsay and Jura, and he mentioned these matters in order that the right hon. Gentleman, when the clause came up on Report, might he prepared to deal with such cases as these.
Question put. and agreed to.
Clause 4.
SIR CHARLES RENSHAWformally moved.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 2, line 22, to leave out the word 'department,' and insert the words 'Secretary for Scotland.'"—(Sir Charles Renshaw.)
MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: The Government accept the Amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
The next Amendment on the Paper was as follows—
"In page 2, line 22, to leave out from the word 'by' to the word 'the,' in line 24, and insert the words 'means of a schedule attached hereto indicate.'"—(Mr. Weir.)
THE CHAIRMAN: This Amendment is out of order. There is no power to add a schedule to an Act after the Act has been passed.
MR. DALZIELasked if it would not be in order to move the Amendment on the understanding that, if adopted, a schedule would be brought up before the Bill became law.
THE CHAIRMANsaid it was open to the hon. Member to bring up a schedule himself when the schedules were reached.
MR. MAXWELLnext moved an Amendment providing that the Orders with regard to the number and apportionment of members of school boards should be duly advertised in the Edinburgh Gazette. He thought it would be the most effective means of calling the attention of local authorities to the matter.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 2, line 23, after the first word 'be,' to insert the words 'published in the Edinburgh Gazette within one month of the passing of this Act.'"—(Mr. Maxwell.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAYhoped that the Amendment would not be pressed. He held that there was not the slightest necessity for that. He had never been in the habit of making Orders without

41
giving those interested an opportunity of being heard upon them, and the adoption of this Amendment would involve both delay and unnecessary expense, and would as well unduly hamper the Department in completing the arrangements for the first election.
MR. MAXWELLasked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
MR. DALZIELthought the Amendment was of more importance than the author of it realised. This Bill gave very extensive powers to the Secretary for Scotland and his Department. It practically placed in their hands the whole management of education under the Bill. It was, therefore, important that the public of Scotland should know what was intended to be done, and in his opinion it is not sufficient that the Order should be merely laid on the Table of the House. What objection could there be to the simple publication of the Order in the Gazette for the information of the people in the different localities? It would not be treating the local people with proper respect to refuse this, and he, therefore, hoped that the Amendment would be pressed to a division.
MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAYsaid the hon. Member was always anxious to prolong discussion. Had he taken the trouble to read the Amendment he would have seen that the proposal was practically impossible. How could he decide on the number of members for school boards until he had had representations from the county councils and other bodies?
MR. THOMAS SHAWpointed out that there was an Amendment on the Paper later on providing for consultation with local bodies, and in view of that he did not see what advantage there could be in advertising the Orders in the Edinburgh, Gazette, the circulation of which was very limited.
MR. DALZIELsaid the Secretary for Scotland commenced every speech on I Amendments by telling the mover he had not read it, and he would respectfully suggest that the progress of the Bill was not likely to be assisted by such a line of
42
policy. As to the Gazette, he admitted that the circulation was limited and he would have been prepared to substitute the words "daily papers." Surely a natural anxiety for publicity did not necessarily prove a desire to retard the progress of the Bill.
MR. CALDWELLpointed out that under the Local Government Act of 1894 this procedure of advertising Orders in the Edinburgh Gazette had been adopted.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 2, line 26, after the word 'government,' to insert the words 'or other.'"—(Mr. A. Graham Murray.)
Amendment agreed to.
MR. PARKER SMITHnext moved an Amendment, the object of which was he said, to ensure that police burghs should be on the same footing as Royal and Parliamentary burghs. They were, he averred, of equal importance.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 2, line 27, to leave out the words 'Royal and Parliamentary.'"—(Mr. Parker Smith.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAYsaid there must be some misapprehension on this point. Police burghs were included in the electoral divisions, and it was, therefore, unnecessary to provide in the Bill that the police burghs should have a proper proportion of members. A provision of that kind was necessary in the case of Roval burghs, because they were not included in the electoral divisions.
MR. CHARLES DOUGLAS: How about Coatbridge?
MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: That has given us more trouble that any other burgh in the matter of drafting. But in the Act of last session a clause was inserted placing Coatbridge on the same footing as other burghs.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The next Amendment on the Paper was as follows—
"In page 2, line 32, after the word 'circumstances,' to insert the words 'and on the application of a county or burgh council he may cause a local inquiry to be made, and for the purposes of such inquiry the provisions of Section 93 of The Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1889, shall be deemed to be part of this Act.'"—(Sir Charles Renshaw.)
SIR CHARLES RENSHAWsaid he did not propose to move this Amendment. All he asked for was an assurance that there would be full opportunities of consultation with the local authorities and that they would have a chance of being heard if they so desired.
MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAYsaid he certainly intended to gather the opinions of the local authorities.
MR. THOMAS SHAWsaid the right hon. Gentleman would satisfy a very prevalent feeling if he would insert words later on dealing with the case of the police burghs.
MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAYregretted that he had not made it clear that police burghs were part and parcel of the electoral divisions, and must necessarily have a proper proportion of the members. Royal burghs were on a different footing.
MR. WEIRsaid he wished to move in Clause 4, page 2, line 32, to leave out from "circumstances" to the end of line 38. He understood the Secretary for Scotland was prepared to accept the Amendment.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 2, line 32, to leave out from the word 'circumstances' to end of line 38."—(Mr. Weir.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid that as the hon. Member had not explained the Amendment, perhaps the Secretary for Scotland would oblige.
MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAYsaid that as the Bill was originally drafted the dis-
44
trict was the unit; and there was no power to either combine or sub-divide. Therefore, it was provided that at least one member should be assigned to each electoral division. The Committee had pressed upon him, and he had accepted, the power of combining and sub-dividing. That being so, he did not want the cast-iron rule about there being at least one-member for each particular district to remain; and he had to alter the provision because of the altered circumstances created by these combinations and subdivisions. If there were a cast-iron rule, it would operate against the combinations he desired to make. That was why he did not object to the Amendment.
MR. BUCHANANsaid that if the right hon. Gentleman accepted the Amendment he would be acting contrary to what he had just said. The words safeguarded the case of police burghs to secure separate representation. If the words were omitted that security would be removed.
MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAYsaid that the security to which the hon. Gentleman referred would be taken away in any case. The first question was to ascertain what the unit was to be. Then they had to decide the number of members of the school board; and, after that, how many of the members were to be given to districts other than Royal burghs. All those questions would have to be decided on the basis of size, population, and valuation. No one district would have greater security than another.
MR. THOMAS SHAWsaid that, so far as the Bill stood at present, he agreed with the Secretary for Scotland. They had introduced by Clause 3 a certain amount of elasticity; and it would be inconsistent with that to so operate on the language of this clause as to adhere to what was not an elastic principle. At the same time, he thought that a proviso should be introduced to give the Secretary for Scotland, as it were, a statutory guide with regard to the appointments for each cut-up or unified division. The public had to be considered; and there should be no

45
possibility that any officer of the Crown should be in a position to elect all the members. A statutory guide would be to the advantage of all parties, and would at all events be a guarantee that each portion of a locality would have one or more representatives.
MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAYsaid he would try and amend the section, in order that each electoral division should have at least one member. If, however, there was a large combination, such as, for instance the entire county of Lanarkshire, and if they had a cast-iron rule, the school board might consist of 100 or 110 members.
MR. MCCRAEsaid he wished to move an Amendment to the Amendment, namely, to leave out all the words from "circumstances" to the word "and" in line 35. His object was to provide that every ward in a burgh should have at least one representative.
THE CHAIRMAN: There is no means of moving an Amendment to this Amendment. The proper course would be to negative the Amendment of the hon. Member for Ross; and then it would be open to the hon. Member to move his Amendment.
SIR LEWIS McIVER (Edinburgh, W.)said that the difficulty would be got over by negativing the Amendment before the Committee and proceeding to the next Amendment standing in the name of the Secretary for Scotland. His right lion friend stated that they wanted to put representation on the same elastic footing as the areas; but they were striking at the old system of election by wards. If election by wards was abolished, an elector might only know two or three candidates out of sixty or eighty; whereas, if there was election by ward the elector would know the man he wished to represent him.
MR. BRYCEsaid he could not agree that the abolition of ward voting was, as regarded cities of a certain size, a great advantage. Ward voting in Glasgow would be very different to ward voting in Aberdeen or Dundee.
MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAYsaid that the question was a very interesting one, but it would arise absolutely on Clause 6. Why, therefore, should it be discussed now?
MR. McCRAEasked if he would have an opportunity of discussing the subject on Clause 6?
THE CHAIRMAN: I will consider any Amendment that the hon. Gentleman frames. The question is "that the words proposed to be left out stand part: If the hon. Member can frame any Amendment to that he will be in order, but I have never known it to be done yet.
MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAYsaid the whole point would be directly raised by the Amendments on Clause 6, why then should the Committee discuss the question on a clause in connection with which it was not directly raised?
SIR CHARLES RENSHAWsubmitted chat a distinct question was raised by the Amendment of the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty. The right hon. Gentleman had given notice of an Amendment to omit the words from line 35, but not the words from line 33, and he desired to speak from the county point of view with regard to the omission of the earlier words. The right hon. Gentleman thought the omission of words necessary in order to give him a freer hand in the constitution of the new educational districts under Clause 3. But that clause did not give the right hon. Gentleman power to divide electoral divisions. In view of the fact that considerable importance was attached by many county councils to the question of electoral districts, he asked whether the present Amendment could not be withdrawn, and the Amendment of the Secretary for Scotland accepted, on the understanding that between now and the Report stage the right hon. Gentleman would consider whether any further alteration of the clause was necessary.
MR. MUNRO FERGUSONsaid that one of the securities for the proper representation of large districts on the boards was the appointment

47
of one representative for each unit, and that was a strong argument in favour of retaining the original design of the Bill as far as was practicable. He did not agree that better members would be secured from a division than from a parish or ward. He was not an economist in matters of education, but he believed the large ad hoc bodies tended to become extravagant, and consequently, so far as the original scheme of the Bill was departed from, the security for economy would be lost. The Secretary for Scotland had promised that as far as possible he would give members to wards or parishes, but the Committee ought to have an assurance that to as large an extent as was practicable the original design of the Bill would be followed.
MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAYsaid the reason for his original Amendment being in the shape in which it appeared on the Paper was as clear as possible. The Bill began with a cast-iron unit, namely, the district, and with that cast-iron unit there was no harm in saying that in making the school boards there should be at least one representative for each electoral division. Moveover, as originally drafted, the Bill provided for voting by ward in the enumerated cities, and in that case also there was no harm in saying that there should be at least one representative for each ward. But since then he had put down an Amendment to Clause 6 based on the principle that voting by wards was not the best plan to adopt in the great cities, and in consequence of that Amendment it was necessary that the latter part of this clause should go. In the discussion on Clause 3, the cast-iron unit was entirely dropped, and he had been given power not only to divide, but also to combine districts. The moment that power of combination was given the plan of one member for each electoral division became a practical impossibility. He would illustrate that by referring to the county of Renfrewshire. There were in that county twenty-one county council representatives in the upper district and seventeen in the lower district, so that under the cast-iron rule, if the whole of the county was formed into one district for educational purposes, there would have to be a minimum of thirty-eight members for the education
48
authority. They would represent a population of 83,000. But there was also to be provided for a population of 167,00 It comprised in the great cities of Paisley, Renfrew, Greenock, and Port Glasgow, and, if they were represented in the same proportion as the remaining population, it would mean that the school board would have to consist of 114 members. That would have been the effect of the cast-iron rule, and yet the hon. Member was surprised that it had been dropped.
MR. McCRAEsaid that the argument of the right hon. Gentleman applied altogether to districts other than the enumerated districts, and he hoped the Secretary for Scotland would allow the Committee to vote on a straight issue as between the enumerated and the other districts. The contention of the supporters of the Amendment was that in the enumerated districts each ward should have one representative, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would agree to that.
MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAYsaid that the whole question to which the hon. Member referred depended on Clause 6, and there he would have a direct issue. If the hon. Member carried his point, there would be no objection whatever to giving each ward one representative.
MR. MCCRAEasked whether he would be out of order in attempting to raise the question on Clause 6 if the present Amendment were voted upon.
MR. PARKER SMITHpointed out that Kinning Park, which was a part of Glasgow, had four wards each containing 4,000 people. If each of those wards of 4,000 people was to have one representative, the remainder of Glasgow, consisting of 1,000,000 people, would require at least 250 representatives. It was just as necessary to have the latitude in enumerated districts as in any others.
MR. WALLACEasked whether if the present Amendment were accepted it would hereafter be said that the question had been decided.
THE CHAIRMANexplained that under the clause, power was given to the Secretary for Scotland to make certain Orders. Under Clause 6 the Committee would lay down the standard which the right hon. Gentleman was to follow. That seemed to take away the discretion.
MR. WALLACEpointed out that in the particular words concerned there was no question of discretion whatever. The words were "Provided that in every enumerated district at least one member shall be assigned to every ward." If that were decided on now, would the Committee be precluded from dealing with the question on Clause 6?
THE CHAIRMANsaid that the whole of Clause 4 was governed by the words at the commencement, by which the Secretary for Scotland was given a certain discretion. If by a later clause the Committee chose to say that in exercising this discretion the right hon. Gentleman should do certain things, it was obviously in the power of the Committee to do so. He did not see, therefore, that by the Committee omitting the words now the hon. Member would be precluded from raising the question later.
SIR CHARLES RENSHAWsaid he would be extremely sorry if the figures with regard to the county of Renfrewshire given by the right hon. Gentleman had the effect of inducing the Committee to reject the Amendment. Renfrewshire was not at all a typical instance, as it contained an exceptional number of burghs and a very large population. In fact it had: no parallel in the whole of Scotland; consequently it was hardly a fair illustration.
MR. JOHN DEWARsaid; he was sorry that the words were going, but after the explanation given by the right hon. Gentleman it was probably necessary that they should be omitted. He was altogether in favour of election by wards in burghs, and he believed that the relative popularity of town council elections as compared with school board elections was due to the fact that in the former case the elections
50
were by wards. In Inverness-shire there were many districts in which the religious question would arise. Some districts were purely Roman Catholic, others were predominately Protestant, while others might be said to be half and half.
MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAYsaid it was really unnecessary for the hon. Member to go into the case of Inverness-shire. He had already stated that he was perfectly willing to give representatives to electoral districts, where possible; it was only when the authority would become so large as to render it practically impossible that he would not be able to do it.
MR. BLACKsuggested that the views of both parties might be met by inserting words to the effect that "except in cases where there is a combination of counties or county council districts the principle of one man for each electoral division shall apply."
Question put and negatived.
Question proposed, "That Clause 4, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
MR. CALDWELLpointed out that in apportioning the members of the school board between the county or local government district and the Royal or Parliamentary burghs, the Secretary for Scotland was to have regard to population, distribution and pursuits of the population, area, annual value, and educational and other circumstances. It was quite right and proper that such matters should be taken into account in the constitution of a local government area, because they affected the question of taxation, but he submitted that when the question was purely that of education nothing more than population need be considered. The principle of the equality of votes ought to hold good. Complaints were often made of the inequalities of the franchise under which some Members of Parliament were elected by large numbers of voters and others by very small numbers, and he contended that if it was right that all voters should be equal in Parliamentary elections, it

51
was equally right that the same principle should apply in school board elections.
Question put, and agreed to.
Clause 5.
SIR CHARLES RENSHAWformally moved the substitution of "Secretary I for Scotland" for "Department."
Amendment proposed—
"In page 2, line 39, to leave out 'department,' and insert 'Secretary for Scotland.'"—(Sir Charles Renshaw.)
Amendment agreed to.
Consequential drafting Amendments agreed to.
Question proposed, "That Clause 5, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsuggested that it would be better to leave out the proviso to the clause by which it was proposed that in making an amending or modifying Order the procedure prescribed by the 46th Section of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1894, should be followed as nearly as possible. That section provided that Orders should be published in the Edinburgh Gazette. It appeared to follow, therefore, that under the proviso an amending Order would have to be published in the Edinburgh Gazette, whereas it was not necessary so to publish the original Order. As the beneficial provisions of that section of the Local Government Act had already been secured, he submitted that the proviso in this clause was unnecessary.
MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAYsaid it was not intended that the section should apply to the original Orders, because it was absolutely necessary that they should get on as quickly as possible in order that the Bill might be started. But when once the Bill was in operation and the whole of the arrangements in going order, so that time was not of the essence of the matter, he thought it would be advisable that they should adopt the more serious procedure laid down by the Act of 1894.
MR. THOMAS SHAWsaid it appeared to him that if they could trust the Secretary for Scotland with the initial arrangements of the districts throughout Scotland, they might very well trust him with power to amend an Order. He asked the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether the procedure provided by Section 46 of the Act of 1894 could be applied here.
Question put, and agreed to.
Clause 6.
MR. JOHN DEWARmoved to omit the word "not" in line 10. The effect of the clause as drafted was that burghs for electoral purposes would be included in the electoral district of a county. At present the burghs elected the school boards as a whole instead of by wards, as in the case of the election of town councils, and he believed that this was the explanation of the greater interest taken in town council elections. Elections by wards always added to the interest, as the personal element entered so much more into the contest. In saying this he believed he would have the support of the Attorney-General, who represented a burgh which had lately been divided into wards to the great benefit of the town. He believed that burghs such as Perth and Inverness should elect their school boards as they elected their town councils. For that reason he begged to propose that, in cases where burghs were divided into wards, the election of members of school boards should be by wards.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 3, line 10, to leave out the word 'not.'"—(Mr. John Dewar.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'not' stand part of the clause."
MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAYsaid he could not help thinking that the hon. Member had not fully considered, the proposal he had made. It was something quite different from what the hon. Member expected. He asked the hon. Member to consider what would be the use of election by wards in a burgh in a non-enumerated district unless it meant a member for each ward.
MR. JOHN DEWAR: Certainly.
MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: The hon. Member said "Certainly." Let him take the hon. Member the next step. A burgh which was only a smallish burgh was part of a large county district. Suppose that the burgh had eight wards.
MR. JOHN DEWAR: There is no small burgh divided into wards.
MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAYsaid it was quite obvious that a burgh might divide itself into wards, if it liked. Accordingly, if they passed the Amendment of the hon. Member, there must be one representative for each ward. That burgh was only, of course, a fraction of a much larger district, or it might be, under the powers of this Bill, a fraction of two or three districts combined. That burgh could only have representation somewhat proportionate to its own population. Yet if this Amendment were accepted, they would begin with a necessary minimum of members according to the wards of the burghs, and these wards might be altered from time to time, and they would have proportionately to raise the representation of the other places in the county in order to make the proper proportion to the wards in the burgh. The Amendment would really produce chaos.
MR. WALLACEsaid there were burghs to which this Amendment should apply. The city of Perth, which he represented, was divided into four wards, and he understood that the city itself would represent nearly four-fifths of the population of the school board area. Did the right hon. Gentleman suggest that in regard to a school board election in the city of Perth there should be no opportunity of dividing the city into wards, so that the different sections should have an opportunity of expressing their opinions? The city of Inverness, with a slightly smaller population, was of a very similar character to the city of Perth. He agreed with his hon. friend that interest in elections was greatly quickened when, in such places, the electors were divided into smaller areas. Speaking in regard to the city of Perth he could state that the school board
54
election never aroused the same degree of interest as the elections which took place in the ward areas. He thought that was the experience of everyone in connection with the elections in England, and the result was that the minority had governed for education purposes. Recognising this state of matters the Government, in the Education Bill of 1902, objectionable as it was in other respects, introduced the principle for which he was contending. The right hon. Gentleman had asked what they were going to do in regard to the very small burghs, if they were to have them as an electoral unit. He would remind the right hon. Gentleman that the small burghs in Scotland were not divided into wards at all. The question only arose in regard to a few large towns.
SIR CHARLES RENSHAWthought there was a good deal in what had fallen from the hon. Member for Perth. He would like to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether it would be possible to deal with cases of this kind by inserting in the Amendment, of which the right hon. Gentleman had given notice in regard to Sub-section 2 of the clause, words for the purpose of protecting the interest of the larger burghs to which his hon. friend had referred. He quite agreed that it might not be necessary to apply this arrangement in the case of some of the smaller burghs, but in the case of burghs of over 10,000 inhabitants it would be valuable.
MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAYsaid he was perfectly willing to accept that suggestion. Of course, they should be in a better position to discuss the proposal when they came to deal with the merits of the next Amendment. If the hon. Member would not press the Amendment, the matter would be kept open for consideration on the next Amendment.
MR. JOHN DEWARbegged leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 3, line 12, to leave out the words 'municipal ward of every.'"—(Mr. A. Graham Murray.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
DR. MACNAMAEAsaid this was an endeavour to introduce the fantastic manner of election which was fatal to the school board system in England. They got all the disadvantages here of the cumulative vote and none of the advantages. They did not protect minorities at all, and that he imagined was what the right hon. Gentleman desired to do. He saw that the Secretary for Scotland would take power, by the Amendment which he would afterwards move, to combine wards. In Edinburgh there were sixteen, and in Glasgow twenty-five wards. Under the system proposed they would have to elect sixteen members for Edinburgh, all on one voting paper. They might have twenty-five or thirty candidates, and acute as the people of Scotland were in matters of education, how did they think it was possible to give an intelligent vote for sixteen out of the number nominated? Supposing the Secretary for Scotland, under the powers which he proposed to take, combined the wards, they would have precisely the same experience as they had in London, where twenty-five members had been elected. They had been elected in areas sending six, five, and four members. For ten years he had been elected from an area which selected six members of the London School Board, and he was bound to say that there had never been an intelligent vote on any of these occasions, because the number of candidates to be voted on was too large. He might be excused for saying this, because he was always at the top of the poll. There had been the most profound lack of interest under the cumulative system of election, when the voters had to select from so many candidates. He was sorry to find himself in sharp difference with the right hon. Member for South Aberdeen; and with great deference he would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he was at entire variance with what was the proper democratic idea. He maintained that, with small areas of voting, the greater interest was taken in the elections. The proposal before the Committer, was merely doctrinaire. He did
56
not know what was behind it. If it was desired to secure a representation of the minority because the cumulative vote had been thrown over, then he believed that that would not be accomplished. He admitted his conviction was that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland had not made a single proposal which had not been directed to secure a better educational system for Scotland, and that the right hon. Gentleman hoped by breaking up the ward system he would get a better election. Would the right hon. Gentleman tell the Committee why he thought so? His contention, derived from experience, was that by general voting a lack of interest was produced, and there was not so intelligent a choice of members as under the ward system. In London they had to come back to what was practically the ward system on account of the hopeless breakdown of the general voting system. They took it upon themselves to form sub-divisions of the area and agreed that each of the six candidates should run for a certain portion of the area. That was the only I way in which they could get anything like an intelligent interest in the election. If they had to do that in London, surely the Secretary for Scotland should pause before he broke down the ward system.
MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAYsaid that so far as he could see they were more likely, under the system of general voting as against ward voting, to get the best class of members on the school board. Although the proposal was not meant as a protection to the minority, he would be perfectly thankful if it would be more likely to secure the election of women and Roman Catholic representatives. In fact, he thought that there would be a better chance under the system he proposed than under ward voting. He confessed he parted with the cumulative system with regret, but he could not see his way actually to repeat it, because there were obvious difficulties in the way, and it would work very badly with the general scheme of the Bill. He could not help saying that under the cumulative system they got a class of members who were devoted to education, and who had done very good work indeed. Although

57
they could not have the cumulative system in its entirety, he thought that under the system he proposed women and Roman Catholics would be able to retain their places. He might be wrong, but, as a matter of fact, he had received a great many representations on this matter from those who were very much entitled to speak on educational questions. He did not for one instant believe that what was called the diminution of interest in school board elections was due so much to the cumulative vote as to other causes. He was glad to think that he was going to have a stalwart backer of his proposal in the right hon. Member for South Aberdeen who had such great educational experience.
MR. MCCRAEsaid he regretted the attitude assumed by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland, "because he thought the reasons the right hon. Gentleman had adduced were not good and sufficient. In this case second thoughts were not best; the original proposal in the Rill was the right proposal. He regretted that the right hon. Gentleman had given way to pressure brought to bear upon him by those who were, no doubt, interested in education, but who were only familiar with the old, bad system which this Bill should have put an end to. The Secretary for Scotland had said that he looked upon this provision as a protection to the minority. So far as Edinburgh was concerned the right hon. Gentleman was entirely wrong. The right hon. Gentleman had mentioned the case of the Roman Catholics. He ventured to say that election by wards would give a better representation to Roman Catholics than the proposal now made for voting over the whole district. Voting over the whole district, in the absence of the cumulative vote, would, he was sure, prevent any Roman Catholic being elected, not only in Edinburgh but, he believed, also in Glasgow. It must be remembered that Roman Catholics in these cities were concentrated in certain districts, and if the election were to be made in these wards they would be able to return representatives of their own communion, but would not be able to do so by general voting over the whole district. He agreed with the hon. Member for Camberwell
58
that the smaller interest taken in municipal and school board elections was due to the fact not only of the cumulative vote but to the large areas called upon to vote for representatives out of a large number of candidates. The Secretary for Scotland should have stuck to the original principle of the Bill. Be it good or bad, the right hon. Gentleman had adopted the ad hoc principle, and, therefore, whatever might be said in regard to the unenumerated districts, he ought to have maintained representation by wards in the enumerated districts. He was anxious that the right hon. Gentleman should concede that the minimum of representation should be one member for each ward. If the right hon. Gentleman would consider this matter in all its bearings, he was sure that educational interests would not suffer by this being done. He had been astonished at the position taken up by his right hon. friend the Member for South Aberdeen because he was sure that the original proposal of the Bill would give effect to efficient representation, and that, under it, the right men would be got more easily by election by wards than under the scheme now suggested by the right hon. Gentleman.
SIR LEWIS McIVERsaid that he entirely concurred with the hon. Member for East Edinburgh that if there was to be a protection for minorities it would be by voting by wards. The Roman Catholics occupied districts by themselves, and there were certain wards in Edinburgh where they might be fairly competent to send representatives to the school board, but in which they would fail if the voting was over the whole city. He did not profess to express an opinion as to whether or not better men would be got by ward representation; but this he knew, that the ward system was interwoven with the whole civic life of the towns and cities of Scotland, and that it would be a great pity to depart from it. To depart from the ward system would, he believed, be to take a retrograde step.
MR. BRYCEsaid that the hon. Member for East Edinburgh had expressed his belief that the ward system of election was the best; but he and others who

59
supported it had given no ground for their belief.
MR. MCCRAEsaid that the groundwork of their belief was experience.
MR. BRYCEsaid that, of course, there were many causes which conduced to the lack of interest taken in school board elections, such as the many questions as to administration which confused the issue. His own belief was that they were much more likely to rouse a real interest in the great question of educational policy in the hearts of the citizens by having the elections spread over the whole city than by having them in wards. He did not agree with his hon. friend that it would be difficult for people electing fifteen members over a whole city to know for whom they voted. They had done so ever since the Act of 1872 had come into force. The electors had no difficulty in knowing who were the good candidates. He was not fond of the system, and he was glad it was gone, but it appeared to him that this Amendment would give some protection to minorities. He was no advocate for representation of minorities, but he did not think it was possible to leave that out of account altogether, because different cities were affected by different citcumstances. What they wanted was to get the best men of the city or burgh who would come forward and devote their knowledge and experience to this kind of work, and they were a good deal more likely to do so if they went to the city as a whole than if they went to a particular ward and got the best man in that ward. They would get a better candidate for education if they went to the city as a whole, and by so doing they would also eliminate a certain number of questions which sometimes gave trouble. He did not want to sec a representative of a ward come forward and represent the interest of his ward as against another ward or as against the whole city. In his opinion everybody ought to represent the city as a whole, and do the best he could for the city, every part of which ought to interest every member of the board. That was of special interest when they came to deal with secondary education, which it was clear must be
60
dealt with over the whole city. Although these arguments applied to every city he agreed that there was a difference between the large cities and the small. He was not prepared to deny that in the case of a great city like Glasgow, which would have a large school board, it might be better to cut the city up into districts, each district returning a certain number of members. If they had to return fifty or sixty members, it might be difficult for the individual elector to judge of the individual capabilities of each candidate, but when they came to a small city like Aberdeen, whose board only consisted of some thirteen members, then a better result would be obtained by having the election over the whole city. That was the view of Aberdeen, and he hoped that those cities which had not boards of an inordinate size might be allowed to elect their members over the whole city if they chose to do so.
MR. HALDANEsaid this was a question on which there was a great diversity of opinion, but it must be considered from the point of view of how they were likely to get the best result in the composition of the school boards. A good deal had been said as to the Catholic minority which had to be considered, but there was a much more serious minority in his opinion than that, and that was that of the women. In his opinion they were less likely to get the best result in the election of women by an election over the whole city than by an election over a ward. If the people of a ward had to elect three candidates they would say: "We will have two men and one woman." That was a matter which weighed considerably in his mind, because the part which women had to take in the education of Scotland was very important. They had more leisure and were good workers, and with regard to the education of girls and young children had done very efficient work indeed. He had been very much moved by that consideration. The Secretary for Scotland did not propose to leave the big cities in their present condition; he proposed to divide them into smaller divisions, but on the merits of the proposal it seemed to him, on the arguments of his hon. friend the Member for East Edinburgh, that the question was of

61
great general importance, and that all the concessions made went in favour of the proposal which the Secretary for Scotland had put upon the Paper. He associated himself in this matter with the speech made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberdeen.
MR. CHARLES DOUGLASsaid he was sorry to differ from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberdeen and from the right hon. Gentleman opposite, but he thought the Secretary for Scotland had made an unfortunate change, and the grounds upon which he had maintained that change were that there had been some compulsion. The right hon. Gentleman frankly admitted that he preferred the cumulative vote but he abandoned it because public opinion rendered it wholly impossible. The Secretary for Scotland desired to protect the minority, but the right hon. Member for Aberdeen supported the proposal because he thought it would not protect the minority. If the right hon. Gentleman desired to protect the minority surely it was better to have a cumulative vote than a vote which would have all its vices and none of its supposed merits. The right hon. Gentleman did not believe that the lack of interest in school board elections had been due to the cumulative vote, but most of those who had been engaged in school board work would not agree with him. They would say the lack of interest was largely brought about by want of close attention to the work, not by the supporters of the schools but by the community, and by the power given to the people who had special interests to serve in defeating the intention of those in office. Anything that perpetuated that in the least degree would do a great deal of harm in this Bill. Under these circumstances he deplored the right hon. Gentleman's refusal to stick to the Bill as he brought it forward. The abandonment of this part of the Bill made it entirely different in its application in the towns and in the country districts, because the right hon. Gentleman had given an assurance that day that he was going to adopt this old method of cumulative vote for the country. But every argument put forward against the cumulative vote in the town would apply equally well to the country, especially in
62
the crowded parts of it. Why had the right hon. Gentleman adopted a different system for the towns and not for the large rural districts which lived practically under the same conditions as the towns and the suburbs? He hoped this would not be insisted upon because, if it were, it would impair much of the usefulness they hoped to get from this Bill. I After all, educational local government was not so different from other local government as to necessitate its being managed by entirely different staffs. His experience was that when there was local responsibility and local representation there was much greater interest on the part of the public than there could be under any other elective system.
MR. PARKER SMITHexpressed his approval of the Amendment of the Secretary for Scotland partly on the ground that it gave the minority a better chance of representation, but mostly because it permitted a better class of people to be elected on the school board. It was a most imperfect method of protecting minorities, and if-parties interested in local government were organised in the same way as political Parties it would be no protection at all. To carry out this Vote properly the method of preferential voting ought to be altered so as to allow the people to vote for one man and one man only, but to transfer their votes in order of preference. In that way they would have secured the protection of the minority and would have also had the advantage of the large district and an increased chance for the election of women and other suitable persons. As to the system most likely to give the best results, the weight of educational opinion was in favour of the Amendment of the Government and upon that ground he should support it.
MR. ALEXANDER CROSSsaid he was not in favour of the view taken by the Government. It occurred to him, from the remarks of the right hon. Member for Aberdeen, that the right hon. Gentleman spoke of some necessary complement by which persons in a ward were bound to vote for a person residing in that ward. That would not be the case at all. It was also

63
said that the system of election with regard to women would not be so well carried out over a ward as over the whole city. That was a statement which he could not understand, because from his experience of Edinburgh it was not the fact. In his opinion the services of the best people could not be secured by the electoral area being spread over large districts. The best people did not care to fight a large election involving great public meetings and a large amount of speaking, when, in the case of a ward, the social standing of the candidate was frequently sufficient to return him to
the school board. Up to now the school board elections had been run on a system of scrutin de liste. They had been run by one party in favour of that party, and the men who were returned were the representatives of a clique; the nominees of a party or a church. He followed and shared the views of the hon. Member who had spoken in favour of election by wards.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 85; Noes, 213. (Division List No. 149.)

AYES.

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

Runciman, Walter

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

Russell, T. W.

Asher, Alexander

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

Schwann, Charles E.

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herb. Henry

Furness, Sir Christopher

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

Atherley-Jones, L.

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert Jn.

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Barlow, John Emmott

Harmsworth, R. Leicester

Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Hayter. Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

Soares, Ernest J.

Brigg, John

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

Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R (Northants

Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

Holland, Sir William Henry

Stevenson, Francis S.

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

Tennant, Harold John

Burt, Thomas

Horniman, Frederick John

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Joicey, Sir James

Thomas, D. Alfred (Merthyr)

Caldwell, James

Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea)

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Wallace, Robert

Causton, Richard Knight

Kemp, Lieut.-Colonel George

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Kitson, Sir James

Wason, Jn. Cathcart (Orkney)

Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington)

Weir, James Galloway

Crombie, John William

Leng, Sir John

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Dalziel, James Henry

Lewis, John Herbert

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Lloyd-George, David

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan)

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

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

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

Woodhouse. Sir J. T (Huddersf'd

Dobbie, Joseph

M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh,W

Yoxall, James Henry

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

Edwards, Frank

Morgan, J.Lloyd (Carmarthen)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

Elibank, Master of

Nussey, Thomas Willans

M'Crae, and Mr. Alexander

Ellice,Capt. E.C(SAndrw'sBghs

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

Cross.

Emmott, Alfred

Reid,Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries.

Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

Black, Alexander William

Coates, Edward Fcetham

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Blundell, Colonel Henry

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

Aird, Sir John

Boland, John

Coddington, Sir William

Ambrose, Robert

Boulnois, Edmund

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Bowles, T. Gibson (King'sLynn

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Arrol, Sir William

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Austin, Sir John

Campbell, Rt. Hn. J.A (Glasgow

Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim.S.)

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Crossley, Rt, Hon. Sir Savile

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

Cullinan, J.

Balcarres, Lord

Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire

Cust, Henry John C.

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

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Dalkeith, Earl of

Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

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

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Delany, William

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.

Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Chapman, Edward

Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

Bignold, Arthur

Charrington, Spencer

Dickinson, Robert Edmond

Dickson, Charles Scott

Kerr, John

Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Kimber, Henry

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Reid, James (Greenock)

Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C.

Laurie, Lieut. General

Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

Donelan, Captain A.

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

Renwick, George

Doogan, P. C.

Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th

Richards, Henry Charles

Doughty, George

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

Ridley, Hon. M.W. (Stalybridge

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green

Dunn, Sir William

Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Roberton, Herbert (Hackney)

Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Bristol, S.)

Roche, John

Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

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

Lundon, W.

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Field, William

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Macdona, John Gumming

Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Maconochie, A. W.

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Fisher, William Hayes

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Shaw-Stewart, Sir H. (Renfrtw)

Fison, Frederick William

M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

Sheehy, David

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

Flower, Sir Ernest

Maxwell, W.J.H. (Dumfriessh.)

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

Forster, Henry William

Middlemore, on. Throgmorton

Spear, John Ward

Gardner, Ernest

Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.

Spencer, Sir E. W. Bromwich)

Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

Milvain, Thomas

Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lanes.

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

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

Morpeth, Viscount

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

Stroyan, John

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Mount, William Arthur

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hediey

Graham, Henry Robert

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

Sullivan, Donal

Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

Murnaghan, George

Talbot, Lord E (Chichester)

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Murphy, John

Talbot, Rt. Hn. J.G (Oxf'dUniv.

Gunter, Sir Robert

Murray, Rt. Hon. A. G. (Bute)

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Hain, Edward

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Thornton, Percy M.

Hall, Edward Marshall

Myers, William Henry

Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

Hammond, John

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford)

Nicholson, William Graham

Tuff, Charles

Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

Nolan, Col. J. P. (Galway, N.)

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Haslett, Sir James Horner

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

Valentia, Viscount

Hay, Hon. Claude George

O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid.)

Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

Hayden, John Patrick

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Wanklyn, James Lieslie

Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

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

Warde, Colonel C. E.

Heath, James (Staffords., N.W.

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

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

Heaton, John Henniker

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

Hickman, Sir Alfred

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Hoare, Sir Samuel

Parkes, Ebenezer

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Hogg, Lindsay

Percy, Earl

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

Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

Pirie, Duncan V.

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

Plummer, Walter R.

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

Hunt, Rowland

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

Power, Patrick Joseph

Young, Samuel

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

Joyce, Michael

Pym, C. Guy

Alexander Acland Hood

Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

Rankin, Sir James

and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

Question put, and agreed to.

Amendment proposed—
"In page 3, line 14, to leave out from the word 'such' to end of sub-section, in order to insert the words 'burgh, and, except as hereinafter mentioned, any division of such burgh into wards shall not have effect for the purposes of such election: Provided that the Secretary for Scotland may by order as aforesaid determine that such election shall be held in electoral districts, each of which shall consist of two or more municipal wards of such burgh.'"—(Mr. A. Graham Murray.)
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 3, lines 19 and 20, to leave out the words 'ward of a burgh or,' in order to insert the words 'for a burgh or electoral district of a.'"—(Mr. A. Graham Murray.)
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 3, line 23, to leave out the word 'ward,' in order to insert the words 'electoral district.'"—(Mr. A. Graham Murray.)
Amendment agreed to.
MR. DALZIELsaid the Amendment he desired to move raised the question of one man one vote. Under the new arrangement it would be possible for a man to have a vote in, say, both Edinburgh and Leith, and the object of the Amendment was to secure that such a man should exercise the franchise only once in the same election. As he understood the Secretary for Scotland was not antagonistic to the Amendment, he would simply move.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 3, line 23, at end, to insert, '(4) At every election of members of a school board for an education district, any person registered as a county elector for any division of such district, and also as a municipal elector for any burgh embraced therein, or registered as an elector for two or more burghs embraced in any one of the enumerated districts, shall only be entitled to vote in respect of one such qualification.'"—(Mr. Dalziel.)
MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAYsaid he was quite willing to accept the Amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 7 and 8 agreed to.
Clause 9.
MR. MAXWELL(said the Amendment he now proposed to move raised the question of the qualifications of members of school boards. Under the Bill it was not necessary for members of school boards to be either ratepayers or electors, and the object of the Amendment was to render such a qualification necessary. In this matter he was following the precedent of the county and parish councils, in regard to which it was necessary for members to be electors in the district over which the council had jurisdiction. Such a qualification he thought was necessary in the interests of economy, because, if a member was not an elector or a ratepayer, he was likely to be more extravagant and less thoughtful of the interest of the ratepayers than members possessing those qualifications. He was aware that at present it was not necessary for a member of a school board to be a ratepayer in the
68
parish, but that was because, in consequence of the smallness of the area, it might sometimes be difficult to secure suitable persons for the office. But under the Bill the much larger area of the district or county was taken, and there would be no difficulty whatever in securing from within that area suitable persons who, by reason of their position as ratepayers, would have a greater feeling of responsibility than persons who had no such connection with the parish. In order that the qualification should not make it more difficult for women to be members of school boards he had placed a further Amendment on the Paper to except women from the provision. He begged to move.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 5, line 13, after the word 'board,' to insert the words, 'if he is not at the time of the election registered as a county or burgh elector within the education district and.'"—(Mr. Maxwell.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAYthought it would be a great mistake to accept the Amendment. The Local Government Act and the Parish Councils Act afforded no analogy whatever. It frequently happened that there were persons who had really devoted their lives to educational work, but were not electors in a particular district. It would be a great pity to prevent for that reason their being chosen by the electors to serve on the school board.
SIR CHARLES RENSHAWsaid he attached much importance to the Amendment, which was considered very desirable by many persons connected with local government in Scotland. At present there was no obligation upon persons elected to the school board to be rate payers, but that was not the case in regard to parish or county council elections, and he could not see why it should remain the case in regard to school boards. Having regard to the enormous amount of money now raised from the rates for educational purposes, everything possible ought to be done to secure the interests of the ratepayers. About £1,200,000 was

69
now raised by rates for educational purposes in Scotland, and when this Bill came into operation the amount would probably tend to increase. The Bill would also considerably change the incidence of the rates, because the outlying rural parts would be more heavily burdened than at present. That being so, it was essential for the protection of the ratepayers that those upon whom the responsibility of spending the money was to devolve should themselves be liable to the burdens they were going to impose on the locality. He hoped that before the Report stage the right hon. Gentleman would reconsider the question.
MR. TENNANTfelt bound in the interests of education to support the Government. He entirely agreed with the right hon. Gentleman as to the necessity of widening the area of choice so that the people of a locality should not be in any way fettered in their selection of persons to represent them on the school board.
Question put and negatived.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 5, line 14, after the word 'the,' to insert the word 'paid.'"—(Mr. A. Graham Murray.)
Amendment agreed to.
MR. DOBBIEsaid the Bill very properly disqualified teachers in Board schools for being members of the school board. He fully appreciated the necessity for that disqualification, but he thought it was unnecessary that it should apply to certain teachers in continuation classes. It frequently happened that in a burgh there would be an expert in some technical subject who happened to be an important member of the local town council and who voluntarily gave his services to the continuation classes in order that the youth of the district might have the benefit and advantage of his experience. He submitted that it would be a hardship if such persons were debarred from serving on the school board, and in order to exempt them from the disqualification he begged to move the Amendment of which he had given notice.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 5, line 18, after the word 'Act, to insert the words' other than the office of teacher of continuation classes.'"—(Mr. Dobbie.
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAYthought the position of the persons to whom the hon. Member referred would be met by the insertion of the word "paid" which had already been made. If a man was paid for teaching it mattered not whether he was a teacher in a board School or in a continuation class.
MR. DOBBIEsaid he quite agreed with the right hon. Gentleman; he was I not aware that the Amendment referred; to had been made.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. DOBBIEsaid the next Amendment he desired to move suggested that a man's connection with a co-operative society contracting with a Board should not of itself be a disqualifying element. The Bill very properly gave to directors of joint stock companies the right to sit upon school boards, and inasmuch as the only difference between a joint stock company and a co-operative society was that the former was a company of capitalists while the latter was a company of working men, there was no reason why the same privilege should not apply to persons responsible for the management of co-operative societies as applied to directors of joint stock companies. He begged to move.
Amendment proposed.
"In page 5, line 37, after the word 'company,' to insert the words 'co-operative society.'"—(Mr. Dobbie.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAYsaid the hon. Member was under a misapprehension in supposing that a member of a co-operative society would be disqualified from sitting on a school board while a director of a joint stock company would not be. There was no disqualification of either class; the disqualification took effect

71
only if they happened to have a contract with the school board. But this clause was not really framed for the present Bill at all; it was taken from several Acts of Parliament, and if any change was to be made it should be made generally and not simply in an Education Bill. The whole question of disqualification by reason of contract relations was a general principle which ought not to be settled by a side wind.
MR. THOMAS SHAWsaid there was doubtless much force in the right hon. Gentleman's remark, but the matter would have to be dealt with at some time, and the present seemed a good opportunity for beginning. He quite agreed that the disqualification was in respect of a person having a share or an interest in any contract with the school board, but exceptions were already made in the case of persons who were members of companies limited under the Companies Act. Under Section 21 of the Industrial Societies Act, 56 & 57 Vic, cap. 30, industrial societies and limited liability companies were in several respects placed on the same footing. That being so, why should a man who happened to be in humble circumstances be disqualified for serving on a school board because he was a member of an industrial society which had entered into a small contract with the school board for the supply of soap, towels, and articles of that kind? The Amendment infringed no great principle; it simply desired to provide that all members of the community, however humble their circumstances, should have the privilege of serving on their local school board, if their fellow-ratepayers chose to elect them.
MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAYsaid that if the matter were not further discussed at present he would undertake to refer the matter to the Law Officers and bring up a proposal on the Report stage.
MR. CALDWELLsaid that a similar point was raised by a Municipal Corporations Bill introduced by the hon. and learned Member for the Stretford Division of Lancashire. He had looked very carefully into the matter and had come to the conclusion that there was much force in the arguments used by
72
his hon. friend. That being so, if the right hon. Gentleman would agree to remove the disqualification in the present Bill, he, on his part, would permit it to go in the case of the Municipal Corporations Bill in England.
MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAYsaid that if the arguments had convinced the hon. Member for Mid-Lanark, he had no doubt the law officers of the Crown would fall an easy prey.
MR. DOBBIE,in view of the reply of the Secretary for Scotland, asked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 10.
COLONEL DENNYmoved an Amendment for the purpose of providing that one-third of the members of school boards should retire annually. He said it must not be forgotten that under the new system the school boards would have a very much enlarged sphere. The proposal in the clause was that the whole of the members should be elected for three years, and what he suggested was that a certain proportion of the members should retire annually so that the boards should be refreshed by the addition of some new men. The school boards would have a great deal of most important work to do, and what he wished was to secure continuity of policy. The work of a board might at the end of three years fall into absolutely new hands, and the result would be that it would be dealt with by the permanent officials. He was in favour of having the election of the new school boards on the same principle as the municipal authority, namely, one-third retiring annually. He begged to move.
Amendment proposed—
"In page C, line 13, to leave out the word 'in.'"—(Colonel Denny.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'in' stand part of the clause."
MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAYsaid the meaning of this Amendment could be

73
stated in a word. It was to substitute the burgh system of a third of the members going out every year instead of the whole of the members going out every three years. He really did not believe that anybody was in favour of multiplying elections. They might be necessary evils, but they were evils, and certainly a school board would not gain in strength of policy or in grasp of the subject if a third went out and a new third came in every year. He did not wish to argue the principle of the burgh system. It was a very old principle, but he did not think it could be adopted in school board elections.
MR. MCCRAEsupported the Amendment of the hon. Member for the Kilmarnock Burghs, who, he thought, had taken up unassailable ground. The Secretary for Scotland had very wisely evaded the issue. With regard to any question which arose in a board there should be an opportunity, yearly, for the citizens to express their opinion. With regard to continuity of policy, it was admitted that the burgh election gave; that continuity by electing a third each year. There was no doubt that a considerable part of the lack of interest in school board elections was due to the fact that the ratepayers at the present time had no real control over the board not only because of the cumulative vote but because the members were elected en bloc for three years. From that point of view he welcomed the Amendment. He thought the Committee would do well to homologate the principle that hid worked so well and so long in burgh elections, namely, that one-third of the members should retire annually.
MR. EUGENE WASONhoped that the hon. Member for the Kilmarnock Burghs would not proceed with the Amendment. So far as the towns were concerned it might be possible to work the arrangement proposed, but it would not be so easily applied in the country districts. He hoped they would not be put to the trouble of having annual school board elections.
MR. JOHN DEWARsaid he was in entire sympathy with the hon. Member for the Kilmarnock Burghs. He was of opinion that the proposal would not only
74
give continuity of policy but would give the electors an opportunity of annually reviewing the policy of the board, and thus keeping the board in close touch with public opinion. In regard to the board's finance the proposal would have an excellent effect, as at present it was not unusual for a board elected for three years to assess in the last year of its office for 1d. or 2d. less than was necessary, leaving the new board to impose a a rate correspondingly too high in its first year of office. This would be avoided if one third of the members were elected annually.
COLONEL DENNYasked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. DOBBIEmoved an Amendment to Clause 10 to provide that, in the event of casual vacancies occurring in a school board, "a fresh election shall be held to to supply such a vacancy." The effect of this substantially would be that the vacancy would be filled by the electors and not by the remaining members as would be the case under the proposal in the Bill. He brought forward this Amendment on the suggestion of the Edinburgh School Board and after representations received from the members of other school boards in Scotland who thought that the practice on this point should be assimilated to the practice which obtained in connection with town councils. He quite agreed that in small boards it was, perhaps, hardly worth while putting the electors to the trouble and expense of an election in the event of the death or the retirement of one of the members. He thought, however, they had a different atmosphere in dealing with the large areas contemplated by the Bill. This question became all the more important as they multiplied the number of members, or increased the area over which the board had control. In the town council of Edinburgh, for example, there were at the present moment three casual vacancies caused through death or the retirement of members. That illustrated the importance of determining that in a large board with heavy responsibilities there

75
should be a resort to the electors, and that the remaining members should not have the duty of filling up the vacancies. He begged to move.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 6, line 20, to leave out from the word 'office,' to the word 'shall' in line 23, and insert the words 'a fresh election shall be held to supply such vacancy, and every person so elected.'"—(Mr. Dobbie.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
MR. A. GEAHAM MURRAYsaid he could not accept the Amendment. Everybody, he thought, deprecated these continually recurring elections. The hon. Member admitted that there would be a difficulty in regard to the boards for the smaller areas. The hon. Member failed to see that the argument cut both ways. In a burgh like Glasgow the average life of the members might be taken at forty. If the hon. Member looked into life tables he would find that I there was a certainty of one death during the triennial period, so that there would be one extra election and possibly many more. They might have one election after another, and they might be doing nothing for three years but electing school board members.
The Amendment was negatived without a division.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clause 11.
MR. MAXWELLmoved an Amendment having for its object the conferring on the Secretary for Scotland instead of the Department the powers proposed as to the nomination of I persons to serve when boards were not elected at the time they ought to be elected, when an insufficient number were elected, or if a school board became unable to act by reasons of the deficiency in the number of members. It appeared to him that the Bill proposed to put enormous powers in the hands of the Department which could be better exer-
76
cised by the Secretary for Scotland. He begged to move.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 6, line 29, to leave out the word 'Department' and insert the words 'Secretary for Scotland.'"—(Mr. Maxwell.)
Question proposed, "That the word ''Department' stand part of the clause."
MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAYsaid that this clause was no novelty; it was merely a repetition of what had been the law all along. Where there was a continual refusal to elect there must be power to appoint a board to carry out the work.
SIR CHARLES RENSHAWsaid he was sorry that the right hon. Gentleman had not seen his way to accept this Amendment, because it was undesirable to allow the Department to fill up casual vacancies by gentlemen who had no relation whatever to the locality. It was true that when there were 940 school boards in Scotland there was one case where a school board refused to act in filling up vacancies, and caused considerable trouble. But that was not likely to happen in the future with the larger areas and larger school boards. Under the County Council Act of 1889 vacancies were not filled up by nomination, but by a distinct provision for a fresh election; and in the Parish Councils Act of 1894 the vacancies could only be filled up temporarily by nomination. He thought there was a great deal to be said for the hon. Member's proposal.
MR. CALDWELLsaid there might be something to be said for the Secretary for Scotland filling up these vacancies; but if there was anything which the Scotch people objected to, it was the interference of Departments in local questions. If there was not a sufficient number of members on a school board let there be a fresh election.
MR. THOMAS SHAWsaid that assuming a case where a locality was anxious to make a fresh election in order that the fresh opinion of the locality might govern a particular situation, the Department might be put into an awarkward situation if they were to have the power of

77
nominating members to the vacancies, and so preventing the people having a fresh election. He hoped the Amendment would not be withdrawn.
MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAYsaid, if the electors would not elect, things would come to a dead-lock. The clause was not meant specially to deal with casual vacancies.
SIR CHARLES RENSHAWsaid that the nomination should not take place before an opportunity was given for a new election.
MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAYsaid that if the hon. Member would bring up a new clause it could be considered on the Report stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 11, agreed to.
Clause 12.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 7, line 4, at end of clause, to add the words 'All deeds granted by a school board shall be signed by two members of the board, and by the clerk to the board.'"—(Mr. A. Graham Murray.)
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 13.
COLONEL DENNYsaid that there was a fund in existence in many burghs in Scotland which he did not think existed in any town in England. It was known as the "Common Good," which was as much the exclusive property of that burgh as a man's watch was his own. Consequently, it should not be divorced from that burgh's purposes unless very good reason could be shown. He might illustrate his case by a specific instance. The county of Renfrew had probably given more trouble to the Lord-Advocate than all the others in Scotland. Renfrew was an ancient burgh, and had had from time immemorial a fund in the "Common Good," which had been gifted to it in days gone by. The grammar school of the burgh had been
78
maintained out of that fund without memory. A movement was initiated in the burgh, long ago, to erect a memorial to a distinguished citizen, and it took the shape, as it often did in Scotland, of an educational institute known as the "Blythswood Memorial." The burgh, out of the "Common Good," gave a sum of £223 11s. to that memorial. When the Education Act of 1872 was passed, this particular contribution was made constant, but specially attached to this one particular school. Now, under this Bill the fund would be divided up, and distributed over the educational district of which Renfrew formed only a part, to the disadvantage of Renfrew to which the fund really belonged, and, therefore, henceforth, if the Bill passed in its present shape, it would only enjoy an infinitesimal part thereof. In like manner the burgh of Haddington felt very strongly about a sum of £45 which was being treated in that same way. His complaint was that where a fund belonged to one particular place, it should not be withdrawn, from its original and wise purpose and distributed over districts that had originally nothing to do with it. The "Common Good" belonged to the burgh just as much as a private man's fortune belonged to him. He begged to move.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 7, line 28, at end, to add the words, 'Any contributions made by the town council of any burgh under charter or agreement, or in virtue of Section 40 of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1872, to the school fund, may be withdrawn by the said town council.'"—(Colonel Denny.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there added."—(Colonel Denny.)
MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAYsaid that since the days of the wolf and the lamb he had never heard of a more outrageous proposal. He should like to call the attention of the Committee to the position in which the matter stood. The hon. and gallant Gentleman said that the "Common Good" belonged to the burghs, just as much as a private personal fund belonged to an individual. Certainly that was so until a burgh came under any obligation, statutory or other-wise, in regard to its "Common Good." A

79
burgh might put a certain portion of the "Common Good" under a trust, and then that portion belonged to the trust. When, under the Act of 1872, the educational system in Scotland was made national, the framers of that Act said that they would make part of the national assets whatever had been in use, whether given by a private individual or under a private trust or by a burgh out of its common fund; and, although no perfectly constituted trusts were instituted, the use of the contribution was taken as the equivalent to a specific trust in favour of a particular school. Accordingly, Section 46 of the Act of 1872 provided that all such funds should be given to the school boards as part of the general arrangement under the Act; and the cost to the ratepayers of any particular burgh was the cost of the school, minus whatever was contributed from the "Common Good" or by private trust. If his hon. and gallant friend's argument were good for anything it would be good for every other contribution made all over Scotland under Section 46 of the Act of 1872. There was an extraordinary confusion of ideas in this matter; and on the broad ground that the burghs were getting so much the best of it —that was why he mentioned the fable of the wolf and the lamb— and that they should not get an additional advantage and impose an extra cost on the county districts, he could not accept the Amendment, which had not the slightest semblance of equity.
MR. WALLACEsaid that undoubtedly there was some confusion of mind in regard to the proposal; but, with all respect, he ventured to suggest that the confusion was in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman, and not in the minds of hon. Members who were supporting the Amendment. The proposal was practically one to punish burghs in Scotland who had acted generously in the past, and to let off the burghs which had devoted their property to purposes other than education. The right hon. Gentleman suggested that there was some trust in connection with the "Common Good"; but that was not an accurate legal postion to take up.
MR. A. GRAHAMMURRAYsaid that I in his remembrance as a lawyer Section 46
80
of the Act of 1872 distinctly constituted I a statutory trust for that portion of the "Common Good" which was devoted to education.
MR. WALLACEsaid he was dealing with the suggestion of the right hon. I Gentleman as to the position in 1872. At that time the owners of the "Common Good" were, out of their generosity, making contributions to existing schools. They were under no obligation to make them, and could have withdrawn them at any time. What he ventured to point out, therefore, was that those who used the "Common Good" in the past in that way were now to be penalised. Under the Act of 1872 that which had been a mere gift became a legal obligation for the purpose of education; but it was strictly qualified and was not for education generally, nor for the relief of the rates at large, but particularly for the purpose of the grammar school of the particular burgh owning the "Common Good." The whole matter was now changed. In future, they were no longer to have the grammar school as the exclusive property of the burgh; and the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman would practically put an increased burden on the inhabitants of the burghs as against the inhabitants of the county districts joined on to them. In future the grammar school of Perth would be utilised for the higher education, not merely of the children of the citizens of Perth, but of a considerable outside area. Why, therefore, should not the cost of that grammar school fall in equal proportions all over the whole area, so that the contribution that the burgh made from the common fund should be balanced by some extra rate from the county? He would, therefore, strongly support the Amendment.
MR. ASHERsaid he would support the Amendment. If, however, it had had for its object the limitation of the resources of any body which was to provide secondary education, he would not have had anything to do with it. But it would not have any such effect. It would merely distribute over a locality the responsibility for providing the money necessary for secondary education. It appeared to him that the burghs had

81
a very strong case. The "Common Good" was undoubtedly the property of the burghs for use within the burghs. The circumstances now were very different from the circumstances in 1872; and that made it necessary to revise the whole situation. There was the strongest possible reason for taking the course which was adopted in 1872. The burghs were then the only centres for secondary education in Scotland. When the school boards were created it was natural that it should be said that they were merely transferring the administration of education from the town councils to the school boards; and that the "Common Good" was transferred to the school boards to be used for the purpose for which it had been previously used. Now school boards with a greatly enlarged area were to be created. Those areas might have a large number of secondary schools; and the question was whether the contributions for maintaining those schools should be used equally over the whole area or whether the contribution from the common fund should be devoted solely to the schools within the burgh. The proposal of the burghs was a reasonable one. It was that they should pay their share with others for what was necessary for secondary education, but that they should not be specially assessed to make up the contribution taken from them in 1872 under totally different circumstances, and which since that time had been employed exclusively for the maintenance of secondary education within their own borders.
MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAYsaid that Perth had tried to wriggle out of its obligations in 1878. In that case between the Perth School Board and the magistrates, the learned Judge having quoted the section, said that he was of opinion that the effect of the provision was to convert the amount of the customary payment made by any burgh on behalf of the burgh school into a permanent annual debt. The hon. Member was really going back and arguing on the fallacy that what was settled in law to be a debt was only a voluntary contribution and that they should not be called upon to make that contribution twice over. Those for whom they pleaded had no more right to shake
82
themselves free of this liability than any private individual.
SIR ROBERT REIDsaid, as he understood the matter, in 1872 an obligation was imposed upon the burghs to provide a certain sum of money, and it became a debt, but that debt then imposed upon them was to be spent for the benefit of the school in the burgh. Since then the uses of the school board, in consequence of the advantage derived from the debt created in 1872. had been enlarged, and when a common burden was imposed on an area to maintain the schools of that area, surely the fact that the debt which was created in 1872 was created for the benefit of the burgh itself ought to be taken into consideration.
SIR CHARLES RENSHAWsaid he did not rise to express any opinion as to what were or were not the obligations of a burgh, but to advocate generosity on the part of the burghs. He appealed to the burghs not to propose-any difference in a system which had worked well for so many years. It seemed to him that whether the right hon. Gentleman was a lawyer or not the law on this occasion was on the side of the Secretary for Scotland and he appealed to the Committee not to continue the discussion.
CAPTAIN ELLICE (St. Andrews Burghs)said that in the case of Perth they tried, to wriggle out of this responsibility, and could not do so; but in other cases they did it, possibly by the superior intelligence of the people of Fife.
MR. JOHNDEWARsaid that the charge for education on the "Common Good" had existed, not since 1872 but for generations previous to that date, and if the hon. Member would look into the history of the matter he would find that in many cases sums had been given to the various towns for the special purpose of education and had been incorporated in the "Common Good" of the burgh. The sums to be paid to grammar schools and high schools had been fixed after careful consideration of all the circumstances. A good deal had been said about this money

83
being intended for education in the burghs, but he wished to point out that it would still be devoted to that purpose. The £286 to which the hon. Member for Perth objected would still be spent for the benefit of the inhabitants of Perth and the students who would be, as they always had been, attracted from the surrounding country, would add to the efficiency and value of the Academy. He hoped that on this point the Secretary for Scotland would maintain the position he had taken up.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid this was a case of pull burgh, pull county, apparently. He supposed that, as a burgh Member, he ought to say something. So little had he been lobbied in the matter that he was really destitute of accurate figures or information beyond the most summary knowledge contained in a representation conveyed by the Town Council of Stirling to the right hon. Gentleman. But he did not think there was any reason to make a joke of the position of the burghs or speak lightly of what they had done. They had in the past maintained those schools for the benefit of the benighted districts in the county where was neither the means, the funds, nor the public spirit to create the necessary machinery for education. The burghs in the past had done all that with the greatest goodwill and without grudging it in the least. For his part he took a somewhat opposite view to the hon. Member opposite, because he was very glad that under this new arrangement the counties would be made to pay a little towards the cost of intermediate education, the benefits of which they had been enjoying so long at other people's expense. The hon. Member had complained that they would be made to pay too much; but he was glad that they were not going to get all these advantages gratis as before. In the case of Stirling they had charitable endowments of great value, but they were to have the mortification of seeing the money which should be secured to Stirling spread over the whole of the county round about. That money was left strictly and tied down to the burgh of Stirling; the men who left that money might have been wrong in tying it down
84
in that manner to some particular object, but there was one thing beyond all question, and it was that this money was intended to be applied strictly within the burgh of Stirling for charitable purposes. Under the legislation of thirty years ago, a large part of these endowments was diverted to education, and now it was proposed that the enjoyment of these funds, which had been left solely to the people of Stirling, should be extended to people who had no claim whatever to them. By this money being used for that purpose the people of Stirling were practically being deprived of the full enjoyment of those large sums of money, and all for the beneft of those who had no claim what-ever upon those funds. With all the generosity that could be imagined towards their neighbours, and with all the desire they had shown to share their advantages with their neighbours, they must draw the line somewhere. This was a case which he would strongly commend to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. He referred to the case of endowments for charitable purposes confined to a particular locality which had been, with the assent of the community, diverted from charity to education in days when there was a very inadequate provision for education. Now, when education was being provided for in other ways, they thought it was very hard that they should be deprived of the use of these funds for charitable or other beneficial purposes which the founders undoubtedly intended.
Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAYsaid he acknowledged fully the great services which the burgh schools had rendered in the past. At one time they were practically the only secondary education schools for many years, but he assured the right hon. Gentleman opposite that there was no intention whatsoever by this Bill of interfering with anything like endowments. There was a clause down on the Paper, which he intended to accept, which would secure endowments for the purposes for which they were intended. This Amendment before the Committee dealt with the statutory contributions under Section 46 of the Education Act. He could not without inquiry say whether that applied

85
to Stirling institutions. His view was that it merely limited it to the Education Act and nothing else.
COLONEL DENNYsaid that the hon. Members who had spoken against this proposal represented the county. He wished to ask hon. Members opposite if any of them had ever heard of Paisley. That was one of the poor districts which would benefit by this proposal. He thought that what had been given to one
particular school in the past should still be given to it. As the Secretary for Scotland had shown no disposition to accept his proposal, if he did not get some better assurance on this point he have would to press his Amendment to a division.
Question put—
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 83; Noes, 220. (Division List No. 150.)

AYES.

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Eve, Harry Trelawney

Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries

Asher, Alexander

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

Richards, Henry Charles

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

Rigg, Richard

Barlow, John Emmott

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Barran, Rowland Hirst.

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert Jn.

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn

Grant, Corrie

Runciman, Walter

Brigg, John

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

Harmsworth, R. Leicester

Schwann, Charles E.

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

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

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Holland, Sir William Henry

Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Burt, Thomas

Horniman, Frederick John

Soares, Ernest J.

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea)

Tennant, Harold John

Caldwell, James

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Labouchere, Henry

Walton, J. Lawson (Leeds, S.)

Causton, Richard Knight

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

Leng, Sir John

Wason, Jn. Cathcart (Orkney)

Crombie, John William

Lewis, John Herbert

Weir, James Galloway

Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Dalziel, James Henry

M'Crae, George

Whittakcr, Thomas Palmer

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh, W

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan)

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Bobbie, Joseph

Morley, Rt. Hn. John (Montrose

Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (Huddersf'd

Dunn, Sir William

Nolan, Col. J. P. (Galway, N.)

Yoxall, James Henry

Edwards, Frank

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Ellice, Capt E.C(SAndrew'sBghs

Partington, Oswald

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Emmott, Alfred

Pirie, Duncan V.

Colonel Denny and Mr

Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

Reid, James (Greenock)

Robert Wallace.

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N,E)

Poland, John

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Boulnois, Edmund

Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.)

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

Aird, Sir John

Bull, William James

Cullman, J.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Dalkeith, Earl of

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Butcher, John George

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Arnold-Forester, Rt. Hn. HughO

Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Glasgow

Davenport, William Bromley

Arrol, Sir William

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Delany, William

Atkinson, lit. Hon. John

Cautley, Henry Strother

Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire

Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

Balcarres, Lord

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Dickson, Charles Scott

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

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

Balfour, Capt. C.B. (Hornsey)

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

Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C.

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

Chapman, Edward

Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Charrington, Spencer

Donclan, Captain A.

Bartley, Sir George C. T.

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Doogan, P. C.

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

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

Doughty, George

Bignold, Arthur

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

Bigwood, James

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

Black, Alexander William

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Duke, Henry Edward

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

Maconochie, A. W.

Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Round, Rt. Hon. James

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

Field, William

M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Maxwell, W.J.H. (Dumfriessh.)

Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.

Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

Fison, Frederick William

Milvain, Thomas

Sharpe, William Edward T.

FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

Flower, Sir Ernest

Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants.)

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Forster, Henry William

Morpeth, Viscount

Sheehy, David

Galloway, William Johnson

Morrell, George Herbert

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

Gardner, Ernest

Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)

Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

Mount, William Arthur

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

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

Muntz, Sir Philip A.

Spear, John Ward

Gore, Hn G. R. C. Ormsby-(Salop

Murnaghan, George

Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

Murphy, John

Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lanes.

Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford)

Murray, Rt. Hon. A. G. (Bute)

Stew-art, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Stock, James Henry

Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Haslett, Sir James Horner

Myers, William Henry

Stroyan, John

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Hayden, John Patrick

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

Sullivan, Donal

Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid.)

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Heath, James (Staffords., N.W.

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford,W.)

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

Thornton, Percy M.

Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

Hickman, Sir Alfred

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Hoare, Sir Samuel

O'Malley, William

Tuff, Charles

Hogg, Lindsay

Parkes, Ebenezer

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

Percy, Earl

Valentia, Viscount

Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

Pierpoint, Robert

Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

Hunt, Rowland

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Wanklyn, James Leslie

Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

Plummer, Walter R.

Warde, Colonel C. E.

Joyce, Michael

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Webb, Colonel William George

Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

Power, Patrick Joseph

Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

Keswick, William

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Kimber, Henry

Pym, C. Guy

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Laurie, Lieut.-General

Randies, John S.

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

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

Rankin, Sir James

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Lawrence, Sir Jos. (Monmouth)

Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

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

Reddy, M.

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

Leamy, Edmund

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Renwick, George

Young, Samuel

Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Bristol, S.)

Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge

Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

Lundon, W.

Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

Alexander Acland - Hood

Lyttelton, Rt, Hon. Alfred

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

Macdona, Joun Cumming

Roche, John

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

MR. MCCRAEsaid he wished to point out to the Secretary for Scotland that in addition to the existing school boards there were education committees discharging duties for which certain provision must be made for handing them over to the new authority. These committees were doing useful work, and he thought some provision should be made as to the time when they were to hand over their duties to the new authority created by this Bill.
MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAYsaid it would have been quite out of place to
88
have mentioned these committees in the Bill. They did not require to be dealt with by statute.
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clause 14.
MR. CROMBIEmoved an Amendment by which the debts and liabilities transferred would be limited to debts incurred in respect of loans contracted under the Act of 1872. He said this clause was intimately connected with Clause 25 (Power to impose rate), which he did not wish to discuss at present.

89
The Bill really dealt with the debts in two ways. There were first the ordinary current debts and secondly the permanent loans. Under the Bill as it stood the permanent debts were not to be handed over to the new authority, but were to remain a charge on the parishes which contracted them. There was a general feeling all through the country that this would be unjust, and Amendments were put down against it. He was glad that the Secretary for Scotland had made a concession on that point by agreeing that these debts should also be transferred to the new authority. In regard to the ordinary current debts, the point that he wished to bring up was this. Any debt that a school board incurred at present would be taken over by the new authority. He was told by many people that this would entourage school boards to have conveniently large debts to hand over on the day the Bill came into operation, with the result that many districts would get lightly off. He had information of a case where a school board had been mulcted in damages for injury done to a child, or something of that sort. It seemed to him that it would be very hard if the whole of the new area had to pay for that. Apart from debts of that sort, he quite recognised the justice of transferring the whole of the debts to the community within the new area. Did the Secretary for Scotland not think that if Clause 14 stood as it was there would be very great danger of school boards running up large debts in order to hand them over to the new board?
Amendment proposed—
"In page 7, line 29, after the word 'board,' to insert the words 'incurred in respect of any loan contracted by an existing school board in terms of the forty-fifth Section of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1872.'"—(Mr. Crombie.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAYthought the hon. Member would see that this Amendment would not do, because it would restrict the debts to be taken over to the debts in respect of loans. That, of course, would leave the ordinary current expenses debts in the air. The hon. Member had spoken of a case in
90
which a school board had had to pay damages for an assault. He did not think there was any likelihood of teachers indulging in a jollification of that kind between now and the time when the present school boards would cease to exist.
MR. DALZIELasked what was to be done in respect of debts for schools in course of construction.
MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAYsaid that if schools were in course of being erected, and if the present school board had raised a loan for that purpose, the loan would be taken over by the new authority. If they had not provided for a loan the new district would have to raise a loan.
MR. DALZIEL: The point is, will they be justified in going on incurring fresh expenditure?
MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: Yes, subject to the ordinary rules to be observed in carrying out the erection of such buildings.
DR. MACNAMARAsaid they were really discussing a serious proposal now which might have a far-reaching effect. According to the Bill as it stood, the liabilities would be taken over subject to the provisions of Section 25. If the Bill remained in that way, each parish would have to pay its own debts, but he understood that the proposal now was that the new district should take over the whole of the debts. The people of Scotland would signalise the passing of the Bill by handing debts over to others to pay. With great respect, he would say that was characteristically Scotch. Districts in Scotland would cut down the maintenance to the very bone. There was a place in Scotland called Kirriemuir. Supposing Kirriemuir carried out the work of education thoroughly, and did not anticipate this Bill by pooling all its debts, why should it have to pay a deficiency created by another district? A district which had built a good school ought not to be taxed until it had wiped off its loan; on the other hand, a district should not be allowed to anticipate this

91
Bill by having its debts wiped out at the expense of other people. He hoped the Secretary for Scotland would consider some means by which a proportion of the specific debt which accrued to a particular school board should in future be paid by that school board; otherwise they would have districts which would anticipate this Bill by cutting the maintenance down to the lowest limit, reducing the rates, and piling up debts which would have to be paid for by other districts. Take the case of Forfar. He was informed that the school board there met a couple of nights ago and decided to impose no rate for the ensuing year. Last year the ratepayers paid 8d. in the £1. In view of this it might be said that it would not be fair at the end of May next year if the board were to hand over to the county board a debt of about £2000.
SIR CHARLES RENSHAWsaid there was no doubt that this was a very serious question. No one could read in the Scottish newspapers during the last few weeks the requisitions to parish councils by the school boards for the amounts they required to make their annual budgets, without realising that there had been a very substantial reduction. The result would be that they might close their last [financial year with a deficiency. He should like to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether provision could not be made in the Bill that in the amount apportioned in the first year after the Act came into operation between the parishes, anything standing to the debit should be an additional charge on the parish, and any-thing standing to the credit of the parish should be applied to the relief of parish rates for the first year. In that way, equal treatment would be given.
MR A. GRAHAM MURRAYsaid that when he spoke on the Amendment he was really considering the necessity of having some clause to transfer debts. He thought the hon. Gentleman would see that his Amendment would scarcely do in its present place. There must be some provision for making someone liable; and if there were to be no transference to the new school boards there would be no one to sue for debts. That was quite a different question to the question men-
92
tioned by the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Camberwell. He did not know whether the school board for Forfar had been "running cunning" or not; but it was quite clear that they ought to see that each school board should, on the date of transfer, have a clean balance sheet; and he would be glad if the hon. Gentleman would assist him by suggesting, between now and the Report stage, some kind of clause to carry out that object, and prevent what certainly would be a very scandalous abuse of the position. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would withdraw the Amendment and the Bill could be amended later in accordance with the general consent of the Committee.
MR. CROMBIEsaid he would withdraw the Amendment. It was a point of importance, however; and he thanked the right hon. Gentleman for his reply.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAYsaid he would move in Clause 14, page 7, line 29, to leave out from "shall" to "become" in line 31.
Amendment proposed—
"In Clause 14, page 7, line 29, to leave out from the word 'shall,' to the word 'become, in line 31."—[Mr. A. Graham Murray.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
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.

  MAIDENHEAD BRIDGE BILL [LORDS.] (BY ORDER).
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  DR. SHIPMANsaid the Motion which he had put down upon the Paper for the rejection of this

  93
  measure was neither frivolous nor obstructive. He opposed the Bill on its demerits, and he believed when the House fully understood what the Bill was intended to do they would agree that it was not such a Bill as should receive a Second Reading. Its title was misleading. It was said to be a Bill for the purpose of freeing Maidenhead Bridge, yet at the present moment the bridge was free to all traffic. If the House would allow him he would give a short history of this bridge in order to show what the corporation of Maidenhead had been doing. Years ago there was a rotten old wooden bridge crossing the river on the great highway between Bath and London, and an Act was obtained by the corporation of Maidenhead in 1772 to enable the corporation to borrow £19,000 or £20,000 for the purpose of replacing this rotten wooden bridge by a new stone bridge, the repayment of the £20,000 having to be made out of the tolls it was permitted to the corporation of Maidenhead to charge on all vehicular traffic. It was also to provide for the maintenance of the bridge out of the tolls levied. The corporation ignored paying off the money borrowed and confined itself to paving the interest. This highway at that time was the great means of transit between London and Bath, and the corporation made a great profit out of the tolls, and there was a large surplus which was devoted by the corporation of Maidenhead to the purchase of land and the building of houses and in that way a further revenue was obtained. The misapplication of this money, which belonged to the public, and which should have been used for freeing the bridge, went on for some time. The corporation of Maidenhead then got a plum from the Great Western Railway in the shape of £5,000 to stop their mouth and to keep them from opposing the Great Western Railway's scheme. They received that money, but no one knew what had become of it.
  About 1835 some of the members of the corporation were rather troubled in their consciences and began to wonder whether they were rightly applying the surplus derived from their tolls in the way they did, and a man named Bishop took counsel's opinion on the matter. That opinion was to the effect that they had
  94
  no right to apply any of the money derived from the bridge except for the purposes of the bridge. He then consulted Sir John Phillamore, who advised that the Law Officers of the Crown should be consulted and their opinion taken. That was proposed at a meeting of the corporation of Maidenhead by Sir John Phillamore, and seconded by Mr. Bishop, and the result of the discussion that ensued was that the corporation decided not to take counsel's opinion. For seventy years after this matters were allowed to sleep, until a gentleman named Fullbrook who lived at Slough, passed over the bridge on his motor-car. Motor-cars rather troubled the corporation, they had provided for all other kinds of traffic but not motors, and when Mr.Fullbrook came they did not know what toll to levy but thought they would put it as high as possible and charged 8d. Mr. Fullbrook thought this toll rather exorbitant and objected to pay it. Thereupon they took a cushion from his car, the cushion was sold for 3s., but by this time their charges with the toll had mounted from 8d. to 2s. 9d., and they returned Mr. Fullbrook 3d. He might point out that tolls had been collected for many years, because in the 12th century the citizens of London protested against the exorbitant charges made by the citizens of Maidenhead for passing over the bridge. Mr. Fullbrook applied then for support to a gentleman well known in reference to bridge matters. A gentleman who had done more than anyone else on behalf of the public to see the bridges freed, Mr. Joseph Taylor. Mr. Taylor had practically freed the Windsor Bridge, as it was through the action which he brought and fought up to the House of Lords that the Windsor Bridge was freed. Mr. Joseph Taylor took the matter up and investigated it and took counsel's opinion, which opinion was rather startling. That opinion stated that the corporation of Maidenhead had no right to appropriate to their own purposes the surplus of tolls levied on the bridge and, beyond that, that since 1835 they had no right to levy tolls at all. That the effect of certain Acts of Parliament up to and since 1835 had been to take away from the corporation all right to interfere with the bridge, which was a charitable trust, and that since 1835 the coproration of Maidenhead

  95
  had not the right to levy a single toll. It might be argued that the corporation was ignorant of this but it must have appeared on their minutes, and they must have had due warning in 1835, when they were told they had no right to use the money derived from the bridge for corporate purposes, and when they refused to take the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown. Mr. Joseph Taylor communicated the opinion he had got to the Charity Commissioners and told them that they were the proper persons to control the trust. The Charity Commissioners at once investigated the matter at Maidenhead itself, and, having the power to examine all accounts, found out exactly what the corporation had teen doing for so many years, but finding themselves in a difficulty they allowed the matter to go on for another three years until the expiration of the lease. Mr. Joseph Taylor, in the meantime, instilled the position of affairs into the minds of the people, with the result that on the expiration of the lease on 31st October, 1903, they gathered at midnight at the bridge, which was then declared to be free, removed the gates and threw them into the Thames, from whence they were subsequently recovered, and they were now preserved in some museum.
  This Bill now proposed to free from tolls Maidenhead Bridge which was already free, and to enable the corporation of Maidenhead to borrow a sum of £20,000, in return for which they proposed to maintain the bridge and pay their debts. It was through Mr. Joseph Taylor that the wrong-doing of the corporation of Maidenhead had been brought to light and that they had been stopped in that wrong-doing, and if this Bill was not passed they might be in a difficulty. They had been doing wrong for many years, and were possessed of a little property which they had purchased out of tolls they had no right to levy, and from which they derived a revenue of £1,000 a year, and it was by this Bill for the first time that they attempted to put themselves in the right. They were vindictive against Mr. Joseph Taylor because he brought this to light. If it had not been for him things would have been going on in the same old way and people be still paying tolls and no one
  96
  the wiser. That the corporation of Maidenhead desired to get rid of their responsibility without paying over a large sum of money was shown by the fact that they entered into negotiations with both county councils to sell the bridge for £20,000. Mr. Joseph Taylor's action stopped that, because he showed they had not a tittle of right to the property they proposed to hand over. This Bill also asked that the corporation of Maidenhead should be allowed out of the money they were to be permitted to borrow all the costs and charges they had been put to. No doubt but for the Petitions against it lodged by Mr. Joseph Taylor this Bill would have passed both Houses of Parliament without opposition. But Mr. Joseph Taylor, knowing what was going on, petitioned to be heard on the Bill when it was before the Committee of the House of Lords; he was listened to with consideration, but the House of Lords Committee; finally came to the conclusion that it would be better to pass the Bill and allow Mr. Joseph Taylor to take action when the Bill reached this House. When the Bill came before a Committee of this House Mr. Joseph Taylor lodged his Petition against it and asked to be heard before the Committee, but the corporation of Maidenhead lodged a notice of objection and refused to hear him in Committee, a most contemptible proceeding on the part of the corporation of Maidenhead, after having allowed him to be heard before the Committee of the House of Lords. He could not say one word against the judgment of the Court of Referees, which decided that Mr. Taylor had no locus to be heard. The Court had to look to the strict letter of the Standing Order and could give favour to no one. But he went behind that decision and asked how it was that the corporation raised an objection to his going before a Committee of that House. He should have been glad to see some signs of repentance on the part of the corporation of Maidenhead and some indication that they were willing to pay Mr. Taylor those reasonable costs and expenses he had been put to in throwing light on their proceedings. Under the Bill the expenses of the corporation were to be paid. Why, then, should not the expenses be paid of the man who had had

  97
  the public spirit to get up, against great opposition, without any strong support and without any funds, to let the public know how they had been swindled and what this corporation had teen doing? It was in order to give Mr. Joseph Taylor an opportunity of being heard in Committee that he had put down the Instruction standing in his name. There was an old equity saying that he who sought for equity should be prepared to act equitably and should come to the Court with clean hands. He opposed this Bill because it was misleading: because there was no question of freeing the bridge it proposed to free, and because this corporation, in his opinion, did not come to the House with clean hands. He begged to move.
  MR. WEIRsaid he rose to second the rejection of the Bill. After the manner in which his hon. friend had dealt with the case it was not for him to occupy the time of the House. It appeared to him that the House could not sanction the Second Reading of this Bill. Mr. Taylor had done a magnificent work in freeing the bridge. He had expended an enormous amount of time, and had been put to enormous cost. The corporation had ignored him; had paid no regard to the good work he had done; had referred him to the public to be recouped the cost to which he had been put, and now they had the audacity to bring to this House a Bill the object of which was to whitewash them and relieve them from the responsibility of their wrongdoing of so many years. This Corporation had received from 1772 to the 31st of October, 1903, out of tolls on this bridge, £140,000, and the upkeep of the bridge for the last ten years had not exceeded £30. They also derived a revenue of £1,116 from the property they built and purchased out of the surplus of the tolls received from the bridge, and beyond that they had built a church, and the money derived from the pew-rents had vanished, and they had sold the advowson and no one knew what had become of the money. Since 1836 they had had no right to collect tolls, but they collected them until the whole question was raised by Mr. Fullbrook crossing the bridge on his motor. That case was still before the
  98
  Courts, and he protested against this Bill being proceeded with until the case had been disposed of. He submitted that the House should not grant powers while that case was engaging the attention of the Courts. What were they going to do with all this money which had been set aside by the corporation? He thought the corporation ought to pay their debts out of that money, and not come to the House of Commons for power to borrow £70,000 or £80,000 as was provided for in this Bill. He sincerely trusted the House would not pass a Bill of this nature. The mayor and corporation of Maidenhead were obdurate upon this subject, and he could only suppose that they had a grudge against this man and felt annoyed because they were not able to enjoy the tolls at the present time. Ever since the year 1836 the corporation had been taking these tolls, and the House of Commons ought not to encourage anything of this kind. He sincerely hoped the House would not allow this Bill to have a Second Reading, but would see that justice was done all round. He begged to second his hon. friend's Motion.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day three months.'"—(Dr. Shipman.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  MR. BRYNMOR JONESsaid he thought there must be some misunderstanding with regard to this Bill on the part of his hon. friend who had just spoken. He had heard from his hon. friend near him that it was the desire of Mr. Joseph Taylor to free this bridge from tolls. That might or might not be the case, but he knew that there was an action now pending in the High Court with reference to this very matter. In regard to the principle of this Bill, the question was whether it was expedient that an Act to free Maidenhead Bridge from tolls and to enable the corporation to borrow money to discharge certain debts should or should not obtain a Second Reading. He had heard nothing from either of his hon. friends to suggest any grounds whatever for contradicting the proposition

  99
  that this Bill should obtain a Second Beading. He had heard something about Mr. Joseph Taylor, and, after having listened to that gentleman, all he could say was that he thought he was a most active and energetic citizen. This was one of those private Bills brought forward in the House of Lords, and there he understood that Mr. Joseph Taylor and the ther petitioners who were now complaining of this Bill were heard, but the House of Lords passed the Bill. It then came to the House of Commons and a Petition was presented in this House. The matter came before the Court of Referees, because the promoters objected to the locus standi of Mr. Joseph Taylor and the other gentlemen who had signed the Petition which he presented. Mr. Taylor was heard at length, and he was bound to say he presented his case with the utmost clearness and with very great vigour to the Court. There were two grounds on which he argued his right to be heard before a Committee of this House. When anyone asked for a locus standi he generally did So on the ground that he had a locus standi under one of the Standing Orders of the House or according to the practice of Parliament. It soon became clear that Mr. Taylor had no locus standi under any Standing Order, and therefore the question arose whether according to the practice of Parliament he had any locus standi on some other ground recognised by the decisions of the Court of Referees. They listened with the utmost patience, and two points were made by him, and both of them had been referred to by his hon. friend on his left. The first point was that the corporation of Maidenhead had illegally exacted tolls and that litigation was pending in the High Court of Justice. The point was that he or some servant of his was going with a conveyance and was stopped and pulled up at the bridge and had to pay 4d. Consequently Mr. Taylor brought an action in the High Court of Justice to recover this 4d. and damages. He understood that this was a test case. Objection had been taken to this Bill because this case was pending in the High Court. The question was what was there in this Bill which affected Mr. Taylor's right to go on with his action, and the answer was that there was nothing whatever in this
  100
  Bill affecting that litigation. This measure had nothing to do with any illegal exactions. It was obvious that according to Parliamentary practice they could not allow Mr. Taylor a locus standi on that ground.
  But Mr. Taylor raised another point of much greater gravity, and as to which it was possible that the Attorney-General might be asked for some explanation, and that was with regard to the general action of the Maidenhead Corporation ever since the year 1835. From that year this corporation had been guilty of misapplication or non-application of these bridge tolls, and it appeared from the very preamble of this Bill that these funds had become vested in them under ancient charters and under the Act of 1772, to which reference had been made, and by subsequent legislation, and that this was a public charitable trust. They had under these circumstances to consider whether this gave any locus standi to Mr. Joseph Taylor. He said that this was a public charitable trust, and he was in exactly the same position in regard to this matter as any other of His Majest's subjects. None of the petitioners were landowners or ratepayers in the borough of Maidenhead, nor was it alleged that any of them had been injuriously affected by this, consequently they had to ask themselves by what right did Mr. Joseph Taylor complain of this Bill. Anyone else might justly complain of the misapplication or non-application of these trust funds. It was a matter of common knowledge that the action to enforce the accounts against trustees in the case of charitable trusts must be brought in the name of the Attorney-General and any citizen might ask him to bring the action. That was how the case came before them, and by Clause 11 it was undoubtedly the case that if there had been misapplication of the funds, the corporation of Maidenhead had obtained an indemnity. He did not know whether they ought to obtain tint indemnity or not, but Mr. Joseph Taylor was not entitled to a locus standi on that point, because he had, made no special case for himself. He thought some explanation ought to be given by the Attorney-General of his certificate in the House of Lords that he was satisfied with the Bill,

  101
  and that it ought to proceed. In regard to matters concerning charities, either one of the Charity Commissioners or the Attorney-General had to make some report, which hid been made in this case. He confessed that he did not know why the Attorney-General had agreed to this indemnity so readily being given to the Maidenhead Corporation, and upon that point he thought they were entitled to some explanation from the Government.
  MB. J. W. LOWTHER: Will the hon. Member say what would happen if this Bill is rejected?
  MR. BRYNMOR JONESsaid he thought the position would be very un-unsatisfactory if the Bill were rejected, and he agreed that there was a case for a Second Reading of the Bill. He thought, however, that the Unopposed Bills Committee would criticise Clause 11 very severely. He did not propose to vote against the Bill, but he thought some explanation ought to be given in regard to Clause 11 and the certificate given by the Attorney-General.
  MR. GARDNERsaid that the corporation so much condemned by the hon. Members who had moved and seconded the rejection of this Bill was one in his Division. The speeches of hon. Gentlemen opposite were a condemnation of those who formed the corporation of Maidenhead three quarters of a century ago. The position of Mr. Joseph Taylor in this case had been well put before the House by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Brynmor Jones). This Bill was promoted by the corporation of Maidenhead under the instructions of the Charity Commissioners, who knew all about the case. The hon. and learned Member for Northampton had taken them over a good many years, even to the year 1200. The history of Maidenhead Bridge was long enough without going back so far. The bridge was built under an Act of 1772, which enacted that the bridge should be the property of the mayor and burgesses of the borough of Maidenhead for ever, and that they should erect a toll house and levy tolls for ever. A body of laymen might be excused if they considered that that bridge and tolls were theirs for all
  102
  time. At any rate they acted upon that assumption until 1836. It was quite true that in 1836 a question was raised by a member of the corporation as to whether the corporation of Maidenhead were right in dealing with the bridge and the money derived from it in the way they had done. It was not to be wondered at that the corporation, armed by their Bill of 1772, saw no reason to depart from the method which had intherto obtained. From the year 1897 to 1901 the corporation were anxious to obtain the freedom of the bridge with the co-operation of the local authorities around, and it was not accurate to say that they were not able to carry out the freeing because they had not a good title. The local authorities in the neighbourhood of the bridge were unable to agree upon a course of action, and the proposal fell through. The hon. Member opposite had spoken very highly of Mr. Taylor, who had had great experience in bridge matters. In his statement in another place he said that up to April, 1900, he had not had the least intention of intervening, because he shared the general opinion that the bridge was corporate property and being legally administered under the Act of 1772. If the Maidenhead people were doing wrong then at any rate they had the concurrence of Mr. Taylor in their proceedings up to that time. Mr. Taylor obtained counsel's opinion, and he was advised that the bridge was a charitable trust, and that the proper method of procedure was to apply to the Charity Commissioners. He did so, and after some correspondence with the town clerk, who rendered every assistance, the Commissioners announced to the Maidenhead Corporation that the bridge was a charitable trust and that they should hold an inquiry. The corporation offered every assistance to the Charity Commissioners. The Commissioner representing the Charity Commissioners said that the corporation had expressed its willingness to afford all possible information. After reading extracts from the evidence before the inquiry, the hon. Member proceeded to say the Charity Commissioners recommended that this Act should be passed to free the bridge in 1905. As a result of that inquiry the Commissioners made certain suggestions which had been embodied in this Bill, and as a matter of fact the corporation

  103
  had freed the bridge this year, instead of waiting till 1905, at a considerable loss to themselves.
  What was the opposition to this Bill? It narrowed itself down to a few persons. Who desired the Bill to pass? In the first place the Charity Commissioners strongly recommended it and the Local Government Board approved of it, and the general public had got all they wanted. The Attorney-General, in his report, said that although there might have been misapplication of the funds he saw no reason to suppose that those funds had not been fairly applied for the benefit of the public. He thought that was a recommendation upon which the House might very well be asked to act. Who were the opponents of the Bill? One of them was Mr. Joseph Taylor, who was a member of the public who had taken action. He opposed this measure on the ground that his costs ought to be paid. What costs had he incurred? He might have gone to the expense of getting counsel's opinion, but having done that he had no need to go further. He venturd to suggest to the House that no good reasons had been shown for killing this Bill. This measure had in its favour all those in authority and the corporation and ratepayers of Maidenhead. It benefited the public and it did no harm to a single individual.
  MR. CORRIE GRANTsaid he was sorry to hear the last words of the hon. Member who had just sat down, because with a very large part of his speech he found himself in agreement. If a Bill did an injustice to a single man that Bill ought not to pass until the injustice had been removed. He thought the hon. Member opposite had stepped a little beyond his usual good taste and kindly feeling when he said that Mr. Taylor could not have this money both ways. Mr. Taylor had only had £36 of his costs by public subscription, while his total costs were between £300 and £400. He thought his hon. friends on the Opposition side had gone a great deal too far by the use of such a strong word as "swindle." This was clearly not a case of swindle, but of a little misapprehension of what was fair and equitable. But for the action of Mr. Taylor it was quite clear that this
  104
  Bill would not now have been before the House of Commons. The hon. Member opposite agreed that Mr. Taylor was entitled to the amount of counsel's fee. But why did the Maidenhead Corporation not pay it? They had put in a clause that they should be paid their own costs, and they might have added also the taxed costs of Mr. Taylor. He was not asking that Mr. Taylor should have the expenses he incurred by going about the country addressing public meetings, but simply that he should have his out-of-pocket expenses, which he had been put to in fighting for a public right. A corporation which was asking for indemnity from wrong-doing ought to take every step to see that it was doing what was right for others. The necessity for this Bill arose out of the action of the Maidenhead Corporation. Nobody wanted Mr. Taylor to go on with his action in Court to maintain his right to go over the bridge without paying a toll; but if the Maidenhead Corporation would not do justice to Mr. Taylor, he thought hon. Members would be justified in voting against this Bill. His hon. friend the Member for Swansea had explained Mr. Taylor's position very fully, and it was clear that he had no locus standi under the Orders of this House, and consequently he had been refused a hearing. That was why this question had to come before the House, because the Standing Orders did not cover every possible case. Mr. Taylor had no more locus before the Committee than any other member of the public; but the distinction was that he had taken upon himself a public duty, and was endeavouring to assert a public right, and had incurred certain expenses in doing it. Now when the Maidenhead Corporation came here asking for indemnification for the wrong they had done in the past, it was only reasonable that the man who had been in the right should be indemnified also.
  MR. J. W. LOWTHERsaid that earlier in the debate he interjected a Question, and asked what would happen if this Bill was rejected. The only answer given to him by the hon. Member for Swansea was that the position of matters would be very unsatisfactory. It seemed to him that if this Bill were rejected the first thing that would happen would be

  105
  that the Act of 1772 would still remain in force, and that Act empowered the tolls to be levied on the bridge. Now that was the last thing which anybody in this House wished to see. The corporation of Maidenhead did not wish to levy these tolls, neither did Mr. Taylor, or the Charity Commissioners, or the Attorney-General—in fact, nobody wished to levy them—and if the House rejected the Second Reading, the very thing would happen which none of them wished to happen Clause 4 of this measure provided that the Aft of 1772 should be repealed and that Act must be in force, or there would be no necessity to repeal it.
  DR SHIPMANsaid that the corporation had got plenty of money to provide for the maintenance of the bridge. They had taken an enormous sum of money from the public in tolls, and during the last ten years they had only paid £30 for the maintenance of the bridge.
  MR. J. W. LOWTHERsaid they were all agreed that it was desirable that this Bill should become an Act, and the whole difficulty related to Mr. Taylor's bill. The question was had Mr. Taylor any claim at all. He regretted that the corporation and Mr. Taylor did not come to an amicable arrangement, but both parties decided to stand on their rights, and Mr. Taylor's rights were now at vanishing point, because the Court of Referees had disallowed his locus There was, moreover, no fund out of which Mr. Taylor could be compensated. Mr. Taylor could hardly expect a special rate to be levied. The Charity Commissioners had decided that this money was to be considered in the nature of a charitable trust which must be applied to certain purposes, and one of those purposes was not Mr. Taylor.
  MR. CORRIE GRANTsaid the right hon. Gentleman was wrong.
  MR. J. W. LOWTHERsaid that he suggested to the parties that some amicable arrangement might be arrived at, and personally he regretted that both parties decided to stand on their legal rights; and he did not see how Mr. Taylor had any legal rights in the matter. He was very sorry for him; but in the interests of all parties it was extremely desirable that this Act should go through, and therefore he should vote for the Second Reading. He trusted the House would pass this Bill, in order that Maidenhead Bridge might be freed from tolls, and that the Act of 1772 might be replaced.
  MR.CORRIEGRANTsaid the right hon. Gentleman had stated that the expenses of this Bill were to be paid out of the charity trust funds, and that there was no fund out of which Mr. Taylor could be compensated. In that he was in error. If he would look at Section 28 he would see that the costs of the Corporation were to be paid out of the borough fund.
  MR. J. W. LOWTHERsaid that what he stated was that the accumulated funds arising from the tolls on the bridge were impressed with a charitable trust.
  MR. CORRIE GRANTsaid MR. Taylor's expenses might be paid out of the same fund as that from which the expenses of the Maidenhead Corporation were to be paid.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 137; Noes, ⅞. (Division List No.151.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, (Capt. Sir Alex. F.

  Bignold, Arthur

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

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Brigg, John

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Arrol, Sir William

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Crombie, John William

  Asher, Alexander

  Bull, William James

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Cavendish. V.C.W. (Derbyshire

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Balcarres, Lord

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Charrington, Spencer

  Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C.

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Doughty, George

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Ellice, Capt E.C(SAndrw'sBghs

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Fellowes, Hn. Ailwyn Edward

  Lowther, Rt Hn. J.W(Cum.Penr

  Skewes,-Cox, Thomas

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Slack, John Bamford

  Fergusson, Rt. Hn. SirJ(Mane'r

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Smith, H. C(North'mb.Tyneside

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edtnond

  M'Crae, George

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

  Forster, Henry William

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh, W

  Spear, John Ward

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Garfit, William

  Maxwell, W.J.H. (Dumfriessh.)

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

  Milvain, Thomas

  Stock, James Henry

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

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

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

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Stroyan, John

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Morley, Rt. Hn. John (Montrose

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

  Murray, Rt. Hon. A. G. (Bute)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Heath, James (Staffords., N. W.

  Nolan, Col. J. P. (Galway, N.)

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

  Tuff, Charles

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Percy, Earl

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Hickman. Sir Alfred

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Valentia, Viscount

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

  Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

  Pym, C. Guy

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Hunt, Rowland

  Randies, John S.

  Wason, Jn. Cathcart (Orkney)

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Kemp, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Keswick, William

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr

  Lawrence, Sir Jos. (Monmouth)

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Gardner and Mr. Mount.

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

  Russell, T. W.

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, X.E.)

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid.)

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert Jn.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

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

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Grant, Corrie

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow,W.

  Bell, Richard

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  O'Malley, William

  Black, Alexander William

  Hammond, John

  Partington, Oswald

  Boland, John

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh).

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Burns, John

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Reddy, M.

  Burt, Thomas

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Rigg, Richard

  Caldwell, James

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Joyce, Michael

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Cremer, William Randal

  Kilbride, Denis

  Sheehy, David

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Cullinan, J.

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Sullivan, Donal

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Lloyd-George, David

  Tennant, Harold John

  Delany, William

  Lundon, W.

  Thomas, D. Alfred (Merthyr)

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Dobbie, Joseph

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Doogan, P. C.

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Young, Samuel

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Murnaghan, George

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Murphy, John

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Dr.

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Shipman and Mr. Weir.

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Norman, Henry

  Field, William

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Bill read a second time, and commit

PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2.) BILL (BY ORDER).
[SECOND READING.]
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
MR. AINSWORTHmoved: That this Bill be read a second time this day three months. He wished to explain the grounds on which he made this proposal.
MR. SPEAKERpointed out that it was extremely undesirable to make that Motion at present. There were three separate Provisional Orders included in one Bill, and one hon. Member objected to one of them, and another hon. Member to another of them, and Amendments were put down to the Second Reading of the whole Bill. There were also notices of Instructions on the Paper to strike out each of those two Orders. He only pointed out that the more reasonable method would be to allow the Second Reading to pass, and to deal with the objections on the Instructions.
MR. AINSWORTH: If it falls in with your opinion, I am willing to move any Instruction now.
MR. SPEAKER: The Instruction is objected to, and whether the Motions against the Second Reading are withdrawn or proceeded with, the Instruction cannot be taken to-nigh*
MR. AINSWORTHsaid it seemed to him that in the circumstances the only course for him was to proceed against the Second Reading. He pointed out that part, of the Provisional Order related to Islay, and stated that he was hopeful that before the end of the discussion the promoters would be prepared to withdraw this part from the Bill. The objection of the Provisional Order was to place in the hands of the owners of the land the entire control of the piers on the island, all of which were of the utmost importance to the inhabitants. He had not the smallest intention of proposing anything which might at all interfere with the rights of any of the proprietors,
110
but he thought it was only right that the House should have its attention drawn to the extreme importance of these piers to the people of the district, who for the carrying on of their industries were largely dependent on water carriage. If anything were done to interfere with the enjoyment by the public of the piers, they would do something in the direction of putting a stop to the interchange of traffic between the island and the mainland. The piers, so far as they were attached to the shore, must stand on the property of the individual proprietor of the land, and so far as they extended into the ocean they must stand on the property of the Crown, so that the Crown occupied an important place in connection with the ownership of the piers. No rates had up to the present time been charged for the use of the piers, but by this Provisional Order it was proposed to empower the promoters to charge rates on every species of traffic. He wished the House to remember that they were dealing with a remote and poor part of the country, and that the imposing of these rates would be a serious burden on the people for a service which had hitherto been free. The island had a population of 8,000, and there was great difficulty in securing employment. He thought the proper policy would be to encourage the transfer of the piers from the proprietors to the county councils, and he wished to point out that, if the House agreed to the Order they were now asked to pass, they would put off the day when the transfer could take place. It was of the greatest importance to the island that that day should not be put off indefinitely. If the House confirmed this Order they would really interfere seriously with what were in the nature of permanent highways of the island. If there was to be an alteration in the present-state of things the proper authority to take over the piers was the county council of Argyll.
MR. WEIRin seconding the Motion said that if there was a curse in the Highlands it was the everlasting demand for tolls. It was all very well for Members of that House when they

111
visited the Highlands to put their hands in their pockets and pay the penny or twopence asked for pier dues, but these charges were a very serious matter for the poor people who lived in these districts. He supposed that the proprietors took the tolls to Continental resorts and played rouge et noir with them. He could only hope that the county councils would ultimately secure every pier in the Highlands. Ten years ago, in the Black Isle case, the Crown lawyers stated that a ferry was part of the public highway, and as a boat must get to land somewhere, that showed that piers should be under the control of a public authority, and not in the hands of private individuals. He did not know when Mr. Morrison secured the Island of Islay, but he found that, as landlord, he demanded 10 per cent, on his expenditure. A more monstrous thing he had never heard of. The powers contained in the Bill would enable the landlord or his factor to know exactly the earnings of every poor fisherman on the island, and every small trader, and the result would be that the rents of the holdings would be increased 30, 40, or 50 per cent., and the landlord would be master of the situation. Mr. Morrison would have acted in accordance with reason and justice if he had come to some arrangement with the county council. He wished to know whether the Board of Trade or the Department of Woods and Forests had looked after the Crown rights in this case. He did not want a Bill of this character to pass, and accordingly he seconded the Motion of the hon Member.
Amendment proposed —
"To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day three months.'" (Mr. Ainsworth.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
MR. POWER (Waterford, E.)said that the Irish Members distinctly sympathised with the views of the hon. Gentlemen who had moved and seconded the Resolution. Anyone did not require to live in the Highlands to understand the depopulation which had been going on in that part of the country. But the Irish Members found themselves in an awkward position on account of this being an omnibus Bill, and it contained provisions in re-
112
lation to Ireland as to which arrangements satisfactory to all parties had been made. If they were to vote against the Second Reading of this Order, that part of it in which they were interested would go by the board. As to the Instruction, that was quite another matter; and they hoped to have an opportunity Gentleman in that respect.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. BONAR LAW,)said that on behalf of the Board of Trade he asked the House to let the Bill go to a Select Committee where the arguments could be sifted, and the evidence duly weighed. The hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty said that it was desirable that piers should be in the hands of the county councils, but there was no proposal of the county council of Argyllshire to take over these piers, and surely it was not the duty of private owners to part with their property without compensation. The Board of Trade sent down a Commissioner to Scotland, who heard all the evidence and the arguments put forward by eminent counsel, and the Commissioner was satisfied that on the merits a prima facie case had been made out for the Bill. He did not wish to go into the merits of the Bill now, but he might point out to the hon. Gentleman who said that this was a case of a greedy landlord wanting 10 per cent, that the proprietor of these piers had spent over £14,000 in keeping them up during his lifetime, apart from the original cost. The Board of Trade had put in a provision that the utmost sum to be paid was 10 per cent., not on the original sum, but on expenditure after the Provisional Order came into operation. The interests of the public had been duly safeguarded in the Bill, and he hoped the House would allow the Second Reading to be taken.
MR. DALZIELsaid he quite agreed with the hon. Gentleman that there was something to be said for the Bill now before the House. But he wished to enter his protest against the Board of Trade bringing forward a Bill of this

113
character, which included three Provisional Orders, each of considerable importance, but dealing with entirely separate interests. He should vote against the Government for another reason, and that was that this was not a time when they were justified in passing legislation giving such large powers to a private landowner. From all he had heard, he believed Mr. Morrison to be a highly respected landlord. But this Bill was giving him authority which he ought not to have — authority which ought to be in the hands of the local body. The Government ought to have given sufficient money to build these piers. Grants had been made for building piers in other places which had not so strong a claim on the public funds as this locality. The schedule to the Bill almost suggested that there was to be a little protection introduced under the guise of a Provisional Order. Mr. Morrison would have power to put a tax on all the food which went into the island. That was giving far too much power to a private individval, and practically it seemed to him as if an attempt was being made to experiment with protection in the island of Islay.
MR. LEVESON-GOWERsaid that, as a Member for a Highland district, he had very great pleasure in voting for the Second Reading of this Bill. He must confess that he did not understand on what grounds the rejection of the Bill had been moved and seconded. He held that such works as wer1; dealt with in the Bill were of the

AYES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Dalkeith, Earl of

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Davenport, William Bromley

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Caldwell, James

Delany, William

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O

Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

ARROL, William

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Dickson, Charles Scott

Asher, Alexander

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Doogan, P. C.

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J. A(Worc.

Doughty, George

Balcarres, Lord

Charrington, Spencer

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

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

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

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

Balfour, Capt C. B. (Hornsey)

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Durning-Lawrenee, Sir Edwin

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

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Crombie, John William

Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

Bignold, Arthur

Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

Fergusson, Rt. Hn. SirJ(Manc'r

Boland, John

Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

Field, William

Brigg, John

Cullinan, J.

Finlay, Sir Robert

greatest benefit to the crofters in the Highlands, and every encouragement should be given to private landlords to build piers, harbours, and the like, which provided for the safety and security of the people.
MR. JOHN DEWARsaid he knew so well the difficulty of getting piers erected that he hesitated to oppose this Bill. He understood the object of putting two or more Provisional Orders in one Bill was to save expense; but he was informed that the whole crofting population of Islay and the smaller landlords were opposed to Mr. Morrision getting these powers under this Provisional Order. He hoped that the Secretary to the Board of Trade would see to it that the proprietor of the piers was not empowered to increase the rates so as to stop trade and prevent steamers landing passengers and goods as had been done at one of the piers in his constituency.
MR. COURTENAY WARNERsaid he was not specially interested in the Highlands, but he understood that no tolls had been levied at these piers hitherto. It was said that those who objected to the Bill would have a locus standi upstairs; but how could they put their case before the Committee when they were all poor crofters or fishermen?
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, Noes, 33. (Division List No. 152)

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

Forster, Henry William

M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

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

M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Gardner, Ernest

Maxwell, W.J.H. (Dumfriessh.

Smith, H C(North'mb.Tyneside

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

Milvain, Thomas

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)

Grant, Corrie

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

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

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants.)

Soares, Ernest J.

Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

Morpeth, Viscount

Spear, John Ward

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lanes.

Hammond, John

Mount, William Arthur

Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Murnaghan, George

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

Hayden, John Patrick

Murphy, John

Stock, James Henry

Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

Murray, Rt. Hon. A. G. (Bute)

Stroyan, John

Heath, James (Staffords., N.W.

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford,W.

Nolan, Col. J. P. (Galway, N.)

Sullivan, Donal

Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Slid.)

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Hickman, Sir Alfred

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G(Oxf'dUniv.

Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

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

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

O'Malley, William

Tennant, Harold John

Hunt, Rowland

Parkes, Ebenezer

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Jameson, Major J. Eustace

Partington, Oswald

Thornton, Percy M.

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

Joyce, Michael

Percy, Earl

Tuff, Charles

Keswick, William

Plummer, Walter R.

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Kilbride, Denis

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Valentia, Viscount

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

Randies, John S.

Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir Willam H.

Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.

Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

Warde, Colonel C. E.

Lawrence, Sir Jos. (Monmouth)

Reddy, M.

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

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

Reid, James (Greenock)

Wason, Jn. Cathcart (Orkney)

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

Webb, Colonel William George

Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

Renwick, George

Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Royds, Clement Molyncux

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Russell, T. W.

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Lundon, W.

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

Young, Samuel

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Macdona, John Cumming

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir

Maconochie, A. W.

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Alexander Acland-Hood

MacYeagh, Jeremiah

Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

NOES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Duncan, J. Hastings

Rigg, Richard

Barlow, John Enimott

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert Jn.

Runciman, Walter

Bell, Richard

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Black, Alexander William

Harmsworth, R. Leicester

Sinclair, John (Forfarshire;

Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

Slack, John Bamford

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Horniman, Frederick John

Thomas, D. Alfred (Merthyr)

Causton, Richard Knight

Leigh, Sir Joseph

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Cremer, William Randal

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Dalziel, James Henry

M'Crae, George

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

Dobbie, Joseph

Pirie, Duncan V.

Ainsworth and Mr. Weir.

EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland Penrith) in the chair.]
Clause 14.
Amendment again proposed—
"In page 7, line 29, to leave out from the word 'shall' to the word 'become,' in line 31."—(Mr. A. Graham Murray.)
Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
SIR CHARLES RENSHAWsaid he did not know whether it would be more convenient to discuss the Amendment of the Secretary for Scotland now or on

117
Clause 25. He felt, however, that if he did not express an opinion now on the omission of the words he might not be in order in discussing the matter on Clause 25.
MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAYsaid he thought it would be far better to take out the words. The clause was necessary in the interests of creditors, because if the school boards disappeared it might be held that there was no one to sue. It would be an arrangement between the new school board and the ratepayers of the parish. Of course, it was for the Chairman to say, but he could not see how the hon. Baronet would be prejudiced in any way because the question would come up when he himself moved to strike out Sub-section 1 of Clause 25.
DR. MACNAMARAsaid that if the words were omitted, all the debts and liabilities of the old school boards would become the debts and liabilities of the new school boards. They were agreed that that should apply to debts incurred by way of loan or capital charges; but they had agreed that the existing school boards should meet any deficiency arising from maintenance charges. Would it be competent for the Committee, if the words were omitted, to provide that the old school boards should meet out of their own areas debts incurred for maintenance charges.
MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAYsaid that it was really the ratepayers in the districts of the old school boards who would be responsible; and a provision that the debts and liabilities of the old school boards should be the debts and liabilities of the new did not affect the question
118
as to from what class of ratepayers debts could be recovered.
MR. THOMAS SHAWsaid that substantially what they desired could be accomplished in the first year of the new rate by means of an adjustment over the particular area in which the delinquency occurred.
THE CHAIRMAN: I do not think the hon. Baronet will be in any worse position on Clause 25.
MR. BUCHANANsaid that the Committee ought to have a statement from the Secretary for Scotland, as this was a very substantial alteration, and gave rise to a great deal of diversity of opinion.
MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAYsaid the Chairman had just given his ruling, and the question could be settled on Clause 25.
Question put, and negatived.
Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 15, 16, 17, agreed to.
Clause 18.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 8, line 27, to leave out from the word 'or,' to the word 'shall,' in line '29, and insert the words 'such greater number as may from time to time be determined at a meeting of the school board called after special notice.'"—(Mr. A. Graham Murray.)
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 18, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 19.
MR.A. GRAHAM MURRAYmoved, "In Clause 19, page 8, line 30, to leave

119
out from beginning to the word ' commit ' in line 31, and insert the words ' a school board may from time to time.'"
Amendment proposed—
"In page 8, line 30, to leave out from beginning to the word 'commit' inline 31 and insert the words ' a school board may from time to time.'"—(Mr. A. Graham Murray.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
MR. DALZIBLsaid he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would explain what the Amendment meant.
MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAYsaid that the Amendment would remove the difference which existed in the Bill originally as between enumerated and non-enumerated districts. Owing to the views he had gathered, he had altered that, and now there was to be no distinction as regarded the appointment of managers in the two classes of districts; both would have the power to appoint managers.
DR. MACNAMARAsaid he was doubtful of the wisdom of the Amendment. Some of the most successful school boards did not appoint managers at all; but he doubted whether the option should be given to large areas administered from a remote centre. There were eight counties which were single districts under the Bill; and in those districts the centres would be so remote from the management of the schools, that it would be desirable, in order to keep alive public interest in the schools, to insist upon the appointment of managers. He should also like to see the original form retained under which
120
parish councils would have a choice in the management of the schools. There was a precedent for that in the Act of 1902. In the case of towns there was no need to compel school boards to appoint managers; but it was different in the case of country districts, and he doubted the wisdom and expediency of an endeavour to run schools in such districts without managers.
MR. BUCHANANsaid the Amendment represented the most substantial alteration yet made by the Secretary for Scotland in the Bill. It meant the doing away, root and branch, of any power on the part of the parents of the locality of exercising control over the schools. It would also mean that there would be no possibility of the remoter districts in Scotland taking any substantial interest in the management and prosperity of their schools. He thought they were being led away to sacrifice the important interests of elementary education in the scattered districts of Scotland for the possible advantages to be gained from united control in regard to secondary and technical education. The school boards might or might not appoint managers; but, if they exercised that power, they could appoint anyone they liked, whether a resident in the locality or not. If the Committee accepted the alteration they would be absolutely abandoning, for good and all, all interest and power on the part of the parents to exercise any control over the schools, and also the possibility of any local management in the direction of the schools, particularly in the more scattered parts of the country districts. He viewed with the gravest doubt the proposal of the Secretary for Scotland.
MR. MAXWELLsaid that he agreed with the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken that this was a most important change in the Bill. With regard to the managers a good deal would depend on what the area was. There might be a district with only three or four parishes, and it would be absurd, in that case, to make it compulsory on the school board to appoint managers. It appeared to him very desirable that, as far as possible, ocal interest should be kept up between the schools and the parish. It would make a tremendous change in local institutions in Scotland to take away the control of the parish schools from the parish. He had put down an Amendment which proposed that where managers were appointed a certain number should be from the parish or town council. He thought, however, that the question could not be altogether considered without reference to Clause 29, which dealt with the appointment of attendance committees. In that clause it was provided that where the school board appointed an attendance committee they should have power to add a certain number of persons to that committee who were connected with that locality. He thought that was rather vague. It was probable that, in many cases, the managers would act as the attendance committee, subject to the supervision of the school boards. He thought, however, it was very desirable that the managers should be in close touch with the schools, and he hoped the Secretary for Scotland would consider favourably the Amendment he had put down.
MR. BRYCEsaid the Amendment introduced a very important point indeed. He had endeavoured to keep an open mind on the matter; but he should like
122
to have a fuller statement from the Secretary for Scotland as to what his view was. He did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman's view was that the school boards need not have managers at all, if they thought fit, or any managers they pleased without reference to the local authorities. He should like to hear from the Secretary for Scotland what his general policy in the matter was.
MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAYsaid it was rather difficult, when he was anxious to please people, that he should be criticised for doing what they wanted. As he stated in his speech on the Second Reading, he thought it was desirable to have local interest in the schools maintained, and that it would be better that schools should be locally managed through managers. Deputation after deputation came to him from all parts of Scotland on the subject; and when the Bill came to be discussed there was a consensus of opinion that it would be very unwise indeed to fetter the discretion of the new education bodies, that they should be trusted to appoint managers, and that it would be very foolish to throw on the parish councils, which were elected for quite other purposes and for interests other than those of education, the duty of management. On all sides he was asked to leave the matter free, and trust to school boards to elect proper managers. Accordingly, he was doing his best in that direction, and had put down the Amendment with that object. The striking out of the three clauses was a mere corollary, as, having given a free hand, the restrictions which the school boards were to be directed to prescribe from time to time were not

123
necessary. He could assure hon. Gentle men that if they took the trouble to ascertain what was the general opinion in Scotland in this matter, they would find it was in the direction of the Amendment. He admitted that the change was a very substantial change; but it was no Machiavellian scheme on the part of the Secretary for Scotland to change the Bill at the last moment. It was an honest attempt to meet what he believed to be the prevalent opinion in Scotland.
MR. HALDANEsaid the right hon. Gentleman asked the Committee to ascertain what the prevalent opinion on this matter in Scotland was. He did his best in the matter when last in Scotland; and he was bound to say that the result of his inquiries entirely coincided with the conclusion at which the right hon. Gentleman had arrived. It could not be disguised, however, that this was really a crucial point in the Bill, It was one of the things which, in the ' earlier stages, they were more puzzled about than anything else, viz., how, to reconcile the maintenance of the parish authority with the main principles of the Bill. He thought, however, that the right hon. Gentleman had worked out to a right conclusion, and he would support him. The question was whether it was desirable to fetter the discretion of the new bodies, or trust them with unlimited discretion. The result of such consultations as he had had with education authorities was all in the direction of the conclusion of the right hon. Gentleman. This, however, was one of the crucial matters in the Bill, and a matter which required a certain amount of sifting out; and, therefore, he thought the Committee would do well not to part with it without fuller consideration.
124
He said that while fully recognising that I the right hon. Gentleman had arrived at the best conclusion he could.
MR. CALDWELLsaid that with reference to opinion in Scotland, the only opinion on this question Came from the school boards. There was no expression of opinion from local people. Of course, the members of the present school boards, who hoped to be members of the new bodies, wished this power to be placed in the hands of the new boards. Look at the importance of the change. Under this Bill they were abolishing the parish area, separating the people of the parish from the management of the schools, and leaving the schools to be managed by boards which were not specially interested in any particular school. They were giving to these boards the control and management of the educational part of the new system, but they were now also asked to give them power to appoint whomsoever they pleased as managers, whether residents or ratepayers in the locality or not.
And, it being Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow.

SELECT COMMITTEE ON WORKMEN'S TRAINS.
That Mr. BONAR LAW be discharged from the Committee.
Ordered, That Mr. GERALD LODER be added to the Committee.—(Sir A. Acland-Hood.)
Adjourned at three minutes after Twelve o'clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:—North-Western Electricity and Power Gas.
Also the Certificate that no Standing Orders are applicable to the following Bill:—Land Drainage Provisional Order.
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.
Harrow Road and Paddington Tramways Bill. Reported, with Amendments.
South-Western and Isle of Wight Junction Railway (Extension of Time) Bill. Reported, with an Amendment.
Brymbo Water Bill Read 2ª, and committed.
London and India Docks Company Bill. Read 2ª, and committed. The
2
Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
Manchester Ship Canal Bill [H.L.]; King's College Hospital Bill [H.L.]. Read 3ª, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
Education Board Provisional Order (Swansea) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 14) Bill; Local Government Provisional Order (No. 15) Bill. Brought from the Commons.
Chesterfield Gas and Water Board Bill [H.L.]. Returned from the Common agreed to, with Amendments
Colney Hatch Gas Bill; Gomersal Gas Bill; North Staffordshire Railway Bill. Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
Water Orders Confirmation Bill [H.L.]: Gas and Water Orders Confirmation Bill [H.L.]. Committed. The Committees to be proposed by the Committer of Selection.
Gas Orders Confirmation (No. 3) Bill [H. L.]. Committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
Scotch Education Department Provisional Order Confirmation (Edinburgh)

3
Bill [H.L.]. A Bill to confirm a Provisional Order made by the Scotch Education Department under the Education (Scotland) Act, 1878, to enable the School Board of the Burgh of Edinburgh to put in force the Lands Clauses Acts — Was presented by the Earl Waldegrave (for the Lord Kintore (E. Kintore)).Then it was moved, that the Order of the 14th of March last, "That no Bill originating in this House confirming any Provisional Order or Provisional Certificate shall be read a first time after Tuesday the 3rd day of May next," be dispensed with in respect of the said Bill, and that the Bill be now read 1ª agreed to; Bill read 1ª accordingly; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners. (No. 98.)
Education Board Provisional Order (Swansea) Bill (No. 99). Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 14) Bill (No. 100). Local Government Provisional Order (No. 15) Bill (No. 101). Read 1a, to be printed; and referred to the Examiners.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  MISCELLANEOUS (NO.1), 1904.
  Papers respecting the local taxation of personal property in certain Foreign Countries and British Possessions. Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.
  POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANKS.
  Accounts of all deposits received and paid during the year ended 31st December, 1903; and of the sums received and paid by the National Debt Commissioners on account of the fund for the Post Office Savings Banks in the same year. Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  ARUNDEL PORT.
  Account and Report for 1902 –1903. Delivered (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.
  Seamen's and Soldiers' False Characters Bill [H.L]. Reported from the Standing Committee without Amendment, and to be read 3 on Thursday next.

NAVAL AND MILITARY MEDALS BILL [H.L.]
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (The Earl of DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, this is a short Bill, of which only one clause is operative. Your Lordships will remember that under the Uniforms Act of 1894 a penalty is imposed upon persons who without authority wear His Majesty's uniform for any purpose, or any colourable imitation of it. The object of this Bill is to apply the same provisions to those who without authority wear medals or other colourable imitations of such decorations. It is obvious that medals awarded for good service to the country should not be improperly worn. I beg to move the Second Reading.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a,—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
On Question, Bill read 2a,, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

RESERVWE FORCES BILL [H.L.]
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: My Lords, the first object of this Bill is to facilitate the residence of Reservists in India and the Colonies. Some 3,000 Reservists are now living in India and the Colonies, but at present we have absolutely no hold on them whatever. We have no power of compelling them to return to the colours in the case of mobilization. This Bill gives legal sanction to their living in the Colonies, and also provides the necessary machinery for enforcing liability for service while they are residing aboard. It also authorises direct enlistment into the Reserve in India and the Colonies. Your Lordships are aware that we now enlist certain classes of men into the Reserve direct, such as employees in the Post Office, employees under railway companies, and other people possessing

5
technical knowledge; the Government of India are anxious to have facilities given to them to enlist into the Reserve direct in India, and the Colonial Office are anxious that they should have the same power in the Crown Colonies.
The object of Clause 2 is to amend Section 14 of the Reserve Forces Act of 1882. This section prohibits the appointment or transference of a Reservist to a corps which is not in the arm or branch in which he previously served, and Clause 2 provides that these words shall be repealed. The provision, as it exists, is not of any great service to the man in helping him to get back to the unit in which he served whilst he was in the Army, but at the same time it considerably hampers the authorities on mobilisation. Take, for instance, the Remount Department. This department, which is a very small one in time of peace, is necessarily a large department in the time of war, and, properly, it should be filled up in war by Reservists from the Army Service Corps. But practically the whole of the Reservists of the Army Service Corps will be required in the time of war as drivers. Consequently we have no nucleus left from which to fill the Remount Department in time of war. We are practically certain to have a very large number of Cavalry Reservists who would be available in time of war, and it would be no hardship whatever to ask them to serve in the Remount Department if for the moment we did not want them in the Cavalry. We shall, of course, make sure that no man will suffer pecuniary loss by such transfer. That is practically the whole of the Bill, and I ask your Lordships to read it a second time.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a,."—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
LORD MONKSWELL: My Lords, from the explanation of the noble Earl the Under-Secretary, I take it that Clause 1 does not expressly allow any self-governing colony direct enlistment into the Reserve, and has nothing to do with transfer from the Army to the Reserve.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: That is so.
LORD MONKSWELL: Under this Bill a man may have liberty to reside in Canada, and I suppose in that case it would not be necessary for him to come over to England to be transferred to the Reserve. He may be transferred in Canada. I confess that Clause 2 of this Bill raises points of very considerable difficulty. The noble Earl said that the object of this clause was to do away with the necessity for a man's consent before he can be transferred to a corps which is not in the arm or branch in which he previously served. The object was, he explained, to enable cavalrymen to be compulsorily put into the Remount Department. I do, not know that cavalrymen would have any objection to that; but the clause goes a great deal further. A cavalryman might be put in the Infantry, or the Artillery, or any other branch of the service. If the object stated by the noble Earl is the only object, it should be so set out, and the Bill should be so limited. The Army is not very popular now. There is difficulty in securing enlistment, and I do not think it will conduce to the increased popularity of the Army if a man on joining knows that when he goes into the Reserve, and is called out on active service, he may be compelled to go into some branch of the Army in which he did not wish to serve. I think this clause in one direction goes too far, and in another does not go far enough. It says that this repeal of the power of a man to choose whether he will go into a corps which is not in the arm or branch in which he previously served shall not, without his consent, affect any man belonging to the Army Reserve at the date of the passing of this Act. I think your Lordships should go a good deal further than that if you do not want to get into difficulties with men already in the Army. Take the case of a man who has enlisted under the impression that when he got into the Army Reserve he would be able to remain in the same branch of the service in which he had enlisted, if he chose to do so. Now you take away that choice, and he may

7
say he has been enlisted under false pretences. If Clause 2 is to pass at all, it should only be made to affect persons who enlist after the passing of the Act. The clause itself seems to me to be injudicious, except in so far as it may be absolutely necessary, because it will tend, I am afraid, to make the Army unpopular. I hope that when the Bill gets into Committee, the noble Earl in charge of it will consider my objections to Clause 2.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: I am glad my noble friend recognises that the points he has raised are obviously Committee points. I certainly shall be very glad to discuss them in Committee with him. The main point that has compelled us to bring forward the Bill is that the present system is too inelastic, and we want to remedy that.
On Question, Bill read 2a, committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

MARRIED WOMEN'S PROPERTY ACT (1882) AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
[SECOND READING].
Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBUBY): My Lords, the object of this Bill is to meet a defect in the main Act which has been discovered by some ingenious person. The question has been raised whether a married woman, when not acting as a married woman, but simply as a trustee, is free from the control of her husband. This Bill makes it perfectly clear that a married woman's position under the main Act is not altered when she acts as a trustee.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2ª."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 2ª, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.
House adjourned at a quarter before Five o'clock, to Thursday next, half-past Ten o'clock.